Contact: Marsha Richards,
Communications Director
(360) 956-3482
Notes on I-728 and I-732
The Washington Education Association is spending millions
of dollars to raise Cain about the possible freeze on funding for education
Initiatives 728 and 732. Union officials say voters are being betrayed and
thwarted. Is this true? Statements in the 2000 Voter Guide published by
the Secretary of State show that these initiatives were billed to voters
as surplus measures that would not require additional state revenue if approved
(emphasis added below):
"Without raising taxes, I-728 lets schools
reduce class sizes, expand learning opportunities, increase teacher training,
invest in early childhood education, and build classrooms for K-12 and
higher education."
"We can afford to invest in our schools and our future without
raising taxes or taking money away from other programs. I-728
is funded by lottery proceeds, surplus state revenues and
by returning a portion of state property taxes to local school districts."
"I-728 is both necessary andfiscally sound.
It invests surplus revenues in education without hurting the state
budget."
"I-728 does not raise taxes. I-728 maintains
ample reserves and funding for other state services."
"With a $1.1 billion surplus, let's use existing
resources for more competitive salaries."
Statements opposing I-728 and I-732:
"I-732 adds no state revenue it only
consumes more of existing resources."
"I-728 would remove $2 billion from the state's
general fund over the next six years."
"The governor's budget office projects basic expenditure needs
will exceed state revenues in the next biennium. I-728 takes a bad budget
outlook and makes it much worse,requiring cuts in services or tax
increases to meet basic needs."
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]?"