On to a final compromise
Published 12:01 am Thursday, April 14, 2011
The budget proposal unveiled Tuesday evening by state Senate leaders is remarkable in a number a ways, but none more than its bipartisan ownership. It’s the first time since 2004 that Republicans have had a truly meaningful voice in setting state government priorities.
The result is a centris
t plan that closes the $5 billion-plus gap between planned spending and projected revenue, and embarks on several structural reforms aimed at heading off future shortfalls. And although it differs in some important ways from the plan that passed the House last week, the differences don’t appear to be insurmountable.
Senate Democrats’ decision to include GOP leaders in their budget process owes to two key facts: moderate Democrats who last year formed their own “Roadkill” caucus could have joined moderate Republicans to defeat a budget they perceived as too liberal; and the plain ugly nature of this year’s choices argued for giving the other side some skin in the game.
Still, the sight of Ways and Means Committee chairman Ed Murray (D-Seattle) and ranking member Joe Zarelli (R-Ridgefield) sitting together in support of the same budget was refreshing. Reasonable compromise is still possible, it seems.
After final passage in the Senate, negotiators from both chambers will have to hammer out a final compromise. Some big issues still must be resolved:
•The House budget counts on $300 million in new revenue from the privatization of the state’s liquor distribution monopoly. We don’t think that’s wise, especially given a competing idea to more broadly privatize liquor sales. That bill, supported by Costco and other businesses, addresses key voter concerns by keeping liquor out of corner convenience stores and gas stations and generating more state and local revenue through licensing fees.
The Senate budget calls for developing a system to use performance, not seniority, to decide which teachers get laid off when such reductions are necessary. It’s a sensible reform.
The Senate goes too far, however, in calling for 3 percent pay cuts for teachers and other K-12 staff. The House budget freezes automatic step increases and neither plan funds cost-of-living increases. That’s enough of a burden for educators to bear.
State colleges and universities get a little more funding in the Senate bill, at the cost of slightly higher tuition increases — which reach double-digit annually in both plans. Neither is palatable, but the Senate’s approach better protects the quality of higher education.
Differences on health care and social programs don’t appear to be dramatic and shouldn’t be hard to bridge.
Facing choices no one wanted to make, lawmakers to this point deserve credit for bringing a rational, clear-headed approach to an emotionally difficult process. If they keep it up, they should be able to forge a final, reasonable compromise by the session’s scheduled end, 10 days from now.
