While dealing with the fallout of the Great Recession, lawmakers from
both political parties started talking about whether citizens should be
required to specify how funds would be raised and spent on policies passed at
the ballot box. Representative Fred Finn thought that people
should have that responsibility (like legislators) and introduced House Joint
Resolution 4224 that would amend Article II of the
state constitution to include:
“If the initiative
will result in an expected increase to costs or expenditures of the state or
local governments in excess of five million dollars, the secretary of state may
not assign the measure
a serial number and
the initiative shall be rejected unless the initiative also specifies a tax
increase or a new tax in an amount that will offset the increases in costs or
expenditures to state or local governments resulting from passage of the
initiative.”
When he introduced this during the 2012 Legislative Session,
Representative Finn said “Unfunded mandates aren’t fiscally
responsible, whether it’s government or the people who are promoting them … My
proposal is basically saying, ‘If it’s going to cost a significant amount of
money, you need to show how it’s going to be paid for’.” Others (19 Democrats
and 3 Republicans), agreed and joined Finn in sponsoring this.
However, an unusual group of interests came out in opposition to
this amendment, including: initiative promoter Tim Eyman, the Washington State
Grange, and Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775 NW. These
groups have different agendas and political leanings, but they agreed that this
requirement was a bad idea. This opposition led to the amendment not making it
out of committee, but it started the conversation of requiring citizens to
think about how government pays for programs.
Aside from the current economic crisis, the other major driver for this
effort was the cost of ballot initiatives that citizens voted for in the past
but that haven’t been funded recently due to the large price tag. The quoted article above references some of
these initiatives that, if implemented, would cost taxpayers over $1.2 billion
in the current budget cycle. Two of the biggest ones include I-732 (class size
reduction), and I-728 (cost-of-living increases for teachers). Both of these passed in 2000 by wide margins
(72% and 63% respectively).
This makes sense because who can argue against improving our schools or
efforts to better the teaching profession with increased pay? That’s a tough
sell, and dangerous for politicians to attempt. While the policy is appealing
and popular, it is likely that voters had no idea the initiative(s) would cost
that much when they made their decision.
If the Washington Education Association had to put a billion-dollar
price tag on these initiatives, chances are voters would have thought twice,
and the difference between support and opposition would have been a little
closer.
Regardless if you support or oppose an initiative, it’s important to
know how much it’s going to cost. Without raising taxes, the state’s budget is
a zero-sum game, meaning if you want to pass an initiative and not dedicate
funding for it, you need to understand that funds are going to have to be taken
from other programs. Don Brunell, President
of the Association of Washington Business, summed this up nicely in a piece he
wrote for the Columbian stating, “Would you buy a new car or a
new house without knowing how you’ll pay for it? Of course not. But Washington
voters do something similar every time they approve a costly initiative without
specifying how it will be paid for. That needs to change.”
The initiative process also works the other way by limiting or
eliminating taxes that the state can collect. We’ll look at that next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment