Today's news stories highlight differences in the budget proposed by Senate Democrats and that passed by the House.
For example, Kathie Durbin writes for the Columbian that we're heading for a showdown.
The Senate rolled out a 2008-09 supplemental budget Tuesday that sets up a showdown with the House over funding teacher cost-of-living raises, all-day kindergarten and transportation mega-projects.
The $33.7 billion Senate operating budget includes a net $319 million in new spending. It would leave about $755 million unspent — slightly more than the House budget passed Monday — but it would get there by a different route.
And the AP's David Ammons gets a defining quote suggesting the coming battle.
"I hope they're not picking a fight with us," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, after Senate budget leaders objected to some of the House's signature budget proposals.
Probably not. The differences are relatively trivial , the kind of things that lead to the "compromising up" way budget differences are resolved. Both sides give a little, get more, and the reserves drop further.
Brad Shannon of the Olympian says as much.
The move not to offer extra teacher pay sets up one of many looming fights about how much to spend and where to spend it — especially because the two chambers spend more in different areas, both want similar reserves, and it is traditional to resolve House-Senate differences by spending more, not less.
And he quotes the House budget chair on the likely effect of the compromise.
House Appropriations Chairwoman Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, said of the House-Senate differences: "This is traditional. The budgets tend to be very different." But she conceded it will be difficult to keep $750 million in reserve while splitting the differences.
For more discussion of the differences, see stories in The News Tribune and Seattle PI.
Both budgets spend too much and save too little, a point nicely made in this Seattle Times editorial.
Spending is delightful, but the revenue and spending numbers have to put the state in a comfortable place.
They don't. The current forecast shows the state's pockets with a negative $2.48 billion in June 2011 and negative $5.1 billion in June 2013. These numbers are not possible, because the state is not allowed to live on credit...
The state needs to aim for at least $1 billion in the bank.
Agreed. Putting this all into perspective is a recent Washington Roundtable report that graded the state's fiscal management. The benchmarks: sustainability, competitiveness, contingency, and clarity. The review assessed historical performance, current situation , and the long-term outlook for the future. Although the Roundtable avoided letter grades, this is not a report card lawmakers would want to bring home to their voters.
