"Gregoire expects budget fight"
Christine Gregoire on Tuesday called for spending about $500 million of a projected $1.4 billion surplus in tax money and setting aside the rest for later use.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 21, 2005 09:03 AM | Email This
Lordy, I love democrats.
There are a lot of new programs there.
Why not restore the funding with the foster care system? Why not spend the extra to pay for the Viaduct because, by golly, we can't have two people dying on that bridge when the big shaker comes (they say while ignoring that Seattle will have much bigger issues when the big shaker comes).
Why not put that money in transportation?
The thing about Gregoire is to watch for the new program spending and the discretionary money she will be asking for. The best the Rs can hope for is reins on the budget. Gregoire is notorious for spending.
Posted by: swatter on December 21, 2005 09:21 AMRemember the golden rule, always use human shields like the elderly or children when there's a need to spend.
Posted by: Andy on December 21, 2005 09:33 AMSo, let's take a look. Gregoire clearly acknowleged that her budget battle will be with democrats. I'll take her at her word that she will limit what is spent.
Now, Tim (taxpayer advocate, as long as you pay me) Eyeman was the first to say "give it back!"
If you take the projected surplus, divide by the popluation, you come up with $234 and change per person. Sounds good, except that most of those taxes come from businesses...so then does all the money go back to businesses?
Tim (paid advocate) will swear that the common man would get the tax relief...but in reality it will be business that gets the cash.
Posted by: rossi too on December 21, 2005 09:36 AMDSHS- "We'll give you grants if you make recommendations that the current guidelines are too low for anyone in the 33% tax bracket...to Antartica with anyone living actually living in poverty"
Posted by: Andy on December 21, 2005 09:37 AMFor the budgetary challenged:
Joe makes 50K a year.
Joe's mortgage, bills, spending and savings consume all the 50K.
Joe gets a 12K bonus.
Joe buys a vacation home costing $1000 a month.
Next year Joe has a budget short fall of $1000 a month.
Smart planners do not use one time surpluses for anything other than:
A) Savings, i.e. rainy day funds.
B) One time expenditure.
C) Pay down existing debt.
Dumb planners use one time surpluses for:
A) Down payment for continuing expenses without budgeting for the continuing expense.
Quiz question:
Which type of planner lives in Olympia?
The battle is the feeding frenzy of special interests. There aren't enough teats on the pig.
What other Emergency has Gregoire and her bunch fixed. Their own wallets!
The Emergency is to get the 1.4 Billion back to the taxpayers of the state.
Posted by: GS on December 21, 2005 10:06 AMroosi trey
Posted by: roosi trey on December 21, 2005 10:09 AMAnd speaking of DSHS, I lost respect for them when they hid convicted child molester John Henise. Refusing to allow the lawyer to see him, lieing it a state judge about his income so it couldn't be garnished, and till had him working in person at daycare centers.
Posted by: Tyler on December 21, 2005 10:10 AMI never said i was for re-distribution of wealth. I merely pointed out what paid advocate Tim alluded to in the Seattle
Times article today.
I agree with you 100%: If the businesses PAID the tax, why shouldn't it go back to them?
However...paid advocate Tim will gather signitures telling the little guy he'll get a tax break if they sign up...and lying about business getting the money back.
Of course, there will be no effort to refund the surplus. It will be set aside as a rainy day fund.
(1) Spend a good chunk on building new roads
(2) Save a good chunk for a rainy day
(3) Return the rest to the taxpayers, in proportion to the taxes they paid
Emphasize that it is not the government's or the politician's money---it is the people's!
If the republicans were bold about what they would do with the money, it would help them in the upcoming election.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 21, 2005 10:37 AMEyman won't get the signatures for an initiative to give the money back.
But he will to cut back these new programs. And he may get enough to cut more of the spending frenzy we all expect.
Again, dad, thanks for getting back on the meds.
trey
Posted by: roosi trey on December 21, 2005 10:40 AMYeah, just like you can believe that any transportation tax increases would be put to a vote of the people...another "promise."
I don't know whether you believe her or not...either way it's not flattering for you.
Posted by: South County on December 21, 2005 10:46 AMI just hope they don't quickly spend it on several 'emergency' bike overpasses all over the state!
Posted by: Misty on December 21, 2005 10:48 AMIt is funny how if Eyeman says he will do something he is lying, but when the gov says something you will "take her at her word". Like her word on no gas tax until she determines where the 5 cent gas tax is going. Can you give me a link to that report?
Posted by: fred on December 21, 2005 10:52 AMhttp://dor.wa.gov/content/taxes/busoccupation/default.aspx#rate
Posted by: Robert on December 21, 2005 10:57 AMThis will certainly send the money back to those that actually paid.
Tim Eyman, if you are thinking up an initiative, how about this idea?
Democrats control this state because the people elected them to control the state. If that means that we live off of the future generations because the majority of voters are selfish, stupid, misinformed or shortsighted, who are we to tell the clowns they've voted into office to not give their constituents what they've asked for?
Should we expect them to listen to us?
The fight is not with the politicians in Olympia! The fight is with the sources of information (mainstream media and education) that have poisoned the electorate with biased and filtered reporting resulting in a majority of uninformed, misinformed and/or selfish voters.
Democrats will tax and spend until the majority of voters object to excessive taxation and wasteful spending. That is what they were elected to do.
At issue is how to pressure the Times, PI and other leftist rags that create the perceptions and define the perceived view of the world to support a sustainable government that isn't going to bankrupt us all.
Posted by: Mike on December 21, 2005 12:21 PMWhen the surplus is gone, taxes must be raised to pay for the un-funded programs. Or, the poor and minorities will starve and go homeless.
It never changes, this is Washington State. I know, that when I die, Washington State Democrats will want a bit of my ashes to start a new green space, even though they cannot take care of the one I am looking at right now.
Guess what? If I go out there and cut down the blackberries or create a path, I have to pay for the proviledge and carry excess insurance or pay a fine.
Living in Washington State is what it is! Thousands of voters with no legal right to vote where they do and who really cares? The sad part is, we have a noted primary, but fail to have a noted main election.
Perhaps "Shark" can cross reference numbers of noted primary elections to the general election. I would say, if he did, the vast majority of illegal votes went to, guess who?
Nothing will change in Washington State until you stop complaining and start campaigning. In over 40 years, that has not happened and I sadly become even more cynical for the future of our State.
And, even if we do... they will count and count, until the county goes to them. A few votes here in a missed door, a few 'maybe this or that" goes their way and soon, the last count is the only count, that counts.
I can state one positive thought though. When I do leave Washington State and pay in my a$$hes, it will be in a much sadder state, than when I found it.
Posted by: Sam on December 21, 2005 01:52 PMWhen the surplus is gone, taxes must be raised to pay for the un-funded programs. Or, the poor and minorities will starve and go homeless.
It never changes, this is Washington State. I know, that when I die, Washington State Democrats will want a bit of my ashes to start a new green space, even though they cannot take care of the one I am looking at right now.
Guess what? If I go out there and cut down the blackberries or create a path, I have to pay for the proviledge and carry excess insurance or pay a fine.
Living in Washington State is what it is! Thousands of voters with no legal right to vote where they do and who really cares? The sad part is, we have a noted primary, but fail to have a noted main election.
Perhaps "Shark" can cross reference numbers of noted primary elections to the general election. I would say, if he did, the vast majority of illegal votes went to, guess who?
Nothing will change in Washington State until you stop complaining and start campaigning. In over 40 years, that has not happened and I sadly become even more cynical for the future of our State.
And, even if we do... they will count and count, until the county goes to them. A few votes here in a missed door, a few 'maybe this or that" goes their way and soon, the last count is the only count, that counts.
I can state one positive thought though. When I do leave Washington State and pay in my a$$hes, it will be in a much sadder state, than when I found it.
Posted by: Sam on December 21, 2005 01:52 PMWhen the surplus is gone, taxes must be raised to pay for the un-funded programs. Or, the poor and minorities will starve and go homeless.
It never changes, this is Washington State. I know, that when I die, Washington State Democrats will want a bit of my ashes to start a new green space, even though they cannot take care of the one I am looking at right now.
Guess what? If I go out there and cut down the blackberries or create a path, I have to pay for the proviledge and carry excess insurance or pay a fine.
Living in Washington State is what it is! Thousands of voters with no legal right to vote where they do and who really cares? The sad part is, we have a noted primary, but fail to have a noted main election.
Perhaps "Shark" can cross reference numbers of noted primary elections to the general election. I would say, if he did, the vast majority of illegal votes went to, guess who?
Nothing will change in Washington State until you stop complaining and start campaigning. In over 40 years, that has not happened and I sadly become even more cynical for the future of our State.
And, even if we do... they will count and count, until the county goes to them. A few votes here in a missed door, a few 'maybe this or that" goes their way and soon, the last count is the only count, that counts.
I can state one positive thought though. When I do leave Washington State and pay in my a$$hes, it will be in a much sadder state, than when I found it.
Posted by: Sam on December 21, 2005 01:52 PMSo IMMHO, the legislature should take the entire surplus to pay off what they borrowed otherwise they are stealing from the retirees. If they don't pay off what is due then in future years taxes will have to go astronomically to pay off that debt load!
Tim
Posted by: timman on December 21, 2005 02:28 PMPrograms should be limited to basic needs, not pet projects. Welfare benefits need to have enforceable time limits. Homeless programs need to be very limited in scope or else the numbers will keep growing. And if the state thinks such programs are essential, they should ask the population to voluntarily fund them. This would give the liberal weenies a chance to put up or shut up.
Seattle is going ahead with buiding an apartment complex for chronic drunks. The only requirement is that you must be a hopeless alcoholic. No rent, no restrictions on drinking, and no mandatory rehab participation. Golly, do you think there will be a waiting list???
This is why the bozos in Olympia would do well to take care of existing obligations first instead of coming up with more screwball ideas.
1. Yes. It is 1.5 percent on gross receipts - ie, a business could gross $100,000 and have no profit, yet be taxed 1.5 percent of that 100k.
2. The D-controlled House and D-controlled Senate (and then-Gov. Mike Lowry (D)) jacked up the tax to 2.5 percent of gross to balance their wish list budget in 1993. I believe the total tax increase was $682 million, if I recall. Largest in state history.
3. The GOP House and D Senate (after 138 days of session and budget negotiations) repealed .5 percent of that tax in 1995.
4. The GOP House and GOP Senate repealed the other .5 percent in 1997.
I point this out for two reasons:
The B&O tax is extremely onerous on business - especially small and start-up businesses. Paying on gross receipts - no matter what profit is gained - could be considered just slightly anti-business. [/sarcasm]
Taxes CAN be returned to the people when revenues exceed expenditures if the political party in charge has the will.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the current crop to do anything about it.
Posted by: jimg on December 21, 2005 06:07 PMExactly how do you divvy it up so that the money I gave comes back to me and the money you gave comes back to you, all the while knowing we don't all pay the same amount in taxes and or do so for the same things.
Posted by: Daniel K on December 21, 2005 08:14 PM"Exactly how do you divvy it up so that the money I gave comes back to me and the money you gave comes back to you, all the while knowing we don't all pay the same amount in taxes and or do so for the same things."
By reducing taxes across the board genius. What is so difficult about basic economics for liberals to understand? I suppose it's just their hatred of facts. Reduced taxation is working very well on a national level and it will work here in Washington as well. Deficits don't matter, inflation and recession reduce growth and high tax rates create both.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 23, 2005 08:05 PM