March 28, 2025 • 31 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Shauna Sowersby discuss:
🌟 Frank Chopp’s legacy
💰 Senate & House budget proposals
📜 Parents’ Bill of Rights initiative
🧯 Natural gas initiative ruled unconstitutional
🚈 Dow Constantine nominated for Sound Transit CEO
Â
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Shauna Sowersby at @ssowersby.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:20):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friendof the show and today's co-host,
state politics reporter for TheSeattle Times, Shauna Sowersby.
(00:44):
Welcome back!
Hi, Crystal - thanks for having me.
Well, there is a ton to cover about thislegislative session, but I want to start
off talking about an unfortunate andsudden passing of a legislative leader
and giant over the past several decades- Frank Chopp - former Speaker, Frank Chopp.
(01:06):
Lots of people have been rememberinghim, there have been a number of
stories about the legacy that he leaves.
What stands out to you in reflectingon the remembrances about him
and his impact in the state?
I think what stands out to me the mostis just that throughout my entire time
in the legislature, I have never hearda single bad thing about Frank Chopp.
(01:30):
Everybody who describes himdescribes him as just a nice
person, a very genuine person.
I recently just met him for the firsttime at the Sunshine Breakfast earlier
this month and can agree with everybodyelse - he was very nice, very respectful.
I was a little bummed that I nevergot to know him a little more than
(01:51):
that, but that is the biggest thingthat I've noticed - just what a great
guy everybody seemed to think he was.
What achievements ofFrank's stand out to you?
Arguably, the biggest thing that Frankwas known for was his legislation
to help build up housing more.
Reading through some of the articlesfrom the last couple of days, he helped
(02:15):
found the Low Income Housing Institute.
Frank also led the Fremont PublicAssociation, now known as Solid Ground
- he did a lot of anti-poverty organizing.
Gosh, he
just did so much.
(02:35):
He did.
What's huge to me is his co-founding ofthe Housing Trust Fund, which has been so
instrumental in so much housing built andprovided in the state over so many years.
Over $2 billion have been allocatedthrough the Trust Fund to affordable
housing projects across the state.
(02:57):
He helped create Apple Healthand Homes - which is huge - using
Medicaid dollars to fund housingservices to vulnerable people.
His work focused so much on providinghousing to those who need it the most,
tackling and reducing poverty - justreally focusing on people who have
(03:19):
systematically been neglected byso many other people and systems.
He saw them and he worked for those peopleand was driven by a desire to do that.
And he was very, very effective - justa really effective legislator who
understood how to work with people topass legislation and really establish
(03:45):
institutions that have stood thetest of time, that are still around
today, that are viewed as just kindof the normal fabric of what we
consider essential now - that he hadsuch a huge hand in putting in place.
So definitely appreciate his work.
And I also noticed that he retiredfrom being Speaker, later retired
(04:08):
from the legislature, and played abig role in passing the torch to a new
generation - stepping back and supportingnew leaders in his community in the
43rd District in Seattle, which I thinkis another good model for others to
follow - helping to develop and liftup other leaders as part of leadership.
(04:33):
Yeah, he knew when to stepdown, too - pass that on to
the next round of leadership.
Absolutely.
So we join in the remembrances ofFrank Chopp - appreciate his work
and his legacy, and he'll definitelybe missed by a lot of people.
Want to talk about big news that dropped,I think, late last week into this week
(04:58):
- and those are the Senate and House budgetsin our Washington state legislature.
We are facing a deficit as a state- there's a lot of uncertainty about what's
happening in the federal environment.
And we have to pass a balanced budgetto address the hole that we're facing in
the budget, but also fund essential needs- which there are some different views on.
(05:22):
What did the Senate put out?
What did the House put out?
How does that square with whatthe governor had wished for?
And where do we go from here?
Oh boy, that's a big question.
So the Senate dropped theirproposal first on Monday - $78.5
billion is what they're proposing.
(05:45):
They are also including several differenttax proposals, which Senate lawmakers
have said they need in order to make abalanced budget - it just can't work by
doing cuts alone - which has kind of goneagainst what Governor Ferguson initially
talked about, which seemed to be leaningmore towards an all-cuts type budget.
(06:09):
The House released theirs afterthe Senate did - theirs is a
little bit lower, $77.8 billion.
And they include less tax revenue sourcesin theirs than the Senate does - there's
only three new tax proposals in theirsversus five that is in the Senate.
(06:30):
There's also some big differencesin some of the priorities that
Governor Ferguson had asked for.
He has said that he will not signa budget that does not include new
funding to hire police officers.
Interestingly, the Senate did not includefunding in their version of the budget.
(06:51):
The House has taken a little bitdifferent of an approach of $50
million for community justiceprojects - it's not directly earmarked
to go towards new police hiring,although they do still have a bill
that's moving through the legislaturethat would set up a grant program.
(07:13):
The Senate has said that they aregoing to follow the House's lead
- whatever the House proposes, they'lltry to move on the Senate side.
But it was very interesting to notsee that included in their version.
Well, I guess this is a good pointto pause and dive a little deeper
into some of these elements.
Just starting off - because they'refacing a deficit, the ways that
(07:33):
you make that up are by cuttingspending and/or raising new revenue.
There are different perspectives,especially from what the governor
has signaled and what legislativeleadership has signaled, about the
necessity and desire for raisingnew revenue - which Democrats in the
(07:54):
legislature have signaled the need for.
And there's a lot of popular supportfor that, especially when talking
about the condition and stature of theWashington state budget in comparison to
several others - because of our overalltax structure, we are one of the most
regressive taxation states in the country.
(08:15):
Now at 49, we used to be at 50 - sothere's a little bit of improvement,
but still a long way to go.
And Democrats say that's because thewealthy are not paying their fair share,
that there's been extreme wealth created,and our tax structure has not caught up.
And what it does actually focus onin the absence of an income tax is
(08:38):
fees and sales taxes and a lot ofthings that hit people at lower income
brackets at a much higher percentagethan those at higher income brackets.
So hence the call for right-sizing ourtax structure according to Democrats,
and saying - Hey, we want to make thewealthy pay their fair share, which
(08:58):
they don't believe they are doing now.
Bob Ferguson has said we need totrim our spending in departments.
I think he said - Before we talk aboutany revenue, we need to tighten the
belt on budgets across the state.
And he's moved and proposed a budget thathas more cuts, which has not been popular
(09:18):
with legislative Democrats, and there'sbeen disagreement over those approaches.
And some of that is reflected, asyou just said, in this budget - where
revenue is there in this budget, whereit is not in the governor's budget.
Certainly, Republicans do not wantto see additional revenue raised.
So you talked a little bit about thedifferences in the revenue proposals
(09:44):
between the House and the Senate.
Can you talk about what the Houseis proposing and what the Senate is
proposing in terms of new revenue?
Yeah, so both the House and Senate areproposing a wealth tax, which would
tax financial assets like stocks andbonds for individuals with more than
(10:07):
$50 million of assets such as those.
There is a business tax that's verysimilar to Seattle's JumpStart Tax, which
would remove the cap on employer payrolltaxes for companies with $7 million or
more - and that is for the Senate side.
The House is a little bit differenton that one - I believe it's for
(10:28):
companies that make over $250 millionper year, they're looking to tax.
And then both are also lookingat a property tax increase.
So it would create the ability toraise the current 1% cap that's
currently on property taxes, and Ibelieve it's the House who has a cap
(10:51):
on that that would max it out at 3%.
So is that less of a property taxincrease and more of a - Hey, we're
allowing counties, if they opt to,decide to raise property taxes - which
now they're capped at 1%, I think yousaid 3% is what the cap would raise to.
(11:12):
Right, that's exactly what it is.
It doesn't mean that this is automaticallygoing to go into effect everywhere.
And I know - for the Senate, at least- it would allow the property tax to
grow based on population inflation.
But again - yes, to your point, localgovernments have the ability to do it.
It does not mean they will do itor that this will be a statewide
(11:33):
thing that suddenly goes into effectafter Bob Ferguson signs off on it.
Gotcha.
So how has the governor signaledhis acceptance or willingness to go
along with these revenue proposals?
They still have to make it throughboth chambers and work through
the whole legislative process.
(11:54):
But this will end up on BobFerguson's desk - and he has the
option to sign, or not sign, or veto.
Any idea on what he's indicated?
Interestingly, that is something I havebeen pestering his office about all week.
I have not gotten any solid opinionsyet from his office - they say that his
(12:16):
budget team is still taking a look andwill have more information for us later.
But on the outset, he says he's justlooking forward to negotiating with
legislators over the next month.
They did have some office turnoverrecently, so maybe they're working
through that and not able to get to thosequestions as fast because of that - maybe.
(12:37):
Little busy.
Well, this is a really interestingprocess because it is so consequential
for so many different families acrossWashington state - impacting so much.
Are there any cuts that are made inthe legislative budgets, or things
that were noted that were not included?
So this is another big difference betweenthe two - furloughs and raises for state
(13:01):
employees have been a really hot topic.
So the Senate is proposing not givingstate employees the raises that they
collectively bargained for last yearunder former governor Jay Inslee.
They are foregoing raises in 2026,and those raises would not kick in
(13:23):
for state workers until 2027 - Inthe second year of the biennium - and
it would only include the 2% raise.
So it wouldn't be the full 5% thatthey were supposed to be getting.
So they'll be taking a 5% cut throughfurloughs in 2026, and then in the second
(13:44):
year, they would get part of the raises.
House is not doing that at all - they donot believe that state wages that were
collectively bargained for should be cut.
Rep. Timm Ormsby - he's the budgetwriter for the House Democrats - says
he does not want to balance thebudget off the backs of state
(14:06):
employees who keep this state moving.
So they are not getting rid ofraises, and they are also not
asking for any furlough days.
And both of these are in contrast,of course, to Governor Ferguson's
proposal - which was one furloughday a month for the next two years.
So effectively, even though under thatthey would still be getting their raises,
(14:29):
it kind of cancels out their raises ifthey're being furloughed one day a month.
Another element that Ryan Packer ofThe Urbanist has really been on are the
transportation proposals - which havecaught a lot of people off guard and
concerned a lot of people, largely becausethey focus a lot on highway expansion
(14:53):
funded by increasing the state's gastax, a tax on e-bikes, a luxury car tax,
and some allocation of additional funds.
So it is controversial, certainly,because of highway widening.
And we've talked about this a lot beforein the show, but just to reiterate
(15:14):
- highway widening does not reducetraffic, even though it is sold that way.
Conclusively does not do that.
In fact, it makes traffic worse,as we can see from the billions
and billions we spent on all of thewidening projects so far, while we are
experiencing worse traffic on almostall of those so far here locally.
(15:36):
So what are we accomplishing?
is the biggest question, especially forthe kind of impact that that has on the
budget, how frequently they suffer fromcost overruns that then require bailouts.
That sometimes, especially in times likethis, require the defunding of other
transportation projects and programs infavor of highway widening, which is just
(16:01):
largely a drag on budgets, increases thelong-term operating budget, and takes
us a lot further away from our climatemitigation goals - just not the most
effective use in many people's opinions.
Other people see it as key to commerce.
(16:21):
Certainly, you hear a lot of Republicansin favor of these - also sometimes using
the fact that it'll improve traffic.
But sometimes they talk about keyconnectivity for corridors or freight
corridors that can be useful ornecessary for commerce or other things.
So this is a significantand contentious proposal.
(16:43):
Both the House and Senate haveproposed versions of that, and it'll be
interesting to see how that shakes out.
We'll be talking more about that infuture shows, but certainly follow The
Urbanist and Ryan Packer's reportingthere - it has been excellent in
getting into a lot of the detail.
But also just wondering what theoverall approach is - because it's
(17:03):
sending very mixed messages about whattransportation priorities are, how
they align with stated priorities,and the revenue associated with that.
So it'll be really interesting to see.
So I guess from here, what are thenext steps that these budgets take?
Well, this is where it starts to get fun.
We have exactly one month left untilthe legislative session is over.
(17:29):
Thank goodness.
And so for the next month, lawmakerswill go back and forth - I believe the
Senate said they are going to pass theirversion of the bill Saturday, House
lawmakers will take it up on Monday.
And basically, for the next month,they will just go back and forth.
And they will negotiate the little nittygritty details out of everything, pass
(17:53):
it back and forth - there's going to bea lot of conferences between the two.
There definitely won't be anyagreements right off the bat.
This first part is where it's kind ofthe most interesting is seeing where
they can agree, where they can't agree.
But yeah, it's going to be along month of negotiations.
We are just hoping that we make itout on time and that we do not have
(18:15):
to go into special session again.
Absolutely.
And just a reminder - it doesmatter what your legislators hear
from you about priorities, aboutwhat you see in these budgets.
So please - if you have opinions,if you have thoughts, If you have
questions - call them, contactthem, let them know what you're
thinking, seek out their town halls.
(18:38):
A number have announced teletownhalls, in-person town halls,
in legislative districts.
So you can play a role in this processthat is impactful and definitely
take advantage of that opportunity.
So we will see and continue to followthis, and certainly continue to follow
Shauna's reporting in The Times - she isdown in Olympia following this every day,
(19:02):
so lots of useful information to come.
Also wanted to talk about news of a newstatewide initiative, and the finding of
another initiative as unconstitutional.
So I guess we'll start with theannouncement of a new statewide initiative
related to the Parents' Bill of Rights.
What is this?
What would it do?
(19:24):
So this, again, is another BrianHeywood-sponsored initiative.
Listeners might remember him fromlast year for getting enough signature
for six different initiatives.
This one is essentially out thereto repeal what is likely to be
passed here in the coming weeks.
It's a Students' Bill ofRights - focuses a lot on
(19:47):
protecting students' mental health.
They can have conversations withcounselors, and that information
does not get back to theirparents - that type of thing.
So it's really meant to protect students.
But critics of this - Republicans- will say that it completely
rewrites the Parents' Bill ofRights that was passed last year.
And so we're just kind of snowballingwith this - started with the initiative
(20:13):
kind of undoing some provisionsthat had previously been in law.
Democrats are trying to rewrite that tomake it fit into law, but Republicans say
it just undoes what the initiative does.
So this new initiative seeks to undowhat is about to be passed by Democratic
lawmakers for student protections.
(20:34):
And I don't know if he startedgathering signatures on that yet,
but expect to be hearing a lotmore about it in the coming months,
especially if House Bill 1296 passes.
Yeah.
So this was one of the, as you said,originally proposed initiatives from
conservative Brian Heywood - supportedby Republicans in the legislature and
(20:58):
the State Republican Party - that theDemocratic leadership of the legislature
opted to pass during session insteadof allow it to go to the ballot.
Proponents of this bill were advancingthis as part of anti-trans bills and
sentiments - feeling that it was providingschools, school districts with power and
(21:24):
authority that they felt was impactful onkids that they shouldn't have had, that
it was taking away rights from parentsthat they felt that it should have.
And other people were saying - consistentwith a lot of other issues - that
kids need to be safe and receive care.
And the ability to receive thatwas, has been, is important.
(21:48):
Trans people exist, are valuable,and should be protected in my
and many other people's opinions.
But this is really a wedge issue there.
Even though it's talking about aParents' Bill of Rights, that was the
motivation behind it - and so a lotof people were worried about that.
Democrats basically said - Well,passing this is not ideal.
(22:09):
But it does give us the chance to amend itsooner than if it were to go to the ballot
as an initiative directly to voters.
And so this year, what they're doingis attempting to amend it to take
out anything that could be viewedas harmful towards trans people.
And Republicans are not happy about this- hence this initiative and saying, Any
(22:30):
changes that you make to this are goingto be repealed with this initiative.
We're going to stick with the originalinitiative - pass this as an initiative
so that it can't be modified.
So that's where we're at.
This has been a group advancing alot of ideas that are very unpopular
with Washington state residents,as we saw, with the results in last
(22:52):
year's elections - declining to passthe majority of those initiatives.
So it'll be interesting to see how thisproceeds, how this passes, and the attempt
to use this as a wedge issue that is notshowing up on most voters' ideas of what
the most pressing things that they wantpeople to be addressing here in the state.
(23:13):
So we'll follow that.
But also, interestingly, regarding one ofthose other initiatives that was passed
last year - a natural gas initiative- that was repealed via the courts.
What happened with this?
Yeah, so I believe this was theonly initiative that passed on
the ballot this last November.
(23:34):
Basically, it's saying we don'twant to wind down the use of
natural gas here in the state.
Voters approved this - Ibelieve it was pretty narrow.
But a judge with this most recentinitiative said it was too broad - it
was kind of going after too many thingslike building codes and natural gas.
(23:55):
And so a judge struck it down.
And it sounds like Brian Heywoodand the Building Industry
Association of Washington aregoing to appeal it, of course.
But we will see how that shakes outin the coming months, possible years.
Yes, we will.
And once again - we saw this a lot withTim Eyman, who several years back now
(24:20):
was kind of a conservative, prolificinitiative proponent who successfully
passed several initiatives, but hadmany of them repealed in the courts
because they violated Washington statelegal and constitutional statutes
- which it appears this one did also.
So we'll stay tunedabout where that stands.
(24:42):
The last thing I want to talk abouttoday was news that impacts people
in the greater Puget Sound area - howwe get around with Sound Transit.
Sound Transit named their newestCEO nominee, Dow Constantine.
It was a closed-door process - sothe nominees were discussed and held
(25:06):
in secret until this announcement.
One interesting element ofthis is that Dow's kind of been
an insider in this process.
He's been the King County Executivefor a long time and so holds
special knowledge, perhaps a specialposition, has relationships with
a lot of people in the process.
And so there are a number of peoplequestioning the transparency of
(25:30):
the process and the validity of it.
Did they just pick the comfortable insiderwho they're friends with, or did they
actually go through a nationwide vettingprocess to select, through an objective,
transparent process, who best meets thequalifications that they're looking for?
(25:51):
And the position has an annual salaryof $650,000, which is not small.
So lots of questions aroundthat is kind of the nutshell.
And two county councilmembers siton the board that will approve this.
Two of them are running to succeed DowConstantine - Claudia Balducci and Girmay.
(26:13):
And so, opposing a person who cansupport your opponent or make life
hard in other ways is something thatpeople have noticed they may have an
interest in not doing - that that is notprimarily the general public interest.
And so a lot of potentialconflicts in this.
(26:35):
Even though, I will say - in thissituation, this is an imperfect
process for a number of reasons.
But that doesn't necessarily meanthat they reached a bad result.
And I think one thing that isunderestimated that we've seen play out
in many different ways is that we havea unique political environment here in
(26:59):
- particularly western Washington state.
Definitely here - the Pierce,King, Snohomish County area
that Sound Transit covers.
And we've seen a lot of very qualifiedpeople in a variety of policy positions
- high profile leadership policy positions- kind of get chewed up and spit out in
(27:23):
this current political environment.
I say, current political environment- the political environment that
has existed for a long time now.
And it's just different than inother states and in other areas.
And that doesn't mean that otherstates are great or that we're
horrible, but it is different here.
And a lot more counterintuitivethan people are used to in a lot of
(27:47):
different states and environments.
A lot more cliquish.
A lot more that is unsaid - callit passive aggressive, call it
whatever you want to call it.
But it is challenging to workthrough and lead major organizations
that are involved with policy andimplementing major projects because of
(28:11):
all the political haranguing and theSeattle process, Washington process.
And despite a lot of technical expertiseand experience, people who aren't
familiar with the political environment- they're basically set up for failure,
even though they're terribly qualified,wonderfully qualified in other ways.
And so I understand this pick, assomeone who is familiar with the
(28:36):
political landscape - and that being anabsolute necessity for moving forward.
Does that automatically mean thatDow is the best person, right person?
No.
But does that mean that peoplewho don't have the knowledge and
experience to understand and workthrough this environment aren't?
I do believe it means that.
(28:57):
I do believe we've seen that alot, in a lot of different ways.
Unfortunately, what that means isthat you're artificially shrinking
the pool of candidates who can dothe job because the job requires
navigating through such dysfunction.
And a process environment where justbecause a decision is made - doesn't
(29:18):
mean it won't be unmade, or modifiedeven at very late stages in the
process, even after hundreds ofthousands or millions of dollars
have been spent in preparing plans.
We've seen that, particularlywith Sound Transit.
And so I just think the environmentmakes this a lot more difficult.
But if someone doesn't understandthe political lay of the land,
(29:40):
it's going to be bad news.
We've seen that on a local and statewidescale - not just in transportation,
but in housing policy and homelessnesspolicy, and a lot of others - people
who are coming from outside thisenvironment and who just don't
understand how to navigate through it.
And so I think thatcomplicates things more.
(30:01):
I think everyone has work to do to improvethat political environment because that
means that more people will be ableto successfully navigate through it.
But we are not there now.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, March 28th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(30:21):
Our insightful co-host today- state politics reporter for The
Seattle Times, Shauna Sowersby.
You can follow Shauna onBluesky at @ssowersby.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can follow me at @finchfrii,spelled with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks anywhereyou get your podcasts - just type
(30:42):
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showsdelivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leave areview because it really helps.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:20):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friendof the show and today's co-host,
state politics reporter for TheSeattle Times, Shauna Sowersby.
(00:44):
Welcome back!
Hi, Crystal - thanks for having me.
Well, there is a ton to cover about thislegislative session, but I want to start
off talking about an unfortunate andsudden passing of a legislative leader
and giant over the past several decades- Frank Chopp - former Speaker, Frank Chopp.
(01:06):
Lots of people have been rememberinghim, there have been a number of
stories about the legacy that he leaves.
What stands out to you in reflectingon the remembrances about him
and his impact in the state?
I think what stands out to me the mostis just that throughout my entire time
in the legislature, I have never hearda single bad thing about Frank Chopp.
(01:30):
Everybody who describes himdescribes him as just a nice
person, a very genuine person.
I recently just met him for the firsttime at the Sunshine Breakfast earlier
this month and can agree with everybodyelse - he was very nice, very respectful.
I was a little bummed that I nevergot to know him a little more than
(01:51):
that, but that is the biggest thingthat I've noticed - just what a great
guy everybody seemed to think he was.
What achievements ofFrank's stand out to you?
Arguably, the biggest thing that Frankwas known for was his legislation
to help build up housing more.
Reading through some of the articlesfrom the last couple of days, he helped
(02:15):
found the Low Income Housing Institute.
Frank also led the Fremont PublicAssociation, now known as Solid Ground
- he did a lot of anti-poverty organizing.
Gosh, he
just did so much.
(02:35):
He did.
What's huge to me is his co-founding ofthe Housing Trust Fund, which has been so
instrumental in so much housing built andprovided in the state over so many years.
Over $2 billion have been allocatedthrough the Trust Fund to affordable
housing projects across the state.
(02:57):
He helped create Apple Healthand Homes - which is huge - using
Medicaid dollars to fund housingservices to vulnerable people.
His work focused so much on providinghousing to those who need it the most,
tackling and reducing poverty - justreally focusing on people who have
(03:19):
systematically been neglected byso many other people and systems.
He saw them and he worked for those peopleand was driven by a desire to do that.
And he was very, very effective - justa really effective legislator who
understood how to work with people topass legislation and really establish
(03:45):
institutions that have stood thetest of time, that are still around
today, that are viewed as just kindof the normal fabric of what we
consider essential now - that he hadsuch a huge hand in putting in place.
So definitely appreciate his work.
And I also noticed that he retiredfrom being Speaker, later retired
(04:08):
from the legislature, and played abig role in passing the torch to a new
generation - stepping back and supportingnew leaders in his community in the
43rd District in Seattle, which I thinkis another good model for others to
follow - helping to develop and liftup other leaders as part of leadership.
(04:33):
Yeah, he knew when to stepdown, too - pass that on to
the next round of leadership.
Absolutely.
So we join in the remembrances ofFrank Chopp - appreciate his work
and his legacy, and he'll definitelybe missed by a lot of people.
Want to talk about big news that dropped,I think, late last week into this week
(04:58):
- and those are the Senate and House budgetsin our Washington state legislature.
We are facing a deficit as a state- there's a lot of uncertainty about what's
happening in the federal environment.
And we have to pass a balanced budgetto address the hole that we're facing in
the budget, but also fund essential needs- which there are some different views on.
(05:22):
What did the Senate put out?
What did the House put out?
How does that square with whatthe governor had wished for?
And where do we go from here?
Oh boy, that's a big question.
So the Senate dropped theirproposal first on Monday - $78.5
billion is what they're proposing.
(05:45):
They are also including several differenttax proposals, which Senate lawmakers
have said they need in order to make abalanced budget - it just can't work by
doing cuts alone - which has kind of goneagainst what Governor Ferguson initially
talked about, which seemed to be leaningmore towards an all-cuts type budget.
(06:09):
The House released theirs afterthe Senate did - theirs is a
little bit lower, $77.8 billion.
And they include less tax revenue sourcesin theirs than the Senate does - there's
only three new tax proposals in theirsversus five that is in the Senate.
(06:30):
There's also some big differencesin some of the priorities that
Governor Ferguson had asked for.
He has said that he will not signa budget that does not include new
funding to hire police officers.
Interestingly, the Senate did not includefunding in their version of the budget.
(06:51):
The House has taken a little bitdifferent of an approach of $50
million for community justiceprojects - it's not directly earmarked
to go towards new police hiring,although they do still have a bill
that's moving through the legislaturethat would set up a grant program.
(07:13):
The Senate has said that they aregoing to follow the House's lead
- whatever the House proposes, they'lltry to move on the Senate side.
But it was very interesting to notsee that included in their version.
Well, I guess this is a good pointto pause and dive a little deeper
into some of these elements.
Just starting off - because they'refacing a deficit, the ways that
(07:33):
you make that up are by cuttingspending and/or raising new revenue.
There are different perspectives,especially from what the governor
has signaled and what legislativeleadership has signaled, about the
necessity and desire for raisingnew revenue - which Democrats in the
(07:54):
legislature have signaled the need for.
And there's a lot of popular supportfor that, especially when talking
about the condition and stature of theWashington state budget in comparison to
several others - because of our overalltax structure, we are one of the most
regressive taxation states in the country.
(08:15):
Now at 49, we used to be at 50 - sothere's a little bit of improvement,
but still a long way to go.
And Democrats say that's because thewealthy are not paying their fair share,
that there's been extreme wealth created,and our tax structure has not caught up.
And what it does actually focus onin the absence of an income tax is
(08:38):
fees and sales taxes and a lot ofthings that hit people at lower income
brackets at a much higher percentagethan those at higher income brackets.
So hence the call for right-sizing ourtax structure according to Democrats,
and saying - Hey, we want to make thewealthy pay their fair share, which
(08:58):
they don't believe they are doing now.
Bob Ferguson has said we need totrim our spending in departments.
I think he said - Before we talk aboutany revenue, we need to tighten the
belt on budgets across the state.
And he's moved and proposed a budget thathas more cuts, which has not been popular
(09:18):
with legislative Democrats, and there'sbeen disagreement over those approaches.
And some of that is reflected, asyou just said, in this budget - where
revenue is there in this budget, whereit is not in the governor's budget.
Certainly, Republicans do not wantto see additional revenue raised.
So you talked a little bit about thedifferences in the revenue proposals
(09:44):
between the House and the Senate.
Can you talk about what the Houseis proposing and what the Senate is
proposing in terms of new revenue?
Yeah, so both the House and Senate areproposing a wealth tax, which would
tax financial assets like stocks andbonds for individuals with more than
(10:07):
$50 million of assets such as those.
There is a business tax that's verysimilar to Seattle's JumpStart Tax, which
would remove the cap on employer payrolltaxes for companies with $7 million or
more - and that is for the Senate side.
The House is a little bit differenton that one - I believe it's for
(10:28):
companies that make over $250 millionper year, they're looking to tax.
And then both are also lookingat a property tax increase.
So it would create the ability toraise the current 1% cap that's
currently on property taxes, and Ibelieve it's the House who has a cap
(10:51):
on that that would max it out at 3%.
So is that less of a property taxincrease and more of a - Hey, we're
allowing counties, if they opt to,decide to raise property taxes - which
now they're capped at 1%, I think yousaid 3% is what the cap would raise to.
(11:12):
Right, that's exactly what it is.
It doesn't mean that this is automaticallygoing to go into effect everywhere.
And I know - for the Senate, at least- it would allow the property tax to
grow based on population inflation.
But again - yes, to your point, localgovernments have the ability to do it.
It does not mean they will do itor that this will be a statewide
(11:33):
thing that suddenly goes into effectafter Bob Ferguson signs off on it.
Gotcha.
So how has the governor signaledhis acceptance or willingness to go
along with these revenue proposals?
They still have to make it throughboth chambers and work through
the whole legislative process.
(11:54):
But this will end up on BobFerguson's desk - and he has the
option to sign, or not sign, or veto.
Any idea on what he's indicated?
Interestingly, that is something I havebeen pestering his office about all week.
I have not gotten any solid opinionsyet from his office - they say that his
(12:16):
budget team is still taking a look andwill have more information for us later.
But on the outset, he says he's justlooking forward to negotiating with
legislators over the next month.
They did have some office turnoverrecently, so maybe they're working
through that and not able to get to thosequestions as fast because of that - maybe.
(12:37):
Little busy.
Well, this is a really interestingprocess because it is so consequential
for so many different families acrossWashington state - impacting so much.
Are there any cuts that are made inthe legislative budgets, or things
that were noted that were not included?
So this is another big difference betweenthe two - furloughs and raises for state
(13:01):
employees have been a really hot topic.
So the Senate is proposing not givingstate employees the raises that they
collectively bargained for last yearunder former governor Jay Inslee.
They are foregoing raises in 2026,and those raises would not kick in
(13:23):
for state workers until 2027 - Inthe second year of the biennium - and
it would only include the 2% raise.
So it wouldn't be the full 5% thatthey were supposed to be getting.
So they'll be taking a 5% cut throughfurloughs in 2026, and then in the second
(13:44):
year, they would get part of the raises.
House is not doing that at all - they donot believe that state wages that were
collectively bargained for should be cut.
Rep. Timm Ormsby - he's the budgetwriter for the House Democrats - says
he does not want to balance thebudget off the backs of state
(14:06):
employees who keep this state moving.
So they are not getting rid ofraises, and they are also not
asking for any furlough days.
And both of these are in contrast,of course, to Governor Ferguson's
proposal - which was one furloughday a month for the next two years.
So effectively, even though under thatthey would still be getting their raises,
(14:29):
it kind of cancels out their raises ifthey're being furloughed one day a month.
Another element that Ryan Packer ofThe Urbanist has really been on are the
transportation proposals - which havecaught a lot of people off guard and
concerned a lot of people, largely becausethey focus a lot on highway expansion
(14:53):
funded by increasing the state's gastax, a tax on e-bikes, a luxury car tax,
and some allocation of additional funds.
So it is controversial, certainly,because of highway widening.
And we've talked about this a lot beforein the show, but just to reiterate
(15:14):
- highway widening does not reducetraffic, even though it is sold that way.
Conclusively does not do that.
In fact, it makes traffic worse,as we can see from the billions
and billions we spent on all of thewidening projects so far, while we are
experiencing worse traffic on almostall of those so far here locally.
(15:36):
So what are we accomplishing?
is the biggest question, especially forthe kind of impact that that has on the
budget, how frequently they suffer fromcost overruns that then require bailouts.
That sometimes, especially in times likethis, require the defunding of other
transportation projects and programs infavor of highway widening, which is just
(16:01):
largely a drag on budgets, increases thelong-term operating budget, and takes
us a lot further away from our climatemitigation goals - just not the most
effective use in many people's opinions.
Other people see it as key to commerce.
(16:21):
Certainly, you hear a lot of Republicansin favor of these - also sometimes using
the fact that it'll improve traffic.
But sometimes they talk about keyconnectivity for corridors or freight
corridors that can be useful ornecessary for commerce or other things.
So this is a significantand contentious proposal.
(16:43):
Both the House and Senate haveproposed versions of that, and it'll be
interesting to see how that shakes out.
We'll be talking more about that infuture shows, but certainly follow The
Urbanist and Ryan Packer's reportingthere - it has been excellent in
getting into a lot of the detail.
But also just wondering what theoverall approach is - because it's
(17:03):
sending very mixed messages about whattransportation priorities are, how
they align with stated priorities,and the revenue associated with that.
So it'll be really interesting to see.
So I guess from here, what are thenext steps that these budgets take?
Well, this is where it starts to get fun.
We have exactly one month left untilthe legislative session is over.
(17:29):
Thank goodness.
And so for the next month, lawmakerswill go back and forth - I believe the
Senate said they are going to pass theirversion of the bill Saturday, House
lawmakers will take it up on Monday.
And basically, for the next month,they will just go back and forth.
And they will negotiate the little nittygritty details out of everything, pass
(17:53):
it back and forth - there's going to bea lot of conferences between the two.
There definitely won't be anyagreements right off the bat.
This first part is where it's kind ofthe most interesting is seeing where
they can agree, where they can't agree.
But yeah, it's going to be along month of negotiations.
We are just hoping that we make itout on time and that we do not have
(18:15):
to go into special session again.
Absolutely.
And just a reminder - it doesmatter what your legislators hear
from you about priorities, aboutwhat you see in these budgets.
So please - if you have opinions,if you have thoughts, If you have
questions - call them, contactthem, let them know what you're
thinking, seek out their town halls.
(18:38):
A number have announced teletownhalls, in-person town halls,
in legislative districts.
So you can play a role in this processthat is impactful and definitely
take advantage of that opportunity.
So we will see and continue to followthis, and certainly continue to follow
Shauna's reporting in The Times - she isdown in Olympia following this every day,
(19:02):
so lots of useful information to come.
Also wanted to talk about news of a newstatewide initiative, and the finding of
another initiative as unconstitutional.
So I guess we'll start with theannouncement of a new statewide initiative
related to the Parents' Bill of Rights.
What is this?
What would it do?
(19:24):
So this, again, is another BrianHeywood-sponsored initiative.
Listeners might remember him fromlast year for getting enough signature
for six different initiatives.
This one is essentially out thereto repeal what is likely to be
passed here in the coming weeks.
It's a Students' Bill ofRights - focuses a lot on
(19:47):
protecting students' mental health.
They can have conversations withcounselors, and that information
does not get back to theirparents - that type of thing.
So it's really meant to protect students.
But critics of this - Republicans- will say that it completely
rewrites the Parents' Bill ofRights that was passed last year.
And so we're just kind of snowballingwith this - started with the initiative
(20:13):
kind of undoing some provisionsthat had previously been in law.
Democrats are trying to rewrite that tomake it fit into law, but Republicans say
it just undoes what the initiative does.
So this new initiative seeks to undowhat is about to be passed by Democratic
lawmakers for student protections.
(20:34):
And I don't know if he startedgathering signatures on that yet,
but expect to be hearing a lotmore about it in the coming months,
especially if House Bill 1296 passes.
Yeah.
So this was one of the, as you said,originally proposed initiatives from
conservative Brian Heywood - supportedby Republicans in the legislature and
(20:58):
the State Republican Party - that theDemocratic leadership of the legislature
opted to pass during session insteadof allow it to go to the ballot.
Proponents of this bill were advancingthis as part of anti-trans bills and
sentiments - feeling that it was providingschools, school districts with power and
(21:24):
authority that they felt was impactful onkids that they shouldn't have had, that
it was taking away rights from parentsthat they felt that it should have.
And other people were saying - consistentwith a lot of other issues - that
kids need to be safe and receive care.
And the ability to receive thatwas, has been, is important.
(21:48):
Trans people exist, are valuable,and should be protected in my
and many other people's opinions.
But this is really a wedge issue there.
Even though it's talking about aParents' Bill of Rights, that was the
motivation behind it - and so a lotof people were worried about that.
Democrats basically said - Well,passing this is not ideal.
(22:09):
But it does give us the chance to amend itsooner than if it were to go to the ballot
as an initiative directly to voters.
And so this year, what they're doingis attempting to amend it to take
out anything that could be viewedas harmful towards trans people.
And Republicans are not happy about this- hence this initiative and saying, Any
(22:30):
changes that you make to this are goingto be repealed with this initiative.
We're going to stick with the originalinitiative - pass this as an initiative
so that it can't be modified.
So that's where we're at.
This has been a group advancing alot of ideas that are very unpopular
with Washington state residents,as we saw, with the results in last
(22:52):
year's elections - declining to passthe majority of those initiatives.
So it'll be interesting to see how thisproceeds, how this passes, and the attempt
to use this as a wedge issue that is notshowing up on most voters' ideas of what
the most pressing things that they wantpeople to be addressing here in the state.
(23:13):
So we'll follow that.
But also, interestingly, regarding one ofthose other initiatives that was passed
last year - a natural gas initiative- that was repealed via the courts.
What happened with this?
Yeah, so I believe this was theonly initiative that passed on
the ballot this last November.
(23:34):
Basically, it's saying we don'twant to wind down the use of
natural gas here in the state.
Voters approved this - Ibelieve it was pretty narrow.
But a judge with this most recentinitiative said it was too broad - it
was kind of going after too many thingslike building codes and natural gas.
(23:55):
And so a judge struck it down.
And it sounds like Brian Heywoodand the Building Industry
Association of Washington aregoing to appeal it, of course.
But we will see how that shakes outin the coming months, possible years.
Yes, we will.
And once again - we saw this a lot withTim Eyman, who several years back now
(24:20):
was kind of a conservative, prolificinitiative proponent who successfully
passed several initiatives, but hadmany of them repealed in the courts
because they violated Washington statelegal and constitutional statutes
- which it appears this one did also.
So we'll stay tunedabout where that stands.
(24:42):
The last thing I want to talk abouttoday was news that impacts people
in the greater Puget Sound area - howwe get around with Sound Transit.
Sound Transit named their newestCEO nominee, Dow Constantine.
It was a closed-door process - sothe nominees were discussed and held
(25:06):
in secret until this announcement.
One interesting element ofthis is that Dow's kind of been
an insider in this process.
He's been the King County Executivefor a long time and so holds
special knowledge, perhaps a specialposition, has relationships with
a lot of people in the process.
And so there are a number of peoplequestioning the transparency of
(25:30):
the process and the validity of it.
Did they just pick the comfortable insiderwho they're friends with, or did they
actually go through a nationwide vettingprocess to select, through an objective,
transparent process, who best meets thequalifications that they're looking for?
(25:51):
And the position has an annual salaryof $650,000, which is not small.
So lots of questions aroundthat is kind of the nutshell.
And two county councilmembers siton the board that will approve this.
Two of them are running to succeed DowConstantine - Claudia Balducci and Girmay.
(26:13):
And so, opposing a person who cansupport your opponent or make life
hard in other ways is something thatpeople have noticed they may have an
interest in not doing - that that is notprimarily the general public interest.
And so a lot of potentialconflicts in this.
(26:35):
Even though, I will say - in thissituation, this is an imperfect
process for a number of reasons.
But that doesn't necessarily meanthat they reached a bad result.
And I think one thing that isunderestimated that we've seen play out
in many different ways is that we havea unique political environment here in
(26:59):
- particularly western Washington state.
Definitely here - the Pierce,King, Snohomish County area
that Sound Transit covers.
And we've seen a lot of very qualifiedpeople in a variety of policy positions
- high profile leadership policy positions- kind of get chewed up and spit out in
(27:23):
this current political environment.
I say, current political environment- the political environment that
has existed for a long time now.
And it's just different than inother states and in other areas.
And that doesn't mean that otherstates are great or that we're
horrible, but it is different here.
And a lot more counterintuitivethan people are used to in a lot of
(27:47):
different states and environments.
A lot more cliquish.
A lot more that is unsaid - callit passive aggressive, call it
whatever you want to call it.
But it is challenging to workthrough and lead major organizations
that are involved with policy andimplementing major projects because of
(28:11):
all the political haranguing and theSeattle process, Washington process.
And despite a lot of technical expertiseand experience, people who aren't
familiar with the political environment- they're basically set up for failure,
even though they're terribly qualified,wonderfully qualified in other ways.
And so I understand this pick, assomeone who is familiar with the
(28:36):
political landscape - and that being anabsolute necessity for moving forward.
Does that automatically mean thatDow is the best person, right person?
No.
But does that mean that peoplewho don't have the knowledge and
experience to understand and workthrough this environment aren't?
I do believe it means that.
(28:57):
I do believe we've seen that alot, in a lot of different ways.
Unfortunately, what that means isthat you're artificially shrinking
the pool of candidates who can dothe job because the job requires
navigating through such dysfunction.
And a process environment where justbecause a decision is made - doesn't
(29:18):
mean it won't be unmade, or modifiedeven at very late stages in the
process, even after hundreds ofthousands or millions of dollars
have been spent in preparing plans.
We've seen that, particularlywith Sound Transit.
And so I just think the environmentmakes this a lot more difficult.
But if someone doesn't understandthe political lay of the land,
(29:40):
it's going to be bad news.
We've seen that on a local and statewidescale - not just in transportation,
but in housing policy and homelessnesspolicy, and a lot of others - people
who are coming from outside thisenvironment and who just don't
understand how to navigate through it.
And so I think thatcomplicates things more.
(30:01):
I think everyone has work to do to improvethat political environment because that
means that more people will be ableto successfully navigate through it.
But we are not there now.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, March 28th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(30:21):
Our insightful co-host today- state politics reporter for The
Seattle Times, Shauna Sowersby.
You can follow Shauna onBluesky at @ssowersby.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can follow me at @finchfrii,spelled with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks anywhereyou get your podcasts - just type
(30:42):
"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showsdelivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leave areview because it really helps.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com