Latest news with #AssociationofWashingtonBusiness
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gov. Ferguson signs WA state budget with billions in tax increases into law
The Brief Gov. Ferguson signed a $77.9 billion budget, addressing a multi-billion dollar funding gap with new taxes and spending cuts. The budget introduces $4.2 billion in new revenue from increased taxes, despite concerns from business groups about higher consumer costs. Ferguson warns of potential federal funding cuts impacting the budget, with adjustments possibly needed before the 2026 session. OLYMPIA, Wash. - Almost a month after the 2025 legislative session adjourned, Gov. Ferguson signed lawmakers' two-year operating budget into law, capping a months-long process to close a multi-billion dollar funding gap. "This session, we made investments that are critical to Washingtonians," the Democratic governor told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "We also made hard, but I think fiscally responsible choices." Ferguson said the $77.9 billion budget for the next two years was one that balanced spending cuts, new investments and new taxes. The budget relies on about $4.2 billion in new revenue over the next two years, with the total coming out to nearly $9 billion over the four-year outlook. The money comes from increased capital gains and estate taxes, expanded sales taxes to services like IT support and temporary staffing andbumping up taxes on businesses. The new taxes come after the governor twice disagreed with fellow Democrats in the legislature about the amount of revenue they could bring in. "I was very clear with the legislature on bringing down what would've been significantly higher taxes, to put it mildly–down to what I think is a more balanced approach," Ferguson said. The governor said he used his veto powers to cut about $25 million in spending from the budget. While he only vetoed one portion of the revenue package around community banks, Ferguson acknowledged adjustments to the tax bills could be needed next session. "We've heard from a lot of folks these past few weeks," he said. "We're gonna make sure we have a lengthy conversation with folks on each of those revenue streams to make sure that there are not any unintended consequences." Business groups long argued the tax increases will ultimately be passed onto consumers through higher costs. Morgan Irwin, Interim Vice President for Governmental Affairs with the Association of Washington Business said the tax increases only add onto challenges coming from tariffs and trade threats from the federal government. "It exacerbates what was already going to be a difficult business environment by adding more costs on top of it and more uncertainty," he said. "So, in a trade-dependent state like Washington, this is really, really poor timing, really, really expensive, and really, really uncertain for businesses." Legislative Republicans criticized Ferguson for signing the budget and tax increases, believing the governor went back on his promises of affordability and fiscal responsibility. "The governor's actions have fallen short of his words," Sen. Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, said in a statement. "In January he said our state was unaffordable; by approving both the budget and tax increases today, he is making Washington even more unaffordable," she added. On the other side of the aisle, one Democratic legislator saw the revenue package's signing as a positive development for funding crucial state services. "It's another step down our path to modernizing our tax code to meet the needs of our 21st century economy and to better ensure Washington's high-grossing businesses and wealthy individuals share more equitably in funding the needs of our communities," Rep. April Berg, D-Mill Creek, said in a statement. With an updated revenue forecast due next month, Ferguson said he is "not optimistic" the state's financial situation will improve. He is also weary of federal funding cuts forcing lawmakers back to Olympia to change the budget before the 2026 session starts in January. Though he believes the spending cuts and maintenance of the state's rainy day fund in this year's budget will help them out. "The federal government could do something dramatic where we need to look at our situation," Ferguson said, pointing out 20% of the state's budget comes from federal funding. "That said, I feel we've done everything we could to prepare ourselves for that. The Source Information in this story came from Albert James, a television reporter covering state government as part of the Murrow News Fellowship program – a collaborative effort between news outlets statewide and Washington State University. Is Tacoma's Teekah Lewis cold case finally coming to a close? Here's what we know Nordstrom to go private after acquisition with family, Mexican retail group Marymoor Park announces 2025 summer concert series lineup in Redmond, WA Olympia, WA man dies at Grand Canyon after lengthy hike Washington raising price of Discover Pass To get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter. Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national news.
The Independent
04-04-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Unemployment benefits for striking workers being considered in Oregon, Washington
Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are considering whether striking workers should receive unemployment benefits, following recent walkouts by Boeing factory workers, hospital nurses and teachers in the Pacific Northwest that highlighted a new era of American labor activism. Oregon's measure would make it the first state to provide pay for picketing public employees — who aren't allowed to strike in most states, let alone receive benefits for it. Washington's would pay striking private sector workers for up to 12 weeks, starting after at least two weeks on the line. 'The bottom line is this helps level the playing field,' said Democratic state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, who sponsored Washington's bill. 'Without a social safety net during a strike, workers are faced with tremendous pressure to end the strike quickly or never go on strike in the first place.' But the bills are raising questions about how they would affect employers, especially amid economic uncertainties tied to federal funding cuts and tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. 'It's inappropriate to unbalance the bargaining table in a way that forces employers to pay for the costs of a striking worker,' Lindsey Hueer, government affairs director with the Association of Washington Business, told senators during a committee hearing in February. 'Unemployment insurance should be a safety net for workers who have no job to return to." So far only two states, New York and New Jersey, give striking workers unemployment benefits. Senate Democrats in Connecticut have revived legislation that would provide financial help for striking workers after the governor vetoed a similar measure last year. Benefits bills advance but face opposition The measures in Washington and Oregon have been passed by the state Senate of each and are now in the House. The Washington bill faces its final committee hearings on Friday and Monday. The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, pro-labor think tank in Washington, D.C., has studied the effects of giving unemployment benefits to striking workers and found it to be good for workers and employers alike, said Daniel Perez, state economic analyst for the organization. First, he said, lengthy strikes are extremely rare. More than half of U.S. labor strikes end within two days — workers wouldn't receive pay in those cases — and just 14% last more than two weeks. Second, the policy costs very little — less than 1% of unemployment insurance expenditures in every state that has considered legislation. Bryan Corliss, spokesperson for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace union, told The Associated Press that the big winners would be low-wage workers. 'If low-wage workers had the financial stability to actually go on strike for more than a day or two without risking eviction, we believe that would incentivize companies to actually come to the table and make a deal," he said. During a hearing in the Washington House labor committee last week, several Republican lawmakers tried to amend the bill to require striking workers to look for other jobs or to shorten the time covered from 12 weeks to four. The Democratic majority shot those ideas down. Republican Rep. Suzanne Schmidt said the bill might be good for workers, but it would hurt employers. 'We've seen instances of this with the Boeing strike last year for the machinists," she said. "We had 32,000 people on strike at the same time and if this had been in play it would have cost millions of dollars to cover those workers. Boeing did actually lose billions having the workers on strike for several months.' The Oregon bill, which also would make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits after two weeks, sparked a similar debate, both among Democratic and Republican lawmakers as well as constituents, with hundreds of people submitting written testimony. The state has seen two large strikes in recent years: Thousands of nurses and dozens of doctors at Providence's eight Oregon hospitals were on strike for six weeks earlier this year, while a 2023 walkout of Portland Public Schools teachers shuttered schools for over three weeks in the state's largest district. The Oregon Senate passed the measure largely along party lines, with two Democrats voting against it. On the Senate floor, Democratic Sen. Janeen Sollman said she worried about the effect on public employers such as school districts, which 'do not have access to extra pots of money.' Private employers pay into the state's unemployment trust fund through a payroll tax, but few public employers do, meaning that they would have to reimburse the fund for any payments made to their workers. Democratic Sen. Chris Gorsek, who supported the bill, argued it wouldn't cost public employers more than what they've already budgeted for salaries, as workers aren't paid when they're on strike. Also, those receiving unemployment benefits get at most 65% of their weekly pay, and benefit amounts are capped, according to a document presented to lawmakers by employment department officials. 'Unemployment insurance is partial wage replacement, so unemployment insurance in and of itself is not an additional cost to the employer," Gorsek said. 'In fact, the only way Senate Bill 916 would yield additional cost for what was already budgeted by the employer is if the employer decided to hire replacement workers.' ___
