"Live within your means" has real consequences
We've spoken out a number of times about the absurdity of the GOP's argument of needing to "live within our means". This argument is often repeated by business groups and the Seattle Times editorial board.
A recent story from the AP demonstrates why this argument is so inherently ridiculous:
The budget takes too many shortcuts and uses too many accounting tricks to make the books balance. The bottom line, as we argued then, is that the state simply needs more revenue. We must fully fund government services.
Of course, the government doesn't ordinarily get sued for not fully funding government services. But this is different:
By denying children the proper care they deserve.
By demanding that we "live within our means" and not fully fund services like these, the GOP is essentially saying we should take the risk of getting sued again for shortchanging our children.
This is entirely unacceptable.
But it doesn't stop there:
Democrats are under intense political pressure from business groups, the GOP, and the Seattle Times editorial board not to raise taxes. This makes it very difficult for Democrats to write up a state budget that fully funds government services.
We can't afford to "live within our means". We have to fully fund government services, and if we need to raise new revenue to do so, then that is what we must do.
One way to raise revenue would be to eliminate tax exemptions for many businesses that are currently enjoying a free ride. That would also help address our regressive tax structure.
One thing is sure: we owe it to ourselves to make sure that everyone in our society is taken care of. If the GOP and its allies truly believe in a "culture of life", then they should be willing to step forward and support not just the beginning and end, but also that part known as the "in between".
A recent story from the AP demonstrates why this argument is so inherently ridiculous:
Advocates warn that parts of the [WA State] proposed budgets could get the state hauled into court, for failing to meet standards set for home care and foster care in two landmark court cases. The effort to save taxpayer money now could cost more in the long run, they say, if it spawns litigation.When Governor Gregoire first came out with her proposed state budget a few weeks ago, we wondered, is this all?
The budget takes too many shortcuts and uses too many accounting tricks to make the books balance. The bottom line, as we argued then, is that the state simply needs more revenue. We must fully fund government services.
Of course, the government doesn't ordinarily get sued for not fully funding government services. But this is different:
The two key names here are Braam and Olmstead.That's how the state "saves money."
The Braam case began in 1998, on behalf of Jessica Braam and 12 other foster children who sued the state for bouncing them around foster homes without adequate services. It turned into a class action, and last August the state settled the case by promising to make dozens of specific improvements, from more mental health treatment for kids to better training for foster parents.
If the state breaks those promises, a judge could intervene and force Washington to pay for reforms. Lack of money is no excuse under the settlement terms.
By denying children the proper care they deserve.
By demanding that we "live within our means" and not fully fund services like these, the GOP is essentially saying we should take the risk of getting sued again for shortchanging our children.
This is entirely unacceptable.
But it doesn't stop there:
Home care clients are waiting to hear the final verdict.It's not just children; it's senior citizens and disabled citizens too. These budgets don't go far enough to protect the weakest and most underrepresented citizens of our society: children, disabled citizens, and senior citizens.
"I don't like to depend on anyone, but I need these services to survive," said Windy Day, 57, an Olympia woman who suffers from a long list of physical and mental ailments. "If I lost these services, I probably would end up in a nursing home ... I think I would go downhill and I would not want to live anymore."
Day would lose home care services under the governor's proposed budget.
If budget cuts mean that Day and others are eligible for government-funded nursing home care but not home care, the state could be violating the Americans With Disabilities Act under the terms of the Olmstead decision.
"I think a lawsuit is probable, which is the last thing we need," said AARP lobbyist Lauren Moughon. "We need to let people age with dignity in their own homes."
Democrats are under intense political pressure from business groups, the GOP, and the Seattle Times editorial board not to raise taxes. This makes it very difficult for Democrats to write up a state budget that fully funds government services.
We can't afford to "live within our means". We have to fully fund government services, and if we need to raise new revenue to do so, then that is what we must do.
One way to raise revenue would be to eliminate tax exemptions for many businesses that are currently enjoying a free ride. That would also help address our regressive tax structure.
One thing is sure: we owe it to ourselves to make sure that everyone in our society is taken care of. If the GOP and its allies truly believe in a "culture of life", then they should be willing to step forward and support not just the beginning and end, but also that part known as the "in between".
