Contact: Marsha Richards, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482
Locke's 2003-05 budget
OLYMPIA, WAGovernor Gary Locke will announce the details
of his no-new-taxes budget tomorrow morning, leaving legislators to decide
whether to approve or modify his spending plan. The governor has hinted
that planned cuts will be painful, but with a $2-$3 billion deficit looming
lawmakers must remember the lessons of history and resist the temptation
to raise taxes in an economy that simply cannot support a heavier tax burden.
In the early 1990s, many states were facing similar budget problems. The
governors who took strong and decisive actionnot only refusing to
raise taxes, but actually cutting them and seizing opportunities to institute
much-needed reformswere rewarded with job growth and economic stability,
as well as re-election. Conversely, many of the states that attempted to
balance their budgets by increasing taxes did so at the expense of jobs
and business, thus making the problem worse.
Using an innovative new model that focuses on core governing functions,
Governor Locke has written a budget balanced within existing revenues. To
aid in this process, he asked all state agencies to submit a list of their
activities prioritized into three categories: high, medium and low. The
governor's final budget was based in part on these self-identified priorities
(excluding the agencies in charge of higher education and K-12, who refused
to comply with the request).
As legislators review the budget to decide which activities and programs
should be streamlined or eliminated, they should take a close look at the
priorities identified by agencies. Some raise serious questions. Consider
the Department of Transportation's priorities:
High priority: Roadside/landscape maintenance, rest area operation,
headquarters management. Low priority: Audits, highway construction mobility improvements,
transportation planning.
Do these priorities reflect the core purpose of government and the will
of Washington citizens?
Once a program is identified as a core function of government, legislators
should consider how it can best be delivered (should it be contracted out?)
and which level of government can do so most effectively.
It remains to be seen if Governor Locke and his colleagues in the legislature
will make the tough decisions necessary to refocus state budgeting on core
functions. It will not happen overnight, but it is possible right now to
balance the budget without raising taxes. If they do not, it is EFF's prediction
that voters will mount an initiative campaign to pass the most punitive
tax and spending limits the state has yet seen.
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]?"