Washington Policy Center Blog

We have to follow the law?

Joe Turner of the Tacoma News Tribune has the details on a curious exchange on the Senate floor today concerning tax increases and whether or not they require a 2/3 vote and if that is constitutional:

"The Senate and House are both 'committing news' at the same time, so I'm playing catch-up. (I'm trying to listen to the House debate a financing plan for the Highway 520 bridge, and Brad Owen, Senate president, issued a crucial ruling.)

Owen sided with Tim Eyman and Initiative 960 supporters by ruling that a bill to raise state liquor taxes would require a supermajority vote -- that is, 33 of 49 votes -- instead of a simple 25-vote majority to pass. That was for Senate Bill 6931.

Consequently, even though the vote was 25-21, the effort to raise the liquor tax for more State Patrol drunken driving crackdowns and drug and alcohol treatment failed."

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown blamed I-960 for the tax increase failing, but the 2/3 vote requirement for tax increases has been on the books since I-601 passed in 1993. In fact, legislators could have removed this requirement from current law at any point over the past few years when they amended I-601, but they chose only to “suspend” or leave it in place. Based on the concerns expressed today by some lawmakers that the 2/3 provision for tax increases is unconstitutional, one is left wondering why they reaffirmed it with each of their amendments to I-601 by leaving it on the books.

Perhaps their real frustration is that with I-960’s passage lawmakers have to get a 2/3 vote to once again “suspend” the 2/3 vote requirement instead of using the simple majority vote they've grown accustomed to without having to actually remove the 2/3 vote requirement from the law (man that’s a mouthful).

Of course, why take a politically risky vote to “suspend” or overturn the will of the voters when you can try to get a court to do it for you?

Appropriations committee unanimously approves budget website reform

SB 6818 (Promoting transparency in state expenditures) is one step closer to becoming law. The House Appropriations committee today unanimously approved the measure with amendments that strengthens the version adopted by the Senate on February 16 (48-0).

Among the amendments adopted at today's hearing:

• A striker amendment proposed by Rep. Linville to move the website over to LEAP from OFM (eliminates the fiscal note) while including the requirement for OFM to make public electronically its database of state personal service contracts;

• a proposal by Rep. Bailey to include the word "searchable" to make it clear that the website is supposed to allow users to search by key word for the spending they are interested in; and

• a proposal by Rep. Hunter to include explicit details on K-12 education spending.

SB 6818 is based on WPC's recommendation for the state to follow the lead of the federal government and other states by adopting a searchable budget website. Among the supporters of this reform are the State Auditor and Attorney General.

Next up for the bill is consideration by the full House.

Change to I-900 resurrected from the dead

Proving the point that no bill is ever dead, in a surprise move today the Senate suspended the rules and adopted the proposal to amend the funding stream for the I-900 performance audits adopted by the voters. Earlier this session the State Auditor strongly objected to SB 6450. It appeared the bill was dead when it was not acted on by the normal cutoff but it was revived today and passed by a vote of 26-22.

The State Auditor sent the following letter to all state Senators on February 15:

I write to state my strong opposition to Senate Bill 6450, which would require the State Auditor to reimburse school districts and educational service districts for the cost of providing information used for performance audits.

When the citizens of Washington overwhelmingly approved Initiative 900 in 2005, granting our office performance audit authority, they were seeking greater accountability and transparency in state and local government.  We are proud that our first nine performance audits have made 434 specific recommendations and identified more than $3.2 billion in potential cost savings, unnecessary costs and economic benefits.  Clearly, these audits have shown their value.

In particular, our performance audit of the state’s educational service districts contained 215 recommendations and identified potential savings of $23.5 million over five years that could be saved by better coordinating services and avoiding duplication.

I am certain that SB6450 is not about costs.  The fiscal note estimated the total cost to the nine ESDs of providing information for the audit was $11,529.  It also is important to note during this audit, and every other audit, we make every attempt to minimize the effect on the audit client.  In nearly every case, those we audit find these efforts, and our audits, beneficial and worthwhile.

My greatest concern is that this bill could open the door to other governments.  I believe that citizens, when they passed the initiative, contemplated the funding it created would be used by the Auditor’s Office to perform audits, not to reimburse entities for providing information and records they already should have on hand.

Finally, I ask you to consider whether the administrative costs to districts that would be caused by this legislation would be greater than any reimbursement it might provide.

I urge you to reject SB 6450 and enable us to fully carry out our audit responsibility that citizen’s demand, expect and deserve.  Thank you for permitting me to share my views on this bill.  If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

BRIAN SONNTAG, CGFM
STATE AUDITOR

The State Auditor also testified against the bill when it was still in committee.

Tolling Policy

Former Senator Jim Horn has a great editorial in today's Seattle Times. It mentions our Traffic Congestion Poll and suggests that tolls should only be used for new capacity. His logic follows WPC's recommendations and based on our poll, the feelings of the public.

Read Jim Horn's article here.
Read WPC's Traffic Congestion Poll here.
Read WPC's recommendations for a fair and equitable tolling policy here.
Watch my testimony (about 1:03) at the Senate Transportation Committee here.

Legislator fails to address constituent's concerns

One of our blog readers was kind enough to post a response given to her by state Rep. Chris Hurst (D-Enumclaw).  She had inquired about waste in the state budget, particularly the more than $200 million in pork and wasteful spending projects listed in WPC's Piglet Book.  His response is a good lesson in argumentative fallacies.

Elaine,  To begin with, the Washington Policy Center is not an authoritative source of information on government operations, but rather a highly partisan private organization. Second, the majority of the legislation that is introduced in Olympia are issues of policy which have little or no impact on the expenditure of state resources, but rather come at the request of Washington State citizens to improve the lives of folks living in our state. Third, I disagree that building roads for our citizens to drive on, paying firefighter to respond if your house is on fire or if you've been injured in an accident, paying police officers to solve and protect you from crime, having health department officials to protect us from epidemics that in the past have killed millions of Americans, paying workers to educate our children so they can share the prosperity of a productive democratic society, making sure that residents in Washington have electricity, clean water, and food, that these essential services of government are somehow wasteful or a rip off of the taxpayers dollars. In my opinion, this is certainly not correct. If it is the position of the so called "Washington Policy Center" that citizen neither need, nor want these, and that they should all be eliminated by the elimination of taxes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.

I spent 25 years as a commissioned police officer protecting citizens in Washington State, my salary came from tax dollars. I'm proud of the work I did, and believe that the tax payers received a valuable service. If the Washington Policy Center considered that to be wasteful, then once again, you might consider asking them if they are somehow willing to pay for all of these services, if they are advocating that government shouldn't do it.

Thanks for writing in and sharing your thoughts.

Christopher Hurst, State Representative, 31st LD

Rather than beginning with a thoughtful critique of substance, his first response is a dismissive ad hominem attack, labeling WPC "highly partisan" and insisting we're not "an authoritative source on government operations."  This is simply untrue.  First, we actually read the state budget and the performance reports and audits that are released.  How many lawmakers, staff, agency directors, or reporters can say that?  Second, we are not affiliated with a political party and we work with lawmakers of both parties to advance sound policy solutions.

But the ad hominem attack merely serves as a building block for the straw man that Rep. Hurst proceeds to construct.  Nowhere has WPC advocated cutting police, fire, emergency medical services, roads, epidemiology research, or teachers, nor have we said that these things are "wasteful or a rip off of the taxpayers dollars."  Even though we've never said any of those things, he concludes that "If it is the position of the so called 'Washington Policy Center' that citizens neither need, nor want these, and that they should all be eliminated by the elimination of taxes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree."  Rather than answer his constituent's concerns, Rep. Hurst changes the subject.  This is his second fallacy---he builds a straw man and then knocks it down.

Admirably, Rep. Hurst seems concerned about improving the lives of Washington's citizens.  So are we. We have offered more than 100 specific policy solutions to improve lives in Washington state, and we are ready, willing, and able to work with Rep. Hurst on advancing these ideas.

Newspapers weigh in on state budget

Earlier this week the House adopted its proposed 2008 supplemental budget and the Senate rolled out its spending plan for the remainder of the 2007-09 biennium. State newspapers are already expressing displeasure with the lack of restraint being displayed and the projected deficit being exacerbated by the proposed spending increases.

Here is a sampling from the editorial boards:

• A wise state saves money for a rainy day (Seattle Times)

"State legislators, at least the majority Democrats, will no doubt put a spin of frugality on the proposed supplemental budget voted out of the House Monday, and on the version announced Tuesday in the Senate.

They will say they are watching every nickel, they are making cuts, and that the $1 billion-plus ending balance Gov. Christine Gregoire wanted is not possible. But it is possible, and they should cut spending until they have it. Since the governor wrote her budget, the revenue forecast has gone down. The economy is slowing. The House and Senate budgets, which put two-year spending at $33.7 billion with only $0.75 billion left in the state's pocket on June 30, 2009, are too risky. Facing a possible recession, the state needs more pocket change than that. And a recession is no time to raise taxes . . . The current forecast shows the state's pockets with a negative $2.48 billion in June 2011 and negative $5.1 billion in June 2013. These numbers are not possible, because the state is not allowed to live on credit.

When Gregoire came into office, she faced forecasts something like that, and ignored them. The economy boomed, and it saved her. The state collected more revenue than anyone had thought likely, and it all worked out. At the beginning of a boom, that can happen. It does not generally happen at the onset of a recession. Then you have to accept grim numbers, and have some rainy-day pocket change in case things get worse.

The state needs to aim for at least $1 billion in the bank."

• House budget spends too much, saves too little (Tacoma News Tribune)

"The state’s economic realities seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the House, where budget writers trotted out a doozy of a spending plan last week.

Their proposed supplemental budget would add $287 million in spending to the current two-year budget — $53 million more than Gov. Chris Gregoire requested before state revenues took a big turn for the worse.

Gregoire’s budget assumed a $1.4 billion surplus. Days before the House released its budget, state lawmakers were told to expect a much smaller surplus, something in the neighborhood of $950 million.

The gloomy economic forecast, coupled with a $98 million increase in the demand for basic government services, should have been cause for belt-tightening. But instead of trimming expenses, House lawmakers want to spend more . . . Spend more, save less is not a respectable mantra for state government."

It is currently unclear if the Governor is willing to embrace either the House or Senate plans or if she will demand that legislators help her keep her original promise of leaving at least $1 billion in savings.

Why can't we all work for the government?

Stateline.org reports today that governors are calling on the federal government to step up its investment in transportation infrastructure.  Here's a tidbit:

"The nation’s governors are ratcheting up pressure on Congress and the White House to fix the country’s crumbling roads, bridges, dams and sewers, an investment some governors tout would serve a dual purpose by boosting the slumping economy." (emphasis mine)

Among the governors pushing the "dual purpose" line is Christine Gregoire.

“It’s one thing for someone to get a $600 check and go out and spend it. It’s another thing for them to get a job and add to the infrastructure in the state," Gregoire said.

By "go out and spend it" does the governor mean squandering the money on frivolities such as food and shelter?

At any rate, it's an all-too-common fallacy that creating more government jobs is good for the economy in the long-run.  To borrow from economist Henry Hazlitt, it's as if to say that burning my neighbor's house down is good for the economy because it will keep local builders in business.

The government can create a job, but first it has to take money from me and my neighbors, money that we would use to pay our bills, provide for our families, give to charity, or invest for our future.  Is that a good arrangement?  It is for the person who gets the government job.  Then again, maybe that's the point.  He who robs Peter to pay Paul can usually count on Paul's vote in the next election.

Olympian: "Lawmakers must prioritize transparency"

Yet another newspaper has called on lawmakers to move forward with WPC's proposal for a searchable budget website. From today's Olympian (in-part):

A bill to bring more transparency to state government spending has passed the Senate unanimously. The House should follow suit and Gov. Chris Gregoire should sign Senate Bill 6818 into law.

The preamble to the bill states the goal simply and directly: "The intent of the Legislature ... is to make state revenue and expenditure data as open, transparent, and publicly accessible as possible. Increasing the ease of public access to state budget data, particularly where the data are currently available from disparate internal government sources but are difficult for the public to collect and efficiently aggregate, significantly contributes to governmental accountability, public participation, agency efficiency, and open government."

The budget transparency measure, pressed by the Washington Policy Center, a nonpartisan, free-market, state-based think tank in Seattle, quickly garnered support from state Auditor Brian Sonntag. "Citizens deserve to have as much information available as they desire," he said. "When government's doors are open, people have the access they need to see where their dollars are being spent."

Attorney General Rob McKenna also supports SB 6818. "Budget transparency is a laudable goal," McKenna told the policy center. "Citizens need to be informed about the cost of government and where their tax dollars are being spent."

The Senate vote of 48-0 sends a strong message to Democrats and Republicans in the state House of Representatives that the time for budget transparency has come.

A hearing has been scheduled for 3:30 today on SB 6818 (Promoting transparency in state expenditures) in the House Appropriations Committee.

House Budget Reduces Gas Tax Project List

According to the highlights section of the House Supplemental Transportation Budget,

"The House Chair's proposed budget maintains the commitment to the Nickel and Transportation Partnership projects."

Oh, except for the $96 million in canceled TPA and Nickel projects: 

1. I-5/SR 525 Interchange Phase
2. SR3/Belfair Bypass - New Alignment
3. SR 510/Yelom Loop - New Alignment
4. I-5/SR 501 Ridgefield Interchange Rebuild
5. US 12/Old Naches Highway - Build Interchange
6. SR 823/Selah Vicinity - Re-route Highway

Denny's v. The Sustainable Revolution

Yesterday the Governor's climate bill, which calls for a "sustainable revolution," passed to much fanfare from the environmental community in Seattle. Today, that revolution is imperiled...and it is all the fault of an abandoned Denny's in Ballard.

Days after Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels declared that Seattle would become the "green building capital" of the country, Seattle has protected a decidedly un-green building. Most ironic is that the building was going to be demolished to make way for high-density housing, known as condominiums.

The Governor's Climate Advisory Team's Interim Report calls for such increased density, noting that "Variants on the smart growth concept exist, but many call for clustering living units with easy access (often walking distance) to shops, schools, and entertainment and recreational facilities..." Instead of building housing in the middle of Ballard, the City of Seattle has brazenly ignored the threat from climate change and taken steps that require more housing to be built outside the city requiring long commutes and more CO2 emissions.

Nobody said the revolution would be easy.