Article
Will the Real Republicans Please Stand Up?
And they did, 11 of them.
In a 33-14 vote today, eleven Republicans (and three Democrats) voted 'No' on a $30 annual user fee to access state-run parks. The purist GOP position on fees is that they are tax increases in disguise (and so, should have to meet the two-third requirement.)
Fees are charges on specific activities earmarked to pay for related services—a liquor license fee may go to pay for alcoholism programs— as opposed to taxes that go to the general fund.
Earlier this session, however, state senate GOP leader Sen. Mike Hewitt (R-16, Walla Walla) said he supported certain fees, including the parks fee, explaining, "If people want to use those services and they’re paying for that option, it stabilizes our government and keeps us moving forward."
And indeed, nine Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass the bill today and send it to the house. But 11 purists did not.
[pullquote]The Democrats, of course, don't want to sue because it looks bad politically. But heck, an angry outdoorsman who wants to use Washington's parks?[/pullquote]
In addition to the "no taxes" mantra, the other reason Republicans might want to block the bill is this: A park user who also thinks a fee is a tax might get mad and take the $30 price tag to court. And voila: Suddenly the larger concept, the two-thirds requirement, will be in front of the courts. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know for sure that the two-thirds requirement is unconstitutional, but the GOP might not want to go there. The Democrats, of course, don't want to sue because it looks bad politically. But heck, an angry outdoorsman who wants to use Washington's parks?
By the way, the three Democrats who voted against the fee were Sens. Steve Hobbs, Jim Kastama, and Tim Sheldon, fiscal conservatives who typically side with the GOP.
The nine "real" Republicans are: Sens. Michael Baumgartner, Jeff Baxter, Don Benton, Jerome Delvin, Doug Ericksen, Janea Holmquist Newbry, Jim Honeyford, Curtis King, Bob Morton, Cheryl Pflug, and Pam Roach.
Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-42, Ferndale) ask pointedly: "The first thing we do when there's a budget crisis is to shut down the parks unless people pay for them?"
Ericksen says parks are a core state responsibility and this debate raises larger issues of what the state should or shouldn't be funding. He points out that there's still $1.8 million in the budget for a greenhouse gas study. "Why don't we use that to pay for parks?"
Ericksen, like Hewitt, says "Republicans tend to support user fees, but the difference with state parks is that our taxes currently pay for those, and we don't want some people who can afford it to have access while low-income people can't."
In a 33-14 vote today, eleven Republicans (and three Democrats) voted 'No' on a $30 annual user fee to access state-run parks. The purist GOP position on fees is that they are tax increases in disguise (and so, should have to meet the two-third requirement.)
Fees are charges on specific activities earmarked to pay for related services—a liquor license fee may go to pay for alcoholism programs— as opposed to taxes that go to the general fund.
Earlier this session, however, state senate GOP leader Sen. Mike Hewitt (R-16, Walla Walla) said he supported certain fees, including the parks fee, explaining, "If people want to use those services and they’re paying for that option, it stabilizes our government and keeps us moving forward."
And indeed, nine Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass the bill today and send it to the house. But 11 purists did not.
[pullquote]The Democrats, of course, don't want to sue because it looks bad politically. But heck, an angry outdoorsman who wants to use Washington's parks?[/pullquote]
In addition to the "no taxes" mantra, the other reason Republicans might want to block the bill is this: A park user who also thinks a fee is a tax might get mad and take the $30 price tag to court. And voila: Suddenly the larger concept, the two-thirds requirement, will be in front of the courts. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know for sure that the two-thirds requirement is unconstitutional, but the GOP might not want to go there. The Democrats, of course, don't want to sue because it looks bad politically. But heck, an angry outdoorsman who wants to use Washington's parks?
By the way, the three Democrats who voted against the fee were Sens. Steve Hobbs, Jim Kastama, and Tim Sheldon, fiscal conservatives who typically side with the GOP.
The nine "real" Republicans are: Sens. Michael Baumgartner, Jeff Baxter, Don Benton, Jerome Delvin, Doug Ericksen, Janea Holmquist Newbry, Jim Honeyford, Curtis King, Bob Morton, Cheryl Pflug, and Pam Roach.
Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-42, Ferndale) ask pointedly: "The first thing we do when there's a budget crisis is to shut down the parks unless people pay for them?"
Ericksen says parks are a core state responsibility and this debate raises larger issues of what the state should or shouldn't be funding. He points out that there's still $1.8 million in the budget for a greenhouse gas study. "Why don't we use that to pay for parks?"
Ericksen, like Hewitt, says "Republicans tend to support user fees, but the difference with state parks is that our taxes currently pay for those, and we don't want some people who can afford it to have access while low-income people can't."
