Legislators are back in Olympia for a special session to finish balancing a state budget heading $2.8 billion into the red. For me, part of the struggle is confronting a budget-balancing exercise that forces us to rethink our previous ideas of what government is, or should be, to the people.
In any forum or conversation about taxes, I inevitably hear someone say, “We can’t be all things to all people.” I’ve never thought we could or were even trying to be all things to all people. For those who think we are overstepping our limits, what do they think we should stop doing?
It seems equally important to ask, “What kind of a society do we want to be?” and “Who should we serve, or not serve?”
Consider this example. I’m one of those empty nesters who can’t pass a baby without smiling or cooing. I was shocked to learn that half of the babies born in Washington are covered by Medicaid. That means there’s a 50 percent chance that the state and federal government paid the bills for the birth of any baby that I stop to admire. If all went well, the cost runs around $5,000. If the mother failed to obtain pre-natal care, smoked, used drugs, ate poorly, or is extremely young, there is a higher likelihood the baby will be premature or have other complications. That can boost the bill another $100,000.
Another example of government spending comes from the other end of the age spectrum. Sixty percent of nursing home beds are also paid for by Medicaid. A month of care averages $5,000. If extensive care or procedures are needed, the cost goes up. Those who smoked or are obese have the most chronic health problems, the highest health care costs, and the shortest life expectancies.
Should our state government be in the business of taking care of babies and the elderly? Both of these examples are major drivers of our state budget. If we want to explore what government should or shouldn’t be doing, we must begin by considering these two scenarios.
Although the largest portion of state tax dollars goes to education, health care costs come in a close second. We aren’t even trying to meet the needs of everyone, just those living at or below the poverty level. These two situations raise a lot of questions, many of which have to do with priorities, ethics and the challenge of personal responsibility.
We are doing less these days. Our state budget is shrinking, not growing, and we did that by laying off thousands of state workers, making cost-saving reforms, and passing across-the-board cuts. We are poised to pass a budget that makes about $2 billion in cuts on top of the $3.3 billion we cut last year. To bring the budget into balance, we need more revenue. That means raising taxes.
So when people tell me we should do less, I have to ask: “Less of what?”
We can’t, and shouldn’t, cut the 40 percent of our state spending that is on K-12 education.
Major reductions to the 30-plus percent of state spending for health care means eliminating services for thousands of babies and seniors. The Legislature could do that, but not with my support.
Doing less in any fiscally consequential way means doing less for people who can’t “do” for themselves — children, babies of low-income mothers, vulnerable seniors. When I ask myself what kind of society I want for my family and our citizens, it’s one that looks after such people.
For me, however, this session has reinforced that part of my responsibility as a state representative is fighting for those who are unable to fight for themselves. It is the right thing to do, and is both the greatest challenge and greatest privilege of this job.