Despite what some local leftists say, and despite that Governor Gregoire won't let the "D" word cross her lips (although she is at least now admitting we will have a "shortfall" coming into next session), we do have a coming deficit.
Gregoire's own appointee to her Council of Economic Advisors, Jeff Chapman -- in writing the brief local leftists are basing their claims of "no deficit" on -- explicitly confirms we have a looming deficit of over $3 billion.
Deficit is when you don't have enough to pay your obligations. That's what we've got. Now, by the time the budget is completed and passed, we almost surely will have it balanced, no thanks to Gregoire. She has said on several occasions that "We spend when we have a surplus and we struggle to make painful cuts when the economy slumps. ... By treating our budget like a Washington family budget we will ensure stability and avoid tax increases or Draconian cuts tomorrow."
This is of course, precisely what faces us now, regardless of Gregoire's claims that we were "getting off that roller coaster."
So which is it? Cuts or tax increases?
Of course, being a Gregoire appointee, Chapman recommends tax increases, including an increase of the state sales tax by one penny per dollar (pushing the sales tax to 10 percent in some places, like in Seattle), rejecting new tax breaks, and a spending increase to offset the sales tax increase with greater payouts for poor families.
That's just in the short term. In the long term, of course, he recommends an income tax, and more handouts to poor families.
Of course, the best way we know that Gregoire will raise taxes is that she won't say she won't raise taxes. In 2004, she said she wanted to try to do everything without raising taxes. She, of course, raised taxes immediately. "Now is not the time to talk about taxes" is code for "I am going to raise your taxes, but I want you to vote for me, so I won't say it."
It's hard to imagine a more clear difference between two candidates. Gregoire thinks that our 33 percent budget increase during her years in office is appropriate and that we need all this spending by government in order to help people, and that we need to raise taxes to keep that spending. Rossi thinks that tax increases hurt families and businesses, and that the best way to help the most people is to not increase their taxes, and to reduce spending to avoid that.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 24, 2008 07:25 PM | Email ThisHas either done so yet?
Posted by: Lysander on September 24, 2008 08:38 PMThe thing you appear to be missing is that simply holding the line at 2007 levels and the budget is pretty much balanced; no need to cut. Hold the line, which is what Rossi mentioned in the debate.
The projected increases that the Queen wants to implement are the killers...
Oh and Pudge, 10% sales tax in Seattle? Well why not - the Bible talks about tithing and if it's good enough for God, then it's good enough for Government.
Unless, of course, you're Joe Biden and give 0.3% to charities...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 24, 2008 10:29 PMAs far as what cuts he or the chrissy queen would make: quite frankly why would they want to give their opponent negative ad ammo... especially Rossi in light of the flat out lies the chrissy queen has made of his other positions.
The fact of the matter is SHE hasn't taken a stand: she has criticized, she has whined "BUSH" "CHANGE" and "BUSH" some more and she has run from the damage SHE has done.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 24, 2008 11:00 PMI fail to see how I am the dishonest one when you are suggesting that it is Rossi that is really for less spending he is just not telling anyone.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 06:40 AMSo Lysander who are you voting for in the Gubernatorial race?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 07:39 AMWhere's Ruth Bennett when you need it?
Posted by: Saltherring on September 25, 2008 07:43 AMIt is a mark of wisdom and maturity that Dino won't announce specifics, rather than trying to pander to people like Travis.
Lysander, of the Libertarian strand of politics, asks for specifics for the same reason- to ridicule the suggestions because they may not fit his desires.
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2008 09:17 AMNow, Simpson may well be innocent. He probably is. The charges were dropped, after all, due to lack of evidence. But there was actually some reason to think he may possibly have done it, while there is no evidence whatsoever of any kind that Stevens ever condoned domestic abuse.
Can you imagine what the Democratic fliers would look like if Simpson were a Republican?
Just more Democratic lies and hypocrisy.
I'd say that Dino would be showing incompetence if he actually DID recommend programs and departments to cut! Without access to the hard numbers, making decisions is folly; and based upon the "deficit? What deficit?" sunshine the former attorney general is attempting to blow up our rears I wouldn't trust any numbers that came from her administration.
The responsible, dare I say "libertarian" approach is to wait until you see the facts and real numbers and THEN make a decision.
Lysander just wants to rail against 'the man' - I guess he's not happy unless he's upset...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 10:49 AMI've thought it quite odd that the very big mouth that IS Geoff Simpson is trying to stay under the radar... while trying to get re-elected.
Democrats get so confused.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 25, 2008 03:19 PMShanghai Dan @8:
If you find it trouble to argue with me, please give me a specific reason why rather than calling me names. That way perhaps we can both learn something. Thanks.
As for who I am voting for... I am leaning torwards Rossi but right now would have to say no since he does not appear to want to reduce the role of state government.
Palouse @10:
Those pages you gave links to are the same ones I keep reading hoping to find where he will announce a plan to actually cut the role of state government, instead he just talks about trying to manage the current scope better than the current governor. As I have said many times I am not looking for someone who think that can reduce government by being more efficient, I am looking for one that will reduce government by having it do less.
Are you not interested in cutting the role of our state government? If yes, then why support a candidate that is afraid to propose ONE SINGLE agency be eliminated? He did not propose one in 2004 and he has again avoided proposing we actually reduce the scope of state government.
Swatter @ 12:
I fail to see how I am like this Geoff fellow. He asks for what agencies posters would cut and he got a response. I have asked what Rossi would cut and I have STILL NOT GOTTEN A response. I suppose we are similar in that we both asked a similar question but other than that I fail to see the similarity.
Shanghai @ 16:
The numbers are not necessary to make a proposal on cutting an agency. There are many agencies that serve no legitimate function of government and he should be opposed to it whether it spends 1 dollar a year or 1 million dollars a year. If he really needs numbers to indicate he has balanced the budget he can always use the previous budget and make the assumption that no agencies budget decreased.
It's simple. You criticize and offer no solutions. Nothing is acceptable to you, so you just complain and complain.
So what's your solution? Which candidate do you support and why? We know you don't like Gregoire and Rossi - so who are you voting for and why?
If you have nothing to contribute but sniping and complaining, then expect to get insulted... The angry man railing against every perceived "injustice" or decision that doesn't go his way.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 25, 2008 10:59 PMI am sorry you take my criticism of Rossi as complaining. I probably do not actually spell out what I suggest others do often enough. Thanks for reminding me to do it.
I suggest to all those that are not truly happy with the choices given to not vote for those choices. Vote for a third party candidate or even write in a candidate. Just make sure your disatisfaction is heard. Participate in the major parties and let them know when they are straying for the principles you share with them. If the stray too far let them know that they have lost your vote and why.
Only once people start doing this will we start getting politicians that people want to vote for rather than against.
I understand peoples frustration and fear of Gregoire. But I also understand others fear of Rossi. I see so little in either of them that I will not vote for either. I think this is true of many others but they will instead chose to plug their nose and chose one. I admit the state level has a better choice than the federal level does. I think the federal level is where the highest disatisfaction in choices is at. But I am frustrated when I see people upset at a bad choice going ahead and perpetuating it by chosing one of them as if they had no choice in the matter.
Now I am guessing you will probably say I am throwing my vote away by voting for someone other than Rossi or Gregoire. Or even suggesting I am really voting for gregoire because I did not vote for rossi. I disagree... but I hope you recognize it is a solution and not just whining. It may be a solution you disagree with but it is a solution.
Posted by: Lysander on September 25, 2008 11:20 PM