It's sad how much this obvious truth needs repeating, but great that you did it so well. "I cut wasteful spending" will always get someone elected, especially anybody who can paint their opponent as "raised poor you's taxes".

Fucking democracy, man...how does it work?

The state budget is overly complicated and we don't have a lot of folks willing to look at these facts. Never mind that the only place you'll see them is from Goldy. Sure isn't going to be in the Seattle Times, The Olympian, Tacoma News Tribune, on KOMO, KING5 or KIRO. You'll get plenty of coverage of that asshole Charlie Sheen though.

We've successfully been blind to it until the recession came along. Since that time even the Democrats are doing the Republican Shock Doctrine Hokey Pokey at least in Washington.

And of course you can count on the people who say over and over, "voters don't want more taxes." Voters don't want half-assed measures. Voters probably want well-reasoned and thought out measures. Maybe a little sunshine on the process would help. And voters vote all the damned time for things that have no funding or do the opposite of what they voted for the last time. What voters want is not to get screwed or feel like they've gotten screwed.

Unfortunately, it is the bread and butter of some politicians and personalities to make the voters believe they've been screwed by repeating simpleton phrases like "belt-tightening;" and "living within our means;" and "tax the tribes."

@3,

I've blogged about this topic numerous times, using numerous metrics, and they all show the same thing. For example, check out this post: "Honey, I've Shrunk the Government." So if you're so sure that you have data that refutes my thesis, share it.

Goldy: when do we get to see your piece explaining what the optimal level of state spending is (other than "more than what the Republicans think it should be") and why it's relevant to express that level of spending relative to private sector income rather than in nominal or per-capita terms? Many government expenditures should be expected to decrease as the population becomes wealthier more consolidated in urban areas, so it's not clear to me why government spending should necessarily the same relative to economic output in 2011 as it was in 1991.

I'm sure it's a lot of fun to sit around countering dubious Republican talking points, but let's not pretend you've really accomplished anything meaningful by telling Democrats in Seattle that their opponents are wrong.

"Fucking democracy, man...how does it work?"

Usually by keeping the poor from voting.

"Goldy: when do we get to see your piece explaining what the optimal level of state spending is"

Sean, when do we get to see your piece explaining what the optimal level of poverty is?
Is the top 10% owning 80% of all capitol enough for you?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info…

Sean @6,

I've written about this numerous times on Slog and at HorsesAss.org, and your assumption, that growth in demand for government services decreases as we become wealthier is not only false, it is demonstrably false simply be observing the world around us. Wealthier countries spend more per capita than less wealthy countries, because their economies demand it.

That said, I'm working on a piece that goes into some detail on the tax principles underlying this assertion.

Tax the Pampered Class.Better yet,kill off the adult ones and expropriate "their" property!

@9: I didn't say "is", I said "should". It is true both that a given level of government activity should be expected to cost less to administer to a denser, wealthier population (you've shown as much in your "people in Eastern Washington are welfare queens" series) and that wealthier societies are generally willing to support a greater scope of government activity. That doesn't mean that wealthier societies are necessarily compelled to do so simply because they are wealthier, though. Two statements about the same concept do not make a proof.

#12

Oh, no, CAN'T have "gay clubs for teens"(btw, does the state ACTUALLY find that, or are we just talking about ALLOWING Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs in high schools).

Got to make sure that gay teens have nowhere where they can get away from people like you who want to nail them to fences or something.

"whatsbeck", you sound like the sort of guy who accidentally got a hard-on in the shower in eighth-grade gym class and STILL can't get over it years later. Get therapy, dude.

#12

Yes please. I look forward to your proposed spending cuts. I'm sure you'll have new and insightful perspective into ways we can live without all this outrageous gluttonous spending. In your infinite wisdom though I'm sure you'll find it in your heart to preserve the funding for whatever programs you hold most dear.

That would be what...Abstinence programs? Military spending? Oil drilling in Puget Sound? Let me know when I'm getting warm.

Wait! I'm sure I know where you'd be happy to cut funding! Anywhere that government is spending money on holding anyone back everyone from owning assault weapons. Cut those programs. If we cut those I'm sure we can balance the budget.

Yup, Goldy has done it again.

It's simply common sense that we need a bigger tax revenue for larger populations and successful infrastructures.

But I'll always remember that some fatties put a hole in our tax revenue, because they couldn't bear the idea of a candy tax. Oh No!!

This article is misleading.

We must look at all state taxes not just what goes into the general fund.

Sales tax is a percentage so tax revenue goes up with inflation.

Lets look at the total taxes not just general fund........

This article is misleading.

We must look at all state taxes not just what goes into the general fund.

Sales tax is a percentage so tax revenue goes up with inflation.

Lets look at the total taxes not just general fund........

Those impolicies disproportionately oppress certain demographic groups (eg.Blacks,the Lower Class).That same shit is going on in other states as well."Make it so hard for them to stay here that the ni**ers,sp*cs,commies,and White Trash will leave!" seems to be the mantra of those who favor the perpetuation of that type of evil favoritism!!!

This is a good article, with good numbers to support the assumption that the problem states are facing is a revenue shortfall, and not a runaway spending problem, with the exception that generous retirement benefits are now or will cripple us if not reassessed now.

What surprises me though, is that nobody seems to be making the correlation between our foreign wars and our domestic economic woes. With hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world, and with all of the money for support of those troops flowing out of our economy (in many cases to countries we give aid to, and/or have trade deficits with).

What would happen if, for example, if we brought home half of our troops and stationed them around the US? What would happen to the surrounding economies?

Imagine if we took half of our 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and put 20,000 of them in Detroit, another 20,000 in Arizona, and 10,000 in Texas. Then we could take half of the troops in Iraq, and put them along the Mexican border, scattered over 3000 miles. That's another 25,000 personnel, all buying gas, all eating food, all living somewhere.

We could then take half of our troops in South Korea, and put another 15,000 troops in Washington and Oregon, along with their navy ships and planes. And half our troops in Japan could cover the Canadian border, which is another 15,000 troops.

Even without reducing our over-bloated military budget, the simple act of bringing home half of our troops to patrol our own borders and waters would pump billions and billions of dollars into our economy, thus eliminating state revenue shortages in very short order, all the while revitalizing dying cities like Detroit and ailing economies in all 50 states.

Um, duh. Unfortunately, dumb people are still allowed to vote.

Thank you so much! If I ever hear another Republican shit ass say "Washington has a spending problem not a revenue problem." or other clever words to that effect I may not be able to restrain my self from screaming BULLSHIT at the top of my lungs. Um, actually I did say "What a crock of shit!" while Larry Stickney was talking like that at the Snohomish County Farm Bureau (they're not really farmers)Candidate forum last year much to the discomfort of the more polite Democrats. So I'm crude and rude LOL.

Holy flames, Batman...you folks have WAY too much time on your hands.

This article neatly addressed "Meanwhile, lawmakers have rewarded businesses by passing over $1.6 billion a year in new tax breaks since 1995 alone, only further exacerbating Washington's long-term structural revenue deficit." but offered no solution to this major hole in our revenue stream.

This is like eating out with a friend, who never tips, always wants to make it up next time, and never seems to square what happened last time. Them's that has the money end up paying. Them's that don't will never be able to get ahead and realize financial freedom even if it is only to open their hearts and wallets and leave a decent tip/pay their fare share (taxes).

Decreases at the state and local level and increases at the national, or i should say, international level by means of war, the natl' security apparatus and pro business spending to aid capitalist class consolidation.

Wake up; the money is here despite the tremendous destruction of wealth in the 2008 crash. This isn't reality, Neo-Liberalism is ideology.

Goldy,
Of course the Seattle Times is on the "more union concessions" bandwagon. They've enjoyed a 40% tax cut since 2009. You certainly couldn't expect them to point the economic finger at themselves.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…

Just tax the corrupt pampered class already.
And take away their Santorum-stained taxpayer-funded diapers!

On the federal level alone,tax breaks for treasonationals amounts to hundreds of billions per annum.Can you imagine what the amount is on the state level?The county/parish level?The municipal level?Then there's all that tax evasion(and that's been perp'd for generations!)Pfft!