The Seattle Times spent months scolding Olympia for runaway spending and Democrats’ seemingly bottomless appetite for new taxes. Now, as the Washington Policy Center’s Ryan Frost points out the paper is using that very dysfunction to justify keeping Democrats’ new income tax.

The Times is urging voters to reject I-645, warning that repealing the 9.9% tax while keeping its accompanying tax relief could push Democratic lawmakers toward other taxes instead. Frost’s response, essentially: Why should taxpayers accept a new tax because Olympia refuses to control an $80.2 billion two-year budget?

The reversal is especially notable because the board previously criticized Democrats’ spending, warned that the $1 million income-tax threshold could eventually be lowered, and even acknowledged that it had endorsed lawmakers responsible for budgets it later criticized. Now its argument assumes those same lawmakers won’t meaningfully restrain spending.

Frost argues that turns Olympia’s refusal to prioritize into an excuse for collecting more money rather than forcing lawmakers to make tougher budget choices. The Times spent months diagnosing the sickness; when voters were presented with one proposed remedy, the editorial board decided the sickness was apparently something they’d have to live with. Read more at The Washington Policy Center.

Another Washington business leader is weighing in on the fight over Democrats’ new income tax.

DocuSign founding CEO Court Lorenzini is urging Washington voters to support Initiative 645, arguing that the new 9.9% tax on income above $1 million won’t remain limited to millionaires. Lorenzini warned that future lawmakers could lower the threshold—a concern also raised by Republican lawmakers and I-645 supporters.

Lorenzini also argues Washington isn’t replacing its existing taxes with an income tax. Sales, property, gas and B&O taxes remain, making the income tax an additional burden rather than a substitute for the state’s existing tax structure. He’s the latest business figure to publicly criticize the tax, joining entrepreneurs who argue it could discourage investment in Washington.

Voters will settle the issue Nov. 3: I-645 would repeal the new income tax before collections begin and prohibit state and local individual income taxes going forward. Read more at Seattle Red.

A man was shot and killed at a homeless encampment near 42nd Avenue South and Beacon Avenue South last summer. Fourteen months later, the camp has grown across several acres—and Seattle still has no date to clear it.

As Seattle Red’s Jason Rantz points out, the situation is another example of a city that waits for tragedy before treating dangerous encampments like an emergency. Neighbors have repeatedly called, emailed and filed complaints as the site expanded across public and private property. The city’s Unified Care Team nevertheless ranks it below other encampments for removal and says it will continue outreach, monitoring and trash collection every other week while officials develop a resolution plan.

Neighbor Andrew Rauch called the situation a humanitarian crisis and warned that another tragedy could occur. For Mayor Katie Wilson, the sprawling camp is becoming another test of Seattle’s approach to homelessness and public safety: neighbors want action, the city says the site isn’t a top priority, and nobody can say when it will actually be resolved. Read more at Seattle Red.

The effort to keep a controversial plan to replace Pierce County’s elected sheriff off the November ballot has failed—meaning voters will now decide whether to surrender their ability to choose the county’s top law-enforcement official.

A Thurston County judge rejected a legal challenge to Charter Amendment 53, which would make sheriff an appointed position and end Sheriff Keith Swank’s elected term early on Jan. 1, 2027. In what could only be described as a power grab, the replacement sheriff would be selected by the county executive and confirmed by the County Council. Pierce County confirms the measure is one of seven charter amendments headed to voters Nov. 3.

Swank argues the amendment is aimed directly at him because of his outspoken positions on controversial state policies. Of course, terminating the term of a duly elected sheriff through a charter amendment also raises serious questions about voter accountability and circumvents the normal process for removing an elected official. The judge did not settle those arguments, ruling instead that challengers failed to meet the high standard necessary to stop a ballot measure before an election.

County legal analysis earlier this year concluded that a charter county has authority to change the sheriff from elected to appointed. But whether Pierce County should make that change—and take the choice of sheriff out of voters’ hands—is now headed directly to those voters. 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].