Olympia promises it’s only taxing millionaires… while quietly making sure future lawmakers can tax everyone else.

Democrats Take Another Bite at the Income Tax Apple — This Time With Extra Wiggle Room

Majority Democrats are moving Washington closer to its long-debated income tax after Senate Bill 6346 cleared the Senate Ways and Means Committee, advancing a 9.9% tax on income above $1 million. Supporters claim the measure will generate between $3.5 billion and $5 billion annually, though critics say it’s less about fairness and more about opening the door to a full-blown income tax later.

Republicans attempted to pump the brakes by proposing amendments designed to lock the tax strictly to millionaires and require a constitutional amendment to guarantee it stays that way. Sen. Chris Gildon offered one such amendment, framing it as a simple trust issue after more than 61,000 people reportedly signed in opposition to the bill. Democrats declined to even debate the idea, quickly voting it down — along with every other Republican amendment — and leaving future legislatures free to expand the tax if they choose.

That “future flexibility” has become a major sticking point for critics, who argue it confirms fears that the millionaire tax is just a starting point. Republicans warned that wealthy taxpayers — the very people Democrats are counting on to fund the new revenue stream — are already relocating or restructuring finances to avoid Washington’s growing tax burden. Sen. Keith Wagoner described the policy as “killing the golden goose,” arguing the more the state targets high earners, the fewer will stick around to pay.

Sen. John Braun also blasted the proposal as constitutionally questionable and economically risky, accusing Democrats of ignoring voter opposition and legal precedent in favor of expanding government revenue. Critics argue that while the bill includes modest tax relief provisions like expanding the Working Families Tax Credit and small business tax breaks, most of the revenue would still flow into the general fund — raising doubts about whether relief is truly the priority.

Gov. Bob Ferguson has signaled support for the tax but says he wants broader relief measures added before signing it into law, giving Democrats a chance to repackage the proposal as helping working families while still securing billions in new revenue.

If the bill survives legal challenges — which opponents fully expect — the tax would take effect in 2028, with collections starting in 2029. Until then, critics say Democrats are selling voters a narrow tax targeting the ultra-wealthy while carefully preserving the option to expand it later — because in Olympia, temporary taxes have a habit of becoming permanent, and limited taxes tend to grow up fast. Read more at Center Square.

The Party of “Trust Us” Strikes Again

In an op-ed, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh of Aberdeen — who also serves as chairman of the Washington State Republican Party — tackles a question posed by a politically shifting Seattle voter: Do politicians lie, or do they just bend the truth? Walsh argues that in Washington, Democratic leaders have mastered all forms of political untruth — outright lies, creative “framing,” and good old-fashioned hypocrisy — often without serious pushback from the media.

Walsh points to former Gov. Jay Inslee’s now-infamous claim that he hadn’t heard about Seattle’s CHAZ/CHOP takeover in 2020. Despite documented briefings showing Inslee knew exactly what was happening, media coverage mostly softened the moment into harmless “inconsistencies,” reinforcing Walsh’s argument that Democrats often receive a free pass when facts get inconvenient.

According to Walsh, rhetorical framing is where Democrats truly shine — especially when it comes to taxes. He highlights the governor’s push for a state income tax, marketed as a harmless “millionaires tax,” even though constitutional limits and historical precedent suggest it would almost certainly expand to hit middle-class families. Walsh portrays the branding as less about transparency and more about selling voters a policy they might otherwise reject.

Walsh also takes aim at State Sen. Jamie Pedersen’s shifting descriptions of Washington’s capital gains tax. For years, Democrats insisted the tax was an “excise tax” to dodge constitutional concerns. Now, Walsh notes, some of the same lawmakers are openly calling it an income tax — conveniently reframing the policy to suggest voters have already accepted such taxes. In Walsh’s telling, Olympia’s tax definitions seem to evolve depending on what political narrative needs reinforcement that week.

Finally, Walsh highlights what he views as the most common offense: hypocrisy. He criticizes Attorney General Nick Brown for repeatedly condemning authoritarian behavior at the federal level while supporting legislation that would expand his office’s investigative powers, authorize secret investigations, and broaden prosecution authority — moves Walsh argues mirror the government overreach Democrats claim to oppose.

Walsh concludes that Washington Democrats aren’t just pushing policies; they’re reshaping language and narratives to make controversial ideas seem more acceptable. And, in his view, a friendly media climate ensures they rarely face meaningful accountability when the story inevitably changes. Read more at Seattle Red.

Democrats Discover a New Way to “Protect Victims” — By Keeping Them Out of Court

Olympia Democrats are advancing Senate Bill 6239, a proposal that would force certain civil claims — including many involving childhood sexual abuse — into arbitration before victims can ever see a jury. Supporters say it’s about saving money for government agencies. Critics say it’s about shielding the government from public scrutiny, and they’re not being subtle about it.

Under SB 6239, survivors who file tort claims more than 10 years after the abuse — or 10 years after reaching adulthood — would be required to go through arbitration first. That means taking cases out of open court, away from juries, and out of public view. Conveniently, even Senate Ways and Means staff admitted the actual cost savings are unknown. But hey, why let math get in the way of a good talking point?

At a Feb. 5 hearing, attorney Debbie Silverman warned lawmakers the bill doesn’t “delay” justice — it prices survivors out of it. She pointed out that many victims were abused while in state custody by adults the state hired and supposedly trusted. SB 6239 would force those survivors to tell their stories twice: once in arbitration, then again if they’re lucky enough to reach a jury. So much for being “trauma informed.”

Local government groups were refreshingly blunt about their priorities. Representatives from county associations and risk pools backed the bill because liability and insurance costs are squeezing budgets — even while conceding they can’t actually estimate how much money the bill would save. One supporter even suggested expanding the arbitration requirement further. Because if you’re going to limit court access, why not go big?

Meanwhile, trial lawyers and justice advocates warned the bill cuts directly against the constitutional right to access the courts. Kelli Carson urged lawmakers to at least add a sunset clause, calling the policy an “experiment” that should be closely reviewed. Democrats responded by adding amendments requiring arbitrators to be “victim centered and trauma informed” and ordering a future study — the legislative equivalent of saying trust us, we’ll check later.

In the end, Democrats voted the bill forward anyway. The message was clear: when forced to choose between public accountability and government cost control, Olympia’s majority is happy to move justice behind closed doors — as long as they can still call it reform. Read more at Center Square.

Democrats Prefer Judges the Same Way They Prefer Policies — Pre-Approved

The retirement of Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen has reignited a debate over how judges are selected — and whether Democrats are a little too comfortable keeping that power inside the governor’s office.

Under current rules, if a judge steps down mid-term, the governor gets to personally appoint the replacement. State Rep. Hunter Abell argues that this system gives the governor enormous influence over the courts while cutting voters out of the process entirely. His now-dead bills, HB 1928 and HB 1929, would have required the State Senate to approve judicial appointments with a two-thirds vote, forcing at least some bipartisan agreement. Democrats, unsurprisingly, showed little interest in surrendering that level of control.

Abell warns the current setup creates a cozy pipeline where judges conveniently retire early, allowing governors to hand-pick successors who then run as incumbents — a massive advantage in elections. The result? Nearly 80% of Court of Appeals judges didn’t win their seats through standard elections but instead got a political boost through appointments. For a party that regularly lectures about protecting democratic institutions, critics say Democrats seem perfectly fine with bypassing voters when it comes to shaping the judiciary.

The concern isn’t just theoretical. Abell points to looming legal fights over potential income tax proposals, where courts may be asked to reinterpret long-standing constitutional definitions. He argues that stacking the bench through political appointments risks undermining public trust and raises questions about whether judges are truly independent — or quietly influenced by the same politicians pushing controversial tax policies.

In the end, critics say Washington Democrats appear comfortable keeping judicial power concentrated in the executive branch, even as they insist they’re defending democracy. Because nothing says “protecting the system” quite like making sure the right people get to pick the referees. Read more at Seattle Red.

Democrats’ Latest Democracy Upgrade — Let Bureaucrats Fire the Sheriff

Washington Democrats are pushing Senate Bill 5974, legislation that would allow a state oversight board to remove an elected sheriff if their peace officer certification is revoked — and they’re doing it with zero Republican support and plenty of eyebrow-raising concerns about voter authority.

Supporters claim the bill is about strengthening accountability and public trust. Opponents say it’s a convenient way to hand removal power to unelected bureaucrats while sidestepping the voters who elected sheriffs in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. King County, where the sheriff is appointed instead of elected, is currently the only exception — and critics worry Democrats are trying to expand that model statewide one step at a time.

Prime sponsor Sen. John Lovick argues the law simply updates accountability rules, insisting law enforcement leaders should be held to the same certification standards as rank-and-file officers. But Mason County Sheriff Ryan Spurling and other critics say that explanation conveniently ignores the core issue: sheriffs are directly elected by the public, not appointed by political insiders. Spurling notes that sheriffs already undergo extensive background checks, psychological evaluations, and certification requirements, arguing the real concern is stripping voters of their ability to decide who runs their local law enforcement.

Critics also point out that police chiefs answer to mayors and city officials, and the state patrol answers to the governor — making elected sheriffs one of the few law enforcement roles directly accountable to local citizens. SB 5974, opponents argue, replaces that local accountability with another layer of political oversight controlled in Olympia.

Adding fuel to skepticism, Spurling says discussions with lawmakers revealed the proposal traces back to police reform efforts tied to the “defund the police” movement several years ago — suggesting the bill is less about modernization and more about finishing a long-term political agenda.

Democrats on the Senate Ways and Means Committee voted unanimously to advance the bill, while Republicans unanimously opposed it, setting up what critics say is another example of Olympia’s majority party consolidating authority while claiming it’s simply promoting accountability.

If passed, the changes could take effect before the 2026 sheriff elections — potentially giving state officials unprecedented influence over locally elected law enforcement. Because in modern Olympia logic, protecting democracy apparently means making sure voters don’t have the final say. 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].