Comments on: Washington state debt history – does Dino Rossi understand it?

By: Minn. braces for government shutdown over taxes

Minn. braces for government shutdown over taxes — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:01:14 +0000

[...] She also inherited a 1.08 Billion dollar debt. As a Washingtonian I have and will support her. Washington state debt history – does Dino Rossi understand it? | Geldpress Angrily Yours. Reply With [...]

By: ryan burlingame

ryan burlingame — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:38:18 +0000

Let us look at the real issue! The real issue is that in order to create more Money for the economy, which is a represention of production. The government must take out loans via bonds!!! That is insane. NO matter how much money is taken out 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars the only thing that can happen is DEBT. The government is supposed to be able to issue currency via GOLD and SILVER only… This would be a totally debt free system and could refeclt the total production of the economy…. But the ILLEGAL FEDERAL RESERVE FRAUD, SCAMMING CRIMALS have us totally dooped!!

By: Goal Of Deficit Cutting Is Stupid | Geldpress

Goal Of Deficit Cutting Is Stupid | Geldpress — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:30:54 +0000

[...] Washington state debt history – does Dino Rossi understand it? [...]

By: geldpress

geldpress — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:19:32 +0000

Governments are not out to make a profit. They are out to “live check to check” – spending exactly 100% of every penny that comes in from tax revenues. That’s the key difference between the for profit world and government. But government gets elected by a majority of people who do not understand finance. All they understand is that they want more police in their neighborhood. They want reduced taxes. They want a new bridge over some river. They want more funding for schools and parks. And they will hammer their elected officials with phone calls, emails, faxes and unannounced visits to demand this. Unfortunately the elected offcials answer to the public instead of doing what is right by making TOUGH DECISIONS. In this world TOUGH DECISIONS are necessary. Those TOUGH DECISIONS should lead to painful budget cuts everywhere. But instead those TOUGH DECISIONS are put off indefinitely and just turned into higher DEBT OBLIGATIONS.

By: Derek Clornerius

Derek Clornerius — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:43:52 +0000

Looking from a business standpoint. I know from a Government’s budget and items that fall under the buget is much larger than the majority of corperations. Usually in a budget there is a threshold of 10% prior to hitting the limit. How come they are allowing the threshold to be broken and to go over buget each time? If I am reading the numbers incorrectly my apologies. Even in a debt when you begin you should account that interest and total amount of debt into your buget to pay it off. Also the staff should be more competetive and try to reach under budget each fiscal year as a common goal. Taking this at face value there is not a strong enough attempt in these 7 years to show true improvement. Looking at this I would re-work the entire staff and plan to meet a profiting end. Ideally I would think Washington should be operating at hitting 20% under budget.

Pushing for competeing vendors/contractors would show a large cut. From history in working with construction companies. Working on a Government contract wages for the most basic of employee is doubled compared to the normal corperate job. This is definitely unnecessary in my opinion. —-Back on topic—- I agree that Government needs a stronger grasp on economics and business practices. Since the Government provides a service and gains revenue.

-DvC

By: geldpress

geldpress — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:30:46 +0000

Bill, we are getting a little sidetracked from the point of the original post. But nonetheless, I do agree that there is a legitimate purpose for governments to increase the debt in times of crisis. On the flip side, governments SHOULD be REDUCING overall debt loads in times of prosperity. Unfortunately, government debts RARELY decrease, even in the most prosperous times. Look at California during the dot-com boom as an example. Better yet, look at Bush’s first term in office when he sent out the “surplus” rebate checks.

I do not agree that government debts should increase or decrease based on population growth, tax revenue, or even GDP. I am an ultra fiscal conservative. I believe in deficit government spending during recessionary times, but only on the condition that the debt burden is REDUCED when times are good. Unfortunately, most government institutions today increase the debt in good times, and increase the debt radically during recessions, with no intention to ever pay it down.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:20:06 +0000

It is not reasonable to expect the state to not increase it overall debt as population and revenue increase – the demand for services increases as does the demand for infastructure. The critical measure of fiscal responsibility would be the percent of revenue used in servicing debt – if it remains constant or decreases, I would say we are being fiscally conservative and have a handle on things. If, however, each year more of the total revenue stream is used to service debt, we entering the death spiral… do you have % of revenue to cost of debt numbers to accurately depict the “state” of Washington’s finances?

By: geldpress

geldpress — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:07:33 +0000

On the contrary, I understand deficits and total debts very well. But I really question whether even 30% of our elected officials understand it. For Washington, the numbers are very clear. Granted, the state of Washington is doing far better than California in terms of fiscal responsibility, but Washington is still INCREASING its total debt from year to year. It’s pretty simple really. When you issue more new bonds than you pay off in old bonds, the difference is the yearly deficit. And the total of those yearly deficits is the debt. A quick and easy way to view the total debt is to just look at the outstanding bonds. And a quick and easy way to determine the yearly deficits is to subtract the total outstanding bonds from year to year.

However… I do recognize that governments DO NOT adhere to reasonable accounting practices, and therefore DO NOT agree with my calculations for yearly deficits and total debt. And THAT is the problem.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:57:57 +0000

I don’t think you understand how deficits are calculated. A deficit is different than debt – deficit is based on your yearly ability to pay current debt obligations (payment and interest). Long term debts (like issued bonds) are spread out over the life of the bond, not the fiscal year the bond is issued.

For instance – if a 10 year bond of $1,000,000 is sold at 10% per year return, the gov’t liability yearly is 10% of $1,000,000 or $100,000. The state can take on large capital projects which they don’t have the money to pay for cash without incurring a deficit – they just have to manage cash flow year to year and ensure that they can service the debt that they take on.

If they operate in a deficit position, they have to issue additional bonds to pay their currently debt obligations, which if not controlled, spirals exponentially because you are incurring debt to pay for debt obligations. You can get away with this short term, but not over the long term.

The government in Washington can not operate as described in the article because they can not end a bi-ennium in the red or budget to be in the red for a future bi-ennium – they have to provide budgets which meet all debt obligations plus pay for any new programs / spending.

By: Chandler

Chandler — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:49:12 +0000

This was incredibly informative and straight forward. Thank you for laying things out so clearly and factually.