Positive deal a little closer
Published 4:33 pm Tuesday, February 28, 2012
More than a little sleight of hand went into the budget proposal unveiled by Senate Democratic leaders Tuesday in Olympia. Despite some creative accounting to patch a roughly $1 billion hole, though, the plan sets a new standard that should be adhered to in a final compromise: It spares education — early learning, K-12 and higher ed — from further cuts.
It’s an important turning point, one that recognizes the reality that eroding educational opportunity and quality undermines our future prosperity, and with it the economic activity that funds state services.
The Senate Democrats’ proposal was crafted largely without the participation of minority Republicans. Sen. Joe Zarelli (R-Ridgefield), who did meaningful work on last year’s budget, said he disengaged from the process because Democrats weren’t willing to work within existing revenues.
He’s right about that. The Senate Democrats’ plan, like proposals from their House counterparts and from Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, delays hundred of millions of dollars in payments to school districts, pushing that liability into the next budget cycle. The Senate plan, unlike the House proposal, makes that payment switch permanent.
If that tactic remains in the final budget plan, it’s unlikely to get many, if any, Republican votes. Senate Ways &Means Committee Chairman Ed Murray (D-Seattle) admitted Tuesday that his plan doesn’t even have enough votes in his own caucus to pass. But if reforms advocated by Republicans and moderate Democrats are part of a final compromise, a reasonable budget can still be approved — maybe even by the session’s scheduled adjournment date of March 8.
Zarelli’s reform priorities, shared by some moderate Democrats, include ending an early retirement benefit in the state pension system, requiring budgets to be balanced over a four-year period, putting a new constitutional cap on state debt, and overhauling the health-care system for K-12 employees. He also wants legislators to leave a larger reserve balance to guard against further drops in revenue. (The Senate plan leaves $369 million; the House plan leaves about $500 million. Zarelli has called for up to $800 million.)
We agree that in a still-tentative economy, a larger reserve is prudent. But if key reforms can be incorporated into this budget, we’d consider the delayed payments to school districts part of a reasonable compromise. Given the enormous drop in revenue over the past four years, and devastating cuts already made, it’s surely preferable to further reductions in education support.
Does it set the stage for larger cuts to education and social services, or tax increases, in the next budget? Probably. But then, it’s an election year. The campaign debate will be easy to frame.
