Legislative Commentary: April 25, 2019

Dear Friends,

During the five years that our bipartisan coalition led the Senate, we could protect the people from any bad or extreme (or both) legislation that came over from the Democrat-controlled House. Of course, the House would also block the good bills we sent over from the Senate, which was frustrating. But in the end, fewer bills became laws, and those that did leaned toward the political center. In that sense I think the people of our state were served well by having a divided Legislature.

Now that the Legislature is controlled by one party, there are fewer checks and balances. The downside of that has really come into view in recent days, as the Senate’s majority Democrats are embracing bad or extreme (or both) legislation sent over by the House Democrats – bills our side would have blocked (and did) in past years.

The hardworking taxpayers are about to feel the downside too, because the majority Democrats don’t think a 14% increase in spending in the next state budget is enough. To me there’s no question that taxes will go up, but the unknown is whether the Democrats will get their tax demands figured out before the Legislature’s regular session ends in eight days, or if they’ll force us into overtime.

Without looking at the calendar, I think this was the first week all session long that there were no appointments with visitors from home. It didn’t help that we worked long hours on in the Senate chamber on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, ahead of the “cutoff” for the Senate to act on legislation sent over from the House.

For now, my priority is to enjoy a spring weekend with loved ones here at home. I wish you a safe and joyous Easter!

Another deadline passed, final stage of session begins

When the Senate began floor voting on House bills late last week, I expected to see the bills that go after Second Amendment rights, like House Bill 1465, which is an insult to the 600,000 law-abiding people in our state who hold CPLs (concealed pistol licenses). It was passed Wednesday afternoon after two false starts. However, it was disappointing to also see the Senate majority get behind controversial House legislation related to fundamental things like elections, and government transparency, and a bill that overreaches into the workings of one of rural northwest Washington’s major private employers.

The same is true about the Senate Democrats’ support of House legislation that would weaken welfare reforms dating back more than 20 years, put in place by former Governor Locke and a Republican-led Legislature (which complemented the national reforms from former President Clinton and a Republican Congress). The concept of a “hand up instead of a handout” has given way to exempting homeless people from the 5-year limit on receiving benefits.

The last of the House bills passed Wednesday had to do with mandating the measles vaccination, a proposal that makes people passionate on both sides of the question. I was disappointed with how the majority brought the bill for a vote in the first place, and especially by some of the remarks from the other side during the two-hour debate. People should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

On Thursday we shifted into the final phase of the session, when the focus is on two things: deciding whether to “concur” with changes the House made to Senate bills (the House will do the same with bills we changed and sent back), and reaching final agreement on the three new budgets: operating, capital and transportation.

Supporting local agriculture through the new capital budget

As I explained in last week’s commentary, a new capital budget for 2019-21 is coming soon – and after the budget itself is adopted, Republican senators will supply the votes needed to approve the bond bill that goes hand-in-hand with the budget.

The reason for the budget-first-bonds-second approach (and not the other way around, as the Senate’s Democratic majority tried to do April 8) is to protect the projects funded in the budget. An important local example is funding proposed for the North I-90 Odessa Aquifer Groundwater Replacement Project.

While the capital budget is typically the most bipartisan budget of the three budgets to be adopted this year (the other two pay for day-to-day operating costs, and transportation), it is not free from politics, which is why I appreciated a positive editorial from the Columbia Basin Herald about the importance of the North I-90 Project. I’m hopeful that the support in the Senate will carry through to the final version, in which case we can lock it down ahead of passing the bond bill.