Merryraven (Katy Sessions) says...

Governments are consumers also. When gas prices go up for you, they also go up for governments, as an example.

So what do you think happens when expenses go up unexpectedly for local, county, state and federal governments.

They have to run the police cars, fire trucks etc anyway. Each employee is expected to account for fuel usage too.

So would you like the snowplows to run? Or would you rather they didn't spend the money on necessary services.

Where is this waste? It is an urban legend. Most government employees are doing a public service. Trust me you don't work in government for the money. There are easier and more comfortable ways to earn a living in the private sector.

Tell me what you want cut. Where is the waste. Document it.

December 28, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"However, ask yourself this: Do you truly believe that the government needs more money to operate? I, for one, do not!"
.
What is your belief based on? Any facts, number, statistics? Or do you just have a general feeling that government = bad, and "liberals" = worse?
.
"It is time for us to stand up and demand accountability for the abusive, wasteful and fraudulent way our government spends OUR money."
.
Well, you can stand up an demand things if that makes you feel better, or you can just go look at the information you pretend to want. All you have to do is go to google, type in "washington state budget" and click on the link to this page: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget09/highli...
But my guess is that you have no actual desire to see any of the numbers; you just want to complain about people/policies your radio tells you are bad.
I've shown you how to get the numbers (through the complex world of google), now answer Katy's question: Tell me what you want cut. Where is the waste. Document it.
.

December 28, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

duffman (Todd Skylstad) says...

"Or do you just have a general feeling that government=bad, and "liberals"=worse."

You were off to a good start with that statement Norm, but your letter went a little off track from there (in my opinion).
The author of the article was not demanding "things" (as you suggest) he was pointing out that too many other people are damanding too many things, and those of us that are actually paying the bill are getting tired of it. You document all the waste you want, I have enough documentation in my own financial statements to convince me things are not working right. Well, time to get back to productive work, comrade (while listening to talk radio of course).

December 29, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"The author of the article was not demanding "things" (as you suggest)..."
.
I was referring to this: "It is time for us to stand up and demand accountability..." and pointing out that if a person wants to know what the Washington state government is doing with the taxes it collects, all one has to do is google the budget. Is "accountability" a thing? It doesn't matter to me, because I'm not interested in arguing semantics. My point here is that a general feeling that one is paying too much in taxes is not conclusive evidence of massive government waste. It's extremely poor reasoning to claim certainty about numerical issues without looking at the relevant numbers.

December 29, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

duffman (Todd Skylstad) says...

The "relevant" numbers I am referring to are the amount of state taxes I have paid in the past several years (not to mention what my employers have paid on my behalf). I am very familiar with these numbers.

"Accountabililty" is certainly a thing. Holding our representives accountable for their actions is the foundation to the way a representative republic works. If they continue to spend, and get re-elected, then so be it. This is the way things have been going for decades, although in the last several years there has been a marked acceleration in spending. The problem is, the typical wage earning tax payer/constituent of the state of Washington has no idea what they pay in state taxes, as tax collections come primarily from their employer. People in independent business (large and small) understand what it costs to keep this bloated state running, but are by design in the minority.

The real tax payers of this state are leaving in droves. They may or may not be googling the state budget before they leave, but they certainly understand their bottom line, and can not simply milk the tax payers when the budget comes up short.

December 29, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Resident (Resi Dent) says...

Without realistic suggestions about what to cut, some people just hear complaints without solutions. I think this happened here, so the question really is: what would you suggest cutting?

December 29, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

duffman (Todd Skylstad) says...

Eliminating all state spending increases would be a reasonable place to start.

December 29, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mavulous (mav ulous) says...

 
>so the question really is: what would you suggest cutting?<
 
Cuts should always be made across the board to be fair and they should be apportioned accordingly--or at least with thoughtful consideration--by those responsible for submitting the budget.
 
 

December 29, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

The reason Governor Gregoire and her cohorts have threatened to cut state funded health care and public education is unabashed fear mongering to justify the tax increases she is planning to cover up her bungling of the state's finances. Oh yes, she stills wants more of our money so she can continue her spending addiction. Why people keep voting her in I'll never understand.

December 29, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

Right on Duffman! I can be very specific on how to cut the state budget. Start by eliminating some of the thousands of unnecessary high paying benefit laden state jobs created by the Governor in the past few years. Privatize the grossly inefficient Workman's Comp program. To name a couple.

December 30, 2009 at 12:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"The "relevant" numbers I am referring to are the amount of state taxes I have paid in the past several years (not to mention what my employers have paid on my behalf). I am very familiar with these numbers."
.
Those numbers don't tell enough of the story to reach any valid conclusions. It's like saying "I spent $40. Do you think I got a good deal?" Without any information about what you spent $40 on, there is no basis on which to reach a conclusion. In order to determine whether the amount of taxes you paid was fair or not, it would be necessary to know how your taxes were calculated and to look at the entire system for determining how much taxes each individual/business pays. With regards to the state budget, its necessary to actually look at the budget and see what the money was spent on before any valid conclusion can be reached regarding whether and how much state spending is wasted.
.
"Accountabililty" is certainly a thing."
.
Then why did you suggest it wasn't?
.
"Holding our representives accountable for their actions is the foundation to the way a representative republic works"
.
Fine. Then take the time to look at the budget. Holding them accountable takes some effort on your part. If you can't be bothered to actually look at the budget, then your grand assertion that you want to hold them accountable is clearly a lie: you just want to complain, nothing more.
.
"The problem is, the typical wage earning tax payer/constituent of the state of Washington has no idea what they pay in state taxes, as tax collections come primarily from their employer."
.
No, the problem is, the typical disciple of radio babble is too lazy to look at the easily accessible information regarding both taxes and spending.
.
"People in independent business...but are by design in the minority."
.
Are you actually suggesting that there is some government conspiracy to keep people from starting businesses? That's utterly ridiculous.
.
"The real tax payers of this state are leaving in droves"
.
"Migration is an important component of our state's growth, and is largely driven by employment opportunities. While Washington remains more economically attractive than California, Oregon and many other states, population gains due to migration have dropped from 81,000 in 2006 to 58,000 in 2008 and 39,000 for 2009, according to Theresa Lowe, the state's chief demographer."
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/news/release/20...

December 30, 2009 at 2:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

TS: "Eliminating all state spending increases would be a reasonable place to start."
Mav:: "Cuts should always be made across the board to be fair and they should be apportioned accordingly"
.
In other words, you guys have zero interest in actually knowing what the money is spent on - zero interest in basing your conclusions on facts; you simply want to complain.
.
LH: "...unabashed fear mongering...bungling of the state's finances...spending addiction"
.
Colorful descriptors are a poor substitute for facts.
.
LH: "eliminating some of the thousands of unnecessary high paying benefit laden state jobs created by the Governor in the past few years."
.
What state jobs are you referring to, and on what grounds do you find them to be unnecessary?
.
LH: "Privatize the grossly inefficient Workman's Comp program"
.
http://www.lni.wa.gov/news/2009/qa091... : "Washington’s total benefits per $100 of wages are in the top one-third in the country based on the 2007 National Academy of Social Insurance study, while its premium rates for employers insured by L&I – based on the Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate Ranking – were in the lowest third in the nation in 2008. This is possible because administrative costs at L&I are low and L&I is a non-profit, state-run insurance company."

December 30, 2009 at 2:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

Norm, quoting from an L&I web page is hardly an unbiased news source for L&I activities, try BIAW to broaden your perspective. I gather from your comments that you support the Governor and her spending orgy and that the budget is sacred and somehow above criticism. And yes, I am complaining. What other recourse do we that disagree have other than our votes? I am clearly unhappy with the way the current administration has handled our finances. When they get it right I'll support them.

December 30, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"1) quoting from an L&I web page is hardly an unbiased news source for L&I activities, 2) try BIAW to broaden your perspective. "
.
1) Of course its biased; that doesn't necessarily mean that its inaccurate.
2) That source is biased as well. But either of these biased sources is more convincing than you or I just stating what we feel like. I've presented evidence to back up my contention that L&I isn't "grossly inefficient", so far you've presented none. If BIAW (or any other source) has evidence that supports your position, its up to you to present it.
.
"I gather from your comments that you support the Governor and her spending orgy and that the budget is sacred and somehow above criticism."
.
Absolutely not. The Governor and her budget may in fact be horrible, I don't know - but I'm not going to reach any conclusions about that based soley on anonymous internet posters' unsourced assertions that she and the budget are horrible. Posts that are long on descriptive words (orgy, etc.) and short on facts do nothing to convince me.
.
"And yes, I am complaining. What other recourse do we that disagree have other than our votes? "
.
Complaining is fine when its based on factual evidence rather than a gut feeling. A person who can't be bothered to look at a budget that is very easy to find really has no grounds to complain about a lack of accountability, though.
.
"I am clearly unhappy with the way the current administration has handled our finances. "
.
Based on what? How can you reach a conclusion about finances without knowing any numbers whatesoever?

December 30, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

anniebear (Annie Bear) says...

Here is my suggestion - pay our reps, senators, congresspeople and governor the median state wage. No more pay raises unless the median state wage increases. No one in a government job should make more than the median state wage. I bet they would do more to bring in higher paying jobs and really look at the welfare system and try harder to get people off it and back to work if their salary increases depended on a higher state median wage.

December 30, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

H20skier (Kyle Steinburg) says...

Norm I am afraid you turned this into a Left Vs. right issue. It is evident by the responses that people are passionate about this issues. The issue is to balance a budget without increasing taxes to due so. It is time to start addressing our buget issues on a need Vs. want issue. My feelings toward the government are backed by a statistical history of questionable spending, earmarks and pork bellied spending. For example, SayWA 442,000 dollars (google this), Tacoma Bridge light project 1.5 million (yes it looks nice), 180,000 dollars in lost laptops, cameras and other equipment at the Department of Labor and Industries. I could go on but I belive that my point has been made.

December 30, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"(1) Norm I am afraid you turned this into a Left Vs. right issue. (2) It is evident by the responses that people are passionate about this issues. (3) The issue is to balance a budget without increasing taxes to due so. (4) It is time to start addressing our buget issues on a need Vs. want issue. (5) My feelings toward the government are backed by a statistical history of questionable spending, earmarks and pork bellied spending. (6) For example, SayWA 442,000 dollars (google this), Tacoma Bridge light project 1.5 million (yes it looks nice), 180,000 dollars in lost laptops, cameras and other equipment at the Department of Labor and Industries. I could go on but I belive that my point has been made."
.
(1) It looked to me like it was already a left/right issue before my first response.
(2) Yes, it is. It's also very evident that many people's passion has little to no basis in any objective facts.
(3) The way you frame the question presupposes the conclusion. The issue is whether or not the state needs more revenue and whether or not there is room to responsibly cut expenditures.
(4) Well, that's vague enough that I don't particularly disagree with it. I'm not sure its really saying much, though.
(5) OK, let's suppose there is an unquestionable history of overspending. That would support skepticism toward the present and projected budget, but its not enough to reach a conclusion about present/projected budgets without actually looking at those budgets.
(6) I've got to give you props for these - for actually looking up some relevant information. I'm no marketing expert, but I am aware that pretty much every private company (not just state tourism boards) seems to feel that they reap a reward from spending money on advertising. I can also agree that "SayWA" sounds pretty dumb. Now if these things you've listed are included in the present budget, then they are relevant to reaching conclusions about how the present budget could/should be trimmed. So far, you've identified just over $2 million, which is a worthy effort, but you've got a long ways to go to get to the $8 billion projected budget shortfall over the next two years.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html...

December 30, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

H20skier (Kyle Steinburg) says...

I have read the proposed buget long before I ever drafted the letter to the editor. I have given good examples of our government wasteing money, how many examples of waste do you need me to show you to prove that we need some accountability in spending. After reviewing the budget most allocations are to general funds or angencies with no indication of what the money is to be used for. Only time can tell if this years monies will be spent on needs Vs. wants. I can only assume history will repeat itself and there will plenty of ear marks and pork bellied spending (waste). We can argue all day long about what a government want Vs. need is but the fact of the matter is spending increases year after year and sooner or later taxpayers will be out of money. Then what?

December 30, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

OK--let's make this real easy for everyone to understand--You have a job that pays you $500 a week, after taxes are deducted, you'll have (approx.) $400 availiable for expenses. If for some reason your "expenses" exceed this amount, you have choices. None of which are good, but neccessary to cover all the costs.
We ALL are required to live within OUR means--the Government just raises taxes.
With more companies leaving this state, the tax revenue will be less-so-instead of trying to fix what they created--they RAISED the L&I and the Employment Security taxes on the EXISTING Small businesses to the tune of 20-30%. I know, I'm one of them.
The bottom line is, If you aint got it--you can't spend it!! End of discussion!!

December 30, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

Here is a fact for you Norm, $2.6 billion, the amount the state budget needs to be cut to fit the revenue shortfall. Here is another fact, if you set your budget based on revenue generated during a roaring economy your sure to have a shortfall once the economy slows and slow it will. These are the only facts required to formulate my opinion that the state governement has exercised poor fiscal management. If I had operated my family budget using the same strategy as the Governor I'd be wiped out by now. You seem to be obsessed with the need for facts when what's needed is some good opinions. Read the Governor's letter to Washingtonians. It's nothing but the Governor's opinion as to why the budget was cut the way it was and her opinion why it's a good idea to raise our taxes again. When you vote, it is a decision based solely on your opinion of how your candidate might behave in the future. It's my opinion that it's a fact that our state is in need of new leadership!

December 30, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

One last point--you've heard the saying "You don't know what you have until you lose it" Well the VOTERS in this state need to WAKE UP, we're not only losing it, we're giving it away and we are on course with the state of California==Bankruptcy!!! You can tax people and companies to a point where there is no more to give, the companies move out of state or go out of business, the people lose the jobs, no payroll, no taxes paid to the state or community-it's a viscious circle that ultimately stops the wheels from turning.Look around--all those vacant buildings used to house real people with real jobs, that paid real taxes--they're gone and so are the jobs and taxes--It's time we all woke up and smelled the coffee!!

December 30, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Resident (Resi Dent) says...

I see most of the posters on here are in (at least partial) agreement that the state is overspending. What I'm not hearing is what people specifically think should be cut. That's where the solutions lie. I'm curious what specific programs, positions, or other items you believe should be cut. Or, is raising taxes a viable option?

December 30, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

Resi--on the King Five news tonight, they were talking about this subject and they pointed out several PORK projects that OUR Gov. has funded--did you know that the State Of Wa. has it's very own POET--yes Poet to the tune of $30K a year. A Totem Pole-$150K, and it goes on and on.The state retirement fund is about to go Banko because the Great Gov. kept tapping into it to fund more Pork projects--and the taxpayers have total liability for this fund. This means that our tax liability (yours and mine) will increase as more workers reach the retirement age and take the plunge. According to the agency in charge of this fund, it can only operate under the current funding and payees for 7-8 more years (all on King 5 Investigates tonight).

So, where do you start--How about--AT THE TOP!! Then work your way down to the real workers that truely get things done--and stop the frivilous spending!!!

December 30, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"(1) I have read the proposed buget long before I ever drafted the letter to the editor. I have given good examples of our government wasteing money, how many examples of waste do you need me to show you to prove that we need some accountability in spending. (2) After reviewing the budget most allocations are to general funds or angencies with no indication of what the money is to be used for. Only time can tell if this years monies will be spent on needs Vs. wants. (3) I can only assume history will repeat itself and there will plenty of ear marks and pork bellied spending (waste). (4) We can argue all day long about what a government want Vs. need is but the fact of the matter is spending increases year after year and sooner or later taxpayers will be out of money. Then what"
.
(1) Zero examples. Democracy requires accountability regardless of whether spending has been wasteful or not. The thing is, we've already got it. Whoever is interested is perfectly free to look up the state budget.
(2) If you want more specificity, you can google the individual state agency to get its budget broken down. For example, if you google washington state department of agriculture budget, you get this link to a 25 pp pdf of its budget, here: http://agr.wa.gov/aboutwsda/Docs/2009...
(3) Well, the term is actually pork barrel, but that doesn't really matter, the important point is that you're basing assertions of fact on what you admit are assumptions.
(4) It's called inflation. Everything goes up, preferably including wages. The current budget shortfall is not a result of any dramatic increase in spending; it is a result of a dramatic decrease in revenue.

December 30, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"With more companies leaving this state, the tax revenue will be less-so-instead of trying to fix what they created--they RAISED the L&I and the Employment Security taxes on the EXISTING Small businesses to the tune of 20-30%. I know, I'm one of them."
.
The question of how to assess taxes is a different question from how to spend revenue. Washington state is heavily reliant on sales taxes, which are regressive (ie. they hit the poor the hardest), in contrast with most states which rely on income taxes, which are progressive (ie. the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the poor do). My point here is that I agree that the way taxes are assessed in Washington state could stand a lot of improvement. As to the L&I payments and Employment Security taxes you're referring to here, I don't really agree or disagree with your assertion that they shouldn't have been raised; perhaps you can construct a convincing argument about why the revenue should come from other sources - but that wouldn't necessarily mean that spending needs to be cut. Perhaps you can construct a convincing argument that revenue should be lowered. But in order for any argument about finances to be convincing, it must be based on numbers - relevant ones, and lots of them. The vast majority of the arguments I see in this thread are heavy on feelings and colorful descriptions and extremely light on facts and figures.

December 30, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"(1) Here is a fact for you Norm, $2.6 billion, the amount the state budget needs to be cut to fit the revenue shortfall. (2) Here is another fact, if you set your budget based on revenue generated during a roaring economy your sure to have a shortfall once the economy slows and slow it will. (3) These are the only facts required to formulate my opinion that the state governement has exercised poor fiscal management. (4) If I had operated my family budget using the same strategy as the Governor I'd be wiped out by now. (5) You seem to be obsessed with the need for facts when what's needed is some good opinions. Read the Governor's letter to Washingtonians. It's nothing but the Governor's opinion as to why the budget was cut the way it was and her opinion why it's a good idea to raise our taxes again. (6) When you vote, it is a decision based solely on your opinion of how your candidate might behave in the future. (7) It's my opinion that it's a fact that our state is in need of new leadership!."
.
(1) That's a conclusion, not a fact. Here's another conclusion: taxes need to be raised $2.6 billion to meet budget requirements. Here's a fact: revenue is down $2.6 billion relative to the previous biennium.
(2) You set your budget according to the best available predictions. In the case of a State, there is plenty of spending that is not discretionary, ie. its mandated by law (public education, law enforcement, etc.).
(3) Well, that's why your opinion is not very credible.
(4) Managing the finances of a state is a bit more complex than managing the finances of {<15} people.
(5) Opinions that are not based on facts are random, which is fine for subjective judgments like what food tastes good or what music sounds good, but is useless in terms of managing money. The more facts that are known and taken into account, the more informed the opinion. The more informed the opinion, the more likely it is to lead to the best result.
(6) I base my votes on facts. It would be nice if more people did the same.
(7) Yes, and as you've (surprisingly) admitted, your opinion has no factual basis. It's no more likely to be correct than flipping a coin would be.

December 30, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Peggy (Peggy Love) says...

Mr Webb, please provide facts about the entire State Retirement System going bankrupt. I could find nothing about this allegation on the KING 5 website. There was an article about 6 weeks ago which was about ONE of the retirement accounts(PERS 1, which stopped adding people to it in 1977) but most workers have been hired well after 1977! Please be realistic. I'll be receiving less than $13,000/year after over 16 years of service. I knew enough to save as much as I could because I was aware that my retirement check would be pretty slim. The agency I recently left has been losing many well qualified workers to retirement and attrition. None are being replaced. Is that what you are after? Get rid of all those greedy state employees huh? How about telling us what you want removed from the budgets at both the State and local levels. You clearly do not like government agencies so tell us which ones should be done away with, please.

December 30, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Resident (Resi Dent) says...

The suggestions I've seen so far amount to but a drop in the bucket. $2.6 billion probably can't be made up by cuts alone--I'd be surprised if it could without devastating the state, causing more harm than good in the long run--so I'm wondering how the state will increase revenues. Taxes? Eliminating corporate loopholes?
.
The state made drastic cuts last year, but spending does not appear to be the primary problem. A lack of revenue seems to be the culprit.

December 30, 2009 at 11:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

Norm, I'm trying engage in the constructive and free exchange of ideas and opinions, I got to this thread, by clicking "Opinions". I'm not writing a research paper here, just getting an idea of what people are thinking and throwing my two cents in. We both have access to the same data and I've done my listening, reading and research and have formed an opinion which I've clearly stated. I've never stated that my opinions were not factually based. I've read all your comments Norm, and you've failed to clearly state what your opinion is. It seems you are too busy parsing and trying to belittle my comments to come up with any real opinion of your own. I guess it's that you are happy with the way things are and you are OK with taxes going up. I'm using the same facts that you are to formulate my opinion but you somehow feel my opinion is not as credible as yours which implies petty intolerance. Your claim that voting is fact based is false, it's an opinion of the candidates future performance based on their promises and political philosophy. There is some fact checking involved of course, looking back at the cadidates history and voting record but speculation of future performance is not fact

December 31, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

red2 (lola horse) says...

Since before the last Gubernatorial election we have been warned and informed about Olympia's reckless spending practices, most vocally from Rep. Cary Condotta. After reviewing the facts before the last election, I voted for Rossi believing that the fiscal policy he had outline was the more responsible way to proceed. The majority (albeit slight) of voters decided to ignore the facts and this is what we get, severe budget deficits.

December 31, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

Peggy--The program I refered to was King 5 Investigators (Seattle station) and it was run last night 12-30-09. It investigated the poor performance as well as the PORK spending our Gov. and her Dem. pals have done in the last couple of years. Check it out.
You are very DEFENSIVE about your OLD position as a State employee, and accused me of "not liking any state Govmt." Well Peggy--to the contrary, I do appreciate many of the services that WE PAY FOR--and those that actually perform those services--what I don't care for are the layers and layers of managers, mid level managers, assistant directors etc. that are a lead weight around the necks of the Taxpayers. If I ran my business the way they run our state, we'd have been Banco long agao!! There needs to be a house cleaning of the layers of non-esential employees as well as services.

December 31, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

artmann (Art Mann) says...

Or at least a cut in their pay and benefits enough to balance the budget. It is called fiscal responsibility, also tightening of the ole belt, just like all businesses with less revenue must do.
Peggy- Mike Armstrong spoke at a Repub. meeting here last month and indicated a potential 10-15 Billion dollar shortfall next year. We have a Vallejo, CA situation headed our way very soon.

December 31, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

artmann (Art Mann) says...

Ward- don't look now but it looks like you were correct on the CO2 scam.....
Check out the news today.
.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
.

December 31, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

Take a look at the article in todays Wen. World--At Years End--once again, govmt. has grown faster than any other segment. Overtime is one of the OTHER scams that needs to be addressed--if they have all these layers of critical management, and these folks were really doing thier jobs, why in the world would 65,000 hours of overtime be required???? Poor planning?? Poor management??? Who watching the store???

December 31, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

milo (Milo Klanke) says...

Art, I think you posted your comment to the wrong article. Nevermind. You are misinterpreting the research. The fraction of CO2 emissions that stay in the atmosphere has not yet changed. CO2 concentrations have still risen at alarming rates. 100 years ago total annual emissions were less than .5 billion metric tons. Today they are 7 billion metric tonnes, of which the same percentage, 45%, remains in the atmosphere. The question is are the oceans reaching a point where they will no longer act as carbon sinks and the percentage of emissions remaining in the atmosphere will begin to increase.

December 31, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Michael (Michael Michael) says...

What?? Art misinterpreting scientific research?? I can't imagine... There are all those spot-on summaries, that aren't at all misleading, in the right wing blogosphere to draw upon...

December 31, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Resident (Resi Dent) says...

Dennis, I can't say for sure this is the reason, but when the state made so many cuts to personnel last year, sometimes people have to work extra hours to make up for the loss of people. Overtime is often cheaper than an entire employee's pay and benefits.

December 31, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

Resi--My point was--with all the "managers, mid level managers, directors, associate directors, you know, the fluff that is supposed to Direct and Control costs--how in the world could 65,000 hours of overtime be justified "IF" they were doing what WE pay them to do!!!
65,000 Hours? No Way--just another "oversight" by our leadership.

December 31, 2009 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Resident (Resi Dent) says...

I get you, but I think there could be other reasons for the overtime. I know I had duties added to my job, which means sometimes it takes longer to do my job. Sometimes a person can work the day non-stop and still not finish everything.
.
I get the sense a lot of people are looking for things to cut but not knowing the reason for the existence of those things. I definitely do not hold the belief that there are not things to cut, but I also know the budget problem has to do more with revenue losses rather than governmental increases. Much was cut last year, yet the problem persists. This would seem to indicate that cuts will not be the only solution to the deficit issue.

December 31, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Webfoot (Dennis Webb) says...

Resi--I do agree with your comments--The problem (one of many) that most irritates me--with fewer EMPLOYERS because there is less work out there, the state has the GREAT WISDOM to increase L&I and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (for 2010) on the few of us remaining. All this does is make less income on the bottom line which in turn cuts the number of employees we hire and the wages get reduced in order to meet our financial obligations.
They (the Gov. & our Elected Officials) need to live within a budget, like the rest of us have to. When times are good, put the funds away for the rainy day that will come, and don't spend it on "give away programs". I've been thru this in the 70's, (remember the sign at both ends of I-5 in Seattle"last person out, turn off the lights") 80's, 90's and early 2000's, so I've learned from those experiences--save for those times that are going to be a struggle.
If they had done this, and not touched the funds, this state would be in great shape--but greed gets to those folks and they give themselves raises, while cutting jobs and salaries for the real working people--doesn't make sense to me!!!

December 31, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )