What the Numbers Mean

Don’t recall seeing this Thursday or Friday if you guys did post it (apologies if it was covered), but it appears Metro is not going to make suspected cuts to service after all. They will raise fares a 2nd time in 2011 (as you know they’re raising fares to $2.00/$2.25/$2.75 on 1-1-2010)… likely to $2.25/$2.50/$3.00.

I can support an income tax if it will do something to lower the fare burden on working class Seattlites, because the list of cities whose citizens pay more to ride the bus has to be very short, if such a list exists at all.

Don’t recall seeing this Thursday or Friday if you guys did post it (apologies if it was covered), but it appears Metro is not going to make suspected cuts to service after all. They will raise fares a 2nd time in 2011 (as you know they’re raising fares to $2.00/$2.25/$2.75 on 1-1-2010)… likely to $2.25/$2.50/$3.00.

I can support an income tax if it will do something to lower the fare burden on working class Seattlites, because the list of cities whose citizens pay more to ride the bus has to be very short, if such a list exists at all.

Don’t recall seeing this Thursday or Friday if you guys did post it (apologies if it was covered), but it appears Metro is not going to make suspected cuts to service after all. They will raise fares a 2nd time in 2011 (as you know they’re raising fares to $2.00/$2.25/$2.75 on 1-1-2010)… likely to $2.25/$2.50/$3.00.

I can support an income tax if it will do something to lower the fare burden on working class Seattlites, because the list of cities whose citizens pay more to ride the bus has to be very short, if such a list exists at all.

@1
At the very least the legislature needs to give transit agencies in the state some new tax authority.

I believe you are correct that Metro will have some of the highest fares in the country with the exception of commuter rail lines and some suburban express service.

It’s a tough call though if the choice is massive service cuts or raising fares. If service is cut someone might not be able to get to their job at all rather than simply having to pay more to do so.

@1
At the very least the legislature needs to give transit agencies in the state some new tax authority.

I believe you are correct that Metro will have some of the highest fares in the country with the exception of commuter rail lines and some suburban express service.

It’s a tough call though if the choice is massive service cuts or raising fares. If service is cut someone might not be able to get to their job at all rather than simply having to pay more to do so.

@1
At the very least the legislature needs to give transit agencies in the state some new tax authority.

I believe you are correct that Metro will have some of the highest fares in the country with the exception of commuter rail lines and some suburban express service.

It’s a tough call though if the choice is massive service cuts or raising fares. If service is cut someone might not be able to get to their job at all rather than simply having to pay more to do so.

Ed Schultz is right. North Dakota has it’s own bank, why shouldn’t Washington? All profits going to transportation and education.

Ed Schultz is right. North Dakota has it’s own bank, why shouldn’t Washington? All profits going to transportation and education.

Ed Schultz is right. North Dakota has it’s own bank, why shouldn’t Washington? All profits going to transportation and education.

If they are not charging riders then who should pay for your ride and how?

If they are not charging riders then who should pay for your ride and how?

If they are not charging riders then who should pay for your ride and how?

Are you going to tape tonight’s throwdown with the politicos and post it somewhere online? That sounds like a great show, but tons of people that prolly want to see it can’t make 6pm tonight.

Are you going to tape tonight’s throwdown with the politicos and post it somewhere online? That sounds like a great show, but tons of people that prolly want to see it can’t make 6pm tonight.

Are you going to tape tonight’s throwdown with the politicos and post it somewhere online? That sounds like a great show, but tons of people that prolly want to see it can’t make 6pm tonight.

I do love talking about health insurance and health care.

The fact that these bills are this far along is huge. There is a bill that passed in the House, and there is finally a bill on the floor of the Senate. Neither is perfect, but they’re both a start.

Of course, we now run into some serious issues. For one, Sen. Lieberman (I(r)-CT), has made clear that he will join a filibuster of any bill that contains a public option. Sure, in 2006 he supported universal health care, but things change. And his comments that he doesn’t think the bill will ever pass just are not helpful.

Sen. Nelson isn’t so much against a public option as he is against the lack of Stupack language in the Senate Bill.

Sens. Lincoln and Landrieu…well, I really do think they’re looking for more pork for their states. Granted, both states are adamantly opposed to the public option, which is fine, because the language in the bill has the opt-out provision.

Based on the various public statements that have been thrown around, I would venture a guess that, if it does pass, it will pass with an Opt-In public option (or the trigger option), all of the Democrats, plus Sanders, Snowe and Collins voting for cloture, and Collins, Nelson, Sanders, Landrieu and Lincoln (and, of course, all the rest of the GOP plus Lieberman) voting against final passage.

I would just hope that, if that happens, Lieberman finally loses his chairmanship of Homeland Security. He has become a useless “Democrat”, and while I am absolutely against any “cleansing” of the Party, I think that Lieberman has done enough to show that he really belongs in a class of his own.

IMHO, that is.

I do love talking about health insurance and health care.

The fact that these bills are this far along is huge. There is a bill that passed in the House, and there is finally a bill on the floor of the Senate. Neither is perfect, but they’re both a start.

Of course, we now run into some serious issues. For one, Sen. Lieberman (I(r)-CT), has made clear that he will join a filibuster of any bill that contains a public option. Sure, in 2006 he supported universal health care, but things change. And his comments that he doesn’t think the bill will ever pass just are not helpful.

Sen. Nelson isn’t so much against a public option as he is against the lack of Stupack language in the Senate Bill.

Sens. Lincoln and Landrieu…well, I really do think they’re looking for more pork for their states. Granted, both states are adamantly opposed to the public option, which is fine, because the language in the bill has the opt-out provision.

Based on the various public statements that have been thrown around, I would venture a guess that, if it does pass, it will pass with an Opt-In public option (or the trigger option), all of the Democrats, plus Sanders, Snowe and Collins voting for cloture, and Collins, Nelson, Sanders, Landrieu and Lincoln (and, of course, all the rest of the GOP plus Lieberman) voting against final passage.

I would just hope that, if that happens, Lieberman finally loses his chairmanship of Homeland Security. He has become a useless “Democrat”, and while I am absolutely against any “cleansing” of the Party, I think that Lieberman has done enough to show that he really belongs in a class of his own.

IMHO, that is.

I do love talking about health insurance and health care.

The fact that these bills are this far along is huge. There is a bill that passed in the House, and there is finally a bill on the floor of the Senate. Neither is perfect, but they’re both a start.

Of course, we now run into some serious issues. For one, Sen. Lieberman (I(r)-CT), has made clear that he will join a filibuster of any bill that contains a public option. Sure, in 2006 he supported universal health care, but things change. And his comments that he doesn’t think the bill will ever pass just are not helpful.

Sen. Nelson isn’t so much against a public option as he is against the lack of Stupack language in the Senate Bill.

Sens. Lincoln and Landrieu…well, I really do think they’re looking for more pork for their states. Granted, both states are adamantly opposed to the public option, which is fine, because the language in the bill has the opt-out provision.

Based on the various public statements that have been thrown around, I would venture a guess that, if it does pass, it will pass with an Opt-In public option (or the trigger option), all of the Democrats, plus Sanders, Snowe and Collins voting for cloture, and Collins, Nelson, Sanders, Landrieu and Lincoln (and, of course, all the rest of the GOP plus Lieberman) voting against final passage.

I would just hope that, if that happens, Lieberman finally loses his chairmanship of Homeland Security. He has become a useless “Democrat”, and while I am absolutely against any “cleansing” of the Party, I think that Lieberman has done enough to show that he really belongs in a class of his own.

IMHO, that is.

Here’s that slideshow link: http://schmudget.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-slideshow-on-state-economic-and.html

Here’s that slideshow link: http://schmudget.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-slideshow-on-state-economic-and.html

Here’s that slideshow link: http://schmudget.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-slideshow-on-state-economic-and.html

Also how disgusting that the Washington Budget and Policy Center slideshow makes NO mention of the possibility of an income tax as one way of raising revenue.

It’s not a cure-all, or even likely in the 60 day session. But if not now, when? If not them, who will advocate for it?

Also how disgusting that the Washington Budget and Policy Center slideshow makes NO mention of the possibility of an income tax as one way of raising revenue.

It’s not a cure-all, or even likely in the 60 day session. But if not now, when? If not them, who will advocate for it?

Also how disgusting that the Washington Budget and Policy Center slideshow makes NO mention of the possibility of an income tax as one way of raising revenue.

It’s not a cure-all, or even likely in the 60 day session. But if not now, when? If not them, who will advocate for it?

@8 Yes yes yes! Pathetic that their *starting point* in the debate is a “balanced approach.” That’s a perfect way to give up on income tax, etc. before the debate can even begin.

When groups like the Budget & Policy Center fail to advocate for an income tax, we end up with yet another session where a facebook status update from a legislator agreeing with the idea of more revenues passes for boldness, even when there’s no accompanying legislation.

@8 Yes yes yes! Pathetic that their *starting point* in the debate is a “balanced approach.” That’s a perfect way to give up on income tax, etc. before the debate can even begin.

When groups like the Budget & Policy Center fail to advocate for an income tax, we end up with yet another session where a facebook status update from a legislator agreeing with the idea of more revenues passes for boldness, even when there’s no accompanying legislation.

@8 Yes yes yes! Pathetic that their *starting point* in the debate is a “balanced approach.” That’s a perfect way to give up on income tax, etc. before the debate can even begin.

When groups like the Budget & Policy Center fail to advocate for an income tax, we end up with yet another session where a facebook status update from a legislator agreeing with the idea of more revenues passes for boldness, even when there’s no accompanying legislation.

Also, while the jobs situation is definitely severe and requires government attention, the graph shown above is painfully misleading. You can make any change look extremely dramatic by starting the graph way above zero. A loss of 134,000 jobs out of 2.8 million is in fact a big deal, but the graph makes it look like a collapse of something like 67%.

Nobody is served by this kind of catering to statistical illiteracy. The budget & policy center of all people know better than this. Why are they playing games of this sort. Very sad.

Also, while the jobs situation is definitely severe and requires government attention, the graph shown above is painfully misleading. You can make any change look extremely dramatic by starting the graph way above zero. A loss of 134,000 jobs out of 2.8 million is in fact a big deal, but the graph makes it look like a collapse of something like 67%.

Nobody is served by this kind of catering to statistical illiteracy. The budget & policy center of all people know better than this. Why are they playing games of this sort. Very sad.

“Anti-establishment”? Really? How old are you– 17? Being mayor is by very definition an “establishment” job with the grown-up responsibility of making sure businesses continue to prosper so people can continue to have jobs so they can continue to afford to live here. McGinn followers, welcome, you have just become the establishment.

“Anti-establishment”? Really? How old are you– 17? Being mayor is by very definition an “establishment” job with the grown-up responsibility of making sure businesses continue to prosper so people can continue to have jobs so they can continue to afford to live here. McGinn followers, welcome, you have just become the establishment.

Also, while the jobs situation is definitely severe and requires government attention, the graph shown above is painfully misleading. You can make any change look extremely dramatic by starting the graph way above zero. A loss of 134,000 jobs out of 2.8 million is in fact a big deal, but the graph makes it look like a collapse of something like 67%.

Nobody is served by this kind of catering to statistical illiteracy. The budget & policy center of all people know better than this. Why are they playing games of this sort. Very sad.

“Anti-establishment”? Really? How old are you– 17? Being mayor is by very definition an “establishment” job with the grown-up responsibility of making sure businesses continue to prosper so people can continue to have jobs so they can continue to afford to live here. McGinn followers, welcome, you have just become the establishment.

2. I think one option that needs to be explored is more audits and accountability. We tend to take Metro at their unspoken word that they are using their resources as efficiently as they possibly can. I’m not so sure they are: In fact, one example in part of that piece talks about how they’re finally getting around to centralizing their ops. What? They seriously weren’t doing that the entire time like any other reputable transit agency?

Another factor is that their almost imperialist-style expansion of services is going well beyond the reasonable means of funding.

2. I think one option that needs to be explored is more audits and accountability. We tend to take Metro at their unspoken word that they are using their resources as efficiently as they possibly can. I’m not so sure they are: In fact, one example in part of that piece talks about how they’re finally getting around to centralizing their ops. What? They seriously weren’t doing that the entire time like any other reputable transit agency?

Another factor is that their almost imperialist-style expansion of services is going well beyond the reasonable means of funding.

2. I think one option that needs to be explored is more audits and accountability. We tend to take Metro at their unspoken word that they are using their resources as efficiently as they possibly can. I’m not so sure they are: In fact, one example in part of that piece talks about how they’re finally getting around to centralizing their ops. What? They seriously weren’t doing that the entire time like any other reputable transit agency?

Another factor is that their almost imperialist-style expansion of services is going well beyond the reasonable means of funding.

Last time the pundits were at a 20,000 foot analysis. Now it’s 50,000. You guys need to get your facts straight.

On a more serious note, regarding the income tax (and please correct me if I am wrong), my understanding is that it would requires a citizen’s initiative to have an income tax. The solid defeat of I-1033 is a good sign, but it’s not at all clear that there is sufficient public support for an income tax, and there would be substantial political risk for having such an initiative fail. On the upside, though, even a failed attempt at an income tax would shift the tax debate in a more progressive direction.

Last time the pundits were at a 20,000 foot analysis. Now it’s 50,000. You guys need to get your facts straight.

On a more serious note, regarding the income tax (and please correct me if I am wrong), my understanding is that it would requires a citizen’s initiative to have an income tax. The solid defeat of I-1033 is a good sign, but it’s not at all clear that there is sufficient public support for an income tax, and there would be substantial political risk for having such an initiative fail. On the upside, though, even a failed attempt at an income tax would shift the tax debate in a more progressive direction.

Last time the pundits were at a 20,000 foot analysis. Now it’s 50,000. You guys need to get your facts straight.

On a more serious note, regarding the income tax (and please correct me if I am wrong), my understanding is that it would requires a citizen’s initiative to have an income tax. The solid defeat of I-1033 is a good sign, but it’s not at all clear that there is sufficient public support for an income tax, and there would be substantial political risk for having such an initiative fail. On the upside, though, even a failed attempt at an income tax would shift the tax debate in a more progressive direction.

Does anybody know how the “opt-out” provision is exercised? Does it require legislative action, or can the governor do it by executive fiat? Is there a way to have a state-wide public vote?

Does anybody know how the “opt-out” provision is exercised? Does it require legislative action, or can the governor do it by executive fiat? Is there a way to have a state-wide public vote?

Does anybody know how the “opt-out” provision is exercised? Does it require legislative action, or can the governor do it by executive fiat? Is there a way to have a state-wide public vote?

A constitutional change can not start with an initiative, it must start in the legislature.

A constitutional change can not start with an initiative, it must start in the legislature.

A constitutional change can not start with an initiative, it must start in the legislature.

More detail:

Amendments may be proposed in either branch of the legislature. The Legislature must approve the original proposal or an alternative to the proposed initiative with a 2/3 vote. The approved proposal is then placed on the ballot at the next state general election, and becomes law if approved by a majority of the electors. The state constitution may not be amended by voter initiative.

A flat rate income tax may be legal. There could be a flat rate and some program that would send each taxpayer or citizen a payment that would reduce the impact on lower income people.

If the legislature would eliminate state sales tax at the same time as introducing a progressive income tax, maybe that would have a chance of passing. It probably would also have to limit property taxes.

More detail:

Amendments may be proposed in either branch of the legislature. The Legislature must approve the original proposal or an alternative to the proposed initiative with a 2/3 vote. The approved proposal is then placed on the ballot at the next state general election, and becomes law if approved by a majority of the electors. The state constitution may not be amended by voter initiative.

A flat rate income tax may be legal. There could be a flat rate and some program that would send each taxpayer or citizen a payment that would reduce the impact on lower income people.

If the legislature would eliminate state sales tax at the same time as introducing a progressive income tax, maybe that would have a chance of passing. It probably would also have to limit property taxes.

More detail:

Amendments may be proposed in either branch of the legislature. The Legislature must approve the original proposal or an alternative to the proposed initiative with a 2/3 vote. The approved proposal is then placed on the ballot at the next state general election, and becomes law if approved by a majority of the electors. The state constitution may not be amended by voter initiative.

A flat rate income tax may be legal. There could be a flat rate and some program that would send each taxpayer or citizen a payment that would reduce the impact on lower income people.

If the legislature would eliminate state sales tax at the same time as introducing a progressive income tax, maybe that would have a chance of passing. It probably would also have to limit property taxes.

Thanks morning fizzy. Now that I think about it, I remember that the flat rate income tax would be possible without a constititional ammendment, though if memory serves me correctly, Frank Chopp has said that he doesn’t like the idea.

Thanks morning fizzy. Now that I think about it, I remember that the flat rate income tax would be possible without a constititional ammendment, though if memory serves me correctly, Frank Chopp has said that he doesn’t like the idea.

Thanks morning fizzy. Now that I think about it, I remember that the flat rate income tax would be possible without a constititional ammendment, though if memory serves me correctly, Frank Chopp has said that he doesn’t like the idea.

…on the anti-establishment shindig…

By definition, McGinn and company are now part of the “establishment”. This meme can only work for someone that does not have acess to the levels of power. People who are objectively in power, but govern as if they are powerless, are actually quite dangerous people.

…on the anti-establishment shindig…

By definition, McGinn and company are now part of the “establishment”. This meme can only work for someone that does not have acess to the levels of power. People who are objectively in power, but govern as if they are powerless, are actually quite dangerous people.

…on the anti-establishment shindig…

By definition, McGinn and company are now part of the “establishment”. This meme can only work for someone that does not have acess to the levels of power. People who are objectively in power, but govern as if they are powerless, are actually quite dangerous people.

@8: raising taxes is the same as reducing government spending in effect, in terms of the impact on the larger economy. Are you really suggesting that it is a good idea to take money out of the real economy during our super-recession?

@8: raising taxes is the same as reducing government spending in effect, in terms of the impact on the larger economy. Are you really suggesting that it is a good idea to take money out of the real economy during our super-recession?

@8: raising taxes is the same as reducing government spending in effect, in terms of the impact on the larger economy. Are you really suggesting that it is a good idea to take money out of the real economy during our super-recession?

@12
There was a Metro audit earlier this year. How much use it is I don’t know as they came to some rather dubious conclusions regarding the electric trolleybus fleet among other things. Then to be fair the auditors weren’t asked to put a value on reduced pollution, CO2 emissions, or noise from the ETB fleet.

One concern of mine is the rather low fare-box recovery ratio and high operating costs compared to other transit agencies. Some of this can be explained by the large amount of all-day suburban and rural service Metro operates. However even factoring that in the operating costs are very high and the farebox recovery very low.

@12
There was a Metro audit earlier this year. How much use it is I don’t know as they came to some rather dubious conclusions regarding the electric trolleybus fleet among other things. Then to be fair the auditors weren’t asked to put a value on reduced pollution, CO2 emissions, or noise from the ETB fleet.

One concern of mine is the rather low fare-box recovery ratio and high operating costs compared to other transit agencies. Some of this can be explained by the large amount of all-day suburban and rural service Metro operates. However even factoring that in the operating costs are very high and the farebox recovery very low.

@12
There was a Metro audit earlier this year. How much use it is I don’t know as they came to some rather dubious conclusions regarding the electric trolleybus fleet among other things. Then to be fair the auditors weren’t asked to put a value on reduced pollution, CO2 emissions, or noise from the ETB fleet.

One concern of mine is the rather low fare-box recovery ratio and high operating costs compared to other transit agencies. Some of this can be explained by the large amount of all-day suburban and rural service Metro operates. However even factoring that in the operating costs are very high and the farebox recovery very low.

How can the establishment not be the establishment? Do you mean the ‘new’ establishment? that would be more accurate.

It will be interesting to see if the new establishment is as effective as the old one, I am pretty sure it will stay the same course of the old one anyway, policy wise. Especially considering such close ties to Vulcan.

How can the establishment not be the establishment? Do you mean the ‘new’ establishment? that would be more accurate.

It will be interesting to see if the new establishment is as effective as the old one, I am pretty sure it will stay the same course of the old one anyway, policy wise. Especially considering such close ties to Vulcan.

How can the establishment not be the establishment? Do you mean the ‘new’ establishment? that would be more accurate.

It will be interesting to see if the new establishment is as effective as the old one, I am pretty sure it will stay the same course of the old one anyway, policy wise. Especially considering such close ties to Vulcan.

@19: The “real economy” includes the thousands of jobs that the state government provides! Not just bureaucrats but teachers, police, construction workers, etc.

The economy is WORSE because the state legislature did not raise taxes last year, and instead fired thousands of people (as many as 1000 jobs phased out at the University of Washington ALONE).

Also please note that pretty much no one in the Democratic Party is saying that this will be an “all cuts” budget. The notion that we should congratulate them for raising more regressive taxes is asinine. Even if they pass some kind of tax credit that many if not most working people won’t know about or take advantage of.

There is money in the “real economy”, and it’s not circulating. Which is why PROGRESSIVE taxation, focused on those still making over $150 or $200k, makes the most sense. We still face cuts, just like Oregon did when it when it raised taxes on high income earners. But it shifts the burden of those cuts to those who are most able to afford it– the wealthy.

Think that wouldn’t float in electoral politics? Last year polling by the Dems showed more support for a progressive income tax than for more sales taxes.

http://horsesass.org/?p=15317

What did the Dems do in response? Raise no taxes at all. Cause right now most of them are neoliberals, neo-Herbert Hoovers, who think that you will get out of a recession by slashing government spending. When instead all that does is make things worse by slashing the social safety net and privatizing our public education system.

@19: The “real economy” includes the thousands of jobs that the state government provides! Not just bureaucrats but teachers, police, construction workers, etc.

The economy is WORSE because the state legislature did not raise taxes last year, and instead fired thousands of people (as many as 1000 jobs phased out at the University of Washington ALONE).

Also please note that pretty much no one in the Democratic Party is saying that this will be an “all cuts” budget. The notion that we should congratulate them for raising more regressive taxes is asinine. Even if they pass some kind of tax credit that many if not most working people won’t know about or take advantage of.

There is money in the “real economy”, and it’s not circulating. Which is why PROGRESSIVE taxation, focused on those still making over $150 or $200k, makes the most sense. We still face cuts, just like Oregon did when it when it raised taxes on high income earners. But it shifts the burden of those cuts to those who are most able to afford it– the wealthy.

Think that wouldn’t float in electoral politics? Last year polling by the Dems showed more support for a progressive income tax than for more sales taxes.

http://horsesass.org/?p=15317

What did the Dems do in response? Raise no taxes at all. Cause right now most of them are neoliberals, neo-Herbert Hoovers, who think that you will get out of a recession by slashing government spending. When instead all that does is make things worse by slashing the social safety net and privatizing our public education system.

@19: The “real economy” includes the thousands of jobs that the state government provides! Not just bureaucrats but teachers, police, construction workers, etc.

The economy is WORSE because the state legislature did not raise taxes last year, and instead fired thousands of people (as many as 1000 jobs phased out at the University of Washington ALONE).

Also please note that pretty much no one in the Democratic Party is saying that this will be an “all cuts” budget. The notion that we should congratulate them for raising more regressive taxes is asinine. Even if they pass some kind of tax credit that many if not most working people won’t know about or take advantage of.

There is money in the “real economy”, and it’s not circulating. Which is why PROGRESSIVE taxation, focused on those still making over $150 or $200k, makes the most sense. We still face cuts, just like Oregon did when it when it raised taxes on high income earners. But it shifts the burden of those cuts to those who are most able to afford it– the wealthy.

Think that wouldn’t float in electoral politics? Last year polling by the Dems showed more support for a progressive income tax than for more sales taxes.

http://horsesass.org/?p=15317

What did the Dems do in response? Raise no taxes at all. Cause right now most of them are neoliberals, neo-Herbert Hoovers, who think that you will get out of a recession by slashing government spending. When instead all that does is make things worse by slashing the social safety net and privatizing our public education system.

From what I’ve heard, the public doesn’t want an income tax because they’ve been told they’re overtaxed already (by guess who) and the legislators won’t push for an income tax because the public, etc.

It doesn’t make us feel any better but we are not alone. According to the “Budget Story” produced by the state OFM this month, at least 25 other states face new shortfalls after balancing their budgets just months ago.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/budget_story.pdf

From what I’ve heard, the public doesn’t want an income tax because they’ve been told they’re overtaxed already (by guess who) and the legislators won’t push for an income tax because the public, etc.

It doesn’t make us feel any better but we are not alone. According to the “Budget Story” produced by the state OFM this month, at least 25 other states face new shortfalls after balancing their budgets just months ago.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/budget_story.pdf

From what I’ve heard, the public doesn’t want an income tax because they’ve been told they’re overtaxed already (by guess who) and the legislators won’t push for an income tax because the public, etc.

It doesn’t make us feel any better but we are not alone. According to the “Budget Story” produced by the state OFM this month, at least 25 other states face new shortfalls after balancing their budgets just months ago.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/budget_story.pdf

Governments have to engage in deficit spending in recessions in order to stimulate the economy. That’s Keynes 101. All you seem to be advocating is that the government tax one part of the economy (rich or poor, doesn’t matter) to expand another part of the economy. As a result, it is merely a wash in terms of the public and private sector, robbing Peter to pay Paul. (FDR understood this, at least until 1937.)

Progressive taxation, while a worthy goal in many respects, has little to do with how to handle high unemployment, a shortage of credit, and the declining value of privatized retirement funds. The type of spending that needs to happen is many times the amount that can be levied as taxes (even on the rich), and for that matter, since the current bubble in the market is based on day trading, speculation, income from the carry trade financed by a low-interest dollar, as well as a good dose of animal spirits–as soon as that bubble breaks, you have no tax revenue to collect, and we’re back at square one, and all of your public employees are back on the dole, if there is one.

This is beyond Democrats and Republicans, who both have no clue how the economy actually works in practice– that was abandoned by both parties by the 1980s.

Governments have to engage in deficit spending in recessions in order to stimulate the economy. That’s Keynes 101. All you seem to be advocating is that the government tax one part of the economy (rich or poor, doesn’t matter) to expand another part of the economy. As a result, it is merely a wash in terms of the public and private sector, robbing Peter to pay Paul. (FDR understood this, at least until 1937.)

Progressive taxation, while a worthy goal in many respects, has little to do with how to handle high unemployment, a shortage of credit, and the declining value of privatized retirement funds. The type of spending that needs to happen is many times the amount that can be levied as taxes (even on the rich), and for that matter, since the current bubble in the market is based on day trading, speculation, income from the carry trade financed by a low-interest dollar, as well as a good dose of animal spirits–as soon as that bubble breaks, you have no tax revenue to collect, and we’re back at square one, and all of your public employees are back on the dole, if there is one.

This is beyond Democrats and Republicans, who both have no clue how the economy actually works in practice– that was abandoned by both parties by the 1980s.

re above– that was for Trevor @22.

re above– that was for Trevor @22.

Governments have to engage in deficit spending in recessions in order to stimulate the economy. That’s Keynes 101. All you seem to be advocating is that the government tax one part of the economy (rich or poor, doesn’t matter) to expand another part of the economy. As a result, it is merely a wash in terms of the public and private sector, robbing Peter to pay Paul. (FDR understood this, at least until 1937.)

Progressive taxation, while a worthy goal in many respects, has little to do with how to handle high unemployment, a shortage of credit, and the declining value of privatized retirement funds. The type of spending that needs to happen is many times the amount that can be levied as taxes (even on the rich), and for that matter, since the current bubble in the market is based on day trading, speculation, income from the carry trade financed by a low-interest dollar, as well as a good dose of animal spirits–as soon as that bubble breaks, you have no tax revenue to collect, and we’re back at square one, and all of your public employees are back on the dole, if there is one.

This is beyond Democrats and Republicans, who both have no clue how the economy actually works in practice– that was abandoned by both parties by the 1980s.

re above– that was for Trevor @22.

@24 -

Washington State can’t do deficit spending.

@24 -

Washington State can’t do deficit spending.

@24 -

Washington State can’t do deficit spending.

Apparently, CR Douglas is seeing a lot of ECB this month, as she was part of a panel with Mossback, Joni Balter and John Carlson on Seattle Channel’s City Inside-Out (sorry if this was mentioned in advance), which Douglas hosts.

The awkward looks everyone seemed to give each other during the discussion were almost as hilarious as Mossback’s suit-and-sneakers outfit.

Apparently, CR Douglas is seeing a lot of ECB this month, as she was part of a panel with Mossback, Joni Balter and John Carlson on Seattle Channel’s City Inside-Out (sorry if this was mentioned in advance), which Douglas hosts.

The awkward looks everyone seemed to give each other during the discussion were almost as hilarious as Mossback’s suit-and-sneakers outfit.

Apparently, CR Douglas is seeing a lot of ECB this month, as she was part of a panel with Mossback, Joni Balter and John Carlson on Seattle Channel’s City Inside-Out (sorry if this was mentioned in advance), which Douglas hosts.

The awkward looks everyone seemed to give each other during the discussion were almost as hilarious as Mossback’s suit-and-sneakers outfit.

@26: Yup, and that is a huge problem for us, because beyond a massive push to organize unions and raiuse wages (another form of stimulus) or federal grants in proportion to the money needed to offset the lost tax base due to the recession, we are basically fucked. Progressive tax reform, even if it were the solution to the current fiasco, wouldn’t happen for several years– and people are getting tossed onto the street now.

@26: Yup, and that is a huge problem for us, because beyond a massive push to organize unions and raiuse wages (another form of stimulus) or federal grants in proportion to the money needed to offset the lost tax base due to the recession, we are basically fucked. Progressive tax reform, even if it were the solution to the current fiasco, wouldn’t happen for several years– and people are getting tossed onto the street now.

@26: Yup, and that is a huge problem for us, because beyond a massive push to organize unions and raiuse wages (another form of stimulus) or federal grants in proportion to the money needed to offset the lost tax base due to the recession, we are basically fucked. Progressive tax reform, even if it were the solution to the current fiasco, wouldn’t happen for several years– and people are getting tossed onto the street now.