Posted on 03/17/2005 12:32:35 PM PST by truth49
OLYMPIA—Today the state's chief economist, Dr. Chang Mook Sohn, told lawmakers they will have an increase of nearly $1.7 billion to spend for the next budget. This 7.1 percent increase in revenue is more than double the rate of inflation projected for the 2005-07 biennium.
| 2003-05 | $23,231 |
| 2005-07 | $24,885 |
| Difference | $1,654 |
| 2005-07 inflation | 3.3% |
| 2005-07 revenue increase | 7.1% |
Including the $836 million ending fund balance the state is projected to have on June 30, 2005, state officials will have $25,721 million in available revenue for the 2005-07 budget. Under current law, this means the state is projecting a $614 million mandatory reserve for the 2005-07 budget.
I-601 expenditure limit
(All dollars in millions)
| 2005-07 I-601 limit | $25,107 |
| 2005-07 forecasted revenue | $24,885 |
| 2003-05 ending fund balance | $836 |
| Total 2005-07 resources | $25,721 |
| I-601 2005-07 budget reserve | $614 |
"Taxpayers have done their part and grown the economy by $1.7 billion for the next budget," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. "Now the governor and legislature need to step up to the plate and balance the budget within the $25.1 billion spending limit. A seven percent increase in revenue should be more than enough to satisfy their spending appetite."
"If state officials are truly committed to priorities of government, the budgets recommended next week will be prioritized within the $25.1 billion allowed by the voter approved spending limit," said Williams. "Tax increases should be off the table."
Lord knows cutting taxes is out of the question.
Someone divide 7.1 billion by the number of taxpayers in Washington and see what you get.
Oops, I meant 1.7 billion
Has giving it back to the tax payers ever crossed their mind.
$1.7 Billion / 6 million people as of 200 census (not tax payers, mind you) = $283.
PING
Crazy, they should give half of it back as a rebate. Keep the other half "just in case"
God forbid they consider giving it back and continue to find ways to lower the cost of government.
You watch, the lamestream press in WA will be trumpeting the "effective and disciplined leadership" of Fraudoire, and of how "the voters made the right choice" in electing (which they really didn't) Fraudoire instead of Rossi.
A surplus is overtaxation.
A deficit is overspending.
Absolutely not! What, are you nuts?
Hopelessly crazy i guess.
The idiots who run the show in Olympia apparently flunked math class. "Duh...let's see...if we spend a few million more, where will it come from? Duh...I know! The government."
What a bunch of lunatics we have down there. They just passed a bill giving five weeks of PAID leave for someone to go home and take care of family. Let's see - who will pay for that? Business owners? And we thought the USSR was Communist!
Like we'll see any of that on the Eastern side of WA....
Don't they still have to pay all those dems who cast the fake and fraudulant votes? That guy who bird-dogged the election office that so many folks gave as their home address probably is owed several million, alone. He faked, what? 200 - 300 votes!
No, but the flow of California refugees continues unabated. Uhall is offering special rates for anyone who will drive one of their rigs back to Califas.
I-601 intent section (current state law not withstanding Dem's efforts):
RCW 43.135.010
Findings -- Intent.
The people of the state of Washington hereby find and declare:
(1) The continuing increases in our state tax burden and the corresponding growth of state government is contrary to the interest of the people of the state of Washington.
(2) It is necessary to limit the rate of growth of state government while assuring adequate funding of essential services, including basic education as defined by the legislature.
(3) The current budgetary system in the state of Washington lacks stability. The system encourages crisis budgeting and results in cutbacks during lean years and overspending during surplus years.
(4) It is therefore the intent of this chapter to:
(a) Establish a limit on state expenditures that will assure that the growth rate of state expenditures does not exceed the growth rate of inflation and state population;
(b) Assure that local governments are provided funds adequate to render those services deemed essential by their citizens;
(c) Assure that the state does not impose responsibility on local governments for new programs or increased levels of service under existing programs unless the costs thereof are paid by the state;
(d) Provide for adjustment of the limit when costs of a program are transferred between the state and another political entity;
(e) Establish a procedure for exceeding this limit in emergency situations;
(f) Provide for voter approval of tax increases; and
(g) Avoid overfunding and underfunding state programs by providing stability, consistency, and long-range planning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.