Contact: Jason Mercier, Budget
Research Analyst
(360) 956-3482
Taxpayer group reacts to Senate budget
We've heard what the Democrats think of the budget proposed today by Senate
Republicans and we know what the budget-writers have to say about their
own work . . . so what about taxpayers? As a taxpayer watchdog organization,
here's our take.
The 2003-05
budget introduced by Senate Republicans is a significant step in the right
direction and an improvement over the governor's budget. Technically, it's
balanced, even though it spends $353 million more than the state expects
to collect in the next budget cycle. While there is always cause for concern
when spending outpaces revenue (after all, that's what got us into the current
mess), they have managed to avoid some of the more infamous budget gimmicks
of last session, such as selling future tobacco revenues. (Lawsuits have
gotten a little carried away and Phillip Morris is now facing the possibility
of bankruptcy.)
While the budget is not balanced within forecasted revenue, the Republican
budget team was able to take advantage of the forecasted increase in revenue
for the next budget cycle ($1.3
billion or six percent) to avoid tax increases. This is good news for
taxpayers and businesses already struggling to make ends meet in a state
facing the third highest unemployment rate in the nation (6.8
percent).
Budget-writers also took steps to implement Governor Locke's new Priorities
of Government (POG)
budget model and base their plan on priorities, rather than routinely increasing
spending to match new caseloads and inflation. The result is more of a "POG-lite,"
but it is a good effort given the time frame available.
By freezing the planned cost-of-living raises for most teachers and state
employees, the Senate budget saves nearly $1 billion. Teachers are not left
out in the cold by the proposal: Nearly 32 percent of those with up to seven
years of experience will see salary increases on top of their automatic
experience-based increases.
The Senate budget finds additional savings by allowing competitive bidding
for some state services and tightening eligibility requirements for families
requesting medical coverage for children. The new eligible income level
for the medical coverage will be 175 percent of the federal poverty level,
which is still the highest rate in the Northwest.
On a less positive note, the Senate proposal includes such expenditures
as $45,000
to promote wildlife viewing. This is clearly not a core function of
government. (Did someone's vote cost $45,000?) The plan also eliminates
the state's emergency reserves. It allows a cushion of only $252 million
for any potential caseload increases or inflationary costs over the next
two years. Lawmakers may squeak by with this for one session, but it will
not work for two.
There are two important things legislators should do if the Senate proposal
is adopted. The first is to commit themselves to determining the state's
core functions and prioritizing activities accordingly. The second is to
adopt and implement true, independent and comprehensive performance audits.
The Senate proposal makes it clear the state budget can be balanced without
new taxes. Democrats in the House should keep this in mind as they wrangle
over their spending plan.
2003-05 Senate General Fund Balance Sheet (Dollars in Millions)
Beginning fund balance
$280.2
I-728 diversion reduction
$188.2
Transfers from other funds*
$157.5
Revenue increase measures
$90.0
Budget driven revenue
$5.9
Tax reduction measures
<116.3>
Forecasted revenue
$22,451.5
Total revenue available
$23,057.0
Total appropriations
$22,805.2
Unrestricted balance
$251.8
*Includes remaining $57 million from emergency reserve
fund
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]?"