
Democratic lawmakers push tax increases in hopes of balancing Washington's budget
Apr. 22—OLYMPIA — Faced with a looming deadline, the Washington Senate passed a trio of bills over the weekend that would raise the capital gains tax on financial assets above $1 million a year, close certain tax exemptions and expand the sales and tobacco taxes.
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and protecting the critical services on which our communities rely, as well as our long-term goal of reforming our outdated, unfair tax code."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

23 minutes ago
Michigan House Republicans sue the secretary of state over election training materials
KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Michigan Republicans are suing the battleground state's top elections executive over access to election training materials. The lawsuit filed Thursday is the latest escalation in a brewing dispute that began when the GOP took majority control of the state's House of Representatives last year. Since winning control of the chamber in the 2024 election, statehouse Republicans have repeatedly scrutinized the state's election processes and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026. The conflict comes as some state Republicans echo past false claims of election fraud in Michigan, which was a prime target of President Donald Trump and his backers after his 2020 election loss. Republicans on the chamber's Oversight Committee subpoenaed Benson in April, seeking access to training materials for local clerks and staff who administer elections, including access to the Bureau of Elections' online learning portal. Benson's office released some requested materials in response to the subpoena, but not all, citing cybersecurity and physical security concerns related to administering elections and the voting process. The office has said it needs to review the online portal for 'sensitive information" and make redactions. 'Since the beginning of this saga, Secretary Benson has asked lawmakers to let a court review their request for sensitive election information that, in the wrong hands, would compromise the security of our election machines, ballots and officials,' Michigan Department of State spokesperson Cheri Hardmon said in a statement Thursday. House Republicans say the goal of reviewing the material is to ensure clerks are trained in accordance with Michigan law. The House voted along party lines in May to hold Benson in contempt for not completely complying with the subpoena. The request for training materials originally came from GOP state Rep. Rachelle Smit, who has pushed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Smit is the chair of the House elections committee, which was renamed to the Elections Integrity Committee with the new Republican majority. 'Secretary Benson has proven she is unwilling to comply with our subpoena and Michigan law,' Rep. Smit said in a statement Thursday. 'She's skirted the rules and done whatever she could to avoid public scrutiny. It's become overwhelmingly clear that she will never release the training materials we're looking for without direction from a court." The lawsuit asks the Michigan Court of Claims to intervene and compel Benson to comply with the subpoena. 'The public interest is best served if the constitutional order of the State of Michigan is preserved and the Legislature can properly perform its duty to regulate the manner of elections in the state and, if deemed necessary, enact election laws for the benefit of Michigan residents,' the lawsuit says. Benson gained national attention for defending the results of the 2020 election in the face of Trump's attempts to undercut the outcome nationwide and in Michigan. Multiple audits — including one conducted by the then-Republican-controlled Michigan Senate — concluded former President Joe Biden won the state in 2020 and that there was no widespread or systemic fraud. Benson has remained a subject of GOP scrutiny this year. A Republican state representative introduced three articles of impeachment against Benson on Tuesday, and several of the accusations continue to cast doubts on the results of the 2020 election. With Democrats in control of the state Senate, it's unlikely the impeachment articles will result in a conviction.

32 minutes ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court ruling on reverse discrimination a no-brainer: Chuck Rocha
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected legal precedent that people in a majority group have a higher standard for proving discrimination. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha agrees with the high court decision. 'Discrimination doesn't say, 'Oh, you have to be black,' or, 'You have to be a woman,' or, 'You have to be gay.' … Discrimination means you're treating me different,' he says on 'CUOMO.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.