How would an Eastern Washington Split affect Seattle? (Spokane, McCleary: sales, to buy)

[DevanXL]

Shea, McCaslin want to make eastern Washington its own state | Politics - KXLY.com

Saw this posted on KXLY in Spokane. What are your thoughts? How would you think this would affect Seattle? Of course this wont happen but it's an interesting topic.

[509]

For Seattle the impact would be the loss of Box Canyon Dam.

The county tried to take it over at the last relicensing, but the political establishment in western Washington managed to keep the dam under the city of Seattle. I suspect if the state were split in two, the dam would be condemned and taken over by the county in a heartbeat.

I suspect that there would be a tax on electricity "exported" from eastern Washington. Since Seattle and other western Washington communities are totally dependent on eastern Washington electricity I think you would see electrical costs go up significantly.

There might be a minor impact to the Port of Seattle.

A new state in eastern Washington might be tempted to put tolls on all the cross-Cascade highways. Seattle residents would have to buy non-resident fishing and hunting licenses if they wanted to fish over here.

But all in all, the impacts to Seattle would probably be minor. The benefit is really to eastern Washington. For example, in the far eastern counties for every dollar paid in transportation taxes they get back 46 cents. Remember eastern Washington is the same population as Idaho with a lot more wealth and easier transportation network.

The only scenario that I can see making eastern Washington a state is the District of Columbia gets two US Senators and that would result in a compromise that would give conservatives two reliable Senators to balance DC. This proposal has actually made it to the debate on Senators for DC.

[CrazyDonkey]

It would result in two more conservative senators. Why not just join Idaho? Take eastern Oregon with you. Of course, we Wetsiders wouldn't be subsidizing Dryside roads, highways, bridges, schools, etc., any more.

[DevanXL]

Originally Posted by 509

But all in all, the impacts to Seattle would probably be minor. The benefit is really to eastern Washington. For example, in the far eastern counties for every dollar paid in transportation taxes they get back 46 cents.

Source? I know that's definitely not true for all the state taxes.

[pnwguy2]

Won't happen to begin with. If it somehow did what most don't realize is that the East benefits from the West, and vice-versa. Washington's economy is based on state-wide economics which despite the political differences, work hand in hand. Agricultural in the East helps the entire State. Manufacturing in the West helps the entire State. Washington is one of the strongest economic States in the country, one of the fastest growing, and has been so for decades.

Shea and McCaslin are misinformed and grandstanding IMO.

[509]

Originally Posted by DevanXL

Source? I know that's definitely not true for all the state taxes.

Washington Department of Transportation comparing funding with the new gas tax. AND it is not just STATE taxes, but includes Federal transportation taxes which the Governor has much discretion.

There is a study out on state expenditures and tax revenues by county. Basically, it is a push between eastern and western Washington. Remember the ONLY people paying state taxes are small business and consumers through the sales tax. Another portion comes through state property taxes.

The Democrats over the past 40 years have pretty exempted all the large corporations in the state from paying B &O taxes. There is a Office of Financial Management study that shows the largest corporations in Washington state pay like 3% of the B&O tax.

Those corporations are basically based in western Washington. IF they were taxed....yes, western Washington would be sending money to eastern Washington. BUT they are not taxed, not Boeing, not MicroSoft, not Weyerhauser, not PacCar, and on and on it goes.

So if the only people paying taxes are small business and consumers those are per capita taxes. So basically everybody pays the same. State benefits go to primarily poor people and elderly.

Given our immigration policies of importing poor people eastern Washington does have more of those, but many of those folks are moving to western Washington. Plus the rural areas of western Washington are in worse shape than eastern Washington, but there are fewer of them.

Does this help in your understanding of the issue??

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

It would result in two more conservative senators. Why not just join Idaho? Take eastern Oregon with you. Of course, we Wetsiders wouldn't be subsidizing Dryside roads, highways, bridges, schools, etc., any more.

Not a bad idea. Reconfigure the states vertically. Make Cascadia easier.

[dtuba]

It would mean the end of cheap apples, grain, and Cougar Gold cheese on this side of the mountains.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by dtuba

It would mean the end of cheap apples, grain, and Cougar Gold cheese on this side of the mountains.

Why? There are no tariffs between states.

If you think eastern Washington taxes would go down, not up, think again. The bulk of state revenues are generated in western Washington, so either your taxes will go up, or your services will go down, your highways and bridges will degrade, and your schools will suffer.

[509]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Why? There are no tariffs between states.

If you think eastern Washington taxes would go down, not up, think again. The bulk of state revenues are generated in western Washington, so either your taxes will go up, or your services will go down, your highways and bridges will degrade, and your schools will suffer.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

Basically, it is a push between the two halves of the state.

More transportation dollars are sent to western Washington from eastern Washington.

More tax dollars are sent to eastern Washington from western Washington.

Pretty much less than 1% total difference when I compared and added the spending and revenue by county for the two halves of the state.

The school issue might be a wild card.

The state DOES underfund eastern Washington school districts. With the McCleary decision there will be a shift of school funding from western Washington to eastern Washington.

That is one reason why the Legislature has not fully funded the McCleary decision. Depending on how they resolve the issues that might increase the money flows to eastern Washington. I would be surprised if the total difference exceeded 5% however.