Conflicting news stories today on the Gregoire Administration:
1) She wants to cut the obnoxious legion of state boards & commissions. Nice idea, particularly from an efficiency standpoint, though ultimate budget savings are more symbolic than truly meaningful given the scope of the state's fiscal woes.
2) State government owes the pension fund for state workers $5.9 billion.
Ooops. And it gets worse:
But the state hasn't kept up payments to the oldest retirement plans. And this year, state leaders, looking to escape a massive budget gap, are tossing around ideas to put off payments still a little further into the future.
[Eric begins looking for jobs in Boise]
Posted by Eric Earling at February 09, 2009 07:08 PM | Email ThisMore to come.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 9, 2009 09:32 PMIn reality, Gregoire has made things much worse with new hires and salary increases as they increase the underfunded liability.
Good for Gregoire. I realize these are smaller one that do not account for a huge chunk of the budget, but it is a step in the right direction. An ellimination of a function of government goes alot further than a similar reduction in one agencies budget because it is alot harder to bring the entire group back than it is to merely increase the budget again in good times.
I applaud Gregoire for her great small government endorsing actions! Too bad we could not have got this kind of leadership from Rossi and the republicans.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2009 04:48 AMKeep Boards, Commissions and State Agencies that Regulate or Govern:
104. Public Employee Benefits Board
So, "Clinton's budget" that "balanced" in your view using a "trick" was the responsibility of the governing party in Congress at the time that wrote and passed the budget.
Which was whom?
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2009 08:54 AMTell that to Obama, and his constant whining about how he "inherited" a trillion dollar deficit, which he is about to make worse with the spendulus.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 08:56 AMTo date, Gregoire has done nothing significant on this Budget.
A lot of smoke-and-mirrors.
The real question is why has she waited so long when the writing is on the wall re: impacts of the recession??
Answer: Gregoire is owned by the State Employees Union. She is doing this miniscule impact grandstanding to set the stage for a Public Vote on a massive tax increase.
Nice try KLOWN.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 10, 2009 09:02 AMI think even he knows it is window dressing, but he likes the start. He was just taking a shot.
Until Ds go after the sacred cows, it will remain a mess. Kahlifornia is not doing anything either. Everyone is waiting for the bailout of State government so they don't have to reduce the size of government.
Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2009 09:23 AMObama doesn't pass a budget - Congress does, so they're responsible. Now you can assign him responsibility since he's asking for the money - and I won't disagree with you there.
But then, of course you have to assign responsibility for the $700b Wall Street welfare plan that the previous President asked for as well, despite the fact that again, Congress passes the budgets.
So, which way to you want to have it? Bush is responsible for the last 8 years of amazing levels of deficit spending and now Obama will be - or, Congress is responsible, which means you can tag the Democrats for the last couple of years of deficit spending at least - and you could have given the Republicans credit for the nearly deficit free budgets during the later part of the Clinton presidency.
Or, continue to flip flop flip flop flip flop as it suits your opinion.
No reason to cloud your judgment with facts.
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2009 09:50 AMLOL, guess who help to push this thru. Ron Paul.
Posted by: Palouse on February 10, 2009 10:03 AM
Too bad, one used to be the party of balanced budgets until they lost their way...and then lost their power.
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2009 11:23 AMI understand it is window dressing, but it is window dressing that deserves praise even if small praise. It is a step in the right direction. the advantages while small are one of the first she or the republicans have made in many years.
1. it is a permenent cut in the power of government rather than a temp cut to a budget that we all know will just increase again at twice the rate once times get better.
2. It can be used to show the world does not end when the government cuts services. When the state continues to sell apples with out the State apple commision, we might be able to convince some that we can still care for the poor with out the state welfare department.
So again, yes it is a minor minor effect on the overall budget, I fully realize this, but politicians deserve praise for doing the right thing, big or small, because they do it so rarely.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2009 12:10 PMI understand it is window dressing, but it is window dressing that deserves praise even if small praise. It is a step in the right direction. the advantages while small are one of the first she or the republicans have made in many years.
1. it is a permenent cut in the power of government rather than a temp cut to a budget that we all know will just increase again at twice the rate once times get better.
2. It can be used to show the world does not end when the government cuts services. When the state continues to sell apples with out the State apple commision, we might be able to convince some that we can still care for the poor with out the state welfare department.
So again, yes it is a minor minor effect on the overall budget, I fully realize this, but politicians deserve praise for doing the right thing, big or small, because they do it so rarely.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2009 12:11 PMI understand it is window dressing, but it is window dressing that deserves praise even if small praise. It is a step in the right direction. the advantages while small are one of the first she or the republicans have made in many years.
1. it is a permenent cut in the power of government rather than a temp cut to a budget that we all know will just increase again at twice the rate once times get better.
2. It can be used to show the world does not end when the government cuts services. When the state continues to sell apples with out the State apple commision, we might be able to convince some that we can still care for the poor with out the state welfare department.
So again, yes it is a minor minor effect on the overall budget, I fully realize this, but politicians deserve praise for doing the right thing, big or small, because they do it so rarely.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2009 12:12 PMI am curious what it has to do with this thread though. Is it an attempt to slander him and me for supporting him? If so I would be surprised if anyone here disagrees with Dr Paul and if they do even more surprised if they can come up with a principled arguement against him.
But if they do... lets move it to a new thread. I'll try to make one tonight if I have time before class.
Posted by: Lsyander on February 10, 2009 12:16 PMI am curious what it has to do with this thread though. Is it an attempt to slander him and me for supporting him? If so I would be surprised if anyone here disagrees with Dr Paul and if they do even more surprised if they can come up with a principled arguement against him.
But if they do... lets move it to a new thread. I'll try to make one tonight if I have time before class.
Posted by: Lsyander on February 10, 2009 12:17 PMI am curious what it has to do with this thread though. Is it an attempt to slander him and me for supporting him? If so I would be surprised if anyone here disagrees with Dr Paul and if they do even more surprised if they can come up with a principled arguement against him.
But if they do... lets move it to a new thread. I'll try to make one tonight if I have time before class.
Posted by: Lsyander on February 10, 2009 12:18 PMHaving trouble posting?
Yes I had to laught at RP. I guess he loves supporting dictators who don't mind killing people who disagree with his ideas, or putting them in prison.
Going to Cuba to spend money and see the sights well do nothing for Cuban people. I would even think you would know better than that?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 10, 2009 12:24 PMIs there anything these people don't want to control? Apparently not.
Would there have to be an office of "interior design regulation"? Well yeah of course, at taxpayer expense. They dont really want to eliminate unnecessary departments. They want to create more of them.
Quit voting for these kooks. They're nuts.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2009 12:29 PMSelf disclosure - I'm hold a State License for my profession, having passed the tests, interviews and internship and if you practice what I do without a license you're subject to fines and perhaps jail.
So - who do you stop voting for? The Democrats who take up the cause promoted by the Interior Designers - or the Interior Designers themselves?
How about instead dropping State licensing of professions all together? All this does is restrict access as a means to drive up fees.
I'd start with Doctors. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: BA on February 10, 2009 07:52 PMAs for the Cuba thing, his argument is not based on helping the Cuban people. Ron Paul is a US representative who's only concern is representing Americans. Preventing Americans from freely traveling to and around Cuba harms Americans. Reversing that policy increases Americans freedoms.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2009 09:24 PMMy comment was directed at the topic here. The Dems don't actually want to eliminate bureaucracy, they want to create more of it.
I would not argue against certain professions being regulated. Yes there probably is a union behind the proposed regulation of interior designers. I would not be surprised in the least.
If that is the case Democrats are proposing to back a monopoly with the force of government.
As with nearly everything Democrats meddle with the end result will be higher costs for the "middle class" they pretend to champion.
What it is supposed to mean, I think at least in medicine and perhaps other professions (including mine) is a minimum level of proficiency.
It also means that there is a "standard of care" so that when I screw up there is a legal test to measure that screw up against.
Otherwise I suppose we can rely on the courts and let folks keep screwing up and without a license to yank there isn't an obvious bit of information out there.
That said, if we don't license professionals, why license drivers?
Same issue isn't it?
I think your "concept" is fine if we had unlimited access to information - we don't. You wouldn't even find out about peanut contamination unless someone was charged with figuring out what was happening - you'd just get sick.
Bill, I don't think it's a union issue driving a desire to license interior designers - I think it's just interior designers wanting status and reduced competition.
Any Republican ever introduce a bill to eliminate licenses for a profession that's now licensed as a cost savings? I'll bet not.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2009 03:14 PMAnd whatever the case might be, Democrats are always more than willing to propose legislation to further restrict free market competition, and as I noted, increase the cost for everyone.
Why is it so difficult for you people to get it?
And yes, BA, if Republicans ever enjoy a majority in this state you bet they'd start eliminating silly licensing and regulations.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2009 05:49 PMregarding your comment that it is similar to drivers licenses. I am opposed to them as well. We got by for many years without them and could do so again. Getting the liscense does not make the drive better or worse qualified and taking a liscense away does not prevent people from driving.
Regarding your point that mmy 'system' (also refered to as the free market) only works with an unlimited access to information. This is not true. It is true that information is required to make it work well, but it is not an unlimited amount of information that is necessary. In addition I think you might be comparing the state licensing to a world identical today but with out the licensing. This is an unfair assesment. With the government exiting from the scene where it often prevents competition either explicitly or through market (not free market) forces, their would be a demand for information as you alluded to. This demand would be met at a price. An example of this is electronic devices. They are not regulated by the government. Instead Underwriters laboratories set standards that are voluntarily met by the industry resulting in far better record than the equivalent food safety we find run by the government.
Similar insurance based schemes would bound to pop up if the market were freed from government liccesning and regulation.
Posted by: Lysander on February 11, 2009 06:10 PMLicenses are a short hand way of knowing some information. Regulations and inspections of food producers is a short hand way of knowing some information.
Neither are perfect, frankly (if you knew what UL certification means it is NO different than government regulation or inspection as to quality control).
That said - information is better than licensing and regulation. I'd much rather know my doctor's success rate, malpractice record, etc. etc. than just if they're licensed. Frankly I did learn that in selecting them. But, not everyone has the time, nor do I have the time, to know this for every decision I make.
I do not have the time to research the peanut content of every food I ingest - I'm trusting that the government inspections are holding folks feet to the fire as to cleanliness - and I know they're not perfect either.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2009 06:49 PMAnd again.. even with all the money we through at government agencies they utterly fail. The peanut example is a prime one. They found problems 8 years ago, said they were a problem and followed up 8 years later finding the same violations that led to the poisoining.
Then there is examples like the USDA that i pointed out earlier. They actively try to stop private companies from testing 100% of their product. The UL would never do that, and if they did the would go out of business in no time being replaced by a provider that serves the insurance companies better.
Posted by: Lysander on February 11, 2009 08:00 PM