State Dems 'Go Nuclear'

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002243212_spendlimit16m.html

House votes to ease way for taxes

By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times Olympia bureau
E-mail article
Print view
Search
Most e-mailed
Most read
RSS

OLYMPIA — House Democrats yesterday cleared the way for tax increases by passing a bill that would let lawmakers raise taxes with a majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote now required.

Senate Bill 6078 would suspend part of Initiative 601, the spending-limit measure Washington voters approved in 1993, and make it possible for Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate to raise taxes without Republicans going along. It passed 50-43, with four Democrats siding with Republicans and voting against it.

The bill fell one vote short on its initial vote in the House but passed on reconsideration after Rep. Dawn Morrell, D-Puyallup, said she had mistakenly voted "no" the first time.

The measure, which also would make several changes to the state's spending limit, was amended in the House and now returns to the Senate. Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they will accept the House version.

Democrats argue the bill would improve I-601 and is needed to pass a "responsible" budget. "It's the responsibility of the majority to govern," said Rep. Jim McIntire, D-Seattle.

Republicans say the move is not needed and essentially would gut the initiative. "This is the most fiscally irresponsible bill," said Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have proposed $26 billion budgets that represent about a 12 percent increase in spending over the current two-year budget.

And both chambers have proposed tax-increase packages that would bring in around $480 million over the next two years. They include taxes on cigarettes and liquor and bring back an estate tax. Gov. Christine Gregoire's $25.8 billion budget proposal had a smaller tax package.

Lawmakers have slightly more than a week left in the regular session to work out their differences and approve a budget. Democratic leaders in both houses predict the Legislature will get out on time.

Republicans have argued the Legislature should be able to write a budget without increasing taxes, and that the I-601 restrictions should be kept in place. "The only reason they're [suspending I-601] is so they can raise taxes," said Rep. Mike Armstrong, deputy GOP leader in the House.
It's not the first time I-601's requirements have been suspended to make it easier to raise taxes. Democrats did the same thing in 2002 when they controlled both Houses.

The initiative "is completely meaningless if every time they need to raise taxes they just suspend it," Armstrong said. "If the Legislature is going to continue to suspend it, then take the hard vote and tell people you want to do away with I-601 completely. They won't do that because that's a tough vote for everybody."

SB 6078 would make other changes to I-601, which was aimed at limiting government spending.

One of the most significant provisions, which would take effect in two years, would let state spending grow at a faster rate than the initiative envisioned.

I-601, in addition to requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, limited the annual growth in state spending to the average rate of increase in the state population and inflation during the past three years.

SB 6078, beginning July 1, 2007, would base the spending limit on a 10-year average of state personal-income growth, which would allow spending to grow around 2 percent faster than it now can. Given the size of the state budget, 2 percent represents a lot of money — in this case, several hundred million dollars.

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com



Other then the obvious interests of Washintonians in this, I would REALLY like to hear how Cantwell will answer this question:

"Senator Cantwell, do you support the efforts of your party in the State House and Senate to have a majority rules vote on taxes?"

(she'd undoubtedly either say yes or dodge the question, but assuming she answered it:)

"Interesting. You voted against allowing a up or down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees, and you voted against changing the rules so a majority could confirm then. The rule in question was not something that was voted on by the public, or was not created by the founders of this country, but just by the Senate in the 1800's sometime. Meanwhile, I-601 was passed by a majority of the people of Washington. Why is it you feel that one is OK and the other is not OK?"


She'd probably duck the question, and so it would never get to that point. But the hypocrisy on the part of the D's in general on this one is deafening.