Who are the winners and losers of WA Democrats’ proposed budgets?

State budgets are often referred to as “moral documents.” They’re where Washington puts its money, the idea goes, reflecting its values and priorities.

Now, after House and Senate Democrats unveiled their respective operating budget proposals Feb. 22, some groups seem happy with lawmakers’ perceived moral stances. Others, less so.

Among those breathing sighs of relief include reproductive rights advocates while others, like education associations — not to mention Republicans — are less than thrilled.

Majority-party budget writers were tasked with designing pitches for the 2025-27 supplemental budget after Gov. Bob Ferguson announced his own idea in December.

The first-term governor and Democratic leadership in both chambers have repeatedly cited frustrations with safety-net cuts coming from the federal government, also pointing to the state’s rising caseload costs and concerns about future revenue.

Sen. June Robinson, the upper-chamber’s lead budget writer, told reporters Feb. 23 that the decisions surrounding her chamber’s proposal were difficult to make.

“They were made with thought and care, trying to set us on a path for steady growth and stability in the future while doing our best to maintain services for the people of our state,” the Everett Democrat said.

She added that the document doesn’t feature broad-based tax bumps or hikes to the state’s sales, business and occupation or property tax.

The two-year plan in the House proposes roughly $79.2 billion of total spending and $457 million in new revenue, which doesn’t account for a proposed income tax on high earners that wouldn’t generate collections until 2029, as noted in a House Democratic Caucus news release. The income tax is factored into the four-year outlook. There’s also about $2.4 billion in reductions over the four-year outlook.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, proposed a $79.3 billion two-year plan but did not have a figure immediately available for spending cuts in the two-year budget, according to the Washington State Standard. However, their idea would also feature $2.4 billion over four years in savings. The Senate’s plan is nearly $1.5 billion bigger than last session’s $77.8 billion operating budget, with Democrats pointing to higher demand in programs and services, inflation and federal changes.

Ferguson’s office said it assumed a $2.3 billion shortfall for the two-year budget, while the Senate worked from a roughly $1.8 billion figure.

It’s unclear what sort of reception the proposals received from the governor. Ferguson’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Chris Gildon, the Senate Republican budget lead, said in a call Feb. 23 that the Senate budget is “structurally unsound.” He said it’s built around one-time money, such as the use of rainy day funds that would be transferred to pay for ongoing projects while “just hoping and praying and wishing” that things will later improve — or that the income tax “will bail them out.”

“It’s kind of like a house of cards,” the Puyallup Republican said.

Both two-year budgets would reportedly send sizable amounts toward the state’s rising legal payouts: approximately $400 million in the House and roughly $1 billion in the Senate.

State Rep. Travis Couture, the House Republican budget leader, put it this way in a statement: Washington Democrats are wanting to tap pensions and savings when encountering a deficit, plus implement an income tax, to avoid making tough choices.

“That’s not leadership — it’s a spending addiction,” the Allyn Republican said.

Asked to respond to that criticism, Robinson said she always challenges Republicans to suggest specific items to reduce in the budget. Sen. Noel Frame, a Seattle Democrat and vice chair for finance of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, added that there were few Republican votes last year supporting majority-party-backed bills to slash the budget.

Reactions to WA’s proposed supplemental budgets

Following the governor’s supplemental budget proposal, child-care advocates sounded the alarm about proposed changes in programming.

Genevieve Stokes with Child Care Aware of Washington told McClatchy in a call that her group appreciates that lawmakers didn’t pursue the idea of capping Working Connections Child Care, which helps low-income families cover the cost of child care, as proposed in Ferguson’s budget.

Stokes said both budgets include attendance policies that would make it harder for providers to implement subsidy programs, but that the House’s version is simpler and preferred.

“We know that the proposals that the Legislature has put forward are the best of a tough situation,” she added. “We also know that they’re going to have an impact on child care availability and delivery in Washington state for years to come.”

Both chambers would cut spending on the child care program, although the Senate proposal would axe more.

Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates is glad that the budgets would fully restore Abortion Access Project funding after the Legislature green-lit an $8.5 million decrease for the abortion care safety net last session.

Educators, however, have concerns about the budget proposals.

The Washington Education Association issued a statement Sunday arguing that the budgets offer students less at a time when they need more. WEA President Larry Delaney said that the Legislature still hasn’t fully funded special or basic education.

State Superintendent Chris Reykdal issued a statement Monday saying that both chambers’ pitches double down on education cuts recommended by Ferguson.

For instance, the House’s budget would include $69 million in savings from a reduction in slots to the Transition to Kindergarten program, House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, a West Seattle Democrat, told reporters Sunday. The Senate budget would alter TTK dollars, too.

Reykdal also noted that lawmakers haven’t made clear commitments on how money from the proposed income tax would help out public schools.

“With so much talk of additional revenue, but zero commitment at this point to fund education with additional dollars,” Reykdal said, “voters must wonder when education will be prioritized by the current governor and the current legislative majorities.”

Business groups — namely, the Association of Washington Business, Washington Roundtable, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Bellevue Chamber and Greater Spokane Inc. issued a joint statement Feb. 23 on both budgets.

The group states that the pitches boost spending to nearly $80 billion, or roughly $8 billion higher than the past biennium, and lean on one-time resources and rainy-day-fund withdrawals. The statement says that although the budgets are expected to balance over four years, there’d be less than $1 billion in ending fund balance and the ideas lean on assumptions about new income tax collections.

Both would “continue the trend we’ve seen over the last several years of spending more money than the state has coming in,” the business coalition’s news release reads.

The Washington State Hospital Association noted in an emailed statement that it’s pleased neither budget features new taxes or cuts aimed at hospitals. In the current biennium, more than $435 million in state cuts and taxes have targeted hospitals, per WSHA. Hospitals are also getting ready for nearly $500 million in added annual reductions due to the implementation of the federal H.R. 1.

Long-term care advocates with the Washington Health Care Association are also concerned about the budgets. CEO Carma Matti-Jackson noted in a statement that both budgets, although an improvement from the governor’s proposal, would fail to meet a commitment lawmakers made last year to stabilize resources for people depending on assisted living and skilled nursing.

Each budget idea received a public hearing Monday and is expected to be voted out of committee Wednesday.

The Senate plans to vote on their budget Friday with the House to follow on Saturday, Fitzgibbon said. After that, both sides will work together on ironing out differences between the two to ultimately present a negotiated proposal.

March 12 is the final day of the 2026 session.

This story was originally published February 24, 2026 at 12:47 PM.

Simone Carter

The Olympian

Support my work with a digital subscription