How can we get control of our budget? Expect a multi-billion dollar "stimulus" from The One? Not!
Union state workers will be getting pay increases next year, says The Olympian. Cuts? Yes, there are, but not where the unions have power. The Tacoma News Tribune says state workers are willing to share the pain, but their leaders won't allow them to.
But Christine Gregoire says it's not that the unions are too powerful, but, well ... she won't cross them.
Austin Jenkins asked why not look at state workers: They're the most expensive part of state government.This law must have a name; it happens every budget cycle: When Gregoire has to save money by cutting something she puts what the public needs most, not at the bottom of the list, but at the top. Then, even more cynically, she accuses the questioner of making the proposal she brought up."When you do something that people believe to be illegal, you get sued," she said, "so, if I unilaterally, in violation of contracts, take some of the actions that you just articulated, I am going to get sued," she said.
He asked if that was a sign that state unions were too powerful. "This is not about power ... we have people now that are doing critical work. You want me to let go of state patrol officers? I am not willing," she said.
Tip: Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Posted by Ron Hebron at December 29, 2009 07:20 AM | Email ThisHe asked if that was a sign that state unions were too powerful. "This is not about power ... we have people now that are doing critical work. You want me to let go of state patrol officers? I am not willing," she said.
No, not State Patrol officers. How about noxious weed control officers? The Arts Commission? Any commission based upon a minority group? Merge the Department of Early Learning into the Department of Education? Merge the boards of registration into the Department of Licensing? The Growth Management board? Merge the Health Care Authority and the Health Care Facilities Authority into the Department of Health?
I could go on and on... There's lots of places you can start cutting before you cut the basics like police and fire, Chris you moron...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 29, 2009 07:55 AM"I have had some very interesting discussions with people in the business community who I think have learned, you can't run state government like a business," ~ Queen Christine.
That's your problem, Guvnah. Thinking isn't your strong suit. But if they awarded a nationally recognized "incompetence in state stewardship" award, you'd be a shoe-in for that particular dubious honor. We should have flushed her last November 2008, but then, we as a state need a preponderance of intelligence within the electorate to achieve this goal, and we aren't there yet.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 29, 2009 09:02 AMThe truth is they are only a small portion of the union employees.
Leadership isn't pointing out what the current power broker is doing wrong (it's the only thing democrats are good at besides spending and taxing).
It begs the question: If you were Queen Christine, where should the cuts go?
Posted by: Andy on December 29, 2009 10:26 AMUnemployment tax for us is up not 7%... but 440%. L&I workers comp is up 72%.
Now does this make sense? Is this going to encourage us to hire more workers? Hello? This is insanity. I told my crew the governor gave them a wage increase but... they won't see it. But, we will have to cut back and no 401k'ish plan this next year and will be harder to give 'real' pay increases and no... I am not eager to hire ANYONE NEW, PERIOD.
Posted by: don on December 29, 2009 11:28 AMThe market would not bear the pay that these public employees demand. But their fat cat representation will just keep asking for more, no matter the damage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 29, 2009 11:39 AMBut this state deserves it. They keep electing these fools, and then wonder how things got messed up.
Just wait until the new health care reform bill hits the state budget. It will be the mother of all unfunded mandates. And, of course, all of our elected Democrats just love the idea.
Posted by: janet s on December 29, 2009 12:01 PMThe unions are behind all of the anti-competitive, anti-liberty, pro-government, pro-tax laws these days. They have completely priced themselves out of the global labor market and are now locked in an incestuous circle jerk with Democrats to stay relevent.
Remember the cold complaints about American corporate wellfare? Well this is blatant union wellfare going on in the open like nothing is wrong.
What a joke.
Posted by: Michael H on December 29, 2009 05:51 PM"Guantanamo detainees should not be released to Yemen at this time," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement. "It is too unstable." ...
Gee, some of us were saying this *before* they tried to blow up our airplane last week, Diane.
We just released some to Yemen a few weeks ago.
It's sheer luck that Political Correctness didn't kill 300 people on Christmas day. It killed a bunch of people at Ft. Hood and yet the government refuses to recognize the enemy. And when it does, (we knew about this guy in August) it just chooses to *not* do anything and allows a terrorist to get on our plane. Or, in the case of Hasan, it chooses to promote him to Major.
Posted by: Gary on December 30, 2009 06:44 AMThat's the real story, not the contract step raises.
Those same rules apply to non represented employees.
Most of the WMS, and EMS, managers make more than triple the front line workers losing jobs.
That's the REAL rip-Off of the WA taxpayer, not the step raises going to a small percentage of the front line.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on December 30, 2009 03:24 PM...and why are confused liberal types always conflating the public and private sectors? Don't they know their ignorance just shines through when they comment on something they don't understand? Apparently not.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 30, 2009 04:57 PMScrew them - they have had almost a year to appoint that position and they are trying to cover up for their incompetence. They are planning to appoint another feckless candidate. What goes around comes around...
Posted by: KDS on December 30, 2009 08:14 PMWhy health care reform and tax laws are suffering
.
"It's an article of faith among right-wingers, especially the tea party crowd, that all of the United States' ills happen because Republicans in Congress don't stand for principle. They believe that whenever you compromise with evil, the result is evil, so every politician should support conservatives' principles come hell or high water, damn the torpedoes.
For example, their position on health care reform is that it's pure evil--it's unconstitutional for the government to force anyone to buy health insurance, to tax anyone to pay for someone else's coverage or interfere with the free market in any way, even if people die as a consequence.
The right-wing solution to the uninsured is simply to define them out of existence. As Dr. John Goodman, one of John McCain's health advisers, explained to the Dallas Morning News last year, "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American--even illegal aliens--as uninsured....So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved." His Orwellian logic is that hospital emergency rooms are by law available even to those that cannot pay; therefore, everyone by definition has health coverage.
Putting aside the stupidity of this position, it's unrealistic to elect 219 Ron Pauls, Michele Bachmanns or John Goodmans to the House of Representatives, plus 60 more in the Senate and a president who won't veto their efforts--that's what it would take to repeal the coming health reform legislation. Nevertheless, right-wingers insist that this is what they will do after the next election--and any Republican not on board can expect someone from the tin-foil-hat brigade to run against them even if it means electing a Democrat instead, as was the case recently in New York's 23rd Congressional district.
There is no question that there are at least a few sensible conservative ideas about health reform worth considering; malpractice reform is one. And I believe that Democrats desperately wanted a bipartisan bill and would have given a lot to get a few Republicans on board. This undoubtedly would have led to enactment of a better health bill than the one we are likely to get.
But Republicans never put forward an alternative health proposal. Instead, they took the position that our current health system is perfect just as it is."
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 31, 2009 07:42 AMThat kind of thing will killing our liberties and capitalism. Global corporatists are honing in a seamless One World Government that will squeeze out our liberties and sovereignty.
Posted by: KDS on January 2, 2010 12:07 PM"Bruce makes several compelling points in the article, especially when he notes that it will be virtually impossible to repeal a bad bill after 2010 or 2012, but there are good reasons to disagree with his analysis. First, he is wrong in stating that Republicans were united against any compromise. Several GOP senators spent months trying to negotiate something less objectionable, but those discussions were futile. Also, I'm not sure it's correct to assert Republicans took a the-current-system-is-perfect position.
They may not have offered a full alternative (they did have a few good reforms such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines), but their main message was that the Democrats were going to make the current system worse. Strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position, one that I imagine Bruce shares. But let's further explore Bruce's core hypothesis: Would compromise have generated a better bill? It's possible, to be sure, but there are also several reasons why that approach may have backfired:
1. It's not clear a policy of compromise would have produced a less-objectionable bill. Would Senate Democrats have made more concessions to Grassley and Snowe rather than Lieberman and Nelson (much less whether the "concessions" would have been good policy)? And even if Reid made some significant (and positive) concessions, is there any reason to think those reforms would have survived a conference committee with the House? Yet the compromising Republicans probably would have felt invested in the process and obliged to support the final bill - even if the conference committee produced something worse than the original Senate Democrat proposal.
2. A take-no-prisoners strategy may be high risk, but it can produce high rewards. In the early 1990s, the Republicans took a no-compromise position when fighting Bill Clinton's health plan (aka, Hillarycare), and that strategy was ultimately successful. We still don't know the final result of this battle (much less how events would have transpired with a different strategy), but if the long-term goal is to minimize government expansion, a no-compromise approach is perfectly reasonable.
3. A principled opposition to government-run healthcare will help win other fights. The Democrats ultimately may win the healthcare battle, but the leadership will have been forced to spend lots of time and energy, and also use up lots of political chits. Does anyone now think they can pass a "climate change" bill? The answer, almost certainly, is no.
4. A principled approach can be good politics, which can eventually lead to good policy. Democrats wanted a few Republicans on board in part to help give them political cover. The aura of bipartisanship would have given Democrats a good talking point for the 2010 elections ("my opponent is being unreasonable since even X Republicans also supported the legislation"). That fig leaf does not exist now, which makes it more likely that Democrats will pay a heavy price during the mid-term elections. It is impossible to know whether 2010 will be a 1994-style rout, or whether the newly-elected Republicans will quickly morph into Bush-style big-government conservatives (who often do more damage to liberty than Democrats), but at least there is a reasonable likelihood of more pro-liberty lawmakers.
When all is said and done, Bruce's strategy is not necessarily wrong, but it does guarantee defeat. Government gets bigger and freedom diminishes. For reasons of principle and practicality, Republicans should do the right thing."
Posted by: KDS on January 2, 2010 12:16 PMYou cutting and pasting a number of lies does not make them true. Playing the role of a moron does nothing for you or your bizarre positions, so do us a favor... and stop.
Posted by: Hinton on January 2, 2010 08:50 PMShe is saying that if she has to make cuts - the first she will choose, of her own free will be cut will be Police, Fire, and Medical.
She is threatening the health and safety of citizens in order to get her political way.
Posted by: Greg on January 3, 2010 10:39 AMCreating newspaper/tv/radio ads with the lists and pointing out Gov. Gregoires true priorities would have a lot of impact on the electorate.
Posted by: johnny on January 4, 2010 09:15 AM