State Republicans deliver budget curveball

An extraordinary thing happened in the Senate on Friday night (actually, Saturday morning). For a second consecutive year, a bipartisan majority of senators united to approve a state budget, but unlike last year – which was historic in its own right – the budget that prevailed was proposed by Republicans.

It takes at least 25 votes in our 49-member Senate to pass a bill, or carry a motion, or take any sort of action: the majority rules. When all 22 Senate Republicans are joined by three reform-minded Democrats – well, then you have a “philosophical majority” capable of deciding which bills will move forward, and when. Nothing like this has happened at the Capitol in a quarter-century.

The Senate Democrat budget chairman, understandably unhappy to find himself on the losing end of things, declared the Legislature is now guaranteed to go into a “special” session. I figured we were headed for overtime anyway, but at least now there’s reason to believe it can be productive.

Here on Monday, the tension has lifted, as I expected it would. This morning’s session started with an uplifting visit from five Washingtonians who were members of the now-famous Tuskegee Airmen from World War II. Having recently seen the film “Red Tails,” which is based on their story, I enjoyed listening to them speak to the Senate before we took up our business. Anytime we think policymaking is a challenge, we ought to remember what those heroic men went through.

Senate budget incorporates three keys to sustainability

Of course it matters how taxpayer dollars are spent – but the first step in responsible budgeting is to figure out how many dollars to spend. As one of the negotiators of the bipartisan Senate budget, I can share with you the three principles we started with:

1. Don’t spend more money than the state expects to see coming in the door (in other words, determine the size of the budget “box” and stay within it);

2. Don’t spend money that isn’t really there (I’ll explain that); and

3. Leave a reasonable ending-fund reserve.

All of these would seem to reflect common sense, and I’m glad to report the bipartisan Senate budget upholds all three.

The Senate Democrat budget earlier in the week misses on all three, however. It would require tax increases because the money already expected to come in the door wouldn’t be enough (to use the “box” example, the tax hikes would make the box larger).

Also, the Democrats would delay paying $330 million to school districts and divert that so-called savings to other causes (not basic education, even though we all know it’s the “paramount duty” of state government). Without this accounting gimmick, that money wouldn’t be available – meaning it’s not really there if tricks aren’t used.

As for an ending reserve, the bipartisan Senate budget leaves about $500 million. Compare that to the Senate Democrats’ budget, which set aside just $104 million in unrestricted funds (less than half of one percent, like setting aside less than 50 cents out of $100).

Because it follows the three principles above the bipartisan Senate budget is sustainable, looking out to not just mid-2013 but through the next budget cycle to mid-2015. It does not set next year’s Legislature up to automatically face a budget deficit. If you’re as tired as I am of dealing with shortfalls (this is the fourth year in a row) that’s a strong selling point – and something Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives can’t say about their budgets.

Bipartisan Senate plan focuses on priorities

Considering the condition of the state’s economy and the fact that the latest revenue forecast was essentially flat, it’s appropriate that the bipartisan Senate budget is “austere,” as one newspaper report put it. Even so, it’s a huge improvement compared to the budget passed by the House on Wednesday night and the proposal from the Senate Democrats.

In the area of spending for the most vulnerable the bipartisan Senate budget:

• Offers more support for programs for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill than any other budget proposal;

• Fully funds the state’s Basic Health Plan;

• Does not increase the nursing-home bed tax, unlike other budget proposals;

• Funds Initiative 1163 homecare training; and

• Preserves reforms related to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which contributed to an unexpected savings of $335 million in the state’s “caseload.” Democrat budget proposals unwind these reforms, which were enacted only last year with bipartisan support.

When it comes to education the bipartisan Senate budget:

• Spends $372 million more on education than the budget adopted by House Democrats this past week;

• Appropriates more for K-12 and higher education combined than any other budget proposal; and

• Does not put off action toward addressing the recent McCleary education-funding decision from the state Supreme Court – it requires a group of legislators to develop a basic education financing plan in time for the 2013 legislative session.

I’m also proud of having negotiated the part of the budget that maintains funding for our agricultural fairs and conservation districts, and worked with my colleagues to make sure support continues for critical-access hospitals in Othello, Ritzville, Colfax, Pomeroy, Pullman and Clarkston.

It’s important to remember the Senate budget is not going to be the final budget emerging from the Legislature this year. It’s a starting point for negotiations, but it’s a better starting point than the Senate Democrats’ proposal, had they been able to find 25 votes for their proposal (it had become apparent by Friday that they couldn’t, so our side felt offering our own budget was the responsible thing to do).

The days ahead

Friday was the final day for the Senate to act on bills passed by the House of Representatives, and vice versa, meaning there are really only two tasks left in the 2012 session.

The first is to resolve disputes between the Senate and House. For instance, if the House passes a Senate bill without changing it, that bill will become law unless the governor steps in with her veto pen. However, if the House amends a Senate bill before passing it, that legislation has to go back to the Senate, which must either concur (agree) with the House’s amendment or not. Both houses of the Legislature will be working on “concurrences” for the remainder of the session.

The second, of course, involves the three supplemental budgets (operating, capital and transportation) on the table. Next to the operating budget, the capital budget is probably grabbing the most attention, as it’s being pushed first and foremost as a “jobs” bill.

I continue to be concerned about the debt associated with the capital-budget proposal; taking out a long-term loan to pay for some short-term jobs isn’t my idea of sound public policy.

Update on newsworthy bills

Here are some of the major bills still moving through the Legislature:

• Discover Pass. Last year the Legislature passed a measure creating the Discover Pass for access to certain recreational state-managed lands. Over the summer many citizens expressed concern over the fact that they needed a separate pass for each of their vehicles. House Bill 2373, which passed the House on Tuesday and is now before the Senate, allows the pass to be transferable between two vehicles.

• Reducing state debt. Debt is one of the fastest-growing areas of the state budget, and is eating up funding for other critical services. Senate Joint Resolution 8221 would reduce Washington’s debt limit through an amendment to the state constitution. It would also “smooth out” our debt by adding a more stable funding source to the definition of state revenue and extending the period of time at which we look to calculate how much debt we can accrue. Senate Bill 6262 would create the Debt Advisory Council, a group formed to advise the governor and the Legislature on the appropriate level of state debt. Both measures are before the Senate Rules Committee, and are linked to ongoing negotiations related to the state’s capital budget.

• Giving consumers more health-care options. Senate Bill 6440 is a bipartisan measure aimed at allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines. The purpose of this bill is to increase choice and competition and lower costs while keeping important consumer protections in place. The measure passed the Senate Feb. 14 and the House Committee on Health Care and Wellness on Feb. 20; it is now before the House Rules Committee. On Thursday, a small-business owner authored an opinion piece in The News Tribune about how this bill would make it easier to provide insurance for his employees.

Here are some bills that have passed since my previous commentary:

• Teacher and principal evaluations. On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 5895, a measure that uses improvement in student test scores as a factor in personnel decisions for teachers starting in the 2015-16 school year. It also sets new guidelines for principals, including a requirement to use teacher feedback in their evaluations. The measure has now passed the Senate and House and is before the governor for her consideration.

• Insurance exchange. House Bill 2319 would begin implementation of a health care exchange in Washington. This is one of the major parts of the federal health-care law (Affordable Care Act). There is a great deal of uncertainty as to how far our state should move ahead with implementation of the Affordable Care Act, especially with the pending lawsuit regarding its constitutionality to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March. The Senate passed the bill Thursday but amended the measure; on Saturday the House voted to agree with the Senate changes, finishing the Legislature’s work on the bill.

• Helping individuals with disabilities find and retain jobs. Senate Bill 6384 reinforces Washington’s employment-first policy for people with disabilities. The House of Representatives passed SB 6384 on Wednesday; due to some minor changes the House made to improve the bill, it came back to the Senate for concurrence, and we did so on Saturday.

• Regulatory relief for veterinarians. The state monitors the prescribing and dispensing of certain controlled substances – including those used for pain management. Veterinarians sometimes prescribe these substances on a very limited basis for animals needing pain relief. Many veterinary practices are small operations and do not have the means to electronically report, making it difficult for them to comply. Senate Bill 6105 would modify these onerous reporting requirements for veterinarians to allow them to file quarterly, and to keep them from having to file electronically, which is particularly difficult for some rural offices.

The measure passed the House of Representatives unanimously on Monday. The House amended the bill, and this morning the Senate concurred.

Legislature says yes to request regarding correctional officers’ uniforms

On Thursday, the Senate passed House Bill 2346, a measure that prohibits incarcerated offenders from making or assembling uniforms to be worn by correctional officers.

Policy dictates that offenders involved in Correctional Industries create the officers’ uniforms, and Correctional Industries plays an important role in providing skills and work to inmates. But I understand the concern about having correctional officers wear uniforms made by the inmates they are supervising.

The idea for this bill came from officers at the Walla Walla Penitentiary.

The Senate amended the bill to include only correctional officers and not other Department of Corrections staff, and the House concurred Saturday.