Opinion: The Path to Real Tax Reform Requires a Spending Limit

Washington Policy Center director argues constitutional spending caps would force real budget tradeoffs instead of endless tax increases.

Apr. 9, 2026 at 10:11pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A serene, cinematic painting of a government building or legislative chamber, with warm sunlight streaming through the windows and deep shadows across the facade, conveying a sense of contemplation and the weight of political decisions.A pensive, nostalgic view of the state capitol building reflects the ongoing debate over the role of government spending and taxation.Olympia Today

The director of the Washington Policy Center argues that real tax reform in Washington state requires a constitutional spending limit tied to population growth and inflation. He says the state's current approach of raising taxes to fund growing government spending is unsustainable and avoids the difficult tradeoffs necessary for meaningful reform.

Why it matters

Washington state has seen a rapid increase in government spending and taxes over the past decade, with new taxes like the capital gains tax, long-term care payroll tax, and a proposed income tax. However, the state's tax code remains regressive, and budget deficits continue to grow. The author argues that without a durable spending limit, the legislature will continue to raise taxes to fund growing expenditures without making the tough choices required for real tax reform.

The details

The author argues that a constitutional spending limit tied to population growth and inflation would force the legislature to make tradeoffs about what the state's existing revenue should pay for, rather than just raising taxes to cover growing expenditures. He points to Washington's experience in the 1990s, when a statutory spending limit led to the state falling from 9th to 32nd in per capita tax burden, while still funding core services. However, the legislature repeatedly suspended the spending limit, and it was ultimately struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2013. Since then, general fund spending has more than tripled, even as inflation and population growth have been much lower.

  • In 1993, voters approved Initiative 601 which limited biennial spending to population growth plus inflation.
  • In 2013, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the statutory supermajority requirement for tax increases was unconstitutional, effectively ending the spending limit.
  • General fund spending has increased from $25.6 billion in 2013-15 to a projected $80.2 billion in 2025-27, more than a 50% increase in real per-capita spending.

The players

Ryan Frost

The director of the Centers for Budget and Tax Policy at the Washington Policy Center.

Washington Policy Center

A public policy research organization based in Washington state.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Progressive lawmakers in Olympia have been talking about tax reform for years, and the conversation always comes back to the issue of fairness. We constantly hear that the tax code is 'regressive,' that low-income families 'carry the burden,' and that wealthy residents 'don't pay their share.' This selective definition of fairness measures just the percentage of a person's income that is taxed, while deliberately ignoring the total tax burden funding government – which, in Washington state, is growing at a breakneck pace.”

— Ryan Frost, Director, Centers for Budget and Tax Policy, Washington Policy Center

“The spending limit ended in February 2013 when the Washington Supreme Court ruled in League of Education Voters v. State that a statutory supermajority requirement for tax increases violated the state constitution's simple majority requirement for passing legislation. The court was clear that if Washingtonians wanted a durable supermajority requirement, it needed to be in the constitution. The legislature never referred that question to voters, and the spending limit was killed.”

— Ryan Frost, Director, Centers for Budget and Tax Policy, Washington Policy Center

What’s next

The Washington legislature would need to refer a constitutional amendment to voters to establish a durable spending limit tied to population growth and inflation. Voters would then need to approve the amendment.

The takeaway

Without a binding spending limit, the Washington legislature will likely continue to raise taxes to fund growing government expenditures, avoiding the difficult tradeoffs necessary for meaningful tax reform. A constitutional spending cap could force the legislature to prioritize spending and make tough choices about the role and size of government.