Speaker 1 (Ellis):
It’s the Elephant in the Dome, the official podcast of the Washington State Senate Republican Caucus. I’m Tracy Ellis, joined by Senate Republican Leader John Braun. Well, we’re in the final stretch of the session now, and tensions are really rising over taxes — but what else is new? Governor Ferguson says the proposed income tax plan isn’t even close to a done deal.
He’s calling for additional tax breaks and warning that negotiators could run out of time before the session ends. We’ve talked about this a lot this session: families are already feeling squeezed. Affordability is a huge issue. Businesses are watching closely. So where do things stand right now? You just met with the governor. What can you tell us?
Speaker 2 (Braun):
Well, yeah. For all our disagreements, the governor has been good about meeting with Republicans regularly. We met yesterday afternoon and talked about a variety of issues. Income tax was one of them — we pushed him pretty hard on it.
We asked: How’s it going? Do you think you’re going to get the tax relief you want from the Democratic majorities? What happens if they don’t do it? Are you willing to veto? Are we going into a special session? We laid all these questions out, but we didn’t really get an answer. He listened — I give him credit for that — but he didn’t offer what happens next.
He did say he hopes they’ll get it done. I disagree; I think it’s bad for our state, bad for our economy, and ultimately bad for families. But I appreciate that he’s pushing for tax relief to be part of it. I don’t get the sense that either the Senate or House majorities are on the same page with him.
We saw some tax relief in the Senate — they added a little at the end. It ended up being around 20% of the revenue collected, which is an enormous new tax. It was peripheral tax relief. Then it went to the House, and the House pulled some of that relief out. I’m told there’s a new striker to add some other relief back in.
Two things seem clear:
One, there’s disagreement within Democrats about what type of relief to do.
Two, many of them seem eager for more money to spend on special interests.
Speaker 1:
And he wants most of it, doesn’t he?
Speaker 2:
I think he’s suggested 50%. I think that’s still too low.
They initially offered about 7% in tax relief — minuscule reductions for individuals and a pretty good corporate tax reduction for big businesses. On the floor, they added another big relief for big businesses. Some of that would carry through into the cost of goods, helping in a second-order way, but only a small fraction of what they’re taking out of people’s pockets.
And this whole nonsense that it’s just a high-earners tax — not going to apply to everyone — that’s been made pretty clear as untrue, both by the majority leader’s comments and by experience in Washington and around the country. They pitch a tax as “just on the other guy,” but when they need more money — and they clearly haven’t solved their spending problem — they come after everyone.
Speaker 1:
The tax break for big businesses was in the Senate version, but the House removed it, right?
Speaker 2:
Right. That was the B&O surcharge. It wasn’t huge and was set to expire in 2030. They moved it so it expires in 2029. But it’s a big deal for large businesses headquartered in Washington — Microsoft, Amazon, T‑Mobile. They pay significantly more because they’re headquartered here. It increases the cost of goods and makes our companies less competitive.
Speaker 1:
What do you say to people claiming that was just a bribe to get big businesses not to pursue an initiative to overturn the income tax, if it’s passed?
Speaker 2:
I don’t think we can go too far into the initiative thing. We have public-sector unions on one side, and who’s on the other? I don’t have special insight into whether a deal was struck.
It is disappointing that big businesses have stayed on the sidelines. Many privately oppose the income tax because they know it harms the economy broadly, but they’ve done nothing publicly. If there was a deal — and I don’t know that there was — I’d think Democrats removing that part of the bill would undermine it. But the businesses still haven’t come out forcefully against it.
Speaker 1:
You said this is a huge thing — and it is. You’d need a whole new system at the Department of Revenue. You’ve been skeptical they could do this in a short session. Now even the governor is saying he isn’t sure it gets done this session. Do you think it might die — at least for now?
Speaker 2:
I think the odds still favor the proponents. They have the numbers, desire, and base pushing for it. But the public — Republicans, independents, and Democrats — is overwhelmingly opposed. Look at the numbers signed in opposed, or the mail legislators are getting. And I encourage people to keep sending messages; that really matters.
This is deeply unpopular and growing more so. It’s not just a bill. It’s not just the worst bill this year. It’s the worst bill in my 14 years in the Legislature. Probably the worst in the 21st century — maybe in the last hundred years. The long-term impact is enormous.
Let me give a couple examples:
This bill targets the core of our economy — small or mid-sized companies with 50–500 employees that may grow to 300–1000. That’s where growth happens. This bill makes them uncompetitive. Many sell nationwide or worldwide; under this bill they’d be at a 10% disadvantage. That won’t work. We’ll lose the growth or lose the companies.
And broader: if you’re an innovator looking to start Microsoft, Amazon, Costco, Starbucks — why come to Washington? There are better places. These people aren’t dummies; they’ll go elsewhere. Future generations won’t benefit from our strong economy.
Democrats seem intent on destroying it bit by bit.
Speaker 1:
Do you think the governor sees that bigger picture?
Speaker 2:
I’d like to think he does. A governor hears more broadly than district legislators. Some Seattle legislators say it’s popular in their district — but if they looked at the sign‑ins, they’d see plenty in their districts oppose it.
I think the governor understands people are struggling with affordability and know new taxes add to the cost of living. He hasn’t opposed the tax itself, which is unfortunate, but he has at least pushed for more relief.
Democrats often say the tax system is regressive, but then they pass more regressive taxes. You can’t claim it’s regressive and then add regressive taxes. Or if you pass what you call a “progressive” income tax, but don’t use the money to reduce property, sales, or gas taxes — any of which would be genuinely progressive.
Speaker 1:
You look at Oregon — progressive state, income tax, no sales tax. There’s nothing like that proposed here.
Speaker 2:
Right. And interestingly, the sales tax is surprisingly popular across incomes. I think people view it as a choice, depending on what they buy.
The property tax, though — deeply unpopular and regressive. It has grown substantially and contributes to the cost of housing. Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t talking about reducing property taxes; only Republicans are.
Speaker 1:
I want to remind people: contact your legislators or the governor at leg.wa.gov. And also subscribe to our YouTube channel and podcast.
So beyond the income tax — what else did you discuss with the governor? Representative Stokesbary was with you, right?
Speaker 2:
Yes. We met together.
We talked about the operating budget. I shared deep concerns about the Senate Democratic budget from last week. It spends $5 billion more than we take in, uses one-time money, raids the rainy-day fund and future deposits. It proposes $800 million in savings but doesn’t say how. It’s badly constructed.
It assumes a 2.5% growth rate in the next biennium. That sounds good, but Democrats have grown spending by an average of 15% over the last eight sessions. To grow at 2.5%, they’d have to say no to the collective bargaining agreements this summer. I don’t think they will. If spending grows by their average, it creates a $5–10 billion deficit next biennium. Then what? More taxes?
The governor says he doesn’t want to be back year after year talking deficits — but this budget guarantees it. Until they tackle spending, nothing gets fixed.
Speaker 1:
You had concerns about protecting kids — fentanyl exposure deaths. You’ve mentioned bills being blocked. Did you bring that up?
Speaker 2:
Yes. I told him we’ve had a tragic spike in deaths of young children from fentanyl exposure. Republicans have pushed bills — in the Senate, Senator Torres, in the House, Representative Couture. All have died in the House committee.
The chair says he doesn’t have the votes. I don’t believe that. One bill passed the Senate 41–8. But the House committee won’t even give hearings. It’s unconscionable. Children’s lives are at stake.
I told the governor he needs to weigh in. His own agency — the Department of Children, Youth, and Families — is asking legislators for help.
Speaker 1:
And this is his department. His employees are telling legislators they need help.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. He’s got to weigh in more forcefully.
Speaker 1:
You also mentioned juvenile rehabilitation — overcrowding, injuries, lack of services.
Speaker 2:
Right. We’re in the third year of the JR25 program not working. Overcrowding at Green Hill means youth aren’t getting basic education, higher ed, counseling, substance abuse treatment — nothing.
There’s bipartisan support to fix the agency’s ability to manage the population. But a few legislators demand tying it to controversial sentencing changes that would reduce sentences for very serious crimes — murder, assault, rape, armed robbery. They want those offenders sent back out the door.
We know that leads to reoffending. It’s dangerous. But they insist no reasonable policy can pass unless the controversial one passes too. It doesn’t even have the votes in the Democratic caucus.
Speaker 1:
And the governor runs the agency. You’re trying to help his people.
Speaker 2:
He needs to weigh in more forcefully.
Speaker 1:
It’s been an emotional session. You’re tired. What are your priorities in the final days?
Speaker 2:
People get tired and grumpy now. You have to stay calm and make the better argument. Sometimes you win immediately, sometimes years later.
In the remaining days, our options are limited. We’ll fight the income tax, other taxes hurting affordability, and try to influence the budget — though that’s tough once it goes to conference.
When I came into session, affordability was my number one priority. Life is getting more expensive for Washingtonians this session. Democrats say “affordability” but don’t understand what it means. More government and more taxes are not affordability.
Speaker 1:
Next week is our final in‑session podcast. Subscribe to our channels and visit the website. And again: leg.wa.gov if you want to reach your legislators or the governor. Senator Braun, thank you.
This has been Elephant in the Dome, the official podcast of the Washington State Senate Republican Caucus.