Last I heard, balancing a budget involved balancing both sides of the equation—revenue and expenditures. But Gov. Christine Gregoire’s latest publicity stunt—a state-budget calculator that allows you to “watch the bottom line to see how your choices affect the bottom line”—only allows you to make spending cuts. You can cut spending, but you can’t raise revenues. Doesn’t seem like a very “balanced” calculator to me.
UPDATE: Whoops, Eli just pointed out that he posted about this yesterday. But my point still stands: A calculator without a plus sign isn’t much of a calculator.
That’s because she’s hell-bent on not raising taxes.
Why can’t you balance it by borrowing money?
@2 because what will the State do next biennium? Keep borrowing money? At some point a solution needs to be made.
Because we already borrowed more than we can pay, have you seen our debt? John Thune can make you a graph if needed.
Erica if you were balancing your personal budget would you say,’hey, this year I want to spend $22,000 more than I make- Dan, pony up’ ?
It’s bizarre. Gregoire won the last election by a lot bigger margin than in 2004. Why won’t she raise taxes? Or (best but most difficult and least likely) drop the sales taxes and institute a state income tax?
Raising taxes isn’t a viable option in the current political climate.
I agree that it’s bullshit that no one is asking the question “under what circumstances would be we be willing to raise taxes?”
Schools, just to pick my pet issue, are facing huge deficits. My district will probably have to fire 100+ teachers. I would pay more taxes to fund basic education.
I’m no fan of Gregoire, but I think the reason she’s not offering this in her calculator is because it’s very easy for each of us to cut the other guy’s shit, but hard to cut our own. Many SLOG readers probably don’t give a fuck about Issaquah class sizes, for instance. But if fiscal prudence involves both cutting costs and (perhaps) raising revenues, it’s worth asking what programs would all of us armchair quarterbacks cut.
And, no, the state can’t borrow its way out of a deficit. That’s the way in which it is different from the Federal govm’t.
She can raise taxes all she wants (assuming the legislature would go along, which they won’t), but revenues will take a hit anyway because unemployment is up and businesses are closing.
Gregoire’s point is that the state can expect only a certain finite amount of revenue, and spending decisions must reflect that reality.
Just remove all corporate tax exemptions.
Voila!
Budget is in SURPLUS.
NEXT!
If the state needs to raise money, they should put it to the voters. I bet if you put a five cent increase on the gas tax as a way to balance the budget and at the same time put a measure with cuts to vital services, the tax increase would win.
Hey ECB,
Off topic, but you now have one more reason to hate the mayor of Portland:
NO BAG TAX!!
So nobody has an actual reason why we can’t borrow the money? And pay it back when the economy turns around, obviously.
Is there a law against that?@13:
What part of “states can’t borrow money” don’t you understand?
@10,
So large business will move to where there are more tax incentives. Thats how the game is played. Protectionism for the win.
Raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. See Hoover, Herbert, 1930.
@15,
I say good riddance. Those motherfuckers have been holding that over our heads for decades, and what’s the result? A crumbling infrastructure, infrastructure they need to do business. Fuck them.
@5,
If you’re having trouble making ends meet, finding an additional source of income is a completely legitimate way to bridge the gap, or don’t you know anything about personal finance?
Um, yes (but probably not to Dan). Have you ever heard of people taking a loan for a condo or car or house? Or borrowing money when they need to make crucial investments like education or health care? Or when an economic catastrophe happens like a job loss? Those people don’t just say, “fuck it, I’ll just go homeless and pull my kids from school and put off that surgery for a while” until there is no other option.
kesh, you can’t work as a barista forever.
@15 what “win”?
@10 and @17:
Right, let’s stick it to all those healthcare insurance providing, salary paying, office space renting, maternity leave giving, gift matching, gas-hotel-sales tax paying corporations.
Because, like, they’re exploiting us and stuff.
19
I’ve heard of people running up tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt at 22% for clothes and eating out.
I’ve heard of people hocking their equity in their home with a second mortgage to pay for a vacation.
Which law are you talking about, Big?
18
You’re absolutely right.
But not everyone can peddle their ass on the street corner like you.
@22,
Right, asking them to pay their taxes is “sticking it to them”, especially when large corporations get tons of tax breaks and small businesses get squat.
@20 and 25,
Ooh, so clever.
@21, Exactly. What win?
@17, They’ve been holding it over our heads? Your friends, neighbors, unions and fellow tax payers have been doing it for years. The difference between Boeing and GM and Ford is that the cars had more competition. The cries from everyone to protect “our industry” lead to bad deals, for the unions, for the tax payers, for everyone.
To blame the executives for going where the biggest benefit for them is presented is myopic and ignores the popularity among a wide range of people for subsidizing business in the name of “jobs”.
What part of the state budget cuts do you consider equivalent to a vacation to Hawaii? The mental health services for the chronically ill, the basic food assistance for very low income families, the public education for at-risk youth, the health care for impoverished children, or the prenatal health care and family planning for very low income women?
There is no law against WA State borrowing money, nor is there anything that says we have to balance the budget. It’s a political ploy, and a stupid one, to say raising taxes are off the table. Taxes should be raised, and would be, if the so-called Olympia “leadership” actually governed responsibly. But if that were true we would have an income tax. I’m guessing there are thousands of people right now that would gladly pay an income tax, you know, if they only had an income to tax.
26
clever; and true!
28
boohoo hoo hooo
sorry -sob-
I can’t type my answer because I’m bawling my eyes out over the injustice of the universe….
@31, Who cares about being an asshole when being solvent matters more?
@27,
My point is that if they stay it has nothing to do with tax breaks and whether they move has nothing to do with tax breaks. I’m certain that there are poor states desperate for any kind of industry, to the point of letting corporations operate virtually tax free. So why hasn’t Boeing shifted its entire operation to Michigan or Mississippi? Could it be because there are damn good reasons why they don’t want to do business there?
They don’t *need* tax breaks, they demand them anyway and lie their asses off about it.
32
Controlling spending is the only way to be solvent.
Raising taxes is too easy and it never stops.
S P E N D I N G . . D I S C L I P I N E.
@33, How do you prove that though? Your belief alone isn’t proof.
@34, You don’t have anything to back up that assertion.
36
perhaps.
but I sincerely believe it.
@34 – maybe it’s been true recently on a state level, I don’t know — but it seems to me all that has happened on a federal level for the past 16 years (and counting) is that taxes have actually been reduced. Raising taxes has proven to not be terribly easy, and has stopped.
The Governor cannot impose an income tax by executive fiat. The state Constitution prohibits an income tax. In order to add an income tax, the Constitution has to be amended. Gregoire can certainly PROPOSE that, but she cannot IMPOSE that.
typical of how Democrats let the GOP control the Democratic message. Spending cuts are on the table, tax hikes are not. Pure GOP-style class warfare: we must ensure the rich carry no burdens we can impose on the poor.
So, what’s a nice Democratic governor doing, adopting the GOP posture?
Actually it should be called an occupation, not a war. The war is won. The defeated are occupied. The rich won long ago. IOW:
Gregoire = “Vichy-D.”
Unity,
@15 – bull.
They always say they’ll do that, but when you pay attention to behavior, it’s pretty much only firms that are near a state border that do that.
You never get the money you give them back and it doesn’t ever create the jobs they say it will.
and removing a tax exemption is NOT raising taxes.
ever.
they’re supposed to be temporary adjustments to allow a firm to settle in – but they never expire when the need is gone.
just corporate bloody welfare. paid for by our sales taxes on poor people.
Is there a law against that? @24:
You were right, I was wrong. There is no law against borrowing money to cover a deficit. Damn, all that campaign literature lied to me. Thank you for your persistence.
@42, the problem is what happens if you risk calling their perceived bluff and they aren’t bluffing.
@44; play their game; make temporary changes for them, make elaborate promises, dream up private funding that never appears and make sure the fine print says if there’s any cost overruns they have to foot it.
Turnabout’s a bitch.
Do you really want a sleazy politically blackmailing corporation here causing damage to infrastructure and strain on utilities and services anyway? Let michigan or whoever have ’em.