Washington legislators are about halfway through their off-year 60-day session. They have to figure out how to balance a budget that’s projected to be several billion dollars in the red.
The majority Democrats have made news by proposing what they call a ‘millionaire’s tax,’ designed to raise money to keep paying for services, while minimizing further cuts. The minority Republicans are complaining that a tax on the wealthy will become an income tax for everyone.
Stevens County Republican Senator Shelly Short agrees with that and we’ll get to that. But I first asked for her overall impression of the session thus far.
This interview is lightly edited for length and clarity.
Shelly Short: I think if I were to step back and just take a look at it overall regardless of whether it's legislation or budget. I would say it's about the state’s influence into our local communities, you know, the state wanting to go a particular direction when our communities don't. We're a diverse state. We have communities, Native American communities, all across the state. And yet the state wants to usurp itself on top of where we live and where we work and do business. I think that's how I would characterize it from a policy perspective.
From a budgetary perspective, I’m super concerned about coming in and potentially enacting an income tax at a time when just last year, there were $12 billion in increased taxes. You know, to me, it just signals that there's never enough. And that concerns me when you consider just foundational things the state should do, the services for individuals with disabilities, our communities, wildfire and all of that. If we try to do too many things and be everything to all people, then I think we risk not doing the things we should do, along with funding education. And so I’m just really concerned that it, to me, it feels out of control.
DN: Let’s talk about the two initiatives proposed by Brian Heywood that have qualified to go before the legislature. You were part of a listening session last week in Olympia that focused on those.
SS: I feel strongly on the parents rights initiative. I feel there's more and more movement toward pushing parents out of the picture, which is pretty stunning. We're talking about our public education system and really using that to push parents away. And we heard stories from both parents and educators themselves and professionals, psychologists about the importance of keeping families together. Even when children are going through really tough times, and maybe the parents don't agree with the child, they still need that foundation. They need that center, if you will, that they use to have safety and experience life. And obviously, we're not talking about situations where there's been abuse or neglect or anything like that.
But that initiative really puts the parents back into the equation, which it did two years ago when there was significant bipartisan support for it before it was changed.
The second one, you know, I don't have a problem with transgender individuals like that. This is not about them. But what it is about is really coming over the top of our young girls or women and saying, well, you have to give up your spaces. You have to give up your athletics in terms of the competitive part. And really, girls have shared, both athletes and just girls in general, how it's really hard to have young men who are still men physically in their locker rooms and things like that.
When we think about how hard, really the country, our nation has fought for women's rights and the right to be individual, the right to have those equal opportunities really feel like that is being hurt here in significant ways. We heard from athletes. They've suffered tremendous hate and just some of the comments that have been thrown their way are really offensive and really putting families at risk, schools giving them the cold shoulder, all of that. And really what they want is just an equal opportunity to showcase how hard they've worked.
At the end of the day, I think definitely there should be consideration of additional athletics for transgender individuals.
Throughout our time, you and I as adults, when we were children and really children today, there have always been effeminate boys and kind of hardcore girls. And they've continued to participate in their own sports. And we think that's the way forward. But it's really troubling to me when we tell our girls, your bodies are your own, trust your instincts, create safe spaces and really draw that line. With the transgender issue, we're really telling girls that doesn't matter. And that you need to just be willing to let that line be crossed. And I think that's a really dangerous message.
DN: Now that it appears those initiatives are going to the ballot, do you have a feel for how they will do?
SS: As far as the parents' rights issue, before the legislature adopted the initiative two years ago, tremendously popular. I mean, parents were rising up. I think post-COVID, they really saw how really schools were stepping in to the role as pseudo parent, if you will. And it is still a huge issue. I believe there will be tremendous support for it. I know there's also going to be a lot of money, especially union money against it. But I think the parents are standing up and just saying, you know what, these are our children, they're not yours. And so I think it will definitely pass come November.
As far as the girls' athletics, I think the same thing. This is just really about fairness in sports, about women being able to protect themselves from harm's way. And I think, too, that it'll have significant success come November.
DN: I want to give you a chance to talk about one of your bills. What are you passionate about this year?
SS: Particularly wildfire. I don't know whether my bill will advance or it will be part of the budget discussion, but there was a bill that passed several years ago. We dub it 1168. That was the bill [number] at the time that Hilary Franz, our past lands commissioner, worked to champion. That was really significant money for DNR to coordinate firefighting assets, to coordinate with local fire districts, local communities, do forest health treatments, all of those things. Pre-position firefighting assets. All of that takes money. It's just been unreal how well it's worked.
You and I know that we're going to have wildfire in our communities, but it could have been so much worse last year and it wasn't because their efforts. So last year it was not fully funded. And so basically our continued push this year is to have that money at least temporarily for a couple of years come out of the Climate Commitment Act revenue. We think that when it comes to wildfire emissions and things like that, that it's really a good fit. Now, should it be there permanently? Probably not. But we think it would be advantageous to continue to support full funding of that.
