Gregoire to unveil rainy day fund plan
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire will unveil her plan for a rainy day fund today. From The Olympian:
On the political front, long time observers may recall what tends to happen. When times are tough, needed programs like education suffer, leading to a build up of political pressure. So when things improve, Democrats face enormous choices from constituent groups with real needs. Which can lead to overspending at times, and resentment by folks who feel their legitimate issues are being neglected.
Hopefully, over time, when economic downturns occur, the impact on services will be lessened if there is money in reserve. And if we get a rainy day fund through a legislative process followed by a vote of the people, as would be required for a Constitutional amendment, then the result should be practical and serve the state well. Beats the heck out of poorly conceived and poorly written initiatives.
Plus, co-opting an opposition idea is just smart politics. Democrats will probably never compete effectively in Zarelli's 18th District, at least not as it stands now, so why not? Let him take as much credit as he can. Most people outside Clark and Cowlitz Counties will never know anyhow.
UPDATE--The P-I has an AP article with a few more particulars from this morning.
(Democratic Sen. Margarita) Prentice did not know the specifics of the plan, and Gregoire's spokeswoman, Holly Armstrong, said details would not be released until today's news conference in Seattle.My only concern would be that allowing a minority party veto power could prove a problem after a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but it's probably not a deal breaker. Evening out the endless boom and bust cycle of the state budget is a worthwhile goal, both from an economic and political standpoint.
Last year, Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, first raised the idea of setting up a rainy-day account through a constitutional amendment. Last week, he sent out a news release saying he would be pushing the legislation again.
Under his plan, 1 percent of the general state revenue each year - about $120 million - would be put into an account that could only be tapped by a three-fifths vote of the Legislature during good economic times. Under his measure, the fund could be tapped with a simple majority of the Legislature during economic downturns, when employment growth is less than 1 percent.
Zarelli said that Gregoire's plan is comparable to his, with the only changes addressing what to do once the fund reaches about 10 percent of the budget.
On the political front, long time observers may recall what tends to happen. When times are tough, needed programs like education suffer, leading to a build up of political pressure. So when things improve, Democrats face enormous choices from constituent groups with real needs. Which can lead to overspending at times, and resentment by folks who feel their legitimate issues are being neglected.
Hopefully, over time, when economic downturns occur, the impact on services will be lessened if there is money in reserve. And if we get a rainy day fund through a legislative process followed by a vote of the people, as would be required for a Constitutional amendment, then the result should be practical and serve the state well. Beats the heck out of poorly conceived and poorly written initiatives.
Plus, co-opting an opposition idea is just smart politics. Democrats will probably never compete effectively in Zarelli's 18th District, at least not as it stands now, so why not? Let him take as much credit as he can. Most people outside Clark and Cowlitz Counties will never know anyhow.
UPDATE--The P-I has an AP article with a few more particulars from this morning.
The account could only be tapped by a three-fifths vote of the Legislature. In case of a natural disaster, or if a state of emergency has been declared, the money could be available with a simple majority vote.There's a hint of concern about the fact that it would be a Constitutional amendment, though:
House Appropriations Chairwoman Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, said that while she liked the idea of the rainy day fund, she didn't like the idea of a constitutional amendment.Ah, the process. Should be interesting to see how this is dealt with in the Legislature.
"I agree with the concept, but not with the restrictions if you put it in the constitution," she said Monday. "Once you write it into the constitution it's not flexible."
