GOP Should Pay Up For Its $24 Billion Joy Ride

Sure, we’re all relieved for now that the fiscal crisis manufactured by the Republican Party was averted in its final hour and the government went back to work on Thursday and the country’s full faith and credit remained intact.

That GOP joy ride wasn’t cheap:

“$24 billion in lost economic output, or 0.6 percent of projected annualized GDP growth, according to the Standard and Poor’s ratings agency. Similarly, Moody’s Analytics estimated the impact at $23 billion,” according to Josh Hicks, Washington Post (How much did the shutdown cost the economy?).

And I don’t think we’ll ever get the final tally costing out lost scientific data, delayed permits and indirect ripples through local economies.

Maybe the GOP can count on the forgiving nature of the American people to forget the shameful shenanigans by the time the next elections come around. If there were any justice in the political realm, the GOP should pay the American people back at least the $24 billion for their foolish joy ride.

That’s what we make parents of rowdy children do when their mischief gets out of hand and hurts others. Alas, in the case of rowdy extremists, the accountability is in the hands of voters.

Sadly, in this week when the GOP joy ride ends, we mourn the passing today of Tom Foley who led the state’s 5th Congressional District and was Speaker of the House until 1994. It’s a good time to remember how Congressman Foley chose to lead and how he is remembered as a leader. ( Former Speaker of the House Tom Foley dies at 84  )

It’s a good time to examine the kind of leadership shown since Tom Foley by eastern Washington Republicans Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Doc Hastings, and what kind of lack of leadership has been shown by western Washington Republicans Dave Reichert and Jamie Herrera Beutler.

Just because these joy riders got to vote ‘aye’ to keep America going Wednesday night doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paying for their joy ride.

--Mike Sato

The Road to Heaven, the Road to Hell

I wondered if it was tougher last week to be Pope Francis or to be Congressman John Boehner. I don’t give much weight to religious pronouncements but it was heartening to learn that Pope Francis thinks compassion and not censure should be how the Catholic Church should behave in the world. As one commentator noted, the Pope was saying the Church should be more like a field hospital in the world, giving comfort to those in need. That made me feel good, like I used to feel good hearing about Mother Teresa.

Then the Pope a few days later came down hard against abortion, reading the strict rule of church doctrine. No compassion there.

About the same time Pope Francis was preaching compassion, Congressman John Boehner was leading his political party in passing legislation to cut $39 billion from the government’s program that provides food to poor people. A few days later, John Boehner again led his political party in passing a budget proposal that threatens to shut down much of the federal government unless the Affordable Care Act is scuttled. Threatening to shut down the government wasn’t a wise thing to do, John Boehner had said earlier, but that’s what people in his political party wanted, so he led by following what they wanted.

In neither the case of cutting off food to poor people nor the case of scuttling an affordable medical insurance program benefitting most people was compassion an issue, only the politics of anger and resentment.

People in his own political party don’t think John Boehner is mean enough. Unlike Pope Francis, John Boehner has to run for re-election every two years and then be chosen to lead in Congress.

Like I said, I don’t give much weight to religious pronouncements but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis despite his tarnishing welcomed compassion with traditional authoritarianism. After all, I think he already has a free pass to Heaven.

Unlike Pope Francis, John Boehner has to please a lot of angry people who show little compassion. And, unlike Pope Francis, John Boehner and his political party don’t have a free pass to Heaven.

--Mike Sato

Get Real; Raise Revenues

Today's Salish Sea News and Weather contained a couple of clips about the looming budget shortfall in the state's budget:

Washington state economist Arun Raha projects that state revenues will drop by $122 million over the next two years. State faces nearly $1.4B deficit    Robert Graef in a Marysville Globe editorial closely reads Governor Gregoire’s proposed list of program budget cuts down into the bone of our state’s social fabric. Blood on the budget axe


Our Man of the South wrote: "Carnegie Group (3 years ago) suggested a way to raise revenue (up to $2 billion / year) without raising taxes.  It was ignored of course."


Here's the letter sent on December 9, 2008 to Governor Christine Gregoire:


"Dear Governor Gregoire:
SUBJECT: BUDGET SHORTFALLS AND IMPACT FEES

The State of Washington and most local jurisdictions are feeling the effects of a severe downturn in the economic health of the nation. Proposed budget cuts will hurt many people and many initiatives vital to the public including children, troubled families, and the protection and preservation of our environment, to name a few. Yet there is an untapped source of revenue that ranges into the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars annually that does not require new taxes.

We are referring to the massive subsidies currently given to the development industry by the state and virtually every local jurisdiction. In a hurried study done by Eben Fodor in 2000, the cost of unfunded infrastructure demands generated by growth exceeded $50,000 for every new dwelling unit constructed. Cost of growth studies by Mazza a few years later, substantiate the subsidies. Similarly, cost of growth studies in other states corroborate the enormous amounts given away for growth. There are no recent cost-of-growth studies available, so numbers may not be current. But it is quite possible that the cost in tax revenue in Washington State to subsidize growth could exceed $2 billion annually.

It is nearly impossible to spend a dollar in this state without providing a subsidy for growth. The cost burdens of subsidies fall on everyone including the very poor. The beneficiaries are the wealthy developers, land speculators, and the relatively wealthy newcomers who can afford the high price of a new home. The state’s citizens have long suffered under this iniquitous system. Our leaders to date have been unwilling to confront the development industry lobby on this issue. But if ever there was a time in history when our leaders have justification to bring equity to taxpayers and simultaneously provide much needed revenue to state and local jurisdictions, now is that time. If there was ever a time when the administration owed so little to the development industry, it is now. If there was ever a time in the last 40 years when the revenue needs were so great, it is now. If there was ever a time when growth threatens to overwhelm us with environmental degradation, it is now. Let us seize the moment.

We recommend that the state immediately put in place capital facilities charges on new dwelling units for the state facility needs generated by growth including but not limited to:
• State Parks
• Schools and colleges capital facilities
• State transportation needs
• Penal system facilities
• Justice systems
• State police capital facilities
• Social and health services capital facilities

We also suggest that the state make the following amendments to state law to allow local jurisdictions to collect and use capital facilities charges for its unfunded infrastructure demands related to growth:
• Expand the list of capital charges for which local jurisdictions may charge to include penal systems, justice systems, power generating and transmission facilities, libraries, city and county administrative facilities, and so on.
• Remove the time limit in which capital facility charges must be spent.
• Allow capital facility charge revenue to be spent anywhere within jurisdiction boundaries.

Finally, we recommend that the state make all grants to local jurisdictions for capital and infrastructure needs contingent on their imposing the maximum allowable capital facility charges in all the categories in which it is legal to impose such charges.

In the near future, the state can apply the general funds no longer needed for subsidies toward the shortfalls in the provision of vital services that it is currently experiencing. In the longer term, lower taxes might be a much needed bonus for state residents.

We have drafted and submitted numerous bills over the last ten years to implement these and other policies designed to cure the inequities of growth funding. We will avail ourselves at your convenience to meet with appropriate members of your staff to brief them on these proposals.

Sincerely,
The Carnegie Group of Olympia
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Peggy Bruton, Citizen Activist
Thomas W. Holz, Civil Engineer
Robert Jacobs, Former Mayor, City of Olympia
Walter Jorgensen, Former Councilmember, City of Tumwater
Suzanne Nott, Former Candidate, Port of Olympia Commissioner
Jerome Parker, Citizen Activist