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 July 9, 2003 Does the state really need taxpayer funded lobbyists? Jason
Mercier | Evergreen Freedom Foundation Along with vetoing sections that would have restricted the purchase of state cars and limited travel and equipment purchases, the governor also vetoed Section 724 of the operating budget, which would have eliminated agency lobbyist positions. This means that instead of Washington saving $3.3 million ($6.9 million all funds), taxpayers will continue to pay for agencies to lobby the legislature. In fact, the University of Washington’s school paper (The Daily) reports that UW’s biennial lobbying budget is $440,000. Based on that information and the numbers below, it is easy to understand why the legislature had a difficult time rationalizing these expenses in light of the state’s budget difficulties. Select Agency Liaisons
* Includes average of 23% on top of salary for employee benefits (retirement, health care, disability and unemployment). Though agencies argue that their lobbyists are an essential tool to communicate with the legislature, taxpayer-funded agency lobbyists are not a priority of government. One disappointed legislator said in response to the governor’s veto, "I’d like to see agency directors in my office more than legislative liaisons explaining what they are doing." This is the taxpayers’ preferred choice as well. Jason Mercier is a budget analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based policy research organization. Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | (360) 956-3482
|
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..." |
