Washington Democrats insist their new 9.9% income tax is just for the rich. Funny how quickly that promise starts to unravel when lawmakers explain what they actually want to do with it.

The Wall Street Journal is calling attention to the endgame: Democrats are already talking about lowering the income threshold. Rep. Cindy Ryu wants to bring it down to $250,000 in household income, while Sen. Jesse Salomon favors $750,000. They disagree on how much to expand the tax—not on the idea of expanding it.

That’s the beauty of the “millionaires tax” label. Sell voters on taxing someone else, get the tax established, then gradually redefine who counts as rich. Today’s millionaire can become tomorrow’s upper-middle-class homeowner, small-business owner or professional wondering how a tax supposedly aimed at the wealthy landed on their doorstep.

The Journal also points out that the law adjusts for inflation only every other year, potentially allowing more taxpayers to get caught in the net as incomes and prices rise. Apparently, inflation can take a year off from raising costs—but Olympia’s appetite for revenue cannot.

Then there’s the November repeal campaign. Attorney General Nick Brown’s ballot description warns that repealing the tax would reduce funding for schools, higher education and human services. The catch? The tax hasn’t collected any revenue yet. Voters are being warned about losing money the state hasn’t even collected.

The Journal also questions the legal foundation for the tax, noting Washington’s long-running constitutional dispute over graduated income taxes and the courts’ different treatment of income and capital gains taxes.

Democrats want voters to believe this is a narrow tax on millionaires. Their own lawmakers are discussing thresholds as low as $250,000 per household, while the state’s ballot language warns of funding cuts if voters repeal a tax that has yet to produce revenue.

Call it a millionaire tax if you like. Just don’t be surprised when Olympia starts moving the goalposts—and sends you the bill. Read more at The Wall Street Journal.

Washington’s No on I-001 campaign has found a disturbing way to oppose giving parents more information about their children: warn voters that the initiative could help child abusers. It’s an explosive accusation—but state Rep. Travis Couture (R-Allyn) says it ignores the safeguards written directly into the measure.

The group No Hate in WA State claims I-001 could allow parents under investigation for abusing their children to access sensitive school counseling and social work records, potentially putting children at risk. Couture points to Section 1(4), which he says explicitly protects medical and counseling records during child abuse investigations. Mandatory abuse reporting and other medical privacy protections would remain in place.

Of course, the irony is hard to ignore. Washington voters approved I-2081, a parents’ rights initiative, in 2024. Democrats later passed House Bill 1296, changing several of those protections. Supporters of I-001 point to changes including extending schools’ deadline to respond to records requests from 10 days to 45 days and altering rules around parental notification and student access to certain services. Then, as Couture explains, there’s also the fact that Democrats rejected his amendment requiring immediate parental notification if a child was raped at school.

When I-001 reached the Legislature, lawmakers declined to advance it. Now opponents want voters to reject it, using warnings about child abuse that disregard the initiative’s explicit privacy protections. As Couture put it, the opposition’s claims are “absolutely despicable fearmongering.” Read more at Seattle Red.

The Everett School District will pay $275,000 in attorney fees to settle a lawsuit over its treatment of LifeWise Academy, an off-campus Bible education program for elementary students. The settlement also requires religious liberty training, policy changes, and a public apology.

Rather than treating families’ religious choices with the same respect they owe everyone else, district officials singled out LifeWise students for special restrictions. Children were required to conceal program materials in sealed envelopes, while parents had to reauthorize participation every week. Officials made it harder for students to participate in voluntary Christian instruction, effectively treating their religious activities as a problem to be managed rather than a right to be respected.

The contempt for LifeWise was not merely speculation. School board member Charles Adkins openly declared, “I do in fact hold animus toward LifeWise Academy.” That admission raises an obvious question: Were officials making neutral decisions in the district’s best interests, or allowing their hostility toward a Christian program to dictate how its students were treated?

Public school officials are entrusted to serve families—not impose their personal beliefs on them. Yet Everett’s handling of LifeWise forced parents to take legal action just to challenge restrictions on their children’s religious participation. The district has now apologized for comments that hurt participating families and negatively affected their exercise of faith.

Everett officials owe families more than an apology. They owe them an explanation for why a Christian program was singled out in the first place. The First Amendment does not give public school administrators permission to make religious expression more difficult because they disapprove of it. Officials who cannot put their personal animosity aside have no business using their authority to burden families exercising their constitutional rights. Read more at The Center Square.

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].