Opponents of Initiative 960 argue that it’s a deeply flawed, hopelessly vague measure that undermines representative democracy.
Our take is that while Tim Eyman’s latest anti-tax effort does have flaws, I-960 enhances government transparency and accountability. We think its strengths outweigh its relatively benign weaknesses, and recommend a yes vote.
Here’s what I-960 would do:
n Reaffirm that a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the Legislature is required for tax increases — a principle voters passed into law 14 years ago with I-601, and that lawmakers themselves have reaffirmed twice, despite their efforts to get around it.
n Prohibit the budget “shell game” lawmakers have played to get around I-601’s spending limits — shifting money among accounts and spending it twice. The Legislature actually barred itself from doing that in 2005, but Eyman argues that having the people do so is more likely to have staying power.
n Require lawmakers to vote on fee increases as well as tax increases, something long delegated to state agencies. Currently, the state budget office can’t even list all the various fees on the books, a distressing fact. Lawmakers need to get a handle on this, and Eyman has offered an effective way to do so. Fears that voting on fee increases will take too much time away from “more important” legislative matters, we think, are overblown.
n Force a non-binding public vote on any tax increase lawmakers approve that isn’t subject to a binding public vote. This is where we think the measure goes further than necessary. If a tax hike has at least two-thirds support in the House and Senate, and there isn’t enough opposition to get a citizen referendum on the ballot, it will still be subject to non-binding vote. That’s overkill. The law allows the Legislature to modify initiatives two years after they’ve passed. When that time comes, lawmakers should fix this flaw.
On an advisory vote, the voter’s pamphlet would list which lawmakers voted for and against a particular tax increase, along with their office phone number and e-mail address. Opponents call that intimidation; we call it accountability. I-960 also would require e-mail notification for citizens who request it anytime a tax increase is proposed or reaches a certain milestone in the legislative process, and require state forecasters to project the cost of the tax increase over 10 years. Opponents call that micromanaging; we call it a useful budgeting tool.
One of the opponents’ key arguments is that I-960 unnecessarily ties lawmakers’ hands; that in a representative democracy, lawmakers should be allowed to do their jobs, and if voters don’t like what they’ve done, they can register their displeasure at election time.
The problem is that lawmakers have skirted I-601 time and again, and tried to keep their shenanigans under the radar. Greater openness is called for, and I-960 will deliver it.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.