Boeing makes right decision on freighter provision
Bob
Williams | President | Evergreen Freedom Foundation
The Seattle Times reported today that Boeing officials have decided
to drop the states offer of $5 million (one part of a large agreement)
to help the company develop an operating model for a new cargo 747-400 freighter.
We also understand that Boeing is forgoing a state-hired coordinator who would
have been responsible for working with the company on issues related to freight
cargo.
Boeing officials made the right decision and we commend them.
We hope they have also dropped the states plan to identify funding
sources for designing and building three 747-400 large cargo freighters. The
contract should be amended to reflect these changes.
The provisions uncovered in the governors contract with Boeing this
week fit into two different categories: legitimate reforms that ease the states
onerous regulatory and tax burdens, and illegitimate corporate welfare paid
for by individuals and businesses already suffering under a heavy tax burden.
We believe the legitimate reforms granted to Boeing in the areas of regulatory,
land use, tax, permitting and transportation policy should be extended to all
businesses in our state. This would improve the business climate for all companies,
instead of improving it for just one at the expense of others. We know Boeing
officials concur with this, too.
Legislators should continue to work with Boeing to identify other provisions
in the governors contract that cannot be legitimately given to a business
at the expense of hard-working taxpayers, and revise the agreement accordingly.
Then legislators should take the lead in bringing about true reform for all
Washington businesses.
Contact: Marsha
Richards | Communications Director | 360.956.3482
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]?"