Friday, December 19, 2008

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:

No comments: