Senate Democrats delivered on a promise to slash state spending, unveiling a proposed budget this morning that includes more than $1.3 billion in cuts to public schools and higher education.Something tells me that these well-publicized cuts to education are designed to build political support for the Senate Democrats' wet-dream of a staggering tax hike.
A challenge to the readership: Try to identify $1.3 billion in patronage spending that isn't being cut because it can't as easily be sold to voters as "for the children".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 30, 2009 07:27 PM | Email ThisDo imagine if I got an $1100 increase in one year, the by far most massive hike I have ever recieved, if this was a 1% hike, I will soon be a billionaire. That isn't happening, I will soon be losing my job, but
What Liars these Democrats can be.
They are touting 7000 layoffs but their listserver is publishing $50k to $100k jobs every day. No hiring freeze in this state. They say they are laying off, while they are hiring like crazy.
Posted by: GS on March 30, 2009 09:47 PM
note that state spending is always called "investment" and "budget cuts" are usually slowing planned increases in spending;
like an Amazing Randy, one always has to watch the magician's OTHER hand...
Posted by: jimmie howya doin on March 30, 2009 10:51 PMThe opposition ran ads that said only, "if you vote for this initiative, it will take money away from schools."
People actually BELIEVE this stuff.
Posted by: pudge on March 30, 2009 11:38 PMAre we REALLY paying $50,000 for EACH college student?
Seriously?
Posted by: hinton on March 30, 2009 11:44 PMHmmm... That's $6 billion LESS than the projected $34 billion budget they're trying to pass! Now, I don't remember the State being an inhospitable hell hole at the end of Gary Locke's reign in 2004, so perhaps we should just expect the same level of "service", but adjusted for inflation and population growth? After all, our deficit is $6 billion. Well, guess what - cut back to 2004, add the inflation and population growth, and YOU HAVE NO DEFICIT.
It really seems simple to me... Government growth should be limited to inflation plus population growth. No more than that. And if we held to that, we'd be in great shape, both at a State and Federal level. But apparently that's not good enough for our "masters", so they will take more.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 31, 2009 02:38 AMIt's not revenue (even in a recession):
It's the totally, insanely out-of-control spending by State government; which went up by ONE-THIRD during Gregoire's 1st term.
Any and all tax increase proposals that get anywhere NEAR a ballot this year (or next):
Just say NO.....
Why Dino's plan? He's not in Government, and when he was running, Gregoire said there was no problem coming at all.
Gregoire made this mess, and Gregoire denied this mess existed. She should be the one to fix it, or come clean publicly about where and when this deficit came from.
Then do the right thing, appoint Dino Rossi to be her budget director, take control of the issue, then resign once the new Dino budget is passed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 31, 2009 08:19 AMI know of two people who were out of work during the 2001 internet bubble burst who put there kids on the meals program then, got good jobs and STILL their kids are getting the meals. I'm sure there have to be more people like this out there.
It might only add up to a few million dollars in savings, but you know the old government mantra. "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about some REAL money."
Posted by: johnny on March 31, 2009 09:17 AMHe already did it once. With Gary Locke and Frank Chopp. But apparently, that wasn't good enough for people like you. So now? We're stuck with this crap.
You made it. You own it. Now fix it.
Posted by: jimg on March 31, 2009 09:37 AMSo is it your position that the republicans should them dems a hand because the dems have been giving them a single finger (the middle one) for 5 years now?
Posted by: johnny on March 31, 2009 10:30 AMYour original call-out for Dino's solutions was a thinly veiled attempt to distract from Gregoire's and the Legislature's failures.
And regarding teamwork? Don't make me laugh.
For one, I run my own business. By myself. I contract out work and the results are strictly performance based. If those contractors fail, I find another. No mushy-mouthed 'we're all in this together' pap.
Two, only a fool would continue to play on a team that deliberately tries to lose.
You had your opportunities for alternative solutions. You turned them down, and you ignored the predictions of what was going to happen.
Again, you made it. You own it. Now, fix it.
Posted by: jimg on March 31, 2009 11:38 AMWow, I'm sure though that this is limited to just one side of the aisle.
Wow, I'm sure though that this is limited to just one side of the aisle.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep, and on YOUR side it's spend to the max. Then like PIfan. HELP us, be a team player.
I'll Christy has to do is pick up the phone and call Dino. Right now all we have is dead air!
They think they are doing important work when they are merely banning plastic bags. Such meddling will do very little, and only serves to increase the bureaucracy. The bag ban program must have some new government worker, paid some wage to administer and go around to all of the stores and check them, fine them, etc. It's ridiculous, and that's why we have billions of dollars in new deficits.
At this point, there's really not a whole lot to do other than watch Democrats run it all in to the ground. They don't seem to be willing to propose real budget cuts, only threatening cuts, designed to play political games and scare the electorate in to an income tax. We will watch as Boeing leaves the state, as so do many others in search of more business friendly places.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 31, 2009 04:25 PMSeems to me that the political process in our country is one where folks support those politicians that they feel best represent them - and then, expect that they do just that if they're elected.
Nothing wrong with that - the alternative is nonsensical.
I don't think either political party in this country has a lock on expansive government spending - they're both guilty.
Posted by: BA on March 31, 2009 04:27 PMBA, your boys will destroy America if they haven't already done so.
Posted by: swatter on March 31, 2009 04:49 PMLimiting it to inflation is OK, presuming functions are otherwise static.
But, population growth doesn't really have to drive more government in all circumstances. Last time I looked we have the same number of governors for our current population as we did for one half the size - so population doesn't drive more government in that simple case.
Take the Department of Resources, if the quantity of acreage under management is the same from one year to the next, the number of managers shouldn't grow because the population grows.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples like this where the cost of government isn't tied directly to population.
It's these simple measurements, expressed at Horse's Ass or by Shanghai Dan, that lull us into accepting a higher rate of growth of government automatically.
Starting from scratch for each budget - asking what we're trying to accomplish - is way better than just tacking on an increase from last year's spending.
Posted by: BA on March 31, 2009 04:56 PMYour number isn't even half of the annual borrowing that occurred during that time.
I'll stick with my view that out of control spending is a shared characteristic of both parties.
Last I heard, Dino Rossi is a PRIVATE CITIZEN. The GOP in the State Legislature suggested budget solutions, and those were declared DOA by the Slavery Party majority. So if you want to play together, get the Slavers agreeing.
BA,
If you serve hamburgers at McDonald's, you have a fixed cost per customer. If you double the number of customers, you nearly double the cost per customer (rent of course if a fixed flat rate whether you have no one or full capacity).
Letting Government grow even at the higher rate of inflation plus population growth STILL results in a lower total spending growth than the Slavery Party has taken the State to.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 31, 2009 07:47 PMAt some point it's mostly just the cost of the food itself. Of course higher volume isn't necessarily the point of maximum profit.
I'm thinking you know this.
My point is any "rules of thumb" leads to excuses to allow for growth faster than scrutiny might otherwise suggest.
Posted by: BA on March 31, 2009 09:18 PMi once asked (to crickets responding) why my local school freebie lunch program participation rate was 2 TIMES the poverty rate in my city; to me, a tax-paying bumpkin, it didn't add up nor match our demographics; so--multiply this across the nation, and we're talking some serious dollars...and places to cut the free well of lazy charity;
Posted by: jimmie howya doin on March 31, 2009 10:01 PMYou're thinking about the union... At the State level, you can bet that you'd have to double staff to double number of users. No way would State or Federal union workers allow themselves to double their own workloads!
But the point is, even if you are VERY conservative in your budgeting and allow full inflation plus population growth, you're STILL well below what this State and Nation are doing. We're greatly exceeding what should be even full funding increases.
If you look at historical trends (over the last 100 years or so), the GDP grows faster than inflation plus population growth. It's why our standard of living has been increasing. If Government could be held to just inflation plus population growth, the State and the Nation would be out of a deficit in less than 6 years, and the Nation would be debt free in about 35 years.
Yes, the GDP does grow that much faster. Unfortunately the ruling elite have decreed that spending should increase faster than the GDP, and we end up with the situation we have today. And somehow, the idiots in charge now think even MORE spending will solve the problem!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 1, 2009 09:51 AM