Spokane7
50°
June 27, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: Shrinking government is the only fix this time
Time to face facts. Washington state government is going to shrink. Actually, it’s past time the state’s political leadership accepted this reality. The governor and Legislature are facing their third consecutive budget hole. This one is $3 billion at present. After two years of difficult budget cutting, finding that amount would be next to impossible without a dramatic restructuring of government.
What prevented previous overhauls was the hope of a quick economic recovery and continued aid from the federal government. But hope isn’t a plan. Congress is becoming increasingly fixated on the federal deficit. For example, it was unable to pass another extension of unemployment benefits. And the economy is stumbling along, unable to put sufficient numbers of people to work to fuel a recovery. Gov. Chris Gregoire has warned that if Congress doesn’t approve state aid by August, she will have to implement across- the-board cuts and possibly call a special session of the Legislature.
This week, the governor announced a strategy for dramatically streamlining government. She’s touting zero-based budgeting based on the Priorities of Government model to determine which services are essential.
We’ve heard those budgetary buzzwords before, so what’s different this time? Well, as state Rep. Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham, chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee, told the Seattle Times: “What’s different is it’s not getting any better.”
So despite federal aid and tax increases, the state still finds itself with a structural budget deficit. Quite simply, revenues are not sufficient to carry out all of the services the state provides.
The governor is assembling a 30-person panel to study government restructuring. Participants are from business, labor and politics and represent a broad political spectrum. This group will hold public hearings across the state to solicit ideas for rethinking government. It will pose such questions as: “Is this activity an essential public service?” “Can the activity be eliminated or delayed in recessionary times?” “Should users pay a portion of the costs?”
Another question that needs asking is whether taxpayers can sustain the current salaries and benefit packages of state workers.
The state’s leaders cannot be blamed for the economic implosion and the subsequent malaise, but they have no choice when it comes to balancing the budget. The feds cannot be relied upon. There is little appetite for a second round of tax increases. We need a tough, thoughtful, long-term plan to shrink state government.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on June 27 at 6:55 a.m.
Re your comment about whether we can continue to pay the state workers the big bucks… An interesting article this morning in the Seattle Times about the “double dippers”…. folks that take full retirement from our educational system, and then come back to the same jobs sometimes in two weeks without the jobs being posted or advertised to the community… so the folks so lucky to do this reap a big retirement and continued pay at a high rate… where if we hired further down the food chain for a brand new employee we’d save a lot of bucks….
College professors making more than “Professor Obama” seems a bit untoward… john
liarsinnews on June 27 at 7:41 a.m.
I absolutely agree with your post, ChefGus.
mikeln on June 27 at 8:23 a.m.
We need to stop paying for the high cost of contractors who work for the state. Before we started into bad economic times, our state government all but eliminated the agency that investigates waste and fraud in government. Why would they do this? We can cut wages and programs to help the poor get back on their feet why not demand lower profits for companies doing buisness with the state. If they won’t do the work or provide the services for less, find someone that will.
Arch_Druid on June 28 at 12:08 a.m.
I find the whole idea of “shrinking government” to be hilarious. Gvt should only get “shrunk” if it meets my ideology and it is the other guy who shouldn’t have gvt there for him. On the other hand, if I want gvt to meet my expectations, then gvt doesn’t get “shrunk” period.
Oh, and right along with gvt meeting the expectations of the special interests; well, it has to be funded AND budgeted somewhere.
Until this author realizes that the size of gvt starts with me, gvt isn’t going to be significantly reduced in size.