The idea of having a transitional safety net in case a worker unexpectedly
loses his or her job has plenty of merit. But the state's current program
to provide this safety net has five major drawbacks that contribute to the
problem instead of reducing it:
1. UI rates are inflatedan unfair financial burden for employers.
2. UI benefits are inordinately highan incentive to remain unemployed.
3. The program suffers from a lack of enforcement and accountabilityfraud
and overpayments occur too frequently.
4. Washington receives insufficient returns for the money it invests
in the federal program.
5. State officials play favorites when they disperse UI benefits.
Four clear solutions exist to remedy the problems in Washington's current
UI program:
1. Privatize UI.
2. Request that Congress eliminate the state's mandatory contribution
to the federal program.
3. Prompt job searches for claimants.
4. Aggressive enforcement of the law.
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation understands that many are facing life-changing
economic hardships as a result of our state's current economic crisis. We
are not advocating a community that turns its backs on those in need, but
rather one that provides the maximum incentives and opportunities for workers
to rejoin the state's workforce and productively contribute to the state's
economy. All can support a system that offers a helping hand. What needs
to be addressed is the current hand-out mentality of the UI program. Employers
should not be forced to choose between higher salaries and benefits for
employees, or increased UI taxes. By reforming the state's UI program we
will be putting the needs of workers first and enabling our state's residents
to be self-sufficient in their pursuit of the American dream.
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]?"