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 April 6, 2005 House strikes out on fiscal restraint
OLYMPIA—Today House Democrats released their $26 billion 2005-07 budget recommendation. The House budget increases spending $2.7 billion over the current budget. This is an increase of 12 percent and more than three times the forecasted inflation rate for the next biennium. Their budget proposal also exceeds the voter-approved I-601 spending limit by $863 million, and the governor's proposed spending limit revisions by $53 million. "With this spending-limit-busting budget, Democrats have now gone 0-3 in drafting sustainable and fiscally responsible budgets," said Jason Mercier, budget analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "Rather than step up to the plate and budget within the states $1.7 billion in new revenue, Democrats are resorting to their tax-and-spend habits of the past guaranteeing a future billion dollar deficit." "Priorities of government budgeting was not intended to be a one-time wonder," said Mercier. "It is now up to the people to voice whether half a billion dollars in tax increases for the 'privilege' of future deficits truly reflects their priorities." Note: Unlike the governor's and Senate's budget, the House budget provides
funding for performance audits. Budget Proposals
Additional Information Contact: Booker Stallworth | Communications Director | 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..." |
