Home | About Joshua | News & Media | Email Updates | The Ledger | Contact
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
This week marked another turning point in session. Committees wrapped up most of their work, fiscal decisions are now front and center, and the House is preparing for long days on the floor as we debate the bills that came over from the Senate and survived the process.
Budget decisions are never abstract. They reveal what government is willing to tolerate, what it chooses to prioritize, and who gets left behind. That is especially true when it comes to protecting vulnerable children, which remains one of my top focuses this session.
Fighting for accountability in child care
Taxpayers expect that when money is sent to Olympia, it is tracked, safeguarded, and used for its intended purpose. Right now, that basic expectation is not being met in Washington’s child care system.
As you’ll recall from my last update, the State Auditor’s Office recently reported it could not fully audit several fiscal years of spending because the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) did not maintain the documentation required under federal law. In the most recent Statewide Single Audit, the program’s entire $416 million in spending was questioned due to insufficient records. That represents more than an administrative problem. It is a failure of oversight that undermines public confidence and, more importantly, puts children at risk.
Over the past several weeks, I worked alongside my Republican colleague, Rep. Travis Couture, agency leadership, and the bill sponsor to strengthen House Bill 2253 with clear accountability measures. Those reforms included permanent licensure bans for providers found guilty of subsidy fraud, electronic attendance requirements to prevent ghost billing, and immediate license termination when dangerous substances such as fentanyl are discovered in child care settings.
These were practical safeguards, and the House passed the bill with strong bipartisan support. Now in the Senate, key provisions are being targeted for removal. That raises a difficult but necessary question: why would basic anti-fraud and safety protections become controversial?
The path forward is uncertain, but the need for reform is not. I will continue pressing for transparency and real accountability at DCYF.
I also want to thank everyone who has visited my DCYF crisis webpage and shared their experiences. Those voices are shaping this conversation. If you have not yet shared your story, I encourage you to do so.
When budgets reflect priorities
Policy alone does not solve systemic failures. Budgets do. That is why the operating budget debate matters so much.
During the House Appropriations Committee executive session on February 25, I introduced an amendment to restore the state’s contract with a pediatric interim care center (PICC) in Kent. This facility provides around-the-clock care for infants experiencing drug withdrawal and offers training that helps families reunify safely. The proposal added no new cost to the state. It simply redirected resources toward a proven solution.
The amendment was rejected.
Moments like that clarify priorities. When low-cost, high-impact solutions fail to move forward, it becomes harder to argue that outcomes are driving decisions.
You can watch my remarks on that amendment by clicking the photo below or here.
Why I opposed the supplemental operating budget in the House Appropriations Committee
The supplemental operating budget (House Bill 2289) does not just allocate dollars. It sets direction. Unfortunately, this proposal moves Washington further away from fiscal stability and collaborative decision-making.
The process itself excluded meaningful input from lawmakers representing roughly forty percent of the state’s population. That lack of collaboration is reflected in the final product.
The budget shifts $2 million from the Dan Thompson Fund, which supports individuals with developmental disabilities, into the general fund. It sets aside $42 million for DCYF lawsuit settlements without addressing the systemic problems driving those costs. It expands overall spending by roughly $2 billion during a projected deficit and draws down $880 million from the Rainy Day Fund, leaving Washington with significantly reduced reserves.
Perhaps most concerning, it relies on roughly $4 billion taken from first responder pension resources to close budget gaps. Retirement security for police and firefighters should never be treated as a flexible funding source for unrelated programs.
The proposal also anticipates nearly $2 billion in new taxes over the next four years while discussion continues around implementing a state income tax. History shows that once an income tax framework is established, its scope rarely remains limited.
Washington is not facing a revenue shortage. State collections continue to reach record levels. The challenge is prioritization. Until spending decisions reflect that reality, budget pressures will persist.
The House is expected to vote on this proposal on Saturday. I voted no in committee and will do so again on the floor.
You can watch my “no” remarks during the debate in the House Appropriations Committee by clicking on the photo below or here.
You can learn more about the supplemental operating budget here.
Where collaboration is working
Not every budget conversation has followed that path. The supplemental capital budget (House Bill 2295) demonstrates what a collaborative approach can achieve.
The bipartisan $910.6 million proposal invests in infrastructure across the state, including $5.409 million for projects in the 31st District. Those investments include the Carbon Canyon Community Forest, the Veterans Memorial Drive multi-use trail, Wilkeson water and wastewater improvements, and cleanup work through the B&L Woodwaste settlement account.
These projects represent tangible improvements that communities will see and use for decades.
You can learn more about the supplemental capital budget and see a full list of projects here.
Transportation priorities at home
The supplemental transportation budget (House Bill 2306) continues to move forward with bipartisan support as well. My focus remains straightforward: maintaining roads, preserving critical infrastructure, and ensuring the systems families rely on every day remain safe and functional.
Reliable transportation is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for economic stability, emergency response, and daily life. I will continue advocating for investments that keep our district moving.
For our district, that means real progress on projects residents have been asking about for years. The proposal advances work on the SR 162/410 interchange, improves access along SR 164 in East Auburn, continues the SR 167 Puget Sound Gateway corridor, and moves forward with the long-awaited replacement of the Fairfax Bridge. It also includes pedestrian safety improvements along the SR 410 corridor so families, students, and commuters can move through our communities more safely.
You can learn more about the supplemental transportation budget and see a full list of projects here.
Stay connected
If you have questions, concerns, or ideas related to child safety, DCYF, the supplemental budgets, or any of the issues discussed in this update, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My contact information is included at the bottom of this email, and I welcome your input.
Thank you for staying engaged and allowing me to represent you.
Sincerely,
Joshua Penner
