Contact: Jason Mercier, Budget
Research Analsyt
(360) 956-3482
Nine days left to adopt 2003-05 budget . .
. and avoid a misdemeanor
By Jason Mercier, Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Oh, that pesky budget law. State law requires the adoption of a budget at
least 30 days prior to the start of a new biennium, giving legislators wanting
to avoid a misdemeanor just nine more days to reach an agreement on the
2003-05 budget and pass all the necessary bills to implement it. Enforcing
that law depends, of course, on our attorney general. Anyone holding their
breath?
It seems the sticking point in current budget negotiations is a $100 million
contract for recently unionized home health care workers. Legislators are
balking at some of the contract provisions, but under the new collective
bargaining law they are only permitted to accept or reject the contract
in its entirety; they cannot modify it. That being the case, most lawmakers
are willing to give the pay increases sought, but they loathe the prospect
of adding 26,000 new state employees as the current contract implies. Union
officials apparently don't have much confidence they'll get their way with
legislators this time around, so they've already filed two initiatives to
take their demands directly to voters.
If voters plan to accommodate and support these new measures, hopefully
they'll also require the union to identify a funding source, which is noticeably
lacking this year.
Of course, some lawmakers feel like they just won the lottery with today's
congressional approval of the Bush tax cut plan, which includes a massive
federal bailout for the states. Washington stands to gain a juicy $400 million.
But before state legislators plan a spending splurge, they should remember
that this one-time money comes from taxpayers around the nation who are
paying the consequences for our state's past fiscal mismanagement. It would
be prudent to use the money to replenish Washington's rainy day fund so
we can weather future economic crises.
For lawmakers who want to avoid potential legal problems, time is running
out to approve a budget . . . and so is taxpayer patience.
Legal details:
RCW
43.88.080
Adoption of the omnibus appropriation bill or bills by the legislature shall
constitute adoption of the budget and the making of appropriations therefor.
A budget for state government shall be finally adopted not later than thirty
calendar days prior to the beginning of the ensuing biennium.
RCW
43.88.270
Any officer or employee violating, or wilfully refusing or failing to comply
with, any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Initiative
857- Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would provide increased wages and benefits to individual providers
of publicly-funded home care for elderly and disabled adults. Wages would
be increased to $9.70 per hour on July 1, 2003, and $11.50 per hour on July
1, 2004, or a higher rate if required by other laws. Workers' compensation
coverage would be provided at state expense. Providers would be eligible
to enroll in the basic health plan for premiums of $10.00 per month.
Initiative
858-Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would provide certain compensation and benefits to individual
providers of publicly-funded home care for elderly and disabled adults.
Compensation would be as provided in a collective bargaining agreement between
individual providers and the home care quality authority. The agreement
would be declared binding and enforceable. Workers compensation coverage
would be provided at state expense. Providers would be eligible to enroll
in the basic health plan at a premium rate of $10.00 per month.
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]?"