tvashtarkatena Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Double in 3, 2, 1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 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? Â 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not even saying anything about increases - Jesus - just keeping us from making the hole deeper with our limited existing resources. Â So your argument is let's keep digging because once we get the hole filled we might not get anymore dirt? Brillant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not even saying anything about increases - Jesus - just keeping us from making the hole deeper with our limited existing resources. Â So your argument is let's keep digging because once we get the hole filled we might not get anymore dirt? Brillant. Â 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I know. Let's solve our immediate state budget by prompting Congress to cancel the joint strike fighter. I'm all for it. Â 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. Â 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 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. Â 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Shave off $215 M a year by legalizing weed, for starters. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 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.   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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. Â the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector. Â 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. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Â the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector. Â 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. Â Â Drinking the KoolAid, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Refute any of those facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Seriously...those are not opinions. Those are facts. And you cannot refute them so you break out the rolleyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Â the pain being endured by the private sector was caused by the private sector. Â Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Seriously...those are not opinions. Those are facts. And you cannot refute them so you break out the rolleyes. Â 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. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 i'm fine with a differing opinion about how much government there should or shouldn't be. Â Â 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. Â 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. Â The real reasons for our economic downturn are very well documented in bank legers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 a more convincing argument about state employees wouldn't focus on the # but the pay that that # was receiving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 failure to refute any of the facts just proves that someone is "drinking the koolaid" and it isn't me. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Shave off $215 M a year by legalizing weed, for starters. Â Â Points for applicability and vision. Triple points for a direct and concise reply. Happy TG. Done cooking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.