Published: Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Herald endorsement / Initiative 1107
Don’t force even more cuts
The American Beverage Association is using Washington’s initiative process to create its own version of shock and awe. Voters should resist it and vote no on Initiative 1107.
The staggeringly expensive (about $15 million) campaign behind I-1107 is aimed not just at Washington voters, but at state legislatures across the country. Mess with us by raising taxes on our products, the soda pop and bottled water industry is saying, and we’ll respond with overwhelming force.
Ads for I-1107 make it sound as if lawmakers in Olympia hiked taxes on a wide range of grocery items. Not so. The initiative’s primary target is a narrow list of modest, temporary taxes on discretionary items — pop, bottled water and candy.
It was part of a reasonable response to one of the worst state budget crises in history. Budgets for education, health care, corrections and other state services were slashed as the recession caused dramatic drops in state revenue. College tuition rates shot up; at universities they jumped about 30 percent over two years.
At the same time, costs were rising as more people became eligible for assistance and school enrollments grew.
With billions in cuts and fund transfers already made, the relatively modest tax package of $800 million — which included higher cigarette taxes and a levy on services that I-1107 doesn’t touch — was justified. Approving the initiative would repeal $300 million of it at a time when the Legislature already faces billions more in cuts. It would force even more truly painful choices.
Now, we agree that the next Legislature must tackle the budget problem without further tax increases. State government must become smaller. Essential services must be identified and prioritized; many lower-priority services must be eliminated.
Doing so responsibly, however, will take more than a single session. Some services for the vulnerable will have to be phased out, simply on moral grounds. Department of Corrections cuts applied too quickly would be reckless. Higher education, an essential component of a long-term recovery, has taken more than its share of reductions already. The same can be said for public health programs.
Against that backdrop, is it really unreasonable to pay an additional 2 cents for a can of soda for the next three years, or to pay sales tax on bottled water and candy? We don’t think so.
The beverage industry, which has its own interests at heart, is spending a fortune to convince you otherwise.
The staggeringly expensive (about $15 million) campaign behind I-1107 is aimed not just at Washington voters, but at state legislatures across the country. Mess with us by raising taxes on our products, the soda pop and bottled water industry is saying, and we’ll respond with overwhelming force.
Ads for I-1107 make it sound as if lawmakers in Olympia hiked taxes on a wide range of grocery items. Not so. The initiative’s primary target is a narrow list of modest, temporary taxes on discretionary items — pop, bottled water and candy.
It was part of a reasonable response to one of the worst state budget crises in history. Budgets for education, health care, corrections and other state services were slashed as the recession caused dramatic drops in state revenue. College tuition rates shot up; at universities they jumped about 30 percent over two years.
At the same time, costs were rising as more people became eligible for assistance and school enrollments grew.
With billions in cuts and fund transfers already made, the relatively modest tax package of $800 million — which included higher cigarette taxes and a levy on services that I-1107 doesn’t touch — was justified. Approving the initiative would repeal $300 million of it at a time when the Legislature already faces billions more in cuts. It would force even more truly painful choices.
Now, we agree that the next Legislature must tackle the budget problem without further tax increases. State government must become smaller. Essential services must be identified and prioritized; many lower-priority services must be eliminated.
Doing so responsibly, however, will take more than a single session. Some services for the vulnerable will have to be phased out, simply on moral grounds. Department of Corrections cuts applied too quickly would be reckless. Higher education, an essential component of a long-term recovery, has taken more than its share of reductions already. The same can be said for public health programs.
Against that backdrop, is it really unreasonable to pay an additional 2 cents for a can of soda for the next three years, or to pay sales tax on bottled water and candy? We don’t think so.
The beverage industry, which has its own interests at heart, is spending a fortune to convince you otherwise.
Comments
(