Taxes, the Economy and the Election

The defeat of I-1033 can be attributed to a number of factors. Earlier, I wrote that it looked like piling on. And I still think that had something to do with it. Even so, i suspect that had the initiative excluded local governments it might have picked up more support, possibly enough to pass.

Without doubt, the timing was off, as this good editorial in The News Tribune points out.

Washingtonians ... were looking at the condition of their state and local governments.

They’ve seen police protection and other vital local services threatened. They’ve seen the Legislature cut deeply into higher education and health insurance for the working poor. They’ve seen some convicts given Get-Out-of-Jail-Early cards and others freed from community supervision. They’ve seen the public schools squeezed.

Many voters, it appears, didn’t want to institutionalize this kind of distress as the new baseline for public budgets, which is precisely what I-1033 would have done.

That's likely right. But, more important as we look ahead, is this conclusion from the editorial.

Had [Democrats] put a revenue measure on the ballot, it almost certainly have failed.

There's a big difference between locking in a permanent revenue cap at low tide and accepting new taxes in a lousy economy. The Walla Walla Union-Bulleting takes an even stronger view editorially.

State lawmakers have done a poor job of guiding government through the current recession. They didn't reduce spending soon enough nor did they take action to slow the growth of government.

...we are convinced that while voters want education and other critical programs funded, they don't want new or higher taxes right now. The unemployment rate is up and even those with jobs -- good jobs -- are feeling the pinch.

So it looks to us as if voters are giving lawmakers another chance to get a handle on spending without raising taxes. 

Right.