While state representatives were arguing in Olympia, state senators were working together across party lines. In these tough economic times, Washingtonians expect budget solutions — fully aware that they will be painful — and the senators performed more admirably in that regard.
This constructive collaboration is seen in the fact that only one bipartisan budget came out of the Senate last Tuesday. Earlier in the House, Democrats and Republicans presented their own separate proposals as a $5.1 billion deficit is perched menacingly over the next biennium.
As we’ve editorialized before, destitution has a bonding effect even on political adversaries. Call it a shared survival instinct. That’s why the influence of Republican Joe Zarelli of Ridgefield has climbed this year from mere budget geek to a meaningful role among budget writers. Showing teamwork uncommon among legislators, Zarelli and Sen. Ed Murray, the Democrats’ chief budget writer, appeared together to reveal the Senate’s budget proposal.
The Washington Policy Center declared that Zarelli and Murray “are to be commended for putting together a thoughtful, serious budget proposal to help put the state back on the path toward sustainable budgeting.” The Herald in Everett editorialized that Zarelli and Murray “sitting together in support of the same budget was refreshing. Reasonable compromise is still possible, it seems.”
But the compromising is not over, and time is running out. Lawmakers have just one week to hammer out a final budget agreement between the two chambers. We suspect the Senate version will carry more weight because it is the product of bipartisanship. And, though every proposal is laced with cuts that are painful to many Washingtonians, citizens should blame the real culprit — the economy — more than the budget writers.
The Senate plan includes a 3 percent pay cut for teachers, which makes perfect sense because it mirrors similar sacrifices made by other state workers. But this reduction mandate would only be passed down to the school districts, which because of current teacher contracts could be forced to make those cuts elsewhere. All the more reason for school districts to get tougher in contract negotiations and make teachers unions understand that their sacrifices to date have been less than what is seen in the private sector.
We also like the fact that the Senate budget includes a plan whereby merit would trump seniority when it comes to deciding teacher layoffs.
One big difference in the House budget is that it includes a plan to privatize the state’s liquor distribution. We have editorially supported such reform in the past, and if it could be accomplished, that would be a plus. But reality reminds us that voters strongly rejected such an idea last November, and for that reason liquor privatization might not make it into the final budget.
Higher education takes a bigger hit in the Senate plan, but senators propose making that up with tuition increases. K-12 education faces big reductions in the House plan, but the House wisely wants to freeze automatic step increases. With health care and social services, cuts are seen in both Senate and House budgets, but the differences between the two chambers’ plans are not substantial.
Zarelli inserted his typically solid logic when he said of the Senate budget: “As people scrutinize and criticize this plan, I hope they will keep in mind that no previous budget has had so much revenue to allocate. It’s just that the state’s spending commitments had accumulated to such a level that even a record amount of revenue could not keep up.”
Such a no-nonsense attitude likely will put senators in a stronger position as they work toward a final agreement with representatives.
