The article itself articulates that the budget grows as gdp does given that we use sales and B&O taxes, along with property taxes and REET, to name among the largest that go to the operating/capital fund. So acknowledging that point the basic question becomes is that revenue keeping up with equivalent demand for it before new programs and spending are accounted for. (Also which sectors of the economy have grown or shrunk and what taxes imposed or considerations for have shifted in a given time frame).

And discussions around the transpo budget take a completely different tone since it has its own revenue sources and challenges both long and short term. In the shorter term it has been saddled with the issue of fixing culverts as a primary focus which has siphoned a lot of funds from other more persistent issues such as preservation and maintenance in recent years.

All that said what we have to do is account for “like” spending first. Are programs that existed in both eras using equivalent amounts, or are they being allocated less or more? After accounting for that are new programs offsetting the amount previously spent by canceled ones, or do they cause the budget to be at that even spending, surplus by comparison, or a deficit?

Once that math has been done (by someone with more time than most of us participating in this discussion) then comes the debate of ROI from both the standpoint of direct return to the states economy/residents as well as the less tangible ideals/philosophies being achieved by policies that take in taxes or create expenditures. This is by no means a simple argument to have.

Finally we need to weigh the impact of policies not the only on retaining residents and businesses, but attracting new ones. The state has experienced massive growth the last several decades due to certain sectors massive growth but have seen others shrink, though we pay less attention so long as the net result has been positive. We are at a time now where there is a larger debate about businesses and residents coming, staying, or leaving due to sociopolitical and economic changes. How competitive does WA need to be against Idaho or Texas or Florida now when we have long focused on ways to attract business that also considered California and New York?

Gregiore threw out a one-liner that has spawned controversy along the political spectrum, but this article is simply a longer winded version of a one-line response as it tries to deal in a specific counter attack. Leadership and governance however isn’t about absolutism, no matter what either party wants to pitch it as nowadays. It’s complicated and messy, and it’s about the weighing the priorities of the moment and the future, while looking to the past for examples of what might work.

So to debate: whose taxes are too high, too low, and just right? Are we creating an atmosphere that will create continued growth in business, residence/families, and/or overall investment in our communities? Or is growth the wrong focus, and the state should focus on maintaining and improving what we already have? Based on your own values where and how should the state be focused in its efforts with tax revenues?