Most Washington residents likely would agree that our state faces difficult challenges with climate change, homelessness, an opioid crisis that now includes fentanyl, and mental health care. While we can find common ground on identifying the problems, there is room for debate on the role of state government in confronting those issues.
Such is the impetus behind Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposed supplemental budget. Each December, Washington’s governor presents a budget for lawmakers to consider during the legislative session that begins in January.
Inslee, who is entering what he says is the final year of his three-term tenure, has recommended a $70.9 billion supplemental budget that contains adjustments to the two-year operating budget approved during this year’s session.
The proposal includes an additional $464 million for behavioral health, $140 million for housing and $64 million to battle a fentanyl crisis. But primary among Inslee’s proposal is support for the Climate Commitment Act, which makes polluting industries pay for their carbon emissions.
Republicans have sharply criticized the program, saying that costs are passed along to residents, particularly in the form of gas prices. While those costs are a burden to Washington families, the governor provides a thoughtful retort to the criticism.
“Our Climate Commitment Act has allowed us to do a lot for a lot of people,” he said recently during a meeting with The Columbian’s Editorial Board. “That money is not going to Houston as profits for the oil companies. We’re recycling it to the people of Washington. We have $150 million in credits for utility bills. We are helping with insulation of homes and heat pumps and solar panels. This is helping the people of Washington financially in a way that is also helping with climate change.”
Debate over the legislation is likely to be the centerpiece of the legislative session that begins Jan. 8. Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver, the lead Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said a home energy credit is a “tacit acknowledgment of the burden the governor’s misguided and misleading policies have placed on the people of Washington.”
Although Democrats have strong majorities in both chambers, the issue warrants vigorous, transparent debate. And that is an area in which the Legislature has fallen woefully short in recent years.
Lawmakers routinely have sought to undermine transparency and their duty to the public, actively working to keep legislative machinations secret. The Legislature in 2007 created the Sunshine Committee to review adherence to public-records laws; the committee nearly disbanded this year over frustration about being ignored by legislators.
Meanwhile, the typical budgeting process is accompanied by “title-only bills.” These are bills that contain no information or details about their purpose until being filled in late in the session, leaving little time for reasonable debate or public review.
Properly serving the public also means properly informing that public by strictly following Washington’s Public Records Act and providing transparency. Members of both parties should embrace this ethos, but it is particularly incumbent upon Democrats as the majority party in Olympia.
Lawmakers can disagree on the best way to address the issues facing Washingtonians, but open government is the best way to find optimal solutions. And that is something that both parties should agree upon as they engage in substantive debate.
