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rid of WA Cares since 2019: In that year’s general election, 62.92% of Washington voters said House Bill 1087 should be repealed, doing away with WA Cares and an accompanying payroll tax that harms workers.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: Is government greed fueling the drive to defeat citizen-led ballot initiatives?
Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center discusses how government greed may be fueling opposition to citizen-led ballot initiatives aimed at reducing new taxes in Washington state. - Opinion: WA Cares commission weighs in on how future recipients will be allowed to spend moneyElizabeth New (Hovde) from the Washington Policy Center discusses the ongoing challenges with WA Cares, highlighting solvency concerns and the impact of Initiative 2124 on the program’s future.
- POLL: If Tri-Mountain Golf Course were sold, how would you feel about it being developed into something else?Poll: How do you feel about the potential sale and development of Tri-Mountain Golf Course? Share your thoughts on this community issue!
- Opinion: Fact check – Will repealing Washington’s CO2 tax harm ‘roads and bridges?’Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center says legislators and activists understand that residents want to improve the safety and efficiency of our transportation system Todd MyersWashington Policy Center One of the primary arguments made by supporters of Washington’s tax on CO2 emissions, called the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), is that if the state loses …
- Opinion: Turn signals in parking lotsDoug Dahl of Target Zero answers whether turn signals are required in parking lots, explaining their importance for safety and courtesy.
