FULL DEBATE: Brian Heywood, Sen. Manka Dhingra clash over Washington’s millionaire tax

[0:00] I am Chris Daniels from Como News. [0:02] You just heard the introductions, but I'll be brief so you can put names with faces. [0:07] From the 45th District, Senator Monk Adingra, to my right, stage left. [0:13] Right to my right, that is Representative Drew Stokesbury from the 31st District. [0:19] On my left, stage right, Brian Haywood, of course the founder of Let's Go Washington, [0:25] and Dr. Soyl Boyd from the Children's Alliance. [0:29] So you don't want to hear a lot from me. [0:31] You want to hear a lot from them. [0:33] So why don't we start with really one of the reasons why we're standing here today [0:37] or sitting on our chairs, and that is because of the effort from Brian Haywood. [0:42] Brian, we're going to talk about 645. [0:44] You've been the big backer of this. [0:47] What changes would you address or what concerns would you address [0:53] on the overall tax burden on low- and middle-income Washingtonians [0:57] without adopting an individual income tax, and that is if I-645 passes? [1:03] Well, I think the most important thing that needs to be addressed on taxes [1:07] is first for the legislature to get its budget under control. [1:11] We've gone from $33 billion to $80 billion in like 12 years, [1:16] and that is far outstripping what the average growth of the economy is [1:23] and what the average person is making in their salary, [1:25] and there seems to be no control of spending, [1:27] so I think that's the first place you start. [1:29] If we would just spend within our budget and do a minimal growth, [1:33] we wouldn't need to be doing extra taxes. [1:35] Secondly, I think that there are some very regressive taxes. [1:38] The sales tax and the carbon tax are probably the most regressive taxes [1:43] you can establish, and I think we'd have an honest debate [1:46] if we were seriously discussing how do we get the sales tax down to 1% [1:50] or 2% and maybe get rid of the carbon tax and the gas tax, [1:53] but that doesn't seem to be on the table. [1:55] It's sort of we want those and we want a capital gains tax. [1:58] We want those and we want an income tax. [2:00] So I think the first place is to control spending. [2:03] Quit spending like drunken sailors, [2:05] and then let's have a discussion about how to make the tax more broad. [2:09] Senator Dhingra, you just heard the accusation [2:12] about spending like drunken sailors. [2:15] Supporters of this tax have said this will address [2:18] the structural budget issues in Olympia make the tax code fairer. [2:21] Critics, like you just heard, Brian, [2:24] say the state should first control spending. [2:27] Why is this revenue measure the right way to spend money [2:31] or to try and raise revenue, [2:33] and what kind of spending discipline will there be in Washington state [2:38] if, in fact, this initiative is rejected? [2:41] Thank you for that. [2:42] So there are two points in that question itself. [2:44] One is our budget situation. [2:46] The second is spending. [2:48] And I want to be very, very clear. [2:50] This tax, the millionaire's tax, [2:53] is about fixing a regressive tax structure. [2:57] You know, when you think about the state of Washington, [3:00] who we are, where we want to be, [3:02] you have to think about what does success look like. [3:05] And I'll tell you, [3:06] we had an incredible successful year [3:08] with the FIFA World Cup being here. [3:10] We are a world-class state. [3:12] Seattle is a world-class city. [3:14] Notice it was fourth in the ranking. [3:16] And so when you think about how do you prepare the next generation [3:19] to be the leaders and have the innovation [3:23] that we are used to in the state of Washington, [3:25] you have to take a look at structural problems. [3:28] And one of the biggest structural problems we have in our state [3:30] is a 70-year-old regressive tax structure. [3:34] We are one of the worst tax structures in the country. [3:37] So when you prepare to lead for the next 100 years, [3:41] you've got to fix the structural deficits. [3:44] So that's one of the main reasons behind the millionaire's tax. [3:47] We joined 41 other states [3:48] in having a tax code that makes sense. [3:52] In terms of the budget, [3:54] I know you all just had a whole budget 101 [3:56] with the panel before us. [3:58] And when you take a look at what do we need [4:01] for the next generation to be successful, [4:03] for our children to be successful, [4:04] you've got to invest in education. [4:07] You've got to invest in health care. [4:09] When you have kids that graduate high school [4:11] with a path to success, [4:13] we're going to have a successful economy. [4:15] We're going to be a successful state. [4:17] And when people talk about spending out of control, [4:20] let me tell you, in this state, [4:22] we had the McCleary decision. [4:23] The schools had to sue the state [4:25] because we weren't meeting the school's needs. [4:29] We're now funding them at a level more than we have. [4:32] Yes, that's spending, [4:33] but it's an investment in our future. [4:35] And I can tell you that most people here [4:37] will tell you our schools still need more funding. [4:41] Health care. [4:42] You all heard about the True Blood lawsuit? [4:44] We are still in it [4:46] because the state was sued [4:47] because of the manner in which [4:49] we're dealing with forensic mental health. [4:51] And so what do we have to do? [4:52] We have to invest in mental health systems, [4:56] substance use disorder systems, housing. [4:58] Is that spending? [4:59] Yes, it is. [5:00] But it's spending that improves the quality of life [5:03] of each and every one of us and our entire state. [5:07] And so you have to look at [5:08] what is the future of the state of Washington. [5:10] And I, for one, want to continue to see [5:13] a prosperous Washington [5:14] where we are the leaders in innovation, [5:17] we are the leaders of technologies of the future. [5:19] And that happens when we have a functioning state [5:23] with a functioning tax code. [5:24] All right, Representative Stokesbury, [5:27] there's a lot of planning right now [5:29] that this is going to be rejected by the voters. [5:32] The state legislature has balanced the budget [5:35] a couple of years in the future. [5:38] We've heard what Governor Bob Ferguson [5:39] has said about all this. [5:41] So let's talk about what happens [5:43] if the initiative is approved by voters [5:45] and they repeal the tax. [5:46] Where do you even begin on your side of the aisle [5:49] to try and balance the budget? [5:51] Yeah, you know, great, great question, Chris. [5:54] You know, first, I think that the most important thing [5:56] we've got to do is solve [5:57] some of the structural budget problems. [6:00] I'm 41 years old. [6:01] I was born January 16th, 1985. [6:04] That date is significant [6:05] because that is the last date [6:06] a Republican was governor of this state. [6:08] For every single day of my life, [6:10] this state has been governed [6:11] by a member of one political party. [6:13] And that means that every single state agency head [6:16] has been appointed [6:17] by the member of one political party. [6:19] Every single budget submitted by a department [6:21] has been submitted by the head of a department [6:23] appointed by a governor [6:24] from the same political party. [6:26] After 40 years of one-party control, [6:28] it's time to change things. [6:30] And 40 years of one-party control, [6:31] whether you're a Democrat in Washington [6:34] or a Republican in Alabama, [6:36] leads to inferior results. [6:38] And so we have a situation now [6:40] where we have got [6:41] these huge structural budget problems. [6:43] We have a budget that has grown [6:44] just in the 12 years [6:46] I've been in the legislature [6:46] from $30 billion a biennium [6:48] to nearly $80 billion a biennium. [6:51] It is so opaque [6:52] and so difficult [6:53] for ordinary people [6:54] to get an answer. [6:54] I'm going to answer your question [6:55] in a second, Chris, [6:56] but it is so difficult [6:56] for ordinary people [6:58] to figure out the answer [6:59] to that question on their own [7:00] because of how we do budgets. [7:02] Our philosophy is basically [7:04] somebody who came before us [7:06] had an idea [7:07] that was good enough at the time [7:08] and we're just going to assume [7:10] in perpetuity [7:10] that if something was good enough [7:12] to be funded in one year, [7:12] it's good enough [7:13] to be funded in every other year. [7:15] We never spend time [7:16] going back to evaluate, [7:17] all right, [7:17] that might have been a good idea [7:18] in 1989. [7:19] Did it work? [7:20] Are there better ways [7:21] to do things [7:21] than have developed [7:21] in the last 35 years? [7:23] We don't ask those questions. [7:25] We also, I think, [7:26] in large part [7:26] because of the sort of [7:27] like lack of direction [7:28] in the executive branch, [7:32] we have this huge amount [7:35] of liability facing the state. [7:37] Senator Dinger alluded [7:38] to the liability [7:38] that's accruing [7:39] under Trueblood, [7:40] but it's not just that. [7:42] DCYF, DSHS, [7:43] agency after agency [7:44] is paying out record settlements [7:46] because of mismanagement [7:48] and misfeasance [7:48] and we need that to change. [7:52] But to show you [7:53] just how easy it is, [7:55] I mean, [7:55] three things just off [7:57] the top of my head [7:58] and the first of these [7:59] illustrates the problem [8:01] I was describing [8:02] where we don't actually [8:03] go back and reevaluate. [8:04] Well, occasionally we do. [8:06] A few years ago, [8:07] we had Washington State [8:08] Institute for Public Policy [8:09] at the Evergreen State College [8:10] do a review of a program [8:12] in DSHS called Home Builders [8:13] that is wonderfully intentioned. [8:15] The goal is to preserve families [8:17] and keep families together. [8:18] Great, noble idea. [8:20] One of the things [8:20] government should be doing. [8:21] This particular way [8:22] of doing it [8:22] isn't working so well. [8:23] In fact, [8:24] the Evergreen State College [8:25] Institute of Public Policy [8:26] decided that it has [8:27] a negative cost-benefit ratio. [8:29] Yet we continue to fund it. [8:30] It's doing more harm than good, [8:32] but because it feels good, [8:33] we keep funding it [8:34] even though we have evidence [8:35] saying it's doing more harm [8:36] than good. [8:37] We have incredibly bloated [8:40] administrative staff [8:42] at our institutes [8:44] of higher education. [8:45] They do great work, [8:45] to Senator Dinger's point. [8:47] We need them to do a good job [8:48] of educating the leaders [8:50] and business people of tomorrow. [8:52] But over the last 15 years, [8:54] there has been an enormous growth [8:55] in the ratio [8:56] between administrators and faculty. [8:58] And the colleges will tell you, [8:59] well, this is because [9:00] there's federal requirements [9:01] and state requirements [9:02] that make us jump [9:02] through all these hoops [9:03] and require extra staffing. [9:04] But that doesn't explain [9:05] why some colleges [9:06] like the University of Washington [9:07] have way more growth [9:09] than other colleges [9:09] like Central Washington [9:10] or Eastern Washington. [9:12] We've got to right-size [9:13] those ratios. [9:14] Colleges should be [9:15] about educating kids, [9:17] educating future leaders, [9:18] not padding [9:19] the administrative bureaucracy [9:20] so we can easily restore [9:23] administrator to student levels [9:24] and save a lot of money. [9:26] The last one [9:26] is foundational public health. [9:28] In 2021, [9:28] we spent $14 million a year [9:30] funding local public health departments. [9:32] We now spend [9:32] over $150 million per year. [9:34] We increased that [9:35] during COVID. [9:36] Probably a good time [9:37] to increase [9:38] foundational public health funding [9:39] in the middle [9:39] of the biggest pandemic [9:40] in 100 years. [9:42] But perhaps we no longer [9:43] need to fund this [9:44] at the same level we did [9:45] during the biggest global pandemic [9:47] of 100 years. [9:48] Now that the pandemic is over, [9:49] perhaps we can go [9:50] to somewhere between [9:51] the worst pandemic ever [9:53] spending levels [9:54] and the 2021 pre-pandemic [9:56] spending levels [9:56] that would save you [9:57] hundreds of millions [9:58] of dollars a biennium. [10:00] There are pages after pages [10:01] of ways to do this [10:02] but we have a majority [10:03] that doesn't want to change [10:05] the way things are being done [10:07] because the way [10:08] they're doing things now [10:08] is easy [10:09] and they get to call the shots [10:10] and they kind of like that. [10:12] And I don't blame them [10:12] but the people in Washington [10:13] deserve better. [10:14] All right, [10:14] let's continue on [10:15] with what's a forum, [10:17] not a debate [10:18] as we try to get [10:19] everybody involved here. [10:22] Dr. Boyd, [10:23] you've been sitting there patiently. [10:25] Let's talk about [10:26] Washington's tax code [10:27] because that has been [10:27] part of this whole discussion [10:29] over the last year or so. [10:31] The idea that [10:32] the current code [10:34] has a larger share of income [10:35] that's on lower income households. [10:37] That has been part [10:38] of this argument. [10:39] How do you weigh [10:40] that argument against concerns [10:41] that this potential income tax [10:45] on relatively few people [10:47] could be volatile [10:48] and affect investment decisions [10:50] in Washington State? [10:52] Yeah, well, [10:52] I'm Soleil Boyd, [10:53] again from the Children's Alliance. [10:55] We are a statewide [10:55] nonpartisan advocacy organization [10:58] working on behalf [10:59] of children and families [11:00] across our entire state [11:01] and our regressive tax code [11:03] is only second to one [11:05] in the nation. [11:06] We make the lowest income [11:08] among us [11:09] pay the most of their income [11:11] in taxes. [11:12] For a family making $33,000 [11:15] or an individual [11:15] making $33,000 or less, [11:18] their tax rate [11:18] is about 13.8%. [11:20] For those making [11:22] over a million dollars, [11:24] their tax rate is 4%. [11:25] You tell me [11:27] if that sounds [11:27] or feels right [11:28] and it definitely [11:29] is not right [11:30] and it affects [11:31] all of us every day. [11:33] We are really here [11:34] in support [11:35] of the millionaire's tax [11:36] and a strong no [11:37] on I-645 [11:38] because it's going [11:40] to keep this [11:41] highly aggressive system [11:42] in place [11:44] and the difference [11:46] in, you know, [11:47] 13.8% a year [11:49] in the tax rate [11:51] for low-income families, [11:53] that's going to be changed. [11:54] That's going to go down [11:55] slightly because of [11:57] what the millionaire's tax [11:58] will do. [11:58] It will take the tax, [12:00] the sales tax, [12:01] off of certain items, [12:02] hygiene, diapers, [12:04] other things [12:04] and that could be [12:05] about $200 back [12:07] in the pocket [12:07] of a low-income family. [12:09] Sounds maybe like [12:11] lunch some days [12:12] to some people [12:12] but that could be [12:14] a week of car of gas [12:16] to get to and from work. [12:18] That could be [12:18] two months of diapers [12:20] or one month of diapers. [12:21] So these are really [12:23] important numbers, [12:24] especially when you think [12:25] about the majority [12:26] of people who are low [12:28] and middle-income [12:28] in our state [12:29] who are paying [12:30] way too much [12:31] and it's affecting them. [12:33] The other reason [12:33] we are a strong no [12:34] on I-645 [12:35] is that what [12:37] the millionaire's tax [12:38] does is help us [12:39] make good on our promises [12:40] and carry out the mission [12:42] and the vision of things [12:43] like the Fair Start [12:44] for Kids Act. [12:45] I'm a previous [12:46] preschool teacher. [12:47] I loved working [12:48] with young children [12:49] and I know it's important [12:51] that we fund [12:52] these early learning systems [12:54] because the return [12:55] on investment [12:55] is undeniable. [12:57] When we make sure [12:58] young children [12:59] have access [12:59] to high-quality [13:00] early care and education, [13:02] we see returns [13:04] in school readiness, [13:05] in high school graduation, [13:07] in long-term earnings. [13:09] We can't afford [13:10] not to invest [13:11] in our youngest children, [13:12] our K-12 students, [13:14] and our higher education students. [13:16] The millionaire's tax [13:17] helps us get closer [13:18] to that reality. [13:19] I-645 sets us way back. [13:21] Well, Representative, [13:24] or I'm sorry, [13:25] Senator Dingra, [13:26] I don't know [13:26] if you saw the news [13:27] here in the last week [13:28] from Representative Ryu [13:30] who made a comment [13:32] that, hey, [13:33] in the future [13:34] I'd be open [13:34] to lowering this threshold [13:36] to $250,000. [13:38] That has made [13:39] some headlines. [13:40] How can you protect [13:41] against any sort [13:43] of changes in the future [13:44] and why should voters [13:45] not expect that threshold [13:47] to be lowered here [13:48] by the state legislature [13:49] in the next couple of years? [13:50] So, you know, [13:50] we have candidates [13:51] and we have electeds. [13:53] Each one has [13:54] their own opinion [13:55] on how they want [13:55] to improve the lives [13:56] of people. [13:57] But the law itself [13:59] has an inflator built in. [14:02] That means the million dollars [14:03] now goes up [14:05] with inflation [14:05] every two years. [14:07] That's the current law [14:08] and that's been built in. [14:11] So you're always going [14:12] to see that going up. [14:13] This was the same [14:14] with the capital gains [14:14] excise tax. [14:16] It had an inflator built in, [14:17] so every two years [14:18] that floor goes up. [14:22] And so that is [14:23] what we're going to see. [14:24] I know this was a fear [14:25] that was brought up [14:25] the same time [14:26] with the capital gains [14:27] excise tax [14:28] and things are fine. [14:31] We actually are getting [14:32] more revenue from that [14:33] than we anticipated [14:34] and that's because people [14:36] in Washington are doing well [14:37] and that's great. [14:39] We want everyone [14:40] to be successful. [14:41] And the whole point, [14:42] actually, [14:43] that's what the panel's called, [14:44] right, tax the rich, [14:45] is about leveling our tax code [14:49] and that's why you're not [14:50] going to see that number [14:51] go down because, frankly, [14:53] in order to pass legislation, [14:54] you need 25 votes [14:55] in the Senate, [14:56] you need 50 in the House, [14:58] you need the governor [14:59] to sign off, [15:00] and I'm sure [15:00] if there is any indication [15:02] on any further taxes, [15:04] Mr. Haywood will be [15:05] doing an initiative [15:06] so all the voters [15:07] can vote in on it. [15:08] So, no, [15:09] I do not see a scenario [15:10] where that threshold [15:12] gets lowered. [15:13] So for the two of you, [15:14] one of the biggest [15:16] conversation points [15:17] has been, [15:18] okay, if voters reject [15:20] this initiative [15:22] and the millionaire's tax [15:23] is put into place, [15:24] that means all the millionaires [15:25] are going to leave. [15:27] In Massachusetts, [15:28] they have approved [15:29] a millionaire's tax there. [15:32] The state is doing well. [15:33] The homelessness response, [15:35] some could argue, [15:35] is better in Massachusetts [15:36] than it is in Washington State. [15:38] In California, [15:39] with the tax on high earners, [15:41] the Shohei Ohtani [15:42] signing with the L.A. Dodgers [15:43] for no problem, [15:44] the Dodgers are winning titles, [15:45] the Lakers are winning titles, [15:47] the Golden State Warriors [15:47] are winning titles, [15:48] so this whole idea [15:49] that everybody's going [15:50] to leave the state, [15:51] how do you counter that? [15:53] Well, I'm still waiting [15:54] for an answer [15:55] to your previous question, [15:56] but I'll answer this one. [15:58] I think a couple things [16:00] to keep in mind. [16:02] First, if you compare [16:04] the statistics of states [16:05] without an income tax [16:06] to the states [16:06] with income tax, [16:08] yes, there's 40 or so [16:09] other states [16:09] with an income tax. [16:11] Just because everybody [16:12] does something [16:12] doesn't mean you need [16:13] to do it too. [16:14] I seem to remember my mom [16:15] talking to me about [16:15] jumping off bridges [16:16] using that logic [16:17] when I was a kid. [16:19] Just because everybody [16:20] does something [16:20] doesn't mean you have [16:21] to follow their lead. [16:22] And if you compare [16:23] the eight or so states [16:24] without an income tax [16:24] to the 40 or so [16:26] with an income tax, [16:27] the non-income tax states [16:29] in pretty much [16:30] every economic measure, [16:31] whether it's personal income, [16:34] personal income growth, [16:35] population growth, [16:37] the non-income tax states [16:40] do better. [16:41] Second, I will remind [16:42] my Democrat friends [16:43] that we're not Alabama [16:45] and we're not Mississippi. [16:46] We're Washington. [16:47] Senator Deringer pointed out [16:48] that there's a lot [16:49] to be proud of here [16:50] in Washington. [16:51] We've got a great state. [16:52] That's why I run for re-election [16:54] to make our state better. [16:57] But we're able to do [16:58] all of these great things [16:59] like have the highest average [17:00] starting teacher salary [17:01] of any state in the country, [17:03] the most generous Medicaid system, [17:04] both in terms of who we cover [17:05] and what we cover, [17:06] the most generous college [17:07] financial aid package [17:08] of any state in the country [17:09] because we have [17:11] a well-functioning economy [17:12] and making changes, [17:14] especially piecemeal changes, [17:15] risks disrupting that. [17:17] We owe, as a state, [17:19] a tremendous debt of gratitude [17:20] to Boeing for deciding [17:21] to call Seattle home [17:22] 100 years ago [17:23] and Microsoft calling [17:24] Redmond home 50 years ago, [17:26] Amazon calling Seattle home [17:28] 25 years ago. [17:29] If we start to make changes [17:31] that make those things go away, [17:33] we risk running out of money [17:34] to do all these great things [17:36] that so many Democrats [17:37] in this room [17:37] want to brag about doing. [17:38] So I think it's extremely risky [17:40] to start poking around [17:42] and messing with things [17:43] on the hope [17:44] and on the theory [17:44] and on the wish [17:45] that, well, maybe it won't be [17:46] as bad as people like Drew [17:48] and Brian think it's going to be. [17:50] Well, I have a lot more respect [17:54] for the good work [17:55] that we're doing in Washington [17:56] and I'm a lot more wary [17:58] about trying to do things [17:59] that disrupt it. [18:00] And this point that we've got [18:01] to fix the upside-down [18:03] regressive tax code, [18:04] I don't disagree. [18:05] But like I said a minute ago, [18:07] who's been governor [18:08] since the day I was born? [18:09] Democrats. [18:10] Why didn't Democrats [18:11] fix the regressive tax code [18:12] at any point [18:12] in the last 40 years? [18:13] In fact, they did the reverse. [18:15] The Democrats passed [18:17] a carbon tax [18:17] that is an extremely [18:19] aggressive tax [18:20] that makes low-income [18:21] working-class families [18:22] in my district [18:22] who commute to job centers [18:24] in Seattle [18:24] have to pay more. [18:26] Democrats passed an idea [18:27] called a working families [18:28] tax credit in 2008. [18:30] They never actually bothered [18:31] to put money behind it [18:32] to give working families [18:34] the tax credit [18:34] they were promised [18:35] until it was Republicans [18:36] who insisted they do it. [18:38] It was the architect [18:39] of the millionaire's tax [18:39] who was begging me [18:40] not to put that vote [18:42] on the floor. [18:43] We put it on the floor anyway [18:44] and Republicans [18:44] are the reason [18:45] that working families [18:46] now get a little bit [18:47] of a tax break [18:48] and they're the reason [18:48] why, to the good doctor's point, [18:51] we're now second to last [18:52] instead of last. [18:53] It is Republicans [18:53] that did that, [18:54] not Democrats. [18:55] It is Republicans [18:56] who for the last 10 years [18:58] have proposed the idea [18:59] of exempting sales tax, [19:01] exempting diapers [19:01] from sales tax. [19:02] It is Democrats [19:03] who decided [19:04] they could only afford [19:05] to do it. [19:06] They had to keep funding [19:07] all this nonsense [19:08] like college [19:08] higher ed administrators [19:09] and programs at DSHS [19:11] with a negative [19:12] cost-benefit ratio [19:13] at the expense [19:14] of giving sales tax relief [19:15] to single moms [19:17] who need to buy diapers. [19:18] They couldn't bother doing it [19:19] until they raised taxes [19:20] on somebody else. [19:21] So my question is, [19:22] why, if fixing our [19:23] upside-down tax code [19:24] is such a priority, [19:25] why did it take 40 years? [19:27] Why were those pleas ignored [19:28] and in fact actively disregarded [19:30] in so many other policies? [19:34] I have some questions [19:34] too, Chris. [19:35] Well, I still want [19:37] to continue the conversation [19:38] in this forum, [19:39] not a debate. [19:40] And I didn't give you [19:41] a chance, Brian, [19:42] to answer this question [19:43] about the idea [19:44] that all the millionaires [19:45] are going to leave. [19:46] I think Stephen Curry [19:47] from the Golden State Warriors [19:48] re-signed for more [19:49] than $100 million. [19:50] He's oftenly cited [19:51] by Governor Bob Ferguson [19:52] as an example [19:53] of people are still going [19:54] to want to be [19:55] in Washington State. [19:56] So how do you answer [19:57] the idea that, [19:58] no, people are still [19:59] going to be here. [19:59] People with money [20:00] are still going to be here. [20:02] Well, I think there's [20:02] a couple of things [20:03] you need to look at structurally. [20:04] The first, [20:05] and I won't get to this question, [20:06] I want to ask the audience [20:07] what their opinion is on it. [20:09] But first of all, [20:10] there was an opportunity [20:11] within the legislature, [20:13] there was an amendment [20:14] posed that would limit them [20:16] from ever dropping [20:17] this million dollar threshold [20:19] down below. [20:20] And every single Democrat [20:21] voted against it. [20:22] And I have a question [20:22] of why is that, right? [20:24] Why, oh, we can't tie the hands [20:26] of you, you do stuff [20:27] all the time that does that. [20:28] So that's sort of [20:28] a bogus answer. [20:30] And then secondly, [20:31] there's this enormous question [20:32] that the legislature went in [20:34] and it unlocked specifically [20:36] all the retirement accounts. [20:37] Oh, don't worry, [20:38] there's a million dollar deduction. [20:40] But they were protected [20:41] by state law. [20:41] And so now the retirement [20:42] accounts are affected. [20:44] And those things [20:45] are not misunderstood by people. [20:47] So then the question [20:47] to the audience is, [20:49] raise your hand if you have, [20:51] and I can finally see [20:51] the blinding is gone. [20:53] Raise your hand if you have [20:54] a friend or you know [20:55] someone personally [20:55] that is left [20:57] or is leaving the state. [20:57] Raise your hand. [21:01] That's not an instance. [21:01] That's well over half. [21:04] To say that this is not [21:08] going to affect [21:08] is putting your heads [21:09] in the sand. [21:10] If you look at what's [21:10] happening in real estate, [21:12] I just talked to a realtor [21:13] yesterday who said, [21:14] normally this time of year [21:15] they have maybe 20 listings. [21:17] They've got 80 listings [21:18] over on the over [21:19] $3 million households. [21:20] These are not, [21:22] and it's expensive [21:23] to live here in this state [21:24] and they're going to [21:25] make it more expensive. [21:26] So you look at this [21:27] and you say, [21:28] well, let's do another poll. [21:29] Who here believes, [21:31] I just, I'd like to see, [21:31] just raise their hands. [21:33] Who believes that this tax [21:35] will stay at the million [21:36] dollar threshold? [21:37] Raise your hand [21:38] if you think that it'll [21:39] actually stay there. [21:42] Nobody believes that. [21:43] Not one single person [21:44] believes that this income tax [21:46] is going to stay [21:47] at a million dollars. [21:48] Everybody knows for a fact. [21:54] And I think sort of [21:55] the final point on this [21:57] to me would be [21:58] the marijuana tax [21:59] was supposed to go [22:00] to education. [22:01] The lottery was supposed [22:02] to go to education. [22:03] The capital gains tax [22:04] was supposed to go [22:04] to education. [22:05] And I talked to daycare, [22:07] people that run [22:08] daycare centers in Seattle [22:09] and they're pissed. [22:11] The money didn't come [22:12] where it was supposed to. [22:13] There's this big pitch, [22:14] oh, hey. [22:15] And the good news, [22:16] by the way, [22:17] is that our repeal [22:18] of the income tax [22:19] keeps those tax credits. [22:21] So you don't have to worry [22:21] about that. [22:21] You can go ahead [22:22] and vote yes for the tax. [22:24] We kept, [22:25] I don't think there should [22:25] be a sales tax on diapers. [22:27] That's a ridiculous thing. [22:28] Why did it take us [22:28] 40 years to get rid of it? [22:29] But all these promises [22:31] have been made [22:32] over and over and over. [22:33] We're going to fund, [22:33] this time we promise [22:34] we'll fund education. [22:36] This time, no, no, [22:36] this time we really, [22:37] really promise [22:38] we'll fund education. [22:39] In this bill, [22:40] it has a general comment [22:42] at the very top, [22:43] but there's no commitment [22:45] anywhere. [22:45] This is just going [22:46] into a general slush fund [22:47] and it'll have no impact [22:49] whatsoever on education. [22:50] And in another two years, [22:51] they'll say, oh, geez, [22:52] now we've spent all this money [22:54] and we still haven't funded [22:55] education. [22:56] We need another tax [22:57] and we need it lower. [22:58] And everybody in this room [22:59] knows it's coming for them. [23:01] Dr. Boyd, [23:02] to include you [23:02] into the conversation. [23:04] You just heard [23:05] some of the arguments [23:06] there about the revenue. [23:08] So here we are [23:09] a couple of years [23:10] down the road. [23:10] Let's say that [23:11] the initiative fails, [23:13] the tax goes into place, [23:14] and the revenue [23:15] exceeds the forecast. [23:17] How should lawmakers [23:18] decide what to do [23:20] with that excess revenue? [23:22] We look forward [23:23] to that future [23:24] and we see it coming. [23:26] Right now, [23:27] there are commitments, [23:28] right? [23:28] There's a commitment [23:29] to dedicate 5% [23:31] of the revenue [23:32] to early learning, [23:33] to the Fair Start [23:33] for Kids account. [23:35] There's a commitment [23:35] to the Working Families [23:36] Tax Credit. [23:37] There are real commitments [23:38] in this bill [23:40] and those would be undone [23:42] and even though [23:43] the initiative says [23:44] they'll be upheld, [23:44] there's no way [23:45] to pay for them. [23:46] So that would also put [23:48] the legislature [23:49] in a spin about [23:50] now what to do [23:51] with all of these commitments [23:52] that we've made [23:52] minus the funding. [23:53] So we look forward [23:55] to the future [23:55] when we can advise [23:57] and advocate [23:58] on how those dollars [23:59] should be spent. [24:00] We think that there's [24:01] a good framework in place. [24:02] The general fund pays [24:04] for K-12 education, [24:06] healthcare, higher ed, [24:08] and a lot of the pieces [24:09] that we rely on [24:10] as basic infrastructure [24:11] for our state. [24:13] We want those [24:13] to have abundant resources [24:15] so that we can raise [24:16] healthy, smart kids [24:19] who are going to work [24:20] in these amazing industries [24:21] that many of you [24:23] in this room represent. [24:25] That's really important. [24:26] We will also advocate [24:27] to maintain or, you know, [24:30] ensure that our promises [24:31] in the Fair Start [24:32] for Kids Act are kept. [24:34] We will advocate [24:35] for free school meals. [24:37] We want to encourage [24:38] the legislature [24:38] to make sure every child [24:40] has good nutrition [24:41] and can stay focused [24:42] at school every day. [24:43] That's our value statement. [24:47] So we think there's [24:48] a framework for spending [24:49] in place. [24:50] We think there will be [24:51] many decisions to be made, [24:52] certainly about that. [24:54] We want to be sure [24:55] that spending targets [24:56] those who are furthest [24:57] from opportunity and justice [24:59] and who have been excluded. [25:00] There will be a lot [25:01] to say about that. [25:02] I'll also add [25:04] that we will need this money [25:05] because there is a massive [25:07] withdrawal of support [25:08] from the federal government. [25:10] Many in this room, [25:11] including me, [25:12] benefit financially [25:13] from the impacts [25:15] of the one big, [25:17] beautiful act, right? [25:18] We benefit from the tax cuts [25:20] that come from that. [25:22] But who is going [25:22] to be impacted negatively? [25:24] Our families [25:25] depending on nutrition. [25:26] Our families [25:27] depending on Medicaid. [25:29] Our families [25:30] depending on school meals [25:32] for their kids [25:34] who are low income. [25:35] And many of these programs [25:37] are threatened. [25:39] Tens, hundreds of thousands [25:40] have just been disenrolled [25:41] or disqualified from Medicaid [25:43] in the last less than a week. [25:45] We have to step up as a state, [25:47] and we will be looking [25:48] to our state legislature [25:49] to make sure we do so [25:50] because the federal government [25:52] is not providing [25:53] that leadership. [25:54] Brian, you just heard [25:55] what Dr. Boyd had to say [25:56] about the idea [25:57] that if I-645 was to pass, [25:59] funding for K-12 education [26:01] would be at risk. [26:02] Do you believe [26:03] that that accurately [26:04] reflects your initiative? [26:06] Absolutely not. [26:08] If there's any cuts [26:09] to spending on K-12, [26:11] it has to be done [26:12] because a couple of people [26:13] on this stage [26:14] voted for it. [26:15] I'm not saying that [26:15] either of you would [26:16] or wouldn't, [26:17] but they would have to actively, [26:18] proactively cut funding. [26:20] The McCleary decision [26:21] means that the legislature [26:22] is obligated to fund education first. [26:25] And if the funding [26:26] is not happening, [26:26] it's not because of something [26:28] that happens with the repeal [26:29] of an income tax [26:30] that doesn't go into effect [26:31] for another three years. [26:32] It goes because they made a decision. [26:34] They could invest it in education [26:35] and our kids [26:36] where it's supposed to go, [26:37] or they could put it [26:38] on some stupid program [26:39] that's full of fraud. [26:40] And I think looking at, [26:41] that's a place I'd like [26:42] to start seeing [26:42] is the auditing. [26:43] There's a Nick Shirley video [26:44] out there right now [26:45] looking at food stamp fraud [26:48] that's going on [26:48] in downtown Seattle. [26:50] There's a daycare fraud [26:52] all over the place [26:53] that should be investigated [26:54] to find out [26:55] whether it's true or not. [26:57] If we control our spending [26:58] and look at where the fraud's going [27:00] and get that under control, [27:01] then we begin to have [27:02] an honest conversation [27:03] about whether there's cuts [27:05] or not coming. [27:06] But to say that this income tax [27:08] which hasn't gone into effect [27:09] doesn't go into effect [27:10] for another two years [27:11] is somehow going to cut spending [27:13] when the legislature [27:14] has full control [27:15] over where they spend the money [27:16] is sort of a ludicrous [27:17] assertion on my part. [27:19] Senator Dingra, [27:20] I wanted to talk with you [27:22] as well [27:23] because there has been [27:25] some conversation [27:25] for the last year [27:26] about this initiative [27:28] and there has been [27:30] some language [27:32] about Brian Haywood [27:34] that he's mad [27:35] because he's going to get taxed [27:37] out of this whole thing. [27:38] Yet I look at the PDC records today [27:40] and there's more than [27:41] $11.5 million in donations [27:43] primarily from unions [27:45] in Washington State, [27:47] far outspending [27:48] what Brian Haywood [27:50] has spent here. [27:51] What does that say to you [27:53] or speak to you [27:54] about what is actually going on [27:56] in this particular initiative? [27:58] So you have to look at [28:00] who's going to benefit [28:01] and what does that benefit look like [28:03] when you have a millionaire's tax. [28:06] The bottom line is [28:07] 100% of Washingtonians benefit. [28:11] And yes, [28:12] our unions are spending money on it [28:13] because traditionally, [28:15] who have the unions represented? [28:17] Our nurses, [28:18] our caregivers, [28:19] people who are blue collar, [28:21] who are doing the hard work, [28:23] who are making it, [28:24] making it more and more difficult [28:26] for them to afford [28:27] a lot of the great things [28:28] that we on the East side [28:30] are used to. [28:31] Affordability is a huge issue. [28:33] Making sure that kids are fed, [28:35] are housed, [28:36] have access to healthcare, [28:37] are great challenges. [28:40] So yes, [28:41] the unions are absolutely [28:42] for ensuring we have [28:44] a millionaire's tax [28:45] because that provides [28:46] their members [28:47] the best opportunity [28:48] to be on an equal footing [28:50] when it comes to what the future [28:52] for their children looks like. [28:55] In Washington today, [28:57] people can predict [28:58] how successful you're going to be [29:00] based on the zip code [29:01] in which you are born. [29:04] That's wrong. [29:05] We cannot be a state [29:06] where because of where you're born, [29:08] they can predict [29:09] how successful you're going to be. [29:11] I know that's not a state [29:12] all of us aspire to have. [29:15] We have better aspirations than that. [29:17] We want to make sure [29:18] that no child, [29:19] regardless of where they're born, [29:20] in this state, [29:21] has an equal opportunity [29:23] for success. [29:25] And you have to have a vision [29:26] for what does the future [29:27] of Washington look like. [29:28] And if you want that child [29:30] to succeed, [29:31] you have to make sure [29:32] they have access [29:33] to good education, [29:34] they have access to healthcare, [29:35] they have access to good food. [29:37] And yes, [29:38] they need a home. [29:40] And that is what this tax enables. [29:42] It enables us [29:43] to join 41 other states [29:45] who have actually figured out [29:47] how to make their people successful. [29:50] And yes, [29:51] you don't have to jump off the bridge. [29:53] But yes, [29:54] when you're shown [29:54] the path to success, [29:56] you follow that path to success. [29:58] So you do have people [30:00] for and against. [30:01] And the people [30:02] who don't want to pay the tax, [30:04] who want to keep the money [30:05] for themselves, [30:06] they are against the tax. [30:07] But what Washingtonians [30:10] have shown us [30:10] over and over again, [30:12] and you can talk policy, [30:14] you can talk politics. [30:15] So let me switch to politics [30:16] so I can answer [30:17] some of the stuff [30:18] my colleague here has said. [30:21] Democrats got the trifecta [30:22] nine years ago [30:23] with my election. [30:25] Since then, [30:25] we've had a triple bond rating, [30:27] the highest bond rating [30:28] a state can get, [30:29] higher than the federal government [30:31] because we're running [30:32] a state well. [30:34] We put the, [30:35] oh, I guess my time's, [30:37] oh no, there we go. [30:38] We're the only state [30:39] in the country two years ago [30:41] that stayed blue [30:43] or moved blue [30:44] instead of going red [30:45] like the rest of the country. [30:47] We have facts [30:47] over and over again [30:49] why initiatives [30:50] that Bryan has funded [30:52] fail in the state, [30:54] why Washingtonians [30:55] over and over again [30:56] choose access to healthcare, [30:58] access to education, [31:00] because they understand [31:01] fundamentally [31:02] that when you enable [31:04] each child [31:05] to be successful, [31:06] the whole state [31:07] becomes successful. [31:09] So yes, [31:09] the unions are supporting this [31:11] because we have this vision [31:12] for what the future [31:13] of Washington [31:13] can look like. [31:15] Representative Stokesbury, [31:16] very briefly, [31:17] and we'll get to [31:18] final comments here [31:19] in just a second. [31:20] Can I mention that [31:21] Monk had voted [31:21] for my initiatives [31:22] in the legislature? [31:24] You voted, yes, [31:25] to stop an income tax. [31:27] You voted on 2111 [31:28] that no, [31:29] there should be [31:29] no income tax here. [31:30] So to say they've failed, [31:32] we've got four that have passed [31:33] out of the seven, [31:33] and you're saying [31:35] this sort of doublespeak. [31:36] You voted to stop [31:37] an income tax. [31:38] A broad-based income tax? [31:39] And I'll say again, [31:40] a broad-based income tax, [31:42] I will not vote for. [31:43] You've got to be strategic, [31:45] you've got to use [31:46] a surgical tool, [31:47] you've got to have policies [31:48] that work [31:49] and not play politics. [31:51] So no, [31:52] I will not vote [31:53] for a broad-based income tax. [31:54] Your own website [31:55] said it was unconstitutional [31:56] until you took it down [31:57] this year. [31:58] You said an income tax [32:00] in this state [32:00] is unconstitutional. [32:02] It was on your website. [32:03] I've got a screenshot of it. [32:05] And now you're like, [32:05] oh, no, not that, [32:07] but some kind of income tax. [32:08] Why is this one constitutional [32:10] and before it wasn't? [32:11] I'd like to hear that. [32:12] And I'd also like to know [32:13] why, if it's possible, [32:14] I'd like to know why [32:15] you took the protections [32:16] off of the pensions. [32:17] Well, this is a fun forum. [32:19] They said spicy [32:22] before we got up here, [32:23] so I took that to heart. [32:24] I was totally happy, [32:25] but I don't want to take over [32:26] your role as a moderator, [32:27] so if you want me to answer, [32:28] happy to. [32:28] I'll give you a chance [32:29] since he directly [32:30] said something to you. [32:31] Oh, my God, [32:32] I so want to answer this. [32:33] Thank you so much [32:34] for the question. [32:35] We are the Five Alarm panel, [32:38] right, as we were discussed. [32:41] So, first of all, [32:43] we're talking about pensions. [32:46] I don't know any pension [32:48] where you get paid [32:49] over a million dollars a year. [32:52] Hell, if there was a pension [32:53] that paid a million dollars a year, [32:56] I'm sure all of us [32:57] will be signing up for that job. [32:58] So not quite sure [32:59] what's happening there. [33:00] When this bill was crafted, [33:03] the millionaire's tax, [33:05] it was crafted by making sure [33:07] we are talking to many [33:08] in the business community, [33:10] many leaders who are present [33:11] in this room, [33:12] making sure we're talking [33:13] to attorneys on how best [33:15] to craft it so that it passes [33:18] constitutional muster. [33:19] You can have political questions, [33:22] and when you're asked a question [33:24] with no nuance, [33:25] with no ability [33:26] to actually communicate [33:28] about what it takes [33:29] to make something constitutional, [33:31] absolutely. [33:32] And I still say this, [33:33] I am not fond [33:34] of a broad-based income tax. [33:37] So, yes, [33:37] this legislation [33:38] was written [33:39] with the help [33:40] of a lot of experts [33:41] to make sure [33:42] that it is constitutional. [33:43] And the bottom line is this, [33:46] each and every one of us [33:47] want elected leaders [33:49] that are thoughtful, [33:51] that are willing [33:52] to do the hard things [33:53] that need to be done [33:54] because they have a vision [33:55] for the state of Washington. [33:57] And that is what you have here. [33:59] And that is what you're going [34:00] to continue to have [34:01] because that's what we've seen [34:02] in the last nine years. [34:04] The state is doing incredibly well. [34:06] And I know we keep hearing [34:07] all of this reporting [34:09] on all the things [34:10] that are not going right. [34:11] Nothing can be perfect. [34:13] But when you travel [34:14] across this country, [34:16] I can tell you, [34:17] I don't know how many times [34:18] I say, [34:18] thank God I live in Washington. [34:20] We actually have [34:21] a public health structure. [34:23] That is something [34:23] I'm very, very proud of. [34:25] And given what's happening [34:26] in the other Washington, [34:28] where they're cutting [34:29] a rural health, [34:30] cutting Medicaid, [34:32] cutting health care, [34:33] you've heard all of that. [34:34] We have people [34:35] that are going to be dying [34:36] because they don't have [34:37] access to health care. [34:39] And you know what can come [34:40] help them? [34:40] It's a public health system. [34:42] So, yes, [34:43] very proud of our [34:44] investments in public health. [34:46] Our education, [34:47] I can brag about my kids. [34:49] Thank you. [34:50] I can brag about my kids [34:51] going to Lake Washington [34:52] public school district. [34:56] In elementary school, [34:57] my kids have the opportunity [34:58] to learn coding for kids. [35:01] How many schools [35:02] across the state [35:03] do you think [35:03] have that opportunity? [35:05] My child in high school [35:07] performed at Carnegie Hall [35:08] for the orchestra. [35:10] How many schools [35:11] in this state [35:12] do you think [35:13] give kids that opportunity? [35:14] And so what we need [35:17] and the leadership [35:17] we need in this Washington [35:18] is not people [35:20] who are looking out [35:20] for their own child, [35:22] but they're looking out [35:22] for the children [35:23] of this state [35:24] so they can all [35:25] have that opportunity [35:26] to succeed. [35:27] And so, yes, [35:28] if that means [35:29] making the tough decisions [35:30] to break the shackles [35:33] of a tax code [35:34] that's 70 years old [35:35] so that we can progress [35:37] into the next century, [35:38] absolutely, [35:39] you need leaders [35:40] who'll make the tough decisions. [35:41] And so sitting there [35:42] and just going, [35:43] well, that's what we got [35:44] and that's the best we can do. [35:46] No, we can do better [35:47] and we must do better. [35:49] All right. [35:50] Representative Stokesberry, [35:51] you were playing center court there, [35:53] kind of looking back and forth. [35:54] I wanted to ask you [35:55] a quick question [35:55] before we begin [35:56] to wrap this up. [35:57] Do you believe, [35:58] and this has been [35:59] part of the discussion, [36:00] that this millionaire's tax, [36:02] this income tax [36:03] on higher earners, [36:05] as it's crafted right now, [36:07] is legal? [36:10] Well, that's a good question [36:11] with an answer [36:13] that's going to be [36:14] in the eyes of the holder. [36:15] Right now, no, [36:16] it's not constitutional. [36:17] It's not even [36:18] a remotely close call. [36:20] In the 1940s, [36:22] the state Supreme Court [36:22] was very clear. [36:23] Our Constitution says [36:24] that taxes on property [36:25] have to be uniform [36:26] and limited [36:27] to a rate of 1%. [36:28] The question was posed [36:30] to the Supreme Court [36:31] 70 years ago, [36:32] is income property? [36:34] And the court said, [36:35] yes, of course it is, [36:37] because if it's not [36:37] your property, [36:38] what else is it [36:39] and whose is it? [36:40] It has to be your property. [36:42] It can't be anything [36:43] other than your property. [36:45] Nothing has changed [36:46] in the last 70 years [36:47] with regard to that question. [36:49] Lots of our life [36:50] around us has changed. [36:52] There's more people. [36:53] We have technological innovation. [36:55] The budget's a lot bigger, [36:56] but that fundamental question [36:56] is your income, [36:58] your property, [37:00] hasn't changed. [37:01] It still is. [37:02] So under the law [37:03] that the Supreme Court [37:04] has declared, [37:06] a tax on some people [37:08] at a rate higher than 1%, [37:10] violates both [37:11] of those requirements. [37:12] It is not uniform, [37:13] because as the senator [37:14] will point out, [37:16] it only applies to some people. [37:17] And the rate is definitely [37:18] over 1%. [37:20] It's not even [37:22] a remotely close call. [37:23] There's a joke among lawyers [37:24] that it doesn't matter [37:26] what the question is [37:26] we ask a lawyer. [37:27] The answer is always, [37:28] it depends. [37:29] This is like the one [37:30] in a million [37:30] where it doesn't depend [37:31] with an asterisk. [37:34] The asterisk is, [37:34] well, it depends [37:35] on if the Supreme Court [37:36] decides to change its mind [37:37] in pursuit of a policy [37:38] they agree with. [37:40] And based on how [37:40] the Supreme Court [37:41] has ruled in the past, [37:43] whether it comes to [37:44] charter schools [37:45] about 10 years ago [37:46] or the natural gas ban [37:48] just this past couple months, [37:51] the Supreme Court [37:52] has proven over and over again [37:53] that they are more interested [37:54] in deciding cases [37:56] based on their preferred [37:57] policy outcome [37:58] than what the law says. [37:59] So unfortunately, [38:00] I don't have a ton [38:01] of confidence [38:01] that they will faithfully [38:02] apply the law [38:04] as it has been handed down. [38:05] We heard a lot [38:06] a couple years ago [38:07] about the merits [38:08] of stare decisis [38:09] when the Supreme Court [38:10] overturned Roe v. Wade. [38:12] I suspect those same people [38:14] who talked about [38:15] how important [38:15] stare decisis was [38:16] three years ago [38:18] and what a travesty [38:19] the Supreme Court [38:21] ignoring precedent was [38:22] are going to be very silent [38:23] when our state Supreme Court [38:25] ignores stare decisis, [38:26] overturns this precedent [38:27] and declares [38:28] that your income [38:29] isn't actually your property [38:31] and therefore isn't subject [38:32] to the requirement [38:33] that the tax be uniform [38:34] and limited to a rate [38:35] of 1%. [38:36] All right, [38:36] let's try and wrap up [38:38] this spicy forum. [38:39] I think we've already [38:41] gone a little long [38:42] and I think people [38:44] have seen polling [38:44] as well [38:45] on where things stand [38:47] right now [38:47] and based on the language [38:48] that is or isn't [38:50] in the initiative. [38:52] Dr. Boyd, [38:52] I feel like you've been [38:53] sitting there patiently [38:54] for several minutes [38:55] so we'll start [38:56] I thought it was a panel [38:57] and we were [38:58] We'll start with you [38:58] as we close this up [39:02] to make your final pitch [39:03] to everybody in the room. [39:04] What do you think happens [39:06] if this initiative fails? [39:07] What do you think [39:08] if this initiative is approved? [39:11] Well, first I want to respond [39:12] to an earlier comment [39:13] about child care providers [39:15] who make just above [39:17] the federal poverty rate [39:18] defrauding our state. [39:21] That's untrue. [39:22] There have been [39:22] no findings of fraud. [39:24] Let's clear that up. [39:25] Child care providers [39:26] are a majority [39:27] 90, 80 to 90% [39:29] are women. [39:30] More than half of them [39:31] are people of color [39:32] whether to insinuate [39:33] or imply they are [39:34] stealing from us [39:35] is wrong [39:37] and I think we all [39:38] know that [39:38] but I would like to say [39:39] that we are still [39:40] a strong no on I-645 [39:42] because it takes away [39:45] from the future [39:46] I think we all want. [39:47] We want a future [39:48] where our children [39:49] are in the care [39:51] of people [39:51] who are well compensated [39:53] who are acknowledged [39:54] for their time [39:55] and dedication [39:56] to our children. [39:57] We want a future [39:58] where we have enough [39:59] hospitals in our state [40:01] not because of I-645 [40:03] but because of again [40:04] Medicaid rollbacks [40:05] we will see hospitals [40:06] close in this state [40:08] serving young people [40:09] serving children [40:10] and families [40:10] who are depending [40:12] on Medicaid [40:13] and those who are not [40:14] but who are depending [40:15] on that hospital. [40:16] We are going to see [40:16] such a massive impact [40:18] to the health [40:19] and well-being [40:20] of young children [40:21] children and families [40:22] no matter what [40:23] and I-645 [40:25] will exacerbate it. [40:26] It will push us [40:27] further over the edge. [40:28] More people will die. [40:29] More children will not [40:31] have access [40:31] to high-quality care [40:32] or education. [40:34] More families will pay [40:35] more of their income [40:36] while their prices go up [40:38] and without any relief [40:40] from our state. [40:41] So I-645 is absolutely [40:43] going in the wrong direction [40:44] and the reasoning behind [40:47] it benefits very few people [40:49] and harms pretty much [40:51] everybody else. [40:52] I'm on the side [40:53] of helping everybody [40:54] especially those furthest [40:55] from opportunity [40:56] and making our state [40:57] great for every single [40:59] person here [41:00] regardless of background [41:01] or origin. [41:04] So we are a strong no [41:05] on I-645 [41:06] for all those reasons. [41:08] Brian, final word? [41:10] I almost feel like [41:10] I'm in a Simpsons episode [41:12] where I hear that [41:12] if I-645 is not [41:14] if it doesn't fail [41:16] then people will die. [41:18] This is the sort of [41:19] the trope that gets [41:20] trotted out all the time. [41:22] We're going to spend [41:22] this for the children [41:23] and then we don't spend [41:24] the money on the children. [41:24] If you don't vote [41:25] for this tax [41:26] people are actually [41:26] going to die [41:27] for a tax [41:27] that doesn't even exist yet. [41:29] And I think that [41:30] we need to step back [41:31] for a minute [41:31] and look at this state. [41:32] I hear a lot of talk about [41:33] oh we've got to [41:34] make us competitive [41:36] with the other 41 states [41:37] or whatever [41:38] that have an income tax [41:41] and look at [41:42] for 137 years [41:43] Washington State [41:44] has had no income tax [41:45] and it's been [41:46] one of the most successful [41:47] places with one [41:48] of the highest standards [41:49] of living [41:49] in the entire United States [41:51] without an income tax [41:53] because it brought [41:55] to Washington State [41:56] some of the smartest people [41:58] from all over the world. [41:59] It brought some of the [42:00] greatest entrepreneurs [42:01] from all over the world [42:02] and those people create value. [42:04] They create companies. [42:06] They create jobs [42:06] that pay for and hire [42:08] all the people [42:09] that need jobs. [42:10] And I think if our model [42:11] is that at some point [42:12] what we'd like [42:12] is for the state [42:13] to be able to pay [42:14] for everybody [42:14] so no one has a job [42:16] and they just get money [42:16] from the state [42:17] that's a dystopian future [42:19] that I don't want [42:19] to be a part of. [42:20] I think it's much more [42:22] ennobling to have an economy [42:24] like we have structured [42:26] in Washington State [42:26] like the founders [42:27] of the state created [42:28] that says we welcome [42:30] smart people [42:30] from all over the world. [42:31] We want you to come here [42:32] and we want you [42:33] to build your business [42:33] and we want you [42:34] to hire people [42:35] and then those will spin off [42:37] more companies [42:38] that try to feed [42:39] these companies [42:39] that have been successful. [42:41] That is a model [42:43] that has been one [42:44] of the top [42:44] in the entire world. [42:45] It's one of the top [42:46] in the nation [42:47] and over the last 12 years [42:48] since my district [42:49] in the 45th [42:50] switched from Andy Hill [42:52] to another senator [42:53] the spending [42:54] has gone complete [42:55] oh sorry [42:56] I didn't realize [42:56] that was you. [42:58] The spending [42:59] has gone out [43:00] I know [43:00] I'm being smart ass [43:01] sorry [43:01] the spending [43:03] has just gone out [43:04] of control [43:04] and really though [43:04] it's been in these 12 years [43:05] since the Senate [43:06] control changed [43:07] and the spending [43:09] has been [43:09] we seem to control [43:11] our spending [43:12] until about 12 years ago [43:15] when things really changed [43:16] and their spending [43:17] has just gone up [43:17] and there's no stop [43:18] in sight [43:19] so we need to first [43:20] fix our fiscal house [43:21] and then we can talk [43:22] about tax policy. [43:23] Senator [43:24] final word [43:25] since he just referenced [43:26] you specifically. [43:27] Thank you so much [43:28] I appreciate that [43:29] we have seen [43:30] tremendous growth [43:31] in the state of Washington [43:32] growth that we're [43:33] all proud of [43:34] and guess what [43:35] with that growth [43:36] comes more stress [43:38] on government [43:39] cities [43:40] counties [43:41] and the state [43:42] and so yes [43:44] we want to continue [43:45] growing [43:45] and we do anticipate [43:47] more and more people [43:48] coming into the state [43:49] of Washington [43:50] we've had 2 million [43:51] in the last couple of decades [43:53] we're anticipating [43:54] another couple of millions [43:55] in the next couple of decades [43:56] how do you anticipate [43:58] that growth [43:58] because when those people [43:59] come in [44:00] guess what they want [44:01] great education [44:02] they want good housing [44:04] they want a place [44:06] where they can play [44:07] great environment [44:07] parks [44:08] schools [44:09] all of that [44:10] all the nice things [44:11] that we love [44:12] and we enjoy [44:13] especially on the east side [44:15] guess what [44:16] nice things [44:17] aren't cheap [44:18] nice things [44:20] cost money [44:21] and you cannot [44:22] continue to provide [44:23] all the things [44:24] we love [44:24] the quality of life [44:26] that we love [44:27] with the most [44:29] regressive tax structure [44:30] in the country [44:30] the math does not work [44:32] that's what 41 other states [44:34] have figured out [44:35] the math has to work [44:37] I was so proud [44:39] that one of our schools [44:40] in the 45th district [44:41] made the top 10 [44:42] schools in the country [44:45] how do you think [44:46] a school makes [44:48] top 10 in the country [44:49] it's because [44:50] there are resources [44:51] that are provided [44:51] to that school [44:53] that's the way [44:54] it happens [44:55] that's the life [44:56] we want for all [44:57] of our children [44:57] and our grandchildren [44:58] and in order [44:59] to get there [45:00] vote no [45:01] on the initiative [45:02] representative [45:03] stokesbury [45:04] you get the final word [45:05] what do I do [45:06] to deserve [45:07] what do I do [45:07] to deserve this honor [45:08] I agree with [45:09] what the premise [45:12] that Dr. Boyd [45:12] laid out [45:13] but come to a [45:14] diametrically opposite [45:15] conclusion of her [45:16] she said that she's [45:18] going to support [45:18] the things that do [45:19] the most good [45:20] for the most people [45:21] and that's why [45:22] I am supporting [45:23] the initiative [45:23] and oppose the tax [45:25] because the state [45:27] of Washington [45:27] and the people [45:28] of Washington [45:28] will benefit [45:29] by not having [45:30] this extreme disincentive [45:32] to build things [45:33] to come here [45:34] to think big [45:35] to do the things [45:36] that the Boeing family [45:37] did 100 years ago [45:38] with the airplane [45:40] what the Gates family [45:42] did [45:42] what Jeff Bezos did [45:45] you want those folks [45:46] yes it's easy [45:47] to demonize [45:48] the millionaires [45:48] but they provide [45:50] an important role [45:51] in our community [45:51] sure I'll be the [45:52] Republicans who's [45:53] standing up for [45:53] millionaires here [45:54] for a second [45:55] we want capital [45:57] to come here [45:58] to invest in the things [45:59] because it's that growth [46:00] it's the growth [46:00] of Boeing [46:01] and Microsoft [46:01] and Amazon [46:02] and Starbucks [46:02] Expedia [46:04] Weyerhauser [46:05] that is fueling [46:07] all of the great [46:08] and wonderful things [46:09] and when we risk [46:11] disrupting that [46:11] we risk turning [46:12] Washington into this [46:13] sort of dystopian [46:15] nightmare [46:15] we don't need [46:18] to reject the tax [46:20] or we don't need [46:20] to reject the initiative [46:21] in order to have [46:23] these great [46:23] and wonderful things [46:24] we can do them [46:26] if we elect [46:26] the right people [46:27] to the legislature [46:28] to do them [46:28] ask yourself [46:29] what is more important [46:31] cutting sales tax [46:32] cutting property tax [46:34] or funding [46:34] an extra college [46:36] administrator [46:36] or funding a program [46:38] with a negative [46:38] cost benefit ratio [46:39] or funding [46:40] foundational public [46:41] health at a level [46:42] that has only ever [46:43] been funded previously [46:44] in the biggest [46:45] pandemic ever [46:46] I think that if [46:48] fixing our regressive [46:50] tax code [46:51] and giving tax relief [46:52] to the people [46:52] who want it most [46:53] is a priority [46:54] it is for me [46:55] we should act like it [46:56] Senator Dinger [46:57] and I have a vote [46:58] in the legislature [46:58] to do just that [46:59] you should elect [47:00] legislators [47:00] who will do things [47:02] that we want to happen [47:02] like reducing [47:03] the tax [47:06] on working class [47:08] families [47:09] and then [47:10] the last point [47:11] I'll make [47:12] is something [47:12] that Senator Dinger [47:13] just said [47:13] which I fundamentally [47:14] disagree with [47:15] she said [47:16] that the reason [47:17] why schools [47:18] on the east side [47:19] are performing [47:19] so well [47:20] is because of [47:20] the resources [47:21] they have [47:21] and that's just [47:22] not true [47:22] if you look [47:23] over the last [47:24] 10 years [47:24] at funding [47:25] for Washington's [47:26] K-12 system [47:27] against results [47:28] coming out [47:28] of Washington's [47:29] K-12 system [47:30] it is a giant [47:31] letter K [47:31] as funding goes up [47:33] performance goes down [47:34] yes funding schools [47:35] is important [47:36] you can't attract [47:37] the good quality [47:38] teachers [47:38] like my kids [47:39] have been blessed [47:40] to have [47:40] without paying [47:41] them what they deserve [47:42] but only paying [47:44] only sending money [47:45] to districts [47:45] with nothing else [47:47] isn't going to [47:48] improve our [47:48] education system [47:49] it hasn't in the past [47:51] the theory doesn't [47:52] suggest it will [47:52] I've dunked on [47:54] Alabama and Mississippi [47:55] a few times [47:55] but I will tell you this [47:56] you know who's [47:57] lapped us in reading [47:58] scores [47:58] Mississippi [47:59] those backwoods [48:00] backwater people [48:01] that can't do [48:01] anything right [48:02] they have [48:03] more better [48:04] I'm being sarcastic [48:05] I don't actually [48:05] believe that [48:06] and the reading [48:07] scores show it [48:07] they are now [48:08] doing better [48:09] at reading [48:09] than us [48:10] because money [48:10] isn't the only [48:11] thing that matters [48:12] standards matter [48:12] expectations matter [48:14] families matter [48:14] this tax [48:18] is not what we need [48:19] to finally achieve [48:20] a great education [48:21] system [48:22] extending this tax [48:24] will imperil [48:25] the funding [48:26] for things [48:27] that we really want [48:28] like Medicaid [48:29] and good teacher [48:30] salaries [48:30] and college [48:32] financial aid [48:33] but maintaining [48:35] that funding [48:35] is not the only [48:36] thing standing [48:37] between us [48:37] and successful [48:38] outcomes [48:38] you also need [48:39] good policies [48:40] to go with it [48:40] and those have [48:41] been severely lacking [48:42] as Democrats [48:43] have led our state [48:44] further and further [48:45] away from the utopia [48:46] that I wish we could [48:47] live in [48:47] and that's it [48:48] that's our forum [48:50] it was spicy [48:51] I think [48:51] thanks to [48:53] everybody [48:53] we'll see [48:54] we'll see [48:55] we'll see