Gregoire's Budget

By Evan Rohar

She said it was going to be ugly and it is. Given the speculation, some aspects are surprising. The main thing to remember while reading about Gregoire's budget proposal, however, is that it does not cover the further losses to revenue that are expected in the February forecast. There are $3.5 billion in cuts so far, but this is just a first shot. While K-12 and higher education were not hit as hard as expected, health and human services were cut to the bone. Each of the following selections is from the Seattle Times article on the budget proposal. We'll take them on point by point ("Public safety" is left out for now due to its controversial nature. However, no matter what its fate, workers in correctional facilities, etc. still need good, living-wage jobs).

"Health and human services: $1.4 billion

Reductions include cutting $500 million from state programs that provide health care for children, the poor and the disabled. The cuts could eliminate health-care services for 46,000 people.

"Other cuts include eliminating the General Assistance-Unemployable program, which provides a temporary safety net for people unable to work because of mental or physical disabilities. That would save more than $160 million.

"In addition, the governor proposes a 5 percent cut in the amount of money the state provides to nursing homes to take care of Medicaid patients, saving the state $46 million." ("Gregoire releases slimmed-down state budget," 12/18/08)

This was by far the most surprising element of the budget cuts and the most draconian. In the coming period, the ranks of the working poor will swell, creating greater demand for state health plans and services. The most troubling thing about this is that it hits hardest those who are most disenfranchised. Cutting health services to children, the elderly, and the "disabled" should be completely out of the question even in troubled economic times.

"Pay raises: $682 million

"The governor would eliminate proposed pay increases for state workers and teachers. The state employee pay raises were negotiated between the governor and state worker unions, but haven't yet been approved by the Legislature. Initiative 732, approved by voters in 2000, requires annual salary increases for teachers to be pegged to inflation. However, the Legislature can suspend the initiative with a simple majority vote.

"However the state would provide the additional money needed to continue paying 88 percent of the health-insurance premiums for state employees, as required by their contracts." (Ibid.)

State jobs are some of the few living-wage jobs left in Washington (see the Seattle PI article, "New jobs offer less than living wage"). Reducing the number of good-paying jobs by freezing the wages of state workers makes little sense in this economic environment. Furthermore, the governor already negotiated wages and benefits for state workers during collective bargaining with their unions. The legislature should not renege on contracts that were negotiated in good faith.

Initiative 732 should not be suspended. Teachers are already underpaid for the amount of work they do and the cost of the education required to become certified. The Seattle Times seems to suggest in the last sentence above that state workers shouldn't have good health insurance. All workers deserve good health insurance.

"Public schools: $610 million

"Cuts include a 33 percent reduction in levy equalization payments to public schools. This money helps support about 200 school districts that have small property-tax bases to rely on. It would save the state $125 million.

"In addition, the governor would save $178 million with a 24 percent cut in funding for Initiative I-728, which was approved by voters in 2000 to reduce class sizes. Many schools use the money to hire more staff and pay for training and other programs." (Ibid.)

The levy system is already an inequitable way of dividing up money for public schools. Decreasing money for levy equalization will put currently under-funded rural and inner-city schools into dire straits. Also, with schools and classes already overcrowded, laying off teachers whose positions were funded by I-728 must be taken off the table. Neither teachers nor students can afford a reduction in State funding for public K-12 education.

"Higher education: both cuts and tuition increases

"The governor would cut $216 million — 13 percent — from the budget for four-year public universities. Two-year community colleges would be cut by 6 percent, or $110 million. The cuts are expected to result in larger class sizes and faculty layoffs. Gregoire suggests letting the colleges and universities decide if they need to reduce enrollment to maintain quality.

"Community colleges were spared the deepest cuts because the governor's office felt those institutions will get the brunt of laid-off workers heading back to college for retraining.

"Universities would be allowed to increase tuition by 7 percent, which would raised $128 million to help offset the cuts. Community colleges can increase tuition by 5 percent, which would raise $34 million."(Ibid.)

Raising tuition above the rate of inflation is unacceptable in a time in which it is becoming harder and harder for working and middle class people to attend college (see an earlier post on this blog, "College in WA and across the US becoming unaffordable"). Costs for attending college have skyrocketed in recent years, keeping higher education out of reach for many lower-income people. Laying off faculty and staff will exacerbate already climbing unemployment in the state. Also, if laid-off workers are expected to enter community colleges for retraining, why are their budgets being reduced instead of increased?

"Natural resources: $35.8 million

"The proposed cuts include closing 13 of Washington's 121 state parks, saving $5.2 million, and shuttering some fish hatcheries, saving $6.6 million." (Ibid.)

Closing state parks will not only reduce the quality of life of people who spend their recreation time in the outdoors, it will result in lost jobs for park rangers and staff. Here's a comment from a woman responding to another person on this Seattle Times article:

"'OPEN YOUR EYES== this is all on paper NO real cuts.' Hey Mr. Nice Guy, tell that to the dozen or so Park Rangers who were told today that they will be laid off at the end of January, including my husband. Or the staff at the 13 state parks that are closing and are either losing their jobs or forced to move to other parks."

These budget cuts are affecting working people in real ways already. Workers like park rangers rely on state funding for good paying jobs that can support families. We must not let our quality of life be slashed to ribbons while the banks on Wall Street and the rich investors and corporations get bailed out when they are in trouble. 40 out of 50 states need significant amounts of money to continue providing jobs, services, and education to their constituents. The federal government has the money; we must demand it.

Related Articles:

• Seattle PI Frugal budget wins few friends
• Seattle PI Editorial State Budget: Pain and suffering
  

Washington's deficit not that bad?

By Evan Rohar

Speaker Chopp seems to be out of touch with what working people and students need. He doesn't think the budget deficit that is already causing the government to cut health care, workers' hours, and education is really that much of a problem. From the Seattle Times:

"House Speaker Frank Chopp said Washington's projected deficit may not be as bad as it looks.

"Chopp, a Seattle Democrat, was in the Tri-Cities Friday for a forum with the Columbia Basin Badger Club, a local group that grills politicians and newsmakers on political issues without taking sides.

"Several club members from the audience of about 75 asked Chopp about the state budget, which officials estimated in November would face a $5.1 billion shortfall in the upcoming biennium.

"But Chopp said the doom-and-gloom prophecies include estimates for $1 billion in spending on new programs, which seems unlikely given the current revenue picture.

"'In fact, we won't do that now,' he said.

"Some programs — such as all-day kindergarten — will have to wait until the economy turns around, he said." ("Chopp: Washington's deficit not that bad," 12/14/08)

New programs on the chopping block include increases to health care for children among many other badly needed services.

One-dimensional stimulus

By Evan Rohar

Following are excerpts from two articles published in The Enterprise Newspapers in two days that illustrate the ineffectiveness of a one-dimensional economic stimulus plan:

"From Washington, D.C., and from Olympia, the refrain is the increasingly same: This recession demands a job-creating stimulus package.

"From Edmonds, the response has been quick: If you have money, we have ways to spend it. . .

"Sidewalks, walking trails, lighting improvements on downtown Edmonds' Main Street and more mundane projects are all included in the city's 11 project, $9.2 million 'stimulus package' wish list . . .

"All told, the city's projects would create a total of 116 full-time equivalent jobs, officials estimate." ("Edmonds' stimulus wish list $9.2 million long," 12/10/08)

"The [Edmonds school] district received almost $9 million in I-728 money last year, which funded about 78 full-time teachers. Mostly it goes to reducing class size, and the rest goes to teacher professional development and extended learning." ("Public school funding picture bleak," 12/11/08)

This is the problem with a one-dimensional economic stimulus program. If funding is taken away from I-728, 78 teachers will lose their jobs. Even if Edmonds gets everything on its bailout wish list (an unlikely prospect by the tone of the first article), it will create only 38 net jobs after subtracting the lost teaching positions.

An approach which pinpoints only certain ailing sectors of the economy will not work in a recession of this magnitude, especially when workers already have a very hard time finding living-wage work. From the Seattle PI:

"Nearly 80 percent of job openings in Washington last year paid less than a living wage for a single parent with two children. And every opening that did offer a living wage for that type of family drew an average of 10 job seekers.

"Overall, the percentage of job openings paying less than a livable wage for different household compositions remained virtually unchanged in 2007 from 2006, according to an annual study on the gap between what families earn and what they need to get by.

"Because the study does not reflect the economic trends of 2008, 'in all likelihood, the numbers are an underestimate, so the picture is even more bleak,' study author Gerald Smith said Tuesday." ("New jobs offer less than living wage," 12/9/08)

Workers' real weekly earnings have been declining since the mid-1970s. We need a diverse array of living-wage jobs in order to boost the living conditions of workers in this country.

CPJ Article: Unite against the budget cuts or we will fail

We're in the current issue of the Cooper Point Journal. The article this time emphasizes the need for unity. Here it is:

We will unite against the budget cuts, or we will fail

By Benjamin Gallup and Evan Rohar

Every sector of spending in Washington State will be under attack during the coming legislative session. The budget deficit for 2009-10 will almost certainly reach $6 billion, while some say it could be as high as $8 or $9 billion. Legislators are now discussing a 23 percent cut to the higher education budget as part of their efforts to eliminate the deficit. Other large items on the long list of cuts are health care, social services, and primary education.

In the coming months, legislators will use “fiscal responsibility” as a rationale for cutting spending to programs that students and workers need most in a recession. Yet economists have said recently that fiscal restraint is likely to make our economic woes worse. The state needs immediate aid from the federal government to continue vital services as well as a progressive tax code which taxes corporations and the wealthy to provide a consistent and predictable source of revenue. This is, in fact, the “fiscally responsible” course. Our elected officials have not yet put forward an acceptable solution to this budget crisis, so we must organize and do it ourselves.

Given the task ahead, students, faculty, state workers, and indeed all citizens of this state must unite against the looming threat to our quality of life. We must build a state-wide coalition based on our common interests. This coalition will need to embrace a variety of tactics to accomplish the goal of full funding for all state programs.

Realizing the interconnectedness of each vulnerable program is the key to creating and maintaining a coalition of all the parties with a stake in this fight: students, faculty, and staff; state workers; and those dependent upon state social and health services. Perhaps most importantly, we must remember how the decisions made in the coming months will effect an already ailing economy, and therefore every person living in this State.

Last week, Governor Gregoire asked for a minimum $600 million from the federal government for infrastructure projects. At the same time, she sought a $600 million budget cut to higher education (which has since been revised upwards to $690 million). Addressing joblessness through a federal stimulus in one sector of the economy while laying off state workers in another makes little sense. We need a holistic approach to this economic crisis, not an injection of funds into one part of our ailing system while others are crippled. The government should not force faculty, staff, and students out of higher education just to seek the infrastructure jobs it is creating to stimulate the economy. Yet we as students cannot say to a laid-off construction worker who would benefit from a state infrastructure stimulus, “Our education is more important than your ability to find living-wage work.” Similarly, the government should not present the construction worker with two bad options: a good education for her child or a living-wage job.

We face a long struggle which could take us until the end of June and the deadline for a new state budget. We must steel ourselves and square our shoulders to the task ahead. Above all we must have faith in our collective ability to make a difference through organizing and mass action, as did those in the 20th century's civil rights, anti-war, and labor movements. Along the way, the governor and lawmakers will make concessions to groups within our coalition. We must build the strongest bonds of solidarity so that when one group gets what it wants, it does not just give up the fight for full funding of all our distinct, yet interconnected, needs.

In this economic climate, tuition hikes and layoffs of state workers should be out of the question. So, too, should a reduction in services to a growing number of people who need them. The federal government gives trillions of dollars in bailouts to banks and rich investors. Students and workers must unite to demand that the federal government fund our needs.

Task Force on K-12 ed recommends, but no one's listening

By Evan Rohar

The Basic Education Finance Task Force has come out with a list of recommendations for Washington State's K-12 education system. They make some excellent suggestions on how to improve the quality and equity of Washington's schools ("Recommendations of the Basic Education Task Force," Seattle Times, 12/10/08). The only problem is the price tag: $2-3 billion. From the Seattle Times:

"[Task force chairman] Dan Grimm, a former state legislator from Puyallup as well as a two-term state treasurer, said Thursday that he was inspired by a phone call and letter from Gov. Christine Gregoire to propose an extension of the sales tax to services. That would make things like doctor visits and financial advice subject to the state sales tax.

"On Tuesday, the task force voted to approve a proposal that asks for more state money to pay for things like a longer high-school day, smaller classes in the younger grades and regionally adjusted pay for teachers. . .

"Task-force members are not responsible for solving the state's financial crisis but the state will be unable to pay for the group's proposals with expected state revenue, the governor wrote to Grimm, who chairs the Basic Education Finance Task Force.

"'Task Force members must provide recommendations on how the state can fund their funding-level recommendations,' Gregoire wrote.

"When the group was formed by the Legislature in 2007, it was looking forward to years of plenty, Grimm said. But things changed and the task force did not change along with the economy, he said." ("Task force suggests sales-tax expansion," 12/12/08)

And why should a task force to improve education change with the economy? In times of plenty or times of trouble, is the need for a quality education, especially for children, not constant? Young people need a future whether the Dow is up or down. A tax on doctor's visits and other services is not the answer, however. Nor would voters who are already facing stagnant wages and layoffs pass a referendum to expand the sales tax pass . If state taxes are to be increased, they should fall on wealthy and hugely profitable corporations like Weyerhaeuser, Boeing, and Microsoft.

Furthermore, we need a federal government that is committed to expanding funding for education and other necessary services. That means an immediate injection of federal dollars into state coffers across the nation to bolster funding for education (k-12 and higher), health care, and services such as home care for the elderly. There seems to be a vacuum of leadership on these issues; we must fill that vacuum with our ideas and organization.

Editorial in the Seattle Times: Don't engage in deficit spending

By Evan Rohar

In an editorial published on December 10th, the Seattle Times stated that, though it is legal for the state to engage in deficit spending, it is not a good idea. It is worth quoting a large part of the article:

"Borrowing to build a university hall is like borrowing to buy a house. Borrowing to pay salaries of state workers is like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

"The state has, in fact, engaged in deficit spending under other names. It was in 2003, at the bottom of the last recession, when the state started getting lawsuit-settlement money from tobacco companies. To balance the budget, the state sold $450 million of tobacco-revenue bonds. Legislators called it 'selling the tobacco money.'

"They didn't call it deficit spending, but that's what it was. It was different only in that it was pledging future tobacco money, not future general-fund money.

"In 2005, which wasn't a recession year, the Legislature did what was essentially deficit spending: It skipped the scheduled $325 million payment into state employee pension funds. That was also borrowing against the future, and we can remember former-Rep. Helen Sommers, the Democrats' guardian of financial probity, denouncing it. Such a thing hadn't been done in 40 years, she said.

"Washington already borrows billions for capital projects such as roads, ferries and university buildings. These are expensive assets that last many years, and borrowing spreads the cost over the generations.

"Now, delaying the $443 million payment due in 2009 seems almost normal. We have suggested it ourselves.

"And so the restraints fall away. What is left? The belief that it is illegal, unconstitutional and just plain wrong for the state to meet current expenses by borrowing.

Now our reporter has smoked out the unfortunate fact that it's not illegal or unconstitutional. But it's still wrong. Don't do it." ("Even if a deficit budget is legal in Washington state, it's still a bad idea")

The Seattle Times happens to be right on many points. However, they offer no alternative to deficit spending other than one that is completely unacceptable: cut, cut, cut. In a period when the State's revenue could remain depressed for years to come, we must ask ourselves what our priorities are. Will we provide only infrastructure jobs at the expense of education, effectively selling off the future to subsidize the present? We need more federal money for schools and jobs, not one or the other. That money must come from somewhere; a good start would be the enormous military and prison budgets, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the "war on drugs." Maybe the states should get some of the $700 billion allotted for handouts to the Wall Street firms and people who caused this economic crisis. In any case, state governments across the nation are in need of money to continue providing services and living-wage jobs. They need federal funds immediately. It has been left up to us by our complacent legislators and bureaucrats to put forward a solution that actually works, now and into the future.

History professor Op-ed on Budget Cuts

By Evan Rohar

Sarah Laslett from Evergreen's Labor Education and Research Center sent out an op-ed article published in the Seattle Times on tesccrier. Its author, James N. Gregory, is a professor of history and director of the Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies at the University of Washington. It is an excellent article outlining the argument against budget cuts during this severe recession. Here's an excerpt and link to this important article:

"When the private sector stalls, government needs to step in. It needs to spend money and increase employment in ways that might seem reckless in normal times. They talked about big public-works projects in 1931 and they passed an income tax to pay for it. But Gov. Roland Hartley vetoed both.

"The governor said he needed to follow the law, enforce a balanced budget and protect taxpayers. As a result, state spending declined in 1931. Seattle officials followed suit, laying off city workers instead of expanding employment.

"Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Legislature are on track to repeat the mistakes of 1931. Committed to balancing the state budget as required by current law, the governor has already ordered state agencies to cut more than $590 million and is proposing to slash another $5 billion to $6 billion in the next budget cycle.

"That will destroy as many as 20,000 jobs, adding to the state's escalating unemployment problem. It will mean drastic cutbacks in health and social services just when they are most needed. It will mean that college applicants will be turned away, hurting young people and further burdening the job market. It will damage, perhaps permanently, our universities and other institutions vital to the future of Washington. This is not what we need at this perilous juncture." ("As Olympia wrestles with a budget crisis, can it avoid the mistakes of 1931?" 12/5/08)

Better campuses, fewer students and lower quality education?

By Evan Rohar

It is interesting the things university presidents focus on when they are faced with a potential 23% cut to their budgets and have the opportunity to meet with the governor. Here are some excerpts from a Seattle PI article on a meeting Gov. Gregoire had with "business and education leaders" on how to stimulate the state's economy:

"Transportation projects are likely to make up a big part of the stimulus plan, which Gregoire said she'll announce in January. And the state's universities -- maybe most notably the UW -- plan to aggressively lobby the state to fund a list of campus building projects using that same line of reasoning.

"At the end of the two-hour meeting, members of the round table said maintaining an educated work force also emerged as a top priority. The state's public universities and community colleges have been told to prepare for deep cuts -- possibly as high as 20 percent of their current state funding.

"UW President Mark Emmert and Washington State University President Elson Floyd were at Monday's meeting. Afterward, they said both universities are poised to start new campus construction projects in the next few months." ("Governor vows push of big stimulus plan," 12/8/08)

If the governor and legislators cut the higher education budget by 23 percent (the new number the legislature is floating), will improved or new buildings on campuses really matter? If "maintaining an educated workforce emerged as a top priority," why is the only investment being proposed in the construction part of education? Furthermore, leaders from primary education were conspicuously absent from the meeting. If people don't have good primary educations, it follows that they will have trouble succeeding in college.

Construction jobs are important, but so is education (for the future as well as providing jobs in the present). We need both.

Related articles:

• Seattle Times Gregoire hears economic recovery ideas
  

State isn't required to balance budget

By Evan Rohar

In an odd turn of events, The Seattle Times, obliterating long-held dogma in Washington's politics, recently uncovered that legislators were misinformed or untruthful in their assertions that the state's constitution requires that they pass a balanced budget.

"It's long been accepted gospel by many here: The state must balance its budget and can't borrow money to cover shortfalls like the one lawmakers now face.

"'My brochure for my race said that unlike the federal government we have to balance our budget,' said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam. 'I seriously believed that.'

"In fact, it's a myth.

"There's no legal barrier that prevents the state from going into deficit spending, according to legislative staff members and the governor's budget office.

"In other words, the state could borrow money long term to help fill a gaping hole in the 2009-11 state budget that the governor says could reach nearly $6 billion. The current two-year budget totals $33.6 billion." ("State isn't required to balance budget, but it's still the goal," 12/8/08)

This could potentially change the tone of the debate during the legislative session. Deficit spending on the state level, however, is a dangerous road to travel. If the state balances the budget with debt, the same budget items legislators are trying to slash this year will be on the chopping block in 2011. We need a long-term solution to this crisis so we have a future as well as short term solutions to minimize suffering in the present. The state needs immediate aid from the federal government to continue vital services as well as a progressive tax code which taxes corporations and the wealthy to provide a consistent and predictable source of revenue.

Legislative goals do not include higher ed

By Evan Rohar

From a Seattle PI article published on their website yesterday:
"Rep. Jim McDermott thinks the time is ripe to finally provide affordable health care coverage for all Americans.
"Sen. Patty Murray is looking to win her long fight to expand access to Veterans Affairs programs.
"Rep. Jay Inslee senses an opportunity to boost renewable energy initiatives and cut the nation's reliance on imported oil.
"[Rep. Norm Dicks says] Environmental initiatives in general should fare better under Obama,...specifically mentioning spending for a Puget Sound cleanup and for national parks.
"Maria Cantwell...anticipates welcome changes in White House policies on health care and energy. Specific measures she's optimistic about are legislation to curtail price manipulation in the oil market, and reform of programs helping workers adversely affected by foreign trade -- issues she has addressed previously.
"Rep. Rick Larsen, whose House district runs from Monroe to the Canadian border, sees better times ahead for issues he's worked on as a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee." ("State's congressional leaders outline legislative goals," 12/7/08)

These are all commendable goals. However, as has been pointed out in previous entries on this blog, higher education (as well as primary educaton) has been consistently left out of conversations related to the coming legislative session, nationally as well as on the state level. In fact, the only time legislators and the governor seem to mention education at all is when they are discussing budget cuts. That being said, we must not fall into the trap of demanding funding for higher education at the expense of other programs. This sort of special-interest approach will divide students, faculty, staff, and all state workers as well as people who rely on funding for social and health services, isolating our efforts and turning one against another. Unity is the key to winning the struggle against budget cuts. We must put forward a message which will bring people together in solidarity with one another: No tuition hikes, no layoffs, no cuts to vital state services!

ECFF in the Cooper Point Journal

Our article made it into the Cooper Point Journal, page 7. Our visit to the Geoduck Student Union meeting made it on the front page. Check it out.

College in WA and across the US becoming unaffordable

By Evan Rohar

The New York Times published an article yesterday entitled "College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S." It detailed a bleak report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and quickly become the most emailed article on the New York Times website. The report states that net costs for college (tuition + fees + room & board - financial aid) as a percentage of family income have risen dramatically over the past decade. Furthermore,

"The share of income required to pay for college, even with financial aid, has been growing especially fast for lower-income families, the report found.

"Among the poorest families — those with incomes in the lowest 20 percent — the net cost of a year at a public university was 55 percent of median income, up from 39 percent in 1999-2000. At community colleges, long seen as a safety net, that cost was 49 percent of the poorest families’ median income last year, up from 40 percent in 1999-2000." (12/3/08)

Enrollment in college has continued to grow, but this is only because families and students have been taking on an enormous amount of debt. With the loan market continuing to deteriorate and an unwillingness by the legislators to even consider giving direct federal loans, college will become inaccessible to many if nothing is done. Workers 25-34 years old are already less-educated than older workers.

The situation in Washington State is no better than the national picture. The Seattle Times wrote yesterday that "poor and working-class families in Washington must spend 36 percent of their income, in addition to financial aid, to pay for tuition at a two-year college" ("Study says Washington colleges flunk affordability", 12/3/08). It is becoming more and more clear that our state's budget must not be balanced through cuts to education, services, and health care.

"Stimulus" and slashes to health care

By Evan Rohar

The Seattle Times is reporting that the Governor is now preparing her budget for a nearly $6 billion deficit:

"In Washington state, Gregoire said, 'We're looking at $5.8 billion in cuts' over the next 2 ½ years, unless economic conditions change."

She also outlined what kind of aid she would like to see from the federal government:

"Asked how much money she would like to see the state receive as part of the proposed federal stimulus package, Gregoire said she hopes for 'something short of $1 billion' for infrastructure projects, Medicaid reimbursement and other assistance. ("Gregoire says state needs $600 million economic stimulus," 12/2/08)

"She hopes for 'something short of $1 billion.'" We need $5.8 billion to continue vital services in this state. Why is she only hoping for "something short of a billion?" Why in this economically troubled period are our "leaders" hoping for a pittance when they could fight for so much more? Assuming Gregoire gets the minimum of what she is asking for, $600 million, that would still leave $5.2 billion is cuts to be made to education and social services. Even the Seattle Times acknowledges, "The recession and the accompanying increase in joblessness have translated into higher health-care costs for the poor, greater use of food stamps and added strain on welfare programs." It seems that the governor is out of touch with the situation for students and workers in this economy. She still has mentioned nothing about any kind of federal aid to education in this State.

Health care is already being slashed. Washington's Basic Health Plan, in which people "pay a fee based on how much they earn" is set to decrease its enrollment by 7700 by July. "The director, Steve Hill, told The Olympian it will limit enrollments. For every two people who drop off the plan, the state will add only one." (Seattle Times, "Budget ax falling on Washington Basic Health Plan," 12/3/08). This is no time to be cutting services to those who need it most. We need a real solution to this budget crisis that does not hurt working people and students.

States seek aid from congressional democrats

By Evan Rohar

Yesterday in the New York Times:

"House Democrats said Monday that they would try to pass an economic recovery bill costing $400 billion to $500 billion next month as governors pressed Congress for money to build roads and bridges, provide health care to low-income people and develop alternative sources of energy." ("Democrats in House Plan a Package of Up to $500 Billion to Help State," 12/01/08)

Today, governors from forty states met with President-elect Obama to outline what they need from the federal government. From the Seattle PI website:

"The governors want Obama to provide at least $40 billion to help pay for health care for the poor and disabled and even more for infrastructure projects like road and bridge repair.

"National Governors Association Chairman Ed Rendell, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said the governors are also pressing for perhaps $136 billion in infrastructure projects like road and bridge repairs in the legislation, which Democrats hope to have ready for Obama's signature as soon as he takes office on Jan. 20." ("Obama seeks to assure nervous governors on economy," 12/02/08)

• Roads and bridges - Excellent
• Healthcare for low-income folks - Superb
• Alternative sources of energy - Who could argue?

There is one element of states' budgets that is conspicuously absent from articles that cover this economic recovery program: education. These talks are, of course, preliminary, but the lack of any discussion about funding education is quite distressing. Furthermore, any bill with this price tag is sure to meet with fierce resistance from house Republicans, and this democratic congress's record on pushing legislation through is very weak.

This development outlines the need for students, staff, and faculty to organize in order to make our voices heard. However, we must put forward a program ensuring that funding education does not detract from programs that provide good jobs, medical care, and social programs.

Related Articles

• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008457577_govs02.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102622.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/washington/02states.html?scp=4&sq=economic%20recovery&st=cse
• http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151ap_obama_governors.html