November 22, 2024 • 31 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Erica Barnett discuss:
🧮 Seattle budget and amendments
🙅 County rejects Rivera’s proposal for sobering center
👨⚖️ Sal Mungia wins open Supreme Court seat
🗳️ Reichert concedes
⚔️ How WA electeds will take on Trump admin
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, Erica Barnett, on Bluesky at @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:13):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
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.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast toget the full versions of our Tuesday
(00:35):
topical show and Friday week-in-reviewdelivered to your podcast feed.
And please leave a reviewwherever you listen to Hacks
& Wonks, if you love the show.
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:
Seattle political reporter, editorof PubliCola, and host of the
(00:56):
Seattle Nice podcast, Erica Barnett!
Hello - it's great to be here.
Hello - great to have you back.
Well, there are a number of thingswe have to talk about this week.
Let's start off by covering thewide-ranging news and consequences of
the City of Seattle budget process.
There have been a number of amendmentsflying around, they're heading to final
(01:20):
passage - what has been happening and whatdoes this mean for the people of Seattle?
Well, there are a lot of changesin the budget every single
year, as you might imagine.
So this is just the annual processby which they say - what are
we going to spend money on nextyear and the year after that?
And so big picture, I think the biggestthing that's happening this year is
(01:42):
that the JumpStart Fund, which is from atax on the highly compensated employees
at big businesses in Seattle - it'ssupposed to be spent and is obligated
by law to be spent on five differentcategories of progressive spending.
So there's student mental health care,there's affordable housing, there's
the Equitable Development Initiative,and some other spending categories
(02:05):
- and that is effectively going away.
As the result of this budget, theJumpStart Fund, which was passed
explicitly to do those things, is goingto become a general fund revenue source.
So it can be spent on absolutely anything- police, fire, parks, you name it.
And so that is a big change - it's verymuch not in keeping with the spirit
(02:26):
or the law that currently exists.
So that's a huge change, and I think itcomes from the fact that we have a new
Council and they don't agree necessarilywith committing to those priorities
to the extent that JumpStart did.
And there's also been a proposalto pass a capital gains tax.
As we're recording today, the final,final vote has not yet happened - but
(02:48):
that failed in the Budget Committee,which is all the councilmembers,
and it failed by a very narrow voteof 4-4 with Tanya Woo abstaining.
So that's the big picture.
Small picture - more cops, CCTVsurveillance throughout the city
with a live camera feed and thatis what some of the new police
officers are going to be for.
(03:10):
Overtime for cops, expandingthe CARE Department, which does
unarmed response to some 911 calls.
And then a lot of internal cutsthat are going to affect different
programs at the city, including theparks department - this is actually
an external cut - is going to losehalf of its environmental programming.
And then last small picture thing is- the Seattle Channel is saved for now.
(03:31):
Mayor Bruce Harrell proposed cuttingall of its original programming, but
the City Council objected to that.
So they're saving it for this yearand hopefully coming up with a stable
funding source in the years after that.
Well, that's certainly a lot.
I have also seen some indicationsthat some offices in the
city will lose headcount.
There are going to be some layoffsthroughout the city, including in the
(03:53):
city's Office of Labor Standards, whichis responsible for investigation and
enforcement of the city's labor laws.
What kind of impact will thathave on workers in the city?
Well, Mayor Bruce Harrell, even as acouncilmember, was not a fan of the
Office of Labor Standards and hadclashed with them himself in the past.
(04:15):
So this is not a surprise,especially with this new Council.
I think whenever you cut the Officeof Labor Standards, what happens is
there are fewer investigators to lookinto things like wage theft - it ends
up just making everything take longerand making it harder for workers to
get the justice that they are askingfor when their wages are stolen or when
(04:38):
other things come up, violations of thetransportation network company laws.
And I'm being a little vague becauseI don't know the exact positions that
are going to end up getting cut inOLS, but it's an important office that
is often under siege by pro-businessmayors and now city councilmembers.
So it's not surprising that it was oneof the offices that ended up getting
(04:58):
cut - unlike police, which is expanding,and some of the other things that the
mayor spent new money on this year.
So as we look at this - they'reenabling transfers of the JumpStart
funds for affordable housing,environmental response, and so on
and so forth to the general fund.
Now, is this like a one-time transfer?
(05:19):
Is this going topermanently plug the hole?
Or are there going to be deficitsprojected in coming years that
they're also going to haveto find new money to address?
Well, I actually wrote about this, andmaybe you're just setting me up nicely,
Crystal - which if so, I appreciate.
There are deficitsprojected starting in 2027.
Even with moving hundreds of millionsof dollars from JumpStart, they will
(05:43):
either have to take more money out ofJumpStart, which they will be allowed
to do now - which would take awayfunding from those current spending
categories, obviously - or they'llneed some kind of other new revenue, or
they will need to actually make cuts.
And it's worth noting that all thenew councilmembers - all six of them,
including Tanya Woo, who is appointed andis leaving next week - they all ran on
(06:04):
this idea of fiscal responsibility andthat the city does not have a revenue
problem, it has a spending problem.
And yet, the mayor came in witha budget that added about $100
million in mostly new programs.
And the Council looked at that and theysaid - Cool, we've got our own priorities.
This is pretty standard - every councilhas its own priorities that they want
(06:25):
to add spending on, but they piledon more programs that they wanted.
And so, this structural budget deficitthat was the problem that they're
trying to address by using JumpStart isstill there, and it's being made worse
by their lack of spending discipline.
And so it's going topersist in future years.
(06:45):
And so either they're putting off cutsuntil the indefinite future, which they've
been doing since the structural deficitwas identified several years ago, or
they're going to have to make some moredecisions about revenue in the future.
Well, I want to touch on the revenuea bit more because we saw Cathy
Moore - after the election - it lookslike it may have been a response to
(07:07):
seeing Tanya Woo very soundly defeatedby Alexis Mercedes Rinck, a very
conclusive citywide message was sent.
And Alexis Mercedes Rinck articulateda very pro-progressive revenue
vision on the campaign trail.
Tanya Woo did not and hadsignaled her opposition of taxes.
So this is one of thebiggest issues in that race.
(07:28):
The city decided that and it seemedlike some members of the Council got
the message from the residents ofthe city and took to heart that they
were not aligned with the majority ofvoters, that they were in a different
place, and wanted to move closer toreflect the actual will of the voters.
That seems to have moved CouncilmemberCathy Moore to introduce a capital
(07:53):
gains tax proposal - and that's what youreferenced winding up in that 4-4 tie.
It needs a majority topass, so it did not pass.
What does that mean, moving forward,with Alexis Mercedes Rinck going
to be sworn in in a week or two?
Does that mean that the capital gainstax has a chance to pass once Alexis
(08:18):
Mercedes Rinck joins the Council?
It definitely has a chance - absolutely.
The other thing that happened inthe election was voters statewide
soundly rejected an initiative thatwould have repealed the capital
gains tax at the state level.
And when I interviewed CouncilmemberMoore, she pointed to that as
evidence that this proposal wasripe and it's time to do it.
(08:38):
And Cathy has an - I don't want tosay inconsistent because I'm sure
it's not, to her, inconsistent- but she has an idiosyncratic
record so far on the Council.
And I think that she has sincerereasons for wanting this capital gains
tax to pass, and I believe her whenshe says that they need new revenue.
Now, at the same time, she also didadd $2 million in the budget for
(09:00):
a receiving center for people whoare sex workers on Aurora and want
to get out of the sex trade - soshe's part of the spending problem.
But anyway, that's an aside.
I do think that once Alexisis on the Council, this could
come back up and it could pass.
My podcast co-host on Seattle Nice,Sandeep Kaushik, thinks that it's
possible that Joy Hollingsworthand Dan Strauss voted for it,
(09:22):
sort of knowing it was a safe votebecause it couldn't possibly pass.
But the fact is, they're going tohave to change their votes and explain
that if they do want to make itfail once Alexis is on the Council.
And I think that'spretty risky politically.
So I think we could see acapital gains tax next year.
Hey, this is Crystal popping in again.
So we record our week-in-reviewshows on Thursday.
(09:45):
However, need to update the item thatwe just discussed because after the
recording, the full council took a voteon the capital gains tax - and that vote
at the full council failed on a 6-3 vote.
Councilmembers Cathy Moore, TammyMorales, and Dan Strauss voted in favor.
(10:06):
Previously, Tanya Woo had abstainedfrom the vote in committee.
In the full council vote, TanyaWoo voted No and Joy Hollingsworth
switched her vote from Yes in committeeto No in the full council vote.
Joy Hollingsworth said that becauseit passed out of the committee
on a 4-4 vote with a do not passrecommendation that she voted No,
(10:31):
that no changes were in the bill.
All of the underlying facts remain thesame, but for some reason that made
sense to her to change her vote there.
So that'll be interesting tofollow up on, see if there's
any more elaboration on that.
But that does change the vote calculusthat we just talked about - obviously with
a 4-4 vote and the one person abstainingbeing replaced in a couple of weeks
(10:54):
by Alexis Mercedes Rinck, that made itseem like passage could potentially be
imminent shortly after Councilmember-electMercedes Rinck was sworn in.
However, with a 6-3 vote, that meansthat even with Alexis on the Council,
two more votes still need to be flippedwhile not losing any of the current ones.
(11:16):
So that is a different prospect.
Not to say that it can't happen, butthat it will take some more advocacy
and isn't necessarily imminent.
But there is a path there - it'sjust perhaps a lengthier one
and may take some more time.
So just wanted to pop in becausethat is a material change to what
we discussed, and we'll follow upand continue to follow that story
(11:40):
as we progress throughout the year.
Now, I also want to talk about a storyyou wrote within this past week about the
county saying that they don't have anyintention to turn a sobering center into
a secure facility for drug law violators.
What prompted this responseand clarification, or
(12:02):
declaration, by the county?
Well, Maritza Rivera, another one ofthe new councilmembers, has said that
she thinks that the sobering center,which is a county-run facility - it's
been in business for a lot of years,since the 70s - so it's essentially a
place where people can get picked up,and go to sober up, and also largely to
(12:23):
keep warm instead of sleeping outside.
And she wanted to use it potentially toput people who are arrested under the drug
laws as a kind of diversion from jail.
And her statement basically wasthat - people can't consent to go into
residential treatment or treatmentof any kind when they're high on
fentanyl, and so they should be keptin the sobering center, not allowed to
(12:46):
leave, and then sort of have treatmentpushed on them when they "sober up."
And there's a lot of reasonsthat's not a very medically
sound idea that I wrote about.
But the county basically told mewhen I called them that they had not
heard a peep from the City Council orCouncilmember Rivera about this, and
that was not the purpose of the soberingcenter, and they have no interest in
(13:08):
changing its purpose at the directionof a completely separate government.
And I think this speaks to a largerissue that I've observed with this
Council, which is that I think they'revery frustrated by the fact that they
thought they were going to be ableto control a lot more than they can
actually control as city councilmembers.
And we've seen that in trying toget little special transportation
(13:31):
funds for every district thatcouncilmembers can spend however
they want because the Council doesn'toversee the Transportation Department.
And councilmembers reportedly wantingto direct cops to their districts, which
they can't do because they don't havecontrol over the police department.
And with the county, the Council hasalso tried to, I think more successfully,
pass legislation in this budget directingKing County Metro to do stuff via budget
(13:56):
adds - saying we're going to add moretransit security funding and that's going
to go to King County and they're goingto have to add cops on buses, or we're
going to add more transit ambassadorsto King County by giving them money for
that and so they'll have to do that.
That's kind of benign - I don't thinkKing County is against that, but
it's just this kind of meta issue - Ithink they're very frustrated that
(14:16):
their role is actually quite limited.
Yeah.
And it's - I guess, fascinatingis one word you could call
it - troubling, mystifying.
Really, what strikes me is - nosecret, I have a number of ideological
differences with this Councilmajority, and that's one issue.
But there is a separate issueof just competence, really.
(14:38):
And understanding what the jobis - and there are details and
intricacies in the job and the role.
But like just the basic scope of theirresponsibility seems to be something
that they weren't familiar withcoming in and still struggle with.
Communication with departments, withpartners as they're crafting legislation.
(15:02):
Also with this - to me - was another trendthat I have noticed where we're hearing
legislation being proposed that is goingto involve action and coordination among
different departments to implement this.
And there hasn't been any communicationwith those departments or walking through
what that implementation could be, whichsets up a number of problematic issues.
(15:26):
Is this even possible in theway that they're envisioning it?
Do they have the capacity?
Are there conflictinginitiatives happening?
This is basically setting up animplementation for problems to run over
budget and to potentially not deliverwhat their intent is with the legislation
or direction they're providing.
So there really does, I think, need tobe more of a focus and understanding of
(15:55):
what the actual job is, what the roleis, what they can and cannot do - so
that they will stop wasting time chasingthese things down that they want to do.
That they do have a better shot of atleast delivering what they say they want
to, and that we don't hear continuedCouncil briefings that involve letting
(16:16):
them know that the legislation thatthey passed is experiencing some of
the negative consequences that peoplewarned about - that they seem to be
caught off guard by, or surprised by,or even not understanding legislation
that they passed when being askedabout it as it's being implemented.
So I just hope there's more diligenceas we move into this next year,
(16:39):
certainly, about just the literal jobof being a councilmember, even before
you get to the ideological issues.
Yeah, I think that there's also sortof a lack of understanding of how
things are going to play politically.
And I look back to the minimum wagestuff - the gig worker minimum wage, the
(17:00):
idea of getting rid of the minimum wagefor tipped workers and going to a minimum
wage that's lower if people get tips.
These things are phenomenally unpopularand they haven't passed, and their
sponsors have withdrawn them so far.
And I think that we could have notwasted - because those are two of the
biggest policy debates that happenedin this Council's first year, and
(17:23):
they are now a quarter of the way intotheir terms, and they went nowhere
because they were very unpopular.
And rightly so.
And so I think that there's a lackof attention to the political winds
or the political perspective ofthe communities they represent.
And then - you're right - I can't tellyou how many times in this budget process
I heard people, particularly MaritzaRivera, saying they were confused and
(17:47):
didn't have enough data and information.
And me, as somebody who followsthe budget, I'm going - I can
point you to that information.
The city has produced extensivereports on a lot of these things.
And like, yes, I guess we coulddirect them to spend their time doing
a report - and in fact, the councilis directing city departments to do
a ton of reports on stuff that isalready kind of basically known and
(18:10):
that they're have been reports on.
But like, don't we want the citydepartments - let's say the Seattle
Department of Transportation - to befocusing on future-looking things and
not explaining what they do to a CityCouncil that hasn't done its homework?
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, we will continue to follow howthe Council proceeds and what they
(18:31):
do as they get more familiar withthe jobs they've been elected to do.
Now, I want to talk about somelate-breaking election results.
As many people know, we and severalstates have a vote-by-mail system.
Those votes take a little whileto come in and a longer while
to get completely counted.
So when we have very close races,it can be one to two weeks before
(18:55):
we know for sure who has won a race.
And we got a couple of answers on somevery close races - one involving a
very consequential open state SupremeCourt seat where Sal Mungia, who is
predominantly supported by Democrats- although this is a nonpartisan
position - defeated Dave Larson, who ispredominantly supported by Republicans.
(19:18):
This was a very close race with SalMungia pulling it out in the end.
And so, our state Supreme Courtcurrently has a Democratic or
liberal-leaning majority, Ithink people would generally say.
That doesn't always conclusivelydictate how people are going to
rule on issues or decide there.
There are lots of casesthat are unanimous.
There are lots that are split, notnecessarily on the ideological lines that
(19:43):
people may assume most things fall on.
But there was definitely a differencein ideological stance or positioning
between these two candidates.
And I'm sure a majority of the state - themajority of voters certainly who voted
- but us being a blue state in Washington,are pretty happy with this result overall.
It's consistent with what we'veseen, and I guess a reinforcement
(20:05):
that this court will continue tohave generally the same ideological
positioning as they've had generally.
Is that generally how you see it?
Yeah, I wasn't following this raceas closely as you were, Crystal.
I can't wait to hear more aboutyour interview with Sal Mungia.
But basically, with these Supreme Courtraces, because they are so low profile
- and I guess I am a low-information statevoter on some of these races - I just
(20:30):
sort of went and saw that Sal Mungiawas the one that the Democrats support.
And I said - Okay, sounds good.
But I think electing judgeshas its upsides and downsides.
I agree.
Definitely pros and cons withelecting judges and pros and
cons with appointing judges.
But I personally, obviously, amon the left-leaning side of things
(20:53):
and do appreciate our SupremeCourt and the justices on it.
I am personally gratifiedby this decision.
Also, Mungia had a lot more experience,has been a litigator for quite some time,
seemed to be more highly rated by thenonpartisan entities, and had the support
of the majority of justices on the currentcourt and such a wide variety of people.
(21:16):
So Mungia seemed very qualified.
We did have a unique conversation whenwe spoke to him in our interview on
Hacks & Wonks, so we can link thatin the show notes and you can listen
to that for yourself if you want.
But will be really interesting to see,especially in this time with now a Trump
administration, and states are so muchmore consequential given that the federal
(21:39):
situation isn't necessarily a given withsuch basic things as privacy rights,
abortion rights, LGBTQ+ protectionsand ability to participate in society.
And I am thankful and appreciativethat we have a court and continue to
send members of the court who willuphold the rights of the people of the
state - certainly gives me comfort.
(22:00):
And that leads to somethingelse I want to talk about.
Reichert - although this race wasdecided on election night - Ferguson
was clearly the winner immediately,as we saw the first drop of results.
But this past week, Reichertfinally conceded to Ferguson.
Now, concession has no practicalapplication - it doesn't stop
(22:20):
the counting or impact anything.
But in this time of people beingweird about elections and denying
their validity, it is notable thatReichert is accepting the results, has
acknowledged his defeat to Ferguson.
But also in this time, as now a lot offocus - especially in blue states - is
shifting to people wondering, Hey,if the Trump administration tries
(22:44):
to do things that are against ourstate's values, our state's laws,
what are we doing to protect them?
How do you see Bob Ferguson, NickBrown, who was just elected as attorney
general, and even Bruce Harrell,as the mayor of the largest city in
the state - their stances and whatthey've indicated is going to be their
(23:04):
approach to dealing with, working with,opposing the Trump administration?
Well, Ferguson has been incrediblyaggressive in his stance as
attorney general - just in goingafter, for example, drug companies,
mostly companies that have been inopposition to policies the state has.
And he has said in the run up, bothin the campaign and since being
(23:27):
elected, that essentially thatthis is the job he was born to do.
I'm vastly paraphrasing, but I thinkhe will be as aggressive as a state
governor can possibly be in fightingthe Trump administration's efforts to,
for example, site deportation centershere, or prosecute women who come
here to get abortions, and defendingour status as a sanctuary state.
(23:49):
Similar for Nick Brown as attorneygeneral - I think he has made
his positions on that very clear.
So I think that to the extent that we'reable to actually do anything about these
policies - and I think that extent maybe somewhat limited because the federal
government is the federal government.
But to the extent that we're able to doanything and preserve Washington's status
as a sanctuary state on many differentlevels - also for trans people, for
(24:10):
LGBTQ people in general - he's goingto be a strong governor on that front.
And Nick Brown is going tobe a strong attorney general.
Bruce Harrell, I don't know.
He hasn't made a whole lot of statementsabout Seattle's - the policies that
we have to protect immigrants, toprotect LGBTQ people, to protect women.
His profile has been very mutedon this - in comparison, I would
(24:30):
say to his predecessor, JennyDurkan, who was the mayor during
the first Trump administration andwas very loud and vocal on opposing
anything and everything he did.
Of course, she was a formerfederal prosecutor and was
really attuned to those issues.
But yeah, Bruce Harrell - obviouslya Democrat, but we haven't seen
a real aggressive stance fromhim yet on Seattle's sanctuary
(24:52):
city status, for example.
Well, and this is really interestingbecause what Trump has signaled and folks
in his administration have signaled isthat they are going to use basically money
as the carrot and the stick for a lotof what they're looking to accomplish.
And federal funding is distributed inso many different ways to state and
(25:14):
local government entities, to schooldistricts and school education entities.
And so the threat of losing federalfunding for education, or federal funding
for transportation projects - whichthe city of Seattle certainly gets,
for large infrastructure projects likelight rail and different things like
that - are conceivably on the table.
(25:34):
And Trump seems very willing to notonly use funding as a carrot to enact
what he wants, but use it to punish- and the threat of revoking funds to
punish cities, localities that don'tagree with what he's trying to do.
And it seems like they may be lookingto provoke some of those issues,
(25:55):
and trying to drive some of thatconflict to force the hand of blue
states and to see what happens.
So it is interesting to see and hearsome electeds seemingly be afraid of
losing funding and being afraid ofoffending the Trump administration
for fear of being targeted.
(26:17):
But that may come with some conditionsor stances that are very challenging
for people in our state to accept,that are contrary to what our
state and the voters in our statetraditionally believe and have stood for.
So it'll be really interesting to see,especially as typically just placating
or going along with folks who aresaying and doing the things that Trump
(26:38):
and his administration are saying anddoing, usually doesn't mitigate much
harm - oftentimes makes it easier forthose forces to accomplish their agenda.
So it will be very interestingto see how they navigate through
these issues moving forward.
Well, I will just say - wehave practice with this.
We went through the firstTrump administration.
Now I know that he is unleashed this time.
(27:00):
It will be different.
It will be harsher.
It will be worse.
But I think that's why we're in agood position with Bob Ferguson.
I don't - and I may eat my words ona future podcast - but I don't see
him capitulating because I don'tthink that he sees a point in that.
And I think that for the state to sortof betray its values over the threat of
losing, let's say, transportation funding.
I think we're going to losetransportation funding.
(27:22):
I think we're going to losefunding in a lot of areas.
When Trump was president the lasttime, the county didn't shut down,
but it didn't get as much funding- transportation projects stalled.
It was just a very slow time.
And obviously, because of COVID,everything sort of came to a halt
and that was the focus in 2020.
But I think we have been tosome version of this before.
(27:42):
And if the country survives, thenwe will survive too, as a state.
And I don't think that we will gainanything - and I think Ferguson
probably sees it this way as well - bysort of kowtowing to Trump and
trying to work with him in a way thatrequires selling out, essentially.
And I'll just mention really quickly,there was a GeekWire article - I
don't know how much to read intothis - but they said that Bruce
(28:04):
Harrell was at an event and saidthat he was not going to go to D.C.
and to the Trump administrationwith his fists balled and that
he could work with anybody.
I don't know the entire contextof those comments, but that is
definitely quite a bit different thanthe posture that Jenny Durkan had.
And not to like overpraise theDurkan administration - I'm just
saying she was quite combativewith the Trump administration
(28:27):
and came in with that posture.
And that's not what Harrellis doing - publicly - anyway.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I look to California also- another solidly blue state - that
took pride in opposing Trumpduring his first administration.
The governor, Gavin Newsom, similarto Bob Ferguson, signaling very
strong opposition to Donald Trumpand what he's articulated so far.
(28:50):
The Los Angeles Unified School Districttaking steps to declare that they're
a sanctuary district and whateverthey can do to proactively prepare to
protect their students, they will do.
So just curious to see.
I also, from a legislative perspectiveand just all of our levels of government,
do hope that our legislators andlawmakers are taking a proactive
(29:13):
approach to potentially grapplingwith the loss of federal funding.
I don't think this can just beviewed as - Oh, hypothetical, it
hasn't happened yet, we'll crossthat bridge when we come to it.
We already are dealing with budgetchallenges, as we just spoke about earlier
in the show, on a number of fronts.
Are having a broad conversation abouttax revenue overall with broad support
(29:38):
of the capital gains tax, otherprogressive taxation - that may come
into play - but that may need to be usedfor backfilling funds that are lost.
That certainly needs to be part ofthe scenario because if we don't
plan for that, pass more progressiverevenue, use it for existing things,
and then have to be put in a bindby going - Okay, now there's a new
hole that we have to contend with.
(29:58):
That's a whole new mess.
So I do hope that people aretaking this threat seriously.
I've heard some comments from somelegislators that indicate that
they're prepared to deal with this.
And others, including some inleadership, that indicate maybe
they are not feeling currently thatthis is something that they need to
consider and potentially deal with.
So I hope we do see that takenseriously as we move forward.
(30:22):
And with that, thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, November 22nd, 2024.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today wasSeattle political reporter, editor
of PubliCola, and co-host of theSeattle Nice podcast, Erica Barnett.
You can find Erica on Bluesky, and me onBluesky, and Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky - so
(30:47):
find us and follow us there - it's wherethings are happening and where it's at.
You can also catch Hacks & Wonks onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
else you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
show and our Tuesday topical showon most weeks, except weeks when
I'm really busy and trying to catchup on other work like this week.
(31:10):
And if you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - we'lltalk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
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.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast toget the full versions of our Tuesday
(00:35):
topical show and Friday week-in-reviewdelivered to your podcast feed.
And please leave a reviewwherever you listen to Hacks
& Wonks, if you love the show.
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:
Seattle political reporter, editorof PubliCola, and host of the
(00:56):
Seattle Nice podcast, Erica Barnett!
Hello - it's great to be here.
Hello - great to have you back.
Well, there are a number of thingswe have to talk about this week.
Let's start off by covering thewide-ranging news and consequences of
the City of Seattle budget process.
There have been a number of amendmentsflying around, they're heading to final
(01:20):
passage - what has been happening and whatdoes this mean for the people of Seattle?
Well, there are a lot of changesin the budget every single
year, as you might imagine.
So this is just the annual processby which they say - what are
we going to spend money on nextyear and the year after that?
And so big picture, I think the biggestthing that's happening this year is
(01:42):
that the JumpStart Fund, which is from atax on the highly compensated employees
at big businesses in Seattle - it'ssupposed to be spent and is obligated
by law to be spent on five differentcategories of progressive spending.
So there's student mental health care,there's affordable housing, there's
the Equitable Development Initiative,and some other spending categories
(02:05):
- and that is effectively going away.
As the result of this budget, theJumpStart Fund, which was passed
explicitly to do those things, is goingto become a general fund revenue source.
So it can be spent on absolutely anything- police, fire, parks, you name it.
And so that is a big change - it's verymuch not in keeping with the spirit
(02:26):
or the law that currently exists.
So that's a huge change, and I think itcomes from the fact that we have a new
Council and they don't agree necessarilywith committing to those priorities
to the extent that JumpStart did.
And there's also been a proposalto pass a capital gains tax.
As we're recording today, the final,final vote has not yet happened - but
(02:48):
that failed in the Budget Committee,which is all the councilmembers,
and it failed by a very narrow voteof 4-4 with Tanya Woo abstaining.
So that's the big picture.
Small picture - more cops, CCTVsurveillance throughout the city
with a live camera feed and thatis what some of the new police
officers are going to be for.
(03:10):
Overtime for cops, expandingthe CARE Department, which does
unarmed response to some 911 calls.
And then a lot of internal cutsthat are going to affect different
programs at the city, including theparks department - this is actually
an external cut - is going to losehalf of its environmental programming.
And then last small picture thing is- the Seattle Channel is saved for now.
(03:31):
Mayor Bruce Harrell proposed cuttingall of its original programming, but
the City Council objected to that.
So they're saving it for this yearand hopefully coming up with a stable
funding source in the years after that.
Well, that's certainly a lot.
I have also seen some indicationsthat some offices in the
city will lose headcount.
There are going to be some layoffsthroughout the city, including in the
(03:53):
city's Office of Labor Standards, whichis responsible for investigation and
enforcement of the city's labor laws.
What kind of impact will thathave on workers in the city?
Well, Mayor Bruce Harrell, even as acouncilmember, was not a fan of the
Office of Labor Standards and hadclashed with them himself in the past.
(04:15):
So this is not a surprise,especially with this new Council.
I think whenever you cut the Officeof Labor Standards, what happens is
there are fewer investigators to lookinto things like wage theft - it ends
up just making everything take longerand making it harder for workers to
get the justice that they are askingfor when their wages are stolen or when
(04:38):
other things come up, violations of thetransportation network company laws.
And I'm being a little vague becauseI don't know the exact positions that
are going to end up getting cut inOLS, but it's an important office that
is often under siege by pro-businessmayors and now city councilmembers.
So it's not surprising that it was oneof the offices that ended up getting
(04:58):
cut - unlike police, which is expanding,and some of the other things that the
mayor spent new money on this year.
So as we look at this - they'reenabling transfers of the JumpStart
funds for affordable housing,environmental response, and so on
and so forth to the general fund.
Now, is this like a one-time transfer?
(05:19):
Is this going topermanently plug the hole?
Or are there going to be deficitsprojected in coming years that
they're also going to haveto find new money to address?
Well, I actually wrote about this, andmaybe you're just setting me up nicely,
Crystal - which if so, I appreciate.
There are deficitsprojected starting in 2027.
Even with moving hundreds of millionsof dollars from JumpStart, they will
(05:43):
either have to take more money out ofJumpStart, which they will be allowed
to do now - which would take awayfunding from those current spending
categories, obviously - or they'llneed some kind of other new revenue, or
they will need to actually make cuts.
And it's worth noting that all thenew councilmembers - all six of them,
including Tanya Woo, who is appointed andis leaving next week - they all ran on
(06:04):
this idea of fiscal responsibility andthat the city does not have a revenue
problem, it has a spending problem.
And yet, the mayor came in witha budget that added about $100
million in mostly new programs.
And the Council looked at that and theysaid - Cool, we've got our own priorities.
This is pretty standard - every councilhas its own priorities that they want
(06:25):
to add spending on, but they piledon more programs that they wanted.
And so, this structural budget deficitthat was the problem that they're
trying to address by using JumpStart isstill there, and it's being made worse
by their lack of spending discipline.
And so it's going topersist in future years.
(06:45):
And so either they're putting off cutsuntil the indefinite future, which they've
been doing since the structural deficitwas identified several years ago, or
they're going to have to make some moredecisions about revenue in the future.
Well, I want to touch on the revenuea bit more because we saw Cathy
Moore - after the election - it lookslike it may have been a response to
(07:07):
seeing Tanya Woo very soundly defeatedby Alexis Mercedes Rinck, a very
conclusive citywide message was sent.
And Alexis Mercedes Rinck articulateda very pro-progressive revenue
vision on the campaign trail.
Tanya Woo did not and hadsignaled her opposition of taxes.
So this is one of thebiggest issues in that race.
(07:28):
The city decided that and it seemedlike some members of the Council got
the message from the residents ofthe city and took to heart that they
were not aligned with the majority ofvoters, that they were in a different
place, and wanted to move closer toreflect the actual will of the voters.
That seems to have moved CouncilmemberCathy Moore to introduce a capital
(07:53):
gains tax proposal - and that's what youreferenced winding up in that 4-4 tie.
It needs a majority topass, so it did not pass.
What does that mean, moving forward,with Alexis Mercedes Rinck going
to be sworn in in a week or two?
Does that mean that the capital gainstax has a chance to pass once Alexis
(08:18):
Mercedes Rinck joins the Council?
It definitely has a chance - absolutely.
The other thing that happened inthe election was voters statewide
soundly rejected an initiative thatwould have repealed the capital
gains tax at the state level.
And when I interviewed CouncilmemberMoore, she pointed to that as
evidence that this proposal wasripe and it's time to do it.
(08:38):
And Cathy has an - I don't want tosay inconsistent because I'm sure
it's not, to her, inconsistent- but she has an idiosyncratic
record so far on the Council.
And I think that she has sincerereasons for wanting this capital gains
tax to pass, and I believe her whenshe says that they need new revenue.
Now, at the same time, she also didadd $2 million in the budget for
(09:00):
a receiving center for people whoare sex workers on Aurora and want
to get out of the sex trade - soshe's part of the spending problem.
But anyway, that's an aside.
I do think that once Alexisis on the Council, this could
come back up and it could pass.
My podcast co-host on Seattle Nice,Sandeep Kaushik, thinks that it's
possible that Joy Hollingsworthand Dan Strauss voted for it,
(09:22):
sort of knowing it was a safe votebecause it couldn't possibly pass.
But the fact is, they're going tohave to change their votes and explain
that if they do want to make itfail once Alexis is on the Council.
And I think that'spretty risky politically.
So I think we could see acapital gains tax next year.
Hey, this is Crystal popping in again.
So we record our week-in-reviewshows on Thursday.
(09:45):
However, need to update the item thatwe just discussed because after the
recording, the full council took a voteon the capital gains tax - and that vote
at the full council failed on a 6-3 vote.
Councilmembers Cathy Moore, TammyMorales, and Dan Strauss voted in favor.
(10:06):
Previously, Tanya Woo had abstainedfrom the vote in committee.
In the full council vote, TanyaWoo voted No and Joy Hollingsworth
switched her vote from Yes in committeeto No in the full council vote.
Joy Hollingsworth said that becauseit passed out of the committee
on a 4-4 vote with a do not passrecommendation that she voted No,
(10:31):
that no changes were in the bill.
All of the underlying facts remain thesame, but for some reason that made
sense to her to change her vote there.
So that'll be interesting tofollow up on, see if there's
any more elaboration on that.
But that does change the vote calculusthat we just talked about - obviously with
a 4-4 vote and the one person abstainingbeing replaced in a couple of weeks
(10:54):
by Alexis Mercedes Rinck, that made itseem like passage could potentially be
imminent shortly after Councilmember-electMercedes Rinck was sworn in.
However, with a 6-3 vote, that meansthat even with Alexis on the Council,
two more votes still need to be flippedwhile not losing any of the current ones.
(11:16):
So that is a different prospect.
Not to say that it can't happen, butthat it will take some more advocacy
and isn't necessarily imminent.
But there is a path there - it'sjust perhaps a lengthier one
and may take some more time.
So just wanted to pop in becausethat is a material change to what
we discussed, and we'll follow upand continue to follow that story
(11:40):
as we progress throughout the year.
Now, I also want to talk about a storyyou wrote within this past week about the
county saying that they don't have anyintention to turn a sobering center into
a secure facility for drug law violators.
What prompted this responseand clarification, or
(12:02):
declaration, by the county?
Well, Maritza Rivera, another one ofthe new councilmembers, has said that
she thinks that the sobering center,which is a county-run facility - it's
been in business for a lot of years,since the 70s - so it's essentially a
place where people can get picked up,and go to sober up, and also largely to
(12:23):
keep warm instead of sleeping outside.
And she wanted to use it potentially toput people who are arrested under the drug
laws as a kind of diversion from jail.
And her statement basically wasthat - people can't consent to go into
residential treatment or treatmentof any kind when they're high on
fentanyl, and so they should be keptin the sobering center, not allowed to
(12:46):
leave, and then sort of have treatmentpushed on them when they "sober up."
And there's a lot of reasonsthat's not a very medically
sound idea that I wrote about.
But the county basically told mewhen I called them that they had not
heard a peep from the City Council orCouncilmember Rivera about this, and
that was not the purpose of the soberingcenter, and they have no interest in
(13:08):
changing its purpose at the directionof a completely separate government.
And I think this speaks to a largerissue that I've observed with this
Council, which is that I think they'revery frustrated by the fact that they
thought they were going to be ableto control a lot more than they can
actually control as city councilmembers.
And we've seen that in trying toget little special transportation
(13:31):
funds for every district thatcouncilmembers can spend however
they want because the Council doesn'toversee the Transportation Department.
And councilmembers reportedly wantingto direct cops to their districts, which
they can't do because they don't havecontrol over the police department.
And with the county, the Council hasalso tried to, I think more successfully,
pass legislation in this budget directingKing County Metro to do stuff via budget
(13:56):
adds - saying we're going to add moretransit security funding and that's going
to go to King County and they're goingto have to add cops on buses, or we're
going to add more transit ambassadorsto King County by giving them money for
that and so they'll have to do that.
That's kind of benign - I don't thinkKing County is against that, but
it's just this kind of meta issue - Ithink they're very frustrated that
(14:16):
their role is actually quite limited.
Yeah.
And it's - I guess, fascinatingis one word you could call
it - troubling, mystifying.
Really, what strikes me is - nosecret, I have a number of ideological
differences with this Councilmajority, and that's one issue.
But there is a separate issueof just competence, really.
(14:38):
And understanding what the jobis - and there are details and
intricacies in the job and the role.
But like just the basic scope of theirresponsibility seems to be something
that they weren't familiar withcoming in and still struggle with.
Communication with departments, withpartners as they're crafting legislation.
(15:02):
Also with this - to me - was another trendthat I have noticed where we're hearing
legislation being proposed that is goingto involve action and coordination among
different departments to implement this.
And there hasn't been any communicationwith those departments or walking through
what that implementation could be, whichsets up a number of problematic issues.
(15:26):
Is this even possible in theway that they're envisioning it?
Do they have the capacity?
Are there conflictinginitiatives happening?
This is basically setting up animplementation for problems to run over
budget and to potentially not deliverwhat their intent is with the legislation
or direction they're providing.
So there really does, I think, need tobe more of a focus and understanding of
(15:55):
what the actual job is, what the roleis, what they can and cannot do - so
that they will stop wasting time chasingthese things down that they want to do.
That they do have a better shot of atleast delivering what they say they want
to, and that we don't hear continuedCouncil briefings that involve letting
(16:16):
them know that the legislation thatthey passed is experiencing some of
the negative consequences that peoplewarned about - that they seem to be
caught off guard by, or surprised by,or even not understanding legislation
that they passed when being askedabout it as it's being implemented.
So I just hope there's more diligenceas we move into this next year,
(16:39):
certainly, about just the literal jobof being a councilmember, even before
you get to the ideological issues.
Yeah, I think that there's also sortof a lack of understanding of how
things are going to play politically.
And I look back to the minimum wagestuff - the gig worker minimum wage, the
(17:00):
idea of getting rid of the minimum wagefor tipped workers and going to a minimum
wage that's lower if people get tips.
These things are phenomenally unpopularand they haven't passed, and their
sponsors have withdrawn them so far.
And I think that we could have notwasted - because those are two of the
biggest policy debates that happenedin this Council's first year, and
(17:23):
they are now a quarter of the way intotheir terms, and they went nowhere
because they were very unpopular.
And rightly so.
And so I think that there's a lackof attention to the political winds
or the political perspective ofthe communities they represent.
And then - you're right - I can't tellyou how many times in this budget process
I heard people, particularly MaritzaRivera, saying they were confused and
(17:47):
didn't have enough data and information.
And me, as somebody who followsthe budget, I'm going - I can
point you to that information.
The city has produced extensivereports on a lot of these things.
And like, yes, I guess we coulddirect them to spend their time doing
a report - and in fact, the councilis directing city departments to do
a ton of reports on stuff that isalready kind of basically known and
(18:10):
that they're have been reports on.
But like, don't we want the citydepartments - let's say the Seattle
Department of Transportation - to befocusing on future-looking things and
not explaining what they do to a CityCouncil that hasn't done its homework?
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, we will continue to follow howthe Council proceeds and what they
(18:31):
do as they get more familiar withthe jobs they've been elected to do.
Now, I want to talk about somelate-breaking election results.
As many people know, we and severalstates have a vote-by-mail system.
Those votes take a little whileto come in and a longer while
to get completely counted.
So when we have very close races,it can be one to two weeks before
(18:55):
we know for sure who has won a race.
And we got a couple of answers on somevery close races - one involving a
very consequential open state SupremeCourt seat where Sal Mungia, who is
predominantly supported by Democrats- although this is a nonpartisan
position - defeated Dave Larson, who ispredominantly supported by Republicans.
(19:18):
This was a very close race with SalMungia pulling it out in the end.
And so, our state Supreme Courtcurrently has a Democratic or
liberal-leaning majority, Ithink people would generally say.
That doesn't always conclusivelydictate how people are going to
rule on issues or decide there.
There are lots of casesthat are unanimous.
There are lots that are split, notnecessarily on the ideological lines that
(19:43):
people may assume most things fall on.
But there was definitely a differencein ideological stance or positioning
between these two candidates.
And I'm sure a majority of the state - themajority of voters certainly who voted
- but us being a blue state in Washington,are pretty happy with this result overall.
It's consistent with what we'veseen, and I guess a reinforcement
(20:05):
that this court will continue tohave generally the same ideological
positioning as they've had generally.
Is that generally how you see it?
Yeah, I wasn't following this raceas closely as you were, Crystal.
I can't wait to hear more aboutyour interview with Sal Mungia.
But basically, with these Supreme Courtraces, because they are so low profile
- and I guess I am a low-information statevoter on some of these races - I just
(20:30):
sort of went and saw that Sal Mungiawas the one that the Democrats support.
And I said - Okay, sounds good.
But I think electing judgeshas its upsides and downsides.
I agree.
Definitely pros and cons withelecting judges and pros and
cons with appointing judges.
But I personally, obviously, amon the left-leaning side of things
(20:53):
and do appreciate our SupremeCourt and the justices on it.
I am personally gratifiedby this decision.
Also, Mungia had a lot more experience,has been a litigator for quite some time,
seemed to be more highly rated by thenonpartisan entities, and had the support
of the majority of justices on the currentcourt and such a wide variety of people.
(21:16):
So Mungia seemed very qualified.
We did have a unique conversation whenwe spoke to him in our interview on
Hacks & Wonks, so we can link thatin the show notes and you can listen
to that for yourself if you want.
But will be really interesting to see,especially in this time with now a Trump
administration, and states are so muchmore consequential given that the federal
(21:39):
situation isn't necessarily a given withsuch basic things as privacy rights,
abortion rights, LGBTQ+ protectionsand ability to participate in society.
And I am thankful and appreciativethat we have a court and continue to
send members of the court who willuphold the rights of the people of the
state - certainly gives me comfort.
(22:00):
And that leads to somethingelse I want to talk about.
Reichert - although this race wasdecided on election night - Ferguson
was clearly the winner immediately,as we saw the first drop of results.
But this past week, Reichertfinally conceded to Ferguson.
Now, concession has no practicalapplication - it doesn't stop
(22:20):
the counting or impact anything.
But in this time of people beingweird about elections and denying
their validity, it is notable thatReichert is accepting the results, has
acknowledged his defeat to Ferguson.
But also in this time, as now a lot offocus - especially in blue states - is
shifting to people wondering, Hey,if the Trump administration tries
(22:44):
to do things that are against ourstate's values, our state's laws,
what are we doing to protect them?
How do you see Bob Ferguson, NickBrown, who was just elected as attorney
general, and even Bruce Harrell,as the mayor of the largest city in
the state - their stances and whatthey've indicated is going to be their
(23:04):
approach to dealing with, working with,opposing the Trump administration?
Well, Ferguson has been incrediblyaggressive in his stance as
attorney general - just in goingafter, for example, drug companies,
mostly companies that have been inopposition to policies the state has.
And he has said in the run up, bothin the campaign and since being
(23:27):
elected, that essentially thatthis is the job he was born to do.
I'm vastly paraphrasing, but I thinkhe will be as aggressive as a state
governor can possibly be in fightingthe Trump administration's efforts to,
for example, site deportation centershere, or prosecute women who come
here to get abortions, and defendingour status as a sanctuary state.
(23:49):
Similar for Nick Brown as attorneygeneral - I think he has made
his positions on that very clear.
So I think that to the extent that we'reable to actually do anything about these
policies - and I think that extent maybe somewhat limited because the federal
government is the federal government.
But to the extent that we're able to doanything and preserve Washington's status
as a sanctuary state on many differentlevels - also for trans people, for
(24:10):
LGBTQ people in general - he's goingto be a strong governor on that front.
And Nick Brown is going tobe a strong attorney general.
Bruce Harrell, I don't know.
He hasn't made a whole lot of statementsabout Seattle's - the policies that
we have to protect immigrants, toprotect LGBTQ people, to protect women.
His profile has been very mutedon this - in comparison, I would
(24:30):
say to his predecessor, JennyDurkan, who was the mayor during
the first Trump administration andwas very loud and vocal on opposing
anything and everything he did.
Of course, she was a formerfederal prosecutor and was
really attuned to those issues.
But yeah, Bruce Harrell - obviouslya Democrat, but we haven't seen
a real aggressive stance fromhim yet on Seattle's sanctuary
(24:52):
city status, for example.
Well, and this is really interestingbecause what Trump has signaled and folks
in his administration have signaled isthat they are going to use basically money
as the carrot and the stick for a lotof what they're looking to accomplish.
And federal funding is distributed inso many different ways to state and
(25:14):
local government entities, to schooldistricts and school education entities.
And so the threat of losing federalfunding for education, or federal funding
for transportation projects - whichthe city of Seattle certainly gets,
for large infrastructure projects likelight rail and different things like
that - are conceivably on the table.
(25:34):
And Trump seems very willing to notonly use funding as a carrot to enact
what he wants, but use it to punish- and the threat of revoking funds to
punish cities, localities that don'tagree with what he's trying to do.
And it seems like they may be lookingto provoke some of those issues,
(25:55):
and trying to drive some of thatconflict to force the hand of blue
states and to see what happens.
So it is interesting to see and hearsome electeds seemingly be afraid of
losing funding and being afraid ofoffending the Trump administration
for fear of being targeted.
(26:17):
But that may come with some conditionsor stances that are very challenging
for people in our state to accept,that are contrary to what our
state and the voters in our statetraditionally believe and have stood for.
So it'll be really interesting to see,especially as typically just placating
or going along with folks who aresaying and doing the things that Trump
(26:38):
and his administration are saying anddoing, usually doesn't mitigate much
harm - oftentimes makes it easier forthose forces to accomplish their agenda.
So it will be very interestingto see how they navigate through
these issues moving forward.
Well, I will just say - wehave practice with this.
We went through the firstTrump administration.
Now I know that he is unleashed this time.
(27:00):
It will be different.
It will be harsher.
It will be worse.
But I think that's why we're in agood position with Bob Ferguson.
I don't - and I may eat my words ona future podcast - but I don't see
him capitulating because I don'tthink that he sees a point in that.
And I think that for the state to sortof betray its values over the threat of
losing, let's say, transportation funding.
I think we're going to losetransportation funding.
(27:22):
I think we're going to losefunding in a lot of areas.
When Trump was president the lasttime, the county didn't shut down,
but it didn't get as much funding- transportation projects stalled.
It was just a very slow time.
And obviously, because of COVID,everything sort of came to a halt
and that was the focus in 2020.
But I think we have been tosome version of this before.
(27:42):
And if the country survives, thenwe will survive too, as a state.
And I don't think that we will gainanything - and I think Ferguson
probably sees it this way as well - bysort of kowtowing to Trump and
trying to work with him in a way thatrequires selling out, essentially.
And I'll just mention really quickly,there was a GeekWire article - I
don't know how much to read intothis - but they said that Bruce
(28:04):
Harrell was at an event and saidthat he was not going to go to D.C.
and to the Trump administrationwith his fists balled and that
he could work with anybody.
I don't know the entire contextof those comments, but that is
definitely quite a bit different thanthe posture that Jenny Durkan had.
And not to like overpraise theDurkan administration - I'm just
saying she was quite combativewith the Trump administration
(28:27):
and came in with that posture.
And that's not what Harrellis doing - publicly - anyway.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I look to California also- another solidly blue state - that
took pride in opposing Trumpduring his first administration.
The governor, Gavin Newsom, similarto Bob Ferguson, signaling very
strong opposition to Donald Trumpand what he's articulated so far.
(28:50):
The Los Angeles Unified School Districttaking steps to declare that they're
a sanctuary district and whateverthey can do to proactively prepare to
protect their students, they will do.
So just curious to see.
I also, from a legislative perspectiveand just all of our levels of government,
do hope that our legislators andlawmakers are taking a proactive
(29:13):
approach to potentially grapplingwith the loss of federal funding.
I don't think this can just beviewed as - Oh, hypothetical, it
hasn't happened yet, we'll crossthat bridge when we come to it.
We already are dealing with budgetchallenges, as we just spoke about earlier
in the show, on a number of fronts.
Are having a broad conversation abouttax revenue overall with broad support
(29:38):
of the capital gains tax, otherprogressive taxation - that may come
into play - but that may need to be usedfor backfilling funds that are lost.
That certainly needs to be part ofthe scenario because if we don't
plan for that, pass more progressiverevenue, use it for existing things,
and then have to be put in a bindby going - Okay, now there's a new
hole that we have to contend with.
(29:58):
That's a whole new mess.
So I do hope that people aretaking this threat seriously.
I've heard some comments from somelegislators that indicate that
they're prepared to deal with this.
And others, including some inleadership, that indicate maybe
they are not feeling currently thatthis is something that they need to
consider and potentially deal with.
So I hope we do see that takenseriously as we move forward.
(30:22):
And with that, thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, November 22nd, 2024.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today wasSeattle political reporter, editor
of PubliCola, and co-host of theSeattle Nice podcast, Erica Barnett.
You can find Erica on Bluesky, and me onBluesky, and Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky - so
(30:47):
find us and follow us there - it's wherethings are happening and where it's at.
You can also catch Hacks & Wonks onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
else you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
show and our Tuesday topical showon most weeks, except weeks when
I'm really busy and trying to catchup on other work like this week.
(31:10):
And if you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - we'lltalk 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