Chuck S.,

I don't have a plan. I'm willing to admit that the financial problem, or crisis, is more complicated than you appear to think it is. So how much does your elimination of welfare and 99.9% reduction of DSHS and 60% reduction of state employee retirement reduce the budget gap by, or does it close it completely? Your solution appears to be off-hand or knee-jerk with no calculation of savings. Further, when you eliminate all but 1/10% of DSHS, you'll add many former state workers to the unemployment rolls, and oh, unemployment funds are exhausted, due to the widespread recession.

If the problem were easy, the state wouldn't need my recommendation on how to solve it. I don't think the state budget situation is as simple as you make it out to be.

Sg

Dave already explained this on the federal level. Rainy day fund = surplus = stealing money= need for a tax rebate

"The incumbent has increased spending by 33 percent since taking office, that's equal to $4,000 in new spending per family in Washington. This type of spending is unsustainable, and her own budget office is projecting a $600 million deficit by 2009. It's time to take steps now to rein in spending and show some fiscal restraint."

She was tapping reserves in 2007 when the economy was "good"

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/344117_budget19.html

"Rossi said"

I thought it wasn't a left or right issue yet you left out who said that.

GREGOIRE BUDGET

The new spending plan taps the state's surplus to add a net of $144 million to the current two-year, $33 billion budget.

Money goes for flood relief, health, campus safety, tracking sex offenders, small salary hikes for teachers and nursing home workers, and other expenses.

Gregoire would save most of the state's $1.4 billion surplus.

Gregoire's budget office says the deficit could exceed $600 million in the next biennium.

IMO one partial solutio could be that the State should start by stump breaking the local jurisidictions (counties, cities, and any other local tax revenue receiving entity) by letting them know that any new improvements are to be voted on and funded locally. Don't apply for any more of our grants, because we are putting that money back in the GF.

The voters of our state need about 4 or 5 years of having the sugar [censored] pulled away, and let the small jurisdictions prioritize improvements by their voter's wishes not by what type of grant is available for them. This of course would require these small governments to work much, much harder to get anything done, but it would let people see how much more can get done when their tax dollar stays home, in lieu of heading to Olympia.

For an example. Say a city wanted to have sidewalks added to a section of street. They could apply for a grant from the TIB (or something like it), or work their asses off to pass a municipal bond with a local super-majority. I would prefer to pay a local bond an extra $450 a year, than the state an extra $30. I think the ROI will be better for me.

The economy was good in 2007?
I'm fairly certain the rainy day fund didn't get tapped until 2009.

There were reserves before the rainy day fund was started

Well, duh.

Hard to start a rainy day fund when in deficit mode.

Surplus? We're collecting too much tax revenue, let's cut taxes!

Deficit? We're killing the economy, let's cut taxes!

It's raining out? Cut taxes!

Too sunny? Cut taxes!

Having the same answer for every single question kind of makes the answer start to look a little more like a knee jerk reaction than any sort of answer at all.

Fish on...

Todd

so true. this guy is a real ass-wipe!

Dood...the rest was fine, but did you have to bring Rory Bellows into the mix? That's just mean!

Fish on...

Todd

So long as you leave The King out of it, I'll be able to eat dinner tonight.

Fish on...

Todd

KK, just curiuos what you would propose. Usually you just insult people but I know you're an extremely intelligent person who has some ideas about this topic.

I'm genuinely interested in how we can get this state economy back. How do we pay for all the programs our state is funding? How do we take care of everyone that our state has taken under its' umbrella? Hell, I don't have the answer but you seem to know what's best for business, the needy, Eastern WA, etc. What's the answer?

Should all of us just put our money in a big pot and let those in charge distribute it as they see fit?

Just say casino......many times over......casino

guess who provides the money to balance the budget then? People who like to piss their money away in casinos....voluntarily.

simple, isn't it?

top that!

Oregon has done well with video crack and the lottery.

Can't happen. She's already been bought off.


Next idea?

Privatize the ferry system.

Privatize liquor.

Booze up and hop on a ferry to Everett and Bremerton. Secure the Navy Bases including the carriers and subs.

Secede from the Union. We become a nation with nuclear capabilities. Invade Canadia. At best, we can threaten North Korea. Just because.

Haven't figured out what to do with Canadia once it becomes ours.....so I'm not too sure how that helps our budget issues.

Finally, we get Alaska as our ally. When Sara Palin becomes President, we're set!!!!

Next issue?

Ah........................................... Says it all!

we can do without overpriced, underworked' consultants and outside contractors.

Not if you expect me to continue in the lifestlye I have become accustomed to.