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!!!

Thanks for opening my eyes, AFY. I’ll chant right alongside you: “Keep people with jobs out of the democratic process!!!!”

“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!!!

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.

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.

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?

citizen Says:
November 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

I hate to beat a dead horse…

think of it as “tenderizing” a dead horse instead.

And what does Mr Ericksen mean by this statement..?

And is there fat to cut? Yes. Just drive to Olympia and see all of the fancy new government buildings being built.

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.