Contact: Marsha Richards, Communications
Director
(360) 956-3482
WEA cries "Wolf!" again
Saying it loudly wont make it true, but apparently officials at the
Washington Education Association intend to try. The union is on a public
relations rampage against what it calls "the largest [public school
funding cuts] in state history." The campaign is disingenuous, to say
the least.
The fact is, education spending is increasing overall by 2.2 percent
(or $216 million) in the new budget, not decreasing. The state spent $9.9
billion on K-12 education in the last biennium, and legislators plan to
spend $10.1 billion in the next. Meanwhile, student enrollment is increasing
statewide by a miniscule one-tenth
of one percent, and decreasing in many individual
school districts.
The spending increase is less than WEA hoped for, but dollars are limited
and not many people got as much as they hoped for this time around. Some
folks are facing real cuts, like the taxpayers who lost their jobs when
the economy turned sour.
Getting a smaller increase than you wanted shouldnt be an excuse
for spreading misleading information.
The unions biggest frustration is the suspension of the two education
initiatives: automatic cost-of-living raises for teachers (I-732) and additional
class-size reduction funding (I-728). However, in their claims that legislators
have thwarted the will of the people, WEA officials have forgotten the initiatives
were approved on the public assumption that the cost would be covered by
surplus
state funds.
The surplus is all gone . . . and then some.
That doesnt mean some school districts arent facing challenges
due to budgets written when surplus funds were expected. Those challenges
can and will be dealt with, just as many others are meeting their own economic
challenges. Crying "Wolf!" isnt the way to do it.
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]?"