Looking closer at the “Budget for the Working Class”

Representative Travis Couture (R-35) released his new “Budget for the Working Class” this week. As the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, he has had years to shape this proposal. This first review highlights several issues that emerged during our initial readthrough; we will follow up with a deeper analysis of the numbers in the coming weeks.

The foreword begins by framing the state deficit as the result of “runaway spending,” but this overlooks factors documented by the state’s Economic & Revenue Forecast Council: a cooling post-pandemic economy, volatility in real-estate and consumer spending, and the inflation that followed federal COVID stimulus. Couture also criticizes Democrats for expanding government while simultaneously criticizing them for cutting programs. And while he faults Democrats for Medicaid reductions, he does not acknowledge federal policy changes that removed roughly $455 million in matching funds Washington previously relied upon.

Couture points out that using one-time money for long-term commitments is unsustainable, but he does not address the broader budget context that both parties have operated within: long-standing revenue constraints combined with decades of bipartisan tax preferences (for example, no income tax: personal or corporate). His framework also treats nearly all recent spending growth as waste, without acknowledging that Washington’s population has increased and aged significantly. These are trends that naturally increase caseloads in education, healthcare, and long-term care.

Although Couture describes his proposal as non-partisan, several of the framework’s central targets are inherently political choices, such as redirecting climate-related revenue and shifting more healthcare costs onto school and state employees. His references to crime and education also warrant clarification. He claims test scores are “in free fall,” but learning loss occurred nationwide after COVID, regardless of whether a state was red or blue. He also states that Washington crime is at an all-time high, available FBI data shows violent crime in Washington was significantly higher in the 1990s than today. 

Couture’s proposal for zero-based budgeting may sound like neutral reform, but historically this approach often becomes a tool for repeatedly targeting the same categories of programs without guaranteeing more efficient service delivery.

Finally, Couture’s Medicaid narrative leaves out critical context. The framework omits the well-documented drivers of Medicaid costs: an aging population, behavioral health needs, and medical inflation that consistently outpaces general inflation.

Washington needs a budget conversation that starts with honesty about our structural challenges and applies the same standards to every part of state government. Representative Couture has raised concerns worth debating, but a lasting solution must avoid targeting only the programs he and his caucus disfavor. A credible, bipartisan framework would apply discipline across all agencies, including those Republicans traditionally protect, and it would clearly state where their preferred programs can be reduced or reformed. If Representative Couture is willing to return with a plan that examines every part of the budget with equal scrutiny, not just the politically convenient ones, he will be more likely to find willing partners on both sides of the aisle who want sustainable finances and reliable services for the people of Washington.