Over the past few days, Democrats (the majority party) in the Washington State Senate and House of Representatives have proposed their supplemental budget proposals. Each proposal is disappointing to me...
The House Democrat budget proposal (keep in mind this is a supplemental budget year*) hikes state spending by over 17% over the previous biennium. The Senate proposal spends even more. The increased spending is not "emergency" spending, as is called for in a supplemental budget - we're talking about new programs and new regulations. Each proposal would equate to the largest supplemental budget increase in state history.
* A supplemental budget is intended to "tweak" the state's existing budget, to deal with emergency spending for construction, roads and education.
After overtaxing the people of the state, the legislature finds itself in control of over $1.4 billion in "unexpected" revenue. To her credit, governor Christine Gregoire - a Democrat - has cautioned her colleagues on the left side of the aisle (on more than one occasion) from using the budget "surplus" as an excuse to increase state spending, as the state has been in the red for years, and many of the bills the state needs to pay haven't been paid yet. Read: the state is in debt, and needs to pay its bills before it can make money (in order to pay for new programs).
Democrats in both bodies of the legislature are touting their budget proposals as "investing in the future, while saving money". What sticks in my craw is that the state is over $1 billion debt right now, the "surplus" money is a one-time affair, and instead of paying the bills, the budget proposals increase state spending, which means the state will be in hock even farther, come the next budget cycle!
Imagine your family is in debt to credit card companies, or to the bank, or whatever. You owe someone money, and before you budgeted for this year, you had no idea how to pay those bills. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, you win $10,000 via a lottery scratch ticket. You've got some extra money, so you want to get out of debt by paying the bills, right? The money could pay off the credit card debt, etc., and leave you in a better financial sate than before.
Now let's assume that your spouse has the majority say in how your family spends and saves. Your spouse tells you that "we've got an extra $10,000, so let's buy a new digital flat screen tv to replace our old tv, finance a new car through a 24-month lease, and put the remaining $250 into the checking account."
Now you have $250 in your checking account, and you have a new tv you couldn't afford in the first place, and you have to make payments on a new car that you don't make enough money to pay for. The $250 won't even pay your rent, and you are deeper in debt the next time the bills get mailed to you.
It feels great to have a new tv and a new car (who wouldn't love that), but it came at the expense of being further in debt. Why? Because your spouse couldn't budget your finances correctly.
And that's what's happening in the state legislature right now.
The way the Democratic-controlled legislature circumvents this family expenses analogy is that, unlike a family in debt, the state doesn't get referred to a collection agency, doesn't have their bank account activity frozen until the bills are paid, and doesn't have a credit rating altered by spending beyond means. Please take note.
No comments:
Post a Comment