Elizabeth New (Hovde) believes that in November, lawmakers who voted for a program that hurts workers more than it will help them shouldn’t be surprised if voters say ‘yes’ to I-2124
Elizabeth New (Hovde)
Washington Policy Center
If Initiative 2124 passes in November and makes WA Cares an optional program, we shouldn’t be surprised. Washington state voters have been telling lawmakers to get rid of WA Cares since 2019: In that year’s general election, 62.92% of Washington voters said House Bill 1087 should be repealed, doing away with WA Cares and an accompanying payroll tax that harms workers. Now that 3.9 million workers are having wages taken for a program they know they might never benefit from, opposition to WA Care has likely grown.
If only the Legislature had listened. We could have saved taxpayers a lot of money. The state has already spent millions of taxpayer dollars on program creation, administration and marketing, and it has collected more than a billion dollars from workers. That’s money that could have gone toward life needs workers have today. Money could have been saved for or invested in long-term care, if they chose.
In July 2023, workers started paying a payroll tax of 58 cents on every $100 wages, regardless of income or financial need. The money is sent to a fund that is supposed to, in a few years, pay for some people’s services related to long-term care. The state gets to choose the fund’s winners and losers, however. WA Cares isn’t a pay-in-get-back deal.
If voters say “yes” to I-2124, making the program optional instead of mandatory, lawmakers should then repeal HB 1087 as soon as possible. WA Cares already has solvency concerns. Those will become insurmountable. Actuarialists say WA Cares will be in a death spiral, unable to keep the tax rate where it’s at and still offer the already-inadequate benefit to workers who do clear all the benefit hurdles contained in the law.
In November, lawmakers who voted for a program that hurts workers more than it will help them shouldn’t be surprised if voters say “yes” to I-2124. Voters told them they didn’t want WA Cares before a dollar was wasted.
Elizabeth New (Hovde) is a policy analyst and the director of the Center for Health Care and Worker Rights at the Washington Policy Center. She is a Clark County resident.
Also read:
- Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution. - Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program. - Opinion: Nationwide strike in support of illegals and opposing the rule of law?
Lars Larson argues that a reported nationwide strike reflects opposition to immigration enforcement and the rule of law, criticizing political leaders and media coverage. - POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - Opinion: Olympia wants a 4-day work week. It won’t work out as the politicians think it will
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 2611’s proposed 32-hour workweek would raise costs, strain small businesses, and undermine Washington’s economic competitiveness.
