Somewhere in between the more overtly visionary speech by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (shorter with few details, befitting an inaugural rather than a state of the state) and the more specific and mostly stay-the-course (with some exceptions) approach of Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch Otter, sits the SoS delivered today by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire.
Like Kitzhaber, she spoke of larger trajectories; like Otter, there was some specificity to approaches. And a large section keyed to the premise, "Now is the time to challenge the status quo."
Here's a key sample:
This session is not just about getting us through this crisis.
It’s also about setting our state on a trajectory that ensures a strong financial foundation for our kids and grandkids. This is a budget and agenda that build the platform for better service and recovery in the years to come.
We need to use this economic crisis to get control of spending in two critical areas — pensions and health care costs.
In the past decade our health care costs doubled to more than $5 billion. In the next biennium alone our pension costs will double.
Every dollar we spend on health care and pensions means we have one fewer dollar to educate our children.
I am proposing we repeal a 1995 law that gave automatic benefit increases to retirees in the old PERS 1 and TRS 1 pension plans.
The pension law was well intended but it carries a staggering price tag and we simply cannot afford to continue it.
Pension reform will save $2 billion over the next four years and more than $11 billion during the next 25 years.
I am proposing we partner with the Center of Innovation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide real health care reform as a state. We should set a goal: Keep inflation at 4 percent over the next 10 years. We can save $26 billion while increasing the quality of care.
We must get a grip on these two budget busters. Unless and until we do, we cannot invest like we must in the education of our children.
I have looked at every state program and asked if it can be provided by others, if users should pay for it or if there are better ways to deliver the service.
That hard look at what the state is doing, whether in a number of cases it should continue to, sounds quite real. She has some specifics, for example, in approaching that last point: "Why, for instance, do we assume all taxpayers should pay for programs that benefit a few? Should a small business owner in Spokane pay the cost of processing a water right for a landowner in the Yakima Valley? Should a Bellingham family with young kids help pay for the license of an adult family home in Vancouver? And what about our great state parks system. Should those who use the parks pay for their operation and maintenance? Let’s adopt a user pays policy so that when only a few benefit from the service, they pay for it."
Think carefully before you answer, though. The question is sound, but the answers might be more difficult than you think at first. Does business in Spokane have a relationship to regional water rights, even if that business has none? You can easily argue that they do. The Bellingham family with kids probably also has parents who may be headed for adult care. And should those of us who already pay taxes for the upkeep, and claim joint ownership, of public parks, be discouraged from their use by having to pay again when we do?
Fortunately, a legislative session is just where such questions ought to be discussed. Session open.