Big 3 Briefing, Week 12 - The man behind the curtain

Rainy Day Recess Episode 29

April 2, 2025

See our Show Notes

[00:00:00] Christie Robertson: ​Welcome to Rainy Day Recess, a podcast about Seattle Public Schools and the forces that impact the district out in the world. I'm Christie Robertson.

[00:00:10] Megan Larkin: And I am Megan Larkin. This is Week 12 of the Big 3 briefing series, where we're tracking bills in the Washington State legislature related to the key funding gaps for school districts across Washington. AKA, the Big 3, which are special education, student transportation, and material supplies and operating costs, affectionately referred to as MSOC.

[00:00:37] Christie Robertson: Also known as “Keep the Lights on Money”.

[00:00:40] Megan Larkin: Yes. Keep the lights on money.

[00:00:42] Christie Robertson: Today we are going to talk about the madness of last week, which was budget week. We're going to talk about the House and Senate K 12 funding proposals in more detail. And we are trying to decide how we are feeling as we enter the final stages of this legislative session – budget negotiations in a small room with a handful of legislators. 

And I am affectionately calling this “The Man Behind the Curtain” episode. Being a legislator in some ways is like putting on a show. And this is not to malign the intentions of any legislators, who I believe all have the best interests of the public at heart and are doing their very best to balance many competing interests. But we just want to make sure that you can recognize “special effects” like what is causing that puff of smoke or what is making the lights flash, so you're aware of what's actually happening that isn't always apparent from what you're seeing at first blush.

[00:01:52] Megan Larkin: Yes. I love the way you're putting that. What we're hoping you take out of this episode is that you're clear-eyed about what all of these bills or budget items would actually do. And then you can use that to inform your advocacy moving forward. Because effective advocacy involves having clear information. And if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. So we have to keep showing up to the table over and over again.

[00:02:25] Christie Robertson: We're in some of the final throes of the legislative session. We still do have a few weeks to go, but these things that you're learning are hopefully going to help you, as well, in the future. Because while this was a huge push for education advocacy, we need to keep coming back next year and the following biennium and so on.

[00:02:48] Megan Larkin: Yes.

Budget Week Happenings

[00:02:49] Christie Robertson: Green tinted glasses on. We are headed to Budget Land. 

Let's talk about the actual events that happened last week. It was budget week. We recorded on Monday. The House and Senate released their respective budget bills that same day. Remember, the budgets are released as an actual bill; they have a bill number. 

On Tuesday, there were hearings in the fiscal committees on the budget bills. 

They voted in the committees on Thursday. 

And then two days later on Saturday, the Senate already passed their budget bill off of the Senate floor and sent it over to the House.

So, rapid fire, very rapid. And today continues that rapid pace. 

The House will be hearing their own budget bill on the floor... 

[00:03:40] Megan Larkin: I think what the House will do is take the Senate's budget bill...

[00:03:51] Christie Robertson: They won't even hear their own?

[00:03:52] Megan Larkin: Because at the end there can only be one budget bill. So the chamber that goes first, in this case the Senate, they’ll put their bill through all of the committees on the Senate side, vote it out of the Senate, then the House will "catch it on the fly". And rather than voting on their budget bill, 1198, they put a striker amendment on top of the Senate's bill, and then they just put all of the stuff that they had negotiated in committee.

So then there's two different versions of the same bill – 5167. And that triggers a conference committee.  

They might not be ready to do that. They might want to do some more closed door negotiations. In which case, maybe they just take more time before they trigger a conference committee, because they don't want the public necessarily to see the horse trading that's going on.

[00:04:56] Christie Robertson: So we don't know when the actual publicly-facing conference committee will happen. 

Revenue

[00:05:02] Christie Robertson: The other thing that's happening this week is that the revenue bills are being heard. We will talk about those a bit. Both the House and the Senate have baked a huge amount of new revenue sources into their budgets. So is it kind of formal to do these hearings and vote on the revenue bills separately?

[00:05:23] Megan Larkin: I think that the hearings on the revenue bills and the votes are going to be really interesting. It's not like when they were pushing through the budget bills. There's going to be pushback, I think, even within the Democratic caucus on some of these bills. And I would not be surprised if some don't pass. Though this is another "we'll see" kind of scenario. 

And I think also with the revenue bills that's where maybe the governor's veto is a consideration. It'll be interesting to see how the revenue bills move through, what has legs, what doesn't have legs.

[00:06:03] Christie Robertson: And that will then influence the next negotiations on the budget bill itself, right?

[00:06:08] Megan Larkin: Yes. Because if you baked all of your new revenue bills into your budget, and it turns out you don't have all of your new revenue bills, then... uh oh. Gotta do some changes.

Review: Big 3 gaps

[00:06:22] Christie Robertson: Okay. So let's talk about numbers. Remind us of our basics. What is the problem in districts with the Big 3?

[00:06:34] Megan Larkin: All right, so. I did a little bit of back of the envelope math using the AESD tool, which is where you can look up the funding gaps in each of the Big 3 areas. I went to the overall tabs, and I calculated the three-year average for each area of the Big 3, which are again, transportation, MSOC, and special education.

A combined average over three years for all of the Big 3 areas is $1.083 billion. About. 

[00:07:11] Christie Robertson: Per year. 

[00:07:12] Megan Larkin: And I think this is on the low end, because inflation means things are just going to get progressively more expensive.

But budgets are done as a biennium. So it's a two year thing. So let's double our Big 3 gap to be $2.167 billion. So that's, ballpark, what we would need to get these funding gaps covered. 

[00:07:37] Christie Robertson: The current operating budgets that have been proposed... The Senate budget proposes $968 million for special ed and $175 million for MSOC. Nothing for transportation. So that adds up to $1.143 billion over two years. Which is maybe about halfway what we would need to fill our current gaps.

[00:08:05] Megan Larkin: Yeah. We're halfway there, but we're definitely not all of the way. 

The House on the other hand, gives just $185 million for special education over two years, and nothing for MSOC or transportation, barring a very small inflationary increase for MSOC, but no new money on the policy-level. 

So that's $185 million... 

[00:08:40] Christie Robertson: ...across the whole state...

[00:08:42] Megan Larkin: ...the whole state, out of a $2.167 billion gap. That means the House budget makes just an 8.5% dent in the Big 3 funding.

[00:08:57] Christie Robertson: $185 million over two years is something like $92 million per year. And remember that Seattle's budget gap, just Seattle, is around $94 million for next year.

[00:09:15] Megan Larkin: Yeah. Yeah. It's just... 8.5% isn't zero, but it's pretty close. This is not...

[00:09:22] Christie Robertson: It’s pretty close.

[00:09:26] Megan Larkin: And I think it's important to remember that. The budgets that we're talking about, they've already factored in all the new revenue that they expect to get. So legislators have been telling us all session “we can't do it without progressive revenue. We can't do it without progressive revenue. We can't fund the Big 3. We don't have progressive revenue.” 

They now have progressive revenue, and the House has still only funded 8.5% of the funding for the Big 3 funding gaps. The Senate at, like, ballpark 50%.

[00:10:02] Christie Robertson: I got an image in my mind of a kid going to their parents, like, “I need lunch money." And one parent is like, “okay, well here, I'll give you some money for Monday and Tuesday and half of Wednesday." And the other parent is like, "Okay, I'll give you like a small portion of what you need for your Monday lunch. And if you save that up then maybe you can get lunch on Monday in a few weeks," 

[00:10:27] Megan Larkin: It doesn't work. Like, that kid is not eating. That's not enough money.

[00:10:31] Christie Robertson: Let's think about: of the total education spending in the state Seattle accounts for about 5%. So 92 million... 5% of that is going to be something like $4.something million for Seattle, out of our $94 million gap in the House version. So. Yeah. We clearly at least need the Senate version.

[00:10:59] Megan Larkin: Yeah. We need to do better than this. 

Another way of thinking about this, especially because I know a lot of legislators in the House in particular have been saying we need revenue. They put $5.2 billion of new revenue in their budget for the biennium. And as we mentioned earlier, allocated like $185 million for the Big 3. So that's 3.6% of the new revenue for the Big 3. And it's just like... guys.

[00:11:35] Christie Robertson: One more stat, courtesy of This Week in Olympia”, an excellent publication from the Washington State Administrators Association, WASA.

We've all been hearing that the percent of the operating budget that used to go to education used to be 52.4% five years ago. So more than half. And then it's dropped over the years to where now it's 43.1%.

The Washington State Administrators, by their calculations, the Senate's investments raise it from 43.1% to 43.7%. 

In the House budget, the percent dedicated to education drops from 43.1% to 42.7%. So we are going backwards in the House budget.

[00:12:28] Megan Larkin: Yes, these are great stats. I think it's really important to remember these as we move forward and we start talking about revenue bills. 

Constitutional Duty

[00:12:40] Megan Larkin: I want to note that we say things like, “do your constitutional duty.” We've all been saying that a lot in this discussion about education funding. But it's not just like a rhetorical strategy that we're employing. It literally is the Paramount Duty of Washington State to provide for basic education. Like, it's right there in the constitution. Which is a big deal. 

And we're not at some edge case about, like, “well, maybe K 12 is fully funded. Maybe it's not. We don't know. Like, how do you even tell?” No. Six school districts, at least, are currently in binding conditions. Dozens more are about to follow suit, including really wealthy districts like Bellevue and Shoreline. There's this big $2.1 billion Big 3 funding gap. 

So we're just violating the constitution 

[00:13:45] Christie Robertson: That's where the lawsuits come from. I mean, because it's so clear. 

[00:13:50] Megan Larkin: Exactly. Which are also expensive, to do lawsuits. And I think, like, it's worth just sitting with that for a moment. That lawmakers who do not fully fund basic education, or who say “we are fine with passing a budget that does not fully fund basic education,” they're saying that they're okay with violating the Constitution.

And that's not like jaywalking or something. That's a big deal. That's a legislator saying, “I know the Constitution says to fully fund basic education, but I'm going to put my own priorities above what it says in the Constitution. And I'm going to put this money towards something I think is more important.” 

It's also... I think about our current climate. And I just, that precedent of just flagrantly disregarding the constitution. Like, I don't think that's a mindset that we want to have any lawmakers in. That's a chilling prospect.

[00:14:55] Christie Robertson: Yeah. And it's something that's special about our constitution. I just heard from a listener in Ohio who was saying, “you guys are always talking about state funding and, like, I'm looking at how our schools are funded. And it's 75% local property taxes." Having it be the Paramount Duty of the state is way fairer. And so it's a part of the constitution that we can all be proud of. 

[00:15:32] Megan Larkin: And we can amend the Constitution if people seriously want to do that. But that's a whole process and we haven't done it. So, like, I'm looking at you lawmakers. Like, you, in particular, you've said an oath.

Like, Christie, you're totally right that is inevitably going to result in a really big and expensive lawsuit.

[00:15:57] Christie Robertson: And if we wait for lawsuits, those take years. Kids grow up. Basically, an entire generation of kids would be waiting for the lawsuit to finish. Yeah. 

[00:16:07] Megan Larkin: And Christie, you had some really excellent points about how districts are also tying themselves in knots around the legalities of all this.

[00:16:17] Christie Robertson: That's right. Like it's actual law that spending enrichment money on basic education is not allowed. And districts used to, when I saw them coming to testify a couple years ago, they would twist themselves into knots to try to explain, like, “we don't have enough money for our utilities, so we're having to find other ways to pay for them.” Now they flat out say “we are paying for them from our enrichment grants that we're not allowed to pay for them from.” So everybody knows that they have to because the constitution's not being followed.

[00:16:53] Megan Larkin: And you're forcing districts to also do stuff that's against the law. And that's not how we as a state want to do business. 

Maintenance-level vs Policy-level

[00:17:05] Christie Robertson: Okay. the next special effect. We mentioned this last week. There's an amount that spending has to go up just based on the formulas that are in policy and the caseloads that change. That's called “maintenance-level” spending.

In order to give legislators credit for increasing funding going to education, we really want to look at “policy-level” increases.

For example, in the Senate, there was a total increase of $3.1 billion in spending in their budget for education. But $2.09 billion of that was maintenance-level. So the policy-level increase was $1.01 billion.

[00:17:51] Megan Larkin: Yep. And the House. Oh, the House. So a total increase of $2 billion, but that $2 billion was maintenance-level. And there's $49 million in policy-level... REDUCTIONS. So the House is spending less.

[00:18:13] Christie Robertson: Yep. If you don't count the maintenance-level spending, they cut more from K 12 education than they're increasing it.

[00:18:23] Megan Larkin: Yep.

[00:18:26] Christie Robertson: Shocking, I tell you.

[00:18:28] Megan Larkin: Yes, I, this is my surprised voice. 

Funding streams

[00:18:33] Christie Robertson: To talk about the last special effect, we need to talk about funding streams.

[00:18:39] Megan Larkin: Yes. Okay. If you can only take one thing away from this podcast, take this away. 

The General Fund is the biggest chunk of the operating budget, and it can be used for almost anything. Like, a bunch of revenue streams go into the General Fund, and then legislators just apportion it out however they see fit. There's not strings. 

So one way to think about this might be, like, think about a swimming pool. That's the General Fund. And you can scoop anything out. And you put revenue streams in. 

So let's, I don’t know why you would want to do this to your swimming pool, but say you did. Say the streams that are titled “New Tax for Education: Go Education”. You dump that in the swimming pool. All that green water goes in, and it diffuses out throughout the swimming pool. So, all of it's like a light green. So to say that funds that go into the pool are dedicated to any one thing isn't really accurate. Because everything that goes into the pool can be used for anything. 

Another analogy that can help you understand the General Fund is if you're thinking about personal finance. Let's say that you have a savings goal of putting your kid to college. If you're serious about that goal, you don't just leave that money sitting around in your checking account, right? Like, you put that in a special account that's, like, separate. And that's for college. And, like, maybe you have a separate account for emergencies. Because you know that if you just leave all of this in your checking account, it's going to be really easy for this money to get spent on who knows what.

[00:20:36] Christie Robertson: There is another account and it is called the ELTA, the Education Legacy Trust Account. This fund is also not dedicated only to K 12, but it covers multiple areas around education. So it's got K 12 in it, and it also funds higher education and early learning. 

[00:20:44] Megan Larkin: Yes. So if it goes into the Education Legacy Trust Account like that is. Better than going into the General Fund because it has to be used for something education-related. But it does not necessarily mean that it's going towards the Big 3 or any particular funding gap. 

[00:21:06] Christie Robertson: And if you ever hear the term “Near General Fund”, that is the combination of the General Fund and the Education Legacy Trust Account. As well as the Opportunity Pathways Account. I don't know what that is.

[00:21:34] Megan Larkin: I think that's, gosh, like, scholarships and stuff?

[00:21:37] Christie Robertson: You know what's missing, Megan? 

[00:21:38] Megan Larkin: What?

[00:21:39] Christie Robertson: A Paramount Duty Account. 

[00:21:40] Megan Larkin: Yeah. Wouldn't that be great!

[00:21:43] Christie Robertson: Then you could truly say if this tax goes into the Paramount Duty Account, it is going to the Paramount Duty, which is not early learning and is not higher education. It is K 12 education.

[00:21:56] Megan Larkin: Yes. Yeah. That'd be great. Because, to recap, we’ve got the General Fund, which is just like a fund that can literally be used for any priority. Then we have the Education Legacy Trust Account, which is like a General Fund for education in general. those are the two places where revenue streams most often land.

And I think for all the revenue bills that we have coming out. They land in mainly the General Fund, but also some of them go to the Education Legacy Trust Account?

[00:22:36] Christie Robertson: So Megan, if a bill is brightly shining and saying, I am a bill for K 12 education. That must mean it's going to the ELTA, right?

[00:22:49] Megan Larkin: No. Because we do get some K 12 funding out of the general account. If the tax is "K 12 to uphold the Paramount Duty", it could still go into the General Fund. And that's allowed because technically the General Fund is used for education. But functionally, like, that money is just going into that pool that anybody could use.

[00:23:18] Christie Robertson: I think most people in Seattle remember the Jumpstart Tax, which said “I am for affordable housing and other economic development.” And then like when there was a big deficit the next year, it basically got co-opted because it had all gone into the General Fund with a pinky promise that it was going to be spent on these dedicated purposes. 

[00:23:40] Megan Larkin: Yes, and this is very typical of what happens in the General Fund. Priorities and financial pressures shift so much and so quickly that it's very easy for them to use this money on other stuff.

And we've seen this happen again and again. So sometimes I feel like... you know how in Peanuts, like Lucy is always holding the football and Charlie Brown is going to run up to kick it, and then she always pulls it away and he falls. 

[00:24:13] Christie Robertson: Oh yeah. Yep. 

[00:24:14] Megan Larkin: Yeah. So I always feel like we're Charlie Brown in this situation because they're always saying “no we're going to use these for education, we're going to use these for education.” And then something happens, football gets yanked away and we are flat on our backs again. 

So I feel much more comfortable with any revenue stream that they say is for education to go into an account that explicitly has to be used for education. 

Or to have a policy in place that means you have to allocate a certain amount for education. And by policy in place I mean, like, bills like 5192 and 5263 that say “you have to put this amount of money towards special education. You have to put this amount of money towards MSOC.” If we don't have that assurance at the policy level, who knows which way the winds are going to blow. 

[00:25:13] Christie Robertson: Yeah, so that's really key. We shouldn't be looking at the revenue bills to determine what's going to be spent on education, because they can't say that. It's the SPENDING bills that have passed and the actual line items in the budget that say that they're going to education.

[00:25:34] Megan Larkin: Yes.

Revenue Bills

[00:25:36] Christie Robertson: So let's talk about the specific revenue bills, Megan. Which ones go to the General Fund and which ones go to ELTA?

The big taxes in both houses are the... what do they call them? “Intangible assets.” 

[00:25:43] Megan Larkin: Financial Intangible Tax. I think FIT is the acronym they like. Which is also known as the wealth tax.

[00:25:58] Christie Robertson: I love this tax.

[00:26:00] Megan Larkin: Inslee proposed it earlier. Ferguson didn't seem enthusiastic about it. But both the House and the Senate have proposed a wealth tax. 

The House's version is entitled, "Creating Fairness In Washington's Tax Code To Support Washington Families And Fund Vital Investments In K 12 Schools By Imposing A Tax On Select Financial Intangible Assets Valued At More Than $50 Million." 

Something to note is this would only come into effect in 2027. So as far as our immediate Big 3 funding gaps go, like, this doesn't help us. But it could come into play next biennium.

The proceeds of this tax WOULD get deposited in the Education Legacy Trust Account, which, that's a good thing. But remember that the Education Legacy Trust Account covers early childhood ed, higher ed, also K 12. So this tax could be used on anything within that bucket, right? Like propping up higher ed from all of these like draconian federal cuts or who knows what. Whatever the priority is in 2027.

The Senate also has a version of the wealth tax, except for, Christie, guess where this gets deposited?

[00:27:42] Christie Robertson: The General Fund?

[00:27:44] Megan Larkin: The General Fund. So it's called "Enacting A Tax On Stocks, Bonds, And Other Financial Intangible Assets For The Benefit Of Public Schools." But it goes into the General Fund, not into the Education Legacy Trust Account. 

So you could see how all of these bills have titles that are meant to engender support, right? 

Okay, SB 5796 it's like the jumpstart tax, I think. Do we want to talk about that as well? Because it would tax school districts.

[00:28:23] Christie Robertson: What? Excise tax on large employers with tax school districts?

[00:28:27] Megan Larkin: Yes. It would definitely tax SPS. Because if you have employees making above $176,000 with $7 million or more in payroll expenses, that's SPS.

And I think people explicitly went back and asked “Hey, do you guys mean to tax school districts?” And they were like, “yes.” Like, this will apply to school districts. 

[00:28:55] Christie Robertson: And it doesn't even go into the ELTA, the education trust. 

[00:29:00] Megan Larkin: Yeah. Yeah, it just goes into the General Fund, so that's something to be aware of when you're advocating for SB 5796. It would tax SPS and it goes into the General Fund, meaning it could be used for whatever.

[00:29:26] Christie Robertson: One other thing we should point out is that not all the new taxes are progressive. One of the things that may impact Seattle schools quite a bit immediately is a property tax reform that would change both the state and the local levee lids, so that Seattle could raise a great deal more from our local levies. And it's not progressive because it's a property tax. And it would benefit property-wealthy districts way more than property-poor districts. 

And usually the way legislators answer that is they say we're going to increase what's called “LEA” at the same time, “local effort assistance”. That is money from the state that goes to districts that can't raise as much from property tax because they don't have as high of property values. But the LEA increase that's accompanied with this is way smaller than the amount that's allowed to be raised from districts that can afford it.

[00:30:30] Megan Larkin: Yes, that's very important to note. And this levee lid lift bill that we're talking about is HB 2049 titled, "Investing in the State's Paramount Duty to Fund K 12 Education and Build Strong and Safe Communities".

[00:30:47] Christie Robertson: And then in the Senate, it's 5798 "Concerning Property Tax Reform."

[00:30:53] Megan Larkin: We should also probably mention that these bills might be amended. Like, they're just like any other bill, so...

[00:31:02] Christie Robertson: So we could try to get them to change it to the education trust? 

[00:31:06] Megan Larkin: Yeah. Or I don't know what. It'll be interesting to see what all the various ed advocacy groups have cooking. Because a lot of them have concerns that are similar to what we're talking about here.

[00:31:19] Christie Robertson: So what's coming up for these revenue bills? Megan?

[00:31:23] Megan Larkin: So there's revenue day on April the third in the Senate, and I think it might be the same for the House.

[00:31:31] Christie Robertson: No, the Senate is today.

[00:31:34] Megan Larkin: The Senate is today. Because they've already dealt with their budget bill, so now they can concern themselves with revenue.

[00:31:40] Christie Robertson: Yeah, I guess so. 

[00:31:41] Megan Larkin: You are correct. Okay. House Revenue Day is the third. Senate Revenue Day is today, so it'll be interesting to see what happens there.

[00:31:51] Christie Robertson: Yep. By the time you're hearing this, you'll be in the future and you'll know

Advocacy

[00:31:56] Christie Robertson: Now that we are clear-eyed, Megan, what are some good ways that we can still advocate? Or what are your tips for interacting with legislators who hold the power here?

[00:32:11] Megan Larkin: Okay, so first tip, especially if you have been advocating for progressive revenue: I think it's more than fair to go back to your legislators and say, “Hey, you told us at the beginning of session that we couldn't get the Big 3 funded unless we got progressive revenue. And look, we've been fighting hard for progressive revenue the whole time. It's already there in the budget.” 

And, like, particularly for the House: “Wow, there is not much there for the Big 3 at all. I think there's something like 8.5% of the funding gap is covered. And I know you said you really care about the Big 3 and funding education, so you must be really mad about this. Will you commit to not supporting any budget that does not fully fund K 12 as the Constitution requires?" 

Or if you want to be more specific with your numbers, you could say, "will you commit to viewing the Senate funding level as the floor?"

Because what we want to do is just keep the pressure on. Because if our legislators think that we've looked at the title of these bills and are like, “Oh wow! SB 5797 specifically says that it's to benefit public schools, so we're good. I bet they're going to fully fund the Big 3!” It's... no. 5797 goes straight into the General Fund. And the House of the Senate have already assumed all of this revenue in their budget, and they are still not funding the Big 3. 

So we need to let legislators know that we know that. Like, we're not going away. We are going to keep advocating for the Big 3 and for closing those funding gaps and for kids in K through 12 in general, until we get these needs met. Like it's not over until these needs are met. Pull up a chair, get some snacks. We're going to be here for a while.

[00:34:26] Christie Robertson: There's an action alert put out by the Washington State PTA.

[00:34:29] Megan Larkin: So the action alert is just making the case for the Big 3 again and just saying “we need you to be the bold, future-thinking, compassionate leaders that we know you to be and fund the Big 3.” So we can put a version of that in the show notes. 

And there is also a letter that the Big 3 coalitions, so Washington PTA, WASA, SPS, and then other folks, probably WSSDA, have all signed, that sort of reiterates the original Big 3 funding requests. I need to dig up that letter 'cause that would be good to put in the show notes. And it might also give people like, good tips for advocacy.

[00:35:20] Christie Robertson: And I also want to say that there's lots of different possible tactics for advocacy. And I want to call out the Billion Dollar Bake Sale, which is running a campaign that is focused on being positive, which also can be very effective. And, something to remember is that this could have been way worse. Like, it's only because of all the advocacy that everybody's been doing that there's as much funding dedicated in the Senate budget as there is. And that there were able to be progressive revenue proposals, which on their own are very worthwhile. So the Billion Dollar Bake Sale is running a Thanks for the Dough campaign that you can find at BillionDollarBakeSalewa.com. 

And we just really thank all of the community advocates that have really come out and spent so much time and effort to speak to our legislators through the season. It's made a huge difference. Billion Dollar Bake Sale has been an amazing advocate and thank you so much to them.

[00:36:41] Megan Larkin: Yeah. I echo everything that Christie said. 

[00:36:45] Christie Robertson: coming at it with the expectation and believing them when they say that they're going to fund education can be a very effective way to work with people. Because they don't want to disappoint you.

[00:36:58] Megan Larkin: Yeah, totally. And it gives them a positive narrative that they can use too. 

[00:37:03] Christie Robertson: I want to end the episode on Ways & Means chair June Robinson's floor speech from Saturday. Just to give a bigger picture of the balancing act our legislators are contending with.

[00:37:18] June Robinson: I will just remind us that budgets reflect our priorities. And, as has been talked about on this floor already today, this year we are facing a tough challenge. We all know that our state is confronting a budget deficit. And to close the gap, we have made incredibly difficult decisions, while keeping our state on a strong financial footing for the future. 

We didn't just focus on balancing numbers. We focused on building a thoughtful, sustainable plan that protects the services people rely on most and promotes the long-term fiscal stability of our state. But at the core of this budget is a commitment to the people of Washington. The people that we all come here to serve. 

It safeguards key supports making investments like:

*  $93 million for grants to our food banks

* $78 million for local housing programs to keep people in homes

* $20 million to better aid our refugee and immigrant communities who are afraid and under attack

* $25 million to increase access to resources for crime victims.

* The budget continues to build on our state's behavioral health system by providing $40 million to the University of Washington's behavioral health teaching facility. 

* We invest in our long-term care services facilities by providing an increase to Medicaid rates for our assisted living facilities. 

* We improve our juvenile rehabilitation capacity with $35 million to the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to do work there with young people who are in state custody. 

* This budget approves and funds the collective bargaining agreements for state employees, including those who are not represented through unions.

* And we make significant investments in K 12. The budget allocates a billion dollars over two years to special education, as well as $175 million over the biennium for school operating costs. So students and educators have what they need to succeed. And again, I will remind us all that the bills supporting those investments passed off this floor unanimously. Everyone here voted for those investments. 

* The budget continues our commitment to support our community and technical colleges by fully funding educator salaries. 

Those are the investments that I'm proud of. 

At the same time, we had to look closely at where we could reduce spending. And we did that in a way that I believe is responsible. I know that small cuts in state funding can deeply affect people's lives. I care about people. That's why I'm here. And none of these choices was made lightly. We made $6.5 billion in reductions over four years. The reductions are distributed thoughtfully across all areas of the budget to limit harm as much as possible. 

We know that an all-cuts budget would be devastating, putting programs and supports in serious jeopardy across our communities. That's why this plan, this budget bill pairs reductions with smart, necessary, and progressive revenue options. It asks the state's wealthiest individuals and largest corporations to contribute their fair share, ensuring those who benefit most from our economy, our robust, wonderful Washington state economy, will help to maintain the services that we all need.

The budget works to make our upside down tax code even more equitable by cutting the sales tax from 6.5% to 6%, putting money back in the hands and pockets of Washington people. We also provide meaningful property tax relief to low-income seniors and veterans with disabilities. 

Overall, this balance of cuts and new revenue allows us to protect core services and stay fiscally responsible for years to come. The proposal lays the groundwork for preserving $7.6 billion of total reserves by the end of the next biennium, helping to ensure continued stability and flexibility in future budgets, so when we come back two years in need to write another biennial budget, we're not right back at the same place we are today.

I'm very proud of the work that we've done here together, and I urge the body's support.  

[00:42:53] Christie Robertson: That's week 12 of the Big 3 Briefing.

You can find show notes and transcripts at rainydayrecess.org. Contact us with your thoughts or questions at our new email address big3@rainydayrecess.org. 

Stay curious. Stay cozy, and thanks for listening to Rainy Day Recess.