Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[tvashtarkatena]

Double in 3, 2, 1...

[prole]

Thanks. This is exactly what my concern is. We'll back the dumptruck of taxpayer revenue to backfill the hole rather than spend it on worthy programs - schools, medical care for the needy, and general social safety net programs. What - change anything?

 

And once again you fail to see that the Right's attack on public workers is part and parcel of the long and ongoing assault on the very same programs you mention. There is nothing on the political landscape to suggest less money going to pensions and benefits will translate into increased funding for social programs and everything to suggest that those cuts will simply add to the burden on those services.

[Jim]

I'm not even saying anything about increases - Jesus - just keeping us from making the hole deeper with our limited existing resources.

 

So your argument is let's keep digging because once we get the hole filled we might not get anymore dirt? Brillant.

[prole]

I'm not even saying anything about increases - Jesus - just keeping us from making the hole deeper with our limited existing resources.

 

So your argument is let's keep digging because once we get the hole filled we might not get anymore dirt? Brillant.

 

Our resources are actually quite vast, or haven't you seen the charts that suggest exactly where our money's been going for the last few decades?

[Jim]

I know. Let's solve our immediate state budget by prompting Congress to cancel the joint strike fighter. I'm all for it.

 

Meanwhile we have another $5B deficit hole coming up here in WA - and that is optimistic with the economy puttering along. Before the next legislative session convenes it is likely that the state will edit its revenue forecast down again.

 

This is where the progress left fails for me. It all ends up arm waving with little pratical solution. Other than the obvious - cut services.

[prole]

And this is where liberals continue to fail: lurching from crisis to crisis with no long term vision, nor a grasp of how our immediate problems relate to the totality, a general blindness to the political and ideological dimension to "the math", cynicism, a dogged unwillingness to understand what is meant by the phrase "politics is the art of the possible". In short, no imagination, no will, no vision. When a system is as dysfunctional, as crisis-ridden, as this one is, it's time to abandon the "practical" (do i cut off my hand or my foot?) and start thinking about what it is we really want.

Edited November 23, 2011 by prole

[Jim]

Unfortunately - reality has to be dealt with. Given I can't figure out anything remotely applicable in that last post I'll ask the question as directly as I can.

 

What would you do as govenor to stem the coming $50B hole in the state budget? Particularly give our recent loss in services from pervious cuts. Or does that just derail the "vision" discussion?

[tvashtarkatena]

Shave off $215 M a year by legalizing weed, for starters.

 

 

[JayB]

Unfortunately - reality has to be dealt with. Given I can't figure out anything remotely applicable in that last post I'll ask the question as directly as I can.

 

What would you do as govenor to stem the coming $50B hole in the state budget? Particularly give our recent loss in services from pervious cuts. Or does that just derail the "vision" discussion?

 

Yes.

 

 

[Fairweather]

WA State Government Employment Including Higher Education

 

FTEs (Full Time Employees)

2010 109,973

2009 112,545

2008 111,420

2007 108,693

2006 106,641

2005 106,769

2004 105,078

2003 104,263

2002 103,818

2001 102,042

2000 99,928

1999 97,900

1998 95,023

1997 93,682

1996 91,828

1995 91,891

1994 89,603

1993 90,174

1992 87,662

1991 84,563

1990 80,309

[olyclimber]

WA State Government Employment Including Higher Education

 

FTEs (Full Time Employees)

2010 109,973

2009 112,545

2008 111,420

2007 108,693

2006 106,641

2005 106,769

2004 105,078

2003 104,263

2002 103,818

2001 102,042

2000 99,928

1999 97,900

1998 95,023

1997 93,682

1996 91,828

1995 91,891

1994 89,603

1993 90,174

1992 87,662

1991 84,563

1990 80,309

 

 

4,866,692 1990 population

6,724,540 Feb 2011 population

[ivan]

WA State Government Employment Including Higher Education

 

FTEs (Full Time Employees)

2010 109,973

2009 112,545

2008 111,420

2007 108,693

2006 106,641

2005 106,769

2004 105,078

2003 104,263

2002 103,818

2001 102,042

2000 99,928

1999 97,900

1998 95,023

1997 93,682

1996 91,828

1995 91,891

1994 89,603

1993 90,174

1992 87,662

1991 84,563

1990 80,309

 

 

4,866,692 1990 population

6,724,540 Feb 2011 population

thanks for sparing me the google

 

 

[Fairweather]

4,866,692 1990 population

6,724,540 Feb 2011 population

 

...and it looks like a bunch of 'em were hired by the state. How does the big "decline" in state employment compare to, say, the pain being endured in private sector employment? I doubt it's commensurate.

[olyclimber]

just saying, the rise in state employees wasn't out of line with the rise in population. in fact, there was a significant drop in % of state employees to the population.

 

the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector.

 

there will be a decline in state employees, it is happening. after all, there is no money to pay them anymore. this will result in a lower standard of living in the state, unless you're rich enough.

 

 

[Fairweather]

 

the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector.

 

there will be a decline in state employees, it is happening. after all, there is no money to pay them anymore. this will result in a lower standard of living in the state, unless you're rich enough.

 

 

Drinking the KoolAid, I see.

[olyclimber]

Refute any of those facts.

[olyclimber]

[olyclimber]

Seriously...those are not opinions. Those are facts. And you cannot refute them so you break out the rolleyes.

[Fairweather]

 

the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector.

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Seriously...those are not opinions. Those are facts. And you cannot refute them so you break out the rolleyes.

 

I may have typed it in wrong (so no flaming), but with the drop in 2010, the # of state employees went up about 37% and the population about 38% from 1990 to 2011. So, yeah, pretty commensurate.

 

 

[olyclimber]

i'm fine with a differing opinion about how much government there should or shouldn't be.

 

 

I also do agree with the idea that politicians should have been more intelligent and realized that the bubble(s) created by the private sector were unsustainable, and that government funding would suffer as a consequence.

 

Fairweather seems to be blaming the down turn in the US (or WA State) economy to rise in public employees! Not a very convincing argument there.

 

The real reasons for our economic downturn are very well documented in bank legers.

[olyclimber]

a more convincing argument about state employees wouldn't focus on the # but the pay that that # was receiving.

[olyclimber]

failure to refute any of the facts just proves that someone is "drinking the koolaid" and it isn't me.

 

 

[Jim]

Shave off $215 M a year by legalizing weed, for starters.

 

 

Points for applicability and vision. Triple points for a direct and concise reply. Happy TG. Done cooking.

[AlpineK]

Washington State Population

 

2010 US Census

 

State Population

 

• 1990: 5 million residents
  
• 2010: 6.72 million residents
  

2010 State population is 134% of state population in 1990

 

Using Fairweathers numbers for Washington State workers

 

 

• 1990: 80309 workers
  
• 2010: 109937 workers
  

2010 Washington State employees are 137% of the numbers in 1990

 

Given the two numbers there's a difference of 4%. If you give the numbers a 5% margin of error the numbers are essentially the same.

 

I agree with Oly, you might be able to make a point if you provided numbers on salaries and accounted for inflation...