More than a few people were likely surprised by Tuesday's election results.
Proponents of Proposition 1, which would have been one of the largest local tax hikes in the nation's history, outspent the opposition by as much as 5 to 1. Yet Proposition 1 was defeated handily.
Groups pushing for HJR 4204, which would have made it much easier to increase property taxes for school levies, faced a virtually non-existent opposition campaign. Yet the measure is currently trailing and even if it manages to pull ahead, a glance at the county returns shows that most counties rejected it.
Initiative 960, which will reinforce existing law that state tax increases must have 2/3 approval of the legislature and also require legislative approval of fee increases, also passed. This in spite of fear mongering by opponents claiming it would grind state government to a halt, cause the sky to fall, and, well, you know the rest.
SJR 8206, which will establish a "rainy day" reserve fund in the state budget so the state has to save for lean times (which, by the way, the legislature knows are on the horizon), is currently winning by a whopping 68%.
What does all of this mean? At Washington Policy Center, we believe this is the triumph of fiscal discipline.
Our independent research has shown that the costs of Proposition 1 outweighed the benefits, that it was an imbalanced plan, and that it would have done little or nothing to relieve congestion (at a cost of tens of billions of dollars). Voters agreed with our analysis.
The numbers may change as absentee ballots are counted, but even if HJR 4204 is approved, it looks like it will only be by the skin of its teeth. Why? Probably because property owners in Washington know that the state has plenty of money for education; how the money is spent is the problem. A centralized, bureaucratic system that is more interested in procedure than results and gives principals little control over budget and staffing isn't going to be fixed by making it easier to raise property taxes.
The "rainy day" reserve account in the state budget is one of those measures that just plain makes sense. People have to save for hard times, so why shouldn't state government? Opponents of the measure, few as they were, were the very people for whom blowing through a $2 billion surplus and growing the state budget by 30% over four years simply wasn't enough spending. This measure will help insulate taxpayers when the fallout from unrestrained state spending comes back to hit us.
Even if Initiative 960 does not survive the court challenge that is sure to come, it sent a message to the state: enough is enough. That is, perhaps, one of the most important messages sent yesterday. Lawmakers know that huge deficits are on the horizon, and they're counting on a combination of good economic times and what they hope will be the people's willingness to pay more taxes for the sundry programs they launched and expanded. That latter hope may have been shattered yesterday.
If I were an elected official in Olympia right now, I would be a little nervous.
Comments