|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - Spring 2003 / Pro-Con: Tax Study: Why Weren’t We Allowed Debate? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pro-Con: Tax Study: Why Weren’t We Allowed Debate? |
|
|
|
Written On: Spring 2003 |
|
|
|
Written By: By Rep. Jack Cairnes (R-King County) |
|
|
|
The amount of news coverage generated regarding the findings of the Washington State Tax Structure Study has been astounding. While they may not know all the details, any citizen who has picked up a newspaper or watched the TV news in the past three months knows some sort of official government committee supported instituting an income tax in our state.
These are the details: the committee recommended lowering—not eliminating—the sales tax and replacing it with an income tax, plus revamping the way Washington taxes its businesses. The study also recommended creating a constitutionally-mandated "rainy-day fund," eliminating the state portion of the sales tax, continuing the death tax, extending the sales tax to consumer services, and imposing a personal property tax on motor homes, travel trailers and boats.
I don't support many of the findings. Democrats have called this plan "broad and diverse." I disagree. Plain and simple, a “grab bag” of sales and income taxes will only give the government another way to take more of your money. Look at the other states that have tried this tactic. The state budget deficits in California and Oregon are much worse than Washington. Leaders there are now supporting both drastic program cuts and higher taxes.
California's income-tax dependent budget took a large hit when the dot-com bubble burst. The top wage earners weren't able to carry the load. Now, California lawmakers are looking at making massive cuts in education, health care and other services. Is that where we want to end up?
Contrary to popular rhetoric, a sales tax does not place a higher burden on the poor. Taking into account a family's entire tax burden — state and federal — completes a much fairer picture.
I do agree, and have proposed for many years, eliminating the state portion of the property tax. One of my priorities as an elected official has been to encourage home ownership. I also fully support a "rainy-day fund" and changes to the business tax structure.
In fact, Democrats repeatedly turned down my Municipal Tax Fairness bill for employers. In Washington, we must look at changing the way we do business and stop the economic bleeding. We must cut red tape and regulations to bring more job opportunities to our state, and encourage businesses to grow and expand. Currently, we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. We need to get Washington's citizens back to work.
Democrats in the Legislature are now saying we don't have time to seriously examine changes to our tax structure. The study was a good idea then, but we have too many other problems this year, they say. This response troubles me. I fully support an open and honest debate. There was time for lawmakers to engage in conversations regarding changes to our tax structure, but Democrats wouldn't let it happen.
The Washington State Tax Structure Study Committee resulted from legislation approved by the 2000 Legislature. At that time, the House of Representatives was split 50-50, while Democrats controlled the Senate. Together, legislators decided the committee would include six academic scholars, two Democrats, two Republicans and one person appointed by the Governor.
As co-chairman of the House Finance Committee, this proposal came to my desk. My Democrat co-chair and I agreed on this nonpartisan committee membership and I asked this committee have a deadline of June 30, allowing for politicians to debate the findings and give Washington's residents an opportunity to have their say before electing lawmakers to two-year terms in November.
The Tax Structure Committee idea then went before the Senate, where it was dismantled and then added to a Democrat budget proposal that ultimately became law. The supposed nonpartisan academic scholars were to be appointed by the Department of Revenue, an agency under Gov. Gary Locke's control. And the due date was changed to November 30—too late for true public debate to take place.
The Legislature must take a serious look at how much government is spending. A lack of tax revenue didn't get us into a multi-billion-budget deficit. It was too much spending by Democrats in the Legislature that led us here. I believe in a smaller, leaner, more-efficient government that prioritizes its resources on educating its children and caring for the most vulnerable citizens.
The taxpayers of Washington deserve government officials who will pledge to bring efficiency, accountability and trust back to government. In 2002, Democrats controlling the Legislature chose to increase state spending, leaving the citizens with a $2.6 billion budget deficit. This type of irresponsible budgeting would not be prevented with what Democrats have called a "broad and diverse" tax structure, including an income tax.
The only solution remains working together to produce a plan that truly respects and serves the taxpayers. I encourage debate on a responsible spending plan and hope my colleagues will join me.
Rep. Cairnes can be reached at cairnes_ja@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Jack Cairnes, a member of the Washington State Tax Structure Study Committee and the ranking Republican on the House Finance Committee, represents citizens in the 47th Legislative District, which covers Southeast King County, including parts of Renton, Kent and Black Diamond
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
