Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Budget Battle Recap: A Total Fucking Waste of Time

Posted by on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM

According to Sen. Ed Murray, the final budget looks remarkably like the unacceptable budget he first proposed.
  • According to a document forwarded by Sen. Ed Murray, the final budget looks remarkably like the allegedly irresponsible budget he first proposed.

For all the grandstanding—for all the stupid fucking credulous Republican-talking-point-regurgitating editorials—the final supplemental budget passed during the wee hours this morning looks remarkably similar to the allegedly unacceptable budget Senate Ways & Means chair Ed Murray proposed during the final days of the regular session, at least on the spending side.

Murray's budget was soooo irresponsible we were told, that it sparked three of his fellow Dems to jump sides, using a rare parliamentary maneuver to hand control over to the Republicans. It was this Senate coup that killed the Murray budget, forcing a 30-day special session, plus an additional 7-hour special session to mop up unfinished business.

So what did we get for all this drama and expense? Fuck all.

Senate Republican budget chief Joe Zarelli's $44 million of cuts from K-12 and $30 million from higher education? Didn't happen. Disability Lifeline, the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Treatment and Support Act, Housing and Essential Needs, State Food Assistance, and other social programs Zarelli sought to eliminate? All funded in the final budget at levels similar to what Murray had proposed.

The Dems' proposed one-day delay in making a payment to public school districts, well, that particular accounting maneuver was squashed, but then so was the Republicans' proposal to skip a payment to state pension funds. Instead, much of the half billion dollar revenue shortfall is made up with a different accounting trick, one which which keeps $238 million in local sales taxes on the state's books for 30 days, but without delaying the redistribution back to local jurisdictions.

(I'm not sure how this gimmick is any more or less "felonious" than the other two, but then, I'm not a state treasurer, so what do I know?)

Like Murray's proposed budget, the final budget even includes the elimination of a $16 million tax loophole enjoyed by out-of-state banks! Sure, this new revenue was washed out by the extension of a couple tax breaks, but this still means that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a tax hike, and by a two-thirds supermajority. Just like Murray's original budget proposed.

So what exactly were Republicans and their three disloyal Democratic allies holding out for?

"It's not just about balancing the budget," Zarelli emphasized at a Capitol press availability last week, a point made clear this morning when his caucus overwhelmingly voted for a budget that largely matched the one they unanimously rejected just a little more than a month ago. No, the supplemental budget was merely a hostage in a larger fight to pass three budget related "reforms," none of which have any impact on the current balance sheet, and all of which offer dubious benefits:

1) Pension Reform.
This was the measure Zarelli managed to force through most successfully, essentially rolling back early retirement benefits by as much as 50 percent for new state hires. Republicans pitched it as a fuck-state-workers-with-their-fancier-than-you-have-pensions reform that would also save the state $1.3 billion over 25 years, though Murray finds it short sighted: "Seventy-five percent of new hires will be teachers," explains Murray, teachers who will look across the border at states where they can retire with full benefits in 30 years rather than 40. "The whole idea was to fund teachers at a higher level so as to attract the best and brightest." Murray says we'll eventually have to roll back this reform if we're to move forward on improving K-12 education.

Murray also points out that the reform was fiscally unnecessary, given the fact that most of our pensions are currently over-funded, making them among the most financially sound in the nation. And ironically, by discouraging older workers from retiring early, this reform could actually cost state coffers more than it saves, given that older workers tend to earn more than their younger counterparts, while racking up considerably higher health insurance costs.

But fucking state workers is always a winner with Republicans and editorial boards, so fuck state workers we did.

2) Four-Year Budgeting.
Zarelli won this battle too, though only in appearance. What started as a constitutional amendment that would mandate four-year budgeting ended in a compromise that keeps us on a two-year budget cycle, but with four year projections. Whatever that means. Like it's even possible to accurately project revenue and expenditures four years out.

"It's the equivalent of the old Soviet five year plans," quipped Murray following his post-special-session nap, "and we all know how those things worked out."

Most states write one-year budgets, only a handful budget biennially like Washington, and no state (or private company for that matter) budgets on a four-year cycle. Because doing so would just be stupid. That said, Republicans love the idea because it would essentially operate as a tool for ratcheting down the size of government. During good cycles, when revenues come in higher than projected, the extra money doesn't get spent because hey... we're in the middle of a four-year budget! That leaves a surplus to be raided via tax cuts and exemptions. But in bad economic cycles, when revenues come in lower, well, we'll have to pass a supplemental budget that cuts spending, because we must live within our means and all that.

Clever. Fortunately, Republicans didn't get most of what they wanted.

3. Teachers Health Care
Republicans held out for a measure that would eliminate the ability for teachers unions to collectively bargain for their health care benefits, and instead move K-12 teachers health insurance into the same state-run pool with other state workers. They didn't get it.

"ESSB 5940 doesn’t mandate a state takeover of the K-12 health care system," Washington Education Association (WEA) spokesperson Rich Wood explained in an email this morning, but it does make contract negotiations more difficult. Whether it ultimately saves the state any money—the putative goal of the bill, rather than the real goal (you know, fucking the WEA)—remains to be seen. The final language of the compromise bill was only released just minutes before exhausted legislators voted for it at around 4 a.m., so nobody really knew what they were voting for.

A face-saver for Zarelli and his colleagues, maybe. But responsible budgeting hardly.

So there you have it. All this fuss and delay in exchange for a budget we could've passed more than month ago, plus two half-measures and a pension "reform" that will likely cost state taxpayers more than it saves. That's what the Republicans were fighting for.

Like the headline says: a total fucking waste of time.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
You forgot to mention a waste of money. How much did the special session cost?

BTW, a note to Democratic and Republican legislators alike, I'm a teacher and politically active. I have a list of who voted for this ridiculously punitive health care plan and the evaluation plan and I'll remember when I donate money, when I volunteer for candidates, and when I vote.

Posted by issaquahwa on April 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM
TVDinner 2
Wow. This is surprisingly good news. Well played, Dems. (And how often do we get to say that?)
Posted by TVDinner http:// on April 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM
TVDinner 3
@1: Oh please. We all know you don't make enough to donate more than a pittance to candidates.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on April 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Will in Seattle 4
This is totally untrue.

It was very profitable for the Billionaires who own Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, and other stocks who kept their continually growing tax giveaways (exemptions), without them being subject to a mandatory 2/3 reauthorization Vote of the Citizens.

And they even doubled down and got a few tens of Millions for Tax Giveaways for Data Centers.

You build a Data Center in this state because power is cheap and reliable, not for any bonus tax giveaway, as any educated business person knows. And land is cheap.

There's your Budget Hole. Growing faster while the Richest pay even FEWER taxes while the Poor go broke under sales tax increases to pay for their Vanity Tunnels and Vanity Stadiums.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 11, 2012 at 6:01 PM
5
So Gregoire can just veto these right? I doubt she would, but I would be happy with her if she did and then just told the republicans that we're even.
Posted by giffy on April 11, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 6

The Slonion (www.theslonion.com) is reporting that the sludget passed slooks slemarkably slimilar to the sladdegedly slunaccetable sludgt sloposed during the slinal days of the slegular slession.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on April 11, 2012 at 7:21 PM
7
"...teachers who will look across the border at states where they can retire with full benefits in 30 years rather than 40."

WHAT?!? TEACHERS CAN'T RETIRE AT 52 ANYMORE?!? HOW DARE THEY FUCK WORKERS LIKE THAT
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 7:35 PM
8
"And ironically, by discouraging older workers from retiring early, this reform could actually cost state coffers more than it saves"

Think about this for two goddamn seconds. If teachers now work for 40 years before retirement instead of 30, what happens? All things being equal and assuming everyone retires as soon as they can, you have to hire 1/3 fewer teachers. Of course all things aren't equal (not everyone that CAN retire immediately does so, for example) but there will be a substantial effect on the number of teachers hired, and eventually, the number of teachers drawing from the pension system.
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM
9
@8 That is not how it works. Sure over time you will have to hire fewer teacher since you get more years out of each one, but at any given time you will have the same number of teachers as the number of teachers is based on the number of students.

The reason it might cost the state money is that the more years you work the higher pension you get. So a person retiring at 52 is likely getting a lower salary and has less pension earned, than a person at 62 or 72. It's why companies often offer early retirement. Better to get them out now and replaced with a lower cost younger worker who probably works harder.
Posted by giffy on April 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM
10
I find happiness in the dead charter school bill.

Well, for this legislative session because it will be back. (There is money to be made, you know.)

But I figure, in the end, it will go back to the voters - for a fourth time, talk about a waste of money - and once again, the voters will say no. Again.
Posted by westello on April 11, 2012 at 8:38 PM
11
Okay. Goldie is dead on right! The final hours of the legislation session were a friggin' mess to get WEA and public sector unions! Didn't quite make it, however!
Posted by 1971 on April 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM
12
"@8 That is not how it works. Sure over time you will have to hire fewer teacher since you get more years out of each one, but at any given time you will have the same number of teachers as the number of teachers is based on the number of students."

You need to look at the marginal cost of those teachers. Pulling numbers strictly out of my ass, let's say a senior teacher makes $70k a year in total comp, but retired, would draw $50k in total comp. Keeping that teacher on the payroll instead of retired ostensibly costs $20k a year more (hence leading to the claims of it increasing expenditures), but not really. Why? That retired teacher drawing that $50k in comp needs to be replaced. In this instance, if the total comp of the replacement teacher exceeds $20k (and it does), the system loses money. The system requires a certain number of active teachers at all times, yes, but that's how having teachers retire at the same age as everyone else saves the system as a whole money.

"The reason it might cost the state money is that the more years you work the higher pension you get. "

Even looking at the pension system in isolation, there would eventually be 1/3 fewer of them in the system and each of them would be drawing on that pension for 10 fewer years. Even at a 40% higher per-person-per year payout (assuming no significant lifespan differences between the teacher population and the general population) there is literally no way this increases pension expenditures in the long term.
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 9:31 PM
13
Also early retirement is typically offered as a way to reduce headcount - it gets rid of the more expensive employees, who are frequently not replaced.
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Goldy 14
@12, It doesn't increase pension expenditures, it increases general fund expenditures.
Posted by Goldy on April 11, 2012 at 9:42 PM
15
And where do pension contributions come from? Thin air? Even if they come from some other fund, they both come out of taxpayers', and the state's, pockets, one way or the other. It's not like the sizes of those respective funds are immutable in some way, it's just shifting cash between the pockets of the same institution. Hence the change will, in fact, save money.
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM
16
holy comma abuse Batman
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM
17
@1, perhaps you haven't noticed that there are quite a few people out of work now. They don't have a "ridiculously punitive health care plan" because they don't have ANY health care plan. You're not gaining sympathy with your insensitive complaints and threats, nor do you impress us with your ability to teach students to be aware of others besides themselves (which is a major component of teaching). Please find some other career path.
Posted by sarah70 on April 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM
18
Just out of curiosity Goldy, was it Ed Murray who said "this reform could actually cost state coffers more than it saves" or was that something you tacked on? I'd hate to think someone that's been in Olympia that long would say something as transparently wrong as that.
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Goldy 19
@18, that was me, not Ed. And I stand by it. An older workforce is more expensive than a younger one, and that will cost the general fund money down the line.
Posted by Goldy on April 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM
20
Great recap and analysis Goldy, thanks.
Posted by gnossos on April 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM
21
Of course you stand by it. You never admit you're wrong unless you're corrected by one of your own. You are definitely and conclusively wrong here and ducking that fact is par for the course for you. Shine on, you crazy diamond
Posted by Reader01 on April 11, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Dr_Awesome 22
Giffy, my understanding of the State pensions system is that one's total payout is the same, whether one retires early or late.

Someone nearing the end of their career has likely stalled and will not increase their earnings much in the last few years (barring a few exceptions).

And pension payout is reduced, as you noted, for early retirers. A friend in the state system explained to me that it's based on the actuarials: They expect you to live (on average) to a certain age, so the later you wait to retire the more you get per-month but the fewer months you'll be around to spend it.

So I'm not buying the arguments of the detractors that claim the State pension system is being bled dry by State workers retiring early and collecting full benefits.

I know that wasn't your point and I'm not singling you out- I saw it posted somewhere else recently and it's been bugging me ever since.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on April 12, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Will in Seattle 23
@5 she can. But will she?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy