Ross Hunter comments on the Senate Republican budget proposal

The Senate Republicans released their 2013-15 budget proposal today, and House Appropriations Committee Ross Hunter issued the following statement in response:

“While it is nice that the Senate Republicans have acknowledged our responsibility to fund the McCleary decision, they have done so with a budget proposal that relies on assumptions that are unconstitutional or unsustainable. The Supreme Court has been pretty cranky about this issue, and this budget will do nothing to improve their mood.

“In addition to being unsustainable, some of their decisions seem downright cruel. Providing child care subsidies for parents trying to get back into the workforce was part of the deal when we “reinvented welfare” two decades ago.  Cutting it now will not only force single moms back onto welfare, it will perpetuate the opportunity gap in our schools for years to come.

“I am also very concerned with some of the shaky assumptions made in the proposal.  There are $157 million in unnamed efficiencies, $40 million in an uncollectable use tax, and $166 million in a school trust transfer that is clearly unconstitutional.

“We have spent the last five years making our budget more sustainable with actions like reducing our long-term pension obligations and cutting staffing at all levels.  A budget built on unconstitutional actions and assumptions that are unlikely to come true moves us away from sustainability.”

Read this story in Spanish.

The $2 billion budget myth

Let's say you drive your car about 100 miles a week as part of your job responsibilities. Your boss gives you $50 a week to cover your gas expenses. Then one day your boss says, "Good news, I'm increasing your fuel stipend to $60, but we're also doubling your route to 200 miles."

While the stipend increase would be welcomed, is that really good news? The added miles would more than wipe out the extra $10 a week.

This is the kind of argument you'll hear from some lawmakers and advocacy groups over the coming weeks as budget negotiations heat up. They argue that the state has $2 billion more in revenue this budget cycle compared to the last one – like your gas stipend going from $50 to $60 per week.

Therefore, as the argument goes, we can balance the budget, meet our McCleary obligations, and avoid deep cuts to vital services all without new revenue.

While it is true that our revenues are up about $2 billion, only looking at this side of the equation is fiscally imprudent and misleading.

This argument conveniently leaves out the other half of the equation, like the part about adding more miles to your route. Our expenses have also increased by more than $2 billion since the last biennium.

We have more kids in public schools, more students enrolling in higher education that need financial assistance, and more low-income families and seniors that need medical care.

In other words, it costs more this year to run the state than it did last year. Despite having more money this year, our revenues are not keeping up with expenses.

Based on current expense and revenue projections, the state budget is about $1 billion short of paying for our obligations. When you add our McCleary obligations, we're about $2.3 billion short.

We are not going to find $2.3 billion in cuts alone. We've cut $12 billion from the budget since 2008. House Democrats are pleased to see Governor Inslee's call for closing some tax loopholes to balance the budget and fund education for our kids.

Read this story in Spanish.