Thomas Shapley has a very informative column in today’s Seattle P-I, giving a brief history of our antiquated 60 percent super-majority requirement for voter approval of local school levies, and the politics behind stalled efforts to get a constitutional amendment eliminating it, through the Legislature. [What, you thought it was about the schools?]
Democrats lack the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill through the Senate, and so far have been unwilling to accept an amendment that would allow simple-majority votes only when school measures are run in November general elections. Shapley suggests that the impasse may be due more to politics than policy.
Does the Democratic leadership really want to pass the legislation this session? It’s an issue that can cut both ways in some suburban swing districts, where broad support for schools tussles with deep opposition to tax increases. Which do Democrats judge more valuable — passing the measure, at a potential political price or retaining the political hammer of blaming Republicans for yet again blocking its passage?
Now contrary to what some of you may think, I’m no Democratic insider with a direct line to the party leadership, or wide-eyed radical, defiantly belting out The Internationale in the shower. So without having the opportunity to have those who know better convince me otherwise, the Hargrove amendment sounds like a compromise I can live with.
Apart from promoting the agenda of the knee-jerk anti-tax faction, there is really no good rationale for singling out school levies to be subject to an anti-majoritarian system. If the best the Democrats can get is the Hargrove compromise, than I say use the political hammer to nail this one home.
Education funding is too important to be dictated by 40 percent of the voters… or a game of legislative Stratego. This is one issue where legislators should be encouraged to let pragmatism trump politics.
But education lobbyists have told lawmakers that they’ve already compromised too much.
What? Seems like this is not important enough if compromise can’t be reached. Naturally, any time I hear of a lobbyist saying further compromise is not good, I tell my lawmakers to throw more compromises in.
marks @ 1 I truly appreciate your posts. Even though we are on the other side of the fence you post with thought and intelligence. Keep up your side of the ‘fence’ I am sure we will agree on several items. All the best.
Thank you jpgee, but are you sure you are feeling okay? Need to lie down for a little while? I’d offer you a bloody mary made Texas-style, but that may cause further discomfort. ;)
Marks… Bloody Mary, Texas-style? What’s that, Tobasco & Vodka?
As to lobbyists, their job isn’t to compromise, it’s to be an advocate for one’s clients’ interests first and foremost. Never forget that, and they can be useful. And who knows what political angle the education lobbyists are playing in all this?
Money does not make the schools go ’round.
My children attend Bethel Schools, notably not the best in the state. My daughter goes to Elk Plain School of Choice. It is a public school, funded by the same dollars as the rest of the schools in the district, no more, no less, yet the test scores are above even the local Christian Schools in the area. The scores are generally in the 80 to 90 percentiles. What is the difference between this school and the balance in the district ???? It’s parental involvement.
Parents are requested to volunteer 60 hours/year for kindergarten and then 20 hours/year 1st grade through 6th grade. If you have more than one kid, you only have to do one twenty-hour stint. The volunteer work can consist of weeding, paperwork, helping out with coaching, helping in the class room, cutting out stuff at home, baking cookies for bake-offs …PTA…etc, etc.
In my daughter’s kindergarten class, often times the class was too full with parents and at the PTA meetings it is standing room only. My son was not lucky enough to be chosen by lottery to attend Elk Plain, he attends Centennial.
At Centennial, they are desperate to get parents to attend the PTA, I am not sure they have enough to fill the officer spaces. I have gone there multiple times to assist in some way, the teachers there don’t know how to ask for help, they don’t know how to use parents to their benefit.
When I was in college, we did an econometric analysis regarding school funding and academic success in schools, guess what there was no correlation between money spent and success in schools, there was however a correlation between parental involvement and success in schools. I guess I have found evidence of that in the real world.
O.K. now let’s talk about wasted money in school construction. We recently passed a levy here to build a couple of new schools, and fix up some of the others that were literally falling down. The first school they built is beautiful, however, they could have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by building something with a more simple design. There were fancy rooflines, all kinds of aesthetically pleasing extras, all which could have been forgone. I have a friend who teaches in the Tacoma School District, she said that they do not reuse desks, chalkboards etc from a school they are tearing down for a new school they are building.
Yes, schools need funding. This is just an idea, but what if there was a two-tier tax system. In other words, the whole community pays some percentage of the cost of the schools, after all there are benefits that reach the community and then parents pay a premium directly to the school their child attends. Maybe then, parents will be concerned enough to pay attention to the education their child is getting. This doesn’t have to be a lot of money because imagine if schools got their money directly from the parents, without a percentage paying for offices in D.C and another portion paying for new carpeting for the governor’s mansion in Olympia and another portion going towards the superintendents vacation at the local level.
Obviously, it we should be concerned about those less fortunate, well maybe they could volunteer 20 hours a year at the school. Or utilize funds similar to those that pay for kid’s lunches.
bf: great post.
bf @5,
You hit on some important notes, and yes parental involvement is probably the best indicator of the success of a public school. I’d like to reply in depth, but you’ll have to wait, as I’m about to step out of the house so that I can spend the day being involved with my daughter.
I’ll get back to this discussion later.
Goldy,
You say: “Apart from promoting the agenda of the knee-jerk anti-tax faction, there is really no good rationale for singling out school levies to be subject to an anti-majoritarian system.”
There are two good reasons for the supermajority that is required to impose excess property taxes: limiting property taxes, and making it more difficult to shirk the state’s responsibility to provide a general and uniform public school system for all children in this state.
The limit on regular property tax levies wouldn’t be a limit, if it could be exceeded by a simple majority vote — and without that limit, taxes on property that doesn’t produce income (my home, for example) would tend to increase even more steeply than they did with the limit in place. (Total personal income in WA doubled over a period of about 20 years, while total property taxes tripled in that same period — leading to a little tax revolt in 1993-95.)
You believe that only the schools are subject to the supermajority requirement for approving excess property levies, but it is simply not true. (You have a lot of company: Every single simple-majority supporter is ignorant on this point — until I get a chance to hold them still for a few minutes and prove otherwise. It indicates just how little thought went into the forming of their opinions. It’s somewhat humorous that you are the ignorant one, yet you characterize your opponents’ views as “knee-jerk” — that is, reflexive reactions involving no thought at all.)
The supermajority requirement enforces a limit on property tax levies — and it applies to all gov’t entities (except port and utility districts, which are limited to whatever was in place when the constitution was amended in 1944).
If you want to fund schools with something other than an excess property tax, feel free to do so. But if you want to rely on an excess property tax, you must get a supermajority to exceed the limit on such taxes.
You and virtually all simple-majority supporters mistake the essential difference between funding schools with an excess property tax and funding the construction of a ball park with revenue from scratch tickets and a tax on rental cars, restaurants and admissions tickets. The difference is plain, but you act as though there is none. (Can you really not grasp the difference?)
If you believe that the constitution correctly assigns to the state legislature the responsibility to provide for a uniform system of schools for all children in the state, then you shouldn’t want reliance on local levies to increase.
The supermajority requirement is an obstacle to greater reliance on local levies.
So, the supermajority requirement serves two purposes: (1) preventing a greater shift of the burden onto local taxes to the detriment of children in areas which cannot afford a larger share of school costs; and (2) preventing a greater burden on property owners whose property (their homes, typically) are not income producing assets.
As an aside, do you think a constitutional amendment which requires excess levies to be placed only on the general election ballot would be obeyed? The law enacted by the legislature already requires it, except in the case of emergencies, but no one in the state obeys that law. (In this state, our government officials and employees seem to believe that laws are made to be broken.)
I’m usually a good liberal across the board, but do not support reducing the supermajority requirement for school levies. In Seattle, the only times these levies haven’t passed has been either because they were for needlessly grandiose building projects (the current “Building Excellence” levy took 4 or 5 times too pass – and is way over budget on a number of projects) or becuase the District(S) were performing like idiots financially.
Frankly, seeing how the Seattle School District pissed away literally tens of millions of unvoted funds on a shiny new HQ, I’m not inclined to make it easier to throw money at their problems.
And no, I don’t hate kids. FE – I think the legislature ought to get cracking on the voter-approved initiatives on teacher pay and class sizes.
Goldy,
If you want to play with my “aside” regarding the state law, read the statute I linked to above, then this one.
There’s nothing like saying two entirely different things in the laws dealing with elections. Our legislators seem to make it a habit. They lost track of what they’ve done long ago. (And these palookas are supposedly going to reform the mess they’ve made of the laws.)
I don’t support doing away with the supermajority requirement for local school levies, either. My reasons:
1. These levies are supposed to be for extras, not basic school funding. Making it easier to pass local levies simply makes it that much easier for the legislature to shirk its responsibility and push more basic funding onto local property owners.
2. The tyranny of the majority — just because 60% of the voters can afford higher property taxes doesn’t mean the other 40% can. It’s very easy for people who don’t own homes to vote for a tax they don’t have to pay. The danger here is they may be voting for something those who do have to pay can’t afford. As a retiree on a modest fixed income, I’m very concerned about this.
3. School districts which have been restrained and reasonable about their levy requests in the past won’t necessarily continue to be restrained and reasonable in the future if they can pass their levies with fewer votes. Human nature being what it is, it’s almost certain that at least some school boards and administrators will regard easier-to-pass levies as Christmas trees.
4. Not to mention the teachers unions, who are likely to try to skim any additional cream right off the top, at the expense of homeowners who can’t afford the higher taxes. I’m sorry, but I don’t think ALL teachers are underpaid. New teachers and young teachers are — seriously so — and I’m in favor of helping them with salary enhancements. But the top-scale folks in the Puget Sound metro school districts make close to 70K a year which in my view is hardly poverty. That’s more than I ever made as a lawyer. That’s more than most people paying property taxes make. These well-paid senior teachers have shown little regard for their poorly paid young colleagues at contract negotiation time or in their legislative lobbying. They’re mainly interested in lining their own pockets. I’m not interested in helping them do it with my money, especially money that I don’t have. While I’m a big fan of unions generally, and I do greatly appreciate the support (material, monetary, and volunteer) the techers unions give to Democratic candidates, the teachers aren’t innocent victims of an underfunded system and putting more money in their wallets won’t necessarily do a whit to make the schools better for our kids. And you can bet they’ll be first in the food line if levies are easier to pass, if their past behavior is any indication. I really hate to post this, because I AM sympathetic to most teachers most of the time, but my frustration with the particular brand of extortion practiced by SOME striking teachers has been slowly building up over many, many years. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.
5. There is no evidence that throwing more money at schools makes them better. Let’s invest more in our schools where it actually does some good. If our kids need new textbooks, then let’s pay the necessary taxes to buy the textbooks. But if we just give more money to schools, with no strings attached, chances are good it’ll go down a rat hole. It’ll go to hiring more administrators, expanding the education bureaucracy, or fattening the raises of those who award themselves their own raises. If you don’t earmark and guard every dollar, little if any of it will trickle down to the classroom, the teachers, or the kids. That’s how it works in every bureaucracy, and that’s how it works in school bureaucracy too.
6. Those things for which the schools legitimately need more money should be funded by the state, not local levies. That’s what the state constitution says, and that’s what the courts have said. Yes, I’m being redundant here to some extent, but the added point is that if public schools have sufficiently compelling unfunded needs in this world of limited resources, the preferred solution is the re-prioritize state spending, instead of just knee-jerk laying of more taxes on the peasantry. This is especially true in spades for as long as we continue to have a tax system that taxes those least able to pay.
Micajah @ 8 & 10
Excellent posts. As for excess property tax levy election dates, there is a reason why there are set in February. Let’s say the excess property tax levy will start being paid in 2006. Under the constitution (and relevant RCW’s), it has to be voted on during the 2005 calendar year. If it is put on the November ballot and rejected, then there is no later date in 2005 that it can be voted on. The school district (or other taxing district — same principles apply) would then have to go without any excess property tax levy revenue for all of the 2006 calendar year.
School districts don’t have any “regular” taxing authority. That is because the state is supposed to fund all K-12 educational needs uniformly throughout the state. The “excess” property tax levy provisions give a disproportionate advantage to childen in property rich districts, such as Seattle and Bellevue, and a significant disadvantage to children in property poor districts, such as most of eastern Washington.
I think they should abolish all local school district taxing authority. No more excess property tax levies. This will force the state to increase funding to all districts in a uniform manner, and provide justice to children in the poorer districts.
Are we all in agreement or is this just my imagination running wild?
The posts here so far, uniformly well stated, point to the same villian. The villian isn’t the supermajority requirement, it is the state’s tax structure. Initially a supporter of removing the supermajority requirement, I have come to see its removal as just another bandage on the stubbed toe of a badly bleeding body. The body needs to have major surgery, an overhaul of the tax system and a serious prioritizing of the state’s responsibilities.
Please take the time to visit a private school of your choosing. I happened to do so recently and I was amazed at what private faith-based schools can do with so little money. If these dedicated folks had even half the funds that we pour into public education (e.g., vouchers), the contest would be over. There would be no public schools left because the private schools out-perform, out-motivate, out-teach their public sector counterparts. If you want to see America regain an educational competitive edge, allowing parents to choose where education-related tax money is spent would certainly be the fastest, most effective method to achieve that goal.
Richard @ 12
If it is put on the November ballot and rejected, why should the school district get a do-over? If the voters say “no,” that should end the matter. I’m disgusted by this cynical game of making us keep voting until they get what they want.
FruitCake @ 15
The argument isn’t over sending kids to faith-based private schools instead of public schools. Anyone who wants to do that, has always been able to. I sent my kid to a faith-based private school for six years, and that was quite a few years ago. The voucher debate concerns whether taxpayer money intended for public schools should be diverted to private schools with no say in the curriculum nor accountability for how the funds are spent or whether the students learn. The answer to that is a resounding no.
I paid for my kid’s private-school education out of my pocket, and paid taxes for public schools at the same time. I’m now retired and no longer have school-age children, but I’m still paying taxes for public schools. Everyone pays the taxes that support public schools, and the public schools are open to all students, and all students attend free. This system has served our society extremely well. We would not have prospered or become a superpower without taxpayer-supported free public education. It is one of the key public policies that made America what it is today.
A voucher system that diverts tax money from public schools to pay for private education is exactly the same thing as taking money away from the University of Washington and giving it to a select group of students to pay their tuition at Harvard. It may be good for the parents who are relieved of the tuition burden, but it’s bad for every student who goes to UW instead of Harvard.
bf @ 5 and Fruitcake @ 15
No question but that parental involvment is very important, but do we abandon the kids whose parents won’t or can’t be involved? For these kids, the public schools may be the only hope they have for a better future.
Goldy @4
Tabasco is much too mild. Try habanero…
I understand what a lobbyist is paid to do, hence my comment.
RDC @ 18
No, we should never abandon those kids less fortunate. However, it’s time to try something new. If one parent or grandparent or aunt or uncle spent one-half hour per month at their kids school, I think you would be absolutely stunned at the difference it would make.
There are other ways to save money to put towards the kids education. 1. Abolish the Department of Education. 2. Build less expensive schools. 3. Cut down the administration costs. (There are a lot of school districts whose administrative costs consist of 40-50% of their total budget.) 4. Encourage parental involvement. 5. Weed out the teachers who just don’t care anymore, and give bonus money to those teachers who go above and beyond, who are creative and inspriring.
Folks, nice thread. I HAVE to come back daily now!
Just click on my name for my database on the K-12 levy issue. Make sure you read the stuff from Bob Hegamin & Fred Bucke – good work on both of their parts.
Nice comments Dubyasux, Micajah and to some extent Richard Pope.
And I agree w/ Goldy: Take the damn Hargrove compromise! I support that – and nothing else, because as Richard points out: That’s a one shot or not deal. The only way around that is to challenge the election.
Besides, you REALLY think it’d be fair for let’s say George Nethercutt to get ANOTHER try? And many of you who want this are from the same crowd that’s anti- a new gubernatorial general election anyway – food for thought…
BF @ 20 is onto something there. But, why stop at the Department of Education? We could also make flying much cheaper by cutting government costs and pumping some of the savings into “travel vouchers” for passengers.
1. Get rid of the FAA. It is a bloated monster. 2. build less-expensive airports, navigation aids, and communications infrastructures. Why build concrete runways when asphalt will do? 3. Get rid of expensive air traffic controllers (see point 4). 4. Encourage passenger involvement. Who needs professional air traffic controllers if we have 200 white-knuckled people watching out the windows looking for other aircraft? Have the FAA publish “Air Traffic Control for Dummies” just before they vanish, and then let volunteers staff the towers. If there are passengers with a couple hundred hours of Cessna time, let ’em act as co-pilot! The possibilities are endless. . . .
dj @ 20 Now you’re talkin! While a highly enjoyable read, it is a little misleading; the FAA is in place to regulate U.S. commercial space transportation, among other similar activities. (Key word commercial.)
But seriously why throw more money at education without streamlining their operations? It is estimated that local and state school entities spend 50%, more or less, of the money they are to receive from the Department of Education/Federal Government, just to get back those tax dollars that you paid back to our local schools. Would you accept a 50% loss on your personal investments? That 50% loss does not even include your tax dollars that are spent operating the Department of Education.
Don’t take my word for it, here’s what President Clinton said..
We cannot ask the American people to spend more on education until we do a better job with the money we’ve got now.
–President Bill Clinton,
Speech to National Governors’ Association,
March 27, 1996
Micajah,
No, I do not believe that only schools are subject to the super majority requirement for approving excess property levies… you are conveniently putting words into my mouth. What I believe is that school districts are the only local government entities that lack a regular levy component, thus being forced to rely on excess levies only. That is the basis of the claim by me and others that schools are singled out by this anti-majoritarian system.
You also fail to mention a rather significant limit on school levies, above and beyond local approval… that local levies are limited to 24 percent of the district’s levy base: the state and federal funding for the previous school year. (Some districts, like Seattle, are grandfathered in at a higher rate.)
I, for one, would not support raising the allowable percentage of the levy base, as it would reduce incentive to provide uniform funding statewide. But given the current lack of commitment from Olympia to fully fund basic education, local school districts should be allowed to raise the full percentage of the levy base, if that is what a majority of voters choose.
I also think your effort to deconstruct this issue is rather disingenuous. It’s all well and good for Republicans to talk about uniform funding for education… but then you oppose the sort of tax restructuring (i.e. an income tax) that would enable the state to fully fund K-12 education. Furthermore, to talk of rising property taxes in isolation is just plain misleading, as total state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income is has been falling for ten years in WA state. Indeed, property taxes as a percentage of personal income are only up slightly over the past ten years, and are well below thirty-year highs.
The Truth about Property Taxes in Washington State
Don @ 17
The college financial aid system is extremely generous to low-income and low-asset families. In a sense the system does rob UW to pay Harvard, by making it possible for the highest achievers to go to elite private schools IF they qualify for significant financial aid. Sort of a “brain drain”. I have 3 teenagers and am beginning to think I would be money ahead if I had just quit working about 5 years ago and spent every penny I had in order to qualify them for that “free ride” in college.
By the way, your post 11 was spot on. You make a lot of sense when you’re not venting or heaping dung on people. The most compelling argument for retaining the supermajority requirement is that it makes real tax reform in this state more likely to someday become a priority. If all of this finnagling with the tax structure continues, we’ll be stuck with our present regressive tax system for a longer time. Or worse, as Gregoire and the Demo Senate have demonstrated they have no problem with making it even more regressive.
Goldy @ 24
The democrats running this state have no support for real tax reform, either, as evidenced by the current budget proposals. This is their big chance and the best they can come up with is the same old regressive mish mash.
Comparing the tax burden to personal income makes no sense, it should be compared to the inflation rate. There is no logical reason why rising personal income means overall taxes should rise at the same rate. Look at all the income that came into this state during the dot com bubble in the late 90’s: that income has no correlation to a “need” for higher taxes.
Goldy,
When you defend your ignorance so doggedly, it makes it really hard to educate you.
I suppose I should be satisfied that you admit excess levies require a supermajority for approval no matter who asks for them — and that therefore school levies aren’t treated any differently. Please get your allies in the simple-majority crowd to admit the same and stop claiming otherwise.
I put no words in your mouth. These are your words, copied and pasted using modern technology: “…singling out school levies….” They aren’t “singled out,” and you know it.
Now you claim to have meant that school districts have no levy authority other than excess levies — but you fail to note that the regular property tax levy authority for the schools was assigned to the state, not the local districts.
School districts get the benefit of approximately a third of the regular property tax levy.
And, the districts in the poorest areas get the benefit of the levy collected in the richest districts, since the state collects from all and distributes to the local districts.
That’s better — yes better — than having a local levy which depends only on the local tax base.
You have the gall to claim that I failed to mention the levy lid imposed by statute — but that has absolutely no relevance to the constitutional limit on regular property taxes.
The levy lid can be — and has been — changed by statute. The court back in the 1970s said it sounded good to set it at 10 percent.
The selfish Democrat-controlled districts in the Seattle area fought tooth and nail to keep it from being taken down to 10 percent (to comply with the constitution’s requirement that the state provide for the common schools rather than relying on local levies for essential funding).
They succeeded in stopping the reduction in the levy lid by the mid-1980s. Then it started back up again. It was raised to 24 percent in the early 1990s.
Oh, and the those selfish Seattle districts don’t have to come down to 24 percent with the rest of us — their levy lids are higher, so they can do without state funding and thereby keep their wealth in their own neighborhoods rather than sending it via the regular property tax to the state for distribution to the poorer school districts.
“Let the devil take the hindmost!” That’s the motto of your neighbors and the simple-majority crowd.
“Disingenuous?” “Misleading?” You call me a liar — because you have no sound argument to offer in reply. I spoke of the increase in property taxes relative to income prior to the tax revolt of the 1993-95 period. You then say that taxes have declined in the past 10 years relative to income. Subtract 10 from 2005. What year does that take you to, dipstick?! What do you think a “tax revolt” is – a demand to pay higher taxes?!
Get lost, Goldy.
I’m no liar, and I don’t accept any such accusation kindly.
You’re not intellectually honest enough to carry on a worthwhile conversation.
zip @ 25
Thanks for the compliment! Of course, I always stand ready to throw dung when dung is due. Having been a parent of a college student, my impression is the “extremely generous” college financial aid system you describe is only good at putting students into debt. Our kid, as an adult living away from home and well beyond the age of parental support, had zero assets or income but still only got opportunities to borrow so I don’t know where all this free money is. What choice do Gregoire and the legislative Dems have, as long as the GOP is out there railing and wailing against a coherent and fair income tax? Until they get on board, options are limited to patching the existing Rube Goldberg lash-up. This doesn’t need a lot of brain work, all they have to do is agree our state should copy what 45 other states have done. It’s analogous to replacing the square wheels on our cart with round wheels after everyone else has figured out round wheels work better.
Micajah,
Perhaps you should re-read your own post before getting so huffy. You put words into my mouth, and then call me “ignorant” for supposedly saying them. So I explain my rhetoric for you and you respond with:
That’s right… we disagree on an issue, so you defend your own position by just calling me ignorant. Well that might play over on (u)SP, but it doesn’t here.
The issue here is local control over local school levies, and unlike every other local levy, the entire local school levy is subject to a super majority vote. You and I can argue the details of the statutory and constitutional framework of our levy system all we want, but what it all comes down to in the end, is that if a community wants a local school levy, they must get 60 percent at the polls, and I just don’t think that’s fair considering how important education is.
Oh… and to attack Seattle for being selfish over school funding is really to laugh! Where the fuck does all the support for higher taxes to pay for education come from? Seattle! Where is it blocked? In the rest of the damn state. You cannot possibly argue that urban King County doesn’t export state school levy dollars… and yet we’re the ones who are always fighting to pay more. Gimme a break.
And as to state tax trends… did you read the report I linked to? It includes references to all the source material. State and local taxes as a percentage of personal income are below the national average and well below the thirty year high. In fact, they have been relatively flat for twenty years.
Again, there you go putting words in my mouth again. I am not shy about calling people liars, and if that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. I said that it was disingenuous to deconstruct the tax system so that you could argue property taxes in isolation… and it was. And I felt that this line of argument was misleading… and it is.
In general, my response to you was rather respectful considering the way you to tried to belittle me as “ignorant”, by selectively interpreting my words to try to prove that I didn’t understand excess levies. And if you want intellectual dishonesty, I think your show of taking offense was a great example.
zip @ 26
“Comparing the tax burden to personal income makes no sense, it should be compared to the inflation rate. There is no logical reason why rising personal income means overall taxes should rise at the same rate.”
It makes no sense to compare it to the inflation rate, either, because that fails to take into account population growth. However, I don’t dispute the point I think you’re trying to make, which is that government spending shouldn’t be driven by how much politicians can squeeze out of taxpayers. Like the family budget, it should be based on what needs to be spent, limited to what’s in the cookie jar — although this is a rather sweeping generalization that involves potential definitional disputes. Then there’s the fact goverment is run by a committee process that’s not especially conducive to logic, and a substantial part of the electorate is being egged on by partisans and special interests who layer on thick gobs of ideology, rhetoric, and just plain bullshit. It’s not helpful when a sizeable political faction’s only contribution to the discussion is inflexible opposition to any and all taxes. How do you have a discussion with ideologues holding their hands over their ears?
Zip @26,
Growth in personal income is the economic measure that most closely tracks growth in demand for public services. The reasons are clearly explained and referenced in the Gates Commission Report.
And pragmatically, income is also the only measure of ability to pay.
Goldy,
Please I beg of you stop torturing me with Mr. Gates SR.!
The WA personal income rose markedly during the dot com bubble, due to capital gains, etc. That rise did not mean more govt. services are needed.