Transcript
Speaker: Hi, everybody. Welcome to the Mercer Matters podcast. I'm your host, Ben Sharp. And with me today is Michael Rosen. He is running as an independent for state representative for the legislative district 41, which includes Mercer Island, parts of Bellevue, Newcastle, Issaquah, and a part of Renton.
Speaker: He's running against incumbent Democrat Mai Lin Tai. And before we dive in, I want to remind all of you to please click subscribe to the show on your favorite podcast platform so you can be alerted when new episodes drop. I'm going to be doing quite a few episodes this election season, so you'll want to catch those as they come out.
Speaker: If you're new to the show, my goal is to have an open discussion with each candidate during the election season to kind of give you a rundown and a chance to learn more about them and hear their positions on issues that affect you in their own words.
Speaker: If you enjoy the show, please share it with a friend on social media. That really helps get the word out there. I know a lot of you come up to me in private and tell me you like the show, you like the podcast. Some of your kids even listen to it which I find shocking.
Speaker: um But ah anyway, if you share it on social media, that's in today's world the best way for others to get to to get to know about it. So but without further ado, ah Michael, welcome to show. ah Thanks for joining.
Speaker: let's Let's start with you introducing yourself to our audience. Just do you mind sharing a little bit about you and your background and and what's brought you here to run for Rosen, Don't mind it all, Ben. Thank you again so much for having me. This is so fun and exciting.
Speaker: Hello, audience. My name is Michael Rosen. I'm a fourth-generation Washingtonian. I was born and raised right here in Mercer Island, attended public school all the way through mercer Island High School. My family has had a business in the area since 1913.
Speaker: Myself, personally, i am a I like to say, a recovering attorney, investor, and a Washington licensed nutritionist. And politically, i would, it's also important to note my background there. i am, i like to say I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, and I don't take money from special interests. So I only answer to one constituency, and that is the voters of the forty first district.
Speaker: Awesome. Well, thanks. Thanks for that. i My eyebrow is a little bit as you're going through your background, recovering attorney, investor, and then nutritionist. So that that might be a conversation for another day. Yeah. No, it's it's ah it's ah it's a lot of variety there. And there's even ah some more variety that I left out. I had a brief stint trying to be an actor in LA.
Speaker: And ah you know i've I like to try different things. So- yeah well that that that might be yeah That might be a discussion for another podcast entirely. I'm sure lots of lots of good stories there.
Speaker: Yeah, oh for sure. So, you know, kind of the first the first question I think I'll throw at you there is, um ah what what are the primary issues that you think voters care most about?
Speaker: um Well, I would say the thing I hear time and time again in ah the 41st District are the recent spate of homelessness bills that have been kind of thrust upon us in the 41st District.
Speaker: And in my opinion, very surprisingly led by my opponent, Neil and Ty, who ah Specifically, House Bill 2266, which just became law, ah essentially that bill forces homeless housing into any town in Washington and bars these towns from requiring anyone who stays there to get treatment. And also, you don't have to be sober as a condition to live in these places. So, you know, drug use is is not forbidden and requiring someone to get treatment is. And
Speaker: It used to be that the communities would have a say in like whether to allow this housing, but now that has been taken away from from us. And it's nobody likes it. Milantai voted for it.
Speaker: She likes it ah it. It's just another case of disconnect, in my opinion, of our representation is not representing the the voters of this district.
Speaker: ah There's another bill that House Bill 2489 that Milantai actually co-sponsored. So that's even more um forced behind it from her. Luckily, it did not become law, but she put her name on it. And basically your city...
Speaker: this If this bill would have passed, your city couldn't clear a dangerous homeless encampment unless it first offered shelter. And that shelter, like I said, couldn't even require treatment.
Speaker: And another note on that is that they did a study about whether towns in Washington could even offer treatment. And the overwhelming majority was none of these towns could offer, or sorry, not treatment, shelter.
Speaker: So none of these towns could fulfill that clause of it. So basically, it's just a de facto ban on ah local towns and neighborhoods clearing homeless encampments coming straight from Olympia. And you know I think that is really questionable. ah you know I think whether to clear a dangerous encampment should be a local safety decision.
Speaker: It should not be dictated from Olympia. And I will always defend our local community's rights to keep our parks, sidewalks and neighborhoods safe. And ah that should be, like I said, with our community, not with Olympia.
Speaker: And ah my opponent co-sponsored that bill. So everyone is up in arms about that. And i just don't think I mean, I know she's not listening or I'm not. not changing her mind and she's gung ho about these things and ah it is just not representative of our district and it's not representative of common sense why would you have homeless housing homeless shelters and you can't require anyone to get treatment that could save them i mean think about it it's these people are too sick to help themselves and we're handing them key and leaving them defenseless against their addiction um
Speaker: it's It just doesn't make sense. It's not common sense. And i just want to say I'm not against housing in solving the homelessness crisis, but I don't think it should be the only leg in the stool.
Speaker: And I'm for treatment. And I think we need to stop pretending that housing alone fixes addiction. We need you know real treatment and a real way out of this mess. And that's what I'm going to stand up for.
Speaker: So let's let's let's kind of tunnel in on on those issues because those are on my list to to ask you about. Sure. and you You brought them up. I have a couple of follow-up questions. i mean, one, I didn't realize that... ah that the law was such that you you know you can't require them be sober and you can't require them to get treatment. I mean, that exactly that seems a little bit crazy.
Speaker: i know we've done a lot of work with the Union Gospel Mission as an example, and that is that is a condition of of their housing people, right? Like you've got to be sober when you're there. and i seems It seems pretty obvious, right?
Speaker: Yeah. and so it's you know and And those guys have been doing this a long time, you know these whole lot of these shelter operators. So it seems it seems kind of ah crazy that they wouldn't you know they wouldn't allow that and kind of follow the status quo. it's It's totally insane. And just, you know, that i always say I'm running on common sense. And, and you know, we spoke a little bit ah before the we started the broadcast, but I just really want people to know that there's a common sense alternative out there in this race.
Speaker: And, you know, i represent that common sense approach. So I'm curious, what are your thoughts on kind of the top down approach to governance that's emerged, you know, specifically on this issue where the state has come out and in basically enacted a set of laws that make, you know, cities and local municipalities completely, you know almost powerless?
Speaker: um to make decisions about what goes in their community and kind of what happens in their community. What what are your thoughts on that, specifically this issue? well Well, first of all, ah i want to I want to just give give a ah correction to what you said.
Speaker: it is not basically powerless. Local municipalities now are powerless. They can hold a hearing, but that hearing means nothing. So, I mean, they're they're we are fully powerless now on this issue.
Speaker: So that is disturbing, ah to say the least. And, you know, to me, again, common sense. Who knows the community, the the neighborhood better than the people who live there and who would want to be dictated by a bunch of politicians far away from that neighborhood who are not living there, taking their kids to school every day,
Speaker: um and, and going through everything that happens in the day to day of your, your town or your community. So, I mean, I think to me, that's obvious. Local control should be, ah held by the the people who live there, work there, et cetera, the locals and, uh, or, or sorry, control should be, and not by politicians dictating,
Speaker: ah policy from afar. It just it's it seems, you know, we should ah sovereignty of the local towns is important, but just also, it just seems so sensible to let towns run themselves.
Speaker: and that's And that's my stance on it. I'm very supportive of local municipalities, towns, neighborhoods ah having a say in the composition of their of their neighborhood, of their of their town.
Speaker: Yeah. And I guess, you know, if you were to steel man this for a second, I suppose the argument for this is that, you know, if you don't have a law like this, then these shelters never go into nice neighborhoods. They never go into, you know, hire higher, wealthier cities and towns.
Speaker: I mean, is that, I suppose that's the at least one of the arguments for it ah outside of, you know, the the other one being just, you know, complete control and kind of forcing this, you know, everywhere.
Speaker: You know, is there, is there, you know, like, for example, I know there's one in Bellevue that got put up, you know, several years ago. Plymouth? Plymouth, yeah. And, you know, that was before these rules came into effect, right? And yeah it's there. Plymouth follows the same rules, though.
Speaker: that it follows the same rules. Like for instance, drug it drug abuse is not a problem in Plymouth. That's fully fine. ah Treatment is not required. So no one's getting treatment.
Speaker: So that's kind of a beta test for Oh, it's it's an awful beta test. Oh my God. It's been an abject failure. ah The area around Plymouth is like a criminal hotspot now. I just interviewed somebody, a longtime homeowner around that area. He said he's been called into his house three times over the last three months from ah from a helicopter with a guy with a megaphone saying, someone dangerous escape from Plymouth, please be in your house.
Speaker: We'll let you know when it's ah when it's safe to go outside. wow. Yeah, no, it's awful. And, you know, it's, there's many facets to that answer to the question you just asked, but I would like to say that, first of all, we need a ah ah greater regional or statewide homeless plan that works. And that would solve a lot of these problems where we we could coordinate where's the best place to put ah these people because they need, ah like I said, I just released my homeless plan on my Instagram and on my website, but we need a treat. We need to
Speaker: get the, so for basically to give you a summation of that, we're currently treating homelessness as one crisis. Whereas in my opinion, it's three crises, which require three different solutions.
Speaker: Uh, first of all, people who are down on their luck, They deserve their own support system and getting them employment support and getting them back on their feet. But then the second and bucket is addiction. And the third bucket is mental health. And obviously addiction and mental health kind of come together.
Speaker: But each one of those buckets deserves a separate ah program and protocol for helping the people who fall into them. and And with regards to like, oh, Mercer Islanders don't want you know, just don't want to do their part.
Speaker: For me, it's the it's the form of it. It's why would I want um homeless, like a homeless shelter where like Plymouth people can use drugs, sell drugs.
Speaker: ah we're going to We're going to supply them with paraphernalia, like clean syringes, syringes ah clean foil to smoke with. Like why would we enable that? And then our just watches our neighborhood degrades ah quickly because we just have imported this criminal activity. Why not do it right?
Speaker: Why not make it a treatment-based setting where, yeah, you you can't use drugs and you ah and you must, you know, treatment must be required.
Speaker: So to me, it's the form of it. Like if it if if it was a different format where it was safe for the neighborhoods that they were put in and it got people better as opposed to, like I said, leaving them defenseless against their addiction, that that would be something I would get behind it, you know, but currently that's not the way it is. And it's just this real sloppy one size fits all program. That's not working for anyone. I mean, Washington state currently spends approximately, this could be even more $2 billion dollars a year and has done so for a while.
Speaker: Uh, homelessness got 35% homelessness increased 35% over the last four years. So this housing first model is not working.
Speaker: ah We have the receipts to prove it. Now it's not just a theory and that's, personally what I object to. like We are continually rolling out a failed policy and hoping that it works. and you know That's the definition of insanity.
Speaker: why Why can't we have smarter policy that is more compassionate and helps these people and doesn't destroy our neighborhoods in the process?
Speaker: so Do you see a path forward, you know, recognizing that, you know you're a candidate now, I mean, do you see a path forward for this changing?
Speaker: i mean, is there, is is there enough sort of demand and and pushback across the state to, yeah you know, at least change or modify some of the the parts of this that are particularly egregious or like, how do you see, you know, I mean, I i think it, i think, Like so many things ah politically, it it starts with voting.
Speaker: ah You know, my opponent is very much on the record, like ah like I just detailed, where she stands on this issue. She wants to press on with the the Housing First administration.
Speaker: issue or housing first model. And um i ah I don't think that works. and And I know it doesn't work. And I'm willing to fight for a solution that does work. ah Obviously, treatment doesn't work 100% of time, but it's also the only thing that's proven to work at all.
Speaker: So the fact that we ignore this in our our our homelessness program, our homelessness policy is ridiculous to me.
Speaker: And to answer your question, like yeah, I mean, like we got to just start somewhere. So we need to elect people that are willing to you know change and willing to admit that the past policy is a failure and that have ideas to go forward and willing to fight for it.
Speaker: ah And whenever whenever I tell people these things and kind of just mirrored your reaction, people are shocked that like certain details like, oh, that you know, these homeless shelters and permanent supportive permanent supportive housing units that are going in, you don't have to stop doing drugs and you're not going to be required to get treatment. So, I mean, people are shocked at these details. You know? ah And um so that's kind of what I'm trying to do is is just get the word out and, you know, really light that fire. And I think, I mean, I've never heard somebody be like, oh yeah, well that's not bad that they can do drugs and like, you know, state funded facilities now that you and I pay for. So everyone reacts the same. So
Speaker: I think just continually you know shining light on this issue and that we don't have to fail. you know We can try another approach um and just continuing to build that movement. But I think people unanimously are in agreement that what we're doing isn't working. Everyone sees that.
Speaker: I mean, you don't need to be a policy professional to go into seattle and see someone do drugs out in public at like two o'clock in the afternoon like right in front of you and you know it's just uh it is a ah failure uh all across the system and it's coming to our towns now and uh it's something people need to be concerned about and vote accordingly Yeah. and And for those listening, Matt Augustine has a petition that he put out a few weeks ago that has about a thousand signatures on it from Mercer Island residents who are concerned about this. And I'm curious, Michael, you know, Mercer Island audience listening, what are the chances that one of these pops up on Mercer Island in your view?
Speaker: You know, um it depends. ah Well, I could give you like my take on the chances um and I'll do that right now. ah You know, the the land on Mercer Island is more expensive than other places.
Speaker: ah So a developer would have to pay more to do it here than maybe a place where the the real estate is not expensive. But to me, the real important thing on that question is any chance at all?
Speaker: is enough of a chance where I don't want, is enough to get me worried where I don't want this flawed system to come in and destroy our community.
Speaker: you know like Like I said, look at Plymouth. I don't want drug addicts to be able to like do drugs, sell drugs, all this bad stuff that happens. you know There's prostitution going on in Plymouth, all this stuff.
Speaker: I don't want that even a sliver of a chance to come into our community. And remember, the the the the real, in my opinion, nefarious thing about, or one of the many nefarious things about House Bill 2266, which was passed into law, ah is that if a developer gets the land,
Speaker: uh and wants to do it that's it there is no stopping anything like it could be wherever it's going to be it could be near your you know your school your your wherever your your place of worship whatever um there's no stopping it now so in our those ah and does that developer also get subsidies from the state i I mean, I imagine I'm not exactly sure on that. So don't quote me on that. But I mean, i imagine it will be received some kind of funding or or subsidies from the state. um
Speaker: Or at least, yeah, definitely like subsidized development, you know, because the the state really wants to promote this. But I'm not. totally sure on that so let me check back and i'll get back to you on that but okay yeah i mean it it is i mean it's definitely you know it's part of the the objective of our current political class so i'm i i'm sure that funding will you know not be attached to it or some kind of subsidy yeah because that that would be interesting to sort of follow where the money is um yeah how these things get oh yeah you know Yeah.
Speaker: Because you can imagine a situation where, you know again, I have no clue if this is occurring, but if you wanted these in wealthier communities where the land costs more, then you'd subsidize that more, right? and So I'd be curious if that...
Speaker: Yeah, that was terrible for sure. For sure. um So yeah, I mean, it it is, it it, you know, there's a lot of conspiracies about like the, the homeless industrial complex and I'm not a big conspiracy theorist guy, but it just is strange to me that we continue. Like I said, I hate to keep mentioning this, but we continue on this path of spending tons of money and getting worsening results and and a and b subheading over that ignoring treatment like and ignoring and encouraging drug use like with our policies uh enabling these you know people who cannot help themselves uh who need our help and our guidance and we're just you know
Speaker: locking them away with their addiction and saying, there you go, fend for yourself. So to me, it's abandonment. And to me, it's super cruel. And you'll hear my opponent will say what I'm advocating is cruel. I wholeheartedly disagree.
Speaker: ah i i have talked to people on the front lines, people who who have recovered ah from not only homelessness, but ah drug abuse. And they echo my sentiment here. It's just you're I've heard someone say that you're sending these people to die.
Speaker: Like you're giving them four walls and freedom to you know just kill themselves by their addiction. And so it's not compassionate.
Speaker: We are sold that it's compassionate. To me, it's abandonment of people that are not well and need our help ah more than ever. And we are not providing that in my opinion.
Speaker: So let's, you mentioned, yeah obviously you obviously you and your opponent disagree on this issue. What are a few other issues specifically where where you and she disagree? Well, another ah big issue i like to talk about is ah financial responsibility. Yeah.
Speaker: You know, ah don't take it from me. ah Two of our best governors, ex-governors, sorry, ah Governor Gregoire and Governor Locke have recently in the past two months ah strongly criticized the current political leadership in Olympia.
Speaker: um Governor Gregoire said in a quote, we don't have an income problem in Washington. We have a spending problem. And gar ah Governor Locke echoed the same sentiment. He's like, what is going on Even with ah all these new taxes, we're still going to have a budget deficit.
Speaker: Governor Gregoire said that when she left office in 2013, the budget was about 30 billion and we were the envy of all ah this of this entire country in terms of our economy,
Speaker: ah booming economy. And now the budget's around 82 billion and we're in perpetual deficit. ah You know, businesses are leaving the state. One out of every four business ah businesses are looking are actively looking to leave the state of Washington right now.
Speaker: um And ah that to me is is a real red flag. And ah ah Two out of three international credit reporting agencies just gave Washington official no warning of a credit downgrade. If that downgrade goes through, that would cost everyone in Washington millions of dollars in higher interest rates.
Speaker: ah And literally, the only reason they gave was reckless spending. um reckless spending by the politicians. So it is it is crazy to me that we are basically killing the golden goose, in my opinion. i'm And i that by the way, Ben, that was just a few things. There are more like we have raided sorry, the politicians have raided Like, for instance, they raided the Climate Commitment Act this year to the tune of about $600 million dollars to help plug ah budget gaps.
Speaker: That is certainly not in the spirit of that act. You know, that act is supposed to use those funds to help us prepare for climate change and help us reduce emissions.
Speaker: That is, they just... rated that for to the tune of 600 million, like I said, to plug the budget gaps. There is so much poor financial mismanagement going on. And ah it it it it is just, it's really strangling the state and it's super worrying and we need some financial responsibility back in in ah in Washington. Last year, 2025 record taxes, ah like I said, still going to have a ah budget deficit.
Speaker: So that's another key issue for me that people are really connecting to is what is going on with the the wild spending. ah the you know like It's like we are um supporting a degenerate degenerate gambler in Olympia and they just keep coming back for to the taxpayer to make to bridge the gaps. and And my mantra on that is we need to to way better with the money we have before we ask the taxpayers for more money at this point. Like I said, $30 billion in 2013 when Gregoire left office, $82 billion dollars budget now. ah
Speaker: Governor Locke, who, like ah I said famously, um criticized or not famously, but just recently criticized the the Democrats for their poor spending. He emphasized a top-down budgetary approach when he was in office where he balanced the budget without raising taxes. He went through each program and basically the thesis was like, what is necessary for government to perform?
Speaker: And if something failed that test, then it was cut. Um, And it just goes to show you that it can be done. ah But this current drop of democratic leadership is unwilling to balance the budget and they are keep going back and asking more of the taxpayer. And I just like to note the representative, my opponent, Milen Tai, she is not only voting for these budgets, but she is ah house, ah she's in the house leadership and she's on the appropriations committee. So she's literally writing these budgets.
Speaker: They are not just happening to her. They're her record. They're her budget. And that's what I'm running against. So let's let's stick on the the tax budget issue for a second. The state income tax is ah you know a big issue um for for people watching state.
Speaker: lot of controversy there. um In your words, you know you've got a degenerate gambler ah that is the state that's that's about to get a whole lot more cash in their coffers.
Speaker: ah where Where do you fall in the state income tax issue? Can you talk about that a little bit? Um, well, so, For the the the the millionaires tax or the state income tax issue, yeah here two yep so i I oppose it, um but I'd like to start by saying i totally support higher taxes on wealth.
Speaker: ah And I recognize ah that Washington has a very regressive tax system set up. And it doesn't take me to say I recognize it. It's fact. it's you know we're We're currently ranked very highly in ah the regressivity of our tax policy.
Speaker: ah ah So that is a problem and that needs to be fixed. I object to the method of the millionaire tax. ah First of all, like I said, I support higher taxes on on wealth, but it should be a national solution, in my opinion, not a state solution, because the way we're doing it now hurts the state.
Speaker: We need to be mindful of state to state competitiveness. Like I said, there's severe economic flight going on. I know countless people that are changing their residencies. Like I said, businesses want to leave.
Speaker: I believe that the income tax, ah the lack of an income tax has been a real competitive advantage for Washington in the past. And I think we're killing the golden goose here.
Speaker: um like in terms of attack attracting high-tier tech talent, entrepreneurs, and capital investments. um you know Like I said, wealthy individuals can easily shift their primary legal residences now.
Speaker: And if the state loses tax, ah it's not just the the income, but the massive sales, property, and business tax that they already pay. um And ah even Reuven Carlisle, who's an ex-Democratic politician, he went on record recently saying, the problem for Washington isn't just a single shift like the estate tax or or other taxes, but an aggregation of taxes adopted swiftly in recent years, including new business and payroll taxes.
Speaker: So he describes a tipping point scenario, which would lead the state to lose entrepreneurial advantages that have led to like the growth of luminaries in our region like Amazon, T-Mobile, and Starbucks.
Speaker: ah And and you know personally, and I brought this up a little bit earlier, but we need, or sorry, I'm not a politician yet, I'm hoping to be one, but politicians need to do a better job with the money they take from us now before asking for more.
Speaker: ah Like I said, they raided the CCA. ah They also raided the police fund um to plug budget gaps. ah I believe that the current politicians are trying to find a boogeyman.
Speaker: And it's a classic political move to redirect the spotlight from where it should truly land in terms of their... uh reckless spending and blame it on a boogeyman in this case wealthy people uh another part i have a problem with is the the structure of the tax bill uh 90 to 95 of the millionaire tax bill is unfunded or unaccounted for um and so that is very very questionable uh so And so now my opponent might say, well, if the tax generates three and a half billion, the parallel tax relief programs that they put in cost the state one and a half billion in baseline budget losses. So the result is even though the cash isn't legally tied up, 41% of the value of the tax is accounted for by these new relief programs.
Speaker: So that's fine, but that still is 60% unaccounted for. And so that means that While these politicians will sell it saying, oh, you know, we're we're expanding the working families tax credit, which I support, and that's a good thing.
Speaker: We're expanding the small business, B&O tax credits and sales tax eliminations on stuff like toothpaste. Those are all good things, but it's such a minor portion of that bill. And they're using that as an excuse to cover up the fact that most of this money is unaccounted for.
Speaker: ah And so that is just going to like I said, feed this degenerate gambling more, degenerate gambler more than we have in Olympia. And, you know, it's it's being sold to us that's doing all these good things, but it's really the majority of it is not accounted for.
Speaker: I also think it's a very, very slippery slope to a middle class tax. ah It's a Trojan horse, I think, that will eventually expand to include everyday working ah Washingtonians.
Speaker: I would like to point out, and this is super important for your audience and everyone in Washington, during floor debates, Democrats voted down Amendment 696, which would have legally barred the state from lowering the threshold.
Speaker: So I just want to make sure that everyone understands what that means. The Democrats had a chance to give everyone the reassurance of what I was saying about the slippery slope would not happen, and they voted it down.
Speaker: So I think that tells you all you need to know about the the intent going forward. ah And there's also the ease of modification. So once the state builds this audit and collection infrastructure for a personal income tax, a future legislature can lower the exemption threshold with a simple majority vote to cover state duff deficits.
Speaker: And history shows very, very few income taxes ah in American history have stayed limited strictly to the ultra-wealthy. ah There's also the marriage penalty flaw. I don't think a lot of people know about this.
Speaker: ah The mechanics of this bill create a strict financial penalty penalty for married couples. ah so And what this means is the million-dollar deduction threshold is identical whether you file as a single individual or a married couple.
Speaker: So for example, two single professionals earning $600,000 pay zero dollars in income tax. if they get married, their combined 1.2 million income suddenly triggers ah the 9.9% tax on the excess, in this case, in this example, $200,000.
Speaker: two hundred thousand dollars ah So that's a huge concern. And also, you know, it's just a violation of voter will. um We have repeatedly, we meaning Washington voters, have repeatedly rejected income taxes, I believe 11 separate times over our history.
Speaker: um ah and And so that's going against voter will. Like I said, lawmakers intentionally inserted a clause into this bill, declaring it a quote unquote necessity for state operations.
Speaker: This is a structural trick that legally blocks the public from using a standard voter, voter referendum to freeze the law before it could take effect. um And, you know, there's just, you know, there's another Another thing, in my opinion, this bill is not a tax on all millionaires. It's a tax on wage earners that make than $1 million year. let me explain that.
Speaker: and let me explain that um People that do investments, that get investment their their ah investment income are exempt from this. This is only from people that earn a wage for $1 million dollars a year.
Speaker: So in my opinion, this bill is pro-billionaire. ah It is meaning that like billionaires don't typically make salaries because they're too smart and they make their money through investments, which typically are are taxed half the rate of income.
Speaker: And this bill, this the millionaire's tax doesn't address that at all. Like I said, it's only for wage earners that won earn 1 million ah or or more or more per year.
Speaker: And so that is ah that's kind of a summation um of of my thoughts on the millionaire tax. Thank you. So we we talked about the fiscal situation and the the millionaire tax. We talked about ah homelessness and housing.
Speaker: um If elected, what what what are the key issues that you would focus on, you know other other than those who spent time on those, that you feel are important to discuss here that that you would fight for?
Speaker: Um, well, I'm very passionate about the environment and I'm very passionate, uh, about, um, you know, the role that pollution is playing in our, in destroying our, our, our way of life and the cost to a account to the economy.
Speaker: And, uh, you know, as a nutritionist, uh, my master's in, is in nutrition, health, and wellness. So I, I've studied wellness on a public policy scale and, um,
Speaker: Yeah, clean air, clean water, and food free from toxins and pesticides ah are are you know should be inalienable rights of every Washingtonian.
Speaker: And the current um political class and in Olympia claims to be very pro-environment, but I always say, look at the actions.
Speaker: Our environment is... you know, worse and worse. And obviously I know Washington doesn't control the world's environment, but our actions on this issue ah are are weak, weak to non-existent.
Speaker: um For instance, I'd like that your audience to know that ah Washington ranks dead last in the country in renewable energy growth since 2015.
Speaker: Dead last. ah MAGA Red ah Iowa with a MAGA governor, MAGA Senate and House has tripled our renewable energy growth in this time period. Texas is number one.
Speaker: ah Washington dead last. Why? Because they passed this bill in 2019 promising us 100% renewable energy. ah There's even a quote from the person who wrote that bill ah saying, well, we knew about the transmission wire issue, but it simply slipped our mind.
Speaker: ah That's an actual quote. You can Google it. ah They've been well aware that they did not build the grid to deliver ah this renewable energy. and you know i look at things on ah on a multifaceted level, ah not just clean air, but ah it's it's so we we are at an in an affordability crisis right now, and Puget Sound Energy has raised rates 45% in the last two years.
Speaker: why Clean, homegrown, renewable energy is the cheapest power you can have and you can offer to your citizens. It is obviously not dependent on ah foreign markets like the oil ah market, foreign wars, geopolitical events. We control it.
Speaker: It is clean. It is renewable. It is cheap. It is homegrown. And that's just one example of many the current political class dropping the ball and in my opinion, not caring really about the environment. And I just make that claim because actions speak louder than words. And why is Washington dead last in the country in renewable energy growth?
Speaker: And why has nothing been done about it and nothing is continuing to be done about it? ah To me, that is just unacceptable. um You know, I could go on, i would if I get elected, I have a plan to um change the Climate Commitment Act.
Speaker: ah If anyone's not familiar with that, that was passed in 2021. It's a landmark cap and invest scheme. ah It's meant to cut emissions by raising taxes on on polluters and then using the the funds to lower emissions.
Speaker: um Emissions fell 0.45% in the first year they were checked. That was 2023 to 2024. Just everyone's clear, that's 0.45%. And it's raised $4 billion. we can't even 1% reduction emissions. That's we need cut
Speaker: and it's raised four billion dollars and we can only we can't even get one percent production in emissions that's what we need to cut to save our climate, save our planet is emissions of fossil fuel.
Speaker: This bill, i'm by the way, I'm a huge supporter of the Climate Commitment Act. I'm not saying get rid of it. I'm a huge supporter of it, but it has been mismanaged. And like I said, 546 million swept from its accounts to help balance the budget ah by Mielan Tai and her and her um people in the House and and on the Appropriations Committee.
Speaker: So this is unacceptable ah that not only are we stealing from the Climate Commitment Act to fund reckless spending, but it's not doing anything. It's not doing what it's supposed to.
Speaker: So I would institute an auditory process of when we disperse these funds, like, are they going to things that reduce emissions? And right now it's just being handed out to whoever asked for it.
Speaker: with no strings attached and no monitoring mechanisms. and Oversight ah is is nil, and that's you know been ah a feature of Washington politics for a long time now.
Speaker: ah Oversight is is minimal to to non-existent. No one's asking hard questions. and it's it's ah And sorry to loop back into the environment.
Speaker: it is ah It's unacceptable. And you know we don't you know you don't need to be a scientist to look outside and see all these wildfires and droughts and crazy weather and floods. you know People are dying now.
Speaker: This needs to be really addressed now and urgently, and we are not seeing that from our political leadership. They're just giving us lip service. They have ah press conferences announcing bills that they don't follow through on and don't care about.
Speaker: you know We need someone who cares and we need someone who will act with urgency. Because this we are in it right now. It's not coming in the future. It's right now. And we control how bad it's going to get.
Speaker: Thank you for that. I'm curious, pivot a little bit. You chose to run as an independent versus Democrat Republican. Can you take us through you know why why you chose that and what ramifications, if any of that will have you know if you're elected?
Speaker: Yeah. um Well, i i don't I think a big problem ah in politics, you know both national and obviously on the state level, are everyone is so polarized. you know and I met with a bunch of politicians before I decided to run, and most of them I met with were on the Democratic side.
Speaker: And, ah you know, a lot of these meetings I had personal connections to that that gave me a that gave me the intro to me with these people. And I was just kind of very shocked and saddened and surprised how ah tribal it was and how I kind of almost felt attacked in a lot of these things when I them I was running. And even though there's a Democrat in my district and they they were not uh, open. They were not friendly. They were like, why aren't you running as a Democrat? dua didtada Like you got to wait in line. You know, it it was very, uh, antagonistic and not supportive. And, you know, not like I was expecting them to ditch their party and support me, but you know, just, ah I was shocked by how polarized, uh, both sides were. Uh, so,
Speaker: I don't think that helps and that's not who I am. And I, you know, I'm friends with everyone and I listen to everyone and that's just a personal way I am. And I plan to bring that to office and I don't think it helps politically ah when people are in their silos.
Speaker: And i also just don't like, you know, not being able to call it like it is. I'm a big truth guy. And I felt like, for instance, if I ran as a Democrat, I wouldn't be able to call out you know bad stuff when I see it happening on that side of the aisle.
Speaker: And ah that's simply not who I am as a person. And that's not what I want to deliver as a politician. I really mean that really mean it when I say that I'm not beholden to anyone but the voters. I don't take special interest money I'm not going to you know be forced into ah you know getting into line with one party's establishment or the other.
Speaker: And that's super important to me. And it's I think it's super important to getting us out of this fiscal problem we have. ah All these problems are are just... you know I always say that like no matter where your politics lie, i think if you have the same party in power 30 to 40 years in a row, I don't know how long the Democrats been in power in Washington, but like it's been a long, long time, that you know the bad parts of human nature in politics are going to come out. and you know We see it here, like the corruption, total lack of accountability.
Speaker: ah you know We have failures. We have ah fraud cases. We have money gone missing. the people in charge get promoted, you know, instead of like voted out, that to me is unacceptable and it sends the wrong message. And that's where we get this complacency from our current political class.
Speaker: They really don't care um about following through. ah They just give us a little press conference and make us feel good. And then they just move on. They don't follow through. They don't act.
Speaker: ah They don't want to rock the boat. And that's all not what I'm about at all. And I want like to fix stuff and I want action. And we, like I said, like I've described in this call or in this talk, we have so many problems that really require a high level of urgency and we're not getting any of that from our current political class.
Speaker: And, you know, that's that's a failure of ah of of the voters and of ah in terms of we keep ah giving these people a rubber stamp to continue on. And it's also a failure that there's just not really been an alternative that, you know, makes people just kind of not even think about where they're voting. And like I said, that's why I'm running. Uh,
Speaker: is to provide that common sense alternative um that will really shake things up and get us going on solutions to you know problems that been going on far too long with, like I said, the corruption, the complacency, there's so little oversight, theres you know lack of tough questions being asked. I mean, this all needs to change. ah you know I forgot to mention like ah on the on the financial thing,
Speaker: in I believe in 2009, uh, we, uh, or, or they voted in a a state auditory process, uh, a state auditor, uh, for all budget kind of decisions.
Speaker: And, um, And that's good. And I totally support that. But the little wink, wink thing was that it was non-binding. ah So we are literally, we meaning you and i the taxpayer are literally paying for an auditor in Olympia but they're not forced to listen to him and so i don't think they've ever followed one of his recommend date or his or her i'm not sure who is the current auditor in place now but we have never followed a recommendation um we meaning the politicians and it's insane that we're paying this auditor and we're just we just did it to appease people and say hey look we're doing something uh we're you know we're mining the the the pennies that come in and
Speaker: We're really not, or the politicians are really not. And ah that would be something to change. Like the the auditor's recommendations should be binding or should be considered, you know? And so that's just another issue or sorry, another example of, you know, lack of accountability and ah lack of follow through and lack of action in my opinion.
Speaker: Yeah. Pat McCarthy, a woman, is the owner. There you go. Let's go real quick for you. There you go. Thank you. So I'm curious. We've spent a lot of time. and by the way, actually, just to close on that point, it does remind me as voters ah on the ballot, you'll see.
Speaker: we're given an opportunity to give our opinion on various financial matters. And that also is non-binding, which I feel is quite comical. Comical. It's like, why why are you asking us? Like, it literally doesn't matter. so ridiculous. And it yeah, like I said, it just shows that they don't really care about change. I always thought that was ah quite interesting. Yeah.
Speaker: So as we kind of as we kind of close out here, we've spent a lot of time talking about uh, important issues to you. I think important issues to voters. Um, we spent a lot of time talking about where you disagree, which I think is very valuable.
Speaker: Um, but as an independent, you know, you didn't attach an R to your name. So there must be areas, uh, with the way the Democrats are running the state of Washington that you agree with.
Speaker: Uh, would you spend some time talking through some of those and what you think they're doing right? Um, that's a, that's a good one. Yeah. Um, let's see here. Uh, what do I agree with?
Speaker: I mean, they're not, so to go back to the environment real quick, uh, you know, the Democrats, their, their focus is not on increasing fossil fuels and they're, they're, you know, they're acknowledging that we have a ah problem and they are,
Speaker: you know, like federal Republicans are like, you know, drill, baby drill. So the Democrats in Olympia are not that, and that's great. But, um, my, my problem with that is when they, you know, they, they, so basically they have positive opinions.
Speaker: Uh, they elicit public positive, uh, support for things that need to be changed like the environment, but they just don't follow through. And that's, good but like two percent good and we need way for we need follow through and we need action um what other positive stuff you know um i like with the i like with the millionaire tax they they say they're addressing the um the regressive the regressive nature of our tax code in Washington, but again, the devil's in the details. And it just makes me question whether they really care because, the for instance, the millionaire's tax will does not do anything for people who are getting unfairly taxed. I mean, if you're going to say, it's kind of insulting that you're saying, well, we did do something for that. We gave people no sales tax on toothpaste.
Speaker: It's like, okay, you know like is that going to really move the needle? um I think if you really care about people, ah the the poorest people are paying the highest percentage of their income in Washington, and that's the problem. And the problem is the sales tax.
Speaker: That's the main dryer driver of the regressivity of our of our tax code. Let's address that. Let's address that in a forceful matter, not just saying, oh you don't have to pay sales tax on toothpaste. Therefore, problem solved. Therefore, we care, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker: So let's have bold action and ah let's let's go for that. ah I mean, another thing, you know, there's been a lot of federal overreach and a lot of a bad federal policy coming in. And Washington has, i don't know if they've led the fight on it, but, you know, like the attack on Washington.
Speaker: and And so that's ah another thing I want to compliment the current political class in Washington. They are fighting ah the federal overreach. And, ah you know, for instance, I believe Trump is now attacking mail and balloting.
Speaker: And, you know, Washington, gosh, has been such a success story on that. and it's just ridiculous and washington is fighting that uh in the courts and i think they just got a big injunction on that uh so that's fantastic they need to continue to fight the federal overreach and uh any bad federal policy that comes through and they've been aggressive in that and i give them a lot of credit in that and that makes me proud to be here a part of part of this state um yeah so i would say those are few that come up you know
Speaker: right. Awesome. Well, thank you for that. So um listen, Michael, thanks very much for taking the time to ah chat with me. I've certainly learned a great deal. um I want to give you just a minute to kind of close, cover off anything that you think maybe we've missed, and then give an opportunity just to let people know where they can go to find out more information about you and your campaign or any events that you have coming up that they could they could come to. So I'll turn it over to you.
Speaker: Okay, great. Well, Yeah. i i Like I've said many times in this talk, ah I want the people of the 41st District to know that ah I'm running as a common sense candidate.
Speaker: ah We have problems that have been not addressed and we are continuing to suffer with these failed policies and i just want to bring common sense back into the race uh back into politics in washington at large uh i'm from here i care about this region my family's been here for generations and uh you know i m running with one constituency in mind, the voters of the 41st district.
Speaker: I will not be swayed by party establishment or special interest money. And that's that's what my campaign represents. I'm here for you, the voter, and I'm humbly asking for your vote.
Speaker: And you can find out more about my campaign on my website, which is Rosenforwa.com. And that is R-O-S-E-N.
Speaker: uh, F O R W a.com. And, uh, I post a lot of, uh, my comings and goings and my events and my policy announcements on my Instagram page, which is the same Rosen for WA R O S E N.
Speaker: f-o-r-w-a and just in case nobody somebody doesn't know spell my name that's rosen r-o-s like sam e like echo and like nancy so yeah rosen for walk come find me and a lot of events coming up and posted on uh the instagram and the website and hope to meet everyone and hear from more people and really enjoy this last part of the race coming up. It's going to be a sprint and I'm really looking forward to it and really looking forward to hearing from more of you, the boaters.
Speaker: right, Michael. Awesome. Well, thank you very much for taking the time to chat with me today. Thank you for ah running. i know it's a a huge amount of effort and commitment and you have people forget you also have a life outside of yeah running for political office. So ah on behalf everyone here Merced Island, thank you very much for putting your hat in the ring. yeah and Thanks for saying that, Ben. Wish you the the best of luck in your race.
Speaker: Okay, great, man. Great talking to you. All right. Thank you. Cheers.
