sgw Comments on I-1351

In a recent publication of “smarter government washington”, retired Attorney General and recent candidate for governor Rob McKenna raises an issue with I-1351.

“Because I-1351 does not include a tax to pay for its new spending, it looks like a positive policy without a tax increase. The reality will be very different.”

Taken on face value, that sounds like a good analysis. But, upon further reflection, it presumes that a citizen, seeing no funding mechanism, would infer it was a no cost item. With the media blaring daily about the huge cost of hiring all those additional staff members, what must we infer about a citizen who makes that inference. And, what must we infer about an argument against an initiative that presumes voters would make such an assumption.

McKenna goes on to suggest, “Please, study up on I-1351 before you return your ballot.” That is, indeed, good advice for any voter on any issue or candidate.

In this case, implementing the initiative will either require devoting 80% of all new state revenues to education (something McKenna proposed when running for governor) or passing a significant new tax to provide the needed revenue stream. Whether we do one or the other or some combination of both, it will require about two billion @ biennium.

That’s a substantial sum of money; one might even say a huge amount of money. But, we should not be surprised at the cost. We’ve ignored or avoided this issue for four decades and two different WA State Supreme Court’s opinion that found the state was not adequately funding its “paramount duty” and ordering the legislature to fund basic education. That’s an extended case of denial and resolving it will be expensive.