Seattle Times again fails to answer the question: If we make cuts, what do we cut?
This morning, The Seattle Times published another one of its "Reset 2010" editorials calling on Governor Gregoire to reconvene the Legislature for the purpose of gutting more of our public services in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.
Normally, I'd excerpt some part of the editorial and then respond to it, but I think regular readers are pretty familiar with the poorly justified arguments the Times puts on its editorial page, so I'll just get straight to my response. (You can follow the link and read the full editorial if you're so inclined).
There is no doubt that Washington — and many other states — will be in a fix if the Senate fails to approve a bill disbursing Medicaid aid to state governments. The budget agreed to by the Legislature several months ago was written under the assumption that the federal government would provide several hundred million dollars to help with the state's Medicaid obligations.
Created in the 1960s as part of the Great Society, Medicaid acts as a safety net for Americans who could not otherwise afford health insurance. Nearly half of the persons enrolled in Medicaid are children. The service is jointly administered by the states and the federal government. The federal government's share is referred to as FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages).
In the event that the Senate fails to advance the bill providing the funds that state lawmakers were hoping for, the Times is suggesting that Governor Gregoire call the Legislature back into session for the purpose of making cuts.
Notice the wording at the end of that last sentence. The Times doesn't say in its editorial, Governor Gregoire should call a special legislative session to solve this problem, which would be a more general call to action. Instead, the editorial says we must deal with any deficit by making cuts.
Translation: Strengthening our common wealth in order to safeguard public services (which is the alternative) is not an option. It's not even a possibility.
In my view, the Blethen family — and the editorial writers who work for them (with the exception of Lance Dickie) — are among the most shortsighted and unimaginative people around. They seem stuck in the past.
All their "live within our means" talk misses the point. "The government" isn't a corporation. It isn't a better-intentioned clone of the private sector, funded by compulsory fees. It is us, pooling our resources to get things done.
We each have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to each other to be our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper. That is what this country is all about. That is what has made, and continues to make, the United States of America great. Our common wealth is, very simply, the foundation that our economy is built upon. Businesses and markets could not exist without the public services that we collectively pay for with our tax dollars.
It is a grave mistake to view government as some noble institution that is chained to the fortunes of the economy. That is unfortunately what the Times is doing.
We cannot afford to let our public services fail, because their failure would result in our collapse as a society. Together we are strong; divided we are weak. The right wing and the tea party want us to be divided. In this time of uncertainty, they are doing their very best to prey on people's fears. They are simultaneously trying to argue that government can't work whilst trying to wreck public services.
They have convinced themselves that a majority of the electorate sees eye to eye with them. Likewise, the Blethens have seemingly convinced themselves that they are an authority on fiscal responsibility, despite the fact they nearly bankrupted their own company through poor management. And so they preach. Repeatedly.
Their sermons are stale and their prescriptions are worthless.
We, as a people, do not have to be trapped in their mindset, however. There is another way to approach this problem. A progressive way.
It begins with the recognition that economic security — which itself is a progressive idea — is not possible without a strong common wealth. Our common wealth pays for the vital public services that everything else is built upon. If our common wealth is weakened, our public services are likewise weakened, and the ideal of broad prosperity becomes a distant, unachievable dream.
There are two strategies we can use to responsibly respond to budget deficits. The first is to make government more effective, so that public services can operate with fewer dollars from our common wealth without compromising quality of life. (My own senator, Eric Oemig, calls this optimizing government.)
Conservatives often like to accuse progressives of supporting the status quo — business as usual — when that is in fact their position. Progressives are not satisfied with the way our government operates. We want to make it better. The right wing doesn't want government to work at all, because they mistakenly believe in the utopia of an ownership society, where everyone has figured out how to become rich because they were forced to discover discipline. That utopia is a myth.
The second thing we can do is to make our common wealth stronger, so that there is more money in our treasury to sustain critical services. This is the objective of Initiative 1098, which will appear on our ballots this autumn.
Initiative 1098 would levy an income tax on high earning individuals and couples who are not currently paying their fair share in membership fees to our state. The money raised would offset property taxes for all landowners, eliminate business and occupation taxes for eighty percent of small businesses, and provide an estimated $1 billion in new funding towards schools and healthcare coverage.
Imagine that: A proposal that lowers taxes for most Washingtonians while managing the feat of bringing in more money for our common wealth at the same time. It's not merely uncommon sense, it's brilliant.
Naturally, the Times isn't on board.
The Times also does not favor repealing unnecessary or outdated tax exemptions to regain lost revenue for our common wealth, even though ending an exemption is not the same thing as raising a tax or fee.
(Tim Eyman claims it is, but he's wrong).
The Legislature has gotten into the bad habit of granting exemptions that never sunset, which effectively means that the number of perpetual subsidies approved for a particular industry or group is always getting bigger. The Seattle Times is ironically the recipient of such a subsidy. Since they themselves are not willing to be generous, they ought to forgo their tax breaks and give the money back.
It is true that the treasury wouldn't gain too much if they did. But, if we ended a hundred other loopholes and outdated exemptions at the same time, the savings would start to add up, going from hundreds of thousands to millions to tens of millions and finally hundreds of millions. That is what the Legislature must do in the event that Congress doesn't send us more Medicaid funding.
The Times says if we don't get the money, we should make more cuts. What should we cut? And no, don't say that liquor stores should be closed. That doesn't save us any money, it actually costs money. Seriously: What's expendable?
What do we get rid of? Should we forget about fighting forest fires and planning for earthquakes, and close the Department of Natural Resources? Should we cut our public universities loose and make them private institutions which are allowed to cater exclusively to the wealthy, charging sky-high tuition? Do we eliminate the Department of Ecology, and not worry about keeping our water and air clean?
The Times doesn't have answers. Like Tim Eyman, they don't address the consequences. They put the Legislature in an impossible position, obnoxiously telling lawmakers to cope with deficits by making cuts while suggesting we cannot afford to underfund important public services like schools. If we're going to cut, then what do we cut!? It's time for the Times to put up or shut up.
If they can't offer specifics to back up their proffered "guidance", then they have no business arrogantly lecturing our elected leaders.
Normally, I'd excerpt some part of the editorial and then respond to it, but I think regular readers are pretty familiar with the poorly justified arguments the Times puts on its editorial page, so I'll just get straight to my response. (You can follow the link and read the full editorial if you're so inclined).
There is no doubt that Washington — and many other states — will be in a fix if the Senate fails to approve a bill disbursing Medicaid aid to state governments. The budget agreed to by the Legislature several months ago was written under the assumption that the federal government would provide several hundred million dollars to help with the state's Medicaid obligations.
Created in the 1960s as part of the Great Society, Medicaid acts as a safety net for Americans who could not otherwise afford health insurance. Nearly half of the persons enrolled in Medicaid are children. The service is jointly administered by the states and the federal government. The federal government's share is referred to as FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages).
In the event that the Senate fails to advance the bill providing the funds that state lawmakers were hoping for, the Times is suggesting that Governor Gregoire call the Legislature back into session for the purpose of making cuts.
Notice the wording at the end of that last sentence. The Times doesn't say in its editorial, Governor Gregoire should call a special legislative session to solve this problem, which would be a more general call to action. Instead, the editorial says we must deal with any deficit by making cuts.
Translation: Strengthening our common wealth in order to safeguard public services (which is the alternative) is not an option. It's not even a possibility.
In my view, the Blethen family — and the editorial writers who work for them (with the exception of Lance Dickie) — are among the most shortsighted and unimaginative people around. They seem stuck in the past.
All their "live within our means" talk misses the point. "The government" isn't a corporation. It isn't a better-intentioned clone of the private sector, funded by compulsory fees. It is us, pooling our resources to get things done.
We each have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to each other to be our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper. That is what this country is all about. That is what has made, and continues to make, the United States of America great. Our common wealth is, very simply, the foundation that our economy is built upon. Businesses and markets could not exist without the public services that we collectively pay for with our tax dollars.
It is a grave mistake to view government as some noble institution that is chained to the fortunes of the economy. That is unfortunately what the Times is doing.
We cannot afford to let our public services fail, because their failure would result in our collapse as a society. Together we are strong; divided we are weak. The right wing and the tea party want us to be divided. In this time of uncertainty, they are doing their very best to prey on people's fears. They are simultaneously trying to argue that government can't work whilst trying to wreck public services.
They have convinced themselves that a majority of the electorate sees eye to eye with them. Likewise, the Blethens have seemingly convinced themselves that they are an authority on fiscal responsibility, despite the fact they nearly bankrupted their own company through poor management. And so they preach. Repeatedly.
Their sermons are stale and their prescriptions are worthless.
We, as a people, do not have to be trapped in their mindset, however. There is another way to approach this problem. A progressive way.
It begins with the recognition that economic security — which itself is a progressive idea — is not possible without a strong common wealth. Our common wealth pays for the vital public services that everything else is built upon. If our common wealth is weakened, our public services are likewise weakened, and the ideal of broad prosperity becomes a distant, unachievable dream.
There are two strategies we can use to responsibly respond to budget deficits. The first is to make government more effective, so that public services can operate with fewer dollars from our common wealth without compromising quality of life. (My own senator, Eric Oemig, calls this optimizing government.)
Conservatives often like to accuse progressives of supporting the status quo — business as usual — when that is in fact their position. Progressives are not satisfied with the way our government operates. We want to make it better. The right wing doesn't want government to work at all, because they mistakenly believe in the utopia of an ownership society, where everyone has figured out how to become rich because they were forced to discover discipline. That utopia is a myth.
The second thing we can do is to make our common wealth stronger, so that there is more money in our treasury to sustain critical services. This is the objective of Initiative 1098, which will appear on our ballots this autumn.
Initiative 1098 would levy an income tax on high earning individuals and couples who are not currently paying their fair share in membership fees to our state. The money raised would offset property taxes for all landowners, eliminate business and occupation taxes for eighty percent of small businesses, and provide an estimated $1 billion in new funding towards schools and healthcare coverage.
Imagine that: A proposal that lowers taxes for most Washingtonians while managing the feat of bringing in more money for our common wealth at the same time. It's not merely uncommon sense, it's brilliant.
Naturally, the Times isn't on board.
The Times also does not favor repealing unnecessary or outdated tax exemptions to regain lost revenue for our common wealth, even though ending an exemption is not the same thing as raising a tax or fee.
(Tim Eyman claims it is, but he's wrong).
The Legislature has gotten into the bad habit of granting exemptions that never sunset, which effectively means that the number of perpetual subsidies approved for a particular industry or group is always getting bigger. The Seattle Times is ironically the recipient of such a subsidy. Since they themselves are not willing to be generous, they ought to forgo their tax breaks and give the money back.
It is true that the treasury wouldn't gain too much if they did. But, if we ended a hundred other loopholes and outdated exemptions at the same time, the savings would start to add up, going from hundreds of thousands to millions to tens of millions and finally hundreds of millions. That is what the Legislature must do in the event that Congress doesn't send us more Medicaid funding.
The Times says if we don't get the money, we should make more cuts. What should we cut? And no, don't say that liquor stores should be closed. That doesn't save us any money, it actually costs money. Seriously: What's expendable?
What do we get rid of? Should we forget about fighting forest fires and planning for earthquakes, and close the Department of Natural Resources? Should we cut our public universities loose and make them private institutions which are allowed to cater exclusively to the wealthy, charging sky-high tuition? Do we eliminate the Department of Ecology, and not worry about keeping our water and air clean?
The Times doesn't have answers. Like Tim Eyman, they don't address the consequences. They put the Legislature in an impossible position, obnoxiously telling lawmakers to cope with deficits by making cuts while suggesting we cannot afford to underfund important public services like schools. If we're going to cut, then what do we cut!? It's time for the Times to put up or shut up.
If they can't offer specifics to back up their proffered "guidance", then they have no business arrogantly lecturing our elected leaders.
# Posted by Andrew : 7:58 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment