Spokane7
65°
September 30, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: Two-thirds requirement a reasonable tax restraint
A significant theme of the campaign against Initiative 1053 has been that it is an assault on majority rule. The opponents should rethink that strategy.
If voters approve the ballot measure on Nov. 2, it would prevent the Legislature from raising taxes with less than a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. A scant 17 senators shouldn’t be able to block the will of 130 other elected lawmakers, the opposing argument goes. (We’re straining to recall a time when the 98-member House ever aligned unanimously with 32 senators on as volatile an issue as tax increases.)
But if I-1053’s foes really fancy majority rule, they should side with the majority of state voters who have approved variations of the two-thirds requirement three times, only to see it circumvented by a scant several dozen legislators in Olympia.
The most recent example happened during this year’s legislative session when lawmakers suspended Initiative 960, which voters approved in 2007. That cleared the way for millions in tax increases that the Legislature used to balance the budget, forestalling deeper spending cuts.
Initiative 960 itself was admittedly flawed. Its sound central element (the supermajority requirement for tax hikes) was burdened by unnecessary add-ons. At the time, we recommended that voters reject it.
But the window dressing is not a concern with I-1053, which is straightforward. It reinstates the two-thirds requirement, a valuable check on legislators’ impulse to increase taxes when budgets are squeezed. That’s what voters wanted when they approved Initiative 601 in 1993, Referendum 49 in 1998 and I-960 in 2007.
The economy is staggering. Beneficiaries of state services are in severe need. Painful cuts have been made. We concede all that.
But state and local governments are overdue for a thorough re-examination of what they should be expected to do. Establishing core responsibilities, defining priorities and sticking to reasonable fiscal limits are a must. However, they’re unlikely to happen without a level of discipline the Legislature has shown itself unable to apply.
Measures like I-1053 (and I-601, and Ref. 49, and I-960) are the voters’ means of insisting on it.
This measure would not foreclose reasonable taxation. It would just force lawmakers to make a compelling case before approving increases.
It shouldn’t be impossible to raise taxes, but it should be difficult, and that’s why we encourage voters to approve I-1053’s supermajority requirement – again.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
Pat O'Leary on September 30 at 7:33 a.m.
67% The Review considers it reasonable to require a 2/3 majority to pass tax legislation. As I recall, school bonds require 60% to pass and that is a very high bar…. yet it is not considered high enough by some. This will become a state controlled by a very small group of right-wingers that won’t vote for any tax, no matter how badly needed. Like it or not, taxes are necessary to run a government.
The Spokesman-Review has become a mouthpiece for the teabaggers and others of their ilk. I think it’s time to dump this newspaper and move on to a more moderate source. I will be cancelling this piece of tripe.
james_l on September 30 at 7:46 a.m.
Just take a look at how well a similar law has worked for California.
Jim9876 on September 30 at 8:05 a.m.
I agree with the comments by Pat O’Leary about taxation, but not about dumping the Spokesman-Review. We need our local paper, even if, as in this case, I disagree with their editorials.
People who want lower taxes and smaller government never say what functions of government should be eliminated and never lay out facts and figures to show how doing so would bring government down to the size they think it should be. The most you ever hear is that some programs with relatively small budgets should be eliminated. If implemented, the overall impact of these suggestions would be minuscule. The simple truth is that government has not grown because anybody wanted big government; it grew because it is the only institution in society that can deal with needs that arise from the growing complexity of modern life.
misjustice on September 30 at 8:13 a.m.
I won’t be supporting ANY of the initiatives on the ballot.
“Direct Democracy”, or the initiative process is corrupted; often times co-opted by monied interests from outside the state. Circumventing our elected legislators often leads to “laws” which are later over turned due to being unconstitutional.
As for taxes, it is the price we pay for civil society.
johno on September 30 at 9:19 a.m.
Why should a minority of senators be able to hold the majority hostage? This is less democracy when what we need is more. Look at the mess California is in with a similar system. If legislators vote for something unpopular with the voters, let them face the voters when they run for reelection.
WillyPeter on September 30 at 10:16 a.m.
The reason that most Washington voters think government is “out of control” is because our state government is out of control. Any imbeded legislator that has been in Olympia for 10 or more years should be voted out. They get 100% of the credit for the mess we’re in….2/3ds for tax increases? At least.
SteveZemke on September 30 at 11:26 a.m.
The irony here is that voters twice barely approved this concept of allowing 1/3 of the Legislators in either House to have veto power over the state budget and the third time didn’t probably even realize they were doing so.
Washington voters are certainly not overwhelmed by this proposal based on past voting. In the one instance in which it was mentioned specifically in the ballot title, it just barely passed. That was Initiative 960 in 2007. It only received a 51.24% yes vote. That is nowhere near the 2/3 voting requirement it is asking the State Legislature to operate under.
In 1993, the 2/3 vote requirement was an issue in Initiative 601, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the ballot title. It also just barely passed with a 51.21 % yes vote.
Eyman mentions this measure passing a third time which is misrepresenting the issue. In 1998 voters passed Referendum 49. It’s subject dealt with motor vehicle excise taxes, bonds for highways and spending limits. Nowhere was a 2/3 vote requirement mentioned in the ballot title or official arguments for the voters pamphlet by supporters and opponents as referenced by the League of Women The wording was hidden away in the fine print and was just repeating what was in law at the time.
Voters should reject this measure. It is being paid for and pushed by corporate intersts like BP and Conoco Phillips that don’t want to pay a small tax for cleaning up their pollutants in storm water runoff. They would rather have the state’s taxpayers pay the bills for cleanup while they bank huge corporate profits.
gmorton on September 30 at 11:55 a.m.
Jim9876 wrote,
“The simple truth is that government has not grown because anybody wanted big government; it grew because it is the only institution in society that can deal with needs that arise from the growing complexity of modern life.”
Well, no, Jim. It has not, indeed, grown because anyone wants bigger government (except pols and bureaucrats, of course), but because everyone wants a free lunch. They each want a government just big enough to deliver the free lunch they desire. And of course, when you add up all those small additions to government power, you have bigger government.
And the “needs” they hope to satisfy with their free lunches do not arise from “the complexity of modern life.” They are the same needs humans have faced since their appearance on this planet, and which they share with all other species – the needs for food, shelter, good health, care for their kids, etc. The only difference due to “modern life” has been the spread of the notion that meeting those needs is the responsibility of the State, and not of each individual person.
gmorton on September 30 at 12:03 p.m.
Pat Oleary wrote,
“This will become a state controlled by a very small group of right-wingers that won’t vote for any tax, no matter how badly needed.”
A tax that cannot win the support of 2/3 of legislators is not badly needed, by definition.
Jim9876 on September 30 at 12:21 p.m.
OK, Gmorton: How much could you whack off the size of the state general fund budget by eliminating free lunches? Why won’t you talk specifics? How about programs that cost real money? Do you want to get rid of public education? Highways? Prisons? Police and fire Departments? Universities?
hawken on September 30 at 3:22 p.m.
Nearly half of the households in our country don’t pay income tax at all! Already, those 47% are being carried on the backs of the rest of us for the bloated, government services they already receive at no cost to themselves.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
Oh how the big government advocates screech when they think the editorial board at their beloved SR has committed treason to their socialist world view! Hey…. I’m just quoting Newsweek 2/7/09 “We Are All Socialists Now.”
If we apply the 47% to the bloggers in this forum… that means that almost half of them pay no income tax and yet, demand that the rest of us pay even more!
liarsinnews on September 30 at 3:23 p.m.
Usually, I`m 100% in agreement with Pat. Not this time. Pat, how many school bond issues have failed to pass in the Lilac City? District 81 needs to be put under the microscope on the reckless spending habits. I can remember district 81 pledged over $1. million for parking downtown so their administrators had a private stall. The place, the convention center expansion. It is a matter of record. Gary Livingston, on his own, pledged the money during the early phase of planning the expansion convention center. Subsequently, the parking ramp was dropped from the plans. Or the districts costs to the taxis companies to pick the kids on Market. These fools running the district used taxis service for months and months rather than have the school buses pick up the kids. And the continued slogan, “Vote yes for the kids” without explaining what the money they were asking for would be used for. One ballot I know of, was to increase salaries and the district kept mum and avoided telling the public. Yep, salaries were increased. And the voting block by government employees. Looking at the percentage of these employees versus the private the average voter doesn`t stand a chance.
james_l on September 30 at 5:33 p.m.
Hawken: I believe this article is about state taxes. What does the percentage of people who don’t pay any federal income taxes have to do with a state tax issue?
The state and local portions of our tax bill is borne disproportionately by the lower income people, since there is no income tax in Washington and retail sales taxes start at the first few cents in purchases (except for food).
hawken on September 30 at 6:38 p.m.
Taxes are cumulative in their effect… Federal, State, Local.
My point is that half the households in the country don’t pay income tax… 79% of those who don’t pay income tax also don’t pay property tax … [37% of Americans don’t own a home or pay property tax… 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax]… Thus, 79% of those whom don’t pay income tax don’t pay property tax.
Every time you raise my state and local taxes on top of the federal income tax… it is all cumulative.
The Editorial Board is correct in that we need reasonable controls to stop the tax hikes in Washington. There must be limits set on our state legislature and governor.
Technically speaking your point is correct that the article is about state taxes. Practically speaking, Federal, State and Local taxes cannot be individually parsed and assessed all the time ignoring their cumulative affect on those who do pay all three taxes.
PlanB on September 30 at 6:58 p.m.
While I see a need to control the wingnuts in Olympia by placing some limits on tyranny of the majority, we need to worry about tyranny of the minority. We are seeing that in excess in the US Congress right now.
I think I’m gonna have to give this a thumbs down since there isn’t an obvious benefit. They can easily override it anyway so what’s the point?
james_l on October 01 at 12:10 a.m.
More than half of the corporations in the country don’t pay income tax. Exxon, with $35B in profits last year, paid no federal income taxes. GE, with $10.3B in profits last year, paid no federal income taxes.
It is unrealistic to believe that just because they don’t own homes, the 37% pay no property taxes. They pay them as a portion of their rent; at least that’s what we are told by the landlords every time there is a proposed tax increase.
You are correct in the statement that taxes are cumulative. People at the lower end of the income scale pay a far greater percentage of their income in state and local and some federal taxes than the wealthy and the same federal taxes as half the profitable corporations.
I am all in favor of a more equitable tax system; but the first place I would look is at the freeloading corporations. Then we can discuss the 47%.
hawken on October 01 at 9:21 a.m.
Those freeloading corporations provide industry and jobs. The 47% contribute little or nothing.
james_l on October 02 at 2:36 p.m.
Those freeloading corporations provide nothing; rather they take from the rest of us. If they find a way to profit off the toil of the 47%, then they will graciously employ them.
Your fealty to the right and might of the corporations is embarrassing.