Five-second answer

Claim we investigated

State spending has doubled in the past decade alone.

Mostly true. Appropriations rose 115% in a decade, far beyond population and inflation, though spending is below its 2005-07 share of income. Sen. Chris Gildon said state spending has doubled in the past decade, beyond what inflation and population explain. The Legislature's budget records and national budget-officer data both show general-fund spending more than doubling, and growth ran about $21 billion a biennium ahead of population times inflation; relative to personal income the budget has grown since 2013-15 but remains below its 2005-07 share.

Quote or cite this fact-check

FactHub rates the claim “State spending has doubled in the past decade alone” Mostly true (high confidence): Appropriations rose 115% in a decade, far beyond population and inflation, though spending is below its 2005-07 share of income. Reviewed October 10, 2026.

One-minute summary

What the evidence establishes

  • Final general-fund appropriations rose 114.6%, from $33.9 billion (2013-15) to $72.7 billion (2023-25); national budget-officer data independently show Washington's general fund up 121.5% from FY2014 to FY2025.
  • Population times inflation grew 52%. Had spending kept that pace, 2023-25 would have been about $51.5 billion: about $21.2 billion less than actual.
  • Real spending per resident rose 30-41% depending on the price measure; the result holds from every starting year back to 2005-07.
  • Relative to personal income, the budget is 5.39% today: up from 4.78% in 2013-15 but below 5.95% in 2005-07.
  • Most of the growth above the benchmark is in K-12 ($8.1 billion) and human services (about $8.3 billion), led by child care and early learning, behavioral health, long-term care and developmental disabilities.
  • Low-income health care and corrections grew more slowly than population times inflation.
  • School districts' real all-source operating revenue per student rose about a third; the state share rose while local levy money fell.
  • Revenue tracked spending until 2023-25, when spending outran collections by $5.6 billion. Without tax laws passed since 2013, revenue would have covered a population-and-inflation budget but not the actual one.
Important context: The state operating budget is paid mostly from the Near General Fund, a group of accounts funded by sales, business, property and other state taxes. This check measures that budget from the Legislature's own Legislative Budget Notes and compares 2013-15 with 2023-25, the most recent completed biennium; the 2025-27 budget, now $80.2 billion, is still under way. The question matters because Washington enacted about $9 billion in new taxes over four years in 2025 and faces another projected shortfall, and both parties cite budget growth, in opposite directions.

Inflation and population growth are factors, but the governor’s administration is leaving out the fact that state spending has doubled in the past decade alone.

Chris Gildon, Washington state senator (R-Puyallup), Senate Republican operating budget lead Senate Republican Caucus press release · · Assertion

Context: Gildon issued the statement in reaction to budget instructions from Gov. Bob Ferguson's administration asking agencies to plan reductions for a projected shortfall in the next operating budget. Just before the quoted sentence he said Ferguson had signed billions of dollars in new taxes that taxpayers were told would stabilize the budget, yet the state faced a third projected shortfall in as many years. Immediately after it he cited former Gov. Christine Gregoire's remark that the budget went from $33 billion when she left office in 2013 to over $80 billion now, and said state government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The caucus page is labeled as an archived post maintained for historical reference.

Source: Washington State Senate Republican Caucus (Sen. Chris Gildon) · Archived copy · View in the dataset

The evidence

The conclusion rests on the combined record. Expand each item to see its role and limitations.

Independence note: This check uses 7 methods across 7 institutions and 1 country or international grouping.
Evidence map
Method Institution / country Year(s) What it shows Key limitation Primary links
FactHub compiled final Near General Fund appropriations (including supplemental budgets) for every biennium from the Legislative Budget Notes and compared 2013-15 with 2023-25, the last completed biennium. Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP), FactHub United States 2015, 2025 Final appropriations rose from $33.90 billion in 2013-15 to $72.74 billion in 2023-25, up 114.6%. Comparing the budgets as first enacted gives 107.6%. The 2025-27 budget stands at $80.20 billion after the 2026 supplemental. These are the Legislature's figures for its own budgets: appropriations (spending authority), not audited expenditures. The set of accounts counted as the Near General Fund grew over time; the largest addition, the Workforce Education Investment Account, was about 1.5% of the budget when added. Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP) Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP) FactHub
FactHub compared Washington's general fund expenditures as reported to the National Association of State Budget Officers for fiscal 2014, 2019 and 2025 with eight other states and the 50-state total. National Association of State Budget Officers, FactHub United States 2014, 2019, 2025 NASBO's figures show Washington's general fund grew 121.5% from FY2014 to FY2025, versus 76.9% for all states combined; among the comparison states only Utah (134.3%) and California (129.6%) grew faster. Over FY2019 to FY2025 Washington grew 55.3% versus 47.2% for all states: above average but not an outlier, with Oregon, Utah, California and Florida growing faster. NASBO publishes what each state reports, under each state's own definition of "general fund"; Washington's figure covers the General Fund-State only and is by fiscal year. Figures are nominal. A different publisher, but the underlying numbers still originate with the state. National Association of State Budget Officers National Association of State Budget Officers FactHub
FactHub grew 2013-15 appropriations by state population (OFM) times inflation and compared the result with actual 2023-25 appropriations, using three price measures: the U.S. and Seattle consumer price indexes and the federal price index for what state and local governments buy. The comparison was repeated from every earlier starting biennium back to 2005-07. Washington Office of Financial Management, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, FactHub United States 2006, 2014, 2024 Population times U.S. consumer prices grew 52.0%. Had appropriations kept that pace, 2023-25 would have been $51.53 billion rather than $72.74 billion. Real spending per resident rose 41.2% using U.S. consumer prices, 30.2% using Seattle prices, and 39.6% using the government price index. From every starting biennium since 2005-07, appropriations grew faster than population times inflation; from the pre-recession 2005-07 base, real per-resident growth is smaller (23.8% with U.S. consumer prices, 13.8% with the government price index). Population times inflation is a common yardstick, not a measure of what services should cost: it ignores an aging population, enrollment trends and new obligations. Benchmarks are pegged to each biennium's middle year. Washington State Office of Financial Management U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis via FRED FactHub
FactHub divided appropriations by Washington personal income (BEA) for each biennium. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, FactHub United States 2006, 2014, 2024 The general-fund budget equaled 5.95% of personal income in 2005-07, fell to 4.78% in 2013-15 and rose to 5.39% in 2023-25. Since 2011-13 the budget has grown faster than personal income (114.6% vs 90.3% from 2013-15); measured from 2005-07 it grew more slowly (141.1% vs 166.2%). The Northwest Progressive Institute's statement that the budget has shrunk in relative terms is accurate against a 2005 starting point, but not for the past decade. Personal income measures residents' income, not the state's tax base; Washington's main taxes apply to sales and business receipts, which have grown more slowly than income. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Northwest Progressive Institute FactHub
FactHub applied the population-times-inflation benchmark to each functional area and to program groups regrouped across agency reorganizations, and summed the Legislature's split of each budget into the cost of continuing current services (maintenance level) and new policy decisions. Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP), FactHub United States 2015, 2025 2023-25 appropriations were about $21.2 billion above the benchmark. K-12 accounts for $8.1 billion, human services for about $8.3 billion and governmental operations for $1.7 billion. Within human services, children, early learning and economic services (including child-care subsidies) are $3.2 billion above the benchmark, behavioral health $2.1 billion, long-term care $2.0 billion (clients rose about 27%, so most is cost per client) and developmental disabilities $1.0 billion. Low-income health care in the Health Care Authority and Corrections grew less than the benchmark. Commerce (largely housing and homelessness) and the Department of Revenue (the new Working Families Tax Credit) explain most of governmental operations. Across the 2015-2025 budgets, continuing current services added about $20.11 billion and new policy about $18.66 billion. Program groupings follow agencies through the 2018 creation of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the move of community behavioral health to the Health Care Authority; some components (child-care subsidies in 2013-15, the court-ordered Trueblood competency costs) could not be separated. The maintenance-versus-policy split includes one-time items. Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP) Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP) FactHub
FactHub divided school district General Fund revenue by source (OSPI F-196 reports) by enrollment for 2013-14 and 2023-24 and adjusted for inflation. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, FactHub United States 2014, 2024 All-source operating revenue per student rose 77.4% in dollars and 33.9% after inflation (about 31% without COVID relief). State money per student rose 47.5% after inflation while local money fell 12.8%, reflecting the McCleary levy swap; enrollment grew only 4.6% (FTE). Local operating levies fell $1.05 billion in 2019, then recovered in dollar terms by 2024. Over the full decade, lower local money offset roughly 6% of the state increase. Teacher FTEs rose 14.9% and classified staff 24.0%. Operating (General Fund) revenue only; bond and capital levies are excluded. Federal 2023-24 revenue still includes about $0.43 billion of COVID relief. School years are aligned to the calendar year in which they end. Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction FactHub
FactHub compared appropriations with general-fund revenue collections (ERFC), estimated how much 2023-25 revenue came from tax laws enacted after 2013-15, and asked whether revenue from the pre-2013 tax base would have covered spending on each benchmark path. Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP), FactHub United States 2014, 2024 Revenue rose 95.7% from 2013-15 to 2023-25 and tracked appropriations until 2023-25, when it rose 3.7% while appropriations rose 14.8%, leaving a $5.6 billion gap covered by reserves and transfers. Tax laws enacted from 2013 to 2024 raised an estimated $8.15 billion of 2023-25 revenue (range $7.05-9.25 billion), led by the 2017 state school levy (about $4.2 billion). Without them, revenue would have been about $58.99 billion: enough for spending that tracked population and inflation ($51.53 billion, about $7.46 billion to spare) but about $5.53 billion short of spending that tracked personal income and $13.75 billion short of actual appropriations. The 2025 tax package adds about $4.3 billion in 2025-27 and about $9 billion over four years. The tax-legislation total is an estimate: the largest items are measured (capital gains and workforce-education surcharge receipts) or modeled from property-tax collections, but several smaller items scale first-year fiscal estimates. The counterfactual is static: it ignores the economic effects of the taxes and the spending choices a smaller budget would have forced. Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP) Washington Research Council FactHub
1. The Legislature's own records show general-fund appropriations more than doubled

Final appropriations rose from $33.90 billion in 2013-15 to $72.74 billion in 2023-25, up 114.6%. Comparing the budgets as first enacted gives 107.6%. The 2025-27 budget stands at $80.20 billion after the 2026 supplemental.

Limit: These are the Legislature's figures for its own budgets: appropriations (spending authority), not audited expenditures. The set of accounts counted as the Near General Fund grew over time; the largest addition, the Workforce Education Investment Account, was about 1.5% of the budget when added.

Verify: 2015 Legislative Budget Notes 2025 Legislative Budget Notes Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

2. An independent national record shows the same doubling, and faster growth than most states

NASBO's figures show Washington's general fund grew 121.5% from FY2014 to FY2025, versus 76.9% for all states combined; among the comparison states only Utah (134.3%) and California (129.6%) grew faster. Over FY2019 to FY2025 Washington grew 55.3% versus 47.2% for all states: above average but not an outlier, with Oregon, Utah, California and Florida growing faster.

Limit: NASBO publishes what each state reports, under each state's own definition of "general fund"; Washington's figure covers the General Fund-State only and is by fiscal year. Figures are nominal. A different publisher, but the underlying numbers still originate with the state.

Verify: The Fiscal Survey of States, Spring 2026 (Table 1, Fiscal 2025 general fund, actual) The Fiscal Survey of States, Spring 2015 (Table 3, Fiscal 2014 general fund, actual) Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

3. Growth far exceeded population plus inflation, under every inflation measure and starting year

Population times U.S. consumer prices grew 52.0%. Had appropriations kept that pace, 2023-25 would have been $51.53 billion rather than $72.74 billion. Real spending per resident rose 41.2% using U.S. consumer prices, 30.2% using Seattle prices, and 39.6% using the government price index. From every starting biennium since 2005-07, appropriations grew faster than population times inflation; from the pre-recession 2005-07 base, real per-resident growth is smaller (23.8% with U.S. consumer prices, 13.8% with the government price index).

Limit: Population times inflation is a common yardstick, not a measure of what services should cost: it ignores an aging population, enrollment trends and new obligations. Benchmarks are pegged to each biennium's middle year.

Verify: April 1 population estimates (Population Trends, Table 1) Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0) State and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment: chain-type price index (B829RG3A086NBEA) Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

Washington budget vs. income and population × inflationWashington's final Near General Fund appropriations, population times US inflation, and state personal income by biennium, each indexed to 2013-15 = 100.{"width":960,"height":540,"plot":{"left":90,"top":70,"right":926,"bottom":482},"yDomain":[50,250],"series":[{"name":"NGF appropriations","color":"#176b87"},{"name":"Population x US inflation","color":"#b6542c"},{"name":"WA personal income","color":"#684b9b"}],"points":[{"series":0,"x":90,"y":401.66,"xLabel":"2005-07","yLabel":"89"},{"series":1,"x":90,"y":424.32,"xLabel":"2005-07","yLabel":"78"},{"series":2,"x":90,"y":437.71,"xLabel":"2005-07","yLabel":"71.5"},{"series":0,"x":182.89,"y":386.83,"xLabel":"2007-09","yLabel":"96.2"},{"series":1,"x":182.89,"y":408.25,"xLabel":"2007-09","yLabel":"85.8"},{"series":2,"x":182.89,"y":420.61,"xLabel":"2007-09","yLabel":"79.8"},{"series":0,"x":275.78,"y":401.04,"xLabel":"2009-11","yLabel":"89.3"},{"series":1,"x":275.78,"y":402.9,"xLabel":"2009-11","yLabel":"88.4"},{"series":2,"x":275.78,"y":417.73,"xLabel":"2009-11","yLabel":"81.2"},{"series":0,"x":368.67,"y":393.83,"xLabel":"2011-13","yLabel":"92.8"},{"series":1,"x":368.67,"y":390.12,"xLabel":"2011-13","yLabel":"94.6"},{"series":2,"x":368.67,"y":398.57,"xLabel":"2011-13","yLabel":"90.5"},{"series":0,"x":461.56,"y":379,"xLabel":"2013-15","yLabel":"100"},{"series":1,"x":461.56,"y":379,"xLabel":"2013-15","yLabel":"100"},{"series":2,"x":461.56,"y":379,"xLabel":"2013-15","yLabel":"100"},{"series":0,"x":554.44,"y":351.19,"xLabel":"2015-17","yLabel":"113.5"},{"series":1,"x":554.44,"y":369.32,"xLabel":"2015-17","yLabel":"104.7"},{"series":2,"x":554.44,"y":353.46,"xLabel":"2015-17","yLabel":"112.4"},{"series":0,"x":647.33,"y":312.46,"xLabel":"2017-19","yLabel":"132.3"},{"series":1,"x":647.33,"y":352.22,"xLabel":"2017-19","yLabel":"113"},{"series":2,"x":647.33,"y":321.94,"xLabel":"2017-19","yLabel":"127.7"},{"series":0,"x":740.22,"y":265.49,"xLabel":"2019-21","yLabel":"155.1"},{"series":1,"x":740.22,"y":337.18,"xLabel":"2019-21","yLabel":"120.3"},{"series":2,"x":740.22,"y":279.5,"xLabel":"2019-21","yLabel":"148.3"},{"series":0,"x":833.11,"y":199.99,"xLabel":"2021-23","yLabel":"186.9"},{"series":1,"x":833.11,"y":299.07,"xLabel":"2021-23","yLabel":"138.8"},{"series":2,"x":833.11,"y":237.07,"xLabel":"2021-23","yLabel":"168.9"},{"series":0,"x":926,"y":142.92,"xLabel":"2023-25","yLabel":"214.6"},{"series":1,"x":926,"y":271.88,"xLabel":"2023-25","yLabel":"152"},{"series":2,"x":926,"y":192.98,"xLabel":"2023-25","yLabel":"190.3"}]}Washington budget vs. income and population × inflation501001502002502005-072007-092011-132013-152015-172017-192021-232023-25BienniumNGF appropriationsPopulation x US inflationWA personal income2013-15 = 100FactHub · Index (2013-15 = 100)
Washington's general-fund appropriations, population times U.S. inflation and personal income, each indexed to 2013-15 = 100. By 2023-25 the budget reached 214.6, personal income 190.3 and population times inflation 152.0. From the earlier 2005-07 base the budget still outgrew population times inflation but not income. View source chart
4. Measured against the state economy, the answer depends on the starting year

The general-fund budget equaled 5.95% of personal income in 2005-07, fell to 4.78% in 2013-15 and rose to 5.39% in 2023-25. Since 2011-13 the budget has grown faster than personal income (114.6% vs 90.3% from 2013-15); measured from 2005-07 it grew more slowly (141.1% vs 166.2%). The Northwest Progressive Institute's statement that the budget has shrunk in relative terms is accurate against a 2005 starting point, but not for the past decade.

Limit: Personal income measures residents' income, not the state's tax base; Washington's main taxes apply to sales and business receipts, which have grown more slowly than income.

Verify: State annual personal income (SAINC1) Washington State’s budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials (May 18, 2026) Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

In relative terms — the only terms worth using for comparisons — the state budget has gotten smaller, even with recent tax and fee increases adopted by the people's elected representatives.

Andrew Villeneuve, Founder and executive director, Northwest Progressive Institute Northwest Progressive Institute Cascadia Advocate blog post · · Assertion

Context: The sentence opens the post and follows its criticism of former Gov. Christine Gregoire, radio host Charlie Harger and Seattle Times editorial writers for comparing state budgets across eras in absolute dollars. The post supports it with Office of Financial Management figures for Washington state and local government expenditures per $1,000 of personal income: $189.98 in 2005 and $170.25 in 2023. That is a broader measure (state and local, all funds, annual) than the state Near General Fund in this dataset. The post was updated on June 4, 2026.

Source: Northwest Progressive Institute (Andrew Villeneuve) · Archived copy · View in the dataset

5. About $21 billion a biennium sits above the benchmark, mostly in K-12 and human services

2023-25 appropriations were about $21.2 billion above the benchmark. K-12 accounts for $8.1 billion, human services for about $8.3 billion and governmental operations for $1.7 billion. Within human services, children, early learning and economic services (including child-care subsidies) are $3.2 billion above the benchmark, behavioral health $2.1 billion, long-term care $2.0 billion (clients rose about 27%, so most is cost per client) and developmental disabilities $1.0 billion. Low-income health care in the Health Care Authority and Corrections grew less than the benchmark. Commerce (largely housing and homelessness) and the Department of Revenue (the new Working Families Tax Credit) explain most of governmental operations. Across the 2015-2025 budgets, continuing current services added about $20.11 billion and new policy about $18.66 billion.

Limit: Program groupings follow agencies through the 2018 creation of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the move of community behavioral health to the Health Care Authority; some components (child-care subsidies in 2013-15, the court-ordered Trueblood competency costs) could not be separated. The maintenance-versus-policy split includes one-time items.

Verify: 2015 Legislative Budget Notes 2025 Legislative Budget Notes Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

Washington budget growth above population x inflation, by area2023-25 Near General Fund appropriations minus 2013-15 appropriations grown by population x US inflation, by functional area, in $ millions.{"width":960,"height":540,"plot":{"left":90,"top":70,"right":926,"bottom":482},"yDomain":[-2000,10000],"series":[{"name":"Value","color":"#176b87"}],"points":[{"series":0,"x":128,"y":135.23,"xLabel":"Public Schools (K-12)","yLabel":"8100"},{"series":0,"x":204,"y":200.95,"xLabel":"Other Human Services","yLabel":"6186"},{"series":0,"x":280,"y":332.68,"xLabel":"Dept of Social \u0026 Health Services","yLabel":"2349"},{"series":0,"x":356,"y":365.03,"xLabel":"Higher Education","yLabel":"1407"},{"series":0,"x":432,"y":356.03,"xLabel":"Governmental Operations","yLabel":"1669"},{"series":0,"x":508,"y":391.6,"xLabel":"Special Appropriations","yLabel":"633"},{"series":0,"x":584,"y":388.85,"xLabel":"Natural Resources","yLabel":"713"},{"series":0,"x":660,"y":405.16,"xLabel":"Judicial","yLabel":"238"},{"series":0,"x":736,"y":411.14,"xLabel":"Legislative","yLabel":"64"},{"series":0,"x":812,"y":411.14,"xLabel":"Transportation","yLabel":"64"},{"series":0,"x":888,"y":420.37,"xLabel":"Other Education","yLabel":"-205"}]}Washington budget growth above population x inflation, by area-2,00002,0004,0006,0008,00010,000Public Schools (K-12)Other Human ServicesHigher EducationGovernmental OperationsNatural ResourcesJudicialTransportationOther EducationFunctional areaGrew exactly with population x inflationFactHub · Above benchmark, 2023-25 ($ millions)
Spending in 2023-25 above what 2013-15 spending grown by population times inflation would be, by area: about $21.2 billion in total. K-12 partly reflects the shift from local levies; see the K-12 evidence. View source chart
6. School districts' own books show real per-student funding up about a third, not doubled

All-source operating revenue per student rose 77.4% in dollars and 33.9% after inflation (about 31% without COVID relief). State money per student rose 47.5% after inflation while local money fell 12.8%, reflecting the McCleary levy swap; enrollment grew only 4.6% (FTE). Local operating levies fell $1.05 billion in 2019, then recovered in dollar terms by 2024. Over the full decade, lower local money offset roughly 6% of the state increase. Teacher FTEs rose 14.9% and classified staff 24.0%.

Limit: Operating (General Fund) revenue only; bond and capital levies are excluded. Federal 2023-24 revenue still includes about $0.43 billion of COVID relief. School years are aligned to the calendar year in which they end.

Verify: 10-year F-196 historical data, 2024-25 (school district General Fund revenue by source and enrollment) Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

7. Revenue kept pace until 2023-25; tax increases since 2013 fund the growth beyond population and inflation

Revenue rose 95.7% from 2013-15 to 2023-25 and tracked appropriations until 2023-25, when it rose 3.7% while appropriations rose 14.8%, leaving a $5.6 billion gap covered by reserves and transfers. Tax laws enacted from 2013 to 2024 raised an estimated $8.15 billion of 2023-25 revenue (range $7.05-9.25 billion), led by the 2017 state school levy (about $4.2 billion). Without them, revenue would have been about $58.99 billion: enough for spending that tracked population and inflation ($51.53 billion, about $7.46 billion to spare) but about $5.53 billion short of spending that tracked personal income and $13.75 billion short of actual appropriations. The 2025 tax package adds about $4.3 billion in 2025-27 and about $9 billion over four years.

Limit: The tax-legislation total is an estimate: the largest items are measured (capital gains and workforce-education surcharge receipts) or modeled from property-tax collections, but several smaller items scale first-year fiscal estimates. The counterfactual is static: it ignores the economic effects of the taxes and the spending choices a smaller budget would have forced.

Verify: Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast, September 2026 2025 Legislative Budget Notes New report: Historically large tax package rushed through at the end of session Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

Washington general-fund appropriations minus revenue, by bienniumFinal Near General Fund appropriations minus NGF-O revenue collections for each biennium, 2005-07 to 2023-25, in $ millions.{"width":960,"height":540,"plot":{"left":90,"top":70,"right":926,"bottom":482},"yDomain":[-2000,6000],"series":[{"name":"Value","color":"#176b87"}],"points":[{"series":0,"x":131.8,"y":378.69,"xLabel":"2005-07","yLabel":"6"},{"series":0,"x":215.4,"y":258.34,"xLabel":"2007-09","yLabel":"2343"},{"series":0,"x":299,"y":292.07,"xLabel":"2009-11","yLabel":"1688"},{"series":0,"x":382.6,"y":360.72,"xLabel":"2011-13","yLabel":"355"},{"series":0,"x":466.2,"y":399.86,"xLabel":"2013-15","yLabel":"-405"},{"series":0,"x":549.8,"y":407.94,"xLabel":"2015-17","yLabel":"-562"},{"series":0,"x":633.4,"y":442.35,"xLabel":"2017-19","yLabel":"-1230"},{"series":0,"x":717,"y":408.36,"xLabel":"2019-21","yLabel":"-570"},{"series":0,"x":800.6,"y":450.48,"xLabel":"2021-23","yLabel":"-1388"},{"series":0,"x":884.2,"y":90.24,"xLabel":"2023-25","yLabel":"5607"}]}Washington general-fund appropriations minus revenue, by biennium-200002000400060002005-072007-092011-132013-152015-172017-192021-232023-25BienniumAppropriations equal collectionsFactHub · Appropriations minus revenue ($ millions)
Appropriations minus revenue collections by biennium. Revenue kept up with or exceeded appropriations from 2013-15 to 2021-23; in 2023-25 appropriations exceeded collections by about $5.6 billion, covered by reserves and transfers, ahead of the 2025 tax package. View source chart

Common questions

“2013-15 was a post-recession low point, so starting there exaggerates the growth.”

It was a low point, which is why the dataset repeats the comparison from every starting biennium. From each one, including the pre-recession 2005-07 budget, appropriations grew faster than population times inflation. The low base matters most for the comparison with personal income, which flips depending on the start year (evidence 4).

“The growth was mostly the court-ordered McCleary school funding.”

K-12 is the largest single area ($8.1 billion of the $21.2 billion above the benchmark), and part of the state increase replaced local levies. But spending outside K-12 grew faster than K-12 itself (122.5% vs 104.9%), and school districts' own books show real all-source funding per student up about a third, with lower local money offsetting only about 6% of the state increase over the decade.

“Government costs rise faster than consumer prices, so CPI understates the inflation the state faces.”

Over this decade that is not what the data show: the federal price index for state and local government purchases rose 34.0% from 2014 to 2024, close to the 32.5% rise in consumer prices, and real per-resident growth is 39.6% with it. Over the longer 2006-2024 period government prices did outpace consumer prices (69.3% vs 55.6%), which shrinks real per-resident growth from 2005-07 to 13.8%.

“Relative to the economy, the budget has shrunk (Northwest Progressive Institute).”

Against 2005, yes: the general-fund budget was 5.95% of personal income in 2005-07 and 5.39% in 2023-25, and the institute's broader state-and-local measure shows the same. But the share has risen every biennium since its 2013-15 low of 4.78%, and over the decade the budget grew faster than income. Both statements can be accurate; they use different starting points.

“Rising caseloads and Medicaid drove the growth.”

Medicaid expansion added hundreds of thousands of enrollees, but general-fund spending on low-income health care in the Health Care Authority grew less than population times inflation, as did Corrections. The growth above the benchmark is concentrated in child care and early learning, behavioral health (partly court-ordered), long-term care (mostly higher cost per client rather than more clients), developmental disabilities, housing grants and a new tax credit.

“Revenue grew on its own; the state did not need new taxes to pay for this.”

Revenue from the pre-2013 tax base would have grown about 72%, more than population times inflation (52%) but less than personal income (90%), because the sales tax does not reach most services. Tax laws passed since 2013 raised an estimated $7-9 billion of 2023-25 revenue. Those taxes, plus reserves in 2023-25, paid for spending above the population-and-inflation path; the 2025 package is in addition.

“Are the critics' own numbers right?”

Mostly, with caveats. Former Gov. Christine Gregoire's figure, quoted by Sen. Gildon, that the budget went from $33 billion when she left office in 2013 to over $80 billion now compares different budgets: her last (2011-13) ended at $31.5 billion; $33.6 billion was the 2013-15 budget enacted after she left. The Washington Policy Center's statement that the 2025-27 budget is 55% above a population-plus-inflation benchmark of $51.6 billion does not show its method; using 2026 population and 2025 U.S. consumer prices, the benchmark is at least about $53.8 billion, which would put the gap nearer 49%, though a different price index could reproduce WPC's figure.

Conclusion

The core of Sen. Gildon's claim holds. Washington's general-fund appropriations rose from $33.9 billion in 2013-15 to $72.7 billion in 2023-25, a 114.6% increase, and an independent national record (NASBO) shows Washington's general fund up 121.5% over a similar span, faster than all but two of eight comparison states and well ahead of the 50-state total. His qualifier also holds: population and inflation are factors, but population times consumer prices grew 52%, so they explain well under half of the increase. Real spending per resident rose about 30-41% depending on the price measure, and the result survives every starting year back to 2005-07. The claim earns "mostly true" rather than "true" because one reasonable yardstick points the other way. Washington is a fast-growing, high-income state, and against residents' income the budget is 5.39% today versus 5.95% before the Great Recession. The Northwest Progressive Institute is right that the budget is smaller relative to the economy than in 2005, and its critics are right that it has grown faster than the economy for the past decade. Which framing a reader prefers depends on whether the low-spending years after the recession were a trough or a reset; the data cannot settle that. Where did the money go? About $21 billion of 2023-25 spending is above the population-and-inflation path. K-12 is the largest piece ($8.1 billion), partly court-ordered and partly a shift from local levies, though school districts' own books show real per-student funding up about a third. Most of the rest is in human services: child care and early learning, behavioral health, long-term care and developmental disabilities, much of it higher rates and wages per client rather than more clients, plus housing grants and a new tax credit. Low-income health care and corrections, often cited as cost drivers, grew more slowly than the benchmark. The Legislature's own bookkeeping attributes roughly half of the decade's growth to new policy decisions and half to carrying forward existing services, though the latter includes earlier policy choices. Revenue tells the rest of the story. Collections roughly kept pace with appropriations until 2023-25, when spending outran revenue by $5.6 billion. Tax laws passed between 2013 and 2024 raised an estimated $7-9 billion of 2023-25 revenue; without them, the old tax base would have covered a budget that grew with population and inflation, but not one that grew with income, and not the budget the Legislature actually adopted. The 2025 tax package comes on top of that. This answers a narrower question than whether the spending was worth it: it shows that the tax increases paid for growth beyond population and inflation, not that the growth was unjustified. What this check does not establish: whether the added spending produced commensurate results (outcomes in schools, behavioral health and housing are the subject of separate FactHub checks), how much of the growth was legally compelled rather than chosen, or how the estimated revenue effects of individual tax laws would change with full fiscal-note detail.

How we checked

  1. Defined the claim as: Washington's state general-fund (Near General Fund) spending roughly doubled over about ten years, by more than population growth and inflation explain. Tested it with the most recent completed decade, 2013-15 to 2023-25, and repeated it from every earlier starting biennium.
  2. Used the Legislature's Legislative Budget Notes for final appropriations, and cross-checked the decade growth against NASBO's independently compiled state general fund data.
  3. Built benchmarks from OFM population, BLS consumer prices (U.S. and Seattle) and the BEA state and local government price index, and compared spending with BEA personal income.
  4. Broke growth above the benchmark into functional areas and reorganization-adjusted program groups, and summed the Legislature's maintenance-level and policy splits for each budget.
  5. Checked K-12 against school district financial reports (OSPI) to separate state growth from the shift away from local levies.
  6. Compared spending with ERFC revenue collections, estimated the yield of tax laws enacted 2013-2024, and computed revenue from the pre-2013 tax base, reporting low, central and high estimates.
  7. Recorded the claim and the main counter-claim verbatim with archived copies, and checked figures used by critics on both sides.
  8. Recorded limitations for every evidence line, including basket changes, appropriations versus spending, and estimated values.

Editorial note: Scope: This article checks Sen. Chris Gildon's June 9, 2026 statement that state spending has doubled in the past decade, which he made while acknowledging that inflation and population growth are factors (the full quote and its context appear above). It checks whether Washington's state general-fund spending doubled in about a decade and whether population and inflation explain the increase. It does not judge whether the spending was worthwhile or whether specific programs met their goals, and it does not evaluate local-government or federal spending except where noted. Independence: Seven evidence lines draw on five independent record-keepers (the Legislature's fiscal committees, the National Association of State Budget Officers, federal statistical agencies BLS and BEA with the state Office of Financial Management, school districts' reports to OSPI, and the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council), using four methods (appropriations records, cross-state expenditure reports, population, price and income benchmarks, and revenue collections). All are U.S. sources covering 2005 to 2025; no non-U.S. source applies to a state budget question. External review: No external specialist review (state budget analyst, public-finance economist) has been recorded. Political context: The claim comes from the Senate Republican budget lead, and the strongest counter-claim from a progressive think tank. FactHub tested both against the same data and reports where each is right. To verify yourself: (1) open the cited dataset and its build scripts and rerun them; (2) check final appropriations against the Legislative Budget Notes pages cited in each table; (3) compare the revenue table with ERFC Table 3.17; (4) check NASBO's Washington rows; (5) read the tax-legislation table's confidence column before relying on the revenue counterfactual. Challenge this fact-check: Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response through FactHub's challenge submission process.

Expert-review status

No external specialist review has been recorded for this article.

Funding and conflicts

Funding: No external funding was received for this article or its dataset.

Ownership: FactHub prepared the dataset, analysis and article. Underlying figures remain attributable to the Washington Legislature, ERFC, OFM, BLS, BEA, OSPI and NASBO.

Conflicts: No financial conflict has been identified. FactHub has no affiliation with the Senate Republican Caucus, the Northwest Progressive Institute, the Washington Policy Center, the Washington Research Council or any campaign on state taxes, including the I-645 ballot measure.

Sources

Sources are labeled by their role so readers can evaluate the evidence independently.

  1. Curated dataset and saved analyses behind every figure in this article FactHub. Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27 (dataset version 2)

    All tables, calculations, source links, archived copies and the build scripts that reproduce them.

  2. Primary record of appropriations Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP). 2015 Legislative Budget Notes

    Final 2013-15 Near General Fund appropriations, functional areas and agency detail (p. O-23 and following).

    Archived copy captured October 9, 2026
  3. Primary record of appropriations Washington State Legislature fiscal committees (LEAP). 2025 Legislative Budget Notes

    Final 2023-25 appropriations and functional areas (p. O-16), the 2023-25 balance sheet (p. O-3) and the 2025 revenue legislation list (p. O-9).

    Archived copy captured October 9, 2026
  4. Official revenue record Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council. Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast, September 2026

    Table 3.17: Near General Fund-Outlook collections by biennium, restated to today's account definitions.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  5. Population benchmark Washington State Office of Financial Management. April 1 population estimates (Population Trends, Table 1)

    Official state population estimates used to scale the benchmark.

    Archived copy captured October 9, 2026
  6. Inflation benchmark U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0)

    Annual average consumer prices; the dataset also uses the Seattle-area index (CUURS49DSA0).

    Archived copy captured October 9, 2026
  7. Alternative inflation measure U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis via FRED. State and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment: chain-type price index (B829RG3A086NBEA)

    Prices of what state and local governments buy, mostly employee compensation.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  8. Size of the state economy U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. State annual personal income (SAINC1)

    Washington personal income by year, used for the share-of-income comparison.

    Archived copy captured October 9, 2026
  9. Independent cross-state record National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States, Spring 2026 (Table 1, Fiscal 2025 general fund, actual)

    General fund expenditures by state as reported to NASBO; independent of the Legislature's budget notes.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  10. Independent cross-state record (base year) National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States, Spring 2015 (Table 3, Fiscal 2014 general fund, actual)

    FY2014 general fund expenditures by state.

    Archived copy captured September 10, 2024
  11. School district financial records Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. 10-year F-196 historical data, 2024-25 (school district General Fund revenue by source and enrollment)

    District operating revenue by local, state and federal source; independent of the state budget documents.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  12. Claim provenance Washington State Senate Republican Caucus. As predicted, majority’s ‘house of cards’ budget leads to deficit (Sen. Chris Gildon, June 9, 2026)

    The press release containing the claim checked here.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  13. Opposing claim Northwest Progressive Institute. Washington State’s budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials (May 18, 2026)

    The strongest published counter-argument: measured relative to personal income, the budget has shrunk.

    Archived copy captured July 8, 2026
  14. Critic's benchmark estimate Washington Policy Center. No, Washington’s budget is not shrinking despite progressive claims (Ryan Frost, May 26, 2026)

    Publishes a population-plus-inflation benchmark for the 2025-27 budget without showing its calculation.

    Archived copy captured October 10, 2026
  15. Size of the 2025 tax package over four years Washington Research Council. New report: Historically large tax package rushed through at the end of session

    Estimates the 2025 package raises outlook revenue by $9.0 billion over four years.

    Archived copy captured May 7, 2026
  16. FactHub dataset Washington Near General Fund budget and revenue by biennium, 2005-07 to 2025-27, with benchmarks, growth drivers, K-12 and cross-state comparisons

    • Tables: ngf-by-biennium, benchmarks

      Saved analysis growth-2013-to-2023

    • Tables: base-year-sensitivity

      Saved analysis base-year-sensitivity

    • Tables: benchmarks

      Saved analysis real-per-capita-sl-deflator

    • Tables: ngf-by-biennium, benchmarks

      Saved analysis ngf-share-of-income

    • Tables: ngf-by-area, benchmarks

      Saved analysis excess-above-benchmark-by-area

    • Tables: program-groups

      Saved analysis program-group-excess

    • Tables: ml-policy-steps

      Saved analysis ml-vs-policy

    • Tables: ngf-by-area

      Saved analysis ngf-excluding-k12

    • Tables: k12-district-revenue

      Saved analysis k12-per-pupil-by-source

    • Tables: revenue-by-biennium, ngf-by-biennium

      Saved analysis revenue-vs-spending

    • Tables: tax-legislation

      Saved analysis post-2013-tax-legislation

    • Tables: revenue-by-biennium, tax-legislation

      Saved analysis existing-base-counterfactual

    • Tables: nasbo-general-fund

      Saved analysis nasbo-cross-state

    • Inflation and population growth are factors, but the governor’s administration is leaving out the fact that state spending has doubled in the past decade alone.
      Chris Gildon, Washington state senator (R-Puyallup), Senate Republican operating budget lead, · In the dataset
    • In relative terms — the only terms worth using for comparisons — the state budget has gotten smaller, even with recent tax and fee increases adopted by the people's elected representatives.
      Andrew Villeneuve, Founder and executive director, Northwest Progressive Institute, · In the dataset
  17. FactHub chart wa-general-fund-growth-index
  18. FactHub chart wa-ngf-above-benchmark-by-area
  19. FactHub chart wa-ngf-spending-minus-revenue

Update history

  1. Initial version.

Cited by

Version details

The exact citing versions, and the version of this article each cites.

  • Article i645-13-billion-no-current-cuts — version 5 (published) cites version 7
  • Article i645-no-campaign-union-funding — version 5 (published) cites version 7
  • Article i645-no-campaign-union-funding — version 4 (published) cites version 7
  • Article wa-spending-growth-vs-millionaires-tax — version 6 (published) cites version 7

Challenge this fact-check

Every source above is linked so you can check it yourself. Identify the specific conclusion you dispute and provide verifiable evidence that could change it. Credible challenges deserve review and a visible response.

Submit evidence Send general feedback instead

Technical details: node handle article:wa-budget-doubled-decade:3