When lawmakers propose a new tax, voters frequently hear that the money is needed for something important.
Schools. Housing. Health care. Public safety. Roads. Children.
Those are powerful arguments because most Washington residents want good schools, safe communities, reliable roads, help for people who truly need it, and a government that functions efficiently.
But there is an important question taxpayers should ask whenever a new tax is proposed:
Where does the money actually go?
If the answer is the State General Fund, taxpayers need to understand what that means.
It does not mean the money disappears. Washington has a budget process, appropriations, audits, public records and spending databases.
But it does mean the money generally becomes part of a very large pool from which lawmakers fund a wide range of government programs.
And that creates an accountability problem.
First, How Big Is Washington’s General Fund?
Washington actually uses several terms that can make the budget confusing.
The General Fund-State, commonly called GF-S, is the primary account supported by broad state taxes and other revenues. According to the Office of Financial Management, about $74.1 billion of the 2025-27 operating budget is supported by General Fund-State revenues and reserves.
The Legislature also frequently uses a broader measurement called Near General Fund-Outlook, or NGF-O. It includes the General Fund plus several related accounts that are considered together when lawmakers balance the operating budget.
After the 2026 supplemental budget, revised NGF-O appropriations for the 2025-27 biennium were approximately $79.4 billion. The state’s entire operating budget is much larger because it also includes federal funds, dedicated accounts and other revenue sources.
That distinction matters.
When someone says Washington has an operating budget of more than $150 billion, they are not saying all of that money is sitting in the General Fund waiting to be spent.
Where Does the Money Go?
A useful snapshot comes from Washington’s 2025-27 Legislative Budget Notes. Before the 2026 supplemental adjustments, approximately $77.9 billion in Near General Fund spending was divided roughly this way:
- K-12 public schools: $33.7 billion, about 43 percent.
- Other human services: $17.4 billion, about 22 percent. This broad category includes major health, child welfare, corrections and related programs.
- Department of Social and Health Services: $12.1 billion, about 16 percent.
- Higher education: $6.2 billion, about 8 percent.
- Special appropriations: $4.2 billion, about 5 percent.
- Government operations: $2.1 billion, about 3 percent.
- Natural resources: $1.05 billion, about 1 percent.
- Judicial branch: about $611 million.
- Legislative branch: about $298 million.
- Transportation from these Near General Fund accounts: about $170 million.
- Other education programs: about $103 million.
Those categories totaled approximately $77.9 billion when the biennial budget was originally enacted. The 2026 supplemental budget subsequently revised the overall spending level upward.
And there is an important lesson hidden in those numbers.
Roads are mostly somewhere else.
Someone looking at the list above might wonder:
Only $170 million for transportation?
That is because Washington maintains a separate Transportation Budget supported by fuel taxes, vehicle fees, transportation accounts, federal transportation dollars and other dedicated revenue.
OFM reports about $10.2 billion in road, bridge and other transportation capital projects in the 2025-27 budget.
So when discussing “state spending,” we have to ask whether we are talking about the General Fund, the operating budget, the capital budget or the transportation budget. They are not interchangeable.
Housing is complicated too.
There isn’t one simple General Fund line labeled “housing.”
Housing and homelessness programs can appear through the Department of Commerce, human services programs, behavioral health programs and other agencies. Housing construction can also appear in the separate capital budget.
For example, the state’s Housing Trust Fund capital program received approximately $605 million for 2025-27 for affordable housing construction, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation.
That is one reason voters need to be careful when they hear statements such as, “We’re spending X billion on housing.”
The next question should be:
From which budget, which account, which agency and for what specific program?
So What Is the Problem With the General Fund?
The problem is not that the General Fund has no accountability.
The problem is that money is fungible.
Suppose lawmakers say a new tax will help education.
If the revenue is deposited into the General Fund rather than a legally restricted education account, lawmakers can increase education spending while making different spending decisions elsewhere in the same budget.
The new tax revenue cannot necessarily be followed like a dollar bill from the taxpayer’s wallet directly into a classroom.
That doesn’t automatically mean anything improper happened.
But it does mean taxpayers should be skeptical of political promises that suggest General Fund revenue is permanently tied to a particular purpose when the law does not actually require that.
The Legislature can place restrictions on individual appropriations through budget language called provisos, including language saying money is provided “solely for” a particular purpose. But that is different from permanently dedicating the tax revenue itself to that purpose.
Doesn’t Washington Audit the Money?
Yes.
Washington has several accountability mechanisms.
The Legislature appropriates money through publicly available budgets. The Office of Financial Management monitors agency expenditures. The State Auditor conducts financial, compliance and performance audits. Washington’s Fiscal Information website also provides budget reports and an Open Checkbook where residents can examine state agency vendor payments.
Those are valuable tools, and taxpayers should use them.
But auditing whether money was spent legally is not quite the same question as asking whether it was spent wisely.
Government can legally spend money on a program that performs poorly.
A contract can follow the proper procurement process and still be a bad value.
An agency can remain within its appropriation and still fail to produce the results taxpayers were promised.
That is where accountability has to go beyond simply asking:
Was the money authorized?
We should also be asking:
Did it work?
What Taxpayers Should Be Asking
Before Washington creates another tax or expands an existing one, legislators should be able to answer some basic questions:
Where will the revenue be deposited?
Is it going into the General Fund or into a legally dedicated account?
Is the money required to be spent on the purpose being advertised?
Or is that simply the stated intention today?
What measurable result are taxpayers buying?
If we spend another $100 million on homelessness, education, health care or another government program, what measurable improvement should residents expect?
Who reviews the results?
And if the program doesn’t work, will it be changed, reduced or eliminated?
How much are we already spending?
Before asking taxpayers for more money, government should be able to explain what happened to the money taxpayers already provided.
Accountability Should Come Before Another Tax
Washington government is not operating on a small budget.
Tens of billions of dollars move through the state’s General Fund and related accounts every biennium, with billions more moving through federal accounts, dedicated funds, the transportation budget and the capital budget.
That does not mean every expenditure is wasteful.
Schools cost money. Health care costs money. Roads cost money. Public safety costs money.
But taxpayers have every right to demand something more than:
“Trust us. We need more.”
A better standard would be:
Show us where the money went. Show us what it accomplished. Show us what failed. Then explain why you need more.
That is not anti-government.
That is basic financial accountability.
And perhaps the most important question Washington taxpayers can ask whenever they hear that a new tax will “pay for” a popular program is one very simple question:
Is the money actually dedicated to that purpose, or is it going into the General Fund?
The answer can make a very big difference.
Sources
Washington Office of Financial Management, Understanding State Spending, including the 2025-27 General Fund-State and statewide budget overview.
Washington Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program Committee, 2025-27 Legislative Budget Notes, statewide Near General Fund expenditure categories.
Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, Outlook for the Enacted 2026 Supplemental Omnibus Operating Budget, showing revised 2025-27 NGF-O appropriations.
Washington Fiscal Information, Budget Types, Budget FAQ, Open Checkbook and Agency Information.
Washington Fiscal Information, Capital Grants and Loans, including the Housing Trust Fund appropriation.
#WashingtonState #WALeg #TaxpayerAccountability #StateBudget #GeneralFund #GovernmentSpending #FollowTheMoney #FiscalResponsibility #LD24 #ClallamCounty #JeffersonCounty #GraysHarborCounty