House Democrat tax plan falls short of claims Taxes needed for union payoffs, not children
House Democrats have made many claims about their proposed tax package
(HB
2267 and other unspecified bills). They say its for the kids.
They say its for education and health care. They say theyre
trying to protect the will of the voters who approved class-size Initiative
728.
Ironically, Democrats are only able to pursue these tax increases because
they are ignoring the will of the voters who approved Initiative 601, which
required a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Further, instead of being
"for the children," more than half of the proposed new taxes ($400
million) will be used to meet the untimely pay raise demands of public employee
unions.
Knowing voters wont approve tax increases for these demands, House
Democrats are quietly planning to divert money from education and health
funds so they can claim the new tax hikes are needed for those accounts.
Raiding the education fund
House Democrats propose "upholding I-728" by dedicating $379 million
in new taxes (raised by a 0.2 percent sales tax hike and five-minute Keno
lottery) to the student achievement account. What they fail to mention is
that under the initiative the state would already dedicate $432 million
in property tax revenue to the student account. Democrats plan to amend
the initiative so the money can be diverted to the general fund, where it
will be used for pay raises and other non-education purposes.
The House plan also diverts $45 million that was intended for school construction
into the general fund, and transfers another $69 million in existing school
construction funds. All told, Democrats are taking $477 million out of currently
dedicated education spending and using a new tax to "backfill"
those accounts.
Diverting from health services
House Democrats also propose raising the tax on a pack of cigarettes by
50 cents, adding five percent to the sales tax on hard liquor, repealing
tax exemptions on gum and candy, and expanding B&O taxes. They claim
these taxes will be dedicated to the health services account.
The money trail tells a different story. With the proposed cigarette tax
increase, before any of these new tax dollars find their way into the health
services account each budget cycle, $17 million would be diverted into the
general fund, $8 million diverted to violence reduction and drug enforcement,
and $6 million diverted into the water quality account.
House Democrats are also ignoring the fact that raising the cigarette tax
doesnt always result in more revenue. When the price gets too high,
buyers find other markets such as tribal lands and the internet.
Unsustainable without future tax increases
The House Democrat spending plan is unsustainable without future tax increases.
By not funding the full pay and benefit increases for state employees and
teachers during the regular fiscal year pay period, the Democrats lessen
the impact of these increases on the 2003-05 budget. However, they create
an immediate bow-wave in 2005-07 by forcing the next legislature to account
for an additional $529 million to complete the salary increases.
Further, by raiding I-728 funds for ongoing expenses and using new taxes
to "backfill" the student achievement account, House Democrats
are creating an account that will have insufficient funds to maintain the
per student spending they propose. In order to keep the new funding levels
for the 2005-07 budget cycle, an additional 0.1 percent sales tax will be
necessary. This is because Democrats plan to fund one year of spending increases
with two years worth of tax revenue.
Conclusion
The House Democrat spending plan is not good for children, families or businesses
in Washington state. It does benefit political special interests who are
demanding increased spending. Should taxpayers be asked to shoulder a heavier
tax burden to benefit special interest groups?
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]?"