Smart Bombs: School funding elementary

The people want ample funding for education. The people want a higher threshold before taxes can be increased. The people may as well want farm animals that don’t smell to improve their Spokane Interstate Fair experience, because it’s as just as realistic.

If only we had a representative form of government to sift through the pile of conflicting desires. If only we elected leaders who could access the facts and report back to us. If only they could give us the straight poop rather than perfuming it.

I suppose that’s unrealistic as well.

Ah, but we do have a constitution, and it is enforceable. Look back over that list of wants in the first paragraph, and there’s only one that is a constitutional duty. The others are political desires, such as the desire to produce children who are smarter than average without raising enough money to do so. Of course, nobody says it that way. They say they want to keep taxes low. They say if we remain economically competitive with other states that should do the trick. They say we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.

Sure do. We aren’t spending enough on education to satisfy the state’s “paramount duty,” a phrase lifted right from the constitution.

The tension between political wants and constitutional duty will be broken, because the Supreme Court has mandated, via the McCleary decision, that duty comes first. And just to make sure lawmakers don’t punt this time, the court has retained jurisdiction over the matter. Lawmakers accuse the Supreme Court of overstepping its authority. They complain without irony that it’s their job to figure this out. Editorial boards, including this one, agree.

That argument has merit, but when this side debate subsides, the court will still be there, saying, “Show me the money.” Most lawmakers say they agree with the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. It’s just that … well … doing it sooner just wasn’t doable. Politics, you know.

The people want low taxes, but they also want more money for schools. So they elect leaders who agree with these conflicting desires. And getting elected is the paramount concern of those running for office. So the truth is withheld.

Here it is: We are a low-tax state masquerading as a progressive one. Oh, we’re progressive when it doesn’t cost anything. Gay marriage? Cha-ching! Ample educational funding? Well, you see, it’s complicated.

Actually, it isn’t. This alleged conundrum can be solved with elementary math.

The Department of Revenue has a chart showing the historical state and local tax haul per $1,000 of personal income. It’s a good way to measure what we can afford. Washington hit its taxing apex in 1991, raising $121.75 per $1,000 of income, which ranked ninth highest in the nation. Even then, the Legislature wasn’t amply funding basic education. In 2011, the last year calculated, the state raised $98.95 per $1,000 of income, which placed the state 35th. The national average was $108.31.

Lowering the tax burden while ignoring a constitutional mandate is a political choice. The state also has a constitutional duty to balance the budget, which has been quite a challenge since the Great Recession. To accomplish that in recent bienniums, lawmakers subtracted mightily. In 2009-11, they cut $4.60 for every new dollar they raised. In the 2011-13 period, they cut $16 for every dollar they raised.

Many lawmakers still say we don’t have a revenue problem, so more slashing to satisfy McCleary could be in order. And yet, the state has dire needs in the areas of transportation, mental health and higher education. And guess what? Most lawmakers agree with that, too.

So how long before the public sniffs out the truth? Probably not before Election Day.