Democratic lawmakers in move forward with tax increase plans in hopes of balancing Washington's budget
The legislation is part of a slate of tax increases Democrats unveiled last week as the state works to close an estimated $15 billion budget deficit.
As legislators released the new revenue plan last week, Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, vice chair for finance of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, said the proposals find "a balance to meet our short-term need of addressing the budget shortfall and protecting the critical services on which our communities rely, as well as our long-term goal of reforming our outdated, unfair tax code."
The bills passed the Senate this weekend along nearly party lines, with Republicans universally opposing the measures. Each bill the Senate passed this weekend received a hearing in the House Finance Committee on Monday morning and could be voted out of committee Tuesday.
The largest piece of new revenue is a bill Democrats say would "modernize" the state's sales tax and bring in a projected $2.9 billion over the next two years and $4.7 billion over four years. The sales tax would be expanded to cover software development and other information technology services. The state's tobacco tax would expand to cover nicotine pouches, such as Zyn.
Sen. Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo, said Saturday that the state's sales tax has not been adjusted to keep up with a shift from a goods-based economy to a services-based economy.
"The folks that can only afford to buy goods still pay, but the folks who can afford to pay for services increasingly are not," Liias said. "We are modernizing that with this bill."
A proposal to raise the capital gains tax on assets over $1 million and bring in approximately $282 million over the next two years and $561 million over four years also has found support among Senate Democrats. Sen. Claire Wilson, D-Federal Way, said the bill would "move us in the right direction towards tax fairness."
"The impact of the modifications of the capital gains and estate taxes will impact only a small portion of the wealthy people in our state," Wilson said.
The Senate also adopted a bill to repeal tax exemptions where the "public policy objective was not met" or the exemption is "legally obsolete." Sen. Jesse Salomon, D-Shoreline, said the legislation is "what responsible government efficiency looks like."
"A thoughtful and better result," Salomon said.
Among the exemptions targeted to be removed is one on the international business and occupation tax credit and the dentistry prepayment insurance premiums tax exemption. Tax exemptions listed to end in the bill were previously identified by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
Following Saturday's votes, Sen. Chris Gildon, R-Puyallup, the Senate Republican budget leader, said the three bills "are just part of the Democrats' effort to impose the largest tax increase in state history on the people of Washington."
Senate Republicans attempted to bring their budget proposal to a vote on Saturday , saying the state can adopt a balanced budget and fund major programs without new taxes. The effort failed.
"I realize our budget may not fully satisfy some of the special interests that are looking to the majority to deliver, but our plan respects the taxpayers — and with eight days left in this session, it also offers the surest way to finish our work on time," Gildon said.
Sen. Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, the Republican's assistant budget leader, said the revenue proposals supported by Democrats will "take more money from the people who can least afford to lose it."
With less than a week before the Legislature is set to adjourn, the House also is considering tax increases.
The House Finance committee heard four other tax proposals on Saturday, which include increasing the state's business and occupation tax, and could bring the proposals to a full vote Monday evening.
Still, it's unclear which of the proposals the Legislature will consider this week will ultimately make it over the finish line or how much they could raise. While Gov. Bob Ferguson has indicated he would not support an all-cuts budget, he has not said which tax he prefers, or how much new revenue he would support.
Ferguson previously proposed approximately $4 billion in spending cuts on top of roughly $3 billion in cuts identified by former Gov. Jay Inslee.
Citing concern over how the federal administration could impact the state, Ferguson released a statement on Thursday following the unveiling of the Democrats' revenue proposals that said in part that "raising $12 billion in taxes is unsustainable, too risky and fails to adequately prepare Washington state for the crisis that looms ahead."
Ferguson added that the Legislature had made "progress on key issues" in the updated revenue proposals.
"We will continue to work together to produce a budget that supports a strong economy, and the people of Washington," Ferguson said Thursday.
The Legislature faces a Sunday deadline to adopt a budget to avoid a special session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Beau Bayh and that 'incredible surname' reignite the hopes of Indiana Democrats?
Beau Bayh has reentered the chat. Bayh has been in Indiana's spotlight since he and his twin brother were born to a sitting Indiana governor: Evan Bayh. Their mom, the late former Indiana First Lady Susan Bayh, even gave a post-delivery interview from the hospital in 1995. Now, all grown up at age 29, some Indiana Democrats hope the younger Bayh is their best hope to regain a shred of the political power and relevance they had when the elder Bayh was in office. Beau Bayh isn't quite ready to share his plans, but he looks and sounds lately like he's about to run for political office here. Speaking to a room of about 175 Indiana Democrats down near French Lick over the weekend, Bayh spoke of standing up to the powers that be. Rebuilding the middle class. The broken bonds between the people and politicians. The Harvard graduate and U.S. military member told IndyStar he's currently moving back to Indianapolis from Bloomington, following his judicial clerkship for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But he signaled more could be coming soon. 'I'm going to take the next month or so to get settled,' he told IndyStar over text. 'But I'm sure of one thing: we need a change in our politics. More unity, less division. More progress, less partisanship. More elected officials who represent the public interest and not the special interests or themselves.' Meanwhile, speculation is high that he's considering waging a bid against Secretary of State Diego Morales, and if Bayh could make inroads for Democrats as they keep losing statewide elections. 'If you can get someone at the top of the ticket people are excited about, it's easier to ask people to write a check, knock on doors or go to this and that event,' said Greg Shufeldt, a University of Indianapolis political science professor, when asked about the prospect of Bayh running. 'Those are all good things for the Democratic party even if the on-the-ground reality makes it a tough fight for any Democrat.' Getting people excited doesn't appear to be out of reach for Bayh, if the reception at a recent Orange County Democratic Party event translates statewide. County Chairman Larry Hollan had to add two extra tables to the American Legion hall where Bayh served as keynote speaker on Aug. 15 due to an increase in ticket sales that he thinks was driven by interest in Bayh. 'They hung onto his every word,' Hollan said. 'You could hear a pin drop when he was speaking. He held the audience in the palm of his hand.' Bayh didn't make any announcements at the dinner, but did show up with two heavyweight supporters: his dad and Mayor Joe Hogsett. 'It was a mini reunion, you might say,' Hollan said. '(The elder Bayh) also felt welcome but … Beau was the star of the show.' Could Beau Bayh turn around Democrats' chances in Indiana? Even for a Bayh, running for a statewide seat in Indiana is going to be an uphill battle, according to political analysts contacted by IndyStar. The fundamentals of the state are just so heavily tilted against Democrats at this point, said Shufeldt. 'Our politics have become increasingly nationalized and candidate attributes, including last name, matter less and less,' Shufeldt said. 'The letter for the party after your name tends to matter a whole lot more. Devoid of anything specific to his candidacy, any Democrat faces an intense uphill fight.' Democrats thought state races could be close, but Republicans clobbered. What happened? Shufeldt said that, on paper, Democrats have run some good candidates recently. All got handily defeated electorally. Republicans haven't won a statewide race since U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly squeezed out a win against Richard Mourdock in 2012. 'Evan Bayh lost quite comfortably to Todd Young, and I think people thought that would be a lot closer,' Shufeldt said, harkening back to the 2016 U.S. Senate race featuring Beau Bayh's dad. Still, Republicans have seemed eager to pounce on Bayh's candidacy. "The guy seems genuinely nice and I appreciate his military service… but this is the secret weapon we've heard about for 6+ years that's going to save the Indiana Dems?" state Rep. Kyle Pierce, R-Anderson, posted on X after Bayh's recent appearance on a liberal podcast. "Bayh barely wants to talk policy, avoids sharing his ideological beliefs and barely shares any vision of public service besides his personal desire to do it." 'Incredible surname' A win for a Democrat statewide now would require a fortuitous confluence of events for the candidate, Shufeldt said. 'It's a lightning in a bottle thing,' he said. However, University of Indianapolis political science professor Laura Merrifield Wilson said Bayh has some key advantages that other Democratic candidates would lack, including that 'incredible surname.' 'You're talking about a great legacy in terms of public service,' Wilson said. 'It's hard not to think 'Evan' and 'Birch.'' Along with that name ID comes access to fundraising, polling and public relations resources that other startup candidates would have to work harder for, Wilson said. Bayh could have access to an impressive war chest right off the bat if his dad is feeling generous: Evan Bayh's Senate campaign committee had about $2 million in the bank as of June, according to FEC records. Federal candidates are permitted to donate to statewide candidates subject to state law. 'It's all of the mechanisms you'd need to have a successful campaign,' Wilson said. 'He'd have a foot in the door to begin that first step. It would be a really good strong start.' Questions about his candidacy remain though, Wilson said. Namely around policy. The younger Bayh is largely undefined. Is he a centrist Democrat like his dad or does he lean more progressive? 'I do wonder policy-wise what he has to bring to the table,' Wilson said. 'That's really the struggle to find what their niche is to attract Hoosier voters. I don't know what he has to offer in terms of that.' Contact senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo at hcolombo@ or follow her on X @hayleighcolombo. Sign up for our free weekly politics newsletter, Checks & Balances, by IndyStar political and government reporters. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: 'Incredible surname': Can Beau Bayh help Indiana Democrats finally win? Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval holds at 40%, lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's approval rating held at 40% in recent weeks, matching the lowest level of his current term, amid weak ratings from Hispanic voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. The six-day poll was conducted as economic data showed signs the U.S. labor market is weakening and as Trump oversees a sweeping immigration crackdown, while at the same time the Republican has been engaged in intense diplomacy to end a war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump's approval rating was unchanged from a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll, but has dropped seven percentage points since his first days back in the White House in January, when 47% of Americans gave him a thumbs-up. The latest poll showed Hispanics, a group that swung toward Trump in last year's election, have also soured on the president. Some 32% approved of his performance in the White House, matching their lowest level of approval for Trump this year. More: Trump approval rating round-up: Where does president stand in recent polls? More than half of respondents -- 54%, including one in five Republicans -- said they thought Trump was too closely aligned with Russia, even as he ramped up a push to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump has appeared to embrace Russia's claim that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia in order for the war to stop. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, and the poll closed just ahead of the president's meeting on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Just 42% of respondents approved of Trump's performance on crime and 43% thought he was doing a good job on immigration policy. On all policies, Trump's support came overwhelmingly from Republicans. After returning to the White House in January, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown on people living in the country illegally, deploying masked agents to arrest and deport migrants across the country. The policy has triggered mass protests in cities including Los Angeles, where about half the population identifies as Latino and many people have family members who are recent immigrants. More: What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular More recently, Trump ordered federal agents and National Guard troops to aid in law enforcement in Washington, D.C., arguing that crime was rampant there. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and online and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
