The headline of the editorial in the Everett Herald on Wednesday January 12, 2011 says
“A chance for bipartisanship”
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110112/OPINION01/701129975/-1/OPINION
then it goes on to say that eliminating the supermajority requirement for amendments to budget bills passed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would now only require a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for nearly a hundred years.
It is the Herald’s view that even though budget bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee would still be controlled by the majority party being able to amend them with a simple majority would encourage bipartisanship because the vote threshold for passage would be lower. But the amendments would not address core problems, they would be window dressing on a bad bill to buy votes.
The reason the Democrats want to create the appearance of easy bipartisanship is to spread the blame when the legislature has to eventually balance their budget.
In my view, the differences between the core values of the parties makes it difficult to propose solutions at the amendment level. I believe that solutions Republicans might offer would probably require that the state step back to core services. How well we fund education, public safety and transportation will be determined by how many other pools of money we have to create for (perhaps) non-essential services.
In order to adequately fund essential state services we need to first identify those that are mandated by the constitution and those that are not. Then prioritize those departments or programs that are not mandated so we can begin eliminating whole departments and bureaucracies so there is funding for the services remaining.
Under-funding all existing departments just means we’re spending money to maintain management structures without fulfilling a mission. Maintaining a department that cannot deliver the product is just wasting money. These are our likely candidates for elimination. With these departments on chopping block, we need to have a vigorous debate about the cost/benefit of each then decide. If we are looking for bipartisanship, this is the level where it should come into play.
Certainly there will be Washington citizens that will be adversely impacted for the long term by this plan. Democrats object to this strategy since the “nanny state” promises they make require that citizens have something to hang their hope on. If you eliminate a whole department, the expectation of restoration is reduced and hope is lost.
It is not that I don’t have feelings for those folks, I do, but it has to do with fairness for everyone in our state.
If the Herald editorial board wants to encourage bipartisanship, they need to recognize the basis for compromise between the two parties won’t happen at the superficial amendment level on Ways and Means budget bills.
No Loss for Words
Is Bi-Partisanship achievable in 2011
by Steve DanaThe headline of the editorial in the Everett Herald on Wednesday January 12, 2011 says
“A chance for bipartisanship”
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110112/OPINION01/701129975/-1/OPINION
then it goes on to say that eliminating the supermajority requirement for amendments to budget bills passed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would now only require a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for nearly a hundred years.
It is the Herald’s view that even though budget bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee would still be controlled by the majority party being able to amend them with a simple majority would encourage bipartisanship because the vote threshold for passage would be lower. But the amendments would not address core problems, they would be window dressing on a bad bill to buy votes.
The reason the Democrats want to create the appearance of easy bipartisanship is to spread the blame when the legislature has to eventually balance their budget.
In my view, the differences between the core values of the parties makes it difficult to propose solutions at the amendment level. I believe that solutions Republicans might offer would probably require that the state step back to core services. How well we fund education, public safety and transportation will be determined by how many other pools of money we have to create for (perhaps) non-essential services.
In order to adequately fund essential state services we need to first identify those that are mandated by the constitution and those that are not. Then prioritize those departments or programs that are not mandated so we can begin eliminating whole departments and bureaucracies so there is funding for the services remaining.
Under-funding all existing departments just means we’re spending money to maintain management structures without fulfilling a mission. Maintaining a department that cannot deliver the product is just wasting money. These are our likely candidates for elimination. With these departments on chopping block, we need to have a vigorous debate about the cost/benefit of each then decide. If we are looking for bipartisanship, this is the level where it should come into play.
Certainly there will be Washington citizens that will be adversely impacted for the long term by this plan. Democrats object to this strategy since the “nanny state” promises they make require that citizens have something to hang their hope on. If you eliminate a whole department, the expectation of restoration is reduced and hope is lost.
It is not that I don’t have feelings for those folks, I do, but it has to do with fairness for everyone in our state.
If the Herald editorial board wants to encourage bipartisanship, they need to recognize the basis for compromise between the two parties won’t happen at the superficial amendment level on Ways and Means budget bills.
Posted in Legislature, Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »