| |
House Democrat budget sets
high-water mark for revenue, spending hikes
The 2005-07 state
operating budget proposed by House Democrats today one-ups the Senate
and the governor when it comes to increasing revenue and government
spending, said
Rep. Gary
Alexander, lead budget negotiator for House
Republicans. The $26.09 billion budget received a public hearing this
afternoon before the House Appropriations Committee, which may act on
the plan Thursday.
“I wasn’t sure the Senate
could be topped, but the House Democrats came through, unfortunately.
They have a habit of overspending, then wanting huge tax hikes to help
make up the difference, and this budget shows they’ve still got that
touch,” said Alexander, R-Olympia. “Our economy has improved enough in
the past two years, after we avoided a general tax increase in 2003, to
generate an additional $1.7 billion in revenue. But the Democrats
decided they still want another half-billion dollars in revenue, and
they’re not afraid to put higher taxes on smokers, drinkers and death to
help find the money.
“It was up to the House budget writers to show the Senate and the
governor that we could have a balanced budget without new taxes, like we
did in 2003. By going so far in the wrong direction, they’ve all but
guaranteed people in our state will pay higher taxes,” Alexander said.
The House budget is no
more sustainable than the other two Democrat plans presented in the past
month, Alexander explained, primarily because it relies on so much money
snatched from one-time sources such as dedicated funds: $470 million in
all, on top of the $507 million in taxes and other new revenue. Also, he
said, revenues from a new 60-cent cigarette tax, a new “death tax” and a
50-cent-per-liter liquor tax may not come in the way Democrats hope.
Democrats portrayed the
House budget as spending less than the Senate plan, an assertion
Alexander challenged.
“Routing the $127.9
million expected from the new estate tax into a new trust fund for
higher education, rather than the general fund, doesn’t mean the money
won’t be spent. Add that to the general fund spending and the House
surpasses the Senate by a good $30 million,” said Alexander.
Alexander said he’s
disappointed House budget writers chose not to follow the “Priorities of
Government” process that produced the state’s 2003-05 operating budget,
which didn’t raise taxes for the state’s general fund.
“It looks to me like the
Democrats have a new set of priorities for government. This budget, like
the other two, commits available revenue to pay raises but ties funding
for K-12 and higher education to tax increases,” said Alexander. “As if
that’s not enough, the Democrats claim the $174.7 million in cigarette
tax revenue would supposedly be dedicated to the Student Achievement
Fund. How can that really be true when the identical amount is being
pulled out of the achievement fund on the other end to be stashed in the
general fund, which can be spent on anything?”
Alexander is pleased the
House budget would reduce the number of middle-management positions in
state government, like the other two plans on the table, but beyond
that, the similarities between the plans don’t benefit taxpayers, he
said.
“The only other good news,
if you could call it that, is the House and Senate budgets are close
enough that negotiating a compromise shouldn’t force us into a special
session. Ending the session on time would be nice, but it’s going to
come at one heck of a price to the taxpayers, once the Democrats in the
House, Senate and governor’s office figure out just how big a package of
tax increases they need to make good on all the promises they’ve made,”
Alexander said.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Brendon Wold, Public
Information Officer: (360) 786-7698
|
|