³ÉÈËXÕ¾

State Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate offered differing plans Monday on how the state should collect and spend its money over the next four years.

Despite similar overall goals of protection of core services and vulnerable populations, the two chambers have taken slightly differing approaches on how to pay for billions of dollars of proposed new investments amid a highly debated figure of a $15 billion budget shortfall.

This is a brief overview of the key similarities and differences between the two plans.

Size and fiscal approach

House budget: The total spending in the House’s budget is just under $77.8 billion. This budget prioritizes protecting existing services without major cuts and uses a balanced approach to manage the shortfall, with some new revenue sources and careful reductions. The House Democrats emphasize protecting essential programs, especially for vulnerable populations, like food and housing assistance. They aim to address the shortfall without drastic cuts, reflecting lessons from past economic crises.

Senate budget: The Senate’s proposal is slightly larger at $78.5 billion. While it still maintains key services, the Senate takes a more aggressive fiscal approach, with $6.5 billion in cuts and $16 billion in new revenue over the four-year budget outlook. The Senate’s focus is on long-term fiscal stability, with significant investments in reserves and more future planning. This approach includes lower annual new policy investments of around $800 million, compared to the House’s more expansive investment proposals.

Revenue sources

House budget: The House’s tax proposals align with the Senate proposals that focus on generating new taxes from the wealthiest residents and big businesses. Both include a Financial Intangible Assets Tax (FIT) that targets stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, particularly for high-net-worth individuals. The House version on $8 per $1000 of these kinds of investments — the first $50 million would be exempt. There is also an increase in the Business and Occupation on businesses with taxable income over $250 million and an increase to the surcharge on specified financial institutions with annual net income of $1 billion.

Senate budget: Similarly, the Senate introduces a financial intangibles tax targeting individuals with more than $50 million in publicly traded assets, but the first $50 million would not be exempt from tax. It’s expected to raise $4 billion, whereas the House version will raise $2 billion. And there’s a 5% payroll tax on businesses with annual payrolls above $7 million. And the Senate is proposing to lift the 1% local property tax lid and allow tax collections to grow with population and inflation, as well as a sales tax reduction from 6.5% to 6%.

Investments in Key Areas

House budget: The House emphasizes maintaining funding for existing services such as healthcare, food assistance and public safety. The House also proposes new funding to address homelessness, including a $117 million allocation for shelter programs. Education receives funding with no cuts to teacher salaries or benefits. It also protects more services in the short term, including no cuts to teacher salaries and no tuition increases for higher education.

Senate budget: The Senate similarly protects core services but takes a more targeted approach to education, with a new infusion of $750 million per year into K-12, specifically for school operating costs and special education. The Senate also focuses on increasing resources for crime victims and recovery services. A notable difference is the Senate’s focus on long-term fiscal sustainability, with $7.6 billion in reserves by the end of the 2027-29 biennium to ensure the state can weather future economic challenges. The Senate also allocates a $25 million increase to expand support for crime victims and strengthen recovery services.

Program delays and cuts

House budget: The House plans call for delays in the expansion of some childcare and early childhood education programs, saving about $734 million. Cuts in the House proposal are generally minimal and strategic, designed to avoid major harm to vulnerable communities.

Senate budget: The Senate’s approach includes more direct cuts, with $6.5 billion in reductions over four years. These cuts are more widespread and include reductions in some state agency budgets. The Senate plans call for a 5% cut in wages for state workers in 2026 in the form of 13 total unpaid furlough days. Workers under a collective bargaining are set to receive a 3% wage increase next year. The House plan does not call for furloughs.

Comments from key lawmakers following Monday’s budget announcements:

“Currently, our state’s working families and lowest income residents are paying nearly four times more in taxes as a share of their income than the state’s highest income households. This includes some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, and this is simply unsustainable,” said Representative April Berg (D-Mill Creek), Chair of the House Finance Committee.

“Our proposal fully funds all the collective bargaining agreements and has no cuts to pay and no mandatory furloughs. That does not mean, however, that we did not find areas to reduce because we did, and it’s reflected in this budget at the agency level,” said Representative Timm Ormsby (D-Spokane), chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

“We set about solving the problem in a holistic way. We knew that we needed to find at least $6 billion in reductions and add revenue to make up the rest, as well as pay for the investments. that were important to our caucus and to the people we represent,” said Senator June Robinson (D-Everett), chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee.

“We did look for cuts first – if we did that (the budget) only with cuts, the impacts would just be too deep and too catastrophic for our communities and our kids,” said Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), vice chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee for Finance.

“The Senate Democrats made it very clear that they intended to go after Washington’s wealthy residents for more money. They even described people with wealth as villains,” said Senator John Braun (R-Centralia), Senate Minority Leader.

“The Senate Democrats claim their budget makes ‘tough choices,’ but the reality is, the tough choices are going to fall on the parents and college kids and families who will lose out because of the majority’s misguided priorities,” said Senator Chris Gildon, R-Puyallup, co-budget writer for Senate Republicans.

Matt Markovich is the ³ÉÈËXÕ¾ Newsradio political analyst. Follow him on .