OLYMPIA — A $32.4 billion spending plan, which would cut colleges, public schools, social services and employee salaries, not raise taxes and try to sell the state's liquor distribution center was released today by House Democrats.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ross Hunter, D-Medina, called it “thoughtful, responsible and sustainable,” but still full of bad news for people involved in state programs.

“I wish the budget we're about to present to you had more good news. It does not,” Hunter said as the 450-page budget, and several summaries were released.

It proposed cuts including:

$482 million in higher education institutions, which the colleges will be able to offset in part through higher tuition.
$362 less for increases to retired state employees on the state's oldest pension plans.
$216 million from programs to have smaller class sizes in Kindergarten through Grade 4
$177 million less for wages for state employees.
$108 million less for the state's Basic Health plan by shrinking the income a family can have to qualify for the plan.
$100 million less for the Disability Lifeline program, getting rid of cash grants but substituting some of the loss money with vouchers for housing.

It has no money for cost-of-living increases for teachers, which are mandated by a statewide initiative in 2000, and does not reduce class sizes in public schools, also required by voters in an separate initiative that same year.

It proposes the state sell its liquor distribution center for $300 million, if it can get an offer from private industry to do that. Hunter said that's been proposed, and the state has had some inquiries that suggest it's possible. If not, the state would have to cut another $300 million in spending.

What the budget does not have is any proposal to levy a new tax, raise an existing tax or close a tax exemption already on the books. House Democrats said they don't believe it's possible to get the required two-thirds majority for any tax increase.

“We're making the most responsible decisions we can in difficult times,” House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan, D-Covington, said.

Programs the state can no longer afford remain on life support, and the footprint of government continues to be larger than our taxpayers and economy can support,”  Rep. Gary Alexander of Olympia, the ranking Republican on Ways and Means said. “I've seen go-home budgets before and this is not one of them.”

Adam Glickman of the Service Employees International Union which represents some healt care workers said the budget comes down hardest on some of the state's lowest paid workers. Michael Itti of the League of Education Voters, which tracks school issues said the budget means students will continue to struggle  or and a generation of college students will be facing “crippling amounts of debt.”

 

Good morning, Netizens…

 

In his contribution to edification, cartoonist David Horsey attempts to depict the quandary surrounding earmarks facing our national leadership, regardless of their political affiliation. Earmarks, those subtle, sometimes very costly additions tagged onto otherwise existing pieces of legislation, have been the political footballs of members of both Democrats and Republicans for decades. An otherwise innocuous piece of legislation that might not otherwise alarm taxpayers, seems a perfectly good place to hide other spending.

 

Every instance a new piece of legislation is submitted for House or Senate consideration, the first thought that crosses my addled mind is I immediately suspect the legislation has lots of earmarks tagged onto the bill thus perpetuating the myth of “good legislation”, for I no longer believe that any legislation put forth by either political party is worth the cost of the ink to print it; the cost of the earmarks alone are far too costly for our troubled national economy to bear. But on the other hand, earmarks are what get political candidates elected and re-elected, year after nauseous year. Political candidates have made certain promises to their constituents that they will add certain budgetary line items to legislation for popular local items, and no one is wiser for it. If they cannot muster enough votes to put a local issue on the House floor, simply find a way to write it onto an otherwise innocent-appearing bill and nobody is the wiser.

 

What to do, what to do…

 

As of this morning, I have spoken with my omnipresent Sage, Arnold the Cat, regarding how best to deal with this issue of earmarks, simply because neither National Party has been able to keep their itching little fingers out of the pie. What is even more troublesome is that at this point in American history, we can ill afford to spend another penny of taxpayer's money; we are broke, or nearly so, and only a tight-fisted approach to our national budget will keep us off the economic rocks. Even a blonde hued feline house cat with little interest in national politics knows that much.

 

It is also readily apparent that neither Republicans nor Democrats can agree on where to cut earmarks. We have to fix our national budget! Of course, your results may differ.

 

Dave

The National Conference of State Legislatures has surveyed all the states to see how quickly they’re spending their federal economic stimulus money - some are spending it all to close their state budget gaps in the current fiscal year, leaving nothing for the following year and prompting fears about state budgets “facing a cliff” when the federal money runs out. Idaho falls in the middle of the pack of the 25 states that have responded to the survey so far, spending 54 percent of its stimulus money in fiscal year 2010, which started July 1. Washington was a bit more cautious, spending 33 percent. Highest on the list was Texas, which is spending 96 percent of its stimulus money in the current year; at the bottom is Alaska, spending only 3 percent. More here at Eye on Boise

Question: If you got a big chunk of money tomorrow, would you spend it now or spend it later?

It’s become a cliche of recession journalism: the how-to list for saving money on food.

But it’s understandable. Food is one of our biggest expenses, and you can approach it in so many different ways. Today at WiseBread, there’s a post offering suggestions for how to save money and eat healthfully. One thing the piece insists on is that you don’t have to eat lousy food to save money — which is good, since some of us would probably go into debt to eat good food.

If you’re on a budget, you can still eat well–all it takes is imagination and a sense of adventure. Invest in spices to liven up your meals. Experiment with sauces. Prepare them in large quantities, and freeze or preserve them. Make your own stock and freeze it in containers that will be ready when you want soup or stew. Curries, stews, and stir-fries are great ways to stretch meat or use leftovers.

Try macaroni and cheese with real cheese and whole-wheat or vegetable pasta. Even something as simple as a peanut-butter sandwich can be healthier with whole-wheat bread and real, old-fashioned peanut-butter. Yes, that’s right; comfort food can be healthy!

Go to any budget committee in Olympia and it will quickly become apparent that the near-universal argument for anyone seeking state money is this:

“Spend on this worthy program now. You’ll save money down the road.”

At the moment, some of the bigger voices in this chorus come from the state’s colleges. The state Higher Education Coordinating Board on Thursday released a report saying, in essence, that the colleges should be spared severe cuts because they’re so valuable. It’s title: “The Benefits of Investing in Higher Education: A Return on Investment.”

The board, recalling previous downturns, is clearly trying to head off deep cuts combined with big tuition hikes.

Eollege-educated people earn more money, pay more taxes, commit less crime, volunteer more and vote more, the HEC Board notes. Parents without a college degree, it says, use food stamps and welfare more. The colleges also “serve as incubators for growth and innovation” and provide a steady supply of trained workers, the report says.

Instead of cuts, the study suggests that the state should put more money into colleges now. The federal government, through the G.I. Bill, poured money and students into schools in 1946, at a time when the nation feared a fall into recession.

And it’s not just the graduating students. The report pointedly notes that Eastern Washington University’s payroll, for example, means $77 million in spending in Spokane County. (2004 figures.)

From which parent did you inherit your sensibility about money?

A recent poll in the U.K. showed that a quarter of all respondents say it was Mom, while 15 percent blame (or credit) Dad. Lisa Belkin reports on the survey at her New York Times blog.

This has me wondering about the generation growing up right now. Because, in the end, saying you adopted your parents view of money, and saying you have developed your own approach, are really two ways to say the same thing: you are influenced by the times in which you were raised. My father, conservative and cautious, was a child of the Depression. My mother, far more relaxed about finances, was a child of the sigh of relief that followed WWII.