A bombshell report shows Washington Democrats didn’t just pass a so-called “millionaire’s tax”—they apparently worked hand-in-hand with the Attorney General’s Office to engineer it specifically to bulldoze the state constitution anddodge voters altogether.

Former Attorney General Rob McKenna isn’t mincing words. He says he’s never seen anything like it: the AG’s office actively collaborating with lawmakers—namely Jamie Pedersen—to craft a bill designed to force the Washington Supreme Court to overturn nearly a century of precedent. That precedent, dating back to 1933, clearly treats income as property—meaning a progressive income tax is unconstitutional under Washington law.

But instead of, say, following the legal process (you know, passing a constitutional amendment and letting voters decide), Democrats took a different route: find a workaround, jam it through, and hope the courts play along.

Even worse, internal communications show advice from the AG’s office to slap an “emergency clause” on the bill—conveniently blocking any referendum that would let voters weigh in. Because nothing says “we trust the people” like doing everything possible to keep them out of the decision.

McKenna pointed out the obvious alternative Democrats ignored: if they really believed in this tax, they could’ve proposed a constitutional amendment and made their case to voters—just like every legislature has had to do since the 1930s. But that would require, well… convincing voters.

Instead, Democrats appear to be testing a new theory: maybe if they redefine income as not something you own, they can tax it however they want. Bold strategy—let’s see how that holds up in court.

At its core, this isn’t just about taxes. It’s about a political playbook that prioritizes power over process—sidestepping constitutional limits, cutting voters out, and calling it progress. Read more at Center Square.

In the latest installment of “spend first, decide later,” the Sound Transit board is poised to approve up to $19.5 million for more engineering work on the Ballard light rail line… even as officials openly consider scrapping major parts of it—including the Ballard station itself.

Yes, really.

Back in 2016, voters signed off on a $50+ billion expansion promising light rail to places like Ballard, West Seattle, and beyond. Fast forward to today, and the price tag for the Ballard segment alone has ballooned to more than double its original $10 billion estimate. The response? Not scaling back spending—just studying it more.

The agency plans to extend its contract with engineering firm HNTB for another 20 months to keep the project moving toward environmental review, while also “exploring cost-saving measures”—which apparently translates to cutting stations taxpayers were already promised.

Meanwhile, residents who’ve been footing the bill through higher property taxes, sales taxes, and car tabs for nearly a decade are now rallying just to keep the station they were told they’d get.

Only two extensions—Bellevue and Lynnwood—have been completed so far. The rest? Still stuck somewhere between “in progress” and “maybe not happening.”

Final decisions on potential cuts are expected in the coming months. But one thing’s already clear: when it comes to Sound Transit, the spending is guaranteed—whether the results are or not. Read more at Center Square.

Washington Democrats have officially decided the state needs to investigate whether it owes reparations for slavery—despite the small, inconvenient fact that Washington was never a slave state.

Under a $300,000 contract buried in Bob Ferguson’s massive state budget, Olympia launched a two-year “reparations” study led by a DEI consulting firm tasked with determining how much the state supposedly owes—and in what form, including “cash payments.” Not whether Washington is liable, mind you. Just how much.

That’s quite a premise for a state that didn’t even exist until 1889—decades after slavery was abolished nationwide. Territorial law barred slavery, and the one oft-cited historical example—Charles Mitchell—escaped to freedom and won his case in Canada, not Washington courts. Inspiring history? Sure. Legal justification for taxpayer-funded payouts? Not even close.

But the outcome here doesn’t seem to be in doubt. The study itself is framed as measuring “culpability,” not questioning it—because in modern Olympia, the conclusion comes first, and the “research” comes later.

And here’s where it gets even more absurd.

While signing off on this $300K exercise in political theater, Ferguson vetoed $500,000 for a program that was actually working—combating organized retail theft. According to the state’s own data, that program led to hundreds of law enforcement responses, identified nearly 1,200 suspects, and significantly boosted prosecutions in places like King County.

In other words: real results, addressing real crime, affecting real people.

Too expensive, apparently.

Washington leads the nation in retail theft losses, with billions in stolen goods and hundreds of millions in lost tax revenue. But when forced to choose, Democrats decided the priority wasn’t stopping crime—it was commissioning a report to justify writing checks for something Washington never did.

This isn’t about justice or history. It’s about priorities—and Olympia just made theirs crystal clear. Read more at Seattle Red.

Washington just got a $750 million reminder that businesses don’t stick around to be punished.

As Starbucks shifts 2,000 high-paying jobs to Nashville, the fallout is exactly what critics have warned about for years: fewer jobs, less tax revenue, and a whole lot of economic self-sabotage. Those jobs—averaging around $125,000—aren’t just disappearing; they’re being welcomed with open arms by a state that doesn’t treat employers like ATMs.

Tennessee rolls out the red carpet. Washington hands them the bill.

Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson insists this move was “in the works forever.” Maybe. But it’s also happening in a state that’s managed to nosedive from 6th to 45th in business rankings over the past decade. Coincidence, or consequence?

Groups like the Washington Policy Center point to the obvious culprit: Washington’s uniquely punishing tax structure—especially the Business & Occupation tax, which taxes companies on revenue instead of profit. Translation: you get taxed whether you’re making money or not. Shocking that businesses might look elsewhere.

The numbers aren’t small. Experts estimate the state could lose up to $750 million in tax revenue from this shift alone. And that’s before considering the ripple effects—support jobs, local spending, and the message this sends to every other employer quietly weighing their options.

Starbucks isn’t fully leaving Seattle—but it doesn’t have to. This is what a slow-motion exit looks like: expand somewhere else, grow somewhere else, and let Washington’s policies do the rest.

For years, Democrats have insisted higher taxes and heavier regulation wouldn’t drive businesses away. Now companies are “quiet quitting” the state—and taking billions with them.

Turns out, if you make it expensive enough to stay, leaving starts to look like the smart business decision. Read more at Seattle Red.