In 2004, Christine Gregoire ran for office promising not to increase taxes. Her official margin, just a little over one hundred votes, was so small that it is almost certain that she would have lost without that pledge.
When she took office, she immediately called for tax increases. (Some will be reminded of Bill Clinton's similar behavior in 1992-1993.)
In the 2008 campaign, she again promised not to increase taxes.
That promise lasted longer than I expected, but it has almost reached its expiration date.
Gov. Chris Gregoire seems to be softening her opposition to raising taxes as way to help deal with another looming budget shortfall.
Her budget writers are projecting a shortfall next year of around $1 billion and the governor says there's no fat left to cut.
. . .
The governor said she's told legislative leaders to make their case for taxes, including the possibility of sending voters a proposal."I didn't want revenue last year because I couldn't figure out how you could do a revenue package that wouldn't hurt the economy. I'm still stuck in that rut but I've told leadership to come make your case," Gregoire said.
Her 2005 tax increases were mostly regressive, hitting poor people harder than the well off. Because Washington state does not have an income tax, any future tax increases are likely to be regressive, too.
Much of the additional money from Gregoire's tax increases went to public employees, especially members of public employee unions. Their total compensation is probably above average, and, as everyone should know, they have much greater job security than workers in the private sector.
So, the net result of Gregoire's tax increases has been to transfer money from the poor to a better off group, a politically powerful better off group. And we are likely to see the same result this time if the legislature passes the tax increases she has said she would accept.
Have the taxpayers, other than members of these powerful unions, benefitted from Gregoire's additional spending? I don't doubt that, if you were to go over her budgets with a fine-toothed comb, you would find some spending increases that benefit the rest of us. But it would be hard to find evidence that we have gotten our money's worth.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at September 30, 2009 07:34 AM | Email ThisAnybody who spends time in state and local offices knows we could thrive under 1/3 of the government we have now.
If Seattle's DPD (planning department) can find room on the payroll for a "Race and Social Justice Change Team..."
If Seattle can find room to purchase 330+ Toyota Priuses -- which will NEVER break-even on gas compared to comparable buys (e.g., Corolla) -- and spend yet more money converting 13 of them to electric at a total cost of $156,000...
If ST & the PSRC can spend $2.4 billion + ruinous annual O&M costs to carry less than 1% of transit share on light-rail...
...then the state can DEFINITELY find some fat to cut. What a racket they have going; no fat to cut -- pssh!
Posted by: gulliver on September 30, 2009 07:56 AMThe average Government employee is compensated in wages and benefits a good 50 percent more than, that of the average Private Sector employee. This should never be. Government jobs should never compete with Private Sector jobs, let alone, offer vastly superior pay and benefits. You want to cut cost and save Billions? Bring the Government employee pay, benefits and personal numbers down to equal the Private Sector level to perform similar tasks.
And we all remember how badly that turned out. The economy tanked so badly that after eight years in office the S&P500 was down 40% from the day he took office and overall job growth of 2% for the entire eight years was the lowest in seven decades.
Just kidding, of course. That dismal perfomance was the result of G.W. Bush's tax-cutting stewardship. During the Clinton admin the S&P500 gained over 200% despite tax increases which left the federal budget in surplus at the end of his administration.
Posted by: scottd on September 30, 2009 09:20 AMWhy do you ask?
Posted by: scottd on September 30, 2009 09:45 AMThanks.
John, I think no citizen should be compelled to pay more than 25% of their income in total taxes. If the government cannot get by with 1/4th of every person's labor, then they are doing too much.
I'll be nice and not even ask you a question. I know how much that upsets you.
People cut things. Business' cut things. When you don't have as much money coming in as you used to have, you cut things.
I am assuming you don't want to. I am assuming your solution is to increase taxes on those people and business' which are already cutting things... so that they can have the privilege of cutting more things?
Is that correct?
Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 10:50 AMAnother area might be to privatize several of the current functions of state government such as liquor sales, licensing, fish & game, highways, and public universities.
Or, how about taxing the profits of Indian casinos and other gambling operations in the state?
Why not tighten up retirement programs and benefits provided for state employees? No retirement before 65; stricter disability retirements; no taxpayer provided pensions or health care? They should be on the same footing as other private workers, since the state jobs are more secure, particularly in recessions like is happening now.
Posted by: Clean House on September 30, 2009 11:40 AMReduce all state employee's pay until the shortfall is completely covered.
End step increases.
Require state employees to pay 50% of their health care insurance.
Nothing to it, really.
Posted by: hinton on September 30, 2009 09:59 PMJim,
You state that CG is about to break her pledge again, could you refresh me as to her actual pledge this last go round. Her being a lawyer, I sure there is some Clintonian parsing involved there, given that she won't be recommending any increases, but won't veto any either. This is where politicians always weasel-word their way around these items, especially when it comes to taxes.
My personal recommendation to the state is to look at program cuts and/or buying policies. Does the state really need to support Microsoft so much that it is on its never-ending Software Assurance upgrade program and its high cost? Do the state's developers really need to use Visual Studio Team System and its $5K-10K per developer cost, when open-source and J2EE based solutions like Subversion and JIRA, or Collabnet's TeamForge solution work just as well? TeamForge was good enough for the US Military, which is using it as its standard (not Microsoft).
Posted by: tc on October 1, 2009 10:33 AMAnd yes, tc. What I said was clear, "John, I think no citizen should be compelled to pay more than 25% of their income in total taxes. "
Posted by: Gary on October 1, 2009 12:20 PM