Legislative Commentary

One of the more recent traditions in Olympia is a forum, hosted by The Associated Press, which brings news reporters and legislative leaders together a few days ahead of each new legislative session.

This year, during the part where I and the other Senate and House caucus leaders took questions, I raised some eyebrows by suggesting that there are legislators who want to work for all of Washington, and then there are legislators who seem to forget that Washington includes places like our legislative district.

Sure enough, the agenda Governor Jay Inslee shared with the Legislature last week in his state-of-the-state speech backs up my theory.

It’s easy to figure why he’s chosen now to push a West Coast-liberal list, even though this is the 60-day “short” session: a time when we typically avoid big policy moves and focus instead on adjusting budgets and laws adopted the year before.

He’s chosen 2018 because his fellow Democrats have majorities in both the Senate and House for the first time since 2012, and there is no guarantee that he will continue to have such support beyond this session.

Speaking of the 60-day session: although I look forward to meeting with folks from the 9th District who make the journey to Olympia, the shorter schedule automatically limits the slots on my calendar.

Last week’s visitors from back home included firefighters from Pullman; city council members from Pasco, along with city manager Dave Zabell; Mayor Shawn Logan from Othello; Daniella Clark of Pullman, with the Traumatic Brain Injury Advisory Council; and Michelle Kiesz, a neighbor from Ritzville (and Columbia Basin Development League trustee); she was here about water issues and broadband access, and I was on a call to the Lewis Clark Valley Chamber.

I had a productive meeting with leaders from WSU and six other higher-education institutions, visited with state transportation secretary Roger Millar and had a very pleasant phone call from a former state House colleague I have known for many, many years: Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

If you’re planning a visit to the Capitol while the Legislature is here, please let my office know as soon as possible.

Change of control shows in committee structure

The opening day of the 2018 session saw the Senate observing important traditions, such as welcoming new members.

Because the November election gave Democrats a one-seat majority in the Senate, there were also elections for some Senate leadership positions, such as a new Senate president pro tempore, and the committee assignments for 2018 were approved.

The number of Senate committees remains the same for 2018 – 12 policy committees and two fiscal (budget) committees – but the new Democratic majority took away 25 committee positions that were held by Republicans in 2017, along with restructuring and renaming several committees.

An example is the committee that addresses agriculture and water issues. Our majority had combined it with trade and economic development because in our view, those things go hand in hand in our state.

The new majority moved ag and water into the same committee with natural resources and parks, which reflects how they tend to put fish (as natural resources) ahead of people when it comes to water access.

I kept my positions on the Ways and Means committee and the Rules committee, but most Republican senators saw major reshuffling of their committee assignments.

Governor’s remarks, tax push offer a look behind the liberal curtain

A legislative answer to the Supreme Court’s Hirst decision, the ruling that has made it near-impossible for rural landowners to put in wells for drinking water, has been a major policy issue in our state for the past year.

So why didn’t it rate a word in the governor’s Jan. 9 state-of-the-state speech?

I guess that’s what happens when your world is a place where the water comes from either a city or community system that has a supply pipe at the street.

I am optimistic that the Senate and House will reach consensus sooner than later on Hirst, and when that happens, an ocean’s worth of credit needs to go to Senator Judy Warnick of Moses Lake.

She has represented our Senate caucus and people throughout rural Washington with the combination of grace and steel that makes an effective legislator.

While ignoring the Hirst situation, Governor Inslee’s speech checked most boxes on any so-called “progressive” list.

That includes more gun control; requiring health-insurance policies that cover maternity to also pay for abortions; automatic voter registration; and abolishing the death penalty.

But most of his remarks promoted the tax on energy he wants in the name of carbon reduction.

One of our Republican senators had good reason to label Inslee’s energy tax as a “death tax” for manufacturers across our state, and for middle-class family budgets. That’s because a $20-a-ton tax on carbon emissions would dramatically increase the cost of electricity and motor fuel in Washington, and raise costs for manufacturers who can’t avoid emitting carbon through their industrial processes.

State taxes on gasoline would jump by 40 percent, adding 20 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas.

Taken together, that means not only higher utility bills but also higher prices for food, durable products and services, plus a drag on the economy that will hurt employment.

And the $20/ton tax would rise over time, magnifying the economic harm.

That’s just on the tax side. On the spending side, Inslee wants to drop $2 billion per biennium (the state’s two-year budget cycle) on carbon-reduction efforts – things like grants for alternative-energy research, I’m guessing.

It’s an astounding number considering $2 billion is more state dollars than the Legislature is budgeting for services for people with developmentally disabilities ($1.5 billion) or those with mental illnesses ($1.4 billion) and nearly as much as goes toward seniors in long-term care ($2.3 billion).

I can sum up the needless harm of Inslee’s proposed tax on energy in two words: Kaiser Aluminum.

Does it make sense to threaten good manufacturing jobs in Spokane in favor of aluminum made in nations that pollute more and pay less?