|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - September/October 2007 / Points of View: I-960 undermines government responsiveness |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Points of View: I-960 undermines government responsiveness |
|
|
|
Written On: September/October 2007 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Remy Trupin |
|
|
|
Remy Trupin is executive director of the Washington State Budget and Policy Center.
"The Legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, a nine-cent increase in the state gas tax, costing billions of dollars in its first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be [repealed or maintained]?"
This is a classic example of a rigged question, designed not to get at the truth but to advance a predetermined agenda. When phrased this way, most people would likely answer no. In fact, when asked in a more neutral fashion (and with the benefit of a robust debate) Washington voters backed just such a gas tax increase in 2005. So did AWB, recognizing that the resulting road improvements would be critical to the ongoing vitality of the state’s economy.
We can expect to see a lot of this kind of slanted questioning—devoid of any context—on the ballot if Initiative 960 passes in November. The initiative proposes that the state ask voters—repeatedly and at substantial taxpayer expense—that sort of biased question regarding every significant public investment, thus handcuffing state government’s ability to respond to major business priorities.
I-960 would require a public advisory vote whenever elected officials raise taxes. That sounds good in the abstract, but I-960 also perversely limits the information provided in the voter’s pamphlet to the following question: "The Legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, [no more than 13-word description of the policy] costing $X million, in its first 10 years, for government spending. This tax increase should be [repealed or maintained]?"
That’s it. Just 13 words. No “yes” or “no” statements, as are traditionally written by advocates on both sides to help voters get a sense of the relative weight of the pro and con arguments, would be allowed. I-960 proponents say we need to reach out to the public by providing them with more and better information about government decisions. They’re right—we all want greater transparency and accountability from government, and a more engaged and better-informed electorate. So, why does I-960 mandate that the information in the voter’s guide be limited to one slanted sentence that plays up the costs of such decisions without explaining the benefits?
After careful analysis of the ballot measure, one can only conclude that I-960 will not lead to greater government transparency. Rather, the initiative strips the Legislature of its ability to conduct the business of government effectively and efficiently. That’s why I-960 also requires every fee increase, no matter how small or routine—including standard cost-of-living increases—to be subject to a formal legislative vote. That could mean dozens—or perhaps even hundreds—of pointless, time-consuming votes every session, making government more bureaucratic and less able to respond nimbly to fast-developing opportunities and challenges.
You wouldn’t run a business that way, and you shouldn’t run a government that way, either.
Furthermore, I-960 is so confusing and poorly worded, particularly in its broad definition of a tax increase, that it all but guarantees a flurry of lawsuits—again, at taxpayers’ expense—requiring the courts to figure out the impact of I-960 on various fiscal policies. Some of the state’s sharpest legal minds believe that the poor wording of the initiative will likely mean that complex fiscal decisions and even routine budget decisions—including ones that don’t raise taxes—would trigger an expensive and confusing public vote. We won’t know for sure until the courts sort it out—at taxpayer expense.
There’s more to be concerned with, as well. I-960 locks government up a straight-jacket and throws away the key. That might work fine in good times, but there are easily foreseeable situations where such rigid mandates could prove to be damaging—or even deadly—to the economy. The text of the initiative states that its provisions can only be suspended if the state is hit with a natural disaster, so the government would not be able to act decisively to cushion the impact of a downturn in the business cycle, let alone a terrorist attack.
I-960 may look appealing on the surface. But when you delve into its convoluted inner workings, it quickly becomes apparent that it is too risky, too expensive, and too obviously intended as a needlessly negative attack on government rather than a positive attempt to improve it.
Intent section of Initiative 960 (in part):
"With this measure, the people intend to protect taxpayers by creating a series of accountability procedures to ensure greater legislative transparency, broader public participation, and wider agreement before state government takes more of the people’s money. This measure protects taxpayers and relates to tax and fee increases imposed by state government. This measure would require publication of cost projections, information on public hearings, and legislators’ sponsorship and voting records on bills increasing taxes and fees, allow either two-thirds legislative approval or voter approval for tax increases, and require advisory votes on tax increases blocked from citizen referendum."
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
