Washington state governor Christine Gregoire decided her top officials were underpaid.
In many ways, Gov. Christine Gregoire's 23-member Cabinet looks a lot like her predecessor's — same number of minorities, a similar average age, even some of the same appointees.
. . .
In all, Gregoire's Cabinet will earn about $256,000 a year more than the previous Cabinet when Locke stepped down.
And that comes on top of big raises that Locke gave many Cabinet members last year as enticement to stay on through the end of his administration.
Another way of looking at it: Since 2003, the average salary for Cabinet members has soared from less than $108,000 to almost $125,000 — nearly a 16 percent increase.
Gregoire and the Democratic majorities in Washington state's House and Senate puzzle me. I expect politicians to try to win re-election. But Gregoire and the Democrats in the legislature act as if they wanted to lose. There are few things that will provoke voters more than a tax increase after a politician has promised to oppose one. But that is just what Gregoire did; she had campaigned against an increase in the gas tax and then immediately broke her promise once in office. Equally provocative are pay raises for high officials, and she has done that. Such pay raises can even provoke civil servants.
By comparison, rank-and-file state workers will see their wages grow by 4.8 percent over the next two years, their first pay raises in four years.
And I don't think I am the only one who has noticed that the money for these pay increases, and many other increases in state spending, come from a regressive tax package that hits the working poor hardest. (Although I must admit that the Seattle newspapers have not exactly stressed that point when discussing the package.)
Not only have Gregoire and the Democrats provoked the voters with their taxing and spending decisions, but they raised social issues, notably gay marriage and racial preferences, that they must know are unpopular with majorities of the voters. (Gay marriage was raised indirectly by the push to put gays on the protected list, along with racial and religious minorities.)
So what is going on here? I honestly don't know. Do the Democrats not understand how voters will react to tax increases, broken promises, pay increases, and leftwing social issues? Have they forgotten what happened in 1994 when they lost their majority in the state House and saw it reduced in the state Senate? Do they think that they will lose no matter what they do, so they might as well enjoy their majorities for the next two years? Or are they so out of touch that they think these policies can be sold to the voters? Neither of these explanations make sense to me, but I can't come up with an alternative, either.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Correction: In the original post, I said that the Democrats lost majorities in the state House and state Senate. They lost their majority in the House, but not the Senate. I have corrected the text above.
Thanks to "jimg" for catching my mistake. (I moved back to Washington after 1994 if you are wondering how I missed that.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 14, 2005 06:33 AM | Email ThisThey really are that dense. In all honesty, I'm surprised at how truly dim CG and the 'Rat leadership are. At least some of the trolls (not many, admittedly) are just willingly ignorant. They won't see it coming...or going.
Posted by: Danny on June 14, 2005 06:52 AMIf government wants to be "equal", then why don't we demand that they have the same responsibilities the private sector has? Treat the government the same as a public company with shareholders.
Quarterly financial report filing
Sarbanes-Oxley accountability
Annual reports
Shareholders meetings
Extreme scrutiny of travel expenditures
The private sector earns their pay due to all of the government mandated rules they have to follow. They have to be creative to absorb the cost of these rules and remain in business. If they flaunt these rules, they can be held criminally liable.
Once government is willing to follow these same rules, then maybe I'll agree that they should have "equivalent" pay.
As Mel Brooks said (sort of), "It's good to be da Queen".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 14, 2005 06:55 AMI'm sure that they don't really care what we "the people" think. They just got done having their election stealing ways validated. They know that all they have to do to stay in power is to stuff more ballot boxes than they did in this election. I'm sure that they think they will never lose an election again, cause they are the champions when it comes to stealing elections. That being said, they just don't care what the voters think.
Posted by: cowboy on June 14, 2005 07:02 AMBut, you know, being a sycophant to an election-stealer is hard work. Courtiers need to make a lot of money, too. Gotta pay these people wht they're worth (which would probably mean, in a fair world, a few cents an hour for breaking big ones into small ones).
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 14, 2005 07:03 AMThese special interest PACS throw a lot of money out there and they are demanding a return.
Same thing goes for the R side. We can elect an R representative or senator of DC, but with the financing of campaigns at such a high level, our local politicians have to toe the line. Hardly a representative form of government.
And is anyone surprised a Democrat gave opposite promises during an election? The difference is that these are so blatant and will backfire.
Posted by: swatter on June 14, 2005 07:07 AMalaric
Posted by: alaric on June 14, 2005 07:32 AMThe big problem with instituting a state income tax is that the tax hungry Dems would maintain the sales tax as well.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 14, 2005 08:08 AMThe Senate did not change hands in '94. A 28-21 D majority was trimmed to 25-24. It wasn't until 1996 that the Rs took over the Senate.
And to answer your question as to what's going on here? Arrogance. Plain and simple.
Posted by: jimg on June 14, 2005 08:19 AM
Let's remind Eric of other regressive taxes that were implemented and raised by the ruling elite. Gas tax, cigarette tax, canned meat tax, tax on liquer.....
whom does he think suffers most from these taxes.
I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates eats quite a bit of canned meat.
Posted by: Jeffro on June 14, 2005 08:23 AMStalin was doing what he believed was best for the people and the state, also.
His people took a much longer time to revolt than the people of Washington will.
Posted by: Larry on June 14, 2005 08:49 AMThey really do believe they are part of a ruling class that deserves to be in power. They are willing to do what it takes to maintain that power, the people be damned. And when they have that power, they are willing to abuse it as far as they can.
I'll tell you one thing -- this republican is going to spend a lot of time this summer and autumn on the streets pointing out the absurdity of democrat policies.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 14, 2005 09:12 AMI suspect she figures to get all of the tax-raising out of the way early to buck up her base and then around election time throw a few bones to the non-King County parts of the state to make herself look more centrist. Obviously, the local media will cover for her by then and conveniently "forget" what she's doing now, much like they're "forgetting" all the promises she made in the campaign.
Basically though, she can probably just ignore anything but the Snohomish-King-Pierce corridor.
Posted by: Frank Black on June 14, 2005 09:26 AM* crickets chirping *
Posted by: manco on June 14, 2005 09:36 AMMakes sense to me.
Posted by: Michele on June 14, 2005 09:39 AMInitiatives have probably helped the D's by leading many people to believe that they need not avoid putting D's in power. If they go too far, the D's can be pushed back with an initiative here or there.
So, the D's go for all they think they can get, knowing that the ratchet will protect most of their gains until the next time they can give the wheel a turn.
Posted by: Micajah on June 14, 2005 09:45 AM
Eric Pravitz - No, because I am speaking for myself, not a party.
In general, I favor, as I have explained on my own own site, mildly progressive taxes. (And so do almost all politicians on the national level. Even those who propose "flat" taxes usually exempt large chunks of income, making the result progressive.)
That doesn't mean that I oppose all regressive taxes, as I explained at more length in my "Soak the Poor" post. Sometimes such taxes have benefits that make up for their regressivity.
The hypocrites here are mostly in the Democratic party, who tell us how much they love the poor and then tax the poor in order to, among other things, pay much higher salaries to Gregoire's top officials.
But I do hope that you will respond to my question: What is the explanation for all these actions that seem so likely to cost the Democrats support?
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 14, 2005 09:47 AMThe labor union officers support the Dems and encourage their membership to do so. The MSM also are on the same agenda and we don't get good proper unbiased reporting. Thus, many people who are not associated with any political group do not get a fair look at what is going on.
All the special interest groups and all of those on public assistance know that voting for the Dems is the best chance they have of getting more money for their various causes.
Sure, the new taxes hurt the lower income people the most, but as long there are more entitlements, more promises for union jobs, etc, none of these groups will complain.
Right now, there is a growing list of people (legal voters) who are changing their minds about the Dem's agenda. These are the people who have the power to change things. Those I listed above will only have a small percent be so fed up with what they see, that they will change their allegance. My wife and I have talked to many people who used to vote straight D or were independant but will now vote either straight R or predomently R (based on the candidates' qualification), due to the information that has come out concerning the problems with the last election.
I think what is needed is a web site that lists the facts about the last governors election and the promises broken by the current State Administration inlcuding the i601 debacle. It should be just a fact site, not for comments. It should not be slanted in any way at all. Problems concerning both politcal parties should be listed to avoid being accused of bias. As people visit this site and start talking to friends and coworkers, we will see more people turn against the D machine. IMO, anyway.
Posted by: Robert-in-Tacoma on June 14, 2005 09:51 AMDo special interests benefit when Dems win the Governor's office? You bet. Special interests like teachers and government workers. Mostly low-paid people who could use some help.
Guess what. If Rossi had actually won, we would have special ineterests getting the benefit of THAT win. And the taxpayers would be paying the bill again, only a different group of people would benefit. And this would be the doctors, builders et. al.
So if we are going to help someone with our tax money, I'd rather it be teachers and others who need our help, rather than the rich and arrogant doctors and builders.
Try a spoonful of intellectual honesty Steffy, it might do you some good.
Posted by: Lush Flimbaugh on June 14, 2005 10:08 AMI'm very interested in hearing about who the rich and arrogant doctors are and what they did to deserve your bashing, Lush.
Posted by: Michele on June 14, 2005 10:19 AMLush, do you realize that Stephan hasn't weighed in on this issue? It was jim miller, a fine blogger, who posted this discussion.
You need to read Robert-in-Tacoma for a better read on this issue. Fifty year old policies don't apply anymore. Unless you freshen up, the D party, as you know it, will be buried.
Posted by: swatter on June 14, 2005 10:24 AMYes, those poor poor poor cabinet members they are "low paid" govenment workers! RIGHT! What a joke.
Try a spoonful of intellect and honesty before you post next time.
Posted by: Joe on June 14, 2005 10:30 AMKeep living your dream Dems. The wakeup call is going to be harsh.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 14, 2005 10:39 AM1) Their ability to continue stealing elections.
2) That responsible people will get fed up and move out of the state.
So far, I don't see any reason to belief their assumptions are wrong.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 14, 2005 10:44 AMIn other words, politicians and government employees think we exist to serve and support them. They get irritated whenever anyone points out that the opposite is true: they exist to serve us.
Posted by: L. H. Smith on June 14, 2005 11:20 AMYour attack on me and my post based on my typo is a sure sign that you have the weaker argument. And besides, you try snorting OC all day and typing well. It ain't as easy as it looks being a lush!
Is it your contention that the run of the mill worker in Olympia working on the government payroll is making the kind of money that the doctors are?
Face it - both sides have their special interests. Both sides cater to them. That's my point. It's dishonest to imply that Gov Ghris is the only one with a special interest to look out for.
And I address Steffy because this is her/his blog. Don't like it? Go funk yourself!
Now leave me be. I have some EXCELLENT doctor shopping to attend to. It's not easy satisfying a drug habbit as big as mine.
Posted by: Lush Flimbaugh on June 14, 2005 11:41 AMDo trolls ever show up on lefty web sites and post under fake names that make fun of prominent liberals?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 14, 2005 11:56 AMSpeaking of Hillary, I find it interesting and coincidental (if you believe in coincidences) that ABC is airing a new drama next season about a female U.S. President. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: Palouse on June 14, 2005 12:08 PMAt this point, the best friend of the Dems is Chris Vance. He'll make sure they don't lose the majority.
Posted by: JB on June 14, 2005 12:17 PMWould these people have received such an increase had Governor Rossi been in office? Likely not. So where is the COST to the taxpayer from a Rossi standpoint? Doctors, you say. The proposal from conservatives is to limit medical liability lawsuits to economic damages plus a fixed amount for punitive damages. Explain how this would INCREASE the liability to the taxpayers of this state.
Next argument, the builders. The conservative proposals are to remove the bureacracy from obtaining building permits to help grow business in this state. Please explain how this would INCREASE the liability to the taxpayers of this state.
As to the 10 R's who voted for this gas tax, they will be dealt with either in their primaries or in the next general election. By contrast the vast majority of Democrats voted for that boondoggle. So yes, they deserve the brunt of the backlash.
Posted by: Palouse on June 14, 2005 12:21 PMJoe was right...you are an idiot. He did not say that the run of the mill goverment worker was making as much as a doctor. His post did not attack you for your typos but for your ignorance.
Doctors make more because of the amount of schooling required and the nature of the profession.
I believe that Joe was ref to Queen Christy's gang that received the almost 16% increase in salaries...purty good compared to an average of around 4% for the "run of the mill" gov worker in Oly wouldn't you say?
Your use of the moniker "Lush Flimbaugh" only reinforces the preception of your ignorance and intolerance towards others. The man had a problem, acknowledged it and then took steps to correct it....a concept that you and many of your dem friends should consider.
Posted by: Blueknight on June 14, 2005 03:19 PMI love the climate here, I love the scenery, but I have so much trouble with the politics that I've finally just plain had it. Next year, I'm moving, to UP Michigan, where the scenery is also beautiful, the climate at least not too hot, and the politics are decidedly more sane.
Posted by: Jeannette on June 14, 2005 03:28 PMIt sells. That's my conclusion. I work in that industry... it sells. Simple. Same reason why there's so much coverage of Michael Jackson. It sells. I hate it, personally... but I also had the TV on yesterday, listening to the verdict. ABC's not stupid... Martin Sheen can only be president for so long in TV-Land :)
Posted by: bmvaughn on June 14, 2005 07:17 PMIT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT! KEEP IT GOING!!!! 2008 Election Issue!! GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC. This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.
----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress-women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society.They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH.... This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into,-every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)-we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
then sit back..... and watch how fast they would fix it. If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people can YOU send this to? Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to??
Knowing the writing is on the wall, one grabs all the cookies one can. It gives one an obvious immediate benefit and confounds your successor(s) in that they have to spend years unwinding the Gordian knot (or--Greg-ordian knot) of excessive, repressive regulations and taxes.
Did you ever offer a toddler a cookie or treat? He will invariably grab so many that they will spill out of his little hands. Funny example for a kid. Sad example for a legislature 'with the public interests in mind'.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 15, 2005 10:22 AM