Years ago when I was in the Washington State House of Representatives, I was among several cosponsors of a tax reform proposal. It would have eliminated the business killing Business and Occupation tax, lowered the state sales and property tax and, I confess, instituted an income tax. The so-called "three legged stool" of taxes would have spread the burden of state taxation across a broader base. The proposal was designed to be revenue neutral. To prevent legislatures from leap frogging tax increases, it included a constitutional provision prohibiting changing one of the taxes without a proportional change in the other two taxes. To no ones surprise, the proposal went into the dustbin with all the other past income tax tainted reforms.
Older but wiser, I'm sure even the constitutional mandate would not have been enough to prevent all three taxes from rising ever higher. We'd still find ourselves in a fiscal crisis at every economic downturn. Democrats would then want to add a forth or fifth leg to the stool. So "vital state functions" would not have to be cut. For supporting evidence, just look at the states with sales, property and income taxes. Virtually all of them are crying for even more money.
I don't like the "starve the beast" philosophy expressed by some because government does require taxes to pay for basic services and necessary social programs. But I understand their frustration. Legislative bodies are genetically prone to spending. They also tend to operate in the short term neglecting to address the long-term effects of their actions. Public employee benefits are one example.
Nevertheless, Washington State's constitutional balanced budget requirement combined with a serious recession has placed the State Legislature at a budget Rubicon. This time the usual inflated revenue forecasts, accounting gimmicks, fee increases and trimming around the edges fall far short of resolving the financial crisis much less systemic budget problems.
Democrats are already calling for increased or new taxes, even an income tax, and tying them to popular or "bleeding heart" items like education and children's health care. Much of today's money crunch is a result of relatively recent biennium spending and program increases. Better to eliminate these increases now before they become ingrained, court protected entitlements that threaten the solvency of the state.
Posted by warrenpeterson at April 07, 2009 06:17 PM | Email This
hmmmmm that's a tough one Warren. Let me get back to you.
Another appropo analogy might be a high-stakes poker game:
The (D)s in Oly will play ''it's for the children and the helpless'' to the max in pushing for tax increases everywhere they think they have a chance to sneak them in, while trying to continue to fund every big-government left-wing program and ever-bigger and more intrusive government.
There is a simple answer:
Call their bluff:
Not only no but HELL NO, on every version and variant of a tax increase they end up sending to the ballot this year. It' time for we the citizens to collectively assume the roll of Julius Ceasar, look the WA Leg right in the eye, call their bluff, and cross that river.
The REALLY insane thing about all this is that IIRC even with the recession, latest impartial budget estimate sez that WA State Government will STILL take in MORE money in tax receipts in the next biennium, compared to current. At the very least unless everything totally comes off the rails the State will take in no less than current biennium. The idea that the State just cannot function without spending billions more than current revenue in the next biennium is absurd, outrageous, and an insult to the voters.
SUMMARY: See again my above:
Not only no but hell no to all new tax measures.
The problem is that Government has greatly eclipsed that rate over the last few decades, and shows no indication of slowing down...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 7, 2009 07:32 PMStarting with the need of a so-called Municipality. The Con's, Hustler's Phony Sell that the Locals are given to form a municipality is that they will be better served than, left to auspices of the County. Your going to have better policing, less crime, better sidewalks, parks, better representation of local needs etc.. You buy into the Con. You get another expensive layer of Government thrown on top of you. Your property taxes go way up. Other taxes attached to various services goes up aka hidden taxes. You end up with very little in the way of improvements and a great deal in added cost to you as a Tax Payer. You have been Suckered! Now, your paying, out of your own pocket, for a Major, all his staffing, all of the many city employees, all of the city vehicles and various projects whether needed or not. Such a Deal...Such a Rip-Off. The point is, you don't need all this representation. You don't need all this extra expense. You don't need to support all these minions of Government employees and their toys.
In today's world of rapid transportation and the connectivity the electronic age provides, you don't need all this intermediate representation of Cities and Counties at the enormous cost to the Tax Payer. The State should handle it all with all input of need or complaint directed directly to the State. I'm sure a formula based on population density and location would be a foundation for providing basic services augmented by input at the local level. These considerations once worked out and fine tuned would provide what is necessary in the way of needed Government services. Your overall taxes would be reduced by over 60 percent. Since there would be far fewer people who are on the Tax Payer dole, there would be fewer people to keep track of and accountability of those who serve the people would be much more strongly enforced resulting, in far less waste and corruption. It can be done but, the Government Parasites will fight you tooth and nail to prevent it and not force a great many of them to become productive tax paying citizens.
Posted by: Daniel on April 7, 2009 10:02 PMTexas touts this as a positive attribute to both business, families, and tourists as a reason to come to the state.
Since there are few states left that don't have a state income tax, why aren't we trying to sell this as a good thing instead of getting rid of it?
Posted by: Smoley on April 7, 2009 11:34 PMWe simply cannot afford to be socialist anymore about anything. Education has to go to the free market to compete with everything else we need to survive.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 8, 2009 02:02 AMStarve the beast? Your damn right I will.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 8, 2009 04:58 AMThe state GOP in Washington is useless, but maybe a few of our guys can win by having the dems commit political suicide.
Posted by: johnny on April 8, 2009 08:07 AMOnly in Government is one person FORCED to pay way more than another based on income. When you have your carpet-cleaned...do they have a different price for cleaning based on income? How about when you get your car tuned up?
Of course not.
So why should it be any different for servicing and accessing out Public Parks, roads, schools etc??
These are "services".
Think about it from that perspective.
How is one person paying more for the same thing "fair"?
The LEFTISTS will fight this tax battle using class warfare...they did the same thing with the Presidential Election.
It may work at winning Elections...but the unintended consequences end up hurting POOR PEOPLE!.
We live in a "something for nothing society" of entitlements where folks receiving them should be grateful to rich people. Instead they demand MORE!
Using the State's own numbers, you show voters the TOTAL COMPENSATION of individual state employees. That $60,000 salary is really $94,000 of TOTAL COMPENSATION.
TOTAL COMPENSATION is something the Dems, Unions & MSM absolutely hate to talk about.
Jam it in their face and do not back down!
Because, that is where our tax dollars are going friends. The truth shall defeat this tax-mania.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 8, 2009 08:24 AMPaid leave (vacation, sick leave, etc.) is INCLUDED in the 30% that benefits add to base salary.
http://hr.dop.wa.gov/statejobs/benefits.htm
Posted by: cat on April 8, 2009 09:55 AMBesides getting to the heart of the issue your points transend the entrenched and myopic party position of either an income tax or not, either cut bleeding heart issues or institute a new tax, starve the beast or cave to pressures.
Good on you for highlighting that the issue is more recent spending that has gotten us largely where we are. Unwind the additions of the past biennium or two and we can resolve the issue much more readily without resorting to more taxes.
Posted by: Matty on April 8, 2009 10:08 AMBenefits at Microsoft and Boeing are far more generous than those of state workers.
If we do away with pensions, and other long term benefits, we can kill the unions, because a large part of the attraction to such jobs is the cushy pension, early retirement, etc.
I know a family friend who retired last year in her 50s from a union education position. She gets a cushy pension, and a much earlier retirement than most employees working in private industry. This created a real attraction for her to her long time administrative paper pusher roll within the school system. A roll that was largely useless, especially when you consider how much more she got paid than the teachers that are actually the important part of education. But her roll still cost us taxpayers a lot of money, and will continue to cost us for the rest of her life. I am not placing any burden on public employees for the rest of my life, so why should they have any claim on me?
And that's the whole problem. Change the government employee benefits to be no better than that of private industry, and force them to ride mass transit that is paid for with public money, and that would go a long way towards discouraging the growth of government.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2009 10:25 AMThe State Senate has proposed a 4.7% increase in education spending over last biennium, versus a 5.4% increase for the State House. Both are being called "cuts", though, since they are half the growth in spending that Education wanted for K-12.
In dollars, K-12 cuts in the House budget, or "reduction in growth", is $625 million, versus the Senate at $877 million.
House total for K-12 is $15.98 billion, an increase from $15.15 billion. 5.4% increase.
Senate total for K-12 is $15.86 billion, an increase from $15.15 billion. 4.7% increase.
Gregoire's budget actually cut more of the increase in funding, at $15.78 billion. So both the House and Senate have added $200 million down to $80 million above what Gregoire proposed. But again, you'll notice that the proposals increase Education Funding, not reduce it.
And what was the "requested" funding levels by the state Department of Education? They asked for $16.72 billion, or roughly a 10.4% increase over last biennium. The budget proposals now offer roughly half the increase they requested.
The Department of Education is blaming statutory spending requirements for why this still means teachers will have to be cut, but I'm beginning to wonder whether that is just a marketing campaign to coerce people into supporting more Education funding and taxes?
I don't know, but a 5% increase over the last biennium is a 2 1/2% increase per year. Maybe not inflation plus population, but should fund everything we have now, albeit perhaps a shortfall for where they "want" to keep current classroom sizes and force cuts in pay raises.
Factor in the added waste and fraud from the last 4 Gregoire "bloat" years, though, and 5% increases even seem high in this economy.
Posted by: Reality on April 8, 2009 10:26 AMTwo points, Warren:
1. Washington state does not have a constitutional balanced budget requirement. This is in the nature of an urban myth.
2. To say we had "the usual inflated revenue forecasts" is to be uninformed about the state's process for forecasting revenues, which is almost certainly one of the best among U.S. states. The revenue forecasts weren't inflated; they were wrong. But if you can show me somebody who got the U.S. economy right over the last eight months, I'll show you somebody who made a lot of money on Wall Street. And there aren't a lot of those.
As to the broader argument, it is very difficult to demonstrate that the state's present budget problem is attributable to its revenue structure. States with a variety of revenue structures, including those reliant for a major part of their revenues on an income tax, are in similar or worse trouble. Look no farther than California for evidence of that.
Posted by: stu on April 8, 2009 10:38 AMWithout this massive spending increase used as the basis for analysis, freezing spending at current levels would result in a $2.35 shortfall. Applying just the $3 billion in stimulus, without any other gimmicks or tapping reserves, would cover the size of this government during the last biennium and still allow for some small growth to satisfy the left's spending addiction.
Democrats claim to have cut $3.8 in some courageous effort to balance the budget. But that $3.8 billion is not a cut at all, but a reduction in that massive 22.5% growth that they started with. It is still only half the GROWTH the left has proposed for the 2009-11 budget.
How honest is it to claim a cut when the result is an increase in spending of 9.6% over the last biennium?
So ask yourself this question. If the state plans to spend nearly $3 billion MORE than the previous biennium, why in the hell are they proposing to cut their primary responsibility, education, by $1.3 billion, cut teachers, programs, raise college tuition, and worsen an already decaying public education system? Could it be that it's easier for the cowards to cut what no one will hold them individually responsible for, than the pork and special projects that buy them votes? Sheesh!
Posted by: Reality on April 8, 2009 12:22 PMGrow up and Wise up.
I suspect you are a Union Hack.
I give an exemption to police officers who walk the beat and firefighters.
Posted by: Crusader on April 8, 2009 02:46 PMExcept Microsoft employees will not get any pension.
Posted by: Crusader on April 8, 2009 02:50 PMI just wanted to make the point that state workers don't have the most generous benefits, as so many seem to think. Feel free to continue to believe that don't deserve any.
Posted by: cat on April 8, 2009 04:57 PMPublic pension costs increase from COL indexing. Gregoire wants to skip approximately $650 million in payments due in 2009, that is in effect a loan from the pension trust. Moreover, the huge public pension investment losses have to be made up.
Who will make up the shortfall? Yup, you and me.
Posted by: Paddy on April 8, 2009 06:19 PMTea Party time. Give our children Liberty, not Debt.
Posted by: starboardhelm on April 8, 2009 07:46 PMPosted by cat at April 8, 2009 09:55 AM""
I responded cat that there is no $$ amount assigned for the value of paid time-off and you responded NATTA!
What's the matter cat, cat got your tongue??
When you add up Employer FICA, Health & Dental Ins., Pension and other cash benefits...you get approx 30%.
If Paid time-off is worth ZERO then I suggest all State Workers forego it!!
Folks, you need to stay focused on this TOTAL COMPENSATION issue. It is the key to squashing any tax increase. Average working folks cannot relate to a 50% Benefit and Paid Time-off package.
When they see a $50,000 salary state worker actually makes TOTAL COMPENSATION of over $75,000...they will go crazy....and Vote NO! on any tax increase.
Stay focused. The Unions and Democrats go nuts when you talk about TOTAL COMPENSATION.
Next we will have a leson about OVERHEAD!!
Need to break this down so the average person can understand the true cost of a State Employee...TOTAL COMPENSATION + OVERHEAD.
Stay with me on this...please.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 9, 2009 07:18 AM