WA Democrats forge ahead with budget plans despite Republican opposition

Time is winding down for this year's legislative session. Lawmakers in the State House and Senate are now looking to reconcile two slightly different spending plans. Each chamber passed its own version of this year's supplemental budget over the weekend, and both plans from the Democratic majorities call for heavy cuts to child care, education, and health care funding.

State government reporter Sarah Mizes-Tan brought KUOW's Angela King this update.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Angela King: Tell us more about the two versions of the budget that were just approved.

Sarah Mizes-Tan: I think the biggest takeaway with these two budget versions is that they ultimately are quite similar. There are some big costs facing the state. Democrats have said repeatedly that cuts from the federal government have caused a number of people to be deemed ineligible for things like food assistance and health care coverage, and the state has had to step in to take that cost up.

There are also a number of lawsuits against the state's foster care system alleging neglect that points to some larger issues beyond the budget. Both budget versions rely heavily on revenue generated from a proposed tax on high income earners, also known as the millionaires’ tax, which could take effect in 2029. And both budgets pull from the state's rainy-day fund for this year to cover shortfalls, along with funds from the Climate Commitment Act.

In the big picture, the state is facing a $2 billion deficit for this current two-year budget cycle, and it's been a challenge for leadership to address this.

That being said, what's on the chopping block?

The biggest cuts come from child care and education, which in the Senate's version of the budget accounts for nearly a third of the budget's costs saved. Child care advocates mention that in budget deficit years, these are typically the areas that suffer the most, because the funds aren't often earmarked for specific use.

Also, they mention that given the cuts to the federal government, there was urgent need to cover some other items, like people not receiving food assistance and not getting their health needs met. I was told this seemed like the least bad place to make those cuts. But of course, those are still going to have some dramatic impacts.

The cuts to child care mostly hit a program called the Working Connections Child Care program that provides subsidies for low and middle income families to send their children to day care. That program is getting hit pretty hard. And then we also have cuts to transitional kindergarten programming and higher education. Those two areas saw the second and third largest cuts.

Representative Timm Ormsby, the lead budget writer for the House, spoke about their version of the budget this year: “We face a lot of challenges, and they were talked about in the amendment debate on both sides, and we have a lot of shared values here. We just don't necessarily agree on how to get there. But I will say that in the crafting of this budget, all opinions were considered.”

As you can see, it was a tough decision to make all of these cuts. I could hear in Democrats' voices when they presented this budget that they made tough decisions they didn't necessarily want to make.

What would you say are the biggest points of contention right now?

The House held a pretty emotional debate over how the state's foster care system is run, mostly as an offshoot of a discussion of the cost of the state's mounting legal challenges. Many of the state's current lawsuits stem from alleged mismanagement of cases in the foster care system and the Keeping Families Together Act, which Republicans say has been the cause of a number of child negligence and death cases that the state is now facing lawsuits for. Essentially, Republicans say their solution to the rising legal costs is for the state to not continue to have these problems in the first place.

There has also been some bipartisan criticism of the use of the Climate Commitment Act funds to pad the budget. These are revenues generated by the state's carbon emissions market, generated from power plants essentially paying to pollute. Their original purpose was to go back to underserved communities and climate resilience projects, but both budgets would look to just put this money back into the general fund. It's not illegal to do it, but not the original purpose.

Republican Representative Joshua Penner spoke up in the final remarks on the House's budget after a long debate on Saturday, noting that this year's budget spends more than any before it: “This budget does less for more. And that scares me, and I think it reflects in the anger that I hear from my constituents, a general frustration that the needs that they have don't seem to be reflected in a budget whose expenditures are growing.”

Republicans ultimately put forward a number of amendments on Saturday in the House debate. Almost none of them were taken up, so you can absolutely sense that frustration there with Penner.

What's next, Sarah?

Both the House and the Senate will meet in negotiations in the coming days to iron out differences in their two budget versions. They'll send a consolidated budget to the governor by the end of next week. It's also worth noting that they unanimously passed their transportation and capital budgets. Those are budgets that deal with large-scale building projects and transportation in the state, things like roads and ferries. That will also go to the governor's desk.

Listen to the interview by clicking the play button above.