From Stark
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire says the state needs an extra half-billion bucks over the next couple of years to cover education and public safety costs in a time of recession, and she wants the State Legislature to ask voters to approve a one-half-percent sales tax hike to raise that money.
The Seattle P-i reports.
According to the AP, (via P-I) the vote on the tax could come in March 2012, if legislators agree.
Updates:
Here’s a direct link to the governor’s statement.
Also, at the Washington Secretary of State’s office, David Ammons tells us that the legislature would need to approve the measure by Dec. 30 to get the tax hike to the voters on a March 13 ballot.
Ammons provides lots of useful links on his own blog post here.
..the problem with these hikes is that the money never seems to go to the purpose for which the hike was authorized. Before I”d vote for any hike, we need a clear definition of what the money will be used for and a stopper which prohibits it from being used elsewhere…
Agreed. Sales taxes of any kind only increase the regressive nature of our tax structure. Also, the legislature/Govenor putting this to the people is frankly an abdication of their responsibilities. What do we elect them for?
The Gov has not lead, at all, during this crisis. Yes, we the voters turned down revenue. I thought those votes were misguided, but I lost. But the Gov’s reaction is to be petulant and small. She has not lead, and did not lead today. Other than bemoaning the cuts (which are real and will hurt our State) she has not pushed through any meaningful reforms that might make the citiznes of the State trust that our $$ are going to be invested and spent wisely.
She is a creature of the Status Quo. She has not risen above the crises, she has been consumed by it.
Hey “Q” good luck with that. I can’t remember when a “temporary” tax lived up to its name, can you?
No new taxes, period. Let then come up with a balanced budget and live within their means.
1) We need a thorough audit of the whole system at state level.
2) No more money for illegals.
3) Cut things like 1% for art in construction projects.
I could go on, but I’m sure other people have ideas too.
A couple of points: First, under current state law, the legislature could not enact this without a public vote. It’s not a matter of Gregoire or the legislature dodging their duties in this case. Second, if it is submitted to voters as a three-year measure, it would expire without a new public vote–just as many local property tax levies do now. We have lots of temporary taxes, if you care to look at the facts.
Interesting.
I guess they analyzed that they might get the half percent passed, otherwise why not ask for 1 percent?
Doing a double check the math, if half a percent will get them a half a billion, then the around 9 percent we already pay would net around 18 billion? The pie chart I saw has half the budget coming from sales tax, so around 36-ish billion total?
The governor here is going to the people as a quick way to solve a significant legal or constitutional problem with the “2/3rds requirement to raise tax”. Each legislative district is proportional by population, so the body of legislators is already representative of the political and ideological leanings of our state populace. A majority of our state’s citizens have elected Democrat legislators who may be inclined to raise tax. The initiative requiring the 2/3rds makes an end run around the duly lawful composition of the legislature.
The legislature is decided like the electoral college, where each seat is won “winner take all”. A seat won by 55% Republican gets 1 vote in Olympia. A seat won by 100% Republican gets the same 1 vote in Olympia, no more than that. The absoluteness of a district should not get a seat any more impact or “bonus votes”. It’s no different that the reason why NY and CA could vote 100% for Al Gore and still not circumvent Florida in 2000.
But with the 2/3rds initiative, it takes state policy hostage by popular vote and disenfranchises the whole point of regional representative government. Think back to why the electoral college and regional representation was invented. Neither Seattle nor the Eastern block should be able to pervert the composition of the legislature this way.
So if voters in districts with Republican legislators vote 100% for the 2/3rds rule, but voters in districts with Democrat legislators vote 48% for it, then we get a “popular vote” overriding a regional composition system. So another fair rule would be that an initiative like that would need to get more than 50% of the votes in 2/3rds of the districts.
Otherwise, how can we let less than 2/3rds of the population create a law that requires 2/3rds of its representatives to cooperate?
Either that or the constitution should be ammended that any initiative that implements a threshhold, must pass by the percentage equal to that threshhold. ie it would have to pass by 65% if it required 65% of the legislators to agree.
Hey Richard?
We tried that 3/5ths citizenship model, why do we have the 4/5 open space requirement between the ears of the property tax exmptions.
And if the electorial college for “EXECUTIVE” was used, we’d have Rossi, and 10 Billion in the bank.
How many counties voted for Greguoir? 6?
President, 2 senators, governor, and a half dozen statewide offices like Treasurer, are supposed to be popular vote (where King County can outvote everyone else).
To ensure proper franchisement in state government, the legislature is safeguarded from that, by having legislators elected with 50% of each distict district’s votes.
So, i conclude that it is out of order for the popular vote of the state to mess with the leanings of the duly elected, diverse representational body of legislators.
Yea diverse?
Would that be Lauri Caskey Schriber, never elected by her district, Diversity from Jim Crow?
Take all the free meals, free hotel rooms and free travel, plus all the bone-us that the upper crust of this country and this state receives paid by from US, (not United States) include all the free wellfare and figure out how to make it work without increasing the tax rate that is already to much. How much money is spent on a debate on how to fix a pot-hole on First Avenue? Enough is Enough!!
Exactly my point LB. District 2 should be able to have Sam Crawford if they want, and not have district 1 and 3 give them someone they are not as happy with. Likewise, Dan Mcshane beat Kathy Kershner among just the district 1 voters, but district 2′s votes helped override that.
Imagine if Washington State’s congressmen were all chosen by statewide vote? King County would send 9 (now 10) Democrats to DC. That would ruin the whole regional representative idea. Frankly, I think Yakima is entitled to send a Republican if that is how they feel out there. Same for our local county seats.
The new map looks like 1=Dem, 2=GOP, and 3=swing. That’s about accurate for our county.
.
How about revising the idea of Initiative 1098 from 2010? That would place an income tax on people making over $250,000. Voted down in 2010 during tea party frenzy, but voters may be of a different mind now. The income tax would be more progressive than a sales tax even though raising the sales tax wouldn’t be hard to do from the state’s perspective. It wouldn’t require a new kind of tax at least. Still, I think the progressive tax idea of I-1098 could be revisited. The voters might be in a different mood than in 2010 after contemplating the scale of cuts in state services if there is no new revenue.
Robert makes a good point about an income tax – “The voters might be in a different mood than in 2010.” Washington has one of the most regressive tax systems in the whole US because of a sales tax without an income tax. Because the national economy is declining rather than growing due to the dampening effect of increasing energy costs, depending on sales taxes for state revenues is a fool’s bargain. [I would not be the first person to say the Guv and the Legislature are fools, by the way.] If you want to raise revenues, you will eventually have to go to an income tax. Being proactive now is considerably better than having it forced on you 2-5 years down the road.
The way to convince voters to get behind a state income tax is to allow a rent deduction. This levels the playing field for renters who are, at present, discriminated against via the mortgage deduction for homeowners on their federal income taxes. [I am not a renter, so I have no dog in this fight except for the twin pit bulls of logic and fairness.] Most states do this so Washington would not have to reinvent the wheel. I have lived in several states over the last 60 years and state income taxes were never onerous.
If Washington really wants to move into the future with revenue in hand, instead of being subjected to short-term kneejerk responses to every little blip in the stock market, the legislators must do something based on fairness and sound economic principles. Raising the sales tax isn’t it. Getting rid of the sales tax and instituting a progressive income tax is.
Never forget the windfalls that Paul Allen and Bill Gates have had over the years because they live in a state without an income tax. Either one of them could pay off the $2 billion deficit without even lightening their wallets.
Well Walter, Gates and Allen are, obviously, a little bit smarter than you . Legislators know that if you save their tales they’ll figure they’re good for 2 billion more in the next budget.