Good coverage of the set of tricks our legislature and governor used this year to "find money." They avoided tax increases by hiding the tax increases they passed.
Transferring fee money to the general fund to turn it into tax money must be illegal. Transferring funds between accounts might be their using their own tool, but misusing it. They will be shocked! shocked! when state pensions are short on funding.
And the lowest trick yet: they placed controversial actions into the budget so they would not be debate; that cannot be defended with a straight face. It's a bald-faced violation of the legislative process of holding hearings before making changes.
I put this on my own blog five days ago, but it belongs here also.
Brett Davis and Amber Gunn in the Bellingham Herald:
The sputtering economy spawned a 2009 legislative session accompanied by more legislative wailing and gnashing of teeth than a cave full of rabid hyenas fighting over a last meal. Some legislators actually pulled the "people will die" card when it became clear that a general tax increase would not pass.
While certain political realities may have prevented a general tax hike, that did not stop legislators from enacting or raising targeted fees and backdoor taxes. These forms of revenue boosting are covert and less likely to be noticed or to incite voter outrage. Over the next two years, taxes and fees-on everything from horse racing licenses to plumbers to hard liquor - will increase by more than $500 million.
Politicians regard fees as more palatable than taxes. However, the line between a fee and a tax is razor thin, with fees lending themselves to all sorts of budget chicanery - perfectly legal, of course. For example, this year the Legislature voted to double the tax on boxing, wrestling and martial arts events, depositing the money into a dedicated account instead of the general fund. That act converted the "tax" into a "fee." This enabled the budget writers to avoid the two-thirds vote threshold required by Initiative 960 for tax increases. Fee increases only require a simple majority.
But wait, there's more! The Legislature can take the proceeds from the newly enacted "fee" out of the dedicated account and put it back into the general fund by authorizing a fund transfer in the budget. Presto! A de facto tax increase is born, sans pesky super majority vote. Legislators raided $252 million from such dedicated accounts this year to cover their proposed general fund spending.
More notable 2009 budget stunt work included a prominent role for the federal government in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the so-called "stimulus" bill passed by Congress in February. Washington state's newly minted budget is thatched together with more than $3 billion in one-time income from Uncle Sam. In addition, legislators swiped nearly $800 million from the capital budget, $450 million from the state's rainy day account, and half a billion from pensions - sure to yield compound pain for future taxpayers. Altogether, the Legislature relied on nearly $5 billion in one-time funds and transfers to balance the 2007-09 and 2009-11 budgets.
Another dysfunctional budgeting technique employed this year - and most years - takes the form of a shell game of sorts, where legislation that might not have a chance of passing on its own is inserted into the budget and advanced quietly among hundreds of other provisos and appropriations. Perhaps the most obvious example is the raiding of $29 million from the dedicated performance audit account, a 74 percent reduction in available funds.
Last year, the Legislature tried to amend the performance audit law by taking money from the dedicated performance audit account to reimburse audited school districts. The effort failed. This year, rather than give performance audit supporters another chance to stop their raid on the account, budget writers simply amended the voter-approved performance audit law within the budget itself, effectively sheltering their decision from opposition efforts. Such a shell game can only be stopped by a governor's veto pen-a risk budget writers were clearly willing to take. [More...]
Via Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Why wouldn't someone (you) point it out, rather than focusing on fund transfers and fee increases?!
Name one example of a fee passed this year that had its dedicated fund raided. I believe you'll find none, and you have not presented any. Perhaps in the future they'll be de facto general fund taxes, but not now they ain't.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 7, 2009 02:09 PMThe truth is liberal Democrats can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. They do know how to inflate the bureaucracy though. I'd love to know how much Olympia pays consultants every year to tell them what they ought to already know. These same incompetents have yet to produce one new ferryboat and they've had the funding for years. They don't have a clue.
Liberals only know one way to "manage" anything and that is to take more money from the public. Trouble with most liberals is they've never managed a business, met a payroll, or dealt with the real world. Will they ever say they have enough money for education? No matter how much money we give them it is never enough.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 7, 2009 05:42 PMHow about defunding the Noxious Weed Patrol? That way we won't have more innocent property owners killed over plants, and we can save some money without taking "from the children"...
Craigslist is King!
They raised my property taxes on a tiny beach home over $1100 this year, and as a result it cost them nearly $10,000 in lost revenue.
Keep it up Gregoire, when she jacks crap up, I and many others have to jack crap down.
Posted by: GS on June 7, 2009 08:19 PMThere are a number of solutions--the GOP has suggested them. But the Dem's would rather threaten the voters in order to feed their base.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 7, 2009 08:31 PMObama's Healthcare plan will be met with the same fury that Hillary care was. Hurting his approval ratings even more
and
Because of this 2010 will not be favorable to democrats. People will reign in Obama.
Posted by: GS on June 7, 2009 10:27 PM"Conservatives scored victories in some of Europe's largest economies Sunday as voters punished left-leaning parties in European parliament elections in France, Germany and other nations.
Some right-leaning parties said the results vindicated their reluctance to spend more on company bailouts and fiscal stimulus to combat the global economic crisis."
By CONSTANT BRAND and ROBERT WIELAARD, Associated Press Writers Constant Brand And Robert Wielaard, Associated Press Writers - Sun Jun 7, 8:29 pm ET
These people mis-manage everything they get their hands on, and yet there are still those who want to give them power over everything else, from managing your personal healthcare, to controlling the Earth's climate, to telling you what kind of light bulb you're allowed to own. (oh, they did that already, didn't they?)
Posted by: Gary on June 8, 2009 07:42 AMUntil we have a complete & honest disclosure of TOTAL COMPENSATION PAID to each individual State Worker by name...we won't have a movement to stop tax increases.
GET THE INFO OUT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 8, 2009 09:01 AMEliminating FTE's is best for taxpayers.
WHY? Because you eliminate the Diamond Benefit Package of that employee and all the Paid Time-off!! The Unions continue to frame the argument. They don't want Layoffs. WHY??
LESS UNION DUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Conservative thinkers are reaaaaaaaaaally missing the boat by not disclosing TOTAL COMPENSATION PAID to State Employees by name and position. It's all PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Get the info out there so taxpayers can access it easily. And remember, not just salaries...but TOTAL COMPENSATION.
Frustrating to watch this obvious information not be disseminated.
Posted by: Mr. Cyncial on June 8, 2009 09:06 AMThe only argument left if whether we want to live as subjects under a tyranny, or we want to live free.
Why isn't the state GOP all over this? (I know, I know. Incompetence.)
Posted by: Johnny on June 8, 2009 11:31 AMIf your idea to make education more efficient is to lay off teachers, cut grants to UW, and raise tuition at colleges across the state then I'm not very impressed. If you or your party have solutions to make education cheaper, then I happy to listen, but "cut taxes!" and "cut funding!" are old refrains of the GOP and they're not the answer to every problem.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 8, 2009 12:29 PMIt's a game. Anytime there is a budget shortfall Democrats immediately threaten to cut education and public safety.
What Democrats never do is trim bureaucratic fat. Do we really need public school psychologists at $100,000 a year? Never heard of such a thing when I went to school.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 8, 2009 12:47 PMAnd yet people want to give the state even more power.
Democrats fight conservatives any time we propose anything that doesn't fit the liberal template. We propose changes to Social Security, propose to drill for our own oil, or the building of nuclear plants and Democrats block it.
Nothing stops Democrats from proposing more spending. Not even reality. Medicare and Social Security are going broke and the Democrats are now pushing national health care.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 8, 2009 01:30 PMWant to make it more efficient? How about cancelling extensive English as Second Language courses?
Sound cruel? Look at Mexico. In that country every student has to be taught in Spanish ONLY a large % of every day from day 1 the child enters schools - even in privately run "gringo" schools.
Guess what? It works and American kids that transfer down there pick up the language remarkably quickly. Many other countries have similar policies enacted so they don't wind up with pockets of unintegrated people a generation later.
How many "spokespeople" for the state schools were laid off? (Most of them are actually just lobbyists paid by the state to tell us why they need more tax money anyway?)
How many middle management layers of administrators and counselors have been laid off?
Outside of the school system, how about cancelling the extensive programs to put ballots in what is it, 43 languages now? Shouldn't naturalized citizens speak english or at least not get catered to with my money when they don't?
The ideas above would likely yield enough dollars to put a fair number of teachers and cops back into the budget. I'm sure anyone that looks around could find others.
Instead, the dems in Olympia would rather cut essential services, to punish taxpayers for daring to keep their own money.
I think educators and experts should make decisions about effective education, not politicians or the political class like us. If ESL helps gets learn English and participate effectively in our society then it's worth it.
How many "spokespeople" for the state schools were laid off? How many middle management layers of administrators and counselors have been laid off?
The number could be anywhere from zero to a billion. If you have some numbers to prove that wasteful positions were eliminated, I'd love to see them.
What I do know is that nearly 3,000 teachers are losing their jobs.
It's incredibly easy to ask questions without answers or facts to back them up. It's actually difficult to suggest real reform.
Outside of the school system, how about cancelling the extensive programs to put ballots in what is it, 43 languages now? Shouldn't naturalized citizens speak english or at least not get catered to with my money when they don't?
Right, and how much does this cost?
And no, democracy isn't just for Americans who speak English.
Gary: One of their main jobs is to keep violent criminals off the street. A few years ago they decided to allocate some billions for stem cell research.
Source? That sounds like BS.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 8, 2009 02:26 PMhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6384390/
Again, why do we need a $100,000 a year school psychologist in nearly every public school?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 8, 2009 02:46 PMLBJ's "war on poverty" and the left's ceaseless efforts to marginalize traditional families haven't exactly worked out so well. As with all failed leftist ideas we will never get an admission of failure. It is not in the DNA of leftists to ever say they have been wrong.
So yes Gary, they will resort to "if you don't think we need school psychologists you are against children". Imagine if a conservative said, "if you promote single parenthood you are against children".
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which side really has childrens' best interest at heart. And which side exploits children to further their political agenda in the same way they exploit race and gender.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 8, 2009 03:09 PMBTW, you'll note that this proposition was a bond measure which had no revenue increase associated with it. This is my problem with proposition measures.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 8, 2009 03:45 PMAt #27 you wrote, "I think educators and experts should make decisions about effective education, not politicians or the political class like us. If ESL helps gets learn English and participate effectively in our society then it's worth it."
What makes you conclude that so-called "educators and experts" have any idea what "effective education" might be? Furthermore, what do you mean the political class like us? Quite apparently from your contributions, the American education system didn't (help get) you to learn English and participate in our society all that well. If you wish to be taken seriously when stating an opinion, it is customary to provide a warrant or line of reasoning.
This is your idea of cause to conclude that endlessly escalating funding for education is justified?
So far you have provided me reason to conclude that you are full of empty opinions you learned from talking to other liberals like yourself, but little thoughtful substance.
"Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world's largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama's plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies' foreign profits.
Can't blame me I didn't vote for Marxism!
Posted by: GS on June 8, 2009 07:27 PM#33 Yes, "educators and experts" are first and foremost concerned with growing their industry, which means the state hiring more "educators and experts".
People... so easily lead by "experts". I call them con men.
Posted by: Gary on June 8, 2009 07:45 PMAmused, you don't have to be an asshole to people to make your point. I am not in the business of degrading people so I would hope you can make your point with the same consideration.
I am not going to lay out the entirety of my philosophy on a right wing blog that is uninterested in them. In terms of education, yes I do believe in general it is bad to have large classes and lay off teachers. When have I advocated for more funding in this thread? I have not. We aren't adding funding to the UW and schools, we are cutting it when adjusting for inflation.
The fact we are talking about education is a victory. I was able to set the obvious agenda. The budget is mostly health care and education, and when the GOP ignores that they lose votes and appear to be callous to families across the state. We shouldn't applaud the UW freezing admissions as a sign of responsible small government at work; we should fear for the future of this state's economic vitality.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 8, 2009 09:05 PMFor what its worth, I am sure that you are a nice guy who means well. Feel better now? O.K. so, what is your point - if in fact you do have one? Or are you another liberal who comes here and merely repeats what they learned from talking to other liberals, but has little or no thoughtful substance to offer?
John, you say you won't lay out your philosophy but you do so every time you post. Then you repeat the same conclusory nonsense as though making a statement is the same as making an argument. John, arguments are different from statements.
My point at #33 was (and is) that endlessly escalating funding for education is not justified; especially when all of the available empirical data proves that increased funding doesn't improve education.
Care to take a try at reasoning me out of my reasoned position?
I promise to carefully consider any thoughtful comments you might wish to make. Fair enough?
Please provide persuasive warrant to convince me why anyone in their right mind would trust anyone to ENDLESSLY increase funding (well beyond the point of inflation) for programs that are failing?
I am arguing against deep cuts in education.
You are arguing against significant new education spending.
My deep cuts are reality.
Your new spending is non-existent.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 09:27 AMYou buy into the feather-bedding equivocation of terms used by your own parties' budgetary "sleight of hand," and call it a premise?
Did you read the article this thread is based on or just decide to make things up as you go along?
John, I repeat, arguments are different from statements.
There are deep cuts in education: reality.
We shouldn't give more money to schools: principle.
I argued about the merits of the original article earlier. I shifted the topic to education because people blame democrats for bringing up education and social service cuts when the budget is in trouble. I presented the fact that there is reason to be concerned when nearly 75% of the budget goes toward those two categories. I presented that education comprises half of our state spending.
You are on the unfortunate side of arguing for education spending cuts. This is a party platform that doesn't serve our children.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 9, 2009 10:45 AMAnd as I also asked before, why do we need school psychologists in nearly every public school?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 9, 2009 11:28 AMAre you denying that every single year Democrats tell us we need more money for education? You cannot be intellectually honest and say that.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 9, 2009 12:12 PMYou still haven't addressed why we need school psychologists, or why vouchers aren't a good idea. You haven't explained why Democrats claim schools need more and more funding no matter what the state of the economy happens to be. You haven't explained why if education is fully 50% of the state budget it might be reasonable to believe there would be areas that could be cut without jeapordizing anyone's education.
You entirely avoid a direct discussion here and instead resort to silly statements such as "republicans think tax cuts fix everything in the world, right?".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 9, 2009 02:51 PMAt once your arguments regarding education and demonstration of the consequences are enlightening.
Did you know that some animal species eat their young?
Little wonder why I am so amused by liberals.
Thanks very much for your comments.
http://boelrpt6.nov.ru/map.html - бесплатный прно видео сайт
Posted by: Frensisu on June 14, 2009 04:28 AMhttp://boelrpt5.nov.ru/map.html - порно в школе учительниц
Posted by: Frensisi on June 14, 2009 06:02 AMhttp://boelrpt5.nov.ru/map.html - порно бесплатно высокая скорость
Posted by: Frensisc on June 14, 2009 06:49 AMhttp://utenti.lycos.it/doqemevumape/map.html - europe tamiflu
Posted by: Moerplon on June 14, 2009 09:10 AMбесплатное порно видео больших сисек
Posted by: Frensisk on June 14, 2009 11:55 PM