 |
|
 |
Modest Senate budget funds key programs at lower levels than
House budget
Previous analysis by the Budget & Policy Center found that the Governor's budget was in line with past spending when measured as a share of
personal
income (a commonly used means of measuring government spending for comparison purposes) This remains true for the appropriations bill that passed the
House last week (see figure above).
The Senate budget is
more modest than the House budget or Governor's proposal. It
differs from the House bill in that it funds a constitutionally-mandated rainy day fund, albeit at a substantially lower initial level than the
Governor's proposal.
In terms of overall spending, the Senate proposal is broadly in line with the other
budgets put forward. In aggregate, the three proposals share far more in common than they have differences. However, within key program areas the
Senate proposal contains some significant differences compared to its predecessors.
Health care
The final version of the appropriations bill that passed the House last week contained additional funding for expanding health insurance benefits to
lower income adults, an expansion that was not included in either the Governor's budget or the House Appropriations Committee's proposal. The $12.5
million in additional funding from the state's general fund and similar appropriated funds in the House bill includes:
-
$1.6 million for benefit improvements
-
$8 million in enrollment expansions
-
$2.9 million in expanding Basic Health Plan access to more foster parents
The Senate budget did not propose funding the benefit improvements or the expansion
to foster parents, but did propose $8.2 million in enrollment expansions from the near-general fund and $1.6 million from other funds (compared to
$635,000 from other funds in the House budget). In total, the Senate proposes $3.4 million less for improvements to the state's efforts to expand
access to quality health care for lower income adults.
All three budgets agree on the expansion of health care insurance to children. The House and Senate estimate this effort will cover an additional
39,000 children. The Senate budget includes significant investment in dental care, including increasing provider reimbursement rates.
Public education
The Senate budget proposes $11.5 million less for public schools than the House bill. Most of the difference is due to lower funding in programs
designed to increase high school completion rates. Other differences include:
- All-day kindergarten phase-in is at the same level as the Governor's proposal
and $10 million less than the House. As in the Governor's budget, the Senate budget begins phasing in all day Kindergarten in the state's highest
poverty
schools for students eligible for free and reduced price lunch. The House provided $9.5 million more to cover all students, not just those in
poverty.
- The Special Education Program receives $20 million more than the House budget.
-
Class size reduction is treated differently in the Senate budget. Overall, the Senate provides less towards class size reduction programs funded in
the House and Governor's budgets.
Early Learning
Like the previous budget proposals, recommendations of Washington Learns are deferred. For example, the Senate proposes spending $750,000 to study a
Child Care Quality Rating and Improvement system that has already been studied and proposed by Washington Learns. The state still has a long way to
go to meet the Washington Learns recommendations in coming years. There are other significant differences in early learning in the Senate
budget:
-
Total spending on the Quality Rating and Improvement System is $5 million less than the House-passed and Governor's budgets.
-
The Senate budget adds nearly $12 million to increase funding to providers in the Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program.
-
A new child care grant program for public community colleges and public universities is funded at $2.2 million.
Human services
There are many similarities between the House, Senate and Governor's budgets in this area. Like the House and Governor's budgets, benefits are not
increased for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the General Assistance for Unemployable, benefits that have not seen increases in over 13
years (see the Center's analysis of TANF
grants).
Key differences between the Senate and House budgets include:
-
Unemployable disabled adults do not receive funding in the Senate for a managed mental health care benefit or facilitators to help connect these
individuals to federal programs.
-
Expanding court-ordered remedial services to indigent parents whose children are involved with the child-welfare system receives additional funding
of $6.35 million only in the Senate budget.
-
The Senate provides nearly one million dollars less to hire social workers to provide monthly contact with children, parents and foster parents
involved with the foster care system.
Rainy Day Fund
All three budgets (Governor, House, and Senate) propose a similar cushion between revenue and spending, leaving over $600 million in reserves at the
end of the biennium. The Governor and Senate agree on the need for a constitutional "rainy day fund" (or Budget Stabilization Fund): the House budget
does not appropriate money to this fund (see the Center's analysis of the governor's proposal). The Senate proposes to appropriate over $100 million
less to this fund than the Governor by the end of the 2009 biennium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
