-Hello. I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
With election day just a few weeks away,
our states political parties are putting on
the pressure for your vote.
Beyond the tight presidential race,
State Attorney General,
Bob Ferguson and former King County Sheriff and U.S.
Congressman Dave Reichert are battling it out
for Olympia's top job.
-A balanced government in Washington State, mind blowing.
-And I'll advocate for you, each and every day,
if I'm elected governor.
-I'm running for governor,
to fix what's wrong and do what's right.
-Republican, Reichert,
trails Ferguson in the polls and in money raising.
But can the AG hang on to win? -It won't be easy,
but I've never been satisfied with the status quo.
-For State Lands Commissioner,
King County Council chair, Dave Upthegrove,
survived the closest primary in state history
and will face off with former congresswoman,
Jaime Herrera Beutler.
-Now I won't leave my kids a legacy of burning firsts
and choking smoke.
-Republican Butler,
is not endorsed by the state GOP and democrat Upthegrove,
has some ground to make up.
-Democrats are energized up and down the ballot.
-The state Attorney General race pits
republican Pete Serrano against democrat Nick Brown,
but legally speaking, a slate of GOP led initiatives,
may hold the biggest challenges for voters statewide.
-I want people to have a choice.
-Hedge fund manager, Brian Heywood,
leads a group called,
Let's go Washington, supporting four measures
that would roll back legislative efforts on natural gas,
climate goals, long-term care insurance and capital
gains taxes in our state.
-And the backers of these initiatives
are being purposefully misleading.
-The chairs of the state democratic
and republican parties, are making their case to voters.
-We have a historic opportunity.
-We want to fix what's broken.
-It's a political party show down on City Inside/Out.
♪♪
And welcome once again to City Inside/Out,
I'm Brian Callanan and I'm with two people
who know their way around politics in our state.
Shasti Conrad is chair of the state democratic party.
Thank you for being here. -Thanks for having me.
-We also have with us,
Jim Walsh, chair of the state republican party.
Good to see you too. -Good to see you again.
-Alright, let's jump into this
here and Shasti let me start with you looking at
presidential politics to start.
It is unprecedented in the modern era
for a sitting president to drop out of a presidential race
as late as Joe Biden did, 107 days before the election.
Biden quickly endorsed Kamala Harris, the vice president
and there's been a lot of excitement around her campaign.
But at the same time,
we're in some uncharted waters here, for U.S. politics.
And I just wanted to ask,
what has this been like for you to have a change
at the top of the ticket so late in the process?
-Well it certainly made an exciting cycle
even more exciting.
And you know, I want to start out by just sort saying
how grateful we are to President Biden,
for making a difficult decision.
I think it was the right decision,
it was the best decision, both for us as a party,
but I think truly for our country.
He wanted to put us in the best position possible to win
and to also to continue with our democracy
and putting forth the policies
that we have been putting in place.
And you know what,
it's really been this surge of enthusiasm and energy
that we have seen in our party.
Folks are so excited about the history
that we have the opportunity to make
and that, truly I haven't seen our party this unified
in a very long time. And so I think,
you know again, we were ready,
we were one of the first state parties in the entire country
to endorse Vice President Harris, to get behind her.
We knew, as a woman of color,
she was going to need that additional support to make sure
that folks didn't overstep her
and we've been doing that and are very excited
as we're heading in, that she's our top of ticket.
-Alright, thanks for that.
Jim, you're dealing with a historic candidate too,
when we talk about former president Trump.
The first former American president
to be convicted of felony crimes, 34 charges back in May,
which I know you know.
And Washingtonians, I know you know this part too,
they haven't voted for a republican president since 1984.
I just wanted to ask you,
how does having former president Trump at the top of your ticket,
affect what you do?
-He's not at the top of the ticket.
The top of the ticket are four initiatives
that the people will vote on.
-Okay, alright.
-But when we get the presidential slot on the ballot,
you know, Trump is not everybody's cup of tea
and we know that. You know,
Washington has always been a tough state for conservatives
and for outspoken personalities, like Trump.
You know, he's going to focus his campaign on swing states.
You're seeing a lot about the work
that he's doing in Pennsylvania and Michigan
and states like that.
And I think that's
where he's going to find the 276 odd electoral votes
that he needs to be re-elected. -Okay.
-And you know,
Washington, the west coast is always tough for conservatives.
But I think you're going to see an electoral win for Trump
and possibly a popular vote win.
-Okay. I'm going to stick with you Jim and go down the path,
if I could with you because, Washingtonians haven't voted
for a republican governor since 1980.
And that's not the only challenge for Dave Reichert
in his run for governor, he's behind in the polls,
behind in fundraising.
He also did not receive the official endorsement
of the state GOP.
So what's the message to republican voters in our state,
when it comes to the governor's race?
-Well he has received the endorsement of the state GOP.
-Okay.
-He just didn't receive it at the state convention
that we had earlier this year.
The state committee of the party endorsed Reichert
and a slew of other candidates
who'd proceeded through the state primary.
-Okay. -A few weeks ago.
So we were aware
that the early endorsement convention was going to be
controversial, groundbreaking. -Yeah.
-Real, as I said.
-Okay. -And all that happened.
But when we get through the state's top two primary --
-Okay.
-We are rallying around the conservative candidates
who got through the primary.
-Okay. -That's Dave Reichert.
-Okay.
-Reichert offers the people of Washington
a very solid value proposition.
We're at a time in this state, crisis of crime rates rising,
both violent crimes and property crimes.
And Reichert's longstanding career in law enforcement,
speaks to the right kind of fixes to those problems.
-Okay.
-His time in the Congress,
representing the 8th district,
kind of, Issaquah and points east of that,
showed that he is a bridge builder.
He is someone who builds coalitions across the aisle,
across demographic lines, across all lines.
And this is a moderate, solutions-focused man,
who will do what's best for the people of Washington.
-Okay, thank you for that.
And Shasti I want to make sure I go to you on this one too,
because in this last governors debate
I heard a lot about changing the status quo from Dave Reichert.
His supporters say it's not healthy
to have one party control of the state for so long.
Voters are looking for a change.
I just wants you to respond to some of the challenges,
maybe some you're hearing here from Jim,
about Attorney General Ferguson and his run for governor.
-I'm really proud that our party has been unified
in support of Attorney General Ferguson, this entire year.
We knew he was our strongest possibility
for winning the governor's race.
We have been completely unified there.
-Everyone expect Mark Mullin. -Okay, alright.
-And you know,
we are proud that he will be leading the state.
We have delivered for working families time and
time and time again.
And I believe that we have earned another opportunity
to continue in the policies here in this state.
You know,
Bob Ferguson has sued the Trump administration 99 times.
Jim himself just said Trump is not popular here.
And Dave Reichert voted with Trump 92% of the time.
He has continued to support a full abortion ban,
he is not the moderate
that they're trying to make him out to be.
He is as conservative and has said that he will support.
So you know, again, we just have to continue on to do the best
that we can for working families here in Washington State
and I believe should be and will be eventually Governor Ferguson.
-Okay.
Thank you for that.
Shasti, maybe I can stick with you
and talk about commissioner of public lands,
as we go down the list here, if I could.
Dave Upthegrove made it through the tightest primary
in state history, by just 49 votes,
according to the Secretary of State, after the recount there.
What does he need to do to make up some ground
against former congresswoman, Jaime Herrera Butler,
who won the primary?
-Yeah, I will tell you I was not expecting
the public lands race would be the one
that would be the tightest, that we'd all be talking about.
But I think, you know, in the voters share,
democrats that we had running, you know,
democrats should win that race.
Dave has been a champion for the environment.
He knows, he's been a long time county councilmember.
He knows how to focus on solutions.
He knows how to get things done.
And I think that he just needs to continue
to build the coalition with both,
you know, folks who represent the firefighters,
environmentalists, activists,
people who truly care about keeping our environment clean
and clean air and clean water, all of that.
And I know he's doing that work
and we will be able to get that done.
-Okay.
Jim, I'll go to you,
we talked about former congresswoman Butler here,
another candidate who out of the gate
did not get officially endorsed by the state GOP.
What do you want to say about this race and how it stacks up?
-This could be the most important race
we see in Washington State, this election cycle.
It's a huge importance to the environmental wellbeing
of the state,
to the fiscal wellbeing of the state.
The department has been mismanaged, frankly,
for several generations of leadership
and needs a fresh start.
The commissioner of public lands,
should not be a champion for the environment.
The commissioner should be a champion
for the people of the state.
The department of natural resources
is chartered to generate non-tax revenue
for schools and libraries and hospital districts.
And has failed to do that effectively
over the past 20 years.
I think that Jaime Herrera Butler will be the person
that can bring that department back to its charter,
back to its mission,
and help schools and help hospitals
and help fire districts all around the state.
-You don't think, please, you had something to say?
-I question that because she is mostly funded
by timber industry, by oil and gas.
I mean, that's not the people,
they are not representative of the people of Washington State.
So I think you always follow the money
and I don't see that from Jaime.
She was not backed by your party.
In fact,
at that convention people turned their backs on her.
So it doesn't feel like the coalition is
there to support her.
But also, she was rejected by the voters
in congressional district three and I just,
I don't see how she is going to be able to be a leader
for all of Washington.
-She won the primary.
-Okay.
And we will see what happens in the general her.
I know that was a tight race there as well.
Maybe I can move on to AG's race
and Jim I'll go to you on this one.
The republican candidate, Pete Serrano, the mayor of Pasco,
faces democrat Nick Brown, a former U.S.
Attorney.
Their recent debates show us they have
very different concepts of what this job is all about.
Serrano saying let's refocus the AG's job
on advising regulatory agencies,
maybe not so much on proposing legislation.
Brown saying,
not proposing legislation could be a big missed opportunity.
He says he's trying to advocate for the people of Washington.
Talk to me about this race please.
-Pete Serrano has read the Constitution
and he knows the difference between the executive branch
and the legislative branch.
Yes, on occasion executive agencies will rightly make
a suggestion about legislation,
but some agencies, particularly in our state,
do it all the time.
It's their biggest activity.
And I think Serrano's point there is entirely valid
and entirely timely.
Serrano is also someone who will protect the little guy.
His opponent represent big corporate interest,
big corporate money, and has tradition of that.
He's an ambitious guy, he's a smart guy.
Clearly he wants to be senator or president or something else.
Serrano will be happy to be a good state attorney general.
And I think voters will get a better value for their vote,
from Pete Serrano, than anyone else.
-Shasti, some thoughts here about Nick Brown?
-You know, look I think we're really proud
and excited to have the opportunity to elect Nick Brown
as attorney general.
He'll be the first black statewide elected official
for the state of Washington.
And we're really excited, as an AG.
And he's a veteran, he's done the work,
he's led, he was you know,
part of council for the governor's office.
And has led here as U.S. attorney.
You know, he was a founder
and a supporter of the School Safe Communities act,
which was supported by over 60% of the vote here
in Washington State.
Pete Serrano pushes conspiracy theories,
says that he thinks women should just sort of stay
at home and not work.
He was anti-vax, all those things.
I just think we don't need that here in Washington State
and we're excited to see Nick become our
next attorney general.
-Okay, thank you.
I'll move on and shift things into maybe almost
lightning round mode here as we try to cover all
of the initiatives,
the statewide initiatives on the ballot here.
Jim let's talk about 2066,
the measure that would roll back the state's efforts
to move away from using natural gas,
as Washington tries to meet its climate protection goals.
Why are you promoting 2066?
-Well people like cooking with natural gas and people
like heating their homes with natural gas.
-It's not a ban on natural gas, opponents would say.
-But it moves in a troubling way toward a ban.
It's true.
The legislation that 2066 reverses,
is not strictly speaking a ban,
but it start the process of banning natural gas.
The original draft of the legislation
was much more aggressive in banning natural gas.
What passed was a compromise,
but we still don't like the direction that it's going.
Natural gas is clean, natural gas is efficient,
and like I said at the start, people like using it.
They like it in their homes.
They like particularly to cook with it.
And banning it, even heading toward banning it,
would create a hardship on you know, consumers,
families, and businesses.
Try to run an Asian restaurant without having
the heat of natural gas. It's very tough.
Restaurant owners have said it would be impossible.
So vote yes on 2066 and protect natural gas choice.
-Shasti, your response to this?
-I think, you know look, with all four of these initiatives,
it's taking us backwards.
We have elected people to represent us
in the state legislature, you're one of them.
People elect their representatives
who have passed these various pieces of legislation,
they have been popular
and this is the republican party just taking us back,
mostly for tax cuts for their friends.
-Maybe I can follow up with you on that,
the whole concept of using initiatives in this way.
I think I've heard that critique a few different ways,
that we should let our legislators do the work.
These initiatives are kind of a blunt object
in that whole process.
-Sometimes you need a blunt object.
Article one, section one
of the Washington State Constitution.
All political powers inherent in the people.
Initiatives are the people's tool for making public policy.
-Okay. Any thoughts on that?
I wanted to make sure I even that out.
-I mean, you want to say it's about the people,
but they're funded by a big billionaire
who is really just about it for his own tax cuts.
So again, I don't see how this is actually about the people
and I think that it is a way
to just continue to take us backwards,
instead of you know,
I think the people of Washington want us to move forward
and are proud of the legislation
that we have been able to get done these last --
-Well we're going to find out in November if they're proud.
-Okay.
-Over a million people signed at least one
of the four initiatives and the modeled political orientation
of those people was split. They weren't republicans.
They were republicans and democrats and greens
and libertarians and socialists and all kinds of people.
-Okay.
-They are widely popular prepositions
and we're just going to see.
-Okay.
Shasti, I'll go back to you, I 2117,
another environmental issue on the ballot here.
If it passes it would repeal Washington's
Climate Commitment Act,
which includes a cap
and invest program targeted at our state's largest polluters
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emotions.
Supporters say a yes vote will lower the price
of a gallon of gas for drivers.
What do you say?
-Here in Washington State,
that piece of legislation in particular has been one
that has been modeled across the entire country.
People are looking at us
as a leader on being able to combat climate change
and really make a difference in making sure
that Washington is state
where everybody feels that they can live their best,
healthy lives here and that it is about people.
But it matters about how clean our air is,
how clean our water is.
And also these initiatives are about,
they're going to defund so many of,
it's going to take money out of the schools
take money away from our frontline workers.
This is us turning backwards and we just cannot,
we cannot do that.
We have to continue to move forward.
-Jim, some thoughts here? -Very filtered, Shasti.
As the person who wrote 2117,
I'm happy to hear that other states are considering it.
It's true, they are.
The cap and trade scheme is a tax scheme,
it's not an environmental protection scheme.
It actually does nothing to reduce carbon outputs.
Carbon outputs have not reduced since the thing took effect.
It's a tax scheme.
And I think the people of Washington feel they were misled
in what the cap and trade tax scheme was.
The Climate Commitment Acts is a well-researched
and focused group name,
but it doesn't actually do anything for the climate.
It decent really, it isn't a commitment to the climate.
-It forces polluters to --
-Pay for the right to pollute.
-Right,
which to a certain extent would hopefully urge them
to not have to pay to pollute.
-Expect it hasn't done that. -Okay.
-All it's done is make everybody pay more.
-Okay. -So let's undo the mess
and if you want a carbon pricing system in the state,
let's proceed in a more rational way.
-Okay.
-To a carbon pricing system,
not a cash grab on the backs of working people.
-I'm trying to figure out what that would be,
because this has been a very difficult thing
for our state to try to reach it's climates goals here.
And I just wanted to ask about this,
if it's not this Climate Commitment Act,
then what would it be?
-Well, we've considered several versions
of what have been called carbon taxes or carbon pricing,
regulatory schemes.
And some of them might actually have lowered carbon outputs.
-Mmm-hmm.
-There's nothing in this Climate Commitment Act
that actually lowers carbon outputs
and there's not even a tracking mechanism.
It doesn't even measure carbon outputs.
So let's start by measuring carbon outputs.
-Okay, Shasti, a quick touch on this before we move on,
any further thoughts?
-I mean, I would just say that even, there
isn't the data that backs up about the connection
to the gas prices either.
They have continued to sort of push these lies,
that it's been false the understanding of what --
I don't think people understood what they were signing,
when they were signing on some of these petitions.
You bundled them together in a way
that people didn't know what each of them represented,
what each of them meant, and so you know,
I really think that it's been dishonest and again,
I think that the people of Washington State
want us to move forward and want to live in a state
where we are able to create these disincentives
for polluters, so that we can have a better environment.
-Well I think more of the people
who signed the initiatives in that Shasti,
I don't think they were dishonest
and I don't think people are stupid.
I think people are smart.
I watched people sign the initiatives,
they read the language on the back of the initiative forms.
So I hold the people of Washington
in higher esteem to that.
I think they know what they're doing.
And I think they know what they're saying.
-Let's move onto Initiative 2124.
Jim, I'll start with you.
This would potentially eliminate our states
long-term care insurance plan, Washington Cares.
I know your mantra is "vote yes, pay less"
but critics would say a yes vote would increase costs for workers
with a lot of long-term care bills.
How do you respond to that?
-This is a system, this long-term car tax scheme,
that needs either to be fixed or put away.
The scheme is insolvent for starters.
It charges 58 cents per $100 of whatever your paycheck is.
And it's underwater
and it hasn't even paid out the first dollar of benefit yet.
The scheme was put in place with an escalation clause
that allows bureaucrats to raise that 58 cents as high
as they need to go, to make the scheme solvent.
It could end up being 80 cents per hundred
or a dollar per hundred dollars of paychecks.
It is an unchecked cash grab.
And for a benefit that is very limited,
almost to the point of uselessness.
Lifetime cap on the benefit and the scheme of $36,500.
Anybody who's got a family member in long-term care
knows that's about two months, maybe three, of care.
The scheme serves primarily as a kind of
separately funded deductible
to the more standard funding mechanism for long-term care,
which is our Medicaid system. -Okay.
-It's just not a long-term benefit.
-Shasti, I want to make sure you respond to that.
Some thoughts?
-Well this one's personal for me,
I was a caregiver for my mother who passed away in 2022.
And I would have given anything
to have been able to have access to greater resources,
to be able to care for her,
to be able to make it easier
for me to be able to continue working
and doing things that I had to take a break away
from to be able to be there for her
because we just didn't have the resources to be
able to have full care for her and what not.
So I know that I am not the only one here in Washington State
who has a story like that.
And so, I think that, I mean certainly,
even though you know, I am in the middle of my life,
would be more than happy to pay a little bit more now
to have a little bit more taken out of my paycheck,
to be able to make sure that I have the resources
that I need so that anyone whose, you know,
if I'm in that state,
we have what we need to be able to take care of myself,
other family members and what not.
This is deeply personal.
The money that you're talking is taken out
and away from our healthcare folks,
away from frontline workers.
It is not helping us again,
to move forward to get the resources
that working families need to be able to continue at the rate
we're at, where they're able to take care of their kids
and take care of aging parents.
-And when 2124 passes, you'll still be
able to contribute your money to the system.
It just let's people who don't want to opt out.
-Which a lot of people would say,
would make this thing completely insolvent.
-Yes.
-Or force it to restructure so that it's solvent.
-Alright, Shasti,
I'll go back to you and I want to talk about I 2109,
which would repeal the capital gains tax.
Supporters of the measure say,
capital gains is an unfair tax on businesses,
the longer we have it,
the closer we're getting to having
a state income tax on every level.
Why are you saying no to 2109? -Because, look,
the cap gains tax impacts people that are making more than you
and I could ever even dream of, right?
This is only affecting a very small group of people.
And it's incredibly important that we continue to make sure
that we have the resources that we need,
to be able to pay for schools, pay for hospitals.
Do the work that we need to do.
And we just, again, I keep saying it, I know,
but it's like, we just cannot go backwards.
And again, I feel like these initiatives are a way
to distract from being able to put the money
and the resources and the support into candidates
who can then be, you know,
held accountable by the people of Washington.
This is a distraction from the elections,
of getting people who will represent us
and be responsive to the people. So, you know,
we have to vote no on all four of these initiatives.
We cannot let the republicans learn that they can get their,
you know, billionaire friends to sort of,
undo the work that the voters of Washington state
have put people in to make they policy decisions
and have done that and are overall, I think,
happy with where we've been headed.
-Okay, Jim, a response?
-The logic of Shasti's argument is,
this controversial tax,
I would say unconstitutional tax,
is okay because it only affects a few people.
Well, I don't buy that logic. If a thing is wrong, it's wrong,
whether it affects a few people or many people.
I've also seen the draft bills
that would lower the threshold of this new tax,
much lower than it is now, to where it would affect someone
who owned maybe a rental house or something like that.
So, the plan is clearly
to expand the footprint of this new tax.
And I think people have a good sense of that.
Also, Shasti, none of the tax reform initiatives,
three of them are tax reforms, ones the natural gas.
None of the tax reform initiatives are retroactive.
So they don't actually defund anything.
The money that's been collected under the can and trade,
under the payroll tax, under the capital gains tax.
it doesn't go back to the people that paid it,
it stays with the state government.
-Yeah. -So nothing gets defunded.
It puts the pressure on the legislature,
if they pass, when they pass. -Mmm-hmm.
-To renegotiate priorities for the next budget cycle.
-Okay.
-And that's what the legislature should do.
-A quick touch on that before we get to final statements.
-I just, that's incorrect.
We need that money moving forward
to be able to continue to fund things
like our schools and healthcare and frontline work.
Like, we need this to move forward
and it's already settled.
It's settled. Let's move forward.
-Okay.
-It's not incorrect that they are not retroactive.
-Okay. -They are not retroactive.
So to use the term "defund" implies,
They will somehow reach back into funded programs
and unfund them, and that's what's incorrect.
-I think we might be talking about the funding going forward.
Regardless, I want to make sure we move ahead
with some final words here.
A last message to voters, I can give you about 45 seconds.
-Okay, great.
You know, I just want to say to voters,
this is our moment,
we have a historic opportunity to elect incredible democrats up
and down this ballot.
From Vice President Harris and Governor Walz,
all the way through our governor's race
and to our state leg folks.
We truly have an opportunity to make a difference
and we do not want to go backwards.
We want to keep moving forward and we need to get this done.
-Alright, Jim, last word to you.
-We live in a beautiful state.
We love living here in Washington,
in the Pacific Northwest.
We want to fix what's broken.
It doesn't matter if you're a republican
or a democrat or whatever you consider yourself.
Look to the individuals who will speak with clarity and purpose,
about fixing what's broken
and encouraging the best in what living in Washington means.
We've got a lot to fix
and this November's election is a chance to do that.
-Okay, thank you both for that and we will be right back.
What are people saying on social media
about this year's battle between democrats and republicans?
One person writes, "Washington State is suffering.
Vote Republican for a real change."
Another person comments,
"I support Democrats until the menace of Trumpism
and its abettors are gone."
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an email at contact@SeattleChannel.org
or find us on social media. Thank you for that input.
Thank you for your input as well.
And we will see you next time on City Inside/Out.
♪♪