Governor Locke recently warned, "If we want to reinforce faith in government by our citizens, we must deliver."
He’s exactly right.
In an attempt to earn back the trust of voters, a transportation efficiencies bill was enacted that claims to deliver the reforms necessary to alleviate concern that current transportation tax dollars are being wasted.
Unfortunately, now that Governor Locke has signed the so-called transportation efficiencies bill, it has become clear what reinforcing faith in government means to him: it means blackmailing the voters into accepting tax increases.
In the same spirit of arrogance that spurred Locke’s threat to withhold all transportation funds from districts whose legislators refused to support his transportation tax package, Locke is now refusing to institute real transportation efficiency measures unless voters approve his tax increases.
It is difficult to describe this legislation as a transportation efficiencies bill when all efficiencies and reforms necessary to reinforce public confidence are null and void unless the voters submit to Locke’s tax demands.
Locke boasts, "I am proud to sign a bill that does so much to restore public confidence and gets the most out of every dollar spent on transportation projects."
Should voters have restored confidence with this bill becoming law? Absolutely not.
The so-called transportation efficiencies bill is liberally sprinkled with three little words: null and void.
Consider the reforms boasted of in this "efficiencies" bill:
Contracting out (competitive bidding) for transportation project construction: null and void unless Locke’s tax package passes. Another little caveat regarding the contracting provision is that even if a private firm can do a project more cost effectively, no contract can be entered into if it would "displace" or "diminish" the number of current state employees.
Efficiency and reform in transportation investment, preservation and maintenance: null and void unless Locke’s tax package passes.
If the Governor truly wants to reinforce faith in government he should start by implementing necessary reforms that are not subject to acceptance of higher taxes.
Governor Locke can demonstrate commitment to accountable government by taking the following steps:
1. Allow for true and comprehensive performance audits of the Department of Transportation (DOT) to save tax dollars by identifying ways DOT can become more efficient.
2. Copy British Columbia’s Liberal party plan and eliminate project labor agreements and prevailing wage laws. This allows the free-market, not labor bosses, to dictate project costs.
3. Engage in true competitive bidding for project contracts, even if that means reducing the size of the DOT.
Should voters be willing to trust government with more of their recession-limited incomes or instead send a loud and clear message that this electorate cannot be bought? Instead of holding transportation reforms hostage unless increased taxes are accepted, it is time that Governor Locke understand that any endeavor to further raid our wallets will be null and void until he allows true efficiencies to be enacted.
Remember, an efficiencies bill is only effective if real efforts are made to address the problem. A bill that makes all "efficiencies" null and void unless voters yield to increased taxes is nothing more than old school blackmail.
Jason Mercier is Deputy Communications Director for the Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation. He can be reached at (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]?"