Contact: Marsha Richards, Communications
Director
(360) 956-3482
$136 million spending increase passes House
Representatives in the House passed a supplemental budget today to increase
state spending by $136 million in the current budget cycle (which ends June
30). Some members believe they have saved taxpayers money by approving less
than Governor Lockes initially proposed $235 million supplemental
increase, but no matter how the story spins, theyre increasing spending.
It seemed for a little while House and Senate members couldnt agree
on a supplemental budget both would pass. Senators wanted to increase spending
by $109 million. House members wanted to increase it $120 million. In true
government fashion, they compromised at $136 million.
The state will now be spending $1.4 billion more than it collects this
biennium, and lawmakers are relying on one-time budget gimmicks (such as
the sale of tobacco settlement money, transfer of funds from designated
accounts, and raids on the emergency fund) to patch the gaping hole until
next year.
Lawmakers did reduce spending in the states Basic Health Plan by
tightening eligibility requirements and identifying efficiencies, but unfortunately
these measures were not carried over into other state programs.
While most other states (and most Washington families) are prioritizing
cuts and finding efficiencies to stay within their means, our lawmakers
seem to be in denial. Theyve had ample opportunity to solve the problems
we face today. If legislators had embraced the challenges posed by terrorist
attacks and a slowing national economy by freezing state spending at 1999-01
levels, our budget would be balanced and the state would have excess revenue
right now.
We can only hope legislators will kick their spending habit. Washington
taxpayers cant afford it. Literally.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"