EFF's Election Report ·
Gonzales Letter ·
Welfare Reform ·
Boeing Contract ·
Budget & Taxes ·
Business Climate ·
K-12 Fact Sheet ·
EFF Health Study ·
Paycheck Protection ·
Transportation ·
Unemployment Ins. ·
Receive Updates ·
Bookmark EFF ·
Contribute ·
EFF in the News ·
How Can I Help? ·
Join EFF ·
Media Center ·
|
NEWS ADVISORY December 17, 2003 Supplemental budget: Priority-based or business-as-usual? Governor Gary Locke will unveil his 2004 supplemental budget request tomorrow. He has stated in a press release that his proposal "will employ the same methods used to develop the priority-driven biennial budget, and will contain choices to fund programs and services most demanded by the people of Washington." The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) commends this framework, but offers an important litmus test: If Governor Locke truly employed a priority-based model, his supplemental budget proposal will be revenue-neutral. That means any additional spending will be offset by a corresponding reduction in other budget areas, and the overall budget will remain the same. Decisions on additional spending and reductions will be clearly based on the governor's eleven "priorities of government" (POG). "If the governor is truly committed to priority-based budgeting, he will not propose overall increased spending this budget cycle," said Jason Mercier, a budget research analyst for EFF. "The current budget already spends more than the state expects to collect this biennium, and draining more reserves will make the problem worse in the next budget cycle." State budget analysts recently issued a six-year forecast predicting the state will face a massive deficit or enjoy a modest surplus in 2009 depending on whether lawmakers adhere to a priority-based budget model in coming sessions. Current 2003-05 Budget Source: Senate Ways and Means Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
|
1 Part Honesty; 2 Parts Arrogance 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]?" - Rep. Jim McIntire (D - 46) Despite the arrogance of some state officials, Washington's constitution is clear: "All political power is inherent in the people..." |
