1. What gets me is that this little fact was known at the time the budget was signed. Republicans made a point of it, but the focus of the stories was "Democrats save $935 million surplus". And the Times was complicit in their numerous quotes of how "fiscally responsible" the Democrats were.

The fact is that the budget was NEVER fiscally responsible, and never should have been portrayed as such.

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2006 09:26 AM

2. I didn't hear any "point of it". The Rs need some star power. Where is Foreman and Ballard? Did they leave the scene without successors? Where is the guy who cheated Foreman out of a run for the governor's chair- Carlson? Isn't he supposed to be the next-in-line after he and others put Dale out to pasture?

Posted by: swatter on March 20, 2006 09:38 AM

3. Not only do the "D"s spend the surplus they start new programs with the money. Incurring the continuing expense of those programs.

Posted by: JCM on March 20, 2006 09:41 AM

4. Speaking of the Seattle Times - did anyone see the article on the Afghan on trial for converting to Christianity?

So now Afghanistan is run by ultraconservative, murderous, human-rights denying muslims- just don't call them the Taliban.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002876685_convert20.html

Posted by: afghan freedom on March 20, 2006 09:46 AM

5. "For example, a program to help students pass the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) is expected to cost $57 million in the next two years." Ummm... excuse me... isn't that called "SCHOOL?"

Posted by: TURGOR on March 20, 2006 09:48 AM

6. swatter, there was this one quote I saw from a Republican in an article in the Times.

"They've set themselves up for a $600 million problem next time, maybe higher," said Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia. "Spending limits for the Democrats seem to have no relevance."

But the rest of the piece was quotes by Democrats about how fiscally responsible they were, and the earmarks for all the feel good programs.

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2006 09:57 AM

7. Rep. Gary Alexander from the 20th legistlative district is real top-notch when it comes to mundane matters like funding the state budget.

As for why the Times didn't report this either, well how you write one of these stories is simple. You get the press release from all parties involved: Democrate House and Senate leaders, Governor's office and minority Republican House and Senate leaders. Arrange your story with the facts and figures presented in that order. Insert four quotes in the middle. Then add one follow-up question.
"Rep. So-and-so said cuts/adds too much from/to random project, how do you respond?"
File the story away in four to six hours; about two hours behind the AP's staff writer.

Posted by: Reporterward on March 20, 2006 10:23 AM

8. My favorite quote in the latest article:

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said Republicans would have ended up spending about as much money as the Democrats if they had controlled the Legislature, possibly through tax cuts

Only in the mind of Democrats is letting the people keep more of what is theirs to begin with, "spending".

Posted by: Palouse on March 20, 2006 10:24 AM

9. I love this quote:

House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, argues that her party passed "perhaps the most responsible budget I've ever taken part in."

I hate to think of what horrorshows Kessler has been involved in in the past. She wasn't working for Enron, was she?

Posted by: Marc on March 20, 2006 10:30 AM

10. House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, argues that her party passed "perhaps the most responsible budget I've ever taken part in."

Man, that one doesn't even need a punch line.

Posted by: Nathan Azinger on March 20, 2006 10:33 AM

11. Politicians are like Meth Heads. They can't control themselves and they just keep blasting through our tax dollars.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 20, 2006 10:42 AM

12. The only thing that surprises me here is that the Times actually printed some truths about the state budget.

Posted by: katomar on March 20, 2006 10:46 AM

13. It is surprising, as katomar says, that this article actually says things that are true. Some even amount to "the emperor has no clothes."

Consider this wonderful little shot:

She also maintains Democrats were prudent. Her caucus' Web site contends lawmakers "left a responsible reserve — nearly $1 billion — to pay for future costs we can already see coming."

It doesn't take a psychic to see those future costs. Just look in the supplemental budget.

Andrew Garber, the reporter who wrote this article (and the editors who let it get into print) deserve our applause.

Posted by: Micajah on March 20, 2006 11:05 AM

14. Like we didn't see it coming.

Posted by: Andy on March 20, 2006 11:49 AM

15. Think of the budget as the Democrats desire to fix all problems including pollution. I wonder if they have a program to remove all the pollution from Mt Saint Helens. They can always claim they need more money to fix the #1 Pollution producer in the state. Once they figure out a solution will it blow its top again and we have to spend the money all over again.
This is the way the democrats feel good programs throw money to fix the problem but to add a bandaid to a problem. If they every fixed a problem someone would be out of a job. IE 2 years ago Food stamps had to spend tax dollars to advertise to get more people on food stamps. If there was not enough people on the program they would lose funding. Cant have that.
As Ted Kennedy says on the federal spending if the entilements do not get 15% increase every year you are cutting them. Washington State Democrats show they support that thought process. I guess we have to get into a depression before anyone will be able to fix the problem. When you loss 50% of your revenues due to heavy burden on the businesses they will leave. When enough leave the state can not support all these feel good social programs. Boeing basically has moved most of there jobs out of state it did not bother Olympia. I wonder who will be next to leave. I know my job was moved to India. I had to retrain myself to keep my job with my current company. Why because it was cheaper going overseas inspite of all the problems with the time zone changes. It was only a few jobs but everytime you loose 20 -30 jobs to cheaper places it counts up to hundreds if not thousands of jobs that use to be done in this state that are now done overseas or in other states. Oregon is complaining that North Dakota is stealing their jobs at Mcdonalds. I wonder if they have taken jobs from Washington.
Think well about how Democrats treat special interests. All the Millionaires that give big bucks to Democrats and get special projects funded by tax payers to cover thier expenses. Keep voting Democrat you are voting for special interests that want to tell you what you can or can not do with your land. KC now prevents freedom to use your land as you see fit. That is Democrats for you. Democrats claim Republicans are removing constitutional freedoms from the US. Yet it is the Democrats that every day are taking away constitutional rights one right at a time. Why do you think they support silencing Blogs? Why they are preventing radio stations from stating thier opinions and count it as contributions to what every they are talking about. The only ones they take to court are Republican voices. You do not see the Newspapers having to follow the same rules because they are protected. You do not see Air America kept to the same standards It is silencing the voice of opposition to Socialist values. It is silence the voice to Common Sense. It is to silence the voice of Government accountability. It is prevent the truth from being told that will show them for what they are. That would cause most honest Democrats to leave the party. Democrats do not want the truth known because then they could not steal elections. Join Cuba, Old IRAQ under Sadaam on vote counting. The only difference is they killed those who opposed their regimes. Here they send there lawyers to sue you into silence.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on March 20, 2006 12:02 PM

16. I'd propose that there be a few constitutional amendments in order, seeing as the legislature seems bound and determined to buy their votes with taxpayer provided bread and circuses.

The first is an absolute cap on taxes based on a percentage of the previous year's non-governmental gross domestic product. This would be the GDP not counting any income derived from a governmental contract, purchase, or payroll. You only get to count the dollars once.

Under this cap, the legislature can arrange taxes any way it likes. When it meets the cap, taxes stop being collected, or the excess applies against the next year's cap. If you don't collect enough, well, too bad.

The cap could be adjusted in increments of, say, 0.1% by a vote of 2/3 of the voters each biennium, to take effect the next biennium. The option to go UP, DOWN and STAY THE SAME would be on every biennial ballot. You'd just need to get 2/3 of the votes to make it go up or down.

Second is a budgetary cap whereby the planned annual budget may not exceed 95% of the previous year's tax revenue. The other 5% is to be invested in interest bearing liquid assets against the possibility of emergency or disaster relief. At the end of the year, if there is anything in the emergency fund, it is added as free-and-clear tax revenue to the following year.

Fees for service would fall outside of the taxation cap, but they could only be used to fund the service that produced them, not the general fund. I would do the same with sin taxes, i.e. liquor taxes go solely to support state alcoholism treatent programs and drunk driver incarceration, tobacco taxes go to smoking cessation programs, porn taxes go to fund sexual predator incarceration, gambling taxes go to treat problem gamblers, politician taxes go towards crticial thinking education, etc. In a way, sin taxes should be seen as fee-for-service.

I'd give a performance bonus of 20% of annual salary to the legislators if they create and successfully execute a budget that is 5% under the budget cap and they legislatively cap taxes 5% below the ceiling. (Legislative budget caps under the ceiling would only last during the current biennium. If they want the bonus, this better be the first thing on their session agenda.)

I'd leave the methods and proporations of taxation and the purposes to which it is put in the hands of the legislature. I'm sure there will still be wastage, misuse and patronage, but at least there would be limits on it.

Posted by: gmcraff on March 20, 2006 12:06 PM

17. Complain all you want, but the R's lose all credibility on fiscal responsibility when we're carrying over 8.2 trillion dollars in debt at the federal level.

Posted by: mypov on March 20, 2006 12:46 PM

18. Andrew Garber, the reporter who wrote this article (and the editors who let it get into print) deserve our applause.
Posted by Micajah at March 20, 2006 11:05 AM

Micajah..
I applaud Andrew Garber and the Seattle Times for taking weeks to disclose what the EFF knew while the Budget was being fondled!
It's a little late to bring up the fundamental "sustainability" question AFTER the fact, don't you think? I question why it wasn't raised DURING the Budget hearings....and why Republicans weren't more vocal.
A lot of political capital to be had on this one....
If more if it had been passed with the Republicans kicking and screaming!

Posted by: dude on March 20, 2006 01:16 PM

19. Yeah, mypov. And all those cries from Democrats for fiscal responsibility are where? The Ds in DC are the only people I know who can call a reduction in the amount of an increase a 'cut'.

As bad as the spineless GOP in D.C. has been, we know it'd be worse if the Ds ran Congress. How do we know this? We have 40 years prior to 1994 as proof.

Now, back to the subject at hand - the STATE of Washington budget.

Posted by: jimg on March 20, 2006 01:41 PM

20. So you're saying that if the D's ran Congress we'd be further into this 8.2 trillion dollar deficit?! C'mon, jimg -- you've got your rose (or red, as the case may be) colored glasses on. At the very least they'd eliminate the tax breaks for the wealthy to help compensate. And yes, you are correct, the federal and state budget are separate, however, do you remember that anti-drug commercial from back in the 80's? Dad comes in with a box full of pot and asks his kid, "where'd you learn about this?!" -- and the kid reples, "I learned it by watching you!"

PS -- what proof do you have from the last 40 years? I can't recall a more financially irresponsible administration during that 40 year time period...

Posted by: mypov on March 20, 2006 03:17 PM

21. The saddest thing about this whole process is that as new welfare programs are started, and tax money is spent on more bureaucracy, cutting these programs in the future will become "impossible" and these expenditures will become permanent. We will create even more people dependant on the bureaucracy (state employees and people on those programs) and it will be nearly impossible to wean those people off of the tax payer's wallet.

Posted by: Jason Woodruff on March 20, 2006 03:31 PM

22. I guess it was the evil republicans that have been in charge of state and local government in Washington for the last 20 years. Yep, they are the ones responsible for the lack of road capacity and maintenance. The homelessness in King County soo bad it will take a ten year plan and millions to "fix". The lack of affordable housing, ya you betcha thats got to be the republicans fault. Confiscating private property without compensation, must have been a republican plot alright. Kids failing to graduate at record rates,its those darn republicans in charge of the WEA. Your so funny, your name should be improv not mypov. Your only claim to fame is the "D" behind your name.

Posted by: Just wondering on March 20, 2006 03:41 PM

23. And yes, you are correct, the federal and state budget are separate, however, do you remember that anti-drug commercial from back in the 80's? Dad comes in with a box full of pot and asks his kid, "where'd you learn about this?!" -- and the kid reples, "I learned it by watching you!"

Let me see if I understand this correctly: The Washington state Democrat budget is unsustainable because they 'learned' it from Republicans in Washington DC? Okaaaaay.

PS -- what proof do you have from the last 40 years? I can't recall a more financially irresponsible administration during that 40 year time period...

Well (assuming you've paid any attention to the federal budget for more than 40 months, let alone 40 years) if the Executive Branch was responsible for appropriations, you'd have a point. But it isn't, and you don't.

As I clearly stated, the GOP Congress in DC is spineless, and you'll get no argument from many conservatives who are fed up with their lack of fiscal responsbility. But you didn't put them in office, so let the people who did handle it, kay? As I also clearly stated, 40 years of Democrats running Congress was worse - no matter who was in the White House. One cannot argue with a straight face that Democrats are the party of fiscal discipline. It goes against their core values.

So you're saying that if the D's ran Congress we'd be further into this 8.2 trillion dollar deficit?!

Yes. Unless you think the Democrats would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind, prescription drug bill, etc. Which, we know, they wouldn't.

And save me your malarky about class-warfare and tax breaks. Well, unless you a: don't make enough money to be taxed; or b: gave your refund back. (chortle)

So, to recap - the Ds in Washington state blew out the supp budget and created a bowwave we already know is going to hit the next budget cycle because why again? That's right. They learned it from the GOP in Washington DC.

Tax cuts are evil.

And Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

Black is white. Up is down.

Posted by: jimg on March 20, 2006 04:12 PM

24. Improv...not mypov. Now THAT'S witty, although, I'm shocked (insert sarcasm here) at the personal attack.

My point was that it's tough to expect a state government to be fiscally sound when the federal government is running a deficit for the record books. Our federal gov has raised the national debt ceiling 3 times in the last 6 years - this last round was to prevent Treasury notes (among other things) from defaulting. That's right -- the government was going to default on loans that it had borrowed from its citizens.

Do these record deficits effect local and state politics, ie 'the lack of road capacity and maintenance' or 'lack of affordable housing' or even 'homelessness in King County' -- of course it does. As the federal government cuts research spending on cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and the whole lot, do you think we'll see an increase in federal dollars to support other projects? No way. Now I know that's not why we're in the situation that we are in in King County, but it all begins at the federal level.

Posted by: mypov on March 20, 2006 04:29 PM

25. "Democrats' budget reserves might be illusory"

Ya think???

Posted by: Deborah on March 20, 2006 05:17 PM

26. spend spend spend spend spend. it is something BOTH Wasington's have in common, unfortunately. I just wanna see what happens when the forcast revenues comein lower than expected inthe future and they have to pull a few dollars off the table -- rrriiiiiiiiight. can you say cha'ching to new taxes then?

Posted by: dano on March 20, 2006 05:33 PM

27. Let me state for the record. It was Sen Kennedy after the largest increase in spending for Education on the Federal level wanted to spend more. It was his bill that Bush Supported. It was Ted Kennedy again that wanted more for Drug program. There is not a single social program that he does not demand more money for.
But on the State Budget. We had excesses moneys come in. Instead of adding some of it to help fix the transportation mess WA state is in they move it to everything but Transportation.
Can anyone say more taxes to fix roads. Emergency money needed to fix roads. When money is available due to excess It would have been a wise thing to add some money to transportation. Well as you can see they didnt and Democrats prove again that they do not support transportation. They will not add money to fix roads unless the tax payers give more money. Why do you think I vote NO on all tax increases. Because there is no accountability. The Democrats just spending it on everything else. And eventually they will run out of money as they run businesses out of this state. I know liberals think businesses are evil and should be taxed even more. Just tax them out of business and where will the jobs be. That is the issue if people do not have jobs who will provide tax revenue. I guess we will have to tax the homeless. Just like NY City.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on March 20, 2006 10:09 PM

28. So let's see during the Clinton administration, when there was Democratic control from the top down Federal,State Local what got fixed? Did congestion ease? no. Did homelessness end?, no.
Did Education improve? no. Housing prices up, affordable housing? no. More or less Federal, State and Local government employees? more. Fedeeral,State and Local Taxes? Up until a couple of initiatives passed on the State level, no help from the Demoratically controlled government.
You should be shocked, but I doubt you will be.

Posted by: Just wondering on March 21, 2006 07:35 AM

29. It was those "evil" federal tax cuts and low interest rates that got us out of recession nationally. So if you want to blame the feds for the national debt (rightfully so), then also give them credit for other fiscal policy that worked.

But all of the problems of this state are NOT the result of the federal government. The state is responsible for it's fiscal house, how it attracts business to the area, the regulations and taxes, investments in infrastructure, etc. So while it's popular for the left in this state to blame Bush for everything from the price of gas to the weather, it doesn't fly to anyone with common sense.

Posted by: Palouse on March 21, 2006 08:11 AM

30. Just wondering,
I'm just wondering why you said that the d's had control from the top down during the Clinton administration. Remember '94? Are you also saying that the supreme court was dominated by d's? Not judging by the presidents who appointed them.

Posted by: eric h on March 21, 2006 01:11 PM

31. Why yes I remember 94' A reaction to the UBER Clintonista administration. Tax the Dead retroactively, Gays in the Military, Socialist Medical proposals, no meaningful response to terror Chinese" Whitehouse" coffee fundraisers... quite a list. 94' was moment of clarity for the electorate. And wasn't it after '94 that the Budget finally got fixed and Social security was reformed ?

You certainly can blame previous Republican Presidents for nominating Supreme Court Justices who to rule in a less than conservative manner, it must be that defective fairness gene manifesting itself again. Or listening to Warren Rudman either way its a yoke the country must bear. Name a couple current Justices that were nominated by Democrats that rule as strict constructionists? Now we await Clinton Redux, double the regulation, none of the Sex.

Posted by: just wondering on March 21, 2006 04:40 PM

32. What is this madness I read. The Democrats are in solid control of Washington State and fully responsible for the fical follies. Note the high kicking Queen. Are some of you actually accusing Republicans of managing or controlling the WA State Budget? Sipping to much Kool Aid?

WTFO

Posted by: snuffy on March 21, 2006 05:28 PM

33. Just wondering,

You said: "So let's see during the Clinton administration, when there was Democratic control from the top down Federal,State Local"

After I pointed out the error, you then claimed that all kinds of things got fixed by the republican congress. You can't have it both ways. One of your statements is obviously wrong. They are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: eric h on March 22, 2006 10:32 PM

34. Sure I can Eric, when Clinton came into office head had majorities from the top down. He lost those in '94 after people realized what a screw-up he was. Your obviously not a very careful reader. Besides if I wanted it both ways I would be Rodney Tom, which I am not.

Posted by: Just Wondering on March 22, 2006 10:49 PM

35. JW
"when Clinton came into office head (sic) had majorities from the top down." "Your (sic) obviously not a very careful reader."

You're obviously not a very careful writer.

Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 06:52 PM

36. JW

You said that I didn't read yoour writings carefully. Let's look at them again.

"So let's see during the Clinton administration, when there was Democratic control from the top down Federal,State Local what got fixed? Did congestion ease? no. Did homelessness end?, no.
Did Education improve? no. Housing prices up, affordable housing? no. More or less Federal, State and Local government employees? more. Fedeeral,State and Local Taxes? Up until a couple of initiatives passed on the State level, no help from the Demoratically controlled government.
You should be shocked, but I doubt you will be."

You said "during the Clinton administration." What should I take that to mean other than the period of time when Clinton was in office?

Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 06:56 PM

37. Who's Rodney Tom?

Posted by: eric h on March 25, 2006 07:14 PM

38. Eric;

Not from around here? Never heard of Rodney Tom?
You appear to content to pick for the Fly Sh%* from the pepper, best of luck with that project.
Gee, when was Clinton elected? How long did he have a majority before '94 elections and the new congress was seated? There are none so blind as those who will not see. That would be you Eric.

Posted by: Just Wondering on March 26, 2006 07:33 PM

39. Just wondering

"Not from around here? Never heard of Rodney Tom?"

Nope. I haven't. If this were a real conversation you might tell me. Oddly enough, I don't know anything before I find it out. I'm not going to pretend to know more than I do.

"Gee, when was Clinton elected? How long did he have a majority before '94 elections and the new congress was seated?"

Actually, I reminded you of what happened (if you look above a few comments).

"There are none so blind as those who will not see. That would be you Eric."

Try stringing together a few coherent sentences and then we'll see.

Posted by: eric h on March 27, 2006 03:17 AM

40. You stick with line of thought Eric it will take you far in life. Clinton was elected and had majorities until he proved to be the socialist liberal that he is. '94 was the country's reaction to his "leadership".
The point being Eric that when Clinton had majorities for 2 years, his actions and policies allowed '94 to take place and the only real benefits for the people occur with opposition control of both houses of congress.

As for Rodney Tom, you might try looking at several of the threads dedicated to him at this blog. Better ask your Democratic buddies about him, he's one of yours now.

Posted by: Just Wondering on March 27, 2006 07:13 AM

41. JW

Remember budget surpluses? Remember an administration that took al qaeda seriously? This Bush guy doesn't seem to be learning on the job too quickly, but it's hard to learn from your mistakes if you won't admit to any.

Posted by: Eric H on March 27, 2006 01:17 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?