Journal pudge's Journal: Not a Budget Increase! Totally Swear! 22
A Democratic legislator here in Washington state said that the drastic increase in the size of the state budget is not really a budget increase. Because, you see, the budget was both cut several years ago, and not allowed to grow much in other years, so it's not really increasing by tens of millions, it's just being adjusted to where it should have been all along.
One Democrat in DC this weekend said on a Sunday talk show that they were not going to raise taxes, but they might have to adjust the AMT in a revenue-neutral way
Says Governor Gregoire, she is not planning to spend more money on education and welfare and environmental cleanup. She explicitly denied she was spending, saying that, rather, she is "investing."
Also, I am not saying these Democrats are manipulative jerks. No. I am saying they are "snuggly."
State rep Hans Dunshee, ever the "intellectual," said that since they have the money, they are therefore going to send kids to college with it. "We do it in our families, we'll do it with the state budget."
Although his fellow 44th District rep Jon Lovick takes the cake this week. He said that to help curb ever-increasing car thefts, people could voluntarily put a sticker on their car that would give police permission to stop them and doublecheck to make sure their car is not stolen.
I made up none of the above.
If you didn't make it up... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but none of it is important enough to me to care to check sources. All of it sounds pretty plausible, and I'm not going to go staking any significant claims on it. I imagine if I cared that much Google and/or Google News could find some of it for me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the "Bush never talked about regime change or bringing democracy to Iraq before the invasion" kinda way?
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/cialeaktri
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/cialeaktri
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally not a good idea to get your news from the headlines alone. Perhaps read the article. Here's an obvious example of headline ambiguity:
"Family Gives Up Biting Dog" -- Some Newspaper
Does it mean that a family had to give away or get rid of a dog that bites? Or does it mean that a family who enjoyed biting their dog finally gave up that nasty habit? You must read to find out!
Had you READ the article, you'll see that it states that
Re: (Score:1)
I should have just posted the entire article, I suppose.
It was not presented as fact, even the headline beginning with Lawyers: should give that away. Nothing they say is ever true.
Re: (Score:2)
For the Governor saying there is no spending but "investing," the Jan 7 2007 Up Front video [king5.com] has it. No transcript available that I can see. At 7:20 or so in is where Gregoire starts talking about investing. It also goes into detail about the Dems' nonsensical anti-Wal-Mart legislation.
I saw the legislator quote about "no budget increase" on the news last week. And for Dunshee's quote, that was on th
Car stickers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Further, he is creating a whole new state agency to handle this, the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority, funded by a one dollar tax per year per insured driver (though the state may also fund it additionally), which turns out to be a coup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(*and I think they might even charge a few bucks for people to sign up, now that I think about it)
Call me crazy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Washington (Score:2)
A Democratic legislator here in Washington state said that the drastic increase in the size of the state budget is not really a budget increase. Because, you see, the budget was both cut several years ago, and not allowed to grow much in other years, so it's not really increasing by tens of millions, it's just being adjusted to where it should have been all along.
Um, no it is a budget increase. Just because I might support t
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the budget process in this state has been dysfunctional for at least 25 years.
Yep. And I accept that (I come from MA where it's no better :-), but don't give me a rotten pig corpse and tell me it's a ham sandwich. :-)
Um, no it is a budget increase. Just because I might support the things the Legislature wants to spend the money on doesn't mean I don't think our elected officials shouldn't own up to increasing the budget when that is exactly what they are doing.
Exactly.
Given the cyclic nature of State revenue I really wish the legislature would set aside enough money in the fat times to get through in the lean times. This pretty much mirrors the overall business cycle in the state and should be fairly predictable.
Yep, and not only are they not doing that, they are making the problem twice as bad by adding new massive budget line items, which have to be funded in future years. Well, Gregoire does, and some of her friends. I don't think the Dem majority will go for it, at least not in total. Many of them know that in two years they need to run again, and if we hit that downturn, and the taxpayers might finally come to their sense and vote on state issues rather than national ones. :-) (Not that the Dems are to blame for all the state's problems, but they are in such control now, they certainly are to blame for most of them, moreso than the GOP.)
By that criteria, anything other than across the board tax cuts would be a tax increase for at least some taxpayers. This includes any revenue neutral version of a flat-tax or national sales tax.
Well, no. Let's take Bush's last big tax cut package, in 2003 or whatever. That did not income cut taxes for certain people (in the 10 percent bracket, with no child dependents or dividend income, etc.), but it was not an income tax INCREASE on them.
When you say you will not increase taxes, it means that no one will get a tax increase (modulo changing of their own circumstances, for example, an increase in wages pushing them into a higher bracket). That is what it means. (Also, I am excluding payroll taxes, which do increase every year on some taxpayers, etc.: just talking about the income tax.)
As to the flat tax, most proposals DO constitute a decrease in taxes across the board. But for those that do not, for those that represent an increase for some taxpayers, yes, you should not say you're not increasing taxes. Sales tax is impossible to say is not a tax increase, because for people who spend a lot more than they have in income (such as the independently wealthy), it obviously would be.
The AMT is particularly obnoxious and sadly not adjusted for inflation. Personally I would change the law so the AMT doesn't apply to any but the top 1% or 5% of taxpayers ever.
But the question is how you measure that. :-) But I basically agree. I am against the income tax to start with, and further against progressive taxation, but if we are to have it, then it should be applied fairly, and the AMT, if applied rationally and simply, can be a good tool for that. But I would prefer a flat tax, which would solve that problem more simply.
I know you'd probably prefer to see the AMT eliminated entirely and the budget balanced by cutting spending but I don't think that is likely given the current political environment.
I agree, to the extent that "the current political environment" is a product of who is there, on both sides of the aisle, including almost everyone in office who complains about "the current political environment." The only person offhand that I can think of who gets a complete pass on blame in this area is Ron Paul. :-)
In any case I don't want to see any more tax cuts put on the national credit card.
I would, though I think that at THIS point they should only come with more cuts in spending. I liked when Bush did it before and I think it should be extended, because at the time, our economy needed the boost. And I think taking them away (or letting them expire) would hurt the economy. Leave the taxes where they are, and cut the budget. Then when you balance it, cut spending some MORE and cut taxes along with it. Or keep the taxes level and pay down the debt (gasp!).
Well arguably spending more money on education (particularly higher-ed), environmental cleanup, or infrastructure can be viewed as an investment of sorts by the public. Certainly public universities, highways, airports, dams, water projects, and rural electrification have all payed handsome dividends to the national economy and have resulted in higher GDP and thus higher tax revenue. Even welfare spending can be an investment if it results in turning the recipient into a net-taxpayer.
OTOH it is an increase in spending no matter how you slice it.
Exactly. Now, I would argue saying education is an investment is wrongheaded in two major ways: first, because our major problems with education in Washington have nothing to do with a lack of funds, and second, because there's no evidence that education is a greater help to the economy long-term than being "business friendly." Sure, you may get a great education in WA and want to stay here, but if the taxes drive you out of state, then what good was it to the state as any investment?
... well yes that can be a financial investment, but that's why we just had a huge gas tax increase! For crying out loud. At some point (which we've already passed IMO) the drain is greater than the expected return on investment. Maybe I would be ticked about this sort of spending if they didn't spend so much money on so many other things that we DON'T need.
:-)
Environmental cleanup is not a *financial* investment, it's just something that sometimes has to get done. Infrastructure
And as to welfare, jeez, when has more spending on welfare ever, in the history of the U.S., turned into a net financial benefit?
But finally, even if you disagree with some or all of that, yes, no matter how you slice it, it is still an increase in spending.
As to the meta-issue of state spending and particularly K-12 spending I would do the following regardless of the level of per-pupil funding:
1. Block grant the money to school districts and encourage them to do the same at the individual school level.
Great idea.
2. Have the state offer back-office services to the districts (finance, accounting, payroll, record keeping, HR, many IT functions). Not sure if I would force the districts to use them but it would be strongly encouraged.
Also great idea. It should not be forced, but they should be forced to comply with certain state guidelines in order to receive the funds from point 1, in order to comply with point 3.
3. Give the State Auditor the mandate and the budget to fully audit the books of every district on an annual basis. Ideally this would be at least to the level of the annual audits public companies must undergo. Anyone mishandling public money gets fired, period. They are not eligible for re-hire in any state funded public sector job either.
4. Similar to #3, give the State Auditor the mandate and the budget to do a performance audit of every district on a bi-annual basis.
Yes, although they should work with county performance auditors where they exist, so there's no duplication of effort.
5. Hold school districts to their obligations under current state and federal accountability rules. Mostly this means hitting WASAL and NCLB targets.
Well, I am entirely against NCLB and I dislike the WASL. I am all for accountability, but I think standardized testing is the wrong way to go. And NCLB is unconstitutional. That said, the law is the law, and they should abide by it whenever possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And I accept that (I come from MA where it's no better :-), but don't give me a rotten pig corpse and tell me it's a ham sandwich.
Agreed. Perhaps we can convince Arnold to move here and run for Governor when he's done in Kalifornia. ;-)
... I may be convinced to vote for Rossi next time around just for the change of pace. After all if the Dems keep their legislative majority (which they likely will) he can't do too much harm.
(even if you don't agree with his policies, you have to admit he gets shit done in what was a very dysfunctional political environment)
Sigh
I don't think the Dem majority will go for it, at least not in total. Many of them know that in two years they need to run again, and if we hit that downturn, and the taxpayers might finally come to their sense and vote on state issues rather than national ones.
Yea I noticed at least a few democrats in the Legislature were doing the
Re: (Score:2)
I was good with taxes the way they were at the end of Clinton's term.
That was fine (maybe) then, but post-recession, I think tax cuts were needed to stimulate the economy. And I think any fair evaluation shows it worked. And I think it would be irresponsible to lower taxes now, as it would likely slow the economy, and even though the economy is pretty good right now, I don't feel like it's entirely stable, and tax increases (or tax cut expirations) would be potentially disastrous.
Personally I'm glad the House dems put PAYGO into the rules they just adopted for the 110th Congress. Lets see if they stick to them.
I think that paygo is mostly silly. Sure, on the surface, it's good to say you won't spend
Both parties have been doing this for years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check my car (Score:2)
Although his fellow 44th District rep Jon Lovick takes the cake this week. He said that to help curb ever-increasing car thefts, people could voluntarily put a sticker on their car that would give police permission to stop them and doublecheck to make sure their car is not stolen.
This is actually in use where I live. I believe the concept is you put the sticker on your car and if your vehicle is spotted on the roadway between midnight and 5am the police will pull it over and check the driver.
I have only seen a couple of stickers in the 5 years the program's been active and most of those have been on police undercover cars.