Legislative Commentary

Recently I mentioned how one of the state Supreme Court justices, from Seattle, had attended a political rally put on in Spokane by the largest teachers’ union in the state.

She did so shortly before she was to hear arguments in a lawsuit brought by that union and others against the state’s charter schools, and her appearance rightfully had people wondering if she could be impartial about that case.

Part of Justice Mary Yu’s public excuse for speaking at the political event was that she wanted to encourage teachers to have judges come and speak to their classes. That claim didn’t hold much water with me, because getting an invitation to speak at a school just isn’t that complicated.

As an example, I went out to Wilson Creek High School the other day and talked with multiple classes of students (about civic involvement, the lawmaking process and so on), and all it took to arrange was a phone call or two.

I appreciate it when people take an interest in how their government works, and the decisions being made, which is why I’m happy to be a guest speaker when the farming calendar and legislative calendar allow it. Folks just need to contact my office.

Lately the legislative calendar has included visits with the Tri-Cities Legislative Council, at the southern edge of our legislative district, and various Pullman officials in connection with the “Pullman 2040” effort. I also had the pleasure of saying a few words at the State FFA Convention when it was held in Pullman this past month.

Safety at Palouse Falls State Park

As regular readers of my commentary know, I’m a big supporter of our state parks because of the all-ages recreational opportunities they offer, and I see our region’s parks as being the cream of the crop.

So headlines like “Victim’s mom calls for closure of Palouse State Park” really jump out.

That headline was prompted by the recent death of a 2018 WSU graduate, the fourth death near or at Palouse Falls State Park in the past two years. All four victims were men in their 20s, who died due to falls or drowning in April or May accidents.

The popularity of the park has soared since 2014, when Palouse Falls was named the state waterfall. The number of visitors hit about 200,000 last year, according to the state Parks and Recreation Commission, which is up from around 80,000 before the “official waterfall” designation.

And it’s why I worked hard to secure $220,000 in the current state capital budget, for renovations to the day-use area that should help accommodate the increased traffic (both vehicle and people traffic).

I understand that State Parks is looking at ways to further limit access to undeveloped areas or the park, and to more clearly communicate the potential dangers to hikers and swimmers.

Safety improvements like those should not have to be micromanaged by the Legislature. And State Parks has the funding to address these issues, which should come ahead of land acquisitions and specialty trails that appeal to a far narrower range of visitors.

State revenue picture continues to be bright

What’s typically called the “state revenue forecast” is a quarterly prediction put together by the state’s chief economist, using all sorts of factors – from housing construction and real estate transactions to the price of oil and other inputs that are at a more national level.

The forecast is especially helpful to those of us on the Senate budget committee, as we work during a legislative session on either a brand new budget or a set of budget adjustments.

The same group that reviews and releases the chief economist’s forecast (the bipartisan Economic and Revenue Forecast Council) also puts out a revenue collection report each month, and the latest report has collections coming in $80 million ahead of expectations.

That’s amazing, considering how strong the state economy has been already.

Judging from the revenue collections, our state’s economic golden geese (so to speak) are a pair of sectors: information services (which includes software publishing and other IT information services such as internet publishing and web search portals) and retail trade (which includes electronic shopping).

I take two things from this news. First, there is still no need for new taxes, like the state income tax (on income from capital gains) my Democrat colleagues again proposed this year.

Or Governor Inslee’s energy tax, which was almost pulled up for a vote this year by the Senate’s new Democrat leaders (after it was approved by two committees).

Or the smorgasbord tax proposal that would hit purchases of farm equipment and agricultural products (like fertilizer).

Second, there is still no good reason for the Legislature’s majority Democrats to have blocked the property tax cut our side proposed this year. They blocked it not once but four times in all as the state budget adjustments were being made.

The next quarterly revenue forecast will come out in mid-June, and there is every reason to think it will be positive as well.

Seattle council vote says 
‘go away’ to large, successful employers

Speaking of economic golden geese, you may have caught up with the news that the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to slap a tax on jobs at the city’s largest companies. Talk about a one-two punch: the state already makes it difficult to start and maintain a business by taxing gross income instead of net income.

Now Seattle will penalize some of its most successful employers simply because they have been successful, and because those employers are blamed for making the cost of housing rise so much that more people become homeless.

It’s no surprise that an effort to repeal the jobs tax (through a referendum at the next city election) is in the works, and nearby entities like Tacoma and Pierce County are looking to capitalize on the unfriendly business climate by wooing worried (or angry) employers who are not that far up Interstate 5.

To me this issue has statewide importance because jobs in Seattle are as important to Washington’s economy as jobs elsewhere. Also, in my book the Seattle jobs tax (or “head tax”) is no more legal than the income tax the council approved less than a year ago, which was thrown out by a judge about four months later.

To drive that point home, I’m ready to introduce legislation at our next session to clearly prohibit a jobs tax.

What we don’t know is whether Democrats in the Legislature will support their Seattle city colleagues by proposing a bill to clearly legalize a jobs tax.

That concern would not have been so valid when Republicans led the Senate, because we would have sidelined such a regressive idea. It was one of the many good things about having a politically balanced Legislature.