With the exception of the devastating (to me unthinkable) “within-current-resources” or “Book 1” budget, there has yet to be fully complete solution proposed to solve our budget problem.

The critics haven't put anything close to an alternative balanced budget on the table, just a vague menu of things they propose every year, such as cutting public employee heath care and giving liquor sales to big business (as no one can credibly claim that the mom and pop contract stores would survive the so-called “privatization” approach). These policies may survive on their merit, but won't make more than a dent in the fender of the budget.

The Governor's recently-announced "Book 2" proposal is specific on the expenditure side. She has made it clear that she will work with the Legislature to flesh out the revenue side, and that federal money will be part of this. While the federal money is a needed stop-gap in a down economy, it is not an on-going solution to our on-going commitments to schools, community colleges and universities, hospitals, health clinics, services for the elderly and disabled, public safety and the rest.

Similarly, those who claim we have a spending problem today in Washington speak of the increase in state spending using both the techniques in my previous post, selectively choosing the time frame and not putting the number in context. 

“Spending has increased by 33 percent over the last three years,” they say.  Case closed. Or is it?

Consider the following statements: (provided by non-partisan Senate Ways and Means staff – click on each statement for a supporting graph).

• State spending and revenue in Washington is smaller in relation to the private economy than it was a decade ago.
• After adjusting for inflation, state revenue per capita has declined over the last decade. 
• In national comparisons, Washington ranks between 15th and 26th in state spending and revenue. 

These three statements are not more accurate than “spending has grown three times in three years.”

The point is not to have a war of statistics or to counter “It’s a spending problem” with “It’s a revenue problem.”

Because ultimately, whether state government is larger than it once was or smaller, or whether it is bigger than Idaho or smaller than Wisconsin, the ultimate question is one of democracy not economics.