Let Mrs. Gregoire1 and the Democrats in the legislature manage the money.
Mrs. Gregoire, March 31 "DELIVERED: Fiscal Responsibility, Targeted Investments"
The budget saves over $940 million and makes targeted investments in ...The Associated Press, April 25: "Olympia eyes red ink":
State Office of Financial Management projects a $718 million hole in the upcoming two-year budget ... Last month, Gregoire and majority Democrats decided to spend about a third of the surplus and put the rest in various reserve accounts, knowing that a deficit was likely to develop next year. Republicans warned against spending increases, but Democrats defended their choices.
1 Has never held a job in the private sector.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 26, 2006 08:40 AM | Email ThisThat's what you get when you put a very poor, but cynically opportunistic lawyer in charge of any budget-- large or small --DISASTER.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 26, 2006 08:51 AMTotal state taxes up ??% between the gas, property and other user fees and taxes the total tax burden is increasing at an ever increasing rate.
With the supplemental budget spending up 16%.
Lesson that I learned when I got mine first allowance. You can't spend more than you receive.
I learned that when I was 4.
Gregoire and the Dems still have not learned that.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2006 08:53 AM"The governor doesn't want to raise taxes and doesn't think we have to," he (Moore) said.
Now, where have I heard that before?
Posted by: jimg on April 26, 2006 08:56 AM"I wasn't prepared for a number that big," Senate budget Chairwoman Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said Tuesday.
Posted by: Jason on April 26, 2006 08:59 AMAt least our state government is not wasting our money fighting pointless wars.
Also, if you're so concerned about our state's budget, let's do away with all the gibberish about eliminating the state estate tax.
Posted by: MaryL on April 26, 2006 09:09 AMThe Rs will eat them for lunch. At least, I can only hope leadership understands this.
Posted by: swatter on April 26, 2006 09:16 AMThat said, the d's lied. R's told the world the democrats lied. Their lies have been confirmed.
And, MaryL, by the way, could you can the gratuitous war crap? I mean, you leftists are all about deflection, but the war issue really is off topic here.
You clueless twit!
Revenue is up 6% spending up 16%!
You call that a "validation" of the dems spending plans? Only incompetent morons can run a budget like that.
State government not wasting money?!
Where have you been, what have you been smoking.
Go look at the auditors reports, if you can read. My current pet peeve is DSHS (I am a foster parent), the budget is up, DSHS spends on elective surgeries, but services to the children are being cut.
Explain that, try but you won't be able to. The Gov's office didn't even try she blame the legislature (I have the letter).
You are the umpteenth troll without the guts to post a real email to try to segue into the War. Click on my link and refute a single fact there. Not one troll has been able to yet.
Simple challenge. How is a 16% spending increase in any way rational, or good governance in the light of 6% revenue increase.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2006 09:22 AMTo create NEW spending programs that require long term funding just because you have a short term surplus is stupid - it isn't smart.
There are only two ways to solve the forthcoming shortfall:
1) Reduce spending.
2) Raise taxes again.
We have already had two disgustingly large tax raising sessions with Gregoire, one or two more would seal her fate for reelection, and for the next couple of years, on July 1st, we're reminded of those increases. For those of us in the RTID danger zone, we will have more tax increases to think about as well.
Thank you Democrats, you really are living up to your self imposed tag of "Tax and Spend".
See definition of Ignoratio Elenchi.
The rest of you:
Carry on.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 26, 2006 09:43 AMI wonder how much of that surplus went to truly wasteful and excessive projects?
I agree, and an advanced degree in economics and private sector experience should be prerequisites for government service.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 26, 2006 09:54 AMDo "those things" also include sex change operations for welfare recipients?
Posted by: Saltherring on April 26, 2006 09:57 AMJust because the Ds are far out spending tax receipts (with, among other things new programs) why do you feel that taking additional after-tax money through inheritance tax is fair? 'Having it' or 'able to' does not mean fair.
The left always say someone else has it or is able to do with less, therefore the government should have it. How about some of politicians cut back. The Nichols post here is a great example of where savings could start - take his three gas guzzeling cars away, have him walk or take public transportation like he tells us to do, then maybe he would be fitter and his health insurance wouldn't cost taxpayers as much. But no. Cutting back on the political elite is never an option when you can divide the citizens with they have it, we deserve it mentallity. Tax the rich!
Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2006 10:02 AMList everything that the politicians want to spend our money on. Assign expenditure. Prioritize them. For example:
1 Fire/police/emergency
2 Schools
3 ...
.
.
.
578 Governor's salary
579 Government funded sex changes
.
.
Take the available money from taxes.
Take 5% and put it in reserve.
Allocate the rest going down the list. When the money runs out the programs don't get funded.
It would also make our representatives tell us the priorities. When Medic One is at the bottom of the list so that an additional tax needs to be added we will know.
This would work for all government spending...
Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2006 10:15 AMI prefer TBO...
Throw the B*st*rds Out, with a side order of tar and feathers, then run them out on the rail they are so fond of.
Fred,
Zero based budgeting. Every agencies bases there budget on last year plus what they think they need for the next. Make them justify their entire budget every year.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2006 10:23 AMBut then I considered that you are probably just stopping by to try to stir things up. Quite frankly, we do not need posts like yours to get us going. We are already ticked off at Olympia for a variety of reasons - excessive taxation and ineffective spending in particular.
As someone else has already posted, please try to avoid needless tangents or outright misdirections in your posts. We prefer to keep our discussions focused on the original subject matters presented. Quite frankly, your remark about fighting "pointless wars" has absolutely nothing to do with taxation and the Washington State budget.
Posted by: Gary on April 26, 2006 10:28 AMShe the chair of House Govt Operations Committee....in charge of election reform.
Posted by: Old Faithful on April 26, 2006 10:35 AMShe the chair of House Govt Operations Committee....in charge of election reform.
Posted by: Old Faithful on April 26, 2006 10:36 AMNext year, her priority is Health care with Gregoire saying she would have a solution by December..........
Last two sessions brought us almost 700 million in new taxes and a 17 percent increase in spending with only 6 percent increase in revenue.
She and her legislature are coming for your sin next, so that she can continue to claim that she hasn't raised taxes!
Posted by: sgmmac on April 26, 2006 10:42 AMSo Stefan's footnote of the day, while 100% correct in spirit, is slightly in error when it comes to technical details.
Although Stefan did use the word "JOB" -- which implies actually doing some WORK for the money being paid. So maybe Stefan is correct after all.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 26, 2006 10:56 AMI don't want Gregoire to have to wait for old people to die before raiding their estates- and besides, these people are just hoarding money that rightfully belongs to children in need.
Posted by: Andy on April 26, 2006 11:23 AMWhile at Ecology she doubled staff and budget, and reallocated traditional duties when the legislature finally said enough so she could whine for more money to do the traditional duties.
There is no bottom to this pit. She is and will bleed us out.
Posted by: swatter on April 26, 2006 11:40 AMFederal Tax Freedom Day 3 days later than last year. We can celebrate again on May 4 when WA State has its Tax Freedom Day. Only NY, CT, and RI have latter Tax Freedom Days.
The Gov's goal is to be last ones to celebrate, at the current rate we'll be celebrating on Dec. 24.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2006 11:45 AMHowever, since it can be sold as a tax on the rich it seems like a good idea to those who would rather think they are doing something good than to deeply think about anything at all.
Posted by: Marc on April 26, 2006 12:36 PMTony Snow
Posted by: Ringo on April 26, 2006 12:45 PMIt's also a huge problem in Washington State (specifically Olympia) that needs to be stopped.
Republicans need their butts kicked in DC and democrats need their butts kicked in Olympia. Agreed?
I can point you to about 30 different conservative blogs that are grilling republicans for wasteful spending right now and I can list a lot of republican congress members that are vocal and visible to try to fix the problem.
Can you list any progressive blogs, democratic state governors, or local democratic activists that are arguing to cut spending and bring spending back into line with taxes?
Posted by: johnny on April 26, 2006 12:54 PMWhat is the "estate" tax rate in Washington?
What is the argument that "entitles" the state to confiscate upwards of 55% of someone's estate (albeit a "rich" someone)?
I can see how well tax shelters could shield the "cash", but what if the "wealth" was in property? How could the property be shielded?
Are estate taxes the state's expression that they really feel bad for not taxing you more when you were alive?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 26, 2006 12:59 PM1: People on Fox are critical of Rs/conservatives/Bush despite the trolls saying that it is a mouthpiece for the Bush admin
2: Conservatives are more than willing to openly criticize wrong instead of just the other side (like where is Pelosi/Reid/Shumar on the "culture of Corruption" of the top D on the ethics committee?)
Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2006 01:13 PMYour idea of setting priorities and then funding accordingly is a good one. What is truly sad (and is clearly turning out to be truly expensive) is that we HAD something much like this. Gov Locke and Dino Rossi worked together using a system much like the one you suggest (not exactly that straightforward or sensible of course). But the new team of ALL DEMOCRATS could not see fit to stay with what their fellow Democrat (Gary Locke) had started. And thus we started down the road towards what, 17% spending increases?
MaryL wants us to believe that this news is proof of why it was SOOOOO great that "one third" was left in reserve. Well to me this news shows that 1) a LOT more should have been left in reserve and 2) they should not have EXPANDED programs in ways that were clearly NOT SUSTAINABLE. But in MaryL's world there is always more revenue available to be "invested" so cover your wallets kids!
Posted by: Jason on April 26, 2006 02:08 PMThis is a good place to start: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm
For those who argue that the estate tax encourages charitable giving: http://www.nodeathtax.org/ECONOMICREPORTS/reports_0305.pdf (a posting from the Dept of the Treasury)
On net revenue: http://www.nodeathtax.org/ECONOMICREPORTS/reports_030730.pdf (from CONSAD Research)
I won't even go into the fact that in 2005, the NYTimes poll (I'm sure they weren't polling for a specific result or anything) showed 76% in favor of eliminating the estate tax. The only justification for it is for wealth distribution, only the wealthiest have the easiest time avoiding it so it doesn't even work for that. Bill Gates donated about $50b to the Gates Foundation--how much estate tax will he pay on that? (a goose egg should be coming to mind). He has that luxury, however, as he and Warren Buffet and everyone else that are concentrated in that plutocratic group the Left likes to demonize all have the same ability to get rid of their wealth before death. Gates or Buffet would only have to donate 100% of their estates to their foundations, then magically get hired for enough to keep them going by the same Foundation, and voila! No estate tax at all. But how counter-productive is that? Gates' money going to non-productive uses instead of investing in start-ups when he starts to teeter is not what anyone should want to see. Those with the jealousy streak that seems to infect the left so well, however, don't really care as long as the "rich" are "soaked" in accordance with their political (not economic--they don't really have one) agenda.
Posted by: Marc on April 26, 2006 04:13 PMIt only takes a liberal's math curriculum from Washington state to see how a 6% increase in state revenue and an increase in state spending of 16% equals a surplus! Duh.
Posted by: Deborah on April 26, 2006 08:01 PMFrom the PI: "The forecast, based on current revenue projections for the next biennium, takes into account money for increased school enrollment, prisons and other state caseloads."
Could the increase be from a surge of illegal aliens? Naw, they pay more in taxes than they take out. Or at least that's what we are being told.
Posted by: Elaine on April 26, 2006 08:35 PMWe don't need no stinkin' Emergency Tax - we need to enforce immigration laws on the books and Olympia needs to stop being Political correct wusses. They are corrupt and beholden to lobbyists, so the only way to accomplish that is to elect a new State Legislature and get rid of the corrupted Demo-rats !
Posted by: KS on April 26, 2006 09:32 PMHmmm.... The last "Emergency Tax" was supposed to go to fix the viaduct, various bridges, etc...because they were so drastically dangerous!! (gasp!)...Oh wait! We haven't fixed anything yet and we are already seeing red? (as in a negative surplus..).. I think the voters will be voting "RED" in November! (as in Republican)
Oh jeeze! I hear that liberal Democrat money sucking sound in the near distance!
Gregoire has a lot of 'splaining to do.....
Posted by: Deborah on April 26, 2006 09:50 PMIs it her good looks? ...A perfect 36-24-36... and her other arm is about the same.
Is it her dizzying intellect?...Duh...I do not think so.
Is it her charm and easy manner?... Please!!!
Can someone please explain this to me? Is it the Fluoride in the Renton Drinking Water?
"A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday found Corzine's job approval ratings plummeted in April to 35 percent from 43 percent last month."
"Nothing kills a political honeymoon faster than the word `taxes,'" said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the university's polling institute.
Someone might want to mention that to the illegitimate queen... um, nevermind!
Posted by: Cheryl on April 26, 2006 10:07 PMHow else can they deal with their debt and their promises to bring free medical care to the whole nation, who will all move to this state the minute they pass the queens universal healthcare for all promise.
Posted by: GS on April 27, 2006 10:02 AMI may have forgotten something, but that should be it.
We shouldn't be raising taxes, we need to cut spending. This may mean that we need to sack a bunch of politicians.
I wonder if he, as a private citizen, can launch an investigation into our state spending and budget? Maybe by way of an initiative?
Posted by: Deborah on April 27, 2006 06:50 PM