more politics: state race...
There is an ad running up here in the Seattle area that has been bugging me, one of those typical attack ads where they play a sound byte from the opponent and then quote some headline that appears to contradict their statement or expose it as untrue. Know which ad I am referring to yet?
Anyway, as I understand it our state has a law that prevents our legislature from passing (and the governor from signing) an unbalanced budget, which is why we have a surplus every year. Oregon similarly runs a surplus, but their laws require them to give it back to the taxpayers after the books are closed for that fiscal year. In Washington it rolls over and helps us when we go through dry spells.
Anyway, this ad was running again today on something I recorded, so I paused it and looked up some of the articles that are quoted. I offer you a chance to go read them for yourself, but the budget shortfall mentioned in these articles is a projected shortfall for 2009-2011 budget years and not 2008. Read a summary of the Spokesman Review article referenced here, I do not subscribe to the Spokane paper myself so I can't quote the article directly, still the summary does clearly state that it is a projected future shortfall, not a present one.
This article from the Seattle PI explains the nuances of Rossi's charge that the Gregoire administration isn't acknowledging the projected deficit exists, which isn't clear from the ad that seems to charge the deficit exists in the current budget. According to the article the state will see 273 million less in revenues in the last months of the current budget which was written 2 years ago, but Gregoire and her staff have already made cuts and frozen hiring for some state positions to save a projected 290 million.
The 2009-2011 budget hasn't been written or voted on by the legislature yet, so arguing over it the way this political ad does seems deceptive and partisan. I would encourage you to read the article, because in it, Gregoire charges our states financial troubles are linked directly to the national economy and the harm it has suffered under Bushes economic policies, but cites examples of how our state has attempted to regulate the banking industry here in Washington. I happen to know that beginning in Jan 2007 we now require loan officers to pass criminal background checks and register with the state for licenses to operate here as they had previously in other states such as Oregon. I heard from contacts in that industry that a surprising number of people already active in the mortgage industry were found to have criminal records and denied their licenses.
Still, Rossi charges that it is wrong to accuse our states own recession on the national economy or the Bush administration economic policies. I don't see how it cannot be linked myself. Boeing, Microsoft, Nordstroms, Washington Mutual are some of our largest home-grown corporations and they all rely on the global and national economy for strength. Our ports in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Vancouver and elsewhere in the state are another major financial engine for the state, are the timber and energy industries. None of these operate in a bubble that magically fastens at our borders.
So what is this forcasted defecit? Well they are now projecting 256 million less for 2009-2011 than previously forcasted (I imagine when the previous budget was drafted), but interestingly not less than this budget cycle. They are expecting revenues to increase, just not at the same pace.
So how much is the shortfall? Only a mere 0.817%. Take into consideration that the budget process involves the governor's staff producing a draft proposal and submiting it to the legislature for approval. Since state law requires that it balance, there will be much haggling over exact numbers, if the forcasted decrease in revenues is too pessimistic or not pessimistic enough, whether the pay raises given to state employees during labor negotiations were too much, appropriate, or not enough, not to mention whether or not we should continue to fund a myriad of programs and social services that always generate a lot of bickering. So will the budget ultimately be the responsibility of the state's cheif executive? Not exactly.
So why paint this picture except to detract from the similarities between the republican gubenatorial candidate and the current federal administration. A quick peek at the video's the Dino Rossi campaign submitted to YouTube revealed that he spent most of his time working in the real estate industry and he proudly points out that he has spent a fraction of the time in Olympia that Gregiore has.
I guess for me it comes down to this: While Rossi was attempting to strike it rich in the real estate industry (and getting hands dirty?), Gregoire was working her way up the ranks of public service. It is the same coin no matter which party or candidate is using it. On one side is the career public servant, the incumbent perhaps, who can be portrayed by the other side as entrenched in whatever it is about government that disenfranchises their side or as a self-sacrificing individual who works hard throughout their carreer in order to serve the public good by those like-minded as them. Then there is the challenger, the outsider who believes government is perpetually broken and needs their take-charge can-do-it-ness or their honest, unencumbered, untainted hands to restore government to its true self who could also be portrayed as inexperienced, unseasoned and illprepared to tackle the challenges of the office which require someone who knows the system, the players, and the rules in order to navigate the murky waters to bring the boat ashore.
Well, make up your own mind.
Peace,
b
Anyway, as I understand it our state has a law that prevents our legislature from passing (and the governor from signing) an unbalanced budget, which is why we have a surplus every year. Oregon similarly runs a surplus, but their laws require them to give it back to the taxpayers after the books are closed for that fiscal year. In Washington it rolls over and helps us when we go through dry spells.
Anyway, this ad was running again today on something I recorded, so I paused it and looked up some of the articles that are quoted. I offer you a chance to go read them for yourself, but the budget shortfall mentioned in these articles is a projected shortfall for 2009-2011 budget years and not 2008. Read a summary of the Spokesman Review article referenced here, I do not subscribe to the Spokane paper myself so I can't quote the article directly, still the summary does clearly state that it is a projected future shortfall, not a present one.
This article from the Seattle PI explains the nuances of Rossi's charge that the Gregoire administration isn't acknowledging the projected deficit exists, which isn't clear from the ad that seems to charge the deficit exists in the current budget. According to the article the state will see 273 million less in revenues in the last months of the current budget which was written 2 years ago, but Gregoire and her staff have already made cuts and frozen hiring for some state positions to save a projected 290 million.
The 2009-2011 budget hasn't been written or voted on by the legislature yet, so arguing over it the way this political ad does seems deceptive and partisan. I would encourage you to read the article, because in it, Gregoire charges our states financial troubles are linked directly to the national economy and the harm it has suffered under Bushes economic policies, but cites examples of how our state has attempted to regulate the banking industry here in Washington. I happen to know that beginning in Jan 2007 we now require loan officers to pass criminal background checks and register with the state for licenses to operate here as they had previously in other states such as Oregon. I heard from contacts in that industry that a surprising number of people already active in the mortgage industry were found to have criminal records and denied their licenses.
Still, Rossi charges that it is wrong to accuse our states own recession on the national economy or the Bush administration economic policies. I don't see how it cannot be linked myself. Boeing, Microsoft, Nordstroms, Washington Mutual are some of our largest home-grown corporations and they all rely on the global and national economy for strength. Our ports in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Vancouver and elsewhere in the state are another major financial engine for the state, are the timber and energy industries. None of these operate in a bubble that magically fastens at our borders.
So what is this forcasted defecit? Well they are now projecting 256 million less for 2009-2011 than previously forcasted (I imagine when the previous budget was drafted), but interestingly not less than this budget cycle. They are expecting revenues to increase, just not at the same pace.
So how much is the shortfall? Only a mere 0.817%. Take into consideration that the budget process involves the governor's staff producing a draft proposal and submiting it to the legislature for approval. Since state law requires that it balance, there will be much haggling over exact numbers, if the forcasted decrease in revenues is too pessimistic or not pessimistic enough, whether the pay raises given to state employees during labor negotiations were too much, appropriate, or not enough, not to mention whether or not we should continue to fund a myriad of programs and social services that always generate a lot of bickering. So will the budget ultimately be the responsibility of the state's cheif executive? Not exactly.
So why paint this picture except to detract from the similarities between the republican gubenatorial candidate and the current federal administration. A quick peek at the video's the Dino Rossi campaign submitted to YouTube revealed that he spent most of his time working in the real estate industry and he proudly points out that he has spent a fraction of the time in Olympia that Gregiore has.
I guess for me it comes down to this: While Rossi was attempting to strike it rich in the real estate industry (and getting hands dirty?), Gregoire was working her way up the ranks of public service. It is the same coin no matter which party or candidate is using it. On one side is the career public servant, the incumbent perhaps, who can be portrayed by the other side as entrenched in whatever it is about government that disenfranchises their side or as a self-sacrificing individual who works hard throughout their carreer in order to serve the public good by those like-minded as them. Then there is the challenger, the outsider who believes government is perpetually broken and needs their take-charge can-do-it-ness or their honest, unencumbered, untainted hands to restore government to its true self who could also be portrayed as inexperienced, unseasoned and illprepared to tackle the challenges of the office which require someone who knows the system, the players, and the rules in order to navigate the murky waters to bring the boat ashore.
Well, make up your own mind.
Peace,
b
posted by b hill at 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home