Democrats in Olympia are pitching their 9.9% “Millionaire Tax” as a targeted fairness measure, but in a recent op-ed, Amber Gunn of the Mountain States Policy Center argues it’s really a classic political bait-and-switch designed to crack open the door to a permanent statewide income tax. Washington voters have rejected income taxes ten times, yet lawmakers continue repackaging the idea with fresh branding and familiar promises that it will only hit the ultra-wealthy — promises Gunn notes rarely stay contained once government gets comfortable with new revenue streams.

Supporters claim the tax won’t drive wealthy residents away, but Gunn points to migration trends showing high earners often flee high-tax states, taking businesses, jobs, and significant tax revenue with them. She warns that losing even a small number of wealthy taxpayers can require dozens of middle-income families to replace the lost revenue — hardly the Robin Hood storyline Democrats sell voters.

Gunn also dismantles the claim that other states operate successfully with income taxes, noting Washington already piles on some of the country’s highest business taxes, gas taxes, minimum wage mandates, estate taxes, and payroll deductions like WA Cares. Adding an income tax, she argues, would simply stack another financial burden onto a state already squeezing employers and workers.

The Democrats’ “fair share” argument also gets skewered. Gunn contends it ignores the significant government transfer payments and credits lower-income households already receive, while higher earners shoulder a disproportionate tax burden. Meanwhile, she accuses lawmakers of attempting to dodge constitutional barriers by inviting courts to overturn long-standing precedent treating income as property — conveniently bypassing voters who have repeatedly rejected income taxes.

Gunn concludes the proposal is less about fixing the budget and more about feeding Olympia’s appetite for spending, which has ballooned over the past decade. Relying on volatile income tax revenue from high earners, she warns, almost guarantees future budget “emergencies” that lawmakers will use to justify expanding taxes even further. Read more at Center Square.

Seattle and King County Democrats spent years insisting police were the wrong response to behavioral health crises, pushing defunding efforts while promising a polished alternative system. But a new audit of the King County Sheriff’s Office 911 Communications Center exposes what critics say was more political theater than actual reform. Despite expanding behavioral health response programs on paper, the audit found there’s still no clear system for deploying them, leaving deputies as the default responders — exactly the scenario Democrats claimed they wanted to eliminate.

Auditors found 911 call receivers lack standard procedures for determining when to divert calls to behavioral health services, meaning officers are stuck handling situations policymakers insisted they shouldn’t be managing. Even worse, the audit warns some crisis calls without a criminal component may receive no response at all, missing opportunities to connect vulnerable individuals with help.

The report also reveals major operational problems inside the communications center, including heavy reliance on mandatory overtime, outdated scheduling systems, and lingering management gaps. Critics argue these are basic logistical issues that should have been addressed immediately if leaders were serious about replacing police responses. Instead, the audit suggests resources were funneled into progressive policy priorities like bias training and interpretation services while core crisis-response infrastructure lagged behind.

The findings fuel accusations that Democrats prioritized anti-police messaging and activist appeasement over building workable public safety alternatives. If leaders truly believed officers were the wrong tool for behavioral health crises, critics argue they would have urgently built a reliable replacement system. Instead, the audit paints a picture of leaders who embraced slogans but failed to deliver the systems needed to back them up — leaving both law enforcement and people in crisis stuck paying the price. Read more at Seattle Red.

A new piece from the Washington Policy Center is raising alarms about Democrats in Olympia reviving the push for a statewide soda tax through House Bill 2734. The proposal would impose a three-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages beginning in 2028. While supporters market the tax as a public health and equity measure, critics argue the bill reads far more like a revenue scheme wrapped in nutrition messaging. The tax would add noticeable costs at checkout, tacking several dollars onto everyday purchases like soda packs and kids’ juice pouches — expenses opponents say will hit working families the hardest.

According to the Washington Policy Center analysis, the bill directs new tax revenue into a “Hunger Free Washington” account intended to fund food assistance programs that lawmakers worry could face federal funding cuts. But critics point to a glaring contradiction: the proposal explicitly blocks state agencies from requesting federal permission to remove sugary drinks from SNAP eligibility. That means the state would tax sugary beverages while still allowing food stamp dollars to purchase them — a policy critics say undermines the claim that the legislation is primarily about improving public health.

The Washington Policy Center piece also highlights the argument that sugary drinks disproportionately harm low-income and minority communities, noting that the tax itself would disproportionately impact those same groups financially. While Seattle’s soda tax showed some reduction in taxed beverage purchases, the analysis notes there is far less evidence showing lasting, population-wide health improvements — leaving critics questioning whether the policy meaningfully addresses the health concerns it claims to target.

Despite being introduced late in the legislative session, the bill remains alive in the powerful House Finance Committee, meaning it could still move forward if Democratic leadership chooses. The Washington Policy Center concludes the structure of the proposal suggests Olympia may be less focused on changing consumer behavior and more focused on tapping a reliable new stream of revenue — this time straight from Washingtonians’ grocery carts. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

The Washington Policy Center is warning that Senate Bill 5292 could quietly set the stage for higher payroll taxes tied to Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program. While the bill does not directly raise the program’s 1.2% tax cap today, critics argue it rewrites the rules in a way that makes future increases far easier to justify once the program again struggles to stay solvent.

According to the Washington Policy Center analysis, the bill removes the current formula used to calculate PFML tax rates and adds a new requirement forcing the program to maintain an additional four-month financial reserve starting in 2030. On paper, the cap remains unchanged. But critics warn the new reserve mandate could create a predictable collision: when the program inevitably can’t meet both solvency requirements and reserve targets, lawmakers could claim the only solution is raising payroll taxes on workers.

The Washington Policy Center also challenges Democrats’ portrayal of PFML as a worker safety net. Data cited in the analysis shows lower-wage workers — those most impacted by payroll deductions — use the benefit significantly less than higher-income earners. In fiscal year 2025, workers earning over $61 per hour reportedly used the program more than twice as often as workers in the lowest wage brackets. Critics argue that makes PFML “progressive” in messaging but regressive in practice, taking money from workers who can least afford it to fund benefits disproportionately used by those with more financial flexibility.

Washington workers are already paying 1.13% of wages into PFML, up sharply from 0.4% when the program launched in 2019. The Washington Policy Center warns the steady climb shows the program is struggling to pay for itself, and instead of addressing benefit misuse, repeat usage, or duration limits, lawmakers appear focused on building justification for collecting even more from paychecks.

The analysis notes solvency reform proposals aimed at controlling program costs — including measures introduced by Sen. Curtis King — have received little traction this session. Instead, critics argue SB 5292 looks like a subtler version of last year’s effort, when lawmakers initially framed similar changes as technical fixes before later attempting to double the tax cap.

The Washington Policy Center concludes lawmakers should reject SB 5292 or explicitly block the new reserve requirement from being used as justification for raising payroll taxes in the future. Without those safeguards, critics warn the bill risks becoming a slow-motion tax increase disguised as program maintenance — leaving Washington workers paying more into a system many may never fully use. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

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].