By State Representative Reuven Carlyle

Reuven Carlyle represents the 38th District in the Washington State Legislature.

On Thursday the new revenue forecast was announced, and the state will have $700 million less in projected revenue to balance our upcoming two-year budget, raising the overall shortfall to about $5.4 billion.

Anxiety levels have been running high in Olympia, and I find it troubling that some are suggesting the Legislature may not finish in the currently scheduled 105 days, and slide into a special session.

There are no budget decisions we would make in June that we are unable to make in April. It certainly won’t be easy or pleasant, but we absolutely must move forward and complete the work of crafting a two-year budget on time.

As a part of that work, we should also have the courage to push and prod the political establishment into touching the untouchables.

On the Ways & Means Committee, I work closely with key leadership to address core policy issues in as productive a fashion as I can. However, I personally believe there remains a larger, institutional resistance to the depth of ‘zero based budgeting’ that I believe we need.

Simply, we are crafting a budget from the ‘top down’ not the ‘bottom up.’

I have called for a zero-based budgeting process before and yet the political, policy and logistical barriers to a courageous zero-based budgeting process remains high by any standard—and in all 50 states.

A central barrier is our fear, uncertainty and doubt around the institutional resistance to reform. I don’t profess to have all the answers, but I do know we won’t be successful if sacred cows are tucked safely away from fair and equal treatment.

To help you understand the implications of this budget-writing effort, in the coming days I will begin to post on my blog, reuvencarylyle36.com, a series of policy options and categories, and the level of funding they represent. I will also post a series of tax exemptions and tax policy options that also attempt to show the importance of courageous honesty in prioritizing how taxes impact our quality of life.

Should health care costs for public employees be greater than the 15 percent suggested by the governor? Yes. Should special-interest tax exemptions that can’t prove their return on investment be closed? Yes. Should some critical taxing decisions be sent to the local level in categories where the state can no longer sustain programs? Yes. Should we reform how our state treats indemnity and demand both greater risk-management focus and modifications of immunity guidelines? Yes.

Should we reform how local school districts commit to payroll increases without knowing their revenues? Yes. Should we reform levy equalization so that we don’t send close to $630 million to more than 200 of the 295 districts statewide? Yes. Should we reduce salaries for state employees making more than double or triple the state medium family income? Yes. Should we force some of the 295 school districts to merge? Yes.

Should we stop raiding dedicated accounts in the environmental arena to subsidize the general fund? Yes. Should we stop subsidizing policies and programs from the general fund that are more efficiently paid for by user fees? Yes. Should we reconsider taxation of non-profit health care organizations that fail to provide sufficient indigent care services? Yes. Should we reconsider senior citizen discounts for ferries and other services that are not income-based? Yes.

Should we talk about all of these and others openly and courageously? Yes.

Any list of untouchable categories is bound to be long, complex and uncomfortable. I invite you to come along as we strive to write the most difficult state budget in history. We can only tackle this challenge with the public fully engaged.