Jayne: Slogans might sound great, but they’re not solutions

In many ways, slogans are the candy canes of politics. They’re sweet, and nearly everybody likes them, and they can make your mouth water. But, in the end, they are empty calories that rot your teeth.

Politically, slogans are the things you use to get elected, not to govern. And yet a simple slogan could be the crux upon which the entirety of next year’s legislative session revolves.

You see, “Fund education first” is the mantra of the state’s Republicans and, by their own account, they have clung to it since 2006. In 2012, they boasted, “House Republicans proposed House Bill 2533 to Fund Education First.” In 2013, they chortled “House Republicans unveil Fund Education First budget.” In 2014, they enlisted a whole host of candidates who robotically repeated the ideology.

And a simple ideology it is. The suggestion is that K-12 education should receive adequate funding, and then all other state services can fight over the scraps. Considering that the state constitution — as the Washington State Supreme Court has persistently reminded lawmakers — calls for education to be the Legislature’s paramount duty, who could argue with that approach?

Well, Jim Moeller, for one. “They only want to fund education, quite honestly,” said the Democratic state representative from Vancouver’s 49th District. “With a budget that at least half of it is going to education, you are going to basically fund education first. However, it may be our paramount duty, but it is not our only duty. We also have responsibilities for other parts of the budget. About two-thirds or three-quarters of it is pretty much protected constitutionally, either statewide or federally, so we have to look for savings in what has already been cut and cut and cut and cut and cut again in the one-third to one-quarter that’s left.”

What gets cut?

That sounds problematic, especially with the McCleary v. Washington ruling calling for an additional $3 billion or so in education funding. But while Republicans cling to “fund education first” and its corollary — “no tax increase” — they remain reluctant to offer suggestions about which state programs are facing cuts.

“We need to begin this legislative session with the position that the budget can and should be written with existing revenue only,” Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, wrote in an email. “We must allow budget negotiations to progress, and work to find efficiencies and cost savings in state government. Only then, when we have a clearer picture, can we begin discussions for state spending reductions.”

And, as state Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, added: “As I have said many times before, we do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending and accountability problem. The Senate has just created a new Reform and Accountability Committee that will focus on government efficiencies, transparency and reforms so that taxpayers are protected and we meet our paramount duty to fully fund education.”

That sounds like a great idea, yet it generates more questions than it answers. You know, like “Why didn’t you that do that before?” And, “Do Republicans really think they can find $3 billion hidden under the couch and between the cushions?”

At the start of the 2015 session, legislators will have an extra $3 billion or so to play with, thanks to improved state revenue forecasts. But writing a budget isn’t as simple as directing all of that money toward education.

“We can’t ignore public safety, mental health care, state parks and the environment, health care for children and seniors, or higher education,” wrote Sen. Annette Cleveland, D-Vancouver. “We must keep in mind that the budget decisions we make now will impact the health of our state for years to come.”

If Republicans can devise a way to provide for that health without raising taxes, more power to them. But it will require more subtlety and nuance than can be provided by sugary talking points. As Cleveland said: “‘Fund education first’ is a slogan, not a solution.”