The Economist Magazine Looks at "Hard Hit" Washington

Earlier this month, the Economist celebrated the "remarkably moderate" politics of our state,  attributing it to our tradition of nonpartisan primaries. I'm not sure I completely buy the picture of Washington's centrist politics. But compared to their counterparts in Oregon and California, our legislators did a workmanlike job, resolving the budget shortfall and avoiding the temptation to indulge in costly health care or climate change experiments. If this is moderation, Congress should follow suit.

Now comes the Economist again to look at how the recession plays here. Noting the dominant role Boeing plays in our economy, the magazine wrote

if [Boeing], still the state’s largest private employer, appeared last year to be saving Washington from the recession sweeping the rest of the country, those hopes died in September.

They did so with one of the machinists’ strikes for which Washington, where the union-friendly closed shop is legal, has an unfortunate reputation. Boeing’s assembly lines ground to a halt. Within weeks the wider economic crisis arrived in the state with full force. A local bank, Washington Mutual, known throughout the state as “WaMu”, became America’s biggest banking failure. Starbucks and the other local notables looked glum. Even Microsoft began laying off workers. By May the state’s unemployment rate was running at the national average of 9.4%.

The writers buy too heavily into the conventional assumption that our tax structure uniquely contributed to the budget challenges facing the state. And, they give Sen. Lisa Brown, an income tax champion, some lobbying space in their pages. (Brown's the only person quoted in both articles - professional courtesy to the economics professor?)

Overall, after documenting the hard hit the state took last fall, the article ends on a positive note. I think they're too optimistic, but I'd gladly be wrong. Read the whole thing.