Life has consequences, and we make choices every single day that determine our future. As a small business owner, I understand this reality clearly: Staying in business requires disciplined, fiscally sound decision-making. Sure, I could buy equipment that might make my work easier, invest in software that could help me grow, or drive an expensive new vehicle to impress clients. But I can’t take on debt to chase those conveniences. I have to earn before I spend. If I operated in the red, my business would go bankrupt. Fiscal responsibility isn’t optional; it’s survival.
Unfortunately, the majority party in Washington state does not appear to share that perspective.
Over the past decade, Washington has witnessed one of the most rapid expansions of state-funded expenditures in its modern history, raising serious questions about long-term fiscal sustainability, budget priorities, and the economic resilience of our State.
According to historical state‑funds spending tables compiled from Washington’s fiscal reporting systems for FY2013–FY2018, Washington’s state-only operating expenditures (excluding federal dollars) grew from approximately $32.1 billion in FY2013 to $42.5 billion in FY2017, a rise of more than 32% in just four years. These figures come from long-running state funds data series reproduced by the Washington Policy Center, which reflects General Fund-State dollars, other state accounts, and bonded spending, but exclude federal transfers. [fiscal.wa.gov]
The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) provides continued visibility into these trends in later years. Its annual State Expenditure Reports and related datasets show that state-only spending (General Fund, Other State Funds, and Bonds combined) continued to accelerate in the post-2018 period. By FY2024, NASBO data summarizes Washington’s fund‑source breakdown as:
General Fund: $30.741 billionOther State Funds: $14.955 billionState Bonds: $3.046 billion for a total state-funded expenditure level of $48.742 billion, not including the $17.167 billion in federal transfers, representing a more than 52% increase in state-only expenditures from FY2013 to FY2024. [publicfina…ngf.org.ng]
Recent fiscal summaries also affirm the pace of growth. The Urban Institute’s analysis of NASBO data shows that even when looking narrowly at the General Fund—the State’s primary operating account—Washington’s annual spending rose from $22.9 billion in FY2019 to $31.0 billion in FY2023, before slightly tapering to $30.7 billion in FY2024. This General Fund trend underscores how both policy choices and spending obligations intensified substantially after 2019. [studylib.net]
The growth in state spending was not driven solely by rising revenues. During multiple biennia, lawmakers also relied on transfers and draws from Washington’s Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), commonly known as the rainy‑day fund. The BSA exists to cushion economic downturns, yet legislative reports show that significant sums were moved from the account to support ongoing expenditures in recent years. Background materials from the Washington Department of Revenue describe the BSA as a reserve funded through year-end surpluses and 1% transfers of general‑state revenues, used historically to stabilize budgets during economic contractions.
More recent press coverage of legislative debates documented renewed proposals to draw down as much as $1.6 billion from the rainy‑day fund to backfill shortfalls, illustrating how surplus resources have repeatedly been redirected to ongoing programmatic spending. [budgetpedia.ng] [pwc.com], [researchcouncil.org]
Taken together, the record shows a clear and accelerating trajectory. Washington’s state-funded expenditures have grown faster than population, faster than inflation, and dramatically faster than personal income growth across the same period. With state‑only spending rising from just over $32 billion to nearly $49 billion, lawmakers and citizens alike must confront a critical question: Is this level of growth sustainable, and are Washingtonians receiving commensurate value for the cost?
Washington’s fiscal future depends on recognizing that spending growth of this magnitude is not simply the result of expanding services; it reflects deeper structural decisions about how the state budgets, what it prioritizes, and how often it taps reserve funds to maintain program commitments. As policymakers consider the next biennium, the data invites a sober reassessment of long-term commitments, risk exposure, and the role of prudent financial stewardship in protecting both taxpayers and essential public services.
As has often been said, Washington state does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. It is long past time for the majority party to rein in expenditures, take a hard look at current budget priorities, and recognize that not every favored initiative can be financed on the backs of taxpayers. Eventually, the system will reach a breaking point. People and the revenue they contribute will leave the state. A tax revolt may follow, and many businesses are relocating elsewhere.
Washingtonians deserve a government that is not only ambitious in its priorities but responsible in its commitments. If the state continues on its current trajectory, expanding spending faster than the economy that must sustain it, future legislatures will face fewer choices, higher risks, and heavier burdens. Now is the moment to restore balance, recommit to fiscal stewardship and ensure that public spending grows only as fast as the people who fund it can reasonably afford.
Jeffrey A. Slotnick is the founder and president of Setracon Inc., a Tacoma-based firm specializing in enterprise security risk management, consulting and training to align security with business goals.
