Countywide fire and police leaders convene in outcry against bill to divert some county taxes to city
The bill, sponsored by Spokane Reps. Timm Ormsby and Natasha Hill, democrats, is the latest in a yearslong saga between the county 911 dispatch system , or SREC, and the city of Spokane. Two weeks ago, the former cut negotiations with the city to have Spokane Police join the regional dispatch service, currently the only first responders in a separate city-run system. SREC receives all calls in the county, but transfers those intended for city police.
The bill would divert a portion of taxes collected by the county to fund SREC to the city, based on a formula factoring the number of calls SREC receives for city police. At present, funding is based on population rather than call load; the city represents 42% of the county's population and 55% of SREC's call volume, according to SREC Communications Manager Kelly Conley.
Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels and Spokane County Fire District 3 Chief Cody Rohrbach each took issue with the premise of the bill to funnel taxes into the city and its scope. It's narrowly tailored to only apply in this situation in Spokane County, though Legislators from across the state would be voting on the bill.
"We can't ask the rest of the county to disproportionately cover financial for (the city); it's really not fair. It's not even sustainable," Rohrbach said. "For years, our 911 tax dollars have been distributed fairly across the state based on population."
In an interview two weeks ago, Hill said the county should be supporting the city, since that's where the largest concentration of people lives.
"What we have here is a city and state working together and letting the county know they can do more," Hill said at the time.
The bill is scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. at the State Capitol, and can we watched online via TVW.
Elena Perry's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
He lost his wife to Trump's immigration crackdown — here's why he still backs Trump
A month after President Trump took office, Brad Bartell's wife, Camila Muñoz, was arrested by ICE. A Peruvian immigrant, she had overstayed a work-study visa years earlier. But after marrying Bartell, she applied for legal status, and her case was under review when they flew to Puerto Rico for their honeymoon. They thought it was safe to travel within U.S. territory while her application was pending. They were wrong. You may have read their story. As they returned, Muñoz was detained under the newly inaugurated Trump's new executive order, which empowered federal agents to arrest and remove anyone lacking documentation, regardless of circumstances. She spent 49 days in a Louisiana detention center while Bartell, back in Wisconsin, scrambled to work with lawyers and prove her ties to the community. 'It was tough,' he told me. 'I was missing a piece … [There was] a lot of extra stress.' And yet, Bartell doesn't regret his vote for Trump and still supports the president. That may seem baffling. Why keep supporting a politician whose policies disrupted your own marriage? But that kind of critique assumes there's only one 'right' reason to vote for someone — and it's usually not the one people like Bartell have in mind. For years, the press has seized on such contradictions in Trump supporters' lives. These voters are often portrayed as punchlines: too loyal, too misled, or too blind to see how their preferred policies come back to bite them. Sometimes, the claim is that their support stems from spite. One recent Hill opinion column argued that 'Trump voters are okay with suffering, as long as other people hurt more.' By 'other people,' the author meant Black Americans — citing white farmers who supposedly don't mind the sting that tariffs put upon them because of the perceived harm to Black farmers. There was no polling, no quotes, no evidence — just conjecture and sweeping generalizations to assume the worst motives. In my conversations with Trump-supporting white farmers, they have acknowledged the pain caused by tariffs but said they understood Trump's reasoning: to hold countries accountable for unfair trade practices. Many also appreciated the subsidies they received to offset the impact. Bartell has heard similar assumptions about Trump supporters. 'If you support Trump, it makes you racist — or a lot of other nasty things,' he said. 'But you can't really understand somebody you don't know personally.' Bartell doesn't see himself as voting against his own interests. 'Of course you aren't going to agree all of the time with the way things are done,' he said. 'But Trump is taking action, which is better than nothing.' He believes the immigration system was broken long before Trump. His wife's detention raised questions for him — but not so much about the man in the White House. The idea that voters should cast their ballots based solely on immediate personal gain is not only simplistic but it is also inconsistently applied. When a billionaire supports a Democrat who wants to raise taxes, he is praised as principled and civic-minded. When a working-class Trump voter backs a policy that might hurt him personally, he is mocked. Why is one seen as virtuous and the other as foolish? And this goes far beyond immigration. Trump's proposed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes cuts to Medicaid, threatening coverage for many Americans—including some of his own voters. In rural areas, where hospitals depend on Medicaid, Trump supporters could lose access to care and safety-net programs. These cases are often used as proof that voters don't know what's good for them. But maybe they reflect something else entirely. 'Self-interest' isn't objective or universal. Some voters care more about law and order, cultural preservation, or a sense of national purpose than they do about how government can directly improve their personal situation. Is that really less rational than voting to raise your own taxes for the greater good? That's how Bartell sees it. For him, Trump's immigration crackdown brought short-term pain for himself and his wife — but it didn't invalidate the broader reasons he supports the former president or his immigration policies. Bartell told me that even during the hardest moments, no friends or family challenged his political views. 'They may not have agreed entirely,' he said, 'but there was no challenge in mature conversations.' And he's not alone. Other Trump supporters have stood by him despite being caught in the consequences of his policies. One headline read, 'Detained in immigration raids, MAGA mom still has faith in Trump's mass deportation plan.' Another: 'Husband refuses to take down Trump flags after wife detained by ICE.' These stories rarely get beyond a surface-level analysis, because the details complicate the caricature. Mocking these voters sends a message that only some values matter, and only certain types of sacrifice are valid. Muñoz is home now, and life has returned to something closer to normal. But the experience hasn't shaken Bartell's support for Trump. 'Humans are complex,' he said. 'Everyone's reasons and situations [for supporting a candidate or policy] will be different.' He's right. And if we took that complexity seriously, we might begin to understand each other a little better.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's big bill is powering his mass deportations. Congress is starting to ask questions
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House's border security and mass deportation agenda. By summer, Congress delivered. The Republican Party's big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what's arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget. The staggering sum is powering the nation's sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump's promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases. 'We're getting them out at record numbers,' Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. 'We have an obligation to, and we're doing it.' Money flows, and so do questions The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses. And it's not just the big bill's fresh infusion of funds fueling the president's agenda of 1 million deportations a year. In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said. 'Your agency is out of control,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring. The senator warned that Homeland Security would 'go broke' by July. Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget. But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an 'indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,' often without approval from Congress. This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump's long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall. 'We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,' the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows. 'We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department's plan to disburse OBBBA funding," they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee 'to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated" through the new law. 'ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,' she said. 'This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.' Deportations move deep into communities All together, it's what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants. The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a 'whole of government' approach. 'They're orienting this huge shift,' Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves "inward." The flood of cash comes when Americans' views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a 'good thing' for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now. At the same time, Trump's approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March. Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S. A new era of detention centers Detention centers are being stood up, from 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new 'Speedway Slammer' in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador's notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond. Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the 'worst of the worst,' and he dismissed as 'garbage' the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status. 'There's no safe haven here,' Homan said recently outside the White House. 'We're going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he'd do.' Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were 'begging for money.' As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size. But Paul's proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.
Fox News
02-08-2025
- Fox News
'Was the president up for the job?' Steve Ricchetti defends Biden's fitness as GOP seeks answers
Steve Ricchetti was the gatekeeper for former President Biden. But House Republican investigators hoped Ricchetti was the key to unlocking answers about Mr. Biden's cognitive state when he was commander in chief. The House Oversight Committee summoned Ricchetti for a closed-door deposition recently. Ricchetti worked for President Clinton, was Biden's top aide when he was Vice President and served as a key advisor in the Biden White House. He frequently visited Capitol Hill as President Biden and Congressional Republicans negotiated a debt ceiling pact in the spring of 2023. "What's your message to the committee today?" yours truly asked Ricchetti when he materialized on the third floor of the Rayburn House Office Building for a voluntary, transcribed interrogation. "I'm not going to say anything on the way in. I'm just going to go in and give an interview," replied Ricchetti. "Was the President up for the job?" I inquired. "Of course he was," answered Ricchetti. "Of course he was." In a statement, Ricchetti conceded that former President Biden "occasionally stumbled." But he argued the former president was fit for the job. Ricchetti added that no one "usurped President Biden's Constitutional duties." In their inquest, Republicans have specific questions about the former President's use of the autopen and about legal documents bearing Mr. Biden's signature. "Who was signing any of these documents and who was running the White House?" asked Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., on Fox. "That's the biggest, weirdest scandal probably in American history since Woodrow Wilson's wife was running the White House." That refers to First Lady Edith Wilson. Historians generally believe that she took over day-to-day executive functions after President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke. "Anything that had the force of (law) that was signed by autopen should be null and void," argued Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, on Fox Business. Unlike Ricchetti, three other Biden figures have ducked questions when summoned for closed-door interviews. The Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for former Biden administration aide Annie Tomasini, former Jill Biden aide Anthony Bernal and the President's former physician, White House doctor Kevin O'Connor. All three invoked the Fifth Amendment during their sessions before the House Oversight Committee, declining to answer questions. "I think the real witness is the doctor. And unfortunately, he took the Fifth," said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. Marshall himself is an OB-GYN. "A doctor certainly has an obligation ethically to protect (a patient) for privacy. But the needs of the country – the national security issue, legal issues – trump that relationship as well," said Marshall. Democrats contend Republicans are flailing in their probe of the former President. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., believes the GOP should focus on the economy and affordability issues. "Message to House Republicans," declared Welch. "You won the election. I mean, I'm not quite sure why they want to waste time on this." "He's not the president," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., of former President Biden. "I think we really should just move (on)." Fetterman himself faced questions about his health after suffering a stroke during his 2022 campaign and hospitalization for depression after taking office as a senator in 2023. But Republicans contend the Biden investigation is critical. Former President Biden's medical state isn't clear, although the public saw his performance in the debate last June. Republicans insist their probe is about figuring out what to do if a future President struggles cognitively. "What we're doing today is setting sort of a template for the future," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "How can we make it better? Because it's a Democratic President today. It may be a Republican President tomorrow." It's not just a challenge for the presidency. But for lawmakers, too. In recent years, Capitol Hill has witnessed uncomfortable, steady declines of late Sens. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Kay Granger, R-Tex. "Hopefully all of us make the right decision when it's appropriate," said Welch. "And we have people around us to do the right thing." Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., is one of the most conservative, politically pragmatic Democrats in the House. She represents a district President Trump carried three times. And even though Sens. Patty Muray, D-Wash., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., routinely win statewide, they fail to carry Gluesenkamp Perez's district. Gluesenkamp Perez bested GOP nominee Joe Kent - for a second time – by four points in 2024. The 36-year-old Gluesenkamp Perez introduced a plan requiring cognitive standards for persons to serve in the House. The House Appropriations Committee rejected her amendment late last month. However, there are Constitutional and legal problems with imposing a cognitive exam on prospective lawmakers. Article, I, Section 5 of the Constitution says the House and Senate "may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So, it's possible the House or Senate could impose a "rule" dictating a test. The same part of the Constitution says each body may judge "the qualifications of its own Members." But imposing an additional provision for eligibility to serve could be extra-constitutional. For instance, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says House Members must be at least 25-years-old, have been a citizen for seven years and reside in the state from which they were elected. A senator must be 30, a citizen for nine years and live in the state they represent. However, heaping another mandate on top of that is a problem. This is why the Supreme Court found term limits to be unconstitutional. An additional "rule" – such as how long one can serve – introduces an extra qualification not outlined in the Constitution. That's why the Supreme Court ruled against term limits proposals. It's likely the High Court would follow suit with additional stipulations to serve in Congress. Moreover, installing an acuity credential holds the potential to undo the will of the voters. Late Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, D-N.Y., faced ethics issues in the late 1960s. Voters re-elected Powell in 1966. But the House refused to seat him. Powell sued. In Powell v. McCormick, the Supreme Court found that the House didn't have the right to exclude Powell. The High Court argued that the House's refusal to seat Powell wasn't Constitutional since it placed additional conditions on his service in Congress. There's no easy solution on how to handle an impaired President or lawmaker. It is often said Congress simply reflects the rest of the country. There are cognitively-diminished persons serving in every walk of life in the U.S. And that's a reality for those in government, too.
