We’re back, everyone. Thanks for watching today. Don’t forget to hit that like button, friends—you know it supports us a lot. And of course, it supports you too because it helps us keep bringing these stories to you daily.
Now, I need you to focus carefully on today’s video. First, I’ll show a short clip from “Center Square,” which is kind of like a news outlet, to show their description of the delay of a proposal to provide free lunches for all schoolchildren. As you can see, this was supposed to be implemented this year. You might wonder, why do I care about this?
Trust me, you’ll find out the reason. It was supposed to be implemented this year, but the city council president says, “Let’s postpone this until next year because I have a better idea. ” And you’ll see what her better idea is right now. And you’ll see why I’m covering this topic.
Let’s start by analyzing the topic from the Center Square angle, then we’ll listen to the city council president speak in her own words. There’s a potential obstacle to Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson’s plan to provide school lunches for all children in all city public schools. This project is funded through a tax voters approved last year. The free lunches were supposed to start in September, with the new school year less than two months away.
But Council President Joy Hollingsworth somewhat opposes this. She wants to allocate the funds to after-school and weekend meal programs for Black children. Hollingsworth has faced sharp questions in recent months about what she openly calls her “Black budget. ” She says, “There’s the city council budget, and then I have my own Black budget.
” It’s an official allocation of city funds—taxpayer money—earmarked by race. But you might remember this could face some constitutional challenges, like other Washington state race-based programs, including the Covenant Homeownership Program, which is already under federal scrutiny. So, we’ll be following this closely. My colleague in Seattle, Randy Diamond from Center Square Washington, will be publishing an article on this today.
So, dive into it and read his article. Now, you’ve heard the description of this law, this amendment to it, but let’s hear the city council president talk about it in her own words. Speaking of praising the comprehensive school meals program—this is praise. And I’m really glad that you, Councilmember Saka, are talking about readiness, because Caleb posted a video showing that 51% of Black children are not reading at their grade level.
That’s a problem. The average Black household income is $55,000. Half of the murder victims in Seattle—victims of gun violence—are Black males. And they’re only 4% of the population.
I can say this is due to food insecurity and lack of resources. There are studies and information available on this. That’s why I strongly advocate for South Seattle and the Southeast, and the Duwamish tribe, and the areas that have suffered from underrepresentation and underfunding, especially in this area. And I know food can heal communities.
So, that’s why I strongly support this amendment, and that’s why I’m excited about it. I’m talking about this because it’s a clear example of what I think our country is losing its mind right now. Is this a big deal? It depends on the circumstances, right?
I mean, doesn’t it depend on the circumstances? This could be extremely important because, honestly, as a parent, I lean liberal, but when it comes to kids, I think we should take care of them, right? And I completely understand the viewpoint being presented. Let’s give all children—who we already provide free or tax-funded education to—basic lunches.
Let’s add that to it. I have no problem with that, right? I remember when I was in school, there was a social stigma attached to students who got free or reduced lunches. We already pay for education, so let’s pay for lunches too.
I have absolutely no problem with that if we have the funds. They’re kids—let’s make sure they get fed. But then some people come and say, “Wait, wait. Why don’t we take the money, not spend it this year, but spend it next year, and not on school lunches, but on after-school programs and other things, targeting mainly a specific group of people?
” Wow! Where is this coming from? And so, there was some opposition to this idea from the city council itself. Here’s an example.
The alleged postponement of universal school meals in order to create a broader six-year food assistance program threatens to delay the momentum, energy, and readiness for immediate implementation that we have today. And like the other amendment, it’s also alleged to create a conflict between vitally important community needs. My initial reaction is: let’s start this program. Let’s perfect it first.
We have all the tools. Let’s go. But let’s find ways to expand. However, I’m worried about the potential delay and what it signals for affordability, what it signals for social stigma for our students, and what it signals for long-term educational readiness for the future workforce.
Anyway, all these sponsors showed their support for this cause, and they’re not—I’ve heard them say they love universal free school meals. They’re not opposed; they’re just trying to expand the project, which I appreciate. I think we need to take this approach now, and then let’s discuss other things later. That’s it, but I appreciate the efforts of the amendment sponsors, the Council President and member Foster.
Remember, all this talk is happening at a time when Seattle is facing a half-billion-dollar budget deficit. I think they already allocated funds for this program, so maybe it’s not at risk. But folks, you need to save $500 million more, right? If you already allocated this program to ensure kids get fed, then why all these other things?
Why all these additions? Tonight’s warning about Seattle’s financial future. The city’s budget deficit is larger than expected, with the latest shortfall reaching nearly half a billion dollars over the next few years. Tonight, we’ll detail Mayor Wilson’s plan to address the upcoming financial challenges and their potential impact on you.
This might be one of the toughest tasks Wilson will face—how to balance a budget deficit that exceeded expectations by about $100 million. The current deficit is about $488 million over the next three years. Just six months into office, Wilson inherited this financial challenge, but now she has to solve it. “We have serious financial problems in Seattle right now.
We have a significant budget deficit, and it’s a structural deficit rooted in years, but it was masked with temporary fixes. We’ve run out of tools. So, there are challenges ahead. ” Wilson made this statement this month during a forum hosted by the city club and moderated by Fox 13.
The mayor’s office is expected to ask most departments to cut spending, but Wilson also indicated that cuts alone won’t be her strategy—taxes are on the table. Will you expand the payroll tax to cover this deficit? Well, we’re looking at the options right now. As I mentioned, it’s a very large deficit.
I think we expect about $175 million for next year. So, yes, we’re looking for new revenue sources. I say all options are on the table. Before becoming mayor, Wilson was an activist and pushed for the payroll tax, also known as the incentive tax.
The Seattle City Council passed this measure in 2020, targeting large companies with highly paid employees. So, they’re facing a half-billion-dollar budget deficit in Seattle. And they say, “Well, we can cut some expenses. There are some things we might be able to cut, but cuts alone won’t solve the problem.
We’ll have to raise your taxes, people. We need you to give us more money. ”
Now, I want to ask you this question: why won’t cuts alone be enough? Seattle residents, and people in that area, and Washington residents—are you living such luxurious lives that when you look around, you say, “Yeah, I can see what my taxes are being spent on”?
I’ll be honest, I’m not from Seattle, but from what I’ve heard, the talk of most businesses leaving doesn’t suggest we’re in a place where we can look around and say, “Yeah, the government is managing tax money well. ” Instead, they want more money from you. They want more money. In recent years, Seattle has relied heavily on new revenue to balance its budget.
In 2026, the payroll tax is expected to bring in $410 million. That’s according to a new report from the Downtown Seattle Association. But the association also blames the payroll tax for job losses. The association compared the tax situations in Seattle and Bellevue, calling it a stark tale of two cities.
The report states, “Since the incentive payroll tax was implemented, downtown Seattle has lost about 30,000 jobs. Between 2023 and 2025, Seattle lost 1. 3% of its jobs, while Bellevue grew jobs by 12. 6%.
Between 2020 and 2025, Seattle office property values dropped 48%, while Bellevue rose 7%. ” City officials say a major reason for Seattle’s budget deficit is inflation and revenue from other taxes not meeting expectations, particularly property and sales taxes. Mayor Wilson is scheduled to unveil her first budget proposal in September. We reached out to the mayor’s office today for more details on the potential payroll tax expansion and spending cuts.
They issued a statement saying, “Earlier this year, the mayor asked departments to propose scenarios that include difficult choices about spending cuts and finding new ways to increase efficiency while maintaining essential city services. ” This information will be used when preparing her budget package, but she has not proposed any comprehensive consolidation. So, yeah. Folks, I think this is an interesting situation because something as simple as ensuring all kids go to school and eat—it’s not free.
I mean, you have to pay for it. Taxpayers pay for it, but we already pay for them to go to school in the first place. Even this isn’t progressive enough. Even this isn’t progressive enough for people.
They have to find a way to go beyond the progressive idea itself. The first progressive idea: some people can’t afford school lunch. For those who truly can’t afford it, let’s give them free lunch. And for those who can sort of afford it but need some help, let’s give them reduced lunch.
Okay, that’s the first idea. The next progressive idea: why not let all kids eat? It’s not free, but why not just pay for all kids’ food? No divisions, no parents having to make decisions, no child going hungry.
Okay, but let’s go beyond this progressive idea. Hey, why don’t we take all the money, not spend it this year, but spend it later—maybe next year—so we can create a completely different program that only helps… So, we’re actually taking a step backward because we’re not helping all kids. I don’t know about you, but that’s what it looks like to me.
But maybe I’m wrong. Tell me what you think. Leave a comment below. But before that, please stop, hit the share button, and share this video via email, text, WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and all your favorite social media platforms.
And of course, if you’re not subscribed, please subscribe. Thank you all for watching. I love you all, and I’ll see you in the next video. Know that we are a school specializing in the field of legal assistants.
If you’re following our program, you know we’ve been in this field for 23 years. You know we help people who want to enter the legal assistant field. You know we’ve helped hundreds since 2003 start their careers in this field or even advance in it. Our certification is state-recognized, and our program includes hands-on training so you gain real experience to add to your resume.
If you’re interested, we’re offering a special discount for all our YouTube channel subscribers. Click the first link in the video description. Join us.
