November 27, 2010 at 3:53 am #597128
Washington State is projected to have a 5.6 billion dollar deficit. I earlier suggested looking at school spending on the 1 to 2% of the kids that are too challenged and consume too much of a limited resource with low expectation of any beneficial outcome. And people moaned ok if not this then what?
With a 5.6 billion dollar deficit prioritizing government expenditures is required. I ask other blogger’s to identify cuts in government expenditures that make sense.
The low hanging fruit of making State Employees pay a higher percent toward their Health Care and pay to add their families is a no brainer. In the private sector employers pay for the employee and if the employee has a family they are required to pay the difference.
Any other ideas to cut government cost?November 27, 2010 at 4:58 am #709300
End double dipping by state pensioners. Here’s a Seattle Time column about this abuse.November 27, 2010 at 5:17 am #709301November 27, 2010 at 6:02 am #709302
For the “beer and nuts” crowd here are the “nuts and bolts”November 27, 2010 at 6:16 am #709303
Up the mandatory furloughs from 10 days to 30 days and extend it to all state employees.November 27, 2010 at 8:17 am #709304November 27, 2010 at 8:37 am #709305
I think the issue should be focused on health care insurance and whether it should be run as a for profit industry. I’ve read several articles that indicate that the CEOs of these corporations have had pay raises during “economic downturns” and have hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus.November 27, 2010 at 9:37 am #709306
I-1098…would have helped, I truly believe. But watch where the cuts come from…it will be on the backs of the poor and underprivileged..take away Basic Health care, take away food stamps..these are already being bandied about. Will any of it be “fair”? I don’t think so…but, that’s where they always go..social programs.November 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm #709307
one fair item to cut is all government aid to illegals; they are illegal!November 27, 2010 at 6:15 pm #709308November 27, 2010 at 6:20 pm #709309November 27, 2010 at 6:22 pm #709310
hooper, presumably you voted against a state income tax for the wealthy. Am I right? Well, I have a message for you, buddy, and for all the other people who voted against 1098:
The rest of us already gave you our idea for balancing the budget. Tax the rich, we said. But you turned our idea down. OK, now you can give us your ideas, and as long as you’re humble and thoughtful about it, we’ll listen patiently. Just don’t get too cocky. And for God’s sake, don’t expect us to provide you with a list of services to cut or people to hurt, because, frankly, we’d be insane to do that. Yes, we’d be insane to take the heat for the mistake YOU made by torpedoing I-1098 . . .
As for me, I might ultimately go along with some service cuts, but not until after we’ve also looked at every tax break given to corporations and the wealthy. (Yay, tanya! Yay, redblack!)
And in the meantime, I’m going to be applying the maximum amount of criticism to any of your proposals to cut public services or cut benefits for state workers . . .
So hooper: Is education your area of expertise? Based on the way you’ve been arguing this point so far, I doubt it. I’m still waiting for you to back up any of the claims you made on another thread about the cost of teaching challenged kids. How about some hard numbers or verifiable expert opinions on that, huh?
And brew: I guess you want all Washington State Patrol troopers to take an extra month off, right? Maybe you’d like to close down our universities and state medical facilities for a month, too. Shut down the court system? Send public health inspectors home?
Yeah, sure. Make everyone take a month off. Sounds like a great idea . . .
NOT!!!November 27, 2010 at 7:24 pm #709311
How much is the budget? $75 billion?
Hard to find, for some reason.
And, more importantly, how much has the budget grown over the last decade? It’s a 2-year budget, correct?
Are these correct?
2011-2013 $75 billion
2009-2011 $71 billion
2007-2009 $69 billion
2005-2007 $61 billion
2003-2005 $53 billion
2001-2003 $50 billion
1999-2001 $45 billion.
Perspective.November 27, 2010 at 7:29 pm #709312
HuindekmiParticipantNovember 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm #709313
Thanks, so are the above correct? I am technologically challenged apparently and can’t find one number per 2-year period.November 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm #709314
What is it with the attitude toward state employees? Most of them are not making a huge salary. They’re doing jobs that make our lives safer, jobs that a lot of people wouldn’t do for any amount of money. Sure, we all know about the firefighters and cops, but what about street maintenance, animal control, parking enforcement, building code enforcement, health inspectors for restaurants, the health care workers who take care of the ciminally insane at state hospitals – why do people think these folks shouldn’t be paid a reasonable salary and benefits for what they do? Traditionally they get paid a little less than private sector jobs and make it up in benefits. And they’ve all already taken cuts in pay and benefits and experienced layoffs. What we need to concentrate on is improving job pay, benefits, and security in the private sector, not making public sector jobs worse.
Further cuts to services are not something I’m interested in looking at.
I think the income tax was a good idea, but since that didn’t pass, how about some kind of luxury tax? An extra tax on things like vehicles (RV’s, cars, trucks, boats,etc) valued over a certain dollar amount, or on the sale of residences over a certain dollar amount? A tax on fur coats? On jewelry over a certain amount?
Another thing is to revisit some of those corporate tax breaks for larger companies like Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, Microsoft, etc. When doing my business taxes, on the forms I fill out I see lots of exemptions for the big guns that the rest of us don’t get.November 27, 2010 at 7:42 pm #709315
i never have claimed to be an education expert. all i know is what i have heard from a retired high school principal that was very eye opening. a retired high school principal certainly provides a knowledgeable opinion.
1098 was defeated soundly; thus the voters clearly rejected this idea because they do not trust government to spend money wisely and they new fully well that the tax was going to expand to lower income thresholds.
the deficit is going to force government to prioritize spending. cutting consumption oriented spending such as health care is preferable to cutting investment type spending such as education (spent wisely and effectively), infrastructure (also creates jobs) and the like.November 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm #709316
tell that to the person who loses his/her health care insurance, Hooper. And then, when they go to the ER when they’re sick, where it costs more, and you have to pay for it (Charity care, AKA “Patient Assistance”), what will you say then?
A high school principal, retired or not, is voicing an opinion, not facts. Yes, they’re on the inside, on some things…but not everything. Of course, that’s just MHONovember 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm #709317
if i do not have car insurance i do not get my car fixed unless i pay! treat health insurance the same way. people need to buy insurance or pay the consequences for choosing not to buy insurance.November 27, 2010 at 8:19 pm #709318
An automobile is right up there at the top of the list of things the human body can’t function without, like a heart and lungs!
MikeNovember 27, 2010 at 8:49 pm #709319
hooper….I have pre-existing conditions that, with my income, make health insurance unattainable – it would cost much more than it costs to put a roof over my head. I didn’t ask to be put in this situation.I am damned lucky that I have the coverage through the state that I have right now. And I am looking at losing it, while I’m also looking at a serious illness that possibly involves a transplant. Next you’ll be telling me I should have taken better care. Well, some things simply don’t work like that…no known cause, no known cure..too bad for me, huh. So, since I personally can’t afford to buy the insurance that I need because the insurance companies are making money hand over fist, I should pay the consequences..which are..death? Really?November 27, 2010 at 9:08 pm #709320
Well, Jan, doncha know that 40 years or so ago, you shoulda aspired to be successful, worked 4 full-time jobs to put yourself through the best University in the World, taken a full course load, graduated at the top of your Class, with Honors and Degrees, and by now you’d be the wealthy CEO of some Mega-Corporation, and money would be of no concern.
And, you know what else?
That Mega-Corp would also be rewarding you with a very, very, handsome health benefits package!
MikeNovember 27, 2010 at 9:23 pm #709321
yeah, Mike…I try to understand where others are coming from…but we see things from our own personal perspective. Even Mr. Hooper…November 27, 2010 at 9:30 pm #709322
I am sorry to hear about your situation. Mandatory Health Insurance that is risk based to charge more for smokers and obese persons (I was way overweight and through dedication lost 60 lbs) and not allowing insurers to deny coverage for out of personal responsibility items is appropriate. Those that choose not to buy insurance should be denied coverage simple as that.
Simple math if $1,000 cost is divided amongst 10 people (not accounting for appropriate risk basing smoking and obesity) each party pays $100. If one person does not pay each remaining person is forced to pay $111.11 that is not fair. The alternative is to deny coverage to those that choose not to pay and get the cost down to $900 so that the people paying each still pay $100.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility!November 27, 2010 at 9:32 pm #709323
Smitty, as usual your numbers are correct, but you fail to provide any details. During the same time period how much spending has the federal government shifted to the states? Its not just a WA state issue, but a trend for all states. Thats how the federal government cuts spending, by making someone else spend it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.