Representative Deb Eddy

And so 2012 begins:  Faced with a huge task in the next few months, I might prefer to skip updating this website at all, just suggest you go over and read Ross' blog or contact Rodney. However, we're going to have a 48th District town hall on this coming Wednesday night, January 4, at Bellevue City Hall, 6 pm, so I should just touch on a couple of items that may come up: 

State Route 520 tolling has begun (12/29/2011).   WSDOT has a website that answers all of your questions, but it requires some patience. I know, it's not the greatest design, but legislators don't actually run things in Olympia.  If you get thoroughly confused ... call the customer service number.  The staff are actually quite knowledgeable and, perhaps more surprisingly, helpful.  Don't bother yelling at them about tolling, generally, or how furious you are at the idea that that we taxpayers and users have to pay for public infrastructure.  The decision to toll SR520 was made years ago and will not be revisited, no matter how some may huff and puff.  The bridge badly needs replaced, including added capacity for usable transit.  We need tolling money to finish financing it.  Fourteen years after replacement planning began -- time to build.  

The budget is 'way out of whack.  This is old news to a lot of folks, but the state's method of presenting and balancing its budgets is different than the approach used by local governments.  Even if we were to take the Governor's suggestion of sending a half-penny sales tax increase for approval by the public, well, that doesn't solve the problem.  Revenue has to match expenses, at least six years out.  Consistent with the blog post below on reform, I'm going to be working overtime not only to promote sensible reforms in service delivery and revenue ... but also to get the question of sustainability in front of the public.   If we want high-quality education for our kids, reliable public support services for the disabled and elderlyand adequate infrastructure to support a thriving economy ... well, we'd better come to terms with what that looks like and what it will cost.

Other than that, things are going pretty well. (Insert wry grin.) We continue to enjoy a high quality of life in the Pacific Northwest; our enormous export market, in aerospace, agriculture and technology, prevented the local economy from tanking as badly as some other parts of the US.  I worry that the absence of in-your-face crisis, together with generally gorgeous natural setting, might woo us into complacency.  We have serious social, educational and economic issues in front of us, little hope of any serious policy leadership from the US Congress ... and a tendency toward sclerotic and cautious decision-making regionally.  Let's hope we find some courage and nimbleness in the year ahead ... 

Happy New Year to you all ... and I fully expect to see many of you at the town hall next week.

Special session and reform:  We are at a mid-point in the special session called by the Governor to deal with the $1.6 - $2.2 billion budget shortfall, and the press is registering the annoyance of the Governor and others that we've not passed an all-cuts budget and then a revenue package that would buy back some services that we've just cut.   The proposal sent to us by the Governor appears here.

It's not hard to understand why the progress is slow.  The Legislature has procedures set out in the Constitution and statute; the place has run the same for 100+ years.  Even if you take every short cut in the book, you still need consultation among the 98 representatives and 49 senators in order to get the majority votes needed to take action.  For the past many years (I don't know how long.really), there has been no real contingency planning at the state level, and that increases the pressure for quick action because we already used all the neat tricks, like sweeping accounts.  And of course, this recession hasn't followed the profile laid out by optimists in 2009.  Although, truth be told, I've been part of a noisy and annoying minority, trying to get some attention on this point. 

So, now, to re-balance the budget with about $2 billion less in revenue, we're on the verge of really ripping education budgets and pulling the rug out from under some of our most fragile citizens.  We are also taking revenue from cities and counties, by the way, who are going to face some real impacts from our failure to plan for this rather chillingly bad 'rainy day.'  The need for services will not go away when we quit funding them; the impacts will be felt in every city and county of this state.

The Governor's revenue proposal, which blunts some of the worst cuts by providing buy-back revenue, is based on a temporary 3-year increase in the sales tax and some other revenue actions.  The sales tax measure is framed as a referendum to the people.  The Secretary of State's office blogs about some polling that indicates Washington state voters would approve the sales tax measure.  (Side note:  I will blog about revenue choices later; it has its own set of complications.)

So what's the problem?  Why do people keep talking about reform, when this situation appears to be so dire and so immediate? There are really three different kinds of reforms under discussion. 

There are the regulatory reforms being touted by businesses, cities, counties and other agencies, asking that we take some actions that will make their lives easier for awhile.  Delaying implementation of new rules and regulations, giving cities and counties flexibility in the use of their existing funds fit into this category.  When society is stressed out, for instance, with DV and aid calls on the increase, local governments need to funnel money where it will do the most good.  Having severe limitations on what they can use certain funds for is not helpful.

There are educational reforms for both K-12 and higher education that are needed to improve our kid's future.  Why do we have to do these now?  Because the big employers in this region are not going to open their checkbooks to fund the revenue referendum if we don't have the courage to take the policy actions necessary to improve our public schools. 

And, finally, there are the sustainability reforms that we need to implement, taking a page out of the practicesof cities and counties.  We have to get back to the practice of considering the six-year revenue and expense projections for the state before adding programs or making promises.  Check out Sen. Jim Kastama's video, illustrating this concept.  You may not agree with some of his ideas for closing that gap, but it's hard to argue that we shouldn't address it.

I understand that there is now a list of reforms presented today by Sen. Zarelli  on behalf of the Republicans.  I don't know how these fit into my three reform categories, but to the degree that they do ... well, everything should be on the table.  And, honestly, I am an optimist:  I believe that we can and should foster an environment in which it may just be possible to get to a 2/3 vote on some revenue actions.  For sure, we won't ... if we don't try.

When we can identify a set of best reform ideas from each of these categories, along with what services we need to protect, then I think it will be easier to attract votes not just to the newly-balanced budget but also to the revenue actions we need to keep critical state services afloat and to keep the "public" in education. 

 Till next time ...

A moderate Dem's point of view:  Today, Sen Hobbs and I hold forth in the Everett Herald on what we think needs to happen in Olympia in the special session. 

Decision-making in state legislatures is not rational nor necessarily logical.  It is overtly political, meaning that existing political interests, Democrats and Republicans, debate issues from very different platforms or agendas.  There are a lot of people involved, so coming up with 50 votes in the House,  25 in the Senate for proposals that will be signed by the Governor involves a certain amount of chaos in finding those votes.  Sort of like three-dimensional chess, except worse.

The Governor, in identifying potential cuts and claw-backs necessary to balance the budget in the face of the newest revenue shortfall, has certainly caught the cities' mayors attention, united in their outrage.  Difficult times call for difficult choices.   Dick Nelson, over on Crosscut, describes the larger political environment in which we're working.  It's a good piece, but I disagree with some of his characterizations, e.g, I don't see Senate Roadkill as a problem, by any measure.  I work well with those senators; they serve a critical role in finding compromise between the parties.  I'd encourage you to click through to both stories. 

Bad blogger tries to catch up:  Due to the length of time since my last entry, I am not a very good or prolific blogger.  I update this page via Twitter, in the box to the upper right, linking to articles that I think are useful in understanding the social and economic context of government.

Over the next few months, I will be gradually phasing out the political commentary on my Facebook page, replacing it with links to blog entries on this page.  This next session is quite likely to be my last (never say never), so a contemporaneous record of the proceedings, what's going on, rather appeals to me.

To be clear:  Since coming in to session in January 2009, many of us have known that this recession is not like previous ones in 1982 or 2003.  Due to the globalization of markets over the last 20 years, the increasing role of consumer spending and financial transactions in maintaining the American economy, the de-regulation of financial markets and the shaky condition of the euro ... well, we are in for a rough ride.   Budgets approved since January 2009 have depended on Federal transfers, sweeps of any special fund (Toxics, Public Works Trust Fund, etc.) and a few accounting maneuvers to keep services and commitments to citizens and employees whole. 

Internally to the legislature, those of us tagged as "moderates" (not wholly defined by our political party) have argued mightily for more structural reform of services, stretching tax dollars farther in search of maximum value.  We're getting there, but far too slowly to prevent more cuts to education and social safety net services in the coming year.  

Some will argue, with good reason, that we shouldn't be talking about new revenue at all until we've implemented a new round of serious reform initiatives.  I don't know how that argument will play out, in the face of some pretty penny-wise-pound-foolish cuts now on the table.

As always, I am honored to be of service to my constituents (all of you, not just the ones with lobbyists).  

Let's just ramp up the drama:  I'm hearing a lot about the proposed unemployment insurance bill, the dust-up in the Senate.  Do NOT believe the politicized reports from the left wing sites and blogs, trying to make this into a white-hat-black-hat issue.

The Governor has requested that we pass a bill that will give employers a UI tax break.  Due to high unemployment in recent years, the rates are headed up ... even for businesses that have managed to avoid layoffs.  Additionally, action is need to qualify for Federal funds by bringing our program into conformity with Federal norms.

It's the spending part of the proposal that has attracted debate.  The Governor (and I agree with her) has proposed additional training. The Washington State Labor Council and social service groups have decided to favor a per-child benefit, instead.  My reason for agreeing with the Governor is simple.  UI is an income-replacement program, not a social service program.  When we start adding social criteria to this program, we start down a very slippery slope!  The construction industry has suffered particularly high unemployment in this recession; many of those jobs will not come back - ever.  Offering worker retraining, wherever we can, to as many as we can, benefits these families not just today or for a few months - but far into the future.

Brad Shannon, in The Olympian, has a good explanation of the firework.  http://bit.ly/eO60nz