EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
COMMENTARY
 April 16, 2003
Contact: Marsha Richards,
Communications Director House budget spends $1 billion more than Senate House Democrats called for $730 million in new taxes today to sustain a budget that spends $1 billion (all funds) more than the recently passed Senate proposal. House budget-writers claim their proposed spending increases are "for the children." But the true beneficiaries of the plan will be political special interests—mostly labor unions demanding significant pay raises for teachers and state employees (who currently earn average annual compensation of $58,000 and $55,000 respectively). Despite the fact that senators and the governor proved the state budget can be balanced without new taxes, House Democrats refused to prioritize spending or eliminate non-essentials. They prefer instead to balance the budget on the backs of the citizens who can least afford it—many of whom have either lost their jobs or are being forced to tighten their belts. House Democrats have refused to provide any details on their tax package. It is unclear if so-called "temporary" taxes will really be temporary, or how the new spending will be sustained. With economic forecasts predicting the state will not begin recovering from recession until at least 2004—and then only if the private sector is able to create new jobs—House Democrats are guaranteeing the problem will grow worse. They are buying short-term political payoffs at the expense of long-term financial pain. The state already expects to collect $21,404 per minute during the 2003-05 budget cycle. By demanding even more money from hard-working taxpayers, House Democrats are claiming that every one of those dollars is being spent as efficiently and effectively as it can be to purchase essential state services. We don’t think so. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I-728 and
I-732 advertised as being funded from "surplus"
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
