State Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, stopped by today to chat about the state’s budget situation, and looming $2.6 billion deficit for 2010.
I asked Rep. Ericksen his thoughts on the issue and he responded in kind in the comments. Said Ericksen:
I think that we need to move beyond talking about cuts to the budget and start talking about ways to change our method of service delivery. For example:Ericksen
We are one of only 4 states with a state monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Before we cut a program, why not allow market forces to drive down costs in this program and eliminate a portion of state government that can be done by the private sector.
Before we talk about cutting GAU (General Assistance Unemployable) why not implement my 10 point plan to reduce health care costs–the current system is a huge driver of state budget increases.
Lets privatize liquor sales which will save tax dollars–by some estimates it will result in over $100 million per year of savings and new sales.
At the end of the day we can raise taxes or we can change how we delivery services. I am focused on the service that is delivered, not the method by which it is delivered.
And is there fat to cut? Yes. Just drive to Olympia and see all of the fancy new government buildings being built.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:56 PM
The govenor will focus on what the special interest tells her too!
And that will be mo taxes!
Why do you think they spent millions to defeat I-1033! It would have gotten in the way of mo taxes!
They will not (the special interest) stop till they get what they want, and completely bankrupt this state in the meantime!
There will be a price to pay when mo taxes lead to mo unemployment! And everyone up for election will understand that soon enough! Like in the next election!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Any business that wants to can opt for private coverage instead of State Industrial Insurance.
The advantage of State worker’s compensation amounts to one thing - carry it and you can’t be sued for wrecking your employee.
I’m surprised that wasn’t mentioned.
New Buildings are popping up at Western too,
does that mean the students are exempt from paying for new facilities in tuition rates because they’re gob vernment fat?
How many upper-level government types have cut their salaries by the 18% you’re trying to save?
I hate to seem argumentative,
but it’s so tiring to have rhetoric instead of flesh.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:19 PM
I hate to beat a dead horse,
but isn’t over 70% of our State budget off limits to cuts?
Either Constitutionally mandated items or strings from all that stimulus money we got last year?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:42 PM
think of it as “tenderizing” a dead horse instead.
And what does Mr Ericksen mean by this statement..?
Fancy new buildings? As opposed to what? Quonset Huts? FEMA trailers? Crappy unsafe buildings?
Construction of new buildings, fancy or otherwise, is providing jobs at a time when jobs aren’t easy to find. And the conservative answer is to… put an end to that?
Did Mr. Ericksen realize that his simple solution to “cut fat” would result in putting hard working construction workers and contractors on the unemployment line?
Just asking.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:43 PM
AFY, again I have to ask you what these “special interests” you keep speaking of are and how they aren’t impacted themselves by “mo taxes”, or weren’t positively impacted by the property tax implications of I-1033 and rallied against it anyway. Are you saying that some organizations that own property in this state or are made up of people that own property in this state shouldn’t have a say or be able to financially support their say in legislation pertaining to the taxes they pay on their property?
Q’s for Erickson:
Why is our L&I program a bad thing?
What sorts of problems does L&I have and which of those would privatization solve?
How did West Virginia’s and Nevada’s privatization transition work out, and are workers better off there than in Washington and Ohio, North Dakota, and Wyoming (the states with public worker’s comps)?
Are the differences between our programs and theirs worth the cost savings, and could those problems be better addressed by doing other things besides privatization of L&I?
Are there any downsides to privatizing alcohol sales?
Are there states with privatized liquor sales that we can compare statistics with Washington’s current alcohol stance in order to find detrimental/beneficial effects of each system?
Are the resultant detrimental effects (if any) of privatized liquor sales worth the benefits?
How would the state make/save $100 million from privatizing liquor sales?
Why are those new buildings in Olympia unnecessary, and what were the conditions of the previous buildings (if any)?
I need specifics, evidence, and statistical data if ever I am to support changes in government–weird, I thought that was the job of conservatives to do?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:46 PM
My apologies for misspelling representative EricksEn’s name repeatedly. My bad.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Can you could save the State money somehow by not using those new fat Government buildings?
The Good Representative will not answer any of our questions directly.
It’s far easier to not.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:43 AM
OOps, more coffee please.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:58 PM
bikerbob,
Start your campaign now & I’ll support you.
Bikerbob for representative!
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 AM
“Lets privatize liquor sales which will save tax dollars–by some estimates it will result in over $100 million per year of savings and new sales.”
OMG! I agree with Ericksen! First time ever and probably the last…
Since he refuses to answer my phone calls and email ever since I had the audacity to disagree with him on an issue, I’ll use this online forum to say I think that’s an excellent idea which he should pursue.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 AM
So you either sell Liquor Stores as they are to a private owner,
let them replace the state workers with minimum wage staff and set their own retail prices,
and the State picks up the tab for the lost value of the buildings and inventory and covers UI for the former staff and hope increased CONSUMPTION makes up the difference.
Or,
You close all facilities and ask grocers to make room for hard booze,
their markup or the State’s?,
on their already crowded shelves and risk increased pilfering from shoplifters and hope CONSUMPTION increases enough to boost tax receipts.
Or.
You release all retail price requirements from booze and let anyone that wants to sell the stuff for whatever price and hopefully reap the 6.5% sales tax and .0471% B&O tax again from increased CONSUMPTION.
All consumption increases will cost more in DUI enforcement and all the famous social problems booze is so apt to encourage.
How any of that adds up to a net $100 million is a math joke.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 AM
That should be .471% B%O tax.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 AM
citizen–that’s what I was thinking about the $100 million dollars.
In the first scenario, the one-time sale of the store buildings would bring in some money ($100 million though?), but every year after there would be a comparative loss from not having the income from owning the profitable liquor stores. And they’d have to be profitable, otherwise no one would buy them. If they get sold as just buildings and the new owners use them for other things, then there is another possible loss from decreased consumption. I still don’t see $100 million.
The whole idea of changing the alcohol sales system in the interests of revenue strains my philosophy on alcohol excise taxes. Excise taxes are not a source of income, they are a capitalist strategy to discourage or limit use by increasing the cost. For things that are bad or have negative societal impacts but are still legal, excise taxes are a great way to limit their use without government regulations getting in everyone’s face (i.e. enforcing a law limiting alcohol drinks per day to an arbitrary number). Looking at the state budget items for alcohol and wondering, “How can I increase revenue or decrease costs?” just seems greedy to me and completely ignores the bad or negative societal impacts an excise tax is trying to regulate.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Sir Biker Bob, did you ask what special interests?
“STATE DEMOCRATS FACING REVOLT BY LABOR
By Andrew Garber, Seattle Times, Wednesday, November 11, 2009
State Democratic lawmakers have a revolt on their hands among major labor groups that provide the party crucial support during elections. The Washington State Labor Council, the Service Employees International Union and unions representing teachers and state workers have either stopped or sharply reduced donations to Democratic caucus political-action committees that back candidates for the state House and Senate. “I think the labor movement is more serious about withholding support from Democratic candidates this year than I have seen in my 30 years in politics,” said Dwight Pelz, chairman of the state Democratic Party. There’s even talk of trying to defeat some Democratic incumbents if they don’t support issues important to labor in the next legislative session — such as raising taxes to help close a growing budget shortfall.”
BTW, the same special interest who spent millions to block I-1033, something that would have gotten in their way for mo taxes, don’t you know!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Yeah you’re right, groups of employed Washingtonians are totally “special interests” who only want to pay more taxes themselves and therefore should have no part in politics.
Thanks for opening my eyes, AFY. I’ll chant right alongside you: “Keep people with jobs out of the democratic process!!!!”
November 24th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
But bikerman what about the workers who ain’t wearing the union label, do we take from them to give to the others, and BTW, the building trades who are wearing that label will be getting screwed over by the likes of SEIU like the rest of us too! So this ain’t a union vs non union issue this is a those who feed at the public trough vs those who do not issue!
BTW, here a very good editorial you might want to read!
“70 percent of the budget is protected. So filling the $2 billion to $2.5 billion shortfall would mean cutting unprotected areas of the budget by 20 to 25 percent.” We don’t dispute those numbers, but we dispute the implication that a large portion of the state budget — or any of it, for that matter — must remain “protected.”
Who says? Such an automatic assumption certainly doesn’t apply in the private sector. Why can’t the state touch the payroll or benefits or retirement programs of state workers, at least in future contracts? Politicians and government negotiators sound too much like MC Hammer. Can’t touch this, it’s state worker pay. Can’t touch this, it’s public employee pensions. Can’t touch this, it’s state worker benefits.
Times are tough. Let’s start touching. That means uncoupling automatic assumptions about government funding, which would lead to reducing that “protected” part of the budget.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20091119/OPINION02/711199981/-1/opinion
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
November 24th, 2009 at 9:18 PM
This wasn’t a union vs. non-union issue. This was AFY creating a boogeyman out of organizations of, paradoxically, hard-working individuals that AFY advocates for in the first place.