September 24, 2008
We Have a Deficit, and Gregoire Will Raise Taxes
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 This
Wow... with such a big deficit I would expect both candidates to be telling us which departments or programs they will cut.
Has either done so yet?
2. And what about the carbon taxes? Does anyone believe a newly re-"elected" Gregoire will renege on her promises there?
The 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...
I am opposed to the 2007 spending levels. I was led to believe by Rossi in 2004 that he was as well. But like most other republicans appearantly... it was not a real opposition to massive spending increases.
You're being dishonest, Lys. Rossi will have to deal with the mess (read: overspending and overspent) that he inherits in 2009, NOT what he would have had in 2004.
As 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.
I expect my candidates to support a limited smaller government. You seem to imply that Rossi really does but won't say it because it gives gregoire ammo for ads. I say if she wants to advertise that Rossi would cut back spending, all the better that would mean less money rossi would have to spend.
I 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.
7. Hey Lys. It doesn't matter what Rossi believes. Chrissy is going to lie about it and turn it in any way to her gain. She is one of the most unethical, dishonest, incompetent politicians Washington has ever seen. It should be very easy to vote for the 'lesser of to evils'. We know who has made a pact with the (tribes) devil!
Aruging with Lysander is like arguing with a Ron Paul Robot... Oh wait...
So Lysander who are you voting for in the Gubernatorial race?
Shanghai Dan @ 8?
Where's Ruth Bennett when you need it?
Lysander - you can find specifics on how Rossi would address the deficit here
Now you can stop repeating those same lines every time the Queen's fiscal train wreck is mentioned.
Dan, yeah, pointless. Travis keeps bringing up this "specifics" thing, even when told that Dino has already made cuts in the past without raising taxes, and that when he did it last time, he didn't announce specifics, because announcing specifics is silly: it makes it harder to get those cuts because of the politics involved, and it puts undue pressure on you to make specific cuts to fulfill your "campaign promise" to do so.
It is a mark of wisdom and maturity that Dino won't announce specifics, rather than trying to pander to people like Travis.
Lysander is kind of like that left wing whacko in the State legislature- Geoff Simpson. Geoff Simpson challenged SP commenters to list some cuts they could do. SP commenters responded very intelligently and gave specifics. Mr. Simpson has not been heard of since.
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.
13. Geoff is too busy tossing around the ex-wife to get back to the constituents.
Yeah, isn't it funny how the Democrats spend over $40,000 falsely accusing Val Stevens of condoning domestic abuse, and they spend over $20,000 to help re-elect Geoff Simpson, who was charged with domestic abuse?
Now, 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.
15. Of course the charges were dropped...again. Because the support checks stop coming if the producer is in the slam.
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...
17. Geoff Simpson challenged SP commenters to list some cuts they could do. SP commenters responded very intelligently and gave specifics. Mr. Simpson has not been heard of since.
I'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.
I believe it does matter what Rossi believes. Just because one candidate is bad does not mean the other is worthy of my vote.
Shanghai 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.
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.
I 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.