When Affordability Is the Headline but Expansion Is the Agenda

By: Jessie Simmons

The Government Affairs Desk
Category: Affordability and Cost of Living

What Washington’s prefiled bills say compared to what lawmakers are telling the public

As Washington approaches the 2026 legislative session, one theme dominates public messaging from lawmakers and state leaders: affordability. Housing costs are too high. Child care is unaffordable. Energy bills are climbing. Healthcare premiums keep rising. Legislators across party lines say they understand the pressure facing working families and that this session must deliver relief. But as always, the most honest record of legislative intent is not found in speeches or press releases. It is found in the bills lawmakers choose to file before session begins. And the story those bills tell is far more complicated than the rhetoric suggests.

What lawmakers say they are focused on

Publicly, the Legislature is framing the upcoming session as a response to rising household costs and economic strain. This messaging comes in a difficult context: the largest tax increase in state history passed last session, lingering inflation pressures remain, and a projected budget shortfall looms. The stated promise is restraint, prioritization, and a renewed focus on making Washington more affordable for families and employers. That promise sets expectations.

What the prefiled bills actually show

A review of the full set of prefiled bills as of now reveals a consistent pattern. There are relatively few bills aimed squarely at reducing the major drivers of household costs. Instead, the dominant theme is expansion: expanded coverage, expanded eligibility, expanded regulatory authority, expanded program scope, and expanded administrative infrastructure. Many of these proposals pursue defensible policy goals. But they are not paired with cost containment, sunset clauses, or structural reforms that would offset their financial impact. In practice, this means costs are not eliminated. They are shifted. From point of service payments to insurance premiums. From state budgets to employers. From discretionary spending to mandatory compliance. From one biennium to the next. Those costs eventually land back on households.

Housing reform progress, and its limits

Housing is the clearest example of both progress and risk. In recent sessions, the Legislature did pass meaningful reforms. Permitting timelines and deadlines were adopted in 2023. Middle housing and by right multifamily reforms expanded what can be built. ADU reforms opened new options in many communities.

Those actions mattered.

But the current prefiled bill set does not reflect the same urgency to finish the job. There is little attention to impact fee reform, infrastructure financing at scale, litigation and appeals risk, or construction cost drivers. At the same time, policies adopted in recent years, including rent stabilization and expanded regulatory requirements, continue to weigh against housing production. The result is a fragile balance. Gains made on zoning and permitting are easily offset by rising costs, delays, and uncertainty elsewhere in the system. That raises an uncomfortable question. Is the Legislature focused on increasing housing supply, or on managing the consequences of scarcity?

Other affordability drivers tell the same story

Child care legislation continues to emphasize standards, oversight, and program expansion, while largely ignoring the underlying economics of providing care. Provider costs rise. Workforce shortages persist. Prices follow.

Energy policy remains centered on statewide rate structures and policy goals, with little acknowledgment of how uniform rates disproportionately burden rural and low usage households. When fixed costs dominate bills, affordability becomes regressive by design.

Healthcare and insurance bills increasingly lock in coverage mandates and expand agency discretion. While this reduces out of pocket costs for some services, it almost always increases premiums for everyone.

Transportation and commuting costs are widely acknowledged, but few prefiled bills offer near term relief or structural reform that would lower household expenses.

Across categories, the pattern is consistent. Government grows. Costs diffuse. Families absorb the impact.

Party patterns without caricature

At this stage, the divide is less about ideology and more about approach.

Democratic led proposals tend to prioritize access, continuity, and insulation from federal or market changes, even when costs are uncertain or rising. The emphasis is on protecting systems and services.

Republican proposals emphasize spending restraint and opposition to new taxes, but often lack detailed policy mechanisms in bill form at this early stage.

Neither approach, on its own, delivers a comprehensive affordability strategy.

What real bipartisan affordability would look like

If affordability were truly the organizing principle of the session, the prefiled bills would look different. There would be housing bills that pair zoning reform with infrastructure financing and litigation risk reduction. Child care bills that reduce operating costs rather than layering new mandates. Energy bills that address rate equity and fixed cost burdens. Healthcare bills that pair coverage requirements with premium containment. There would also be restraint. Clear cost thresholds. Sunset clauses. A willingness to pause expansion when budgets are strained.

Affordability is not about any single policy area. It is about cumulative burden.

The signal so far

The prefiled bills do not suggest that lawmakers are ignoring affordability. But they do not yet suggest a Legislature fully aligned around reducing the cost of living. There is a gap between what is being said and what is being filed. More bills will come. Amendments will be offered. Local governments are still completing comprehensive plans that may address some cost drivers independently. But early signals matter. Without a deliberate shift toward cost containment, supply expansion, and structural reform, affordability risks remaining a slogan rather than a governing principle.

Washington families will ultimately judge this session not by its intentions, but by whether it leaves them paying more or less to live here.

And the bills tell us that judgment is still very much in doubt.