Another day, another plunge in state tax receipts.
The sheer magnitude of the budget shortfall guarantees painful cuts and the forgoing of promised programs. That in turn means a bloody mess in Olympia for Democrats controlling the Legislature and the Governor's office.
Most of all, the sum of those parts is sure to equal ample whining from left-of-center interest groups calling for a tax increase as the wish lists they were over-promised in years past are shredded.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 09, 2009 06:15 PM | Email ThisWhere did the $7.5 billion a year growth in the state budget under Gregoire go?
2003-2004 $53.5 Billion (Inherited by Gregoire)
2005-2006 $60.5 Billion (Gregoire and Democrats)
2007-2008 $69.2 Billion (Gregoire and Democrats)
2009-2010 $69.6 Billion (Gregoire's Proposal)
Maybe we should start by cutting it back to 2004 levels and then put what's left back into the state's most important responsibility, which is to educate our kids?
Go to http://fiscal.wa.gov/ and you can see it all for yourselves.
Posted by: Reality on January 9, 2009 06:11 PMIt would be nice if they could at least count and speak proper English.
Posted by: Chris on January 9, 2009 06:26 PMThe Republicans offered a full slate of reform candidates.
They honestly expressed the reality of budgets and what the people need.
Yet they were resoundingly defeated within King County, sans Dave Reichert.
What can one do?
Posted by: John Bailo on January 9, 2009 06:29 PMMike
Posted by: Mike on January 9, 2009 07:54 PMThey need to repair their image, generate a message that resonates and demonstrate that they will be fiscally responsible. The odds are that the Democrats will cause big fiscal problems in this one party state because they believe in big government. This fact may give the opposition some traction, if they adopt a sound campaign strategy - from what I've seen recently that's a big if.
Posted by: KS on January 9, 2009 08:46 PMI love right wing thinking though.
Doing all we can, using the power of government, to help the extremely wealthy compound their wealth, while the rest of us lose more ground every day!
Anything to attack the middle class. If they are too busy working, they won't have time to attempt to make government work better for average Americans at the expense of the billionaires. Simple strategy. Good thing is stopped working on Nov 2nd... Forever.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 9, 2009 09:28 PMNah, we can't do that - it's too obvious of a solution, and lessens the control of Government.
Factless,
A tax on assets is unconstitutional. That you propose it is telling!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 9, 2009 10:13 PMAverage Americans don't want to make government 'better"... especially your definition of better, i.e. MORE.
We want it out of the way.
Bambi wants more government workers, i.e. more barely intelligent lazy people sucking off the same taxpayer teet that Patty Murray does. Bambi is confused.
If putting people to work is the goal, we could get rid of all the heavy earth-moving equipment and go back to digging ditches with shovels.
Why stop there? If it takes one man two days to dig a trench three feet deep and 30 feet long with a shovel, how long would it take 100 men using spoons?
You get the point. We can always create jobs by replacing capital with labor, BY GOING BACKWARD. The entire history of civilization has been characterized by an effort to move in the opposite direction and become more productive, which is another way of saying produce more with less.
The government has no money with which to hire people, no ability to create jobs. Bambi's "job creation' is rearranging the Titanic deck chairs at best and another lie to the American people.
Bambi can get away with this because frightened little lefies can't/won't take care of themselves: "Oh whatever will we do without mommy government to protect us, Bambi?? Help! we've fallen and we can't (don't want to) get up!".
Based upon IRS reports regarding who picks up the national tab for everything in this country today, here's your "fair share" of the $3 trillion dollar Democrat debacle. Find your income level and see how much you owe to pay for this monstrosity we call a federal government "stimulus package."
Tax Bracket: Top 1%
Income & Up: $388,806
Due from each Working American: $772,064.52
% of Income: 198.6%
Tax Bracket: Next 4%
Income & Up: $153,542
Due from each Working American: $97,983.87
% of Income: 63.8%
Tax Bracket: Next 5%
Income & Up: $108,904
Due from each Working American: $41,225.81
% of Income: 37.9%
Tax Bracket: Next 15%
Income & Up: $64,702
Due from each Working American: $19,974.19
% of Income: 30.9%
Tax Bracket: Next 25%
Income & Up: $31,987
Due from each Working American: $8,314.84
% of Income: 26.0%
Tax Bracket: Bottom 50%
Income & Up: Below $31,987
Due from each Working American: $2,314.84
% of Income: 7.2%
If you happen to be one of the fortunate American success stories making at or above $388k a year, your "fair share" of the $3 trillion in new debt is a minimum of $772,064.52, not counting interest if you can't right a check for that amount today. That's two years of your income...
If you are one of the top 5% of income earners that Obama has promised to tax into the bottom 50%, making at or above $108k per year, your "fair share" of the bailouts proposed will be $41.225.81, or 37.9% of your annual income, in addition to the taxes you already pay.
It's coming: the "Bush" downturn will turn into a prolonged "Bambi Depression" a la FDR.
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 9, 2009 10:49 PMlook at states with income taxes AND a 10% sales tax to boot; same deal; too many well-meaning lib handouts; too many Americans with the "entitlement" philosophy; that's killing us; politicians only giving us what we want (with our money) and no one is refusng or complaining;
Dan knows at 14; anyone with any business savvy knows; low taxes actually stimulate business, jobs and fill tax coffers better and more sustained than any bling bling "stimulus" package--aka--more debt and welfare crack payments;
need proof? why do multinationals move to Singapore and Ireland & elsewhere for the 10% or so tax rates? ain't just labor costs and diversity, pal; crushing taxes and regulations are the death of a business; felt most keenly at the small business level;
sadly, most legislators never ran a lemonade stand; one thing's certain--politicians don't run their side insurance or consulting businesses the same way they handle OUR tax monies;
reform starts with attitude adjustment--independence, self-reliance and less government handouts; till then, nothing will improve;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2009 04:43 AMI take it you've never been the Calif?
Well they have it along with a thousand other taxes.
How's it working out for them.
Giving the state more cash well not fix the problem!
They just spend to damn much.
And for Gods-sake. Don't give me this line about the schools don't have enough.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 10, 2009 07:57 AMOregon has the second highest minimum wage. During the last downturn (following the tech bubble), Oregon had the highest unemployment rate in the land, and WA was second-highest.
2003 unemployment>
As with many other 'progressive' policies, such as high cigarette taxes and sales taxes, the working poor will be hit hardest.
Our state budgeting has been a roller coaster. We spend when we have a surplus and we struggle to make painful cuts when the economy slumps. It is time to even out the ride. While the roller coaster is fun at the amusement park, it is no model for state budgeting.By treating our budget like a Washington family budget -- we will ensure stability and avoid tax increases or Draconian cuts tomorrow.
Yes, that was before the huge move of California liberals to Washington. The same thing is starting to happen in North Carolina--liberals are moving in from New York and New Jersey, fleeing the high taxes in those states. The problem is that they haven't learned that the high taxes in those states was due to all of the liberal policies they voted in and they start screwing up the state they have just moved to!
When I moved to Washington in 1984, the state sales tax was, I believe, less than 7%--now it's what, 9-10%? That's about a 42% increase! WA also differs from some other states in they tax labor as well as goods. I remember that the first time I had my car serviced, I was outraged that they charged tax on the labor. However, not having a tax on food is good.
If the R's will ever be able to be competitive in WA again, they will need to convince a majority that the D's are taking the state on the Road to Perdition...
Posted by: Bill H on January 10, 2009 10:02 AM@14 I kinda like Shanghai Dan's ideas on promoting business in this state. Especially since I own 3....
I say tax the people it will hurt the least to close the gap. What is wrong with that?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on January 10, 2009 12:01 PMOf course you do, Mr Marx.
You just love that redistribution of wealth.
To paraphrase Jack Kemp, Mr Marx and "owner" of 3 businesses [/skepticism] do you know the difference between bread slicing and bread baking?
I doubt you even grasp the analogy.
How about simpler terms from Mr Kemp: "When you tax something you get less of it, and when you reward something you get more of it."
With what Washington would eventually realize was the typical Kemp passion, Kemp took an idea about tax cuts and made of it a gospel. In legislative form it became what was called Kemp-Roth, named respectively after Kemp the House sponsor and Delaware GOP Senator William Roth, its Senate champion. At its core, the idea proposed to slash personal income tax rates -- and cut them big time by 30 percent over three years. It was 1978, the middle of the Carter malaise years, and after what Bartley calls a "stormy debate" the bill failed in a conference committee. Kemp kept going. By 1980 he had convinced candidate Ronald Reagan, and the concept was written into the 1980 Republican platform. By August of 1981 President Ronald Reagan was signing Kemp's cause into law. By 1983, the American economy had begun to shake off recession and, in a startling reversal, roared to life. The results were so powerful that Reagan later said France's Socialist President François Mitterrand, Reagan's guest at the 1983 Williamsburg G-7 Summit, wanted to know just exactly what went into America's blossoming and quite vivid economic growth.
TAX productivity and people will STOP producing.
I'm beginning to think we need an entrance exam for politicians. I submit that each and every CURRENT elected official, from a sheriff in a town of 20 up to Bambi, should be required to take a basic economics exam. It can be offered like the Bar or MCATS. ALL results published nationwide. Any politician who refuses to take it is immediately released from office. Any politician who gets less than a B can not run for another term and any politician who gets a B or above and STILL acts contrary to economic FACTS gets branded as a power hungry liar interested more in ideology than the economic welfare of the country and the citizens he serves. Any person intending to run for office must pass the same test before their name gets on a ballot.
You liberals all want abortion "rare safe and legal": tax those suckers.
Put your money where your mouth is lefties.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 10, 2009 01:44 PMYah, I know she tried that same line four years ago, as well, but we can always remind her of her very own words!~
Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2009 02:16 PMHow about NOT taxing anyone more? How about encouraging economic growth? Lower the tax rates, and increase the size of the economic base. It's better to have 10% of a billion than 100% of a million.
But I'd never expect a Marxist like you to understand...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 10, 2009 04:05 PMIf they were only a little bit more restrained in their spend, things wouldn't be as dire as they are now.
Posted by: Thomas B. on January 10, 2009 05:11 PMLet them run the economy into the ground. When the dust clears, maybe voters will realize that Democrats or Neocon Repu bs who love bigger government are the problem.
Bailo wants to know how to solve the problem? Abandon Neocons and Religious Conservatives and get back to a Keep It Simple platform of Freedom, Lower Taxes and rollback of the collectivist, statist expansion. Focusing on Abortion or trying to outdo Democrats in buying voters obviously doesn't work.
Posted by: JeffB. on January 11, 2009 04:19 AMWhy do people believe that pulling money out of the private sector into the government sector and having government spend it will create jobs? The multipier on straight government spending is less than one; so, it reduces overall economic activity. If creating government workers produced wealth, communist countries would have been rich instead of populated by poverty-stricken paupers.
Government can and should encourage private sector investment in times of economic downturn by things such as accelerated deprepreciation of assets purchased and put into use over a short period of time (e.g. two years), lower capital gains tax rates than regular income tax rates in order to encourage venture capitalism and low corporate taxes in order to encourage business formation (You will get the money back from the taxes paid by the increase in people with jobs paying taxes.) These are the proven winners in fighting recessions as shown by John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Until these measures work, government must either borrow to cover needed infrastructure investments and/or cut spending on non-essential services. Ample empirical evidence supports this kind of approach. As Reagan was fond of quoting: "At the beginning of the empire, taxes were low and revenues were high. At the end of the empire, taxes were high and revenues were low."
Posted by: KW64 on January 11, 2009 08:49 AMWe need to remind people that we should never underestimate the power of the profit motive. It is the single greatest force for creativity and prosperity in all of human history. Whenever human societies/governments go on a crusade against private property and profit, the society/government descends into ugly abuses of humanity.
We all have lost the idea that we are able to change our lives and our surrounding communities on our own. Everybody thinks that the government is the best way to effect change. I guess I don't blame them. Our authoritarian federal government is so large and invasive that it really is the most effective and efficient (and most destructive) way to forcibly change our society. The "government fix-it" attitude is absolutely un-American, if there ever was such a thing.
Until we put on our big-boy pants and force the government back within its Constitutional boundaries, we will most certainly continue down the road to a totalitarian oligarchy/dictator ship. Human history proves that it is only a matter of when, not if.
At dinner parties lately I've been presenting this question to my political junkie friends: When will the "last" election occur in the United States? Has it already occurred?
When I say "last election", I mean, the very last election that can be considered a legitimate execution of the democratic process. Sure, I concede that we'll always have "elections" but after the "last" election occurs, they will be just like the "elections" held in North Korea and Cuba.
I personally believe that the amplitude of our political pendulum has increased along with the increases the federal government. There is so much power now in the hands of federal officials that it corrupts everybody involved. We get sch huge abuses of power at the federal level (e.g. irresponsible bailouts, irresponsible entitlements like medicare drug benefits and national health care, shirking of regulatory responsibility, irresponsible monetary policy, etc) that our elections are creating alternating periods of one party rule.
All of the excesses in government regulation and manipulation of markets that create the huge up and down swings in our economy only serve to add energy to the political pendulum, causing it to swing back and forth more violently. External pressures like international trade, terrorism, and the soon-to-come policy dictation from China will also contribute further to the how far the pendulum swings.
I theorize that if the political swings continue to increase, it will bring about the "last" election which will only have three possible outcomes:
So basically, either the G.O.P. wins or the Democrats win the last election and depending on whether the G.O.P. has gone back to its roots or not will determine if we continue to be a nation of "free" people. That means I give us a 1/3 chance that we'll continue down the path set before us in 1776.
To be honest, I personally believe that number 3 is far more likely because political singularities almost never happen. Plus the corrupting influences of the existing federal power will continue to push us towards totalitarianism, which is a self-correcting "stable" government structure. Once totalitarianism is achieved, it takes a political singularity to break it. Whereas with democracies--including federal republics like the United States--they are inherently unstable if the population lacks a nationalistic/patriotic streak. It is only national pride that keeps democracies stable. As soon as it becomes common belief that the ideals of democracy--individual liberty and private ownership--are bad, the system slides into totalitarianism of one form or another.
We used to have very strong nationalistic and patriotic feelings that were indoctrinated into us during our childhoods. Our elders at home, teachers at school, and the media all participated in that indoctrination. The idea was that individual liberty and freedom is the only condition under which any sense of decency and social moral fiber can be established and maintained. Immigrants were assimilated with vigor. If your old country and culture was so damn great, why did you or your ancestors leave to come to America?
This is not so anymore. Political correctness now forces our institutions to contort themselves to avoid "offending" people. It is widely considered bad and offensive to expect immigrants to assimilate. Hell, Sesame Street dedicates whole episodes to dieciséis de septiembre but pretends the 4th of July doesn't exist. It is sick and terribly self defeating.
As long as the federal government continues to grow, it is going to continue to make life harder for everybody. The simple (minded) majority will give up our freedoms because they feel no pride in our country and they were never given a good enough eduction to fend for themselves. At some point, I can guarantee that we'll either have a political singularity that kills the federal government or we slide into totalitarianism after the "last" election.
Posted by: blindman on January 11, 2009 01:34 PMAre you really as stupid as your posts make you seem?
"Average Americans don't want to make government 'better"... especially your definition of better, i.e. MORE."
Average americans just voted out the republican party in record numbers.
The Bush administration and the republicans:
Created the largest budget deficit in HISTORY
Wasted close to 1 trillion dollars on an unnecessary war in Iraq
Created a 750 billion dollar bankin relief fund with NO transparency or accountability.
Have created the highest unemployment rate in 30 years.
What don't you understand about how badly the republican trickle down policies have worked?
Why would we want to continue the worst economic policies sicne the great depression? Do you want to destroy this country? Are you so dense you can't understand what Bush has done to the economy?
The lack of reality by some of the posters onhere is truly astounding. Yes, Washington state has a deficit - the entire freeking US economy is in shambles thanks to the republicans (thanks to Phil Gramm for writing, sponsoring and inserting the banking bills into the law that led to this mess).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
Posted by: correctnotright on January 11, 2009 06:45 PMWhat really grinds at me is the fact that the state engages in several activities that could be better run for less money in the private sector. I would start with liquor sales, various and sundry registrations & licenses, services such as printing, janitorial, inspections, etc., park administration & maintenance, ferries, prisons, health, insurance & welfare administration, gaming & lottery,etc. The list is endless because the state or rather the Legislature and the Governor think that they should run things. All I want from state government is security, public health and decent highways. The rest should be handled by private enterprise.
It's time to rethink what state government should be and how instrusive it should be in the lives of its citizens. Just because its always been done that way isn't enough reason to tax the citizens into oblivion to support the activities.
I'm at the point where I'm ready to say, "I'm sick and tired of it and won't tolerate any more." The state government has grown bloated and out of control and it's time to put a stop to it. The current Governor is a tax and spend liberal who has never tried to balance the budget. There are several millions of unfunded liabilities that she has ignored, to our peril.
As long as the sheeple continue to elect Democrats who like to tax and spend, the problem will only get worse.
Posted by: Clean House on January 11, 2009 07:04 PM