Democrats are once again selling an income tax as a feel-good plan to make the wealthy pay their “fair share” while easing the burden on working families. But as Ryan Frost, Director of Budget and Tax Policy at the Washington Policy Center, details in his analysis of Senate Bill 6346, the proposal looks far more like a multibillion-dollar money chute into Olympia with only token relief sprinkled in for political cover.

According to Frost’s breakdown, less than 5% of the projected $3–4 billion in annual revenue would actually go toward tax relief. The so-called relief package includes small sales tax exemptions on hygiene products, a limited expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit, and a slightly increased B&O tax credit that many small businesses will barely notice. Meanwhile, roughly 90% of the revenue is earmarked for the general fund — meaning lawmakers get a massive new pot of money with few guardrails on how it’s spent.

Frost also highlights how the proposal creates a 9.9% income tax on earnings above $1 million starting in 2028, using federal adjusted gross income as its base. That means it captures far more than wages, sweeping in business owners, retirees, and investors. He notes the bill introduces a significant marriage penalty, where two unmarried individuals each earning $700,000 would owe nothing, but if they marry, they could suddenly face nearly $40,000 in new taxes simply for filing jointly.

The residency rules raise additional concerns. Frost points out that spending even part of a day in Washington counts toward the 183-day threshold that can trigger tax liability. Nonresidents with Washington-based income — including business owners and athletes earning NIL money — would still be required to pay.

While Democrats argue the bill prevents double taxation, Frost explains that the protections are largely cosmetic. The structure effectively ensures every dollar earned above $1 million gets taxed at 9.9%, regardless of existing capital gains brackets or exemptions. In many cases, income that was previously tax-free could now push taxpayers into the new threshold and dramatically increase their total tax burden.

Perhaps most controversially, Frost notes the bill directly amends Initiative 2111, the voter-approved measure banning income taxes, raising serious concerns about lawmakers overriding the will of voters.

Supporters claim the tax is necessary to stabilize state finances and promote fairness. But as Frost argues, the proposal does little to solve affordability challenges and instead sets the stage for a permanent new revenue stream that critics fear will eventually expand beyond its original targets. Read more at the Washington Policy Center.

After years of Democrats defending “legislative privilege” to keep their internal communications hidden from public records requests, Olympia lawmakers are now floating a proposal that suddenly claims to champion transparency — with a very convenient catch.

Senate Joint Resolution 8211 would amend the state constitution to make lawmakers’ written communications about proposed or potential legislation publicly accessible. On its face, that sounds like a long-overdue win for accountability. But the proposal also ensures legislators would face zero civil or criminal liability for anything contained in those communications — essentially opening the curtains while simultaneously building a legal force field around what voters might find behind them.

The resolution arrives while Democrats continue battling in court to preserve legislative privilege, which currently shields lawmakers from public records laws. A Thurston County judge already ruled in 2023 that the privilege exists, and the case is now headed through appeals. Rather than simply letting the courts or existing transparency laws settle the issue, Democrats appear eager to rewrite the rules themselves — preferably in a way that protects them permanently.

Supporters, including sponsor Sen. Jesse Salomon, argue the measure promotes transparency by eliminating the legislative privilege exemption and clarifying that written communications deserve the same free speech protections lawmakers enjoy during floor debates. Critics and open government advocates aren’t fully buying it yet, cautiously noting that constitutional amendments carry massive, long-term consequences and deserve careful scrutiny.

The proposal also faces steep political hurdles. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds support in both legislative chambers and voter approval statewide — a high bar even in a Democrat-controlled Legislature. That reality, combined with Salomon’s admission that the resolution may not even get a hearing this session, leaves skeptics wondering whether the measure is serious reform or simply a convenient talking point while lawmakers continue shielding themselves in court.

For critics, the move fits a familiar pattern: Democrats promise transparency, but only after carefully ensuring they won’t personally feel the consequences of what the public might uncover. Read more at Center Square.

Despite Washington voters repeatedly rejecting income taxes — and even passing Initiative 2111 in 2024 to ban them — Democratic lawmakers are once again pushing a 9.9% “millionaire tax.” But as Jason Mercier, Vice President and Director of Research at the Mountain States Policy Center, argues in his op-ed, the proposal raises far more legal and economic red flags than Democrats seem willing to acknowledge.

Mercier points out that nearly a century of Washington Supreme Court precedent prohibits non-uniform income taxes above 1% unless voters approve a constitutional amendment. Previous lawmakers understood that reality and repeatedly sent income tax proposals to voters — who rejected them every single time. This time, however, Democrats appear to be bypassing that step entirely, hoping the courts will simply change their mind. In fact, one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, openly admitted that provoking a legal challenge is part of the plan, which critics say amounts to lawmakers knowingly ignoring binding precedent.

Mercier also questions why Democrats aren’t pairing the tax with meaningful tax reductions elsewhere — something prior proposals at least attempted. Instead, the current plan would pile a new tax on top of Washington’s existing system while potentially making the state one of the highest income-tax states in the country overnight. For a state that prides itself on economic competitiveness, Mercier suggests Democrats seem oddly comfortable gambling with job growth and business investment.

Another concern highlighted in Mercier’s analysis is revenue volatility. He notes credit rating agencies have praised Washington’s sales-tax-based system for being more stable than income-tax-dependent states like California, where budget rollercoasters have become routine. Yet Democrats appear eager to import that instability while simultaneously arguing it will somehow improve long-term budget sustainability.

Mercier also blasts the proposal for delaying implementation until 2028 while simultaneously attempting to block voters from exercising their referendum rights. After Washingtonians rejected ten prior income tax proposals, critics argue Democrats are now trying to prevent voters from weighing in at all — a move that fuels accusations lawmakers respect voter input only when it produces the “right” outcome.

Perhaps most concerning, Mercier highlights the historical pattern seen nationwide: income taxes almost always start by targeting high earners before gradually expanding to hit middle-class taxpayers. That concern is amplified by Pedersen’s own dismissal of the 2024 income tax ban as a “pie crust promise” — easily made and easily broken — reinforcing fears that Democrats view current income limits as temporary political marketing rather than permanent policy.

Ultimately, Mercier argues that if lawmakers truly respect both the constitution and Washington voters, any income tax proposal should be presented as a constitutional amendment rather than a legislative workaround. But judging by the current push in Olympia, critics say Democrats appear more interested in forcing through a new revenue stream than respecting the legal and electoral roadblocks standing in their way. Read more at Center Square.

Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is touting a hefty $833,000 fundraising haul to close out 2025, but a closer look suggests Democrats may be propping up her campaign with national cash while local enthusiasm appears far less impressive.

While the headline number looks strong, roughly 80% of Perez’s donations came from outside Washington state, leaving just 18.5% raised from local supporters. That contrast becomes especially glaring when compared to likely Republican challenger John Braun, who reportedly pulled in about 92% of his funding from in-state donors — suggesting Perez may be leaning far more on national Democratic money than hometown backing.

The report also shows over half of Perez’s fundraising came from political action committees and transfers from national Democratic organizations, fueling criticism that her campaign is being bankrolled by party insiders rather than grassroots Washington voters. For a politician who has often marketed herself as an independent-minded moderate, critics argue the donor breakdown tells a very different story.

Her spending choices are also raising eyebrows. Perez dropped $15,000 on opposition research in just three months — a sizable early investment that signals Democrats may already be bracing for a difficult reelection battle. Sitting members of Congress typically spend more time promoting their own record than digging for dirt, but Perez’s campaign appears to be preparing for incoming attacks from multiple directions.

Those pressures are already mounting. Perez has faced backlash from progressives after voting with Republicans on an immigration funding bill, a move that appears to have energized Democratic challenger Brent Hennrich, who quickly raised more than $50,000 in just ten days following the vote. Now Perez finds herself in the uncomfortable position Democrats often try to avoid — defending her record against criticism from both the left and the right.

Taken together, the fundraising data paints a picture that Democrats would rather gloss over: strong national party backing, soft local donor support, and a campaign already spending heavily to protect a seat that may be far less secure than the headlines suggest. Read more at Seattle Red.

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].