Tag Archives: affordability

Majority is determined to raise your taxes, one way or another

Dear Neighbor,

This year’s regular legislative session will end no later than midnight this coming Sunday. Our state constitution says so, because the regular sessions in odd-numbered years are limited to 105 days — and Sunday is day 105.

If the Legislature still has work to do, it can go into what’s officially called an extraordinary session. We tend to call it a “special” session or simply, overtime.

A special session is looking like a pretty strong possibility this year, because the majority Democrats and the governor agree on raising taxes but not on which taxes to increase, and by how much. That’s up in the air even more because of what majority Democrats did on the day before Easter, when we were in session nearly eight hours.

Here are more details, taken from the news release I issued Saturday evening (here’s the relevant part of it):

Dozier opposes first wave of Democrat tax hikes

OLYMPIA, April 19… Today Sen. Perry Dozier and his fellow Republican senators opposed the first round of major tax increases brought to the full Senate: a sales-tax increase that will hit lower- and middle-income families harder, a tax increase that will drive capital out of Washington, and a collection of unrelated tax increases that includes a new tax on self-storage rentals.

Dozier, R-Waitsburg, offered this statement after the Senate’s majority Democrats pushed the three tax bills through during their third consecutive Saturday voting session of 2025:

“It’s a farce for the Democrats to keep talking about making the wealthy pay more when they clearly are willing to tax everyday Washingtonians. Today alone the Senate majority supported tax increases that will apply to childcare, nursing homes, synthetic tobacco products, self-storage companies, doorbell cameras, and much, much more.

“The tax bills that came out of the Senate today would cost more than $10 billion all by themselves, and we’re still expecting other taxes to be coming our way from the House. I heard Governor Ferguson on Thursday when he said $12 billion in new taxes is unsustainable, so the majority is close to that already – but maybe the Democrats just don’t care what he thinks.

“The best answer to the governor’s concerns about tax increases, and being ready for anything coming out of Washington, D.C., is the $ave Washington budget proposed by Senate Republicans. It doesn’t require a single tax increase and won’t cut anyone off of services. We made a motion to bring our budget bill to the floor today, but the Democrats said no.”

The governor hasn’t come out and said he will call legislators into a special session if there are too many new taxes in the budget they ultimately adopt — “they” being Democrat legislators, who are the only ones pushing new taxes.

Also, when Governor Ferguson said $12 billion in new taxes is “too risky” (in addition to “unsustainable”), he may have been referring to state-level taxes, not a combination of state and local. But if more services become taxable, the local sales taxes also apply, and the property-tax hikes being proposed certainly would mean local increases. That’s why I say the tax bills approved by the Senate on Saturday have put the count at $10-plus billion, with more tax increases in the pipeline.

Maybe the governor and the legislative Democrats will come to terms on taxes before midnight on day 105. I suspect they realize how it will appear to the public if we are pushed into a special session simply because of Democrat infighting about raising taxes.

Either way, multibillion-dollar tax increases seem inevitable this session, even though Senate Republicans have proposed a budget that does everything our state needs, using the revenue available and without a single cut to human services. It’s as though the majority is pursuing tax increases simply because it doesn’t think the people will push back — and that’s a poor way to govern.

Is the threat of a property-tax increase over? Not so fast

As of this past week the Democrats had not one but three bills to raise your property taxes. Each would affect the Washington law prohibiting the state and local governments from increasing your property-tax rate by more than 1% annually unless they get permission through a public vote.

Senate Bill 5798 would eliminate the 1% cap and tie tax-rate growth to inflation plus population growth; House Bill 2049 and Senate Bill 5812, introduced with identical wording, would triple the 1% limit. Each has received tremendous public opposition.

On Saturday there was new concern that Democrats would make SB 5798 / HB 2049 even worse, through a rewrite that would allow school districts to pursue higher levy amounts. This would take Washington’s K-12 funding system backwards, to the days when property-rich school districts had a huge money-raising advantage over property-poor districts.

Now the concern has shifted yet again. The House majority approved HB 2049 late last night, after taking out the part about the growth of property-tax rates — and as we anticipated, inserting a new part about larger school tax levies.

If this means the Democrats have completely abandoned their efforts to lift or eliminate the 1% cap on tax-rate growth, great. That is a victory by itself, for Republicans and especially the people who have applied so much pressure by stating their opposition to the bill.

However, enabling school districts to go for larger tax levies is still opening the door to higher property taxes, and sets the stage for two things to happen.

One is a return to the time when school districts were either “haves” or “have-nots” depending on property values. Republicans worked hard to level the playing field between districts, so property-rich districts didn’t have such an advantage. We don’t believe a child’s educational opportunities should depend on a ZIP code, and it’s shocking that Democrats would try to undermine that.

The other is that districts could once again become more reliant on local-levy dollars than on state-level funding, which sets the stage for another lawsuit like the one that brought about the landmark McCleary lawsuit more than a dozen years ago.

So don’t be fooled — in a way, HB 2049 is almost worse now, because of how it could raise the cost of living for homeowners and renters while also putting rural families and rural students at a disadvantage. We will fight this!

Another attack on agriculture

It isn’t just the tax increases being discussed in Olympia that worry me. The effort to impose rent control is likely to shrink the supply of rental housing, meaning higher prices, and the attempt to make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits will increase the cost of doing business.

Neither of these is a tax increase, literally, but if they become law, each will make living and working in our state less affordable.

Another example which hasn’t gotten much attention is the bill to begin phasing out certain refrigerants in our state — and by going after refrigerants, House Bill 1462 also goes after food storage.

This bill came before the full Senate this past week, having been passed in the House already on a party-line vote. I used it as an example of how policies popular with certain interest groups can have a much darker side, and what this bill in particular means for growers across our state who rely on cold storage.

Click here or on the image above to view my remarks on HB 1462. Because it has been passed by both chambers but in different forms, I can’t tell you how it will end up exactly — but we already know it will be unfriendly to agriculture.

Regulatory changes add to the cost of doing business in our state, and while many of those costs end up being passed along to consumers, not every business sector can do so — agriculture being a prime example, because those of us who grow commodities are “price takers,” not “price makers.”

As I said on the floor of the Senate chamber, this bill is another of the many attacks I’ve seen on agriculture during what is now my fifth year as a senator. We should be protecting agriculture instead, knowing all the jobs it provides and the important role it has in our state economy. Let’s not kill the family farm!

***

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.

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,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

The attack on parental rights continues in Olympia

Dear Neighbor,

Late in a legislative session, the priorities of the majority come into focus. Judging from the two major policy bills that were passed Thursday and Friday by the Senate’s majority Democrats, the priorities can be summed up in a word: control.

Let’s go in reverse order. On Friday afternoon, the big discussion was about parental control — specifically, a second effort by Democrats to undermine the parents’ bill of rights established in 2024’s Initiative 2081.

I have a special affinity for the parents’ bill of rights because during each of my first three years as a senator, I introduced legislation to create something very similar. It wasn’t necessary to do so in 2024 because by then, I-2081 was being certified and submitted to the Legislature.

Democrats joined us to unanimously support I-2081 in the Senate more than a year ago, yet there they were on Feb. 5 approving a first piece of anti-parent legislation, Senate Bill 5181. It’s now one step from a vote by the full House.

The bill that came before the Senate on Friday was House Bill 1296. It’s similar to SB 5181 but worse in its own way. A committee amendment would basically allow the state to withhold 20% of a school district’s funding for “willful noncompliance” with state education laws.

To me this creates a serious problem because districts have to follow federal education laws (like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) as well as state laws. Should those laws conflict, school-board members could easily find themselves having to choose whether the district should comply with federal law or state law, knowing the state can inflict a financial penalty if its law isn’t followed.

It seems completely backwards, to put it diplomatically, for Democrats to threaten the withholding of school funding. After all, the state’s paramount duty is to provide for K-12 education, and our districts need more support than they’re getting for things like special education.

Because the Senate made changes to this anti-parent bill, it needs to go back to the House for what’s called “concurrence.” If the House concurs, or agrees, with the Senate’s changes, the bill will head to the governor’s desk. If not, HB 1296 could come back to the Senate.

There’s no telling how this story will play out over the next couple of weeks. But it should already be clear to the parents of our state where the majority’s priorities lie — and it’s not with parents.

The property-tax increases being pushed by Democrats (Senate Bill 5798 and House Bill 2049) are among the worst bills of the session. I’m particularly concerned about how higher property taxes could hurt senior-age Washingtonians — click here for my take on that. To keep these proposals from flying below the radar, we invited members of the public to join us for a news conference focused on property taxes (several of them are in front of me in the photo above). I encourage you to watch our news conference by clicking this link. 

Rent control won’t increase supply of rental housing

On Thursday afternoon, the major debate in the Senate chamber had to do with rent control — or to put it more accurately, government-imposed price controls on rental housing.

I know the people of our legislative district are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, because it was the number-one topic at our mid-March town-hall meeting. Some of those participating expressed support for rent control, and the appeal is understandable — especially for someone who is now renting.

But as a policymaker, I also think about the renters of tomorrow, and those who choose to become housing providers. And even if my degree was in something other than economics, I’d still know from my farming experience what happens when demand for a commodity exceeds the supply of that commodity. Prices go up!

The best way to bring housing prices down, especially over the long term, also applies to rental housing: increase the supply.

For reasons that aren’t completely clear, our Democratic colleagues seem to think price controls need to be part of the answer. A month ago House Democrats approved the latest example of rent-control legislation — House Bill 1217. That’s the bill which came before the Senate on Thursday.

As passed by the House majority, the bill would put a 7% cap on annual rent increases. When it came off the Senate floor, the cap had been raised to 10%, plus the consumer price index, through an amendment.

I don’t know anyone who would get into or stay in the housing business with a 7% limit on annual rent increases. That could easily cause a housing provider to lose money, when the idea of such an investment is to do better than break even.

Going to the higher 10% limit makes this bad bill “less bad,” to use an Olympia expression. So does the passage of another amendment that exempts family- or individually-owned single-family homes from the law. Still, only Democrats voted for the bill, because price controls go completely against the free-market approach preferred by Republicans.

If Democrats also go ahead with property-tax hikes, it will only add to the squeeze on housing providers. They’ll have more reason to get out of the market, reducing the supply of rentals.

As with the anti-parent bill passed on Friday, HB 1217 must go back to the House for concurrence with the changes made in the Senate. We may not know the fate of this bill until the very last day of the session, which is April 27.

***

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.

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,

 

 

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

 

Watch out! Majority wants to raise your property taxes

Dear Neighbor,

A year ago, the only tax increase Democrats were pushing would have tripled the limit on the growth of property-tax rates. Because that bill stood alone, the news media focused on it — which helped to fuel the public outrage that eventually forced Democrats to drop the idea.

This year our Democratic colleagues are pushing a truckload of tax hikes. The news media seem to be distracted by some that aren’t as familiar, like the so-called “wealth” tax. The new efforts to raise your property taxes seem to be flying below their radar, and the public’s, even though we’re talking about $16 BILLION over the next 10 years!

Fortunately, reports like this and social media are helping to get the word out. That’s why the Senate Democrats’ property-tax bill (SB 5798) attracted a record amount of online opposition prior to the public hearing.

Property taxes = housing taxes

It’s easy to overlook how a property-tax hike affects rent prices — but because it would, we really should view these as housing taxes. I’ve also focused my new video report on the Democrats’ housing taxes, and hope you can take a few minutes to watch it (see below — and keep reading for how the public will be shut out of the budgeting process).

Governor Ferguson hasn’t come out against the proposed housing-tax increases, although he should. Those are regressive taxes, and he told reporters this week that our state’s tax code is too regressive already. I will oppose any effort to lift or get rid of the 1% cap on annual property-tax rate increases, because local governments already have the power to go above 1%. It just means asking permission from the affected property owners, at the ballot.

The governor did vow to veto any budget that relies heavily on the wealth tax. He had warned the Senate and House Democrats about that months ago, and they did it anyway.

He also provided what amounts to a checklist for budget writers: protect the state’s rainy-day fund, minimize new spending, maximize savings, and so on. I would expect the Democrats will take the governor’s guidance to heart, if they don’t want a budget veto — but then again, they apparently failed to heed the warnings Governor Ferguson had sent about the wealth tax.

Click here or on the image to view my report.

Goodbye, transparency; public to be shut out

There is more than enough time for Democrats to do all the necessary budget revisions out in the open. We do it all the time on other legislation, when differences between the Senate and House positions need to be settled.

Our Democratic colleagues have chosen to shut the public out by invoking the rule that basically lets selected legislators go behind closed doors to cut a deal. In this case, the operating-budget leaders from each chamber — four Democrats — will meet out of public view over the next few weeks and decide how to allocate nearly $80 BILLION in taxpayer dollars.

They will emerge with a new deal that won’t go through the public-hearing process, and can’t be amended. All we’ll be allowed to do is vote yes or no.

This unnecessary lack of transparency certainly won’t increase the public’s trust in government. If there’s a saving grace to all this, it’s that Democrats can’t vote secretly on whatever tax increases they end up pushing as funding for their final budget.

Capital-budget vote coming Saturday

The Senate will adopt its version of the capital budget tomorrow, during another one of our Saturday sessions. This is the budget that funds the construction and maintenance of state buildings, public-school matching grants, higher-education facilities, public lands, parks, water infrastructure and other assets.

Once the House follows suit, the task of reconciling differences between the two versions will begin, to produce a final budget.

While the work of settling differences between versions of the operating budget is moving into the proverbial back room, I can assure you that won’t happen with the capital budget. More details to come!

***

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.

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,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

‘No’ on Senate budgets that would raise your taxes

Click here to view my remarks in support of the no-new-taxes, no-cuts budget proposal offered today in the Senate chamber.

Dear Neighbor,

I don’t know why the Senate majority chose today to have us vote on the operating and transportation budgets, but I’d guess it is because both contain tax increases. Maybe they were hoping people would be busy on a Saturday and not paying as much attention.

Let me help call attention to what happened, by sharing the news release I issued today about the budget votes. It tells the story. And keep reading for how you can make your voice heard about the tax proposals themselves.

OLYMPIA, March 29… The record $21 billion in new and higher taxes included in the state Senate’s new operating budget and the gas-tax increase in its new transportation budget kept Sen. Perry Dozier from supporting either plan today.

“Both budgets have their merits, but I can’t overlook the fact that they would also add significantly to a cost of living in our state that is already too high. We can and should do better.

“I’m especially disappointed and concerned that the Democrats’ budget is based partly on tripling the growth rate of state and local property taxes. That contradicts what we’ve been hearing for months, about how the Democrats want to ‘make the wealthy pay what they owe.’ A property-tax increase hits every landowner regardless of their income, and is bad for renters too,” said Dozier, R-Waitsburg.

“We brought the Republican operating-budget proposal to the Senate floor as a common-sense alternative for our Democratic colleagues to consider. It spends less than the amount of revenue coming in, it wouldn’t raise a single tax or cut a single service, and it wouldn’t drain the state’s rainy-day fund. And still, the Democrats said no and went with their plan instead, even though it is the complete opposite of ours in all of those ways.”

The Republican “$ave Washington” plan failed on a 30-19 party-line vote. Senate Democrats then adopted their larger $78.5 billion proposal with a partisan 28-21 vote.

Prior to the final vote, Dozier reminded his Senate colleagues how the Democrat budget is balanced in part by cuts to higher-education funding which will mean tuition increases at the state-run colleges and universities, and other cuts to financial assistance.

“One of the most popular things the Legislature has done in the past decade was to cut tuition, then put a cap on it so students and their families could know what was coming,” he said, referring to a 2015 Republican-led reform that reduced tuition for the first time in state history. “It’s unconscionable for the Democrats to now break the tuition cap when they’re also raising taxes by $21 billion.”

On top of the tuition increase, Dozier explained, the Democrats’ budget cuts support for child care, cuts the state fair fund by 50%, increases hunting and fishing license fees by nearly 40% and hikes the cost of a Discover Pass by 50% — again, at the same time that it would raise taxes by $21 billion.

“I don’t know why the Democrats are so determined to raise taxes when the budget we proposed is proof that tax increases are completely unnecessary.

The state gas tax has been 49.4 cents per gallon since 2016. Dozier said he understands the need for more transportation money, but the proposed 6-cent increase in the Senate transportation package is more complicated than it sounds.

“If the Climate Commitment Act had been repealed in November, that hidden gas tax would be gone, and Washington’s gas prices would be closer to Idaho and Oregon. And if the Democrats weren’t also raising property taxes and so much more in the operating budget, a bump in the gas tax would look different. But this budget also indexes the gas tax, so it would automatically increase each year. All of that together is just too much,” Dozier said.

He said the third of the Senate budget proposals, the capital budget, will be released Monday. Dozier is assistant Republican leader for that budget, which allocates funds for public construction and other capital projects and is generally the most bipartisan of the spending plans legislators must adopt.

 

Let me recap the Democrat tax proposals that will cost the most:

  • SB 5798, which would remove the 1% cap on the annual growth rate of state and local property tax rate, and instead allow your property-tax rate to increase based on inflation plus population growth. That could average 4.5% per year based on recent history, but go as high as 8%.
  • SB 5797, called a “wealth” tax by the majority, is actually a new kind of property tax. Instead of taxing people for owning land, it would tax people for simply owning a certain volume of stocks, bonds and other intangible assets. Republicans see it as also discouraging the innovation that is at the heart of Washington’s high-tech sector.
  • SB 5796, which would basically mimic the payroll tax already being imposed by the city of Seattle. This new tax would be applied to nearly 5,300 Washington employers: the tech industry, professional services, finance, real estate and health care. My understanding is that it also would hit some public-sector employers, like universities and larger school districts.

Before 3 p.m. Monday, I encourage you to go online to the Ways and Means Committee sign-in page for these bills. You may state your comment on one or more by clicking here and following what should be a user-friendly process. Here’s where the link will take you:

If you would rather testify instead of simply supplying your position on this legislation, see the link below.

***

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:

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,

A budget… already? With no new taxes?

Dear Neighbor,

If you’ve been hearing state government is in financial trouble and big tax increases are the only answer, I have good news. Even if you haven’t heard a word about Olympia’s budget situation… the news is still good.

This week the two senators who serve as the Senate Republican operating-budget team did something few thought was possible this session: They proposed a new state budget that balances without a single tax increase, and without slashing the services people care about most.

Normally we don’t see budget proposals until late March. By putting their plan on the table this week, Sen. Chris Gildon of Puyallup and Sen. Nikki Torres of Pasco served notice to the majority that the “tax increases are inevitable” message people have been hearing for months just isn’t true.

The same is true for the scare tactics we saw from House Democrats earlier this month, when they launched a campaign claiming, in so many words, that people will die unless taxes are increased.

Because the Senate Republican approach would effectively erase the budget shortfall while saving the people of our state from the harm of either huge tax increases or devastating spending cuts, this is being called the “$ave Washington” budget.

As Senator Torres put it, this new proposal has “completely transformed” the budget conversation here in at the Capitol, because anyone who takes the time to look will see it is a serious and viable proposal.

I invite you to visit the $ave Washington webpage and examine the budget proposal. You’ll find the slide presentation from the March 11 news conference, a balance sheet, and much more — which collectively show this is an honest, reasonable and sustainable plan. It’s just what our state needs at a time like this.

Capital-budget proposal nears completion

My first session as one of the writers of the Senate capital budget is going as expected. It reminds me of some of the work I did as a two-term Walla Walla County commissioner, but on a much larger scale both financially and geographically.

After studying the requests for funding in detail, it’s definitely a challenge to decide which will make it into this year’s Senate budget and which have to wait at least until 2026 for further consideration. But it’s like any other budget — there’s only so much money, and you have to prioritize.

The capital budget has a reputation for being the most bipartisan of the three budgets we must adopt this year (operating and transportation are the others), and I can now vouch for that.

Sen. Mark Schoesler of Ritzville is the leader on the Senate Republican side, with me as assistant, and we’ve developed a constructive working relationship with our Democratic counterparts: Sen. Yasmin Trudeau of Tacoma, and Sen. Mike Chapman of Port Angeles.

As I explained above, we normally don’t see any of the budget proposals until late March. While no date has been set to roll out this year’s Senate capital budget, it is near completion, so we are definitely on track.

Sen. Matt Boehnke, R-Kennewick, is prime sponsor of a bill having to do with cost-of-living allowances for members of two state-run pension plans. I co-sponsored SB 5113 because the policy is sensible — but we weren’t allowed to vote on it. Another bill was brought before the Senate instead, which I couldn’t support.

The backstory about vote on COLA legislation

You know the expression about how there’s more than one way to skin a cat… well, there also can be more than one way to solve a public-policy issue.

When two or more solutions are proposed as legislation, but legislators are allowed to vote on just one of those bills, what happens? Here’s an example.

Senate Bill 5085 and SB 5113 both have to do with providing ongoing COLAs (cost-of-living allowances) for members of two state-run pension plans that had closed to new enrollments nearly 50 years ago.

The chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee is the lone sponsor of SB 5085. She allowed her bill to advance from her committee while “killing” SB 5113, a bill I sponsored along with several Democrats and Republicans. That also explains why only her bill came before the full Senate for a vote earlier this month.

Sometimes there isn’t enough difference between competing bills to matter — but not in this case. Here’s what I would say to someone who wonders about my vote: While I support the COLA part of SB 5085, the underlying policy in the bill I sponsored is better, and had been endorsed by the state Select Committee on Pension Policy.

SB 5085 still passed in the Senate, but it was on a party-line vote, which means I was far from alone in withholding my support.

What the heck is an ‘NTIB’?

I’ve mentioned before how the work we do in Olympia is guided by deadlines for taking action on legislation. The first deadline is for policy committees, the next is for budget committees, and the third is the deadline — or “cutoff” — to vote legislation forward from the house or chamber where it originated.

Wednesday was the deadline for the Senate to act on Senate bills, and the House to act on House bills. On Thursday we moved into the next phase, during which Senate policy committees consider bills passed by the House, and vice versa. The deadline for that is April 2.

As we know, there are often exceptions to a rule — or a deadline, in this case. When a bill is determined to be part of a budget package, usually because the policy in the bill is funded in the budget, it is labeled “Necessary To Implement the Budget.” As an NTIB bill, it is exempt from the usual deadlines.

House Bill 1334, which would triple the allowable annual growth rate of property taxes, is still before the House Finance Committee. It’s remained there since a public hearing on Feb. 11. But no one should assume it’s “dead” for the session.

The policy in the bill affects the state property tax (for schools) as well as local property taxes. I suspect that is more than enough to qualify it for an NTIB label that would keep the tax increase in play. I can’t be sure because the House Democrats get to make that decision — let’s wait for the House operating-budget proposal to come out, and see if it’s in the budget package.

***

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:

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,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Count ’em: 107 bills in two days!

Ways 2-25

I don’t believe unemployment benefits are meant to be paid to people who walk off the job and go on strike, yet on Friday the majority Democrats on the Senate budget committee endorsed a bill to allow that. To view the public hearing that led to the vote on SB 5041, click here.

Dear Neighbor,

When I was appointed to the Senate Ways and Means Committee ahead of this legislative session, I figured it would keep me busier than any of my other committees. This week, “busier” was an understatement. Wow!

To make a long story short, bills that have a cost associated with them need to go before a budget committee after coming out of a Senate policy committee – and except for bills related to transportation, they all come to our Ways and Means committee.

As a result, Monday’s committee agenda had public hearings for 27 bills, Tuesday brought hearings on 21 more. There were 31 hearings on the Wednesday agenda, and on Thursday… we began voting. That list had 58 bills, and yesterday’s voting list had 49.

This is on top of the hours spent in the Senate chamber this week, debating and voting on bills that had cleared the necessary committee hurdles.

Does our state need all 107 of the bills we saw Thursday and Friday to become law? Absolutely not. A good example is SB 5041, which would provide taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits for striking workers.

If you get laid off, you can apply for unemployment benefits – but not if you quit. The same logic applies to going out on strike. It’s still a case of voluntary separation.

Striking workers would have less financial incentive to stay at or return to the bargaining table if they’re allowed to collect unemployment benefits. That would give them a distinct advantage over the employer, which explains why SB 5041 is a high priority for our state’s labor organizations. But it hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars.

I’m not on the Senate labor committee, so if it wasn’t for my seat on Ways and Means, I wouldn’t be able to ask questions that help expose the flaws in this bill, as I did during the public hearing on it Wednesday.

Here’s a sampling of some other bills that came before the Ways and Means committee this week:

  • SJR 8200: Amends the state constitution to allow increases in property taxes through school bonds by removing the 60% vote needed and lowering it to a simple majority (94% “con” testimony in committee)
  • SB 5626: Provides unemployment benefits for undocumented workers in a way that easily allows fraud
  • SB 5179: Allows the state school superintendent to go after schools/officials if they don’t comply with legislative mandates
  • SB 5266: For those sentenced as juveniles, eliminates the 20-year waiting period to petition for release – even if convicted of violent crimes
  • SB 5382: The “initiative killer” bill, which includes threatening signature gatherers for initiatives with fines and jail time if certain requirements aren’t met, and preventing people who don’t have addresses or who use post-office boxes from signing initiative petitions

With the close of business Friday, the Senate’s two budget committees (Transportation is the other one) joined the policy committees that are already on break.

Starting Monday the activity in the Senate will move full-time to the Senate chamber through March 12. During that time you’ll find Republican and Democratic senators doing one of two things: meeting in their respective caucuses to discuss bills, and amendments to those bills, or out on the “floor” debating and voting on those bills and amendments.

From the Mailbag: Keeping tax dollars local?

Earlier in this session I shared part of an email that came from a constituent in Richland, who was expressing her concerns about actions being taken at the federal level. Today let me share an excerpt from an email sent by a Walla Walla constituent, which is about the relationship between the state and its many municipalities.

“Your newsletter spends much of its digital ink attacking Democrats, as is usual for Republicans who seem to have few ideas other than ‘lower taxes.’ How about favoring some kind of bill allowing local areas to keep more of their tax money rather than sending it to the state? I’ve long advocated that each county in the state be forced to pay its own way.

“That would mean, of course, that Walla Walla County, where I live, could take in no more in state spending than it collects in taxes. This could be regulated over a three year period to account for large projects. Allowing locals to collect and spend their own money is an intensely Republican idea, i.e. devolving government to its most local level.”

He’s right, Republicans do prefer local control because it means decisions are made closer to the people they affect. That’s why we typically oppose legislation that dictates school-related policies from Olympia in a way that overrides the authority of local school boards.

But to get to this constituent’s point: In 2022 I co-sponsored a bill to assist with the hiring of law-enforcement officers. It would have basically allowed cities and counties to collect and spend 1/10th of 1 percent of the sales tax that would normally have gone to Olympia. The bill didn’t even make it out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Maybe my Democratic colleagues were opposed to letting the locals keep some tax dollars. Perhaps they were opposed to helping communities rebuild their law-enforcement agencies after the exodus of officers we saw in the 2020-21 timeframe. I have no way of knowing. But there’s an example of how I tried to keep more tax money at home, and it didn’t work.

By the way, the bill’s Republican sponsor reworked it so the funding source became grants from the state budget rather than tax credits. His perseverance seems to have paid off, because Governor Ferguson publicly endorsed the bill in his inaugural address. SB 5060 was passed by the Ways and Means Committee Thursday!

As for “attacking” Democrats – like a baseball umpire, I call ‘em as I see ‘em. If my experience tells me legislation introduced by a Democrat is bad policy, either for our district or state, it should be OK for me to let my constituents know.

Republicans don’t have a corner on good ideas, which is why I’ve co-sponsored a couple dozen bills this session that were filed by my Democratic colleagues. I also welcome ideas from constituents, like this one from Walla Walla. But to be clear, “lower taxes” are always a worthwhile goal, in my book.

March 17 THM notice

***

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:

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,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

Who would oppose multifamily housing in rural areas?

Dear Neighbor,

When legislators talk about the obstacles to increasing the supply of affordable housing in our state, the list always includes — at least for Republicans — the government regulations that make property development more complicated and costly than it needs to be. But there are forces outside government that get in the way as well, and this week’s report explains how and why I recently tangled with them.

Also, there’s important information for people who have purchased ag fuel and paid the surcharge tied to the cap-and-tax law (officially, the Climate Commitment Act). I and other Republicans worked hard to set up a fund to provide rebates, and we don’t want anyone to miss out on what they’re owed!

Click here or on the image to view my report.

***

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.

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,

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504

Here they come: one proposed tax hike, then another, then…

BFST committee

Dear Neighbor,

The results of a recent survey of 600 Washington voters showed up in my inbox earlier this month. Most of the survey questions had to do with state spending, one way or another. That makes sense considering how years of overspending have finally caught up with the majority Democrats, and put state government in a multibillion-dollar hole that has to be solved before legislators can adjourn for the year.

It’s no surprise to me that more than three-fourths of those responding think the Legislature doesn’t need more money to address important priorities, and more than three out of five responding simply don’t trust the Legislature on spending.

poll result

Click here for a full presentation of the survey results.

So what are the Democratic majorities in the Senate and House doing? Well, they’ve stepped up their efforts to raise taxes. It’s the easy way to get out of the budget hole while continuing to add to the size of state government.

In the meantime, Republicans are coming up with ways to reduce spending and solve the budget deficit without tax increases. I invite you to look at some of the cost-saving ideas at our $ave Washington webpage.

Here’s where three of the Democrats’ proposed tax hikes stand as the fifth week of this year’s 15-week legislative session wraps.

  • A new tax on each mile you drive? For many years, Democrats have wanted to impose a mileage tax. Senate Bill 5726, introduced Tuesday, would create a “road usage charge” (RUC for short) starting at 2.6 cents per mile, plus an assessment of 10% on the total RUC a person pays. That’s right — the “assessment” is really a tax on a tax.The supporters of a mileage tax argue Washington’s 49.4-cent per gallon gas tax isn’t generating enough money as it is, with more electric and hybrid vehicles on our state’s roads. But I wonder if they understand, or appreciate, how a mileage tax would hurt rural drivers disproportionately.

    Also, this would be another “regressive” tax — meaning it hits lower-income people harder — from the party that is always complaining about Washington’s tax code being regressive.

    Washington’s constitution guarantees gas-tax money can only go toward highways and bridges. The mileage-tax bill doesn’t (and can’t) guarantee how the 2.6 cents per mile would be used. Also, the 10% assessment could be used only for “multimodal,” meaning transit, rail, and pedestrian/bicycle purposes.SB 5726 will get a public hearing Tuesday afternoon before the Senate Transportation Committee. If you want to testify about the bill or at least make your opinion known, there’s a link at the end of this report that will help.

    The identical House bill (HB 1921) already received a public hearing. From what I’m told, the House majority is pushing harder for this tax than the Senate, but that is not reassuring.

  • Higher property taxes, Part I: Last year the Senate Democrats tried to lift the cap on the annual growth of property-tax rates. They wanted a 3% limit, rather than the 1% Washington voters had approved (which was later confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Legislature).That attempt fizzled after intense opposition from the public and Senate Republicans. But this year the House Democrats are making a run at tripling the property-tax growth rate, with House Bill 1334.

    It’s the same bad idea as before, and my argument against it is also the same. Beyond the fact that this would be another regressive tax increase that makes living in our state harder to afford, cities and counties already have the ability to increase property-tax rates beyond 1%. They try to make it sound like the Legislature is holding them back, but that’s false. All they have to do is get permission from the voters.

    The 1% cap applies only to the annual property-tax increases that get voted on at the council/commission level. This bill would basically let local governments take more without asking first. HB 1334 received a committee hearing Tuesday, and I expect it will continue to move ahead unless, like last year, enough pressure is applied to stop it.

  • Higher property taxes, Part II: There’s a reason a 60% majority vote is required to pass school bond issues. Unlike enrichment levies, school bonds create debt that typically takes decades to pay back. To me — and according to Washington’s constitution, for the past 80 years — such an obligation needs to be supported by more than a simple majority.The Democratic members of the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee, on which I serve, voted yesterday to pass legislation that would require only a simple majority to approve bond issues: Senate Bill 5186, and Senate Joint Resolution 8200. I and the other Republican committee members voted no, meaning we want to maintain the taxpayer protection afforded by the long-standing three-fifths approval standard.

    Because dropping to simple-majority approval would require a change in the state constitution, SJR 8200 would have to be passed with a two-thirds vote in the Senate and in the House, then a majority of voters would have to agree at the next general election.

    I know the supporters of bond issues are disappointed when those measures fail, but let’s not blame the 60% approval requirement. If a school district makes a persuasive argument to the voters, and the bond issue is the right size at the right price, shouldn’t 60% support be attainable?

media Feb 11

Each week, if there’s a long enough break between committee meetings and floor sessions, Republican lawmakers make themselves available to news reporters who are covering the 2025 session. I took part in this week’s meeting, commenting on tax-related questions as a member of the Senate Ways and Means committee — and was prepared to field questions about parental rights, being the originator of the Senate’s parental-rights bill and a member of the Senate Early Learning and K-12 Committee. To learn what reporters are asking about, and hear our responses, click here.

***

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:

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,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

Protecting children from fentanyl exposure… will the third try work?

Feb. 7, 2025

Dear Neighbor,

In each of the past two years, the state Senate has tried to make it a crime for an adult to expose a child to fentanyl. Both times, the House refused to allow its members to vote on our bill — which is unconscionable, considering how many children and even infants in our state have been badly injured because of this terrible drug in recent years.

My report below explains how we’re making another try for this life-saving policy. It also follows up on the partisan attack on Washington’s new parental-rights law, and ends with a light-hearted update about “The Evergreen State” (that’ll make sense when you watch).

video update

Click here or on the image to view my report.

***

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.

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,

dozier signature

Perry Dozier
State Senator
16th Legislative District

EMAIL: Perry.Dozier@leg.wa.gov
OLYMPIA PHONE: (360) 786-7630
OLYMPIA OFFICE: 342 Irving R. Newhouse Building
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 40416, Olympia, WA 98504