OLYMPIA, Wash. - A coalition is making some noise about a proposal in the Legislature to direct two-thirds of all new state revenue to education.

According to the group Washington United for Fair Revenue, it seems like a noble goal but would restrict lawmakers' ability to fund other important priorities.

The Washington State Budget and Policy Center has crunched the numbers, and budget analyst Kim Justice said the real issue is that there isn't enough money to go around.

"It's a convenient distraction - that's all I really see this proposal is - as a way to avoid facing the real challenges of our state," she said. "If anything, I would say that this proposal proves that new revenue is needed."

Justice said her group estimates it will take another $3 billion to fully fund the state's current minimum spending priorities. The bill states that other programs have "diverted billions of dollars" from education, but opponents say the state funds many priorities, and needs more budget flexibility.

The coalition is in agreement that more money is needed for elementary and secondary schools. However, Maria Cuevas, a sociology instructor at Yakima Valley Community College, said higher education needs more, too. Where she works, she said, the faculty has had no cost-of-living increases since 2008.

"Besides seeing an eroding of wages, the college has had to cut back on services," she said. "Chemistry lab assistants, those were cut; cuts in the library staff and a reduction in the number of hours available to students."

The legislation doesn't address wage or service cuts, but mentions "making college more affordable" as a goal.

The coalition said other areas also would suffer, from mental-health care to services for seniors and people with disabilities. But Gerry Reilly, who chairs the ElderCare Alliance, said the immediate concern is that the bill could allow lawmakers to sidestep what he sees as Washington's biggest budget problem.

"It's a tactic to divert people away from the fundamental question of our state's most regressive-in-the-nation tax system," he said, "to say, 'We don't need to talk about taxes, because we can simply prioritize our way to a solution.'"

The bill suggests bringing the new funding idea to voters as an amendment to the state Constitution.

The bill is online at apps.leg.wa.gov.


get more stories like this via email

West Virginia lawmakers are clamping down on corporations trying boost environmentally and socially responsible investing. A new report by EcoConsult Solutions finds their actions will likely cost taxpayers at least $9-million, and perhaps as much as $29-million dollars annually. Senate Bill 262, passed last year, restricts the state from investing in companies deemed to be energy boycotters. Among those boycotted include BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.

Jim Kotcon, chair of the West Virginia Sierra Club, said restricting long-term financial investments in the form of bonds could end up costing residents and taxpayers by reducing the amount of money the state has for public services and programs.

"This appears to be an effort by the state government to help bail out the coal industry and to deny the real cost of climate change on West Virginia citizens," Kotcon said.

More than two dozen states are suing the federal government over a U.S. Department of Labor rule change on environmental, social and governance, or ESG, in workplace retirement accounts. The rule allows 401(k) providers to consider climate change and other issues when making investments.

Kotcon said environmental groups believe state investment funds should take into consideration environmental and social factors, especially since West Virginia communities are struggling to cope with increased flooding and extreme weather events driven by climate change.

"It has become sort of an extremist initiative," he said, "trying to penalize financial institutions that are attempting to do the right thing."

More than a dozen states so far have passed or have pending bills that would pull state funds from investments deemed to be adverse to the oil and gas industry, according to the report.

A Minnesota House committee heard testimony Thursday about the governor's proposed spending plan for education. As these talks unfold, public polling indicates voters want to see more dollars go toward improving public schools.

Gov. Tim Walz's plan calls for boosting the general education funding formula over the next two years and tying it to inflation, while adding more staff such as counselors and social workers.

State Education Commissioner Willie Jett touted the overall proposal during the committee meeting.

"We must never lose sight of the fact that a well-supported educator workforce is fundamental and critical to the survival of our schools, and the well-being and academic success of our students," he said.

Nationally, a new American Federation of Teachers poll found 66% of voters think the government spends too little on education, and nearly 70% want to see more funding. The governor's plan closely aligns with education priorities among legislative Democrats. Republicans, who are in the minority this session, have voiced concerns that too much surplus money would go to underperforming schools.

Minnesota is also looking at boosting unemployment insurance aid to include hourly school workers when they struggle to stay employed over the summer. Rep. Emma Greenman, DFL-Minneapolis, said it's encouraging to see more conversation about helping support staff.

"If your district is like my district," she said, "you're hearing a lot about the staffing shortages, about the need for 'paras' - I hear a lot about that from parents and teachers - about the bus driver shortage."

By "paras," she meant paraprofessionals who help in clasrrooms.

In the AFT poll, teacher shortages and unsafe campus environments were listed as among the most serious problems at schools. The survey was conducted in late December and included input from 1,500 registered voters nationwide.

Gov. Greg Gianforte delivered his State of the State address to the Montana Legislature Wednesday night, discussing his plans for the state's hefty budget surplus.

Lawmakers are looking at a surplus of $2.5 billion. Republican Gianforte's top priority for the money is tax cuts.

Rose Bender, director of research for the Montana Budget and Policy Center, said the governor's proposal disproportionately benefits wealthy Montanans.

"The governor's income-tax cut proposal gives the wealthiest 1% of Montanans, on average, $6,000 each year in tax cuts, while middle-income families or those near the median income receive on average $50," Bender explained.

Bender noted most of the other tax cuts proposed, such as a property tax rebate, also would skew toward higher-income Montanans. However, she said a child tax credit the governor touted in his speech would be helpful for people with more modest incomes. The proposal would provide $1,200 to families with children age six and under, similar to a federal Child Tax Credit, which expired at the end of 2021.

Bender argued the Montana Legislature should do more this session to make health care costs more affordable and invest in child care, which is costly for families. She added other issues need addressing, as well.

"Montana's experiencing a serious housing crisis, and investing some direct state dollars into long-term housing solutions for families living on lower incomes should be another priority," Bender contended.

In his speech, Gianforte also asked lawmakers to focus on education reforms this year, including what he's calling more "parental rights." The session is scheduled to adjourn April 25.