Locke and Brown: Play now, let our children pay later
Elected officials play Russian roulette with state’s credit rating
Rather than correct the budget mistakes of the past, Governor Locke and Democrat legislators seem content to pass the state’s tough budget decisions into the next session. Should current revenue trends continue for another year or two, as economic forecasters predict, today’s budget problems will likely boomerang back and worsen the crisis before the next biennium.
Washington’s current revenue forecast is $20,962 million. The revenue forecast for 2003-05 is $22,790 million. However, if the legislature is successful in pushing through the tobacco securitization bill, revenue for every biennium for at least 25 years must be reduced by $75 million (25 percent of the annual future revenue). This places the onus for the one-time tobacco revenue source on future taxpayers – children currently in elementary school.
Consider the three budget proposals being considered for 2001-03 (dollars in millions):
Governor’s Supplemental
Senate
House
Revenue forecast
$20,962
$20,962
$20,962
Tax increases
$166
$83
$205
Total expected revenue
$21,128
$21,045
$21,167
Proposed expenditures
$22,530*
$22,457
$22,448
Deficit
[$1,402]
[$1,412]
[$1,281]
* Does not include provisions for $115 - $150 million in additional caseloads from February Caseload Forecast.
All three current budget proposals guarantee an instant deficit for the next biennium exceeding $1.2 billion. Responsible leaders would address the root cause of Washington’s budget deficit – out-of-control spending – instead of relying on one-time revenue sources to create the facade of fiscal management. Not only are state leaders avoiding solving our budget problems, they are putting taxpayers at risk for further fiscal hardships by threatening the state’s already compromised credit rating.
Contact: Jason Mercier, Budget Research Analyst, (360) 956-3482 or jmercier@effwa.org
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]?"