All of us in the Legislature are well aware of the challenges facing families in this difficult economy. As citizens have tightened their belts to live within their income, the message they sent in November is they believe government should be doing the same.

As the Legislature moves into the final week, the debate on how we spend the public’s money will be at the fore. I believe it’s not enough for the Legislature to pass a balanced budget. It must go further this year and adopt a responsible and sustainable state budget.

At the March 17 state revenue forecast, the public heard tax collections were $780 million less than expected. However, there was some very encouraging news: The revenue forecasted for the 2011-13 budget cycle increased by $3.85 billion, or nearly 14 percent, bringing total tax revenue to a record high of more than $32 billion.

On April 4, House Democrats proposed their spending plan, House Bill 1087, and held a public hearing three hours later, shutting out general public participation. Surprisingly, while the public at large had almost no idea what was included in the budget, many special interest groups knew exactly what was in it and were able to testify to its contents even as the document was still warm from the printer.

I received a briefing from non-partisan staff on the budget and here are the facts: While the majority party’s 2009-11 budget spends roughly $30.2 billion, their proposed 2011-13 budget beginning July 1, 2011 spends $32.4 billion. The budget is full of gimmicks like delaying payments for one day to avoid an expense in the current budget, one-time money transfers for ongoing programs and a scheme to lease our state’s liquor distribution center for a one-time payment of $300 million. The budget would also add $600 million in new program spending and raise fees, including tuition at our public universities, by $553 million.

Despite the spending increase, there are special interest groups demanding the Legislature “close tax loopholes” so government can spend even more.

These so-called “tax loopholes” would be more accurately described as “job-creating tax incentives” that help employers, employees and hard-working families. Without some tax incentives, which are approved by the Legislature and the governor, Washington would have missed out on family-wage jobs at Boeing, high-tech data centers, the Alcoa plant and others.

The call to close the tax incentive for elective plastic surgery seems to be more of a talking point than a real solution. The fact is we don’t tax any service. So, if we scrap this incentive, we have to tax every service business equally. I don’t think that’s a good job-creation strategy at a time when our unemployment is at 9.2 percent.

Additionally, those demanding removal of tax incentives haven’t told the public their proposal, Senate Bill 5857, would remove the tax preference for food. This would result in a $1.7 billion tax increase on Washington families. Further burdening families struggling to put food on the table is something I cannot support.

Citizens might be surprised to learn that those demonizing tax incentives have proposed an additional 23 this year. They include tax incentives for zoos, movies, minor league baseball stadiums and property tax relief for tribes. It begs the question: Why are there more “tax loophole” proposals on the table, when their message is that they are the cause of our state’s financial problems?

I understand these are difficult time for everyone, but I also know lawmakers must step up and lead in a way that has a positive impact on the future. That takes principled decisions to focus on priorities like getting Washington working again, compassion to care for our most vulnerable and a clear understanding that every dollar spent by government was first earned by a hard-working taxpayer.

Rep. Mark Hargrove, R-Covington, is serving his first term representing the 47th Legislative District. He serves as the assistant ranking member on the House Transportation Committee. He is also assigned to the House Education and Education Appropriations and Oversight Committee.