The Seattle Times has op-eds from both the House and the Senate on their 2015-17 operating budget proposals. Reps. Ross Hunter and Reuven Carlyle and Sen. Andy Hill provide an overview of the differences between the chambers, as seen by the primary budget writers. (See here for a more inside-baseball take from Rep. Hunter.)

Hunter and Carlyle:

These critical investments won’t come for free: Adding court-ordered funding for education requires significant new revenue. Otherwise, we have to make unconscionably large cuts from higher education or the safety net. The House proposes instead to ask large corporations and wealthy investors to pay their fair share.

Hill:

Our main objective when writing this budget was not to spend a specific dollar amount nor increase taxes — it was to provide the services people expect and deserve from state government without calling on families and businesses to send Olympia more money.

One note on the education numbers: Hunter and Carlyle write that the House budget would provide $3.2 billion in additional funding for K-12, and Hill writes that the Senate’s would provide an additional $2.7 billion. These numbers represent the increase in near general fund-state plus opportunity pathways (NGFS+) funding over the 2013-15 biennium — including maintenance level.

It is more often reported that the House proposal would increase basic education spending (the portion of the K-12 budget that the Supreme Court’s McCleary decision required the state to fully fund, as opposed to the total K-12 budget that is referenced above) by $1.4 billion and that the Senate would increase it by $1.3 billion. These numbers include $741 million in maintenance level spending on materials, supplies and operating costs. As we note in our report comparing the proposals, net policy level changes for K-12 (excluding the $2 billion savings from not implementing I-1351) total $971 million in the House and $508 million in the Senate.