For more than a year, state lawmakers have known we face severe budget
problems. For the past six months, ongoing bad news has placed our states
economy on the critical list. The response by our elected leaders has been
to deny the severity of the problem, therefore delaying remedies. Their
inaction may mean an income tax in our future.
Youve seen it in the media: Washington faces a $2-2.5 billion deficit
in the 2003-05 budget, not counting another $552 million deficit in the
Health Services Fund. Largely unreported and unnoticed is that the state
is currently spending $1.5 billion more than it will bring in by the time
this budget year is over (next July). This is laying a disastrous foundation
for 2003-05.
This problem can largely be attributed to Governor Gary Locke. Had the governor
complied with the Budget and Accounting Act (requiring a balanced budget)
when the problem first became apparentordering across-the-board cuts
and calling a special session of the legislaturewe would not be in
todays fix.
Instead, the governor has tried to satisfy his political alliesthe
teacher union and public employeesand has allowed the crises to grow
daily.
Amazingly, the governor still travels the state, talking tough and giving
speeches that sound as if he is on top of this. But we have heard this talk
with little corresponding action for six years now. One year ago, we said,
The real problem is, while Governor Locke has given us a lot of rhetoric,
he has not taken any decisive action. This is in keeping with his habit,
over the last five years. . . . He intends to study the problem, wait until
the regular session starts, talk about solutions and perhaps implement some
cuts by July of next year. Unfortunately we have been correct.
For example, at a September 2002 speech to the Association of Washington
Business (AWB), the governor made no mention of higher taxes to help fill
the deficit. In an interview after his speech, the governor said his plan
is to balance the budget without raising taxes.
If the governor meant what he said, he would take action now, not wait until
next year. Doing so would save money for the rest of this two-year budget
period (November 2002-June 2003) and all of the next biennium.
Governor Locke must be counting on the fact that most people have short
memories. Last year the governor spoke with great conviction and said:
It has always been my motto that we should do a few things very, very
well instead of doing so many things in a mediocre fashion.
I think the time has come in which weve got to rethink that [across-the-board-cuts].
Better to eliminate whole lines of businesses and keep core functions
in place much as the private sector does. What are your core missions?
What are your core business functions keep those in tact, support
them. Make those strong and get rid of the other things.
Governor, we are still waiting for you to act.
Then, in his 2002 State-of-the-State, Governor Locke said, If we dont
act, who will? These problems wont fix themselves. We must rise to
the challenge. We must accept risk. We must act.
Yes, so what are you waiting for, governor?
Legislators seem to have the same denial problem. Key legislators on the
budget committees decided the state was not in a crisis. Simply put, that
is denial of reality, unless they believe taxpayers can be counted on to
post budget bail. A $2-2.5 billion deficit, accompanied by more than $500
million in deficit in the health services fund is a huge problem that should
agitate them into immediate action.
But, then, theres the November election...and the other guy
who can be blamed. Right now, we are cherished as the electorate, but scorned
as taxpayers.
Solutions
Failure to make certain cuts now will cost taxpayers billions in the very
near future. And it will unnecessarily hurt innocent people. Now is the
time to make tough decisions. We urge our readers to pressure legislators
to begin seriously addressing the states budget deficits before years
end. If they say they want to wait until January, tell them it is too late.
1. The governor should implement a freeze on all new state hiring and spending.
Had Governor Locke frozen spending at the June 30, 2001 level, which we
recommended last year, taxpayers would have saved $1.7 billion. Every day
the governor waits, the deficit grows.
2. The governor should request that each caucus (House Democrats, Senate
Republicans; House Republicans, Senate Democrats) send their budget writing
legislators to Olympia to work on an emergency task force with the governors
Budget Director. The Task Force should review agency mission statements,
goals and objectives and the ranking of programs for the largest 15 agencies.
This will yield a gold mine of important budget cutting information.
This task force should then examine the delivery system for K-12 education,
transportation, higher education, health care, and the Dept of Social and
Health Services. In every case they will find the delivery system is dysfunctional,
with money appropriated by the legislature not getting to its intended place.
3. The governor should direct his agencies to implement the audit reports
from the State Auditor and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
It is clearly time for the governor and legislative leaders to act.
Living Liberty is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's monthly
newsletter. It provides updates on the issues and projects EFF is currently
working on. You will also find commentary on state and sometimes federal
government issues.
Living Liberty is available for our members only. Please click
here if you would like to become a member.
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]?"