Tag Archives: government spending

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

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

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