LEGISLATURE 2025-26 / CLYDE SHAVERS: Town hall meeting in Coupeville
State Representative Clyde Shavers (D-Clinton) held a town hall meeting in Coupeville, WA on Thu., Feb. 26, 2026. Voter Interests Project executive director Allen McPheeters attended and recorded the meeting. The news story below is written by Perplexity AI based on a transcript of the meeting.
At a Feb. 26 town hall at the Whidbey Island Nordic Lodge in Coupeville, state Rep. Clyde Shavers used a packed hour to sketch a difficult legislative session, highlight several local budget wins, and wrestle in public with big questions about ferries, artificial intelligence, education funding, and a proposed “Millionaires tax.” Speaking to constituents before heading to a second meeting in La Conner, he repeatedly returned to the twin themes of fiscal constraint and a desire to protect vulnerable families.
Shavers opened by calling this “one of the most challenging” sessions he has experienced, citing a tight state budget, enormous demands, and “unrelenting” pressure on families. He said the newly released House operating budget required lawmakers to “tighten the administration,” find savings, and make “hard decisions and hard choices,” but insisted the core goal was to “support and protect our families” so they remain stable and standing. He paired that with a series of capital‑budget items he said his office helped secure for the district: funding for the Veterans Health Initiative serving veterans statewide, water infrastructure projects in Skagit and La Conner, a Coupeville native‑plants effort tied to stormwater resiliency, and money for the Anacortes Birth Center to improve rural access to maternity care. All of that, he stressed, is still in the proposed House budget and will have to be defended on the House floor and in negotiations with the Senate.
From there, the discussion shifted to his policy agenda. Shavers ran quickly through several bills he said are near the finish line this year. House Bill 1906, he told the room, would provide “more transparency and fairness in your water bills.” House Bill 1170, his flagship AI bill, would require companies to provide a way for consumers to know whether images, audio, or video are AI‑generated or altered. House Bill 2534 aims to make school transitions smoother for military children who arrive mid‑year, while House Bill 2134 would expand property‑tax exemptions for nonprofits such as public halls and granges so they can keep more of their fundraising dollars in the community. He also described two Senate‑side efforts he is working on: a telehealth bill to make hearing care more accessible for people who cannot easily reach clinics, and another measure to provide more state and local resources for military families and spouses.
Artificial intelligence and its broader social effects became one of the dominant themes of the evening. In response to a question about AI “guardrails,” Shavers explained that three major AI bills were introduced this year: a broad bill from his committee chair that stalled, a “chatbot bill” aimed at preventing AI mental‑health bots from encouraging self‑harm among young users, and his own House Bill 1170. He framed 1170 in very simple terms: if you see an image or clip and wonder whether it was AI‑generated, the company must give you a tool to find out. He acknowledged that the bill has faced heavy pushback, particularly given Washington’s role as a technology hub, and that a Senate “striker” amendment removed some provisions. Even so, he said, he believes it will still become the state’s first major AI law and “our first baby step” toward a safer “AI age” in which consumers are better protected.
That conversation fed directly into his answer to a broader question: what keeps him up at night. Shavers pointed to “misinformation and disinformation” as his biggest concern, especially in an era of social media and AI‑generated content. He said legislation can easily be mischaracterized online, and that he often wishes people would simply ask him, “Does this bill really do that?” so he can explain what a measure actually does and “calm the temperature.” At the same time, he said that in his three or four years in office he has seen a growing desire across the political spectrum to protect democracy and take care of neighbors, and that this shared empathy gives him optimism about Washington and the country.
Transportation and ferries, a perennial issue on Whidbey Island, took up another sizable portion of the town hall. Asked about ferry “resiliency” and under‑capitalization, Shavers described his work with Rep. Greg Nance on a “Mosquito Fleet” bill that would give ports such as the Port of South Whidbey more authority and direct resources to tailor passenger‑only ferry service to local needs. He cited the Port’s current efforts to establish a Clinton–Everett passenger‑only fast ferry, backed by both federal and local funding, as an example of how local control can generate solutions while the state ferry system struggles. When an audience member asked whether he would support using Climate Commitment Act revenue for ferries and bridges, he said yes in concept and broadened the answer to a bigger question: “Where are the buckets of money that we can pull from” to fund the things “we care about most,” including ferries.
He also fielded a question about the aging Deception Pass bridge and the idea of a future tunnel connection. Shavers recounted a summer conversation in Coupeville where the governor identified maintenance of existing infrastructure as his top priority. He said he agrees that the state must first “stabilize and ensure that every bridge we have is up to” standard and that the ferry fleet is restored, before turning to ambitious new projects. He added his own “grand ideas,” such as a stronger rail system to Spokane and wider deployment of clean‑energy technologies like fusion, but framed those as long‑term visions rather than imminent projects.
As vice chair of the K–12 Education Committee, Shavers spent significant time on education funding. In response to questions about the state’s constitutional obligation to amply fund schools and concerns about slipping rankings, he tried to give a “picture of what’s really happening on the budget side.” While the percentage of the state budget allocated to K–12 may have fallen, he said, that does not mean all areas are being cut; he pointed to last year’s removal of the state cap on special education as a major priority he helped achieve. The hardest current challenge, he said, is early education. Demand for programs such as Transition to Kindergarten (TTK), ECEAP and federal Head Start has skyrocketed, while proposed state budgets cut back state‑funded early learning and federal changes he referred to as HR‑1 slash Head Start. Shavers said he opposes cutting state early‑learning dollars, is talking with budget writers about restoring reductions in coming years, and laid out a goal that within one to five years “good, affordable” early education should be available to every family, regardless of zip code.
The night’s most contentious and unresolved topic was the proposed “Millionaires tax.” Questioners pressed him repeatedly on both his stance and where the money would go. Shavers explained that the tax would apply a 9.9 percent rate to income above one million dollars, including combined household income, and that lawmakers have only “two‑ish or three weeks” to settle the details. He sketched an emerging structure in which new revenue would first go to the Working Families Tax Credit, then to business‑and‑occupation tax credits for small businesses, with other ideas such as removing sales tax on diapers and creating a tax‑holiday weekend under discussion. Only after those items, he said, would remaining funds be directed to K–12 and higher education, but he conceded that neither he nor the legislature can yet answer “how much” would ultimately reach schools. Shavers said he agrees that more revenue is needed for education, affordable housing and health care, and that he and the governor share a philosophical view that any tax on millionaire income should have a “direct counterbalance”—money flowing clearly to those who need it most. He stopped short of a firm commitment, saying he is still grappling with whether the proposal truly addresses income inequality or mainly “plugs the hole” in the budget.
Throughout, Shavers threaded in his broader focus on income inequality. He described working with Rep. Sharon Wylie in his first year to expand the property‑tax exemption for low‑income seniors, veterans and people with disabilities who were at risk of being taxed out of their homes. He contrasted the experience of young adults facing sky‑high home prices and later home‑buying ages with that of older generations who “bought it for five blueberries, you know, 50 years ago,” and said he hears deep discouragement from students about life after high school. He pointed to a new career‑learning bill he sponsored, House Bill 2236, as one way to give students purpose by aligning CTE and Core Plus programs with real careers, such as work on the ferry system.
Housing, growth management, and rural land use came up in that context as well. Asked about allowing more accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in rural areas, Shavers framed the issue as “density versus sprawl,” and said he is trying to encourage more affordable housing inside city boundaries first. He mentioned co‑sponsoring incentives with Rep. Amy Walen to redevelop unused commercial properties, like an underused mall, into housing, supporting multiple ADU‑expansion bills, and ensuring that the senior and veteran property‑tax exemption can also apply to ADUs housing those populations. He said he sees “so much more potential” for housing within Oak Harbor and other city limits, especially if paired with transit, and emphasized the need to involve agricultural and farming communities in any rural‑housing decisions.
In the final stretch, Shavers was asked whether the state should eliminate entire programs to free up money, or rely solely on new revenue. He replied that the proposed budget already includes cuts to some administrative and program lines, but argued that if a large program truly deserves to be “zeroed out” after years of funding, the deeper question is why it was created in the first place. He pointed to constitutional and court protections around K–12 as an example of core programs that cannot simply be wiped away. After taking a last round of questions, he apologized that he had to rush to his next engagement, but lingered for a few minutes of informal conversations—a fitting close to a meeting that blended high‑level structural debates with very local worries about ferries, water bills, school supports, and how far a tight state budget can stretch.
Transcript prepared by Perplexity AI
[Clyde] Start a little bit early. Um, I only have an hour before I have to rush off to La Conner, our next town hall. So I was just saying, look here for everyone, I’ll do some really brief initial remarks and then the majority of the the time if I can, you know, I can answer your questions and put some Q&A with everybody. Great.
So I appreciate everyone being here. I appreciate everyone joining us, um, you know, supporting our communities, our neighbors, and the future of the 10th. So thank you all for coming on this nice kind of cool day.
So this, uh, this legislative session has been one of the most challenging topic sessions I’ve ever experienced in my time in the legislature. Um, there’s a tight budget, um, the demands are enormous, the pressures on our families are unrelenting. But I do want to kind of highlight, um, the hope, a sense of hope for you all today. Um, even in these challenging times and this hard year, we are moving forward, we are delivering for our community here in the 10th on Whidbey and across Skagit and Snohomish counties.
So a few days ago, um, the House, we just released or published our proposed House budget. Um, and I’m not going to sugarcoat it because we’re in challenging times, um, we had to make hard decisions and hard choices. We have to find places where we can find savings, we had to tighten, um, the administration. So these are really challenging choices we’ve made. But in all of this, I hope, um, I can impress upon you the heart or the core of what we’ve done with this proposed House budget. The core is to support and protect our families here in Washington State so that they’re stable and remain standing. That was the heart of what we tried to do. So these are the core basic services that we try to impress upon folks here reading the proposed budget.
I am also proud though, especially proud of the work we’ve done with the proposed capital budget. So our office has led in several initiatives and funding opportunities that have now successfully been placed in the proposed House budget. So that means that we led in ensuring funding for the Veterans Health Initiative that supports veterans across Washington State, including Whidbey, including Camano.
[Audience] Applause.
[Clyde] We were also successful in getting funding for infrastructure, water infrastructure projects in Skagit and La Conner because our belief is that if we invest in infrastructure now, it will save money for families in the future. We were also locally here in Coupeville able to get funding for the Coupeville Native Plants, um, initiative, which will allow us to understand better resiliency and stormwater management. Um, and I appreciate there’s a member of the community part of that as well. And finally, we were able to get funding for the Anacortes Birth Center because we’ve been pushing on healthcare access, convenience for those in rural areas. So it is unfair for a growing family to have to drive hundreds of miles or limit their healthcare, um, as they grow their family. So these are the projects in a very challenging year, our office has been successful in getting funding in the proposed House budget.
Now, I say proposed House budget because now my job is to fight for it on the House floor, fight for it with the Senate to make sure in the final budget, these dollars are coming to our district in such a challenging year again.
Now, outside of the budget conversation, our office has been especially, especially effective in policymaking. So we are continuing to push policies that are almost at the finish line. House Bill 1906 will provide more transparency and fairness in your water bills. House Bill 1170 will ensure more transparency in artificial intelligence. So you know the images or audio or video that you’re seeing, is it real or not? House Bill 2534 will provide more stability for kids in military families as they enter our schools midway through the year. And House Bill 2134 will provide greater property tax exemptions for nonprofits like our public halls or granges as they fundraise to provide more input and resources into our community.
And two more bills we’re working on, the House companions, so we’re working on the Senate side now. Um, we, we are pushing for a bill that provides greater telehealth for hearing needs because we know that there are folks out there that can’t drive to the nearby hospital or clinic. And finally, we are providing, we are pushing a bill on the Senate side that will provide greater state and local resources for families or military families and military spouses. So these are a monumental effort to get any bill, even one bill through, so very proud to get five or six bills through to the finish line. So all these bills, the Senate bills will be heard on the House floor shortly and the House bills will be, um, heard on the Senate floor shortly and hopefully signed by the governor, um, in the next couple weeks and next couple months.
Now, what undergirds all of this, the challenges is also the challenges that we are facing on the federal government side, right? So we understand that a lot of the cuts, a lot of the responsibilities are being shifted down to the state and local government from the federal side. Now, in my opinion, that means that it hurts our families, it hurts our clinics, it hurts our schools, it hurts all our community members as well. So my focus this year has always been to make sure that Washington stays strong, stays focused, that we are focusing on those families and individuals that need the help the most. And that’s what we are looking at with the policymaking, that’s what we’re looking at when we look at the proposed budgets as well.
So in the end, my legislative assistant back there, Samir, and I are working as hard as humanly possible. This morning, I just came from Olympia after serving as the assistant speaker pro tem as I gavel us in to do some work on the House floor, gavel us out and I raced down here. So we are working, we’re working as hard as humanly possible because we know the challenges that you all are facing. We know the pressure and the hurt that a lot of us are sharing and empathizing together. So again, I really appreciate everyone being here. Hopefully I was short enough and would love to take some questions.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker A] So, uh, is now the time to have a serious discussion yesterday or Tuesday on the ferries? I think the ongoing undercapitalization and everything with the ferries. Obviously, with the island, we’re concerned about Coupeville–Port Townsend and Langley and Clinton on resiliency of the ferries. Forgetting, you know, putting off, we’re not going to get new ferries for a while, but are we building more resiliency and some of our ferries are screwed up, like, we need to go and drive down.
[Clyde] So I, I really appreciate that question. So I’m actually co‑sponsored on a bill called the Mosquito Fleet. So I work with another representative, I work with, um, Gregory Nance. He’s a representative in Kitsap actually. So him and I work very closely. I’ve also met with the Port of South Whidbey about two weeks ago.
Now, my philosophy, my thought process is, is how can we provide more local control, more resources to the local level to address our ferry challenges, right? So this Mosquito Fleet would be an idea that would provide more authority to the Port of South Whidbey, for example, or for Coupeville or for Skagit or whatever in our district. By providing those direct money and the authorities, statutory authority into our local ports, for example, I think it will be able, our ferries will be more tailored to the needs that we see in our community. For example, Port of South Whidbey has been a great partner in pushing forward a passenger‑only fast ferry right now, um, between Clinton and Everett. That was because of the voices and advocacy that our South Whidbey folks are having right now with the Port of South Whidbey and they have funding from the federal level and the local level and they’re pushing forward that project. So I think that’s kind of the, the, um, the vision that I see as we try to continue to fix our ferry system.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker B] Representative Shavers. So, uh, last week I sat and listened to Senator Muzzall and Representative Paul and they were talking about this very subject and Representative Paul brought up that he would be willing to entertain seeing, taking some of the Climate Commitment Act money, pushing it towards bridges and ferries as both are in dire need of funds. Would you support that concept?
[Clyde] Yes, so I also want to put it in the overall ecosystem as well. So, um, there’s a CCA, for example, the Climate Commitment Act. There are other funds that are available that we are looking at right now to see if we can reallocate funds for other, you know, aspects, for example, ferries, for example. So while I say yes to CCA, I even said yes to the broader effort as well. Where are the buckets of money that we can pull from to equalize and ensure that we allocate what we care about, the money to that, to that entity or to that aspect. So in the end, I think it’s kind of what I highlighted with the proposed House budget, what do we care about most and where can we find the money to ensure that it’s protected.
[Unknown Speaker C] I have a question about education. I understood that in our state constitution that we have to support education and we’ve dropped down from where we were. So can you speak to what we have to hope for to improve that situation?
[Clyde] Yeah. So I’m on three committees, so, um, so everyone’s aware, along with serving as the assistant speaker pro tem. So when I’m not on the House floor, I’m a member of the Technology Committee, Economic Development, and Veterans Committee. It’s a very large committee. The second one is, I’m a relatively new member of the Healthcare Committee and finally, I remain as the vice chair, number two on the K–12 Education Committee. So a lot of my time is actually spent on policies and budget for the K–12 Committee.
So now I want to make sure we have a, um, a picture of what’s really happening on the budget side. So while some folks are saying, yes, we did, um, move down in terms of the percent that the state budget is afforded to K–12, it does not mean that we are lessening funding on certain aspects. In fact, we’re increasing funding in, in, in specific cases. Last year, for example, we removed the state cap for special education. That was an important endeavor for me because I believe that every single student should have tailored resources and tools and curriculum in the special education program.
Now, I do also want to say that one of the challenges that I’m facing right now in the, in the education budget and that is early education. So early education has been cut about 25 percent. It’s in line or relatively in line with the initial proposed governor’s budget. Now, it was cut, um, and I’ll kind of dive into this briefly here, it’s because we see two things. One, um, the need or the desire for families to want, uh, early education has increased tenfold, a hundredfold, whatever it was, right? Uh, which means that more money needs to be afforded to provide early education for these families and students. In this challenging year, we just could not afford more money as the demand continued to increase.
For those who, um, are not aware of the different programs we have in early education, we have three. We have TTK, so Transition to Kindergarten, we have ECEAP, and then we have the federal program Head Start. Now, the federal program has been cut dramatically because of HR‑1, but my belief is we should not cut our state‑funded, um, early education resources or programs as well. I am in talks right now with the Appropriations Committee, the funding fiscal committee on what we can do to bring that number back up next year and the following years. My goal, my hope, my promise, my vision is that whether it’s next year, three years, or five years, that early education will be afforded to everyone, no matter what zip code, no matter what corner of the state you live in, good, affordable, um, early education, ECEAP, TTK. So that is my goal.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker D] Yes, thank you Representative Shavers. Um, thank you also for introducing legislation to attempt to put some guardrails on AI. Two of those bills now are dead. One is still alive and it has been, there’s a striker to that from Senator Liias and my question to you is, we’ve talked about this, how is that striker impacting that legislation and your position on that?
[Clyde] Yeah. So just so everyone’s aware, kind of the broad understanding of artificial intelligence legislation. So along with challenging budget conversations across the state, almost every single legislature right now because of challenges from the federal government and inherent challenges on the state level, I think to me, artificial intelligence is a huge topic right now. How do we address AI in this new AI age?
Now, my belief and I’ve argued numerous times and debated on the House floor is that AI will be one of the most monumental changes in our lives, in our kids’ lives, in our grandkids’ lives. I mean, it will change how we communicate, how we talk, it will change our culture. So what are we doing about it now? Because what we’re doing now, our kids will grapple with.
So there were three major bills that were offered this year. Um, one was a bill 2157 by the chair of the Technology Committee of my committee. Now, that didn’t make it through. The second one is a chatbot bill. Now, in the most general sense, a lot of students, a lot of kids are using AI for therapy or healthcare purposes. And so we are seeing a growing concern that a lot of kids are using AI in a not‑so‑helpful way to the fact, to the point of really tragic cases across the US where kids are committing suicide because their AI chat would, would inform them or encourage them to commit suicide. That bill is moving forward and I’m really proud to be working on this bill to make it pass. It will provide those guardrails, um, for these chatbots.
And the third is what we just mentioned, is House Bill 1170. It’s our bill. So I am on the Washington State AI Task Force and we’re on the cutting edge of trying to figure out what we should do in the legislature and what can pass. House Bill 1170 is very simple. If you see an image, if you see an audio or a video clip and you’re wondering, is it AI generated or not? It is required by the company to provide you that tool, that access to inform you, yes, this is real, there’s no AI or no, there was AI in this. That’s it. We see it happening on Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts where we just don’t know what’s real anymore and it can shape people’s minds.
So this bill had a very tumultuous, um, progress as it moved through the legislature because again, Washington State is a hub of technology, right? We drive the conversation along with California, which means that there’s a lot of input and frankly, a lot of pushback. So in this process, it took me about two years, this is the second year we introduced it. Um, it is now in the Senate, so it’s right before the Senate floor. And a striker, a striker is just an amendment that a senator puts saying, I think I can improve, you know, myself on this bill. I’m going to put my fingerprints on it. So the question is, sorry for all the background here, it’s complicated.
[Unknown Speaker D] I appreciate the inches.
[Clyde] The question is, did the striker, did this amendment improve the bill or actually significantly gut the bill or did it just make it useless? I’m going to say this: while there are, um, some provisions that were removed from this bill, I believe that this bill may become the first major broad AI legislation ever in Washington State.
[Unknown Speaker D] So will this make the companies responsible?
[Clyde] Yes. So this will be the first major broad AI legislation and as we all know, anything that, anything we do, we need to make incremental steps first. This is our first baby step towards ensuring that consumers are protected, towards ensuring a better AI age of the world. So I’m proud to have sponsored or introduced this bill and hopefully we can get it passed in the Senate floor in about a week or two.
[Unknown Speaker D] Okay, so you don’t think it’s been gutted then?
[Clyde] Not significantly.
[Unknown Speaker D] Okay, thank you.
[Clyde] Yes.
[Unknown Speaker E] What keeps you up at night? What, what, what should we be concerned about?
[Clyde] I think we just answered it. Do we, do we have enough time? I’ll, I’ll say just like overall 10,000‑foot level. Oh, sorry, your question is what keeps me up at night? What keeps all of us up at night? So I think I’ll, I’ll say one that’s, um, I’ll also include something hopeful on the current, um, because I’m an optimistic hopeful guy. I think what keeps me up at night is, um, the challenges we see with, um, misinformation and disinformation. I think, um, misinformation and disinformation is so powerful in this world. We were just talking about AI, but we’re seeing the use of social media, of the internet, of everything, right? Where folks are incentivized to, um, be caustic or whether it’s intentional or not because of the things we hear, the things we see, the things we believe in, right?
So I think that’s the, the, the thing that makes me the most challenged right now because the bills we pass, if you could just come to me, right, and say, hey, does this bill really do that? I will tell you, no, it doesn’t do that. It actually does this and this and this and this, right? And it really calms the temperature. But I say that flip side, folks, because I see though now, and I’ve only been in this job for three or four years, I see that we all do care about democracy and we all do care about our community members. And whether you are Republican or Democrat or independent, we all do care about all of us, our neighbors, because if they succeed, if our neighbors succeed, then we succeed as well and vice versa. So I, I see this growing empathetic temperature or this want or desire from everybody here, no matter who they are, and I think that’s what makes Washington State amazing and I think that’s what makes the US and our nation just grow and get better. I know it’s very frustrating for all of us in the challenging times that we live, but we have lived through challenging times in the past and we will be able to, to be prosperous and to continue to grow as a nation together.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker F] Can we get the number of that AI bill again?
[Clyde] 1170. 1170.
[Unknown Speaker F] And can I add that the Union of Atomic Scientists have advanced the Doomsday Clock…
[Clyde] Oh yeah.
[Unknown Speaker F] Based on nuclear proliferation. Based on climate, climate emergency, based on pathogens that are being weaponized and will be spreading, uh, the, uh, natural, that will go to the world. And AI. You can list these questions. And it has the potential, as you’re tangibly, you’re working on the, uh, of, uh, creating disinformation and obfuscation.
[Clyde] So the comment, just, just to repeat it because I, I heard a request is, um, you know, we were saying that the Doomsday Clock is coming closer to midnight, um, and a lot of it because of nuclear proliferation or, you know, environmental protection and a lot thereof, but also AI. So again, I appreciate being able to all of us to be on the front end of trying to address one of the major concerns and also benefits of AI right now.
Go ahead, David.
[Unknown Speaker G] Um, thank you, Clyde. I got an email, uh, just the other day from some friends of mine out in Iowa and I don’t know the bill, but it has to do with recycling and charging basically a deposit. Uh, one, I wanted to have your sense of what you thought of it, where you stand and then what they said is that Dave Paul is opposed because he assumes that there’s a, well, he’s thinking that there’s a cost that’s going to be more harmful for people, low‑income people.
[Clyde] Yeah. So I’m sure a lot of you, or some of you may know, like when you go to Oregon or something, there’s that kind of 10‑cent return on a bottle or something.
[Audience] 10 cents.
[Clyde] There you go. 10‑cent return. And, uh, so you get a bottle and then you return it, uh, to, uh, whatever location. Um, so that’s kind of what it tries to emulate here in Washington State because we don’t have that in Washington State. Now, the difference and I’ll, I’ll kind of say broad differences, nuances here is that in Oregon, the locations to return the bottles, for example, are either large recycling locations across Oregon. In Washington State, we understand that that can be inequitable for folks who aren’t near a recycling station. So, um, we are working closely with convenience stores and others in the manufacturing areas for these recycling areas closer to the store so that it’s closer to everyone in their community.
[Unknown Speaker H] So, so in Oregon, most of the large retailers, Walmart, Safeway, Fred Meyer, they have the bottle recycling center right outside the door. It’s right there. Right. So if you’re going to Walmart or Fred Meyer or Safeway to shop anyway, oh, you’re free to go and drop your cans and bottles. And I will also tell you that the high schools will, they can plead the community, “Hold on to those,” because our seniors can pick them up and take that money and put that into the senior prom. So it becomes a profit center for high school seniors and they look, “We’ll be glad to take your bag and recycle it,” and that money goes to our senior year.
[Clyde] Now, I also want to say that, you know, our job is to be balanced, to understand all views, whether it’s opposing or supporting. Now, I understand the views, I’m not speaking for Dave Paul here, but folks I’ve spoken with, the question right now is if this bill does move forward, right, and you have let’s say a 10‑cent bottle deposit, is that 10 cents tacked on by the manufacturer inherently to the bottles that you’re, you’re buying, right? Now, I don’t know how true that is again, but this is an opposing argument. As of now, based on the current bill, now the bill’s moving forward, amendment‑wise, I do support this bill. Now, I support it because again, recycling is important, you know, environmental protection, but at the same time though the, the, um, comments that you just mentioned also helping seniors and low‑income folks as well and making it convenient.
[Unknown Speaker G] I, I just want to add two things that I heard. One is that I guess there’s a, a Black Caucus of people of color in the state legislature and they have proposed an amendment that has to do with fixing if somebody’s on food stamps or SNAP, they don’t get charged this. So basically it doesn’t become, they’re not paying more even though they’re still taking care of that. And I’ll also say one other thing, when I was in Canada on the Gulf Islands, I saw this elderly couple going into the trash bins to get their bottles and then they were going to donate them to an organization that helped loggers who had been disabled from logging.
[Clyde] Yeah. So I mean, there are some upsides to it. And I will loop back. I’m not going to just leave it there.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker I] Hi, nice to see you…. Um, I want to walk it back to education for a minute and thank you for your support and really have the education, but your consistency of coming on these are both the excise family tax code and really properly fund our students. So will you stand with families in our district and support the millionaires tax?
[Clyde] Yeah, so, so it’s a good question. So when we talk about trying to fix our regressive, um, tax structure, that we are, I think, second to last right now, um, in terms of tax system, I think. Um, you know, there are two ideas that I’m trying to grapple with right now and I spoke with the governor about this about two weeks ago in person in his office. The one is the goal of plugging the hole that we see right now with the, the deficit, the billions of dollars of deficit, right? And I do believe that the millionaires tax will succeed or at least try to succeed in plugging the hole. But at the same time, I think equally or even more important in my mind philosophically is, are we addressing income inequality to its core, right? And so that was a conversation I had with the governor’s office.
Now, this becomes economical or philosophical, however you want to look at it. But the question is, does the millionaires tax directly address income inequality?
[Audience] No.
[Clyde] Right. So now this is a challenging year and every time we pass a tax, um, the legislature as a whole, we have very few opportunities to do so. There’s a political will or political capital, whatever you want to call it, right? So the question is, if we’re going to address income inequality to its core or if we’re going to just plug the hole, what are we trying to do with the millionaires tax? Now, I’m not giving you a straight answer because I’m still thinking about it right now, right? We still have two‑ish or three weeks to understand where we’re going with the millionaires tax. At the same time this morning, I just came back from a briefing on the changing environment of the millionaires tax, right? So right now the millionaires tax also provides a B&O credit, right? So, um, if you, if you own a business, if you pay the millionaires tax, this is how much credit you’re going to get.
Now, there are other tax incentives or amendments that are actually dying right now. So the first one, for example, was an estate tax that would actually increase your estate tax, right? Your, how much, um, you’re transferring and that actually died, um, in the Senate. The second tax that actually died also was aircraft, a luxury aircraft tax, right? And that also died in the Senate. So the question right now is, um, in my mind, you know, would you vote it right now? The question is, what will it look like in a week and a half, in two weeks? And so that’s kind of the, the challenge I’m grappling with right now.
[Unknown Speaker I] But you do understand and support that revenue needs to be raised for schools.
[Clyde] Oh, for sure.
[Unknown Speaker I] It’s not properly raised education throughout the state. So you’re supporting raising revenues for our schools.
[Clyde] And I completely agree that we need to provide more funding for schools. We need to provide more funding for affordable housing, for healthcare, for children and healthcare, for sure. And that’s where kind of the, that’s where I lose most of my hair trying to figure out how to, how to do that.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker J] So back on the recycling. So when you guys started recycling with the paper bags and the plastic bags, um, it was supposed to go, the cost of those bags was supposed to go to recycling costs. Well, it doesn’t. Now they’ve increased it, plastic, they’re thicker, they’re harder to recycle and the money goes to the grocery store. It doesn’t go to recycling and for a lot of low‑income people, you know, that’s hard for them to go to the grocery store and now they’ve upped it again. So here the retailers are getting the money and it’s really hurting the public. And whenever a friend is a grocery person, they said these people bring bags in that are filthy, disgusting. They have to sterilize it and, you know, the counters before the next person. They’d rather go back to free paper bags and if you want plastic, you pay for plastic, but give them free paper bags. It’s a better health environment, but it shouldn’t go to the retailers. You’re just giving them a profit and—
[Clyde] So that’s, that’s exactly the point I was mentioning, right? So like this recycling money, it’s like, well, it’s going to go, like you said, maybe manufacturer, maybe not. But can we like re‑look at that bag one too right now?
[Unknown Speaker J] But it changes. That’s the biggest concern is people said, oh yeah, it’s great. So we’ll go to recycling, people won’t use these bags, but go back to the paper. You know, I grew up with paper, used to cover your books and—
[Clyde] But this is why I’m always trying to, kind of balanced approach and I, I completely agree. This is your, um, concern is legitimate. So the community, a lot of legislators right now are grappling with this. The fact that this bill has not passed yet means that there are still considerations we’re having right now. Now, we have two weeks to pass this, so it could not pass or it could pass, but these are the concerns and the considerations we’re talking about.
[Unknown Speaker J] So when you’re talking about that the aircraft, luxury aircraft tax didn’t go in, my question is, who, what are the voices who are saying that it shouldn’t be taxed? Is it, are they corporations? And in terms of corporate money getting into our elections and our ballot initiatives. There are other states and California just announced it with AB 1984 about, uh, changing that so that corporations, which are state entities, are no longer given the power to put money into elections or ballot measures. Would you be, would you, would you see any movement in the legislature, not this year, but next year for passing such a thing in our legislature?
[Clyde] So a couple things here. So I’m going to give you a quick story that, um, thrust me into the exact question you’re, you’re posing here. So on my first day or first week when I, when I showed up on the House floor, I was rushing up the stairs in the Capitol, ready to do my first vote and ready to do my first debate. And there’s these double doors that only legislators can go into. Now, when I showed up on the top of the stairs, there was like hundreds of people and I swear every single one of them are my best friend. They’re like, “Hey, Representative Shavers, I want to talk to you about your bill. You, you look great today, but you know, vote this way or don’t vote this way.” And, um, I spent, I spent some time before I could get on the House floor and I asked someone, “Why is everyone being my best friend?” “They’re all lobbyists.”
Yes. They’re lobbyists from whatever industry. And lobbyists are not generally, they’re not all lobbyists are the same. They’re not a uniform entity. There’s lobbyists for affordable housing, right? There’s lobbyists for healthcare, for example, for healthcare. So they’re all very different, but they are lobbyists trying to change how we vote, trying to provide us more information, right? So it’s a double‑edged sword.
So I think when we talk about issues, for example, House Bill 1170, which is the AI bill, in my mind when I introduced it last year, I thought to myself, everybody should be yes on transparency and AI. It has taken me two years and a bunch of gray hair to get through AI because again, tech is such a heavy element in Washington State. So the question becomes, is it technically feasible? Um, would the public benefit? Um, would tech companies want it, right? So there are all these small little things that, um, you know, create challenges for a bill. We hear hundreds and thousands of bills every session. I mean, I mean it’s all day long, every day in committee. Sometimes I’m on the floor that I will just standing for six hours straight until it’s like 2:00 in the morning, right? Hearing the bills. But the vast, vast, vast majority of bills die. They never ever get signed by the governor and as it goes through the process, more and more die.
So when we say why did the luxury tax, uh, well the aircraft luxury tax die, right? Well, we have an aviation caucus, for example. We have, um, even, um, you know, airports that, you know, get revenue from, you know, private aircraft. Now, I’m not saying one’s bad or one’s good or anything like that, but in my mind, my job is to protect you, right? Is to ensure that your values are heard in Olympia and that’s how the debate, you know, moves forward.
Now, your second question about, sorry.
[Unknown Speaker J] Well, oh, just this, uh, what are they calling it? The, uh, Fair Initiative.
[Clyde] Yes, yes. Yeah. So that election initiative. Yeah, that idea has been put forward, um, this year, but similar to kind of what I just mentioned in tandem, the bill just doesn’t move. It’s a, it’s a short session and we’re just doing so much.
[Unknown Speaker J] Right. I was, but I was wondering about getting it in for next session because it sounds like there’s a lot of, of bilateral, of, you know, 75 percent of Americans want to get corporate money out of it.
[Clyde] Yeah. And there are conversations about that.
[Unknown Speaker J] Okay, cool.
[Clyde] Yes.
[Unknown Speaker K] A short, a short time ago, I’m going to return to the page way back to, uh, ferries and transportation. Last week or so, I read a novel idea in the newspaper. Our lifeline here on Whidbey Island is not the ferries, it’s the bridge. And it’s almost 100 years old. So this idea was, I mean, we’re in the north, they call Norway was a good example. They have tunnels. Is there any interest in digging, so digging a tunnel for Whidbey Island, we can have utilities, transportation, so a reliable—
[Clyde] So why, so last year in the summer, I spoke with, um, the governor in person actually here in Coupeville. Um, we had a nice little coffee chat for a while. And in that coffee chat, the governor mentioned his number one priority at the time and it was maintenance of the current infrastructure we have right now, right? So and it was quite apropos because several months later, you know, Rainier shut down because of the Rainier bridge and all that kind of stuff.
And so, um, you know, the good news is I love living in Washington State. Washington State has always been my home and I love it because we continue to grow. While we are in a challenging budget year, our revenue is positive and we will continue to grow to our more just community here in the state, right? If you talk about other states with challenging budget years, they’re trying to address a hole while also declining population and declining growth, right?
So for me, if we can stabilize and ensure that every bridge we have is up to pass across the state, if we can make sure that we have all the ferries we need first, then we can talk about the infrastructure projects that we can move forward with. Now, I have grand ideas too. I think we should have an amazing rail system, for example, that goes all the way to Spokane, for example. I think we should also think about, you know, can we ensure that we have more ferries in more areas as well, right? And can we ensure that we have, you know, solar‑panel‑like utility areas and clean energy like fusion everywhere as well. That is my vision. And the good news is, like I mentioned in my comments, we are moving forward, we are progressing. We’re just, um—I’ll keep your idea in my, in my head for sure.
[Unknown Speaker K] It wasn’t mine.
[Clyde] Yes.
[Unknown Speaker D] Um, I want to go back to education—
[Clyde] Yeah.
[Unknown Speaker D] —and the Seattle Millionaires tax. So what percentage of, of the money collected will go to education?
[Clyde] Yeah, so that’s the other question right now. So for those who—I’ll, I’ll kind of [give] the overall current situation of the Millionaires tax. So the Millionaires tax is for those who are earning a million dollars or more income, right? And there’s about a 9.9 percent tax on the money above a million dollars. Now, this isn’t just individual, it’s households as well. So if you’re making half a million and your spouse is making half a million, you’re within that, you know, that bucket.
Now, this is where the negotiation is being challenging. So the governor has his own ideas and the legislature has their own ideas as well, right? But I think we’re starting to come towards this general route of money going to the Working Families Tax Credit. It’s a, you know, it’s an important program for—
[Unknown Speaker D] Yes.
[Clyde] So it goes directly into the Working Family Tax Credit, right? It will also go to other, um, credit programs like the B&O tax that I mentioned for small businesses so that small businesses don’t have to pay B&O or pay a lower B&O. Now, the question right now still roaming around is what other programs, right? There’s conversations about a diaper retail tax being, you know, removed. There’s conversations about a every‑year tax holiday weekend, you know, being [created]. So these are all ideas being thrown around. But after all that’s been talked about, then they’re saying the rest will go into K–12 education and higher ed, those two areas.
[Unknown Speaker D] Which two areas?
[Clyde] K–12, so public schools, um, and then also higher ed, so our community colleges, universities. But the question right now that we—I can’t answer and I don’t think the legislature can completely answer yet is: how much, right? What are we talking about here? And this is where the challenge comes because we are building the plane as we fly. That’s just politics in terms of we have the proposed budget from the House and Senate side. They all propose and we still have to debate it. We’re debating it on Saturday, I believe. And then at the same time, it relies on some of the bills, the tax bills that we have in play.
So in the end, um, this is when it becomes a little bit dicey towards the end where, let’s say one of the tax bills that we relied on for the proposed House budget doesn’t come to fruition, and we have to go back and look at the budget and figure out what we’re going to do. It’s very challenging.
[Unknown Speaker D] So it really—so very little could go to education.
[Clyde] It could or a lot could go to education. It’s all kind of—
[Unknown Speaker D] Yeah, I know…
[Clyde] I think there’s a question in the back, sorry.
[Unknown Speaker E] It was answered about, about what your stance was on the Millionaires tax.
[Clyde] Okay.
[Unknown Speaker E] Yeah. So to follow up on your last conversation, what economic assumptions is the budget using? Are you looking at 4 percent growth, we’re saying, and maybe 2.8 or 1.8 might be a real more realistic [number]? And if we underestimate because our economy is more robust, hot dang, we’re going to overshoot our revenue projections and that’d be the hole.
[Clyde] Yep. So our budget is a projected budget, right? So right now is not the same as what we’re looking at for the proposed budget because by law we have to look at two and four years ahead. Now, how do we do that? So there’s an economic council that provides revenue reports, um, three or four times a year. The most recent one actually showed us less in the hole. It was like a 1.86‑billion‑dollar kind of—we were, um, we had more than we thought, right? But again, that’s, that’s, it’s in the overall hole, so we’re still kind of, you know, in a deficit. So we look at these projections and that’s how we assess where we’re going with our budget.
Now, you’re right, last year, um, the initial revenue reports were projecting us like 4‑plus percent. Now, that was an initial assessment because there were other confounding variables at the time. Uh, President Trump got elected and there were tariffs now involved, for example. Inflation wasn’t down at the level that the federal government was saying it would be down. I mean, it’s a little bit down about 0.4, but it’s still, there’s still inflation. So all these numbers, these confounding variables caused consternation on the revenue forecast. So the good news is, from my understanding talking with the budget team and working with them, we are taking a conservative approach with the economic forecast because we just—it’s so uncertain on the federal side, for example, what, what’s going to happen next year, next month, tomorrow. So we are, we’re not looking at a 4 percent kind of revenue. We’re looking at about 2 percent, uh, 2‑plus percent on the growth projection. So again, we are growing, but we’re not aggressively asserting that the growth was three years ago or five years ago.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker E] You mentioned, uh, a little bit ago, uh, working more quickly to equalize income inequality. Can you put a little flesh on that? I don’t, don’t understand that.
[Clyde] Yeah. So—and this is where it becomes a little bit, um, gray or, um, you know, um. So, um, the past few years we’ve been really trying to dive into the challenges that we see with income inequality. My belief as your representative is that most of the problems we see today—it could range from reproductive justice, environmental protection, public safety—is undergirded by an exacerbated income inequality across all age groups, across all demographics, across all areas.
[Audience] Hear, hear.
[Clyde] Absolutely. What we’re seeing here is—I’ll talk about seniors, for example. So two to three years ago, I worked with Representative Sharon Wylie on passing the bill that expanded the property tax exemption program for low‑income seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. Because the more I talk with seniors, the more I talk with veterans who are low income, they were saying, “I cannot afford my home.” So they would live in their home for 60 years and now they’re going to be kicked out because of property taxes. So working very closely with Sharon Wylie—and I, I promise you, passing an expansion of a property tax exemption program is very hard in Washington State—but we passed it. That was my first year as a rep. Now, that’s one example of the income inequality we see within the senior side, right?
On the other side, we see young people. Now, the, the average age of a young person buying a home is now 40 or so years old, right? And so we have individuals, young people, who are talking to their parents or their grandparents and their grandparents say, “I don’t know why you cannot afford a home.” And these kids will tell me, “Well, you bought it for five blueberries, you know, 50 years ago and now it’s 3 million dollars,” right? Now, I think it’s a, it’s a very important, um, facet to really kind of take to heart because you have young people who are now so discouraged on graduating.
So as the vice chair of education—and I sit on, you know, I sit right there with the chair every day on the committee—and we hear student after student, parent after parent on the challenges our students are facing. And when I go to Skagit Valley or when I go to Oak Harbor School District or Coupeville or South, I talk with the students one‑on‑one or in a group, a lot of them feel so disappointed and discouraged on what will happen after life after high school.
So the way I’m tackling that is: how do we provide more career learning opportunities within school itself? So last year we passed House Bill 2236. I’m very proud of this bill because it looks at all the CTE and Core Plus and career opportunities and curriculum across Washington State and says, how better can we tailor these resources to every single student, no matter what zip code they live in, right? So if you can provide them a purpose, if you can provide them the ability to say, “I actually like to be, work on a ferry system and I’ve been on a ferry boat kind of for curriculum since, you know, freshman year,” then they’ll be able to kind of find that spark in their life, right? Now, does it tackle income inequality directly? No. But at least it provides that impetus and movement towards kids. That’s what I think is really undergirding all these challenges.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker F] Okay, Clyde, I have two questions.
[Clyde] Yes.
[Unknown Speaker F] The first one’s not too big, the second one is big. The first one is with what we know is a need for increased access to housing, including affordable housing, I have seen in the GMA, Growth Management Act, that we have, you know, allowed in more infill of ADUs, um, in urban areas. What are we doing with rural areas and could we do more with rural areas and what would it take to do that? Because we are predominant—the land we have here is predominantly rural.
[Clyde] So this is a good, really good point to make and again, this point, I mean, after when I go to [another town], I swear someone’s going to ask the exact same question. Um, so the question is density versus sprawl, right? The question is, do we protect our rural farmland, our heritage? And how do we do that while also ensuring affordable housing? And the way, the creative way I’m trying to push forward is several. For example, last year, I co‑sponsored with Representative Amy Walen to pass a tax incentive to use, um, unused property for affordable housing, right? So we see the mall out here, um, near across the bridge, no one’s using it, right? So how do we incentivize a developer to use that, right? And that’s kind of within the density conversation.
The second thing is I co‑sponsored numerous, numerous bills that passed that, like you mentioned, allows more use of ADUs, right? Um, that allows, um, there’s a, um, a bill that I passed years ago, co‑sponsored, that even the property tax exemption program that I just, that I just passed actually now applies to ADUs as well for the grandmother or the veteran in the ADU.
[Unknown Speaker F] So what’s an ADU?
[Clyde] It’s an accessory dwelling unit. So it’s like a—
[Unknown Speaker F] Sorry.
[Clyde] Sorry. Yeah. So these are the things I’m trying to expand within the city boundaries. I think there is so much more potential still for affordable housing within our city boundaries in Oak Harbor, for example. I just met with Habitat for Humanity yesterday and we’re looking at more projects within the city boundaries right now, right? So I think, I think there are still more ways to tackle that. Now, I ask folks, young folks, how do you think of this as well? There are so many considerations. They’re, they’re smart. They know what needs to be done, right? They know that they want to live near transportation networks too. So how do we ensure that there’s, you know, Island Transit, for example, can provide that transportation with affordable housing. That’s what we’re looking at right now and of course, the ag community and the farming community is quite involved in this conversation.
[Unknown Speaker F] Um, so just first of all, I also want to say thank you for, um, in restoring funding to support those vulnerable populations of students. I really was really grateful to see that restored in the House funding for foster care, homelessness, many different—
[Clyde] And I appreciate your help with the program as well.
[Unknown Speaker F] Yeah.
[Clyde] So appreciate it, yeah.
[Unknown Speaker F] Um, the second question is this. You mentioned it earlier with what we see is significant impacts from the federal government, how can we as a state, what are y’all looking at as solutions to mitigate that? And one of the things I think of is you talked about preschool. Um, and we had ECEAP here. Can ECEAP be more available to certain populations who are not going to have access to that federal funding through Head Start or how are you protecting our vote? There are—with the same act happening, there’s just so many layers and so just curious about—
[Clyde] Yeah, it’s a big question. So I’ll try to tackle some of the aspects. So I’ll go with healthcare. So I am—I, um, I was placed on healthcare last year. So last year was my first year on the Healthcare Committee because I informed the legislature that healthcare access is so important at the Harbor Hospital here in [Island County]. So I am now working in conjunction almost with the K–12 side and the healthcare side as well.
And what we understand, I think a lot of us know, is that HR‑1 from the federal government significantly cuts Medicare and Medicaid and makes it much harder as well. So my office and now many offices as well, we had this mission that if you have Medicaid—so Medicaid, the equivalency is Apple Health in Washington State—if you have Apple Health and HR‑1 gets passed, we will ensure you are not going to be removed from Apple Health. And so in this challenging year, a lot of the funds that were fought—this is on my off‑time from working from the K–12 budget side—is to ensure that we up the money for Apple Health. We up the money for those, you know, having Medicaid. So from our proposed House, uh, budget, according to the studies and the data that we’ve compiled, our budget will ensure that no one gets kicked off of their healthcare, of Apple Health. I think that is such a—
So I, I, I want to say that it gives a little bit of hope at least to me and I hope with you all as well is that Washington State is strong, right? And we, we are, we can take care of our own citizens and our own people and our own community members, no matter how hard it is. So that’s, that’s what we did with, um, Apple Health and, you know, kind of the Medicaid–Medicare stuff.
On the education side, there are, um, programs that have been cut also from, uh, HR‑1 on the education front as well. And it’s a challenge. So the good news is we’ve sustained the programs that we have right now on the basic education side, right? So if you have early education right now and you get the Working Connections family, uh, credit, you will maintain that. Now, we’re not increasing it unfortunately, but you will maintain what you have right now. If you’re getting special education, you will maintain special education. So while the federal government is pushing down cuts, you will hopefully from our budget, you will not see the changes, dramatic changes that you see on the education front.
And then finally, sorry, one more thing. There’s so many things going on. On the housing side, the Housing Trust Fund is such a critical component. The Housing Trust Fund is essentially a fund for nonprofits to apply for money from the state for great affordable housing projects. I mean, there are projects across Whidbey, for example, that have taken part in the Housing Trust Fund. Now, there was no way that our office was going to advocate that we’re going to lower the Housing Trust Fund account or that we’re going to remove that entirely. So we still have a Housing Trust Fund still in this proposed budget. These are the ways we are tackling what is happening at the federal level to ensure that hopefully one day, whether it’s tomorrow or next year, you can say a lot of stuff is happening in Washington, DC, but here on Whidbey, here in Washington State, we are still strong, we still [are] focused and we still maintain those core services.
[Unknown Speaker G] Outside of [our area], article last weekend, I don’t remember what paper, that Newport Hospital, east side of the state, sits by the Idaho border. Their, um, community‑at‑risk patients are Idaho citizens. They can’t get good healthcare in Idaho. They should come across to Washington to get healthcare and, and the hospital says, “We’re bound by law to provide them care. And we will do that,” you know, but, but the, the hit to the hospital budget is 16 million dollars a year that they’re, they’re back there. Twenty‑eight something. So how does—are those, are those healthcare providers, community hospitals coming to Olympia and say, “Hey, we need some help. Our budgets cannot tolerate this hit”?
[Clyde] Yeah, so, uh, these are very, um, good questions because—and I say good also because I’ve been involved in these discussions. So it makes it easier for me to answer. So on the Healthcare Committee, we did hear a bill. I spoke with that hospital as well in testimony about what percentage of folks are getting—it’s called charity care, right? Um, what percentage of folks are getting charity care from Idaho, for example. Now, it’s a challenging, um, equation here because sometimes Idaho doesn’t provide some of the care, um, whether it’s, uh, care within the reproductive‑justice space, for example, where they don’t provide, so they go to Washington State or in this case. Other areas, right? They—some of the folks are undocumented, so they don’t just claim whether they’re from Idaho or Washington State. So it’s a very challenging, uh, spectrum. My understanding is the bill did not move forward because of the questions that we had in terms of how much actually percent of charity care is actually supported in this case. Now, I, I can’t say concretely. I’ll have my, um, assistant, you know, directly email you, but right now my understanding is the bill did not move.
Yes. I, I think I have two more questions available. Go ahead.
[Unknown Speaker H] Um, you mentioned earlier about Washington State’s tax code ranking second‑last. Um, I know that’s—like that, that looks at the degree to which the state’s tax code worsens or like, uh, makes income inequality better… So we know that Washington State’s tax code, like, makes income inequality worse than other states. The Millionaires tax is like a really historic opportunity to start fixing that. So I’m wondering, are there specific changes that you’re looking at or like what, um, yeah, what would you like to see in the Millionaires tax to get into a yes vote?
[Clyde] Yeah. So I’m, um—the governor and I share a similar philosophical intent here in that, um, a lot of the legislature, or some of us, say that we should just funnel the money into the general state fund, right? So the general state fund is where we essentially, you know, divvy that out based on bills and whatever programs that year. But the governor and I, I share this sentiment, is that there needs to be a direct counterbalance, right? If we’re going to tax millionaire income, then it must directly, without any bureaucratic, um, you know, obstacles or challenges, be funneled to those who need it the most.
[Unknown Speaker H] Absolutely.
[Clyde] Right? So I’ll give you a general—
[Unknown Speaker H] Right.
[Clyde] I’ll give you a general, right? So that’s why the Working Family Tax Credit, I think, is a good idea because they are low‑ and middle‑income folks that—at least working families—that need that, right? But at the same time, what other programs or, um, kind of entities need that, we’ll directly funnel it into that. Now, I think a retail sales tax policy is—that, um, regressive, it may be, because it’s going to affect everybody, it doesn’t go directly to low income, right, for example. So these are the, the—I wouldn’t say arguments—these are the debates that we’re having right now in our office and other folks as well, trying to figure out what’s the best to do.
Now, again, I’m looking at this in a holistic approach because—what was it, yesterday?—I had the Progressive Tax Institute, um, group come to my office as well. And then I had other businesses or, you know, industry come to my office as well. It was like back‑to‑back 15‑minute meetings all day long, trying to figure out how best to, um, be informed and inform my constituents and you all what I think is the best way to kind of counterbalance that. That’s where the challenge is right now. And I agree, it is historic, but at the same time because it’s historic, we really need to think about this and try to get this right.
One more question.
Yes.
[Unknown Speaker I] So you’ve talked about a number of places where we need to increase spending in healthcare and in education, partly because of reductions in spending in the federal government. Are there places that the state of Washington is spending money now that you would see zeroing out or reducing big pots of money in order to fund that, or do you think it all needs to come from additional revenues?
[Clyde] I mean, that’s what—so in the proposed budget, we do have cuts already in, you know, skimming down certain administration or certain programs, right? I, I think that, you know, your question is important, but in my mind, if there is an entire program that needs to be wiped out, we have a bigger problem we have to address. And the problem is, why was that program there in the first place, right?
So I’ll, I’ll kind of transit this to the education front. So a lot of the K–12 education budget is protected by the Constitution, by McCleary, right? And in that, the requirement is the programs that actually help our students, that we see students actually developing or growing, it’s, it’s a positive influence on students and teachers and staff—must be maintained. You cannot remove funding from that, right? And so the good news is the programs that we are seeing, that we’re looking at, it’s, it’s protected because they actually work in the education area.
So for me, if someone’s coming to me, “Hey Clyde, hey Representative, this program, we got to zero it out right now. It has 5 million dollars worth for the past 10 years, let’s zero it out.” My next question is, why was that program there in the first place? Why are we using taxpayer money to fund something that never worked for 10 years or five years? That’s the philosophy that I’m taking.
Great. So I apologize for having to go. I will be here for five more minutes. Um, but I, I got to rush. Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming.
