Even if a deficit budget is legal in Washington state, it's still a bad idea

STATE legislators: Ignore the idea that the state of Washington can have a budget deficit. It is not an idea to think about. Just forget it.

Seattle Times reporter Andrew Garber revealed Monday the commandment to have a balanced budget is in statute, not the state constitution. It applies only to the proposed budget the governor offers in December. Legislators can send the governor an unbalanced budget.

But they had better not. Once the door is opened to borrowing for current expenses, all restraint is gone. For proof, look to Washington, D.C., where President-elect Barack Obama expects to inherit a trillion-dollar deficit from George W. Bush — and add to it.

Washington already borrows billions for capital projects such as roads, ferries and university buildings. These are expensive assets that last many years, and borrowing spreads the cost over the generations.

Borrowing to build a university hall is like borrowing to buy a house. Borrowing to pay salaries of state workers is like taking out a mortgage to buy groceries.

The state has, in fact, engaged in deficit spending under other names. It was in 2003, at the bottom of the last recession, when the state started getting lawsuit-settlement money from tobacco companies. To balance the budget, the state sold $450 million of tobacco-revenue bonds. Legislators called it "selling the tobacco money."

They didn't call it deficit spending, but that's what it was. It was different only in that it was pledging future tobacco money, not future general-fund money.

In 2005, which wasn't a recession year, the Legislature did what was essentially deficit spending: It skipped the scheduled $325 million payment into state employee pension funds. That was also borrowing against the future, and we can remember former-Rep. Helen Sommers, the Democrats' guardian of financial probity, denouncing it. Such a thing hadn't been done in 40 years, she said.

Now, delaying the $443 million payment due in 2009 seems almost normal. We have suggested it ourselves.

And so the restraints fall away. What is left? The belief that it is illegal, unconstitutional and just plain wrong for the state to meet current expenses by borrowing.

Now our reporter has smoked out the unfortunate fact that it's not illegal or unconstitutional. But it's still wrong. Don't do it.