In the quest to win Boeing's 7E7 final assembly project, state officials
at the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) contracted
with Boeing's own consultant, Deloitte & Touche, to conduct a study
of how Washington compared with other states in areas of concern to Boeing.
While the details of CTED's
contract with Deloitte raise many issues, the study's findings are revealing.
In a presentation titled "The
7E7 Imperative," prepared in June 2003, Deloitte made several
observations about the state's overall business climate. Coming as no surprise
to Washington's employers, these observations included:
Factor
Washington Competitiveness Rating
Labor costs
Disadvantage
Unemployment insurance
Disadvantage
Workers' compensation
Disadvantage
Construction costs
Disadvantage
State & local tax rates
Disadvantage
Environmental permitting
Disadvantage
Business Climate
Disadvantage
Deloitte's report served as the impetus for the legislature's decision
to offer Boeing an unprecedented $3.2 billion worth of tax incentives. This
does not include other concessions offered separately by the governor in
an agreement signed
December 19, 2003.
Although legislators took action in June 2003 to reform the state's unemployment
insurance system, Boeing's vice president of government and community
relations, Bob Watt, recently stated that Washington's poor business climate
has not been resolved. This comment is especially relevant for the rest
of the state's businesses, which did not receive the same considerations
bestowed on Boeing.
Benjamin Romano of the Yakima-Herald
Republic made the following observation about Bob Watt's recent
speech to the Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce: ". . . Watt's
point was made: Boeing is still concerned about the business climate in
Washington. And despite billions of dollars in state incentives to land
assembly of Boeing's next generation 7E7 commercial airplane, Washington
is, in many respects, business unfriendly . . ."
Romano's article went on to state that Watt and Boeing still have the
following concerns (in part):
The state has some of the highest business-tax burdens in the
country, mostly because of the business and occupation tax.
While unemployment insurance costs will rise less because of
last year's reforms, Washington's program is still very expensive relative
to other states.
Workers' compensation premiums are rapidly' increasing.
Unless we get reform,' Watt said, our system will get more
and more expensive.'
While the state has provided Boeing the lifeline it claims was necessary
to host final assembly of the 7E7 in Washington (regardless of the agreement's
merits or demerits), the rest of the state's employers continue to suffer
in the state's "disadvantageous" business climate.
Though the Senate this year made great strides toward resolving the obstacles
in the way of business competitiveness in Washington (and the potential
for increased state revenue as a result of expanded business operations),
the House failed to follow suit and the measures died.
reforms to the Department of Labor and Industries (SSB
6414; SSB
6391), which recently was issued seven findings
by the state auditor for various violations.
EFF recommendations
While serious issues have yet to be addressed concerning the state's agreement
with Boeing, legitimate statewide reforms that benefit all Washington employers
must be the priority of state officials. Meaningful business reform should
serve as the focal point for this year's gubernatorial campaign. Washington
will continue to suffer budget shortfalls and economic uncertainty until
the state's business climate can be transformed from a "disadvantage"
to one that fosters competitiveness and economic expansion. Businesses need
a climate that allows them to create jobs, rather than one that forces them
to close their doors.
Prepared by: Jason Mercier |
Budget Research Analyst | 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]?"