On the state chopping block, "property-poor" School Districts, Red Districts with Republican Reps

The Gov submitted the required balanced budget. She has identified programs that both could be cut, but should be funded. As I mention a few days ago, those that "have not" will not have school district levy equalization money scooped up from all over the state (via the general fund) and given to district that either do not have the tax base for levies, or have chosen not to raise taxes. The last group, usually represented by like minded Republicans will be beggng on the House and Senate floor for a redistribution of wealth.

Her budget would eliminate the Basic Health Plan, a state-subsidized insurance program for the working poor, saving about $161 million over the next fiscal year. About 65,000 people are current enrolled.

Also zeroed out would be the General Assistance-Unemployable (GAU) program, which provides a temporary safety net for people unable to work because of mental or physical disabilities. That would save $207 million.

It would suspend funding for school levy equalization, which provides money to "property-poor" school districts, saving $143 million, and suspend state-subsidized all-day kindergarten, saving another $33.6 million. State-subsidized all-day kindergarten has been offered at a few school districts with the intent of expanding the program.

The budget also would cut $146 million in financial aid for college students and lower the qualifying income threshold from 70 percent of median family income to 50 percent. That means the money would only go to low-income families. The size of the grants would be smaller as well.

All told, the governor's budget would reduce spending by about $1.7 billion. The rest of the $2.6 billion shortfall would be filled by shifting money from certain funds and tapping reserves.
read the story here, in Seattle Times, Facing $2.6 billion shortfall, Gregoire to seek tax increase to balance budget

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com

News Flash, "a family of three needs at least thirty-six thousand to get by in Seattle"

Yesterday I wrote about the Washington State Legislature preparing for the "short" 60-day session in January. As the state makes cuts, and King County makes cuts, and the City of Seattle makes cuts, will the differences between those that "have", and those that "have not" become greater?

The answer has been "yes" for a couple decades, and it will grow. The reality is that these is a different standard of living, depending on where you live, as well as how you live.

In today's Seattle Times Columnist Danny Westneat provided us with the story of a woman who does not make enough money to live in Seattle, though she does live in Seattle.

It all started a year ago, when Porcaro, a 32-year-old mom with two boys, was summoned to the Seattle office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She had been flagged for an audit.

She couldn't believe it. She made $18,992 the previous year cutting hair at Supercuts. A few hundred of that she spent to have her taxes prepared by H&R Block.
. . .
"They thought she must have unreported income. That she was hiding something. Basically they were auditing her for not making enough money."

Seriously? An estimated 60,000 people in Seattle live below the poverty line — meaning they make $11,000 or less for an individual or $22,000 for a family of four. Does the IRS red-flag them for scrutiny, simply because they're poor?
. . .
Rachel's returns weren't all that complicated. At issue, though, was that she and her two sons, ages 10 and 8, were all living at her parents' house in Rainier Beach (she pays $400 a month rent). So the IRS concluded she wasn't providing for her children and therefore couldn't claim them as dependents.
Read the whole story in The Seattle Times, $10 an hour with 2 kids? IRS pounces.

60,000 people, 10%, of Seattle can not afford to live in Seattle.

I used a cost of living "wizard" at Salary.com to compare living in Seattle on $18,992 in Seattle vs Richland (population 46,000 as of 2008)..
Employers pay 4.7% less in Richland, but the cost of living is 19.4% lower.

So, let's understand something here before the Washington State Legislature gets together, know that there are more "poor" people in Seattle than there are people in Richland. That the cost of living is lower, and your personal wealth is worth more in smaller cities, like Richland. When legislators representing Seattle, and King County, propose bills to allow their municipalities to have access to broader taxes, tourist taxes, untility taxes, stadium taxes, whatever, to get more return for the communities they have invested in, understand why.

Seattle is a nice place to visit, and some of us live here.


Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com

2010 Leadership and "Followship": McGinn, Conlin, Constantine, Brown, Chopp, Gregoire

This week the Washington State Legislature held meetings in Olympia in various sub-committees to prepare for the upcoming "short" session in January. The state's projected budget shortfall of 2.6 billion dollars is the number 1 topic.

Decisions will be made that will put an end to the state being all things to all people. The question becomes, will the state deny some things to all people?
The state may want to stop supporting "tax poor" school districts by cutting some, or all, of Levy Equalization. Will it also deny "tax rich" school districts the ability to raise higher levies?

As it cuts support to counties for health and human services for its citizens will it deny counties different taxing sources to not only make up for the state's shortfall, but the same shortfall counties are facing?

Further, will the state grant authority to counties and cities to choose to raise, or extend local taxes for non-essential services?

As we travel down this road of hard choices, and we answer no, are we denying local control over communities? If we are answering yes are we creating a stark contrast between those that "have", and those that "have not"?

To a great degree we are already living this way. The challenge for the state is to decide what they will commit to supporting, and ensure that power and authority is passed to local jurisdictions to allow them to pick up the pieces not supported by the state.
This is not entirely different than the relationship between the states and the federal government (see Medicare), or the relationship between the county and its cities.

Hopefully those that let go of the responsibility for somethings also let go of the authority, so local communities will be able to say yes where the state says no.