It was March 22, 2005.
Gregoire was the newly elected/selected Governor. And she submitted her budget. Here's what she said about it: "I don't like it," she said. "It's not sustainable. It's what's wrong with the budget in the state of Washington."
Members of her own Party ridiculed it: "Transferring funds and transferring them back to make it look like you did something - that is what is done here," said Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Margarita Prentice, D-Renton.
Rep. Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, likewise said no one should think the problem has been solved. "When you're using one-time money for long-term programs, it should be a sign to most people that you're in trouble."
A Seattle Times editorial said: Gregoire admits it is not sustainable. "I can't put out a sustainable budget today because I didn't inherit one."
Huh?
But what she and the Democrat-controlled Legislature did a month later really cemented our state on a path of unsustainable budgets.
As reported then: The Democrat-controlled Senate joined House colleagues yesterday in sending Gov. Christine Gregoire a bill that changes voter-approved spending limits and allows taxes to be increased by a simple majority vote in the Legislature. The measure changes the I-601 spending cap to say the state's budget can grow as fast as the 10-year average of growth in average personal income in the state, more generous than the original growth factor of population growth plus inflation.
Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, his party's lead budget negotiator, said, "It's a sad, sad day for Washington state taxpayers. "I fear we're heading back to the days of double-digit state-budget increases and consistent tax increases. We shouldn't be making it easier to raise taxes, we should be making it more difficult." He said voters want lawmakers to live within the state's means and stop turning to taxes. With the I-601 changes soon to be signed into law, "Those days [of restraint] are over, I guess. Now there is no reason, no motivation, for the government to spend wisely or efficiently."
But Prentice said legislators in both parties had amended the original initiative so many times it had lost meaning. "We feel the new limit will be more realistic. We believe we'll be in better shape financially in two years and we'll be able to live within our means," Prentice said.
Didn't happen.
If they could have restrained themselves and abided by I-601's limits from 2005-2011, there wouldn't have been the wrenching, disruptive roller-coaster of spending in Washington state during Gregoire's tenure as Governor.
Gregoire called her 2005 budget "a legacy budget." She was correct. Gregoire's legacy has been of unsustainable budgets cemented in 2005.
Posted by Tim Eyman at June 13, 2011 01:26 PM | Email ThisAnd what do we get for all that extra spending? Is there anything so critical since 2005 that WA could not live without if we were to stay more within our means? We got the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, but that is being financed by per use tolls. That was pretty critical for the Kitsap Peninsula and Tacoma congestion. We got a new lanes here and there that move bottlenecks to new locations. We have a very expensive new train to the airport that is not meeting ridership estimates. We got several new programs, some freeway art and relief for Brightwater's costs that spiraled out of control. I am sure there is more, but was there anything we really could not live without? Or a critical emergency fix like a new Alaskan Way Viaduct?
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 13, 2011 05:06 PMIt really gets down to how much people want their government to do for them. Prudent people want as little as possible. Generally naive people want more.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 13, 2011 05:10 PMDidn't work did it!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 13, 2011 05:24 PM"Gov. Gregoire has demonstrated relentless determination in her efforts to foster economic growth, strengthen the communities she serves and improve the lives of millions of Americans," Obama said.
Wow! Talk about two delusional people with a twisted definition of "economic growth". It's the spending, stupid...
Posted by: Rick D. on June 13, 2011 05:58 PMWashington Gov. Gregoire not seeking re-election
Sims retiring, leaving Obama Administration
NEVER underestimate their proclivity for creating hopeless messes then running from them.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 14, 2011 09:50 AMShe almost finished running off Boeing and now our kids can't afford to attend the universities we subsidize so. She increased the size of the state government to non sustainable levels and gave as much as she could to the tribes. Her job is done.
I dare anyone to find one photo on the web showing Gregoire standing on her podium with her big GREGOIRE / OBAMA 08 sign hanging in front. She rode his coat tails to keep her spot and now both of them are failures and heading for the hills.
What she wants you to believe is privatization of liquor is actually the securitization of the liquor tax revenue stream to New York investment bankers for a contractual 36% profit margin who then subcontract every bit of it out to shadow companies.
If she signs the bill, which sends about $1 BILLION to New York at our expense, you know all you need to know about her legacy.
Posted by: BillyTheKid on June 14, 2011 12:18 PMI was hoping for a governor who would be a fiscal conservative, serious about cutting spending -- like Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, etc. I don't think McKenna fits this mold at all. He will probably give it some lip service, but if he was serious about it, it would have been the major thrust of his speeches and press releases so far.
I am also concerned about his support from the police and fire fighters unions. A crucial aspect in getting state spending under control is getting tougher with the unions, and I just don't see that in milquetoast, fiscally moderately Rob McKenna.
I liked that he joined other Attorney Generals in filing suit against portions of Obama's health care bill, but McKenna is a John McCain Republican, an old-school Bellevue moderate.
I, for one, am hoping for a fresh face, a *real* fiscal conservative, who is capable of bold moves to get government spending under control.
Prehaps it is due to all McKenna's talk of increasing spending on public schools?
Just more money down the NEA/WEA-dominated toilet, as far as I'm concerned. Lack of money is NOT the problem with public schools.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 15, 2011 06:16 AMI had all this stuff I was going to write about your comment but you are such an economic illiterate that it would simply be a waste of time.
Oy.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 15, 2011 12:09 PMIn the two public positions he has held, he hasn't shown a propensity to cut. Spending increased dramatically while he was on the King County Council and he seemed happy enough to grow the Office of Attorney General to well over a thousand employees, doing who knows what? 80% of what the Office does is fluff -- just the kind of government spending he should be cutting.
If he was really serious about fiscal responsibility, it would have been the main thrust of his kickoff speeches, but it hasn't been. So far he has focused on *increasing* spending on education (instead of finding ways to more effectively spend our current education dollars) and banning gay marriages.
McKenna is a moderate Republican who will run a moderate campaign and if he becomes governor he would take only moderate measures to control spending.
No, it's not proof, but it's a reasonable inference based on his past and current actions. He has shown us nothing and said nothing to make us think otherwise.
.
Why?
Because these audits brought to the forefront all of the massive waste.
She is currently touring Europe on a boondoggle tax payer paid trip. How nice!
Posted by: GS on June 19, 2011 04:56 AM