The Seattle Times editorial board is absolutely right that linking state spending to where taxes are generated is “no way to run a state.” I 100-percent agree. From a policy perspective, it’s a terrible idea.
That said, if some liberal Michael Dunmire were to hand me a $500,000 check to put that very proposition on the ballot, I’d run that initiative in a New York minute.
Why? Because the one point the Seattle Times‘ editors refuse to acknowledge, is that the poorer, mostly rural counties who benefit most from King County’s largesse are those that are most reliably Republican… and of the anti-tax/anti-government variety. And, something needs to be done to educate these voters about their own true self-interest.
It is, ironically, voters in these Republican counties who have made it impossible for the state to raise the revenue necessary to adequately fund state government services at current levels, even as they consume a disproportionate amount of these services. Indeed, there isn’t a single major spending category in which these red counties don’t receive a significantly greater portion of these expenditures than they pay to the state in taxes, and thus if our state budget is truly plagued with all the wasteful spending they claim, this waste is largely being dumped in their own backyards. And logically—mathematically—if this “waste” is to be cut long term, it can only be cut by disproportionately slashing the benefits these Republican voting counties currently receive.
Editorialists can fret all they want about the unfortunate consequences (or even, immorality) of cutting rural-centric programs like school levy equalization, but at some point it becomes just as inevitable as kicking children off the health care rolls, and disabled people onto the streets.
So you’d think, if these voters properly understood this—that the burden of paying state taxes disproportionately falls on the hated Seattleites, while the benefits disproportionately fall elsewhere—some of these voters might think twice about dismantling state government. So no, Seattle Times editorial board, state Rep. Reuven Carlyle should not “be careful discussing the idea of returning more tax dollars to the counties that generate such taxes,” because that’s exactly the discussion red county voters need to hear.
Interesting, and a very good point. Alaska is another key example of this. It is easy to simplify the discussion, however, and ignore the other reasons why people vote Republican (e.g. “moral” issues such as gay marriage or abortion).
Agreed. But I think you’re downplaying the fact that it’s not that they don’t know that they benefit from those programs, it’s that the very idea of those programs existing is somehow morally repugnant. So self-interest in a material sense battles with a weird social and moral devotion to an impossible dream of complete self-sufficiency. They hate that they need the help.
I saw that editorial this morning while getting my oil changed and almost spit my coffee out on the page. It takes either an incredible lack of self awareness or serious chutzpah for the Times to print that with a straight face.
I agree – an initiative to stop rural welfare would be a crappy way to run the state, but it’s an excellent way to force Republicans out of their fantasy world. Frankly, I think it’s worth doing.
Do it. I’d love all those Teabaggers getting just what they have coming-nothing.
Time to cut off these Red Welfare Counties funding.
The people who hate the government most are almost always the same people who use / need it the most. A guy who never mails a letter has no reason to hate the post office, for example.
Remember that an important tenet of the current pseudo-libertarian streak manifesting as Tea Party voters is that state assistance actually causes the problems it seeks to alleviate. They believe that welfare causes poverty, unemployment benefits cause joblessness, and the New Deal caused the Depression. So informing them that their counties are on the dole will likely just be received with further resentment, because obviously the evil State has deliberately rendered these once proud, self-sufficient Mayberries completely dependent on the decadent urban tax-and-spend empire of handouts.
As sound as this logic is, I don’t think it matters. You can’t reason with ideologues. The question is, when will our legislators learn this?
Yes, I completely agree.
I don’t like seeing people playing the “morality” card against this idea. Is reducing funding for a rural kid’s school really so much worse than cutting off a city kid’s health care? Can’t they just both be shitty choices? Point is, the state’s ability to raise revenue has been cut off at the knees, due in no small part to rural anti-tax conservatives.
If you put it on the ballot, you force conservative WA voters to admit with their votes that they need that revenue, that all taxes aren’t evil.
I’m not speaking from some condescending, Mudede-esque disdain for non-urbanites. I spent a bit of quality time last year in Odessa, WA, the archetype of the small, rural, conservative Washington town. Talked taxes with the locals for a bit, and my goodness, they are in complete denial over the fact that without tax revenue from the richer parts of the state, their little town wouldn’t even exist right now. People like that need the dose of hard reality.
Have you finished that detailed analysis you’d planned to do per your earlier post? Love to see that. Thanks.
Goldie, would you run that initiative if 5000 of us gave you $100. each? I’m in for $100, pretty sure I can talk Geni into another $100. All we need now is 4,998 more like minded people.
I’ll even volunteer my time to help.
Do it.
johnyawl @12,
I think you’re underestimating how hard it is to get 5,000 people to give $100 each.
That said, yes, if the money was there, I’d do it (not that you’d particularly need me to run such a campaign). Though I think an initiative to the legislature would be preferable to the more common initiative to the people, as it gives us longer to gather signatures, and it forces a debate in Olympia, prior to appearing on the ballot.
@7/8:
And all of this runs counter to their perception of themselves as late 19th Century boot-strappy independent types. They’ve somehow managed to convince themselves that, the big-bad do-gooder gubbamint has stolen their independence by making them reliant on all these “socialistical programs” – you know, roads and sewers and utilities and schools and first responders and law enforcement and regulatory agencies, yadda-yadda – all the things a centralized system to which citizens collectively contribute can do better and more effectively than they can do for themselves. And frankly, I think it just galls them to no end to even have to concede this point, because of how it puts the lie to their own woefully anachronistic self-image.
I honestly think many of them would rather give up most of the conveniences and efficiencies-of-scale that government provides, if only it meant they could retreat back into their Frontierland fantasy of self-suffiency.
So, by all means, let’s provide them with the opportunity to do so. For the handful that manage to survive with anything remotely akin to their current standard of living; more power to them. And for the overwhelming majority who end up wallowing in their own filth and degradation, well, apparently that’s what they wanted all along, isn’t it?
Lazy @14,
Insufferable as I may be, at least I prompted you to register, rather than leaving anonymous comments. And since all Tim cares about are the page views (and thus advertising dollars) I generate, your avid readership only makes a stronger case for my employment. So… thanks.
Yes, but just as King County is the tax engine for the state, King County is also the “vote engine” for the state. The Eyman/anti-tax initiatives don’t go anywhere without strong support from King County voters, so you can’t blame the rural folks for the crappy initiatives being passed…
I wonder if the Seattle Times is going to apply this same principle locally — against Sound Transit’s “subarea equity” rule…somehow I expect not
In for $100
As someone with roots in the “red” part of this state (rhymes with “wet snatchee”), I can appreciate the appeal of a scorched earth doctrine. Can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with orchardists who refuse to believe government does anything for them. (Didja build that dam yourself, jackass?)
However, it’s not quite that simple. There is a not-insignificant portion of the population in Chelan and Douglas counties who depend heavily on these subsidized programs. And not all of them vote Republican (and unfortunately, not all of them vote at all).
These would be the people most impacted by defunding social service infrastructure. As things got worse, these are the people who would be further marginalized.
As has been pointed out (@8, @16), the Teabaggers are just looking for the excuse to retreat further into their bunkers — whether that means private schools, gated communities or, as the case may be, actual bunkers. They don’t need our help in EWA – they’ve been scorching their own earth over there for years.
(BTW Goldy, I *would* shell out $100 for work on a constitutional amendment to get rid of our thoroughly corrupted initiative system. If you really want to make a positive impact on public policy in Washington, how about removing the single largest disincentive for legislators and the governor to do anything more politically dangerous than declare a state fungus.)
suburban dream.
fewer taxes, spent right there. sometimes i wonder if the issaquahs are more of a problem than the wenatchees. i like the idea, but were this to be done by county, i hope the lesson would be learned in places with large voting blocks as well as small.
Mr. Happy @21,
Well, part of my point is, these cuts are gonna be coming eventually, if we stay on the current course, so why not threaten them now, so red county voters can make an informed choice?
As for a the initiative process itself, that can only be effectively reformed via a constitutional amendment, and our constitution cannot be amended via initiative. And good luck ever finding the two-thirds of both houses necessary to do real initiative reform, let alone the simple majority at the polls.
I’d be in for $100
Goldy @24,
There’s been work on a constitutional amendment in the last few years. Wasn’t Hugh Spitzer involved with a couple of other local activists on something around 2002 or so? I know what it takes and I’m pragmatic about the chances, but think about how we got to where we are with the budget and tell me that it’s a waste of time.
Is it really a better use of your time flinging vitriol at the voters of EWA? I understand and agree with your frustration, but my experience — which you can take with a grain of salt ’cause I’m EWA by marriage — is that folks over there react poorly to terms like, “threaten.” Just wait a bit and let people like Kirby Wills wreck the Republicans from within.
And again, I’m serious about the $100.
I think this pretty accurately sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0sYnro_3…
@27:
“Out here we won’t take a dime if they ain’t earned it.
When it comes to weight, brother, we pull our own.”
The great thing about this is you get to buy into myths all you want and needn’t be bothered with the hard statistics that say otherwise.
Anyways, we don’t want rural voters to even stop taking our money: we just want them to realize that’s what they’re doing, and act in a way that acknowledges our shared responsibilities to each other.
If you guys are really interested in putting together this initiative, I’d encourage Goldy to start a kickstarter project about this issue. Kickstarter is safe in terms of only charging the people who pledged the money after enough pledges have come in to meet the final goal. So, people will only lose their $100 once Goldy’s got $500 000 in pledges.
Can we just split the state in half and get it over with?
@30 – NO! We don’t want two more red-state Senators! Splitting the state would just clone Idaho and its legislative agenda.
No, what we need to do is start an initiative to get rid of the initiative process. I’m serious. The initiative process is one of the stupidest things about our fair state. We elect legislators to study the issues, as most of us recognize that we haven’t the time to study them thoroughly enough to craft legislation – then we kneecap them with asinine initiatives created and voted on by people who haven’t studied the issues.