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 ·
|
PRESS RELEASE March 17, 2005 State will have $1.7 billion more to
spend for 2005-07 7.1% increase in projected revenue; double projected inflation OLYMPIA—Today the state's chief economist, Dr. Chang Mook Sohn, told lawmakers they will have an increase of nearly $1.7 billion to spend for the next budget. This 7.1 percent increase in revenue is more than double the rate of inflation projected for the 2005-07 biennium.
Including the $836 million ending fund balance the state is projected to have on June 30, 2005, state officials will have $25,721 million in available revenue for the 2005-07 budget. Under current law, this means the state is projecting a $614 million mandatory reserve for the 2005-07 budget. I-601
expenditure limit
"Taxpayers have done their part and grown the economy by $1.7 billion for the next budget," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "Now the governor and legislature need to step up to the plate and balance the budget within the $25.1 billion spending limit. A seven percent increase in revenue should be more than enough to satisfy their spending appetite." "If state officials are truly committed to priorities of government, the budgets recommended next week will be prioritized within the $25.1 billion allowed by the voter approved spending limit," said Williams. "Tax increases should be off the table." Additional Information 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..." |
