Olympia Democrats promise climate accountability, then quietly hit delete when the receipts get inconvenient.

Climate Cash Grab Gets a Makeover—Oversight Not Included

Washington Democrats are pushing House Bill 2251, a proposal that would overhaul how the state spends billions collected under the Climate Commitment Act—and critics say it swaps measurable environmental results for political convenience. According to a new analysis from the Washington Policy Center, the bill guts key guardrails that were originally used to sell the climate program to voters, steering money toward projects that are easier to fund politically but harder to justify environmentally.

Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center argues the legislation weakens transparency while expanding opportunities for lawmakers to treat climate dollars like a legislative slush fund. Among the biggest concerns: HB 2251 would cut funding for air-quality improvements in overburdened communities, eliminate previously promised fuel exemptions for agriculture, and reduce reporting requirements that track whether the spending actually lowers emissions.

In perhaps the most convenient change for lawmakers, the bill would shift climate spending reports from annual to every two years. That means legislators could be making multibillion-dollar decisions based on data that’s already outdated—an arrangement critics say makes it easier to hide poor results and harder for taxpayers to evaluate whether the Climate Commitment Act is delivering on its promises.

Myers warns the proposal compounds what critics already view as a struggling program by reducing accountability at the exact moment more scrutiny is needed. Opponents argue the bill continues a familiar Democratic pattern in Olympia: sell climate policy as science-driven and results-focused, then rewrite the rules once the money starts flowing and the outcomes become harder to defend. Read more at Seattle Red.

Olympia’s Power Grab Playbook: When “Protecting Rights” Means Expanding Government Muscle

Washington Democrats are advancing Senate House Bill 2161, a proposal that would significantly expand the Attorney General’s authority to investigate alleged legal violations. The bill would allow the AG to demand documents, compel testimony, and require written responses during civil investigations involving potential violations of state or federal constitutional law. Supporters claim the measure strengthens protections for Washington residents, particularly as they argue federal agencies have backed away from enforcing certain civil rights issues.

Critics, however, see something far less noble. Republican lawmakers warn the bill amounts to a sweeping expansion of state power that could easily be weaponized. Rep. Jim Walsh argues the proposal reads like routine legal housekeeping on the surface, but in practice could create a pathway for state agencies to target federal immigration officers simply for enforcing federal law inside Washington.

The bill is part of a broader legislative push by Democrats to limit federal immigration enforcement, a strategy opponents say risks putting Washington on a constitutional collision course with the federal government. Legal critics warn that giving the Attorney General powers resembling a civil investigative warrant opens the door to the state aggressively probing not just individuals or organizations, but potentially other government agencies as well.

For now, Republicans are holding their fire strategically. Rather than launching an all-out fight in committee, they’re saving their strongest arguments for floor debate, where the bill will face broader scrutiny. As the legislative session moves forward, the clash over HB 2161 is shaping up as another familiar Olympia showdown—Democrats framing expanded government authority as civil rights protection, while opponents argue it’s another step toward centralized power with fewer guardrails. Read more at Seattle Red.

Sheriff Showdown: Olympia Wants a Recall Button for Law Enforcement

Washington Democrats are advancing Senate Bill 5974, a proposal that would allow a state oversight board to remove an elected sheriff—an idea supporters describe as modernizing accountability but critics say strips power directly from voters. The bill would expand the authority of a state board to remove sheriffs if their peace officer certification is revoked, fundamentally changing how local law enforcement leadership is held accountable.

Opponents argue the proposal isn’t about modernization—it’s about control. Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank has emerged as one of the bill’s most vocal critics, warning that the legislation threatens the independence of the sheriff’s office, one of the few law enforcement positions directly elected by residents. Swank claims Democrats already dominate the Legislature, statewide executive offices, and most major cities, and argues this bill represents an attempt to bring one of the last locally accountable offices under centralized state authority.

The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs distanced itself from Swank’s fiery testimony, criticizing his tone while still acknowledging serious concerns with the legislation. Meanwhile, supporters of SB 5974 insist the measure simply clarifies sheriffs’ duties, ensuring they enforce Washington law as interpreted by state courts and follow updated accountability standards.

Republican lawmakers remain deeply skeptical. Sen. Mark Schoesler warns the bill undermines a constitutional office that exists specifically to maintain local accountability to voters. Critics also argue the legislation is tied to broader sanctuary-state policies, suggesting it could be used to target sheriffs who cooperate with federal immigration authorities—particularly when dealing with violent offenders or repeat criminals.

With another public hearing scheduled, SB 5974 is quickly becoming a flashpoint in Olympia’s ongoing struggle between centralized state control and local voter authority, raising larger questions about who ultimately decides how law enforcement operates in Washington: elected local communities or politically appointed state boards. Read more at Center Square.

Millionaire’s Tax Today, Everyone’s Tax Tomorrow? Olympia Thinks So.

Washington Democrats have unveiled Senate Bill 6346, a long-anticipated proposal to impose a 9.9% income tax on earnings above $1 million, branding it as a “millionaire’s tax” meant to generate billions for state services. Supporters claim the measure fixes Washington’s so-called “upside-down” tax system and could bring in roughly $3 billion to $4 billion annually for government programs, education, health care, and public defense costs.

Critics say the plan is less about fairness and more about opening the door to a full-blown state income tax. Republican leaders argue the proposal would hit small and medium-sized businesses and ultimately raise costs for everyday Washingtonians. They also note the bill does little to offset existing taxes, with House Republican Leader Drew Stokesbary pointing out that the promised tax relief adds up to less than 5% of the total revenue the new tax would generate—far short of what Democrats previously suggested.

Even Gov. Bob Ferguson is pumping the brakes. While he has expressed general support for an income tax in the past, he says he cannot back this version because it fails to return meaningful savings to taxpayers. Democratic leaders, however, appear unfazed, signaling the final version will likely change and suggesting negotiations with the governor are ongoing.

Business leaders across Washington are also raising red flags. Major employer groups warn that despite being framed as a personal income tax, the proposal could significantly impact business activity and economic growth. Democrats counter that other tech-heavy states have income taxes and remain economically strong, arguing Washington’s quality of life will continue attracting businesses regardless.

Republicans remain unified in opposition, calling the proposal a direct contradiction of Washington voters’ long-standing rejection of income taxes. With public hearings scheduled and legal and ballot challenges almost certain if it passes, SB 6346 is shaping up to be one of the session’s most explosive fights—reviving a decades-old debate over whether Olympia is fixing the tax code or simply finding a new way to grow government revenue. Read more at Center Square.

Donate Today

Please consider making a contribution to ensure Shift continues to provide daily updates on the shenanigans of the liberal establishment. If you’d rather mail a check, you can send it to: Shift WA | PO Box 956 | Cle Elum, WA 98922

Forward this to a friend.  It helps us grow our community and serve you better.

You can also follow SHIFTWA on social media by liking us on Facebook and following us on Twitter.

If you feel we missed something that should be covered, email us at [email protected].