1. I simply cannot believe anyone at the Slimes would have the gumption to read the budget and then criticize it as well. I almost feel out of my chair here... Joni must have been out yesterday for something like this article to actually make the paper.

Posted by: dan on April 27, 2005 10:54 AM

2. Phfft! I say the Democrats didn't go far enough!

</extreme_sarcasm>

Posted by: Skor Grimm on April 27, 2005 11:04 AM

3. I wonder what they are going to do when the real estate bubble bursts and they lose all that extra property tax revenue when the inflated value of homes comes tumbling down. More taxes to make it up I suppose. At the rate we are going this state will have the lowest standard of living in the country. (Unless of course you work for the State or are a public teacher)

Posted by: lesterman on April 27, 2005 11:20 AM

4. Sorry Westneat...too little too late. Your words might have had some legitimacy had they been issued before the election. Hit the road.

Posted by: Danny on April 27, 2005 11:20 AM

5. It just beggars belief that the Democrats and their enablers in the media can sit on more tax revenue than last year and yet claim that their is a "deficit" and thus the need to raise taxes.

They ignore the citizen initiatives on taxation by rewriting them to fit their own desires/interpretations (in which case then why even bother having an initiative).

Now I'm all for funding, and increasing where really required, important governmental services but there has to be a trade-off. The money is not theirs, the government didn't work to produce it, they took it off the residents of this state.

Now I'd like a 6000 sq. foot mansion and a couple of Mercs but I don't have the money so I need to trade off what I buy, unlike the government I can't go to my employer and simply take more money to cover my extravagant lifestyle.

I'm starting to think that you need to train Democrats like puppies. They're out there economically peeing everywhere and they need to be taught that they can't do that. I'd suggest a citizen initiative that ties taxes on the salaries of politicians and the items that your average lefty buys to the general tax load increase but with some high multiple.

Unfortunately they'd probably just decide in committee to change that to something else.

Posted by: TonyG on April 27, 2005 11:21 AM

6.

"When you're trying to make a case that you should be trusted to raise taxes for schools and roads, it undermines everything you're saying."

Hmm... how does one find new ways to say, "Duh"?

Posted by: Editor on April 27, 2005 11:22 AM

7. Anyone feel like putting odds on the AG NOT signing it? I doubt even Las Vegas would take those kind of odds!

Posted by: Fred on April 27, 2005 11:23 AM

8. My favorite part: Now Gov. Christine Gregoire will pore through the 411-page budget. .

I.E. she's governor now, but not for long.

Posted by: dpmiv on April 27, 2005 11:25 AM

9. Shark,
For sure we got beat this session. Sadly, I admit that I worked on the Fair study, the Wine promotion and the mobile home landlord tenant dispute legislation mentioned in Westneat's op/ed. In the context of the article, it is wasteful. But, in the larger scheme of things, there are benefits to each of these, though now I am not sure if it is worth the cost of tax increases to fill budget spending gaps. My apologies for forsaking our base.

Posted by: MLC on April 27, 2005 11:30 AM

10. As a side note, and in all fairness, those three bills were passed out of committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, the fair study was sponsored by a Republican. The real question though, is will the so-called governor blow through bureacracy like she said she would? I doubt it. Bureaucrats take care of their own.

Posted by: MLC on April 27, 2005 11:35 AM

11. MLC makes the point. There is some proponent of each item in the budget. To that proponent, that item has benefits. While everyone here is quick to condemn Ds for this budget, my guess is that R legislators got enough of the pork to make them happy. The most telling line in Westneat's column is this:

Not a single program was eliminated anywhere in the state, budget staffers say.

We have a line item veto for exactly this reason. No legislator ever got elected for eliminating a program.

Posted by: Steven on April 27, 2005 11:46 AM

12. MCL,

"My apologies for forsaking our base."

And my apologies for voting your ass out of office.

Posted by: Huey on April 27, 2005 12:00 PM

13. I'm all for cutting that crap, but the examples cited (with exception the small/disadvantaged road vendor program) were all red area spending.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 27, 2005 12:17 PM

14. Put a fork in the recession recovery folks. It's done.

Posted by: Danno on April 27, 2005 12:25 PM

15. Lesterman -- property tax values NEVER go down. The value of your property may, but what they tax you -- never!

Posted by: dan on April 27, 2005 12:37 PM

16. Candrew

Good catch. To Westneat, any reduction west of the mountains reduction in the growth of spending is ill-advised. Hence his focus on pork east of the mountains.

Posted by: iconoclast on April 28, 2005 02:42 PM

17. Steven:

There were some programs eliminated in the budget, for example Promise Scholarships, a higher education program, at $12.6 million. (Most of those savings are spent back for an expansion of the State Need Grant program.) There are a handful of others. Not many, though, considering that we were supposed to have been starting out with a $1.5 billion budget shortfall.

Also, FYI, there is no line item veto power in Washington. The governor has to remove entire subsections of the budget bill if she wants to veto something. She can't legally go into individual subsections and take out individual appropriations.

Note that Washington does not have a line item budget. The Legislature makes lump-sum appropriations for each agency and for major programs in agencies and functions such as DSHS, Corrections and Public Schools. Certain portions of those lump-sum amounts may then be provisoed, or directed, to be spent solely for certain specified purposes.

Posted by: jsa on April 28, 2005 10:35 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?