Earlier this year our state’s Democrat-controlled Legislature decided one of the solutions to the budget crisis was to increase sales taxes on candy and bottled water, increase the excise tax on soda and increase Business and Occupation taxes for certain food processors. That decision originated in a backroom, and legislators had one day to vote with no public hearings or input from taxpayers.
On Nov. 2 the taxpayers get to have their say.
The Columbian recommends a “Yes” vote on Initiative 1107, which would repeal the tax increases. We do so for three reasons: our belief that an economic crisis is the worst time to increase taxes, the unpardonable secrecy that ushered these tax increases to reality, and the abject silliness nestled in the details of the legislation.
The timing
How any legislator can vote to increase taxes during a time of high unemployment, widespread business failures and record high home foreclosures is beyond us. But that’s what they did. By a vote of 52-44 in the House and 25-21 in the Senate, the Legislature burdened Washington taxpayers with a combined $300 million in new taxes over three years.
That injury was bandaged with the promise that the taxes are temporary. Promises, though, have this frightful way of dissolving into the oblivion of Olympia politics. The Washington Policy Center describes how the brittleness of promises is manifested in Referendum 52 on the Nov. 2 ballot. If R-52 passes, the bottled water tax would become permanent and the revenue used to pay off public construction bonds.
In the timing issue, there are other stakeholders beyond taxpayers and consumers. Ask our state’s food producers, beverage bottlers and grocers these two questions: Are you suffering during this economic crisis? And have these tax increases helped or hurt your recovery and survival efforts?
The secrecy
Jim Camden of the Spokesman-Review newspaper in Spokane described the Legislature’s special session earlier this year: “After spending much of the previous 28 days in backroom discussions about what mix of tax hikes was acceptable to a bare minimum in the House and Senate, Democratic tax leaders rather imperiously released a take it or leave it plan in a ‘conference’ committee and insisted there was really no need to hold public hearings because everything had been discussed. … No real reason to wait a full day before voting; not like anyone really needs to read it, let alone study it line by line.”
The silliness
As a result of this confusing and arbitrary legislation, a Snickers bar is taxable but a Twix bar is not. Marshmallow pieces are taxable, but marshmallow cream is exempt. Chocolate-covered raisins are taxable, but chocolate malted milk balls are not. Imagine the hair-pulling aggravation that grocers and other store owners have endured trying to enforce this law.
Our support of I-1107 is buttressed by a justifiable fear of the message sent to legislators should this measure fail. They would be told that the timing, the secrecy and the silliness doesn’t matter, that what they did earlier this year is permissible. Learning that, they will certainly feel justified in doing it again, more often and perhaps more egregiously.
Opponents of I-1107 warn that its passage would hurt schools, seniors and other vulnerable citizens. But these new taxes are not dedicated. The revenue goes to the general fund, with no stipulation that schools or senior citizens will benefit first.
The Columbian presents a pro-con package dealing with Initiative 1107, which can be found by clicking here.
