When the state's current budget troubles, and overspending in Olympia, become the topic of Dave Ammons's weekly column then it's a safe bet that Democrats have a political headwind of their own creation to run against this fall.
The news that the state's budget is going to head into the red much quicker than previously anticipated shouldn't come as much of a surprise given the 33% spike in state spending since 2004. The peculiar twist to recent fiscal incontinence is that if Christine Gregoire had followed the process put in place her predecessor, Gary Locke, prior to his departure much of it could have been avoided.
With the state budget in trouble in the closing years of his term in office, Locke instituted the "Priorities of Government" process, whereby set amounts of money were made available to meet the goals and needs of state governments. State agencies made proposals to compete for those pots of money. Those programs that didn't make a compelling enough case were excluded from the pot. Thus, there is no across the board cut, which penalizes effective and ineffective government programs alike. If your proposal to maintain your office/program doesn't pass muster (or relevant legal obligations), it isn't funded. Period.
That sounds wonkish, but it worked. The fact Governor Locke teamed up with then Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Dino Rossi probably sped up the process of Governor Gregoire reverting to the tired status quo of state budgeting. The result near the end of Locke's tenure was a more frugal budget, yet one that still reflected a priority on core government services, especially for the less fortunate in society.
Former State Senator Aaron Reardon (D) took that same process with him when he moved up to the office of Snohomish County Executive. I worked with an outside group that advised the county on implementing the same type of process. In doing so, I spent some time with the consultant who helped get Snohomish County up and running with the budgeting technique, just as he did with the state.
He told me the state had been a bit rushed in implementing Priorities of Government under Locke, so hadn't been able to implement the full level of competition between agencies necessary to heighten the pressure on those entities to prioritize, promote efficiency, and make difficult choices. I saw that process unfold from 2004-2005 at Snohomish County, where that more detailed level of engagement was achieved with a corresponding improvement in streamlining county spending and operations.
Now, Priorities of Government - Priority Based Budgeting as it was called in Snohomish County - is no panacea. It is not a perfect system and because of the human factor involved there are inevitable questions and disagreements about the final product. But it sure beats the status quo, which at the current time seems as entrenched as ever in Olympia, even as the state's fiscal situation deteriorates further.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 24, 2008 04:29 PM | Email ThisGive the people writing those budgets 10% of everything they save.
That puppy would collapse in on itself like a dying star.
Posted by: Hinton on February 24, 2008 06:19 PMHinton, @2 you're dead on. An economist w/ biology background, whose name I've forgotten, pointed out that the elk was such a magnificent animal because the wolf had been preying on it all those millenia. Having an enemy like the wolf forces you to get stronger, faster, smarter, or die out.
Similarly, we need is a predatory agency to hound our fat and dumb agencies. The economist proposed the creation of an agency that would be tasked with cutting waste from other agencies, and would be funded from the savings. Sierra Club types should like the concept....
Posted by: russell garrard on February 24, 2008 09:01 PMNote that you often hear someone in Olympia "proud of what they've accomplished." But you know that their "accomplishment" really represent a drain on our economy, a continued growth in bureaucracy that wastes all citizens' time, and the fantasy that government will magically replace responsibility.
What we really need to do is encourage a competitive system of cities and regions. Cities that reduced government and provided a more optimum environment for free enterprise and productive citizens, would win the residency of responsible people. If it was done well enough, there would be such a stark contrast and advantage in cost of living, that people would literally pack and move from Progressive wastelands like WA, as if they were the dust bowl.
Time to quit complaining and do something about it, I think. I just wish the Rs in the State had decent candidates.
Posted by: swatter on February 25, 2008 06:48 AMAs alluded to by Freedom Lover in #5 and swatter @ 6, the voters are the wolves, and the Democrat "elk" in Olympia would die of old age and rot before the voters of this state got a clue. They love Tim Eyman's anti-tax initiatives but continue to vote tax-and-spend liberal Democrats to the legislature. Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 25, 2008 07:07 AMThe will of the voters gets subverted. My union is a democracy; each member has a vote. Yet when a dues increase is considered, it doesn't matter what members want--if officials want it, it will happen. Likewise, stockholders have a vote, but senior execs get their way with golden parachutes, etc.
Polling shows that voters prefer smaller gov't and lower taxes, but get the opposite. And they know it. I remember collecting sigs for I-695, many 'joe-averages' told me, "if we get this, they'll just raise some other tax." They were right.
My theory on why people vote for Eyman and (say) Gary Locke is that the latter is a vote of resignation. They are saying that as long as we're getting big gov't, let's have the party of big gov't running it. Let's have somebody experienced rather than some yahoo commentator.
Conservatives accept free-market economics, which is based on the idea of the rational consumer acting in his own self interest. But when comes to politics, we turn around and say "the voter is a moron." I suspect that voters are acting rationally given the rules of the game.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 25, 2008 06:56 PMNah, it's not that complicated. Just talk to your neighbors. They will express their desire for various entitlement programs, state and federal. I especially love the ones who own a $700K home crying that they need national healthcare.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 26, 2008 06:44 AMSo you may be right. But if so, we might be doomed, because so far efforts, and redoubling of efforts, to wake up the voters, have proven mostly ineffective.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 26, 2008 05:25 PM