This past week I had the pleasure of spending a few minutes with a group from the Girl Scouts of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. There were so many visitors that we brought them into the Senate Republican caucus room, which is where we meet to go over bills and amendments before the debates and voting in the Senate chamber.
Dear Neighbor,
There are three more days to go in one of the busier phases of our legislative session. The Senate and House of Representatives have until 5 p.m. Wednesday to take action on bills introduced by their respective members.
After that, the bills that received Senate approval will begin their journey through the House committees, and vice versa.
While I appreciate the technology that enables me to send reports like this from the Capitol, there are times that I have even more appreciation for the technology that allows “virtual” meetings.
One of those times will be 6 to 7 p.m. next Monday, when we will host a virtual town-hall meeting. Simply register to attend, at this link.
We’ll provide an update on the session, zeroing in on some of the bigger issues (like the budget situation and the majority side’s tax plans), and also listen to your opinions and concerns. Hope to see you there!
Look out, employers…
One of the bigger issues for Washington employers this session has to do with the ongoing effort by Democrats to give striking workers access to taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits.
UI benefits are meant for people who become unemployed through no fault of their own. I don’t believe striking workers should qualify, but that’s what organized-labor leaders in our state want — and on Friday, the Senate majority gave it to them with a “yes” vote on SB 5041.
I voted for an amendment to limit such benefits to four weeks, but the Democrats refused and stuck to 12 weeks. Think about that: if workers know they can go on strike and tap into the state UI fund for three months, do they have as much incentive to remain at or return to the bargaining table? I don’t think so.
If you’re an employer, how would you feel if your workers went on strike and collected checks funded by the UI “premiums” you pay? Or if your premiums go up because striking workers have depleted the fund? We know consumers are eventually hit when the cost of doing business increases.
Finally, I would worry about spin-off companies and suppliers suffering collateral damage from a prolonged strike against a major employer. That would put even more pressure on the UI fund.
You wonder who the majority Democrats were thinking of when they voted to pass this.
… and families of college students
Ten years ago the Legislature passed the first-ever cut in tuition at our state-run colleges and universities, and also put a cap on annual tuition increases.
On Friday the chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation that would increase tuition by 5% above the statutory cap beginning in the 2026-27 school year. At the same time, it would reduce state financial aid by close to $200 million over the next four years.
Our budget staff has already calculated, using tuition at the University of Washington as a model, that if this tuition hike is adopted, it would be a financial hit of around $3,200 over four years.
The tuition cut/cap served as a tax cut for middle-income families… so increasing tuition would act like a tax increase for those families.
Proposed constitutional change seems like ‘virtue-signaling’
Two years ago, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sent the abortion question back to the states, Democratic legislators in our state proposed a abortion-related amendment to our state constitution.
I viewed it as a serious effort, because the measure was filed before the 2023 session began. It received a public hearing in the Senate health-care committee and was voted forward by the committee’s Democratic members, but Senate Democratic leaders chose not to bring the legislation to the full Senate for a vote.
Compare that to the constitutional amendment proposed this past week — with the session already halfway over — which repeats some of the language from the 2023 measure but goes further to include what it calls “gender-affirming care.”
I’m bringing this up because the introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 8204 prompted a lot of messages to my office, nearly all of them opposed to the measure. So here’s my take.
Regardless of your views on either of the subjects in the proposal, be aware that the language is wide-open.
The restrictions on abortion that were put into Washington law by the voters in 1991 aren’t being carried through into SJR 8204. It’s not a simple case of placing the same policy into our state constitution.
The same goes for the gender-altering policy. There’s nothing in the proposed amendment about age limits or parental consent.
Between the timing and the extreme positions it takes, I don’t see SJR 8204 as a serious piece of legislation — and that makes it look like nothing more than virtue-signaling.
***
I am working to make living in our state more affordable, make our communities safer, uphold our paramount duty to provide for schools, and hold state government accountable. I’ll work with anyone who shares those goals and wants to find solutions.
My priorities (shared by Senate Republicans) are:
Here’s how to:
- Follow the bills I am sponsoring.
- Find out how to testify in committee hearings on bills that are before the Legislature.
Please reach out to my office with your thoughts, ideas and concerns on matters of importance to you. I am here to serve and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
