Happy Thanksgiving: Gov. Looks at $2.6 Billion Budget Shortfall

Thank you Tim Eyman, for creating a prolonged recession in Washington State.

Thank you, Washington voters, for not making it worse with 1033.

My understanding is that she has to propose revisions assuming no increased revenue.

Thank you, Washington voters, for not making it worse with 1033.

My understanding is that she has to propose revisions assuming no increased revenue.

How many prisons could we close if the Gov. commuted the sentences of all the low-level non-violent drug offenders now incarcerated?

How many prisons could we close if the Gov. commuted the sentences of all the low-level non-violent drug offenders now incarcerated?

@3-I’ve heard her say that she couldn’t balance the budget even if she closed all of the prisons. But when you say “low-level non-violent drug offenders,” do you mean that all non-violent drug offenders are low-level? Or are you talking about non-violent drug offenders who are also low-level? Because when DOC is determining whether to supervise drug offenders, they look at both the likelihood that they’ll reoffend and their history of violence.

Honestly, I’m not in favor of spending our resources locking up drug offenders, but your solution is pretty short sighted. As long as we’re not working to solve the underlying problems that lead to drug use and dealing (and as long as it’s illegal to possess/sell heroin, cocaine, meth, etc), you’ll continue to see recitivism. So, if Gregoire commuted their sentences, it’s highly likely that they’ll be back in jail and in the courts in a matter of months. In other words, it doesn’t really save money.

In the last legislative session, the state dramatically cut back on the number of people supervised by DOC (regardless of whether they ever serve any time). This is a short-term money saver, but without someone to connect people to job opportunities and drug or mental health treatment, I’m pretty sure we’ll see increased recitivism over the next few years.

@3-I’ve heard her say that she couldn’t balance the budget even if she closed all of the prisons. But when you say “low-level non-violent drug offenders,” do you mean that all non-violent drug offenders are low-level? Or are you talking about non-violent drug offenders who are also low-level? Because when DOC is determining whether to supervise drug offenders, they look at both the likelihood that they’ll reoffend and their history of violence.

Honestly, I’m not in favor of spending our resources locking up drug offenders, but your solution is pretty short sighted. As long as we’re not working to solve the underlying problems that lead to drug use and dealing (and as long as it’s illegal to possess/sell heroin, cocaine, meth, etc), you’ll continue to see recitivism. So, if Gregoire commuted their sentences, it’s highly likely that they’ll be back in jail and in the courts in a matter of months. In other words, it doesn’t really save money.

In the last legislative session, the state dramatically cut back on the number of people supervised by DOC (regardless of whether they ever serve any time). This is a short-term money saver, but without someone to connect people to job opportunities and drug or mental health treatment, I’m pretty sure we’ll see increased recitivism over the next few years.

This is very frustrating to me. Here we are, just weeks off of a resounding defeat for Tim Eyman, and the governor is still afraid to talk about revenue. If there are no more “tricks”, such as federal stimulus money or “deferred or transferred” expenses, then my brilliant math skills indicate that we are looking at a 28% cut to discretionary spending, on top of what has already happened.

The Eymanists say “tax and spend liberal”, and our leaders duck and cover as though the Soviets were just about to drop the bomb. That’s not leadership. Leadership would be taking these tired labels head-on and standing up for what our values are.

@Josh

Good summary, but isn’t it a stretch to call the TVW blog the “state’s news blog”?

This is very frustrating to me. Here we are, just weeks off of a resounding defeat for Tim Eyman, and the governor is still afraid to talk about revenue. If there are no more “tricks”, such as federal stimulus money or “deferred or transferred” expenses, then my brilliant math skills indicate that we are looking at a 28% cut to discretionary spending, on top of what has already happened.

The Eymanists say “tax and spend liberal”, and our leaders duck and cover as though the Soviets were just about to drop the bomb. That’s not leadership. Leadership would be taking these tired labels head-on and standing up for what our values are.

@Josh

Good summary, but isn’t it a stretch to call the TVW blog the “state’s news blog”?

Anyone study history and see what happens to stressed economies and consumers when you raise taxes?

Adding revenue seems like an easy fix, but it isn’t because of the adverse consumer and economic impact. Swapping to a income tax seems like an easy fix, but it isn’t (see also Oregon for how income taxes are not a panacea for budget holes). I think we’re likely to get a mix, but it is going to be a real battle.

One thing for sure… Any Democrat advocating for higher taxes had better be prepared to work his/her butt off in swing districts next year or the Dem’s majority in the Legislature will evaporate faster than a Wall Street banker’s conscience when offered big bonuses.

Anyone study history and see what happens to stressed economies and consumers when you raise taxes?

Adding revenue seems like an easy fix, but it isn’t because of the adverse consumer and economic impact. Swapping to a income tax seems like an easy fix, but it isn’t (see also Oregon for how income taxes are not a panacea for budget holes). I think we’re likely to get a mix, but it is going to be a real battle.

One thing for sure… Any Democrat advocating for higher taxes had better be prepared to work his/her butt off in swing districts next year or the Dem’s majority in the Legislature will evaporate faster than a Wall Street banker’s conscience when offered big bonuses.

@7 I would gladly take a humane budget coming out of the 2010 session if the price is losing a dozen swing districts in November 2010.

@7 I would gladly take a humane budget coming out of the 2010 session if the price is losing a dozen swing districts in November 2010.

@ 8:

DUH! Lose a dozen swing districts in 2010 and there will be no “humane budget” in 2011.

@ 8:

DUH! Lose a dozen swing districts in 2010 and there will be no “humane budget” in 2011.

Running in place until the next forcast comes out, again, is a bad idea.

Running in place until the next forcast comes out, again, is a bad idea.

Clearly, what’s going to happen is that the legislature will loosen the strictures of I-960 so they can raise taxes without a public vote. But they will have a hard time figuring out which taxes to raise. It’s possible to raise taxes on high end earners in a recession and not stress the economy too much, but because we don’t have an income tax that’s hard to do. Raise sales taxes and property taxes? Not likely. Fees? Perhaps. What really needs to happen is to add the sales tax to a lot of services that are now exempt, like legal services and hair styling. There’s some real revenue there.

Clearly, what’s going to happen is that the legislature will loosen the strictures of I-960 so they can raise taxes without a public vote. But they will have a hard time figuring out which taxes to raise. It’s possible to raise taxes on high end earners in a recession and not stress the economy too much, but because we don’t have an income tax that’s hard to do. Raise sales taxes and property taxes? Not likely. Fees? Perhaps. What really needs to happen is to add the sales tax to a lot of services that are now exempt, like legal services and hair styling. There’s some real revenue there.

In the governor’s first term she established a new record for the number of new hires into state government. What goes around comes around. Wasteful spending is catching up to Washington State! This is what happens when life long professional politicians run the state. No experience in balancing a budget in tough times.

In the governor’s first term she established a new record for the number of new hires into state government. What goes around comes around. Wasteful spending is catching up to Washington State! This is what happens when life long professional politicians run the state. No experience in balancing a budget in tough times.

@12: It’s not new hires. It’s not wasteful spending. It’s decreased income for the state. Our state runs on sales tax, basically. It’s been getting less sales tax because guess what: people haven’t bought as much. The water’s been draining out of the tank and hasn’t been replaced at the rate it’s drained.

Suppose the Governor fired 400 state employees and each were making $100,000 a year. That would save $40 million. That’s a lot of money. However, the deficit is $2 billion. Unless my arithmetic is faulty, we’d still have a $1,960,000,000 deficit. Firing 800 state employees: not much better. You could keep going and gut the state workforce, and you’d probably notice it because roads wouldn’t be maintained, prisons and jails would shut down, people like my disabled daughter wouldn’t get care, etc. We got into this mess because we have less revenue, not because of excessive spending. We need more revenue, period.

@12: It’s not new hires. It’s not wasteful spending. It’s decreased income for the state. Our state runs on sales tax, basically. It’s been getting less sales tax because guess what: people haven’t bought as much. The water’s been draining out of the tank and hasn’t been replaced at the rate it’s drained.

Suppose the Governor fired 400 state employees and each were making $100,000 a year. That would save $40 million. That’s a lot of money. However, the deficit is $2 billion. Unless my arithmetic is faulty, we’d still have a $1,960,000,000 deficit. Firing 800 state employees: not much better. You could keep going and gut the state workforce, and you’d probably notice it because roads wouldn’t be maintained, prisons and jails would shut down, people like my disabled daughter wouldn’t get care, etc. We got into this mess because we have less revenue, not because of excessive spending. We need more revenue, period.

@ 13. sarah68

Quick translation:
We need more revenue = We need more taxes.
Government is not in the business of making money,
but rather in the business of spending it.

@ 13. sarah68

Quick translation:
We need more revenue = We need more taxes.
Government is not in the business of making money,
but rather in the business of spending it.

Government is in the business of providing certain services which are paid for by raising money through taxation. That taxation is levied by government, i.e. the legislators you vote into office.

Government is in the business of providing certain services which are paid for by raising money through taxation. That taxation is levied by government, i.e. the legislators you vote into office.

We need less services, more jobs and more personal accountability by everyone. Why should the government be the default payer for every thing everyone wants. It used to be Medic One was funded by the general fund. Now it is always a special levy yet our taxation for the general fund did not go down. The politicians have been hood winking the public for the past decade, shifting spending and requiring more and more special levy’s so they have more freedom with the general fund. They have made this mess, let them figure it out.

We need less services, more jobs and more personal accountability by everyone. Why should the government be the default payer for every thing everyone wants. It used to be Medic One was funded by the general fund. Now it is always a special levy yet our taxation for the general fund did not go down. The politicians have been hood winking the public for the past decade, shifting spending and requiring more and more special levy’s so they have more freedom with the general fund. They have made this mess, let them figure it out.

Mike: Do you vote? If so, you vote your legislators (i.e., politicians) into office, and as their employer you must have been watching what they were doing. If there’s any hoodwinking going on, it’s the voters’ responsibility. The mess the legislature must figure out is our mess. And if you think we need less services, it must be because you don’t have any family members or friends who need those services. You are indeed lucky, and I hope your luck holds.

Mike: Do you vote? If so, you vote your legislators (i.e., politicians) into office, and as their employer you must have been watching what they were doing. If there’s any hoodwinking going on, it’s the voters’ responsibility. The mess the legislature must figure out is our mess. And if you think we need less services, it must be because you don’t have any family members or friends who need those services. You are indeed lucky, and I hope your luck holds.

Not that our spending priorities are correct (certainly they are not), but spending has run well ahead of income because during the go-go days of the real estate bubble the state (and most governments) assumed revenues would continue on in perpetuity. Not to sound too Eyeman-esque, because his approach to containing spending is back-asswards, but governments have little to no incentive to control spending in good economic times.

Not that our spending priorities are correct (certainly they are not), but spending has run well ahead of income because during the go-go days of the real estate bubble the state (and most governments) assumed revenues would continue on in perpetuity. Not to sound too Eyeman-esque, because his approach to containing spending is back-asswards, but governments have little to no incentive to control spending in good economic times.

Thank you Tim Eyman, for creating a prolonged recession in Washington State.