Opinion
State GOP: "There is No $5 Billion Shortfall."
Conservative state Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-42, Ferndale) is the latest Republican to hype the fact that state revenues are actually growing in the next biennium —by about $4 billion. His point: "There is no $5 billion shortfall."
Ericksen lays out his logic in his latest newsletter:
The GOP meme is intended to show that the budget problem isn't about revenue, it's about spending, and spending is, the GOP argues, out of control. Or as Ericksen continues: "The $5 billion figure is being misused to justify cuts caused by out-of-control spending in the past."
But what Ericksen's narrative ignores is this: In literal terms, the "extra" $4 billion is not extra at all.
Here’s the deal: In the 2009-2011 biennium, the state took in about $28.5 billion in receipts. Thanks to federal Medicaid stimulus money, we also got about $4 billion in matching funds.
This put the state's total spend on services last biennium at around $33 billion.
Thanks to inflation, population growth, and increased needs because of the recession, it would cost about $38 billion in 2011-13 dollars to maintain the same level of services (law enforcement, prisons, social programs, and education). That difference is what everyone is talking about when they talk about the $5 billion shortfall.
However, we’ve only got about $33 billion in revenues to cover those demands.
That 13 percent revenue growth (the federal money doesn’t count as revenue) is pretty normal. In the last pre-recession biennium, the ’05-07 biennium, revenues grew 17 percent over the ’03-05 biennium.
But after the Great Recession hit, we saw unprecedented dives: In ’07-09, revenue grew by just .1 percent and in ’09-11, revenues fell .57 percent. So, the 13 percent growth in the next biennium shows that we’re heading out of the recession, back to our traditional economic expansion. And when the economy expands—more people and jobs and inflation on long-term investment—the state’s expenses go up.
That is hardly out-of-control spending. In fact, in his own newsletter, senate ways and means chair Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Medina) points out that state spending this biennium will be less than it was over the previous two biennia.[pullquote]Of course, the limp Democratic response to the Republicans' cut-taxes-to-cripple-government strategy seems to be: cut taxes to cripple people, and cross their fingers—hoping for an angry backlash against the Republican assault. That strategy, and justification for tax cuts, is just as onerous in the short term as the Republicans' long-term game.[/pullquote]
But that's not enough for Ericksen. His take, which matches a Republican game plan to cut taxes as a way to cripple government, is that current cuts aren't enough. He complains:
And he concludes: "Temporarily spending less in isolation from government restructuring will not create long-term stability in the state’s economic future or produce sustainable budgets."
Riffing on Murray's quote, Ericksen is clearly saying that "government restructuring" means he wants to "eliminate" programs. He doesn't say what he wants to eliminate (I've got a call in to ask him for specifics), but from previous interviews with him, I'd guess he wants to eliminate environmental programs.
Of course, the limp Democratic response to the Republicans' cut-taxes-to-cripple-government strategy seems to be: cut taxes to cripple people, and cross their fingers—hoping for an angry backlash against the Republican assault. That strategy, and justification for tax cuts, is just as onerous in the short term as the Republicans' long-term game.
Ericksen lays out his logic in his latest newsletter:
There is no $5 billion budget shortfall. The commonly reported, but false narrative, is that the state has a budget crisis and a $5 billion shortfall. In reality, the state will take in $4 billion more from taxpayers in the next biennium than in the current biennium.
The GOP meme is intended to show that the budget problem isn't about revenue, it's about spending, and spending is, the GOP argues, out of control. Or as Ericksen continues: "The $5 billion figure is being misused to justify cuts caused by out-of-control spending in the past."
But what Ericksen's narrative ignores is this: In literal terms, the "extra" $4 billion is not extra at all.
Here’s the deal: In the 2009-2011 biennium, the state took in about $28.5 billion in receipts. Thanks to federal Medicaid stimulus money, we also got about $4 billion in matching funds.
This put the state's total spend on services last biennium at around $33 billion.
Thanks to inflation, population growth, and increased needs because of the recession, it would cost about $38 billion in 2011-13 dollars to maintain the same level of services (law enforcement, prisons, social programs, and education). That difference is what everyone is talking about when they talk about the $5 billion shortfall.
However, we’ve only got about $33 billion in revenues to cover those demands.
That 13 percent revenue growth (the federal money doesn’t count as revenue) is pretty normal. In the last pre-recession biennium, the ’05-07 biennium, revenues grew 17 percent over the ’03-05 biennium.
But after the Great Recession hit, we saw unprecedented dives: In ’07-09, revenue grew by just .1 percent and in ’09-11, revenues fell .57 percent. So, the 13 percent growth in the next biennium shows that we’re heading out of the recession, back to our traditional economic expansion. And when the economy expands—more people and jobs and inflation on long-term investment—the state’s expenses go up.
That is hardly out-of-control spending. In fact, in his own newsletter, senate ways and means chair Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Medina) points out that state spending this biennium will be less than it was over the previous two biennia.[pullquote]Of course, the limp Democratic response to the Republicans' cut-taxes-to-cripple-government strategy seems to be: cut taxes to cripple people, and cross their fingers—hoping for an angry backlash against the Republican assault. That strategy, and justification for tax cuts, is just as onerous in the short term as the Republicans' long-term game.[/pullquote]
But that's not enough for Ericksen. His take, which matches a Republican game plan to cut taxes as a way to cripple government, is that current cuts aren't enough. He complains:
The battle cry in Olympia is having the courage to make tough choices, but this is one-sided – it only refers to cuts in program and services – it has yet to mean changing the way the state does business. This is reflected in the quote from Democrat budget chair Sen. Ed Murray in an April 23 Seattle Times story: “The framework we agreed on is we wouldn't eliminate, but we would shrink," Murray said. "Our win is the preservation of programs."
And he concludes: "Temporarily spending less in isolation from government restructuring will not create long-term stability in the state’s economic future or produce sustainable budgets."
Riffing on Murray's quote, Ericksen is clearly saying that "government restructuring" means he wants to "eliminate" programs. He doesn't say what he wants to eliminate (I've got a call in to ask him for specifics), but from previous interviews with him, I'd guess he wants to eliminate environmental programs.
Of course, the limp Democratic response to the Republicans' cut-taxes-to-cripple-government strategy seems to be: cut taxes to cripple people, and cross their fingers—hoping for an angry backlash against the Republican assault. That strategy, and justification for tax cuts, is just as onerous in the short term as the Republicans' long-term game.
