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 November 18, 2004 I-601 vs. politicians State's spending limit to be put to test in 2005OLYMPIA – Today the state's Expenditure Limit Committee adopted the I-601 spending levels for the 2005-07 budget. I-601, Washington's spending limit law, was enacted by voters in 1993 in response to rising taxes and out-of-control state spending. Including the state's 2003-05 estimated ending fund balance and 2005-07 forecasted revenue, the state is expected to have access to $256 million in excess of the legal spending limit. State officials have already expressed a desire to spend more that the limit would allow.
If state officials pursue the increases in state employee compensation (including K-12 teachers), additional pension contributions, and increased medical assistance costs they want, the state will have a $1.7 billion "deficit" in the 2005-07 budget. To even reach this level of "deficit" spending, however, politicians will have to once again tamper with, if not repeal, the taxpayers' I-601 spending limit. A billion dollar tax increase will also be necessary to fund all of the desired budget additions.
"Having just rejected a massive tax increase for education, it's not likely voters would be supportive of a billion dollar tax hike for state employee compensation increases," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "For I-601 to survive the pending legislative session, legislators must commit to a results-based budget and put taxpayers above special interests." There is talk of another supplemental budget for the 2003-05 biennium totaling approximately $200 million. Earlier this year, legislators approved a $146 million supplemental spending increase. Governor Gary Locke's budget office just received a national award for its innovative priorities-based budget system, but Locke appears to be walking away from the model. "Whatever happened to identifying priorities and living within our means?" asked Williams. "Without the benefit of performance audits, how can increased spending be justified?" 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..." |
