Washington State Senate Bill 5292 would shift how Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) premiums are set, drawing criticism that it could quietly pave the way for higher taxes in the future. Elizabeth New of the Washington Policy Center recently described the legislation as a “trap” in an opinion piece published on February 13, 2026 by Clark County Today, reflecting broader concern over the bill’s long‑term fiscal implications.

Under the bill’s provisions, the Employment Security Department (ESD) commissioner would no longer use the current statutory formula or the 1.2 percent cap to set PFML rates. Instead, rates would be based on forward‑looking actuarial estimates from the Office of Actuarial Services, with the goal of maintaining solvency and establishing a four‑month reserve beginning in 2030. Though the 1.2 percent cap remains in place “for now,” critics warn that the new structure creates a predictable scenario where lawmakers could be forced to raise the cap later if both solvency and the reserve prove difficult to uphold simultaneously within the existing limit. This, New argues, is a legislative setup for future tax increases. 

PFML premiums have already climbed—from 0.4 percent in 2019 to 1.13 percent in 2026—leaving the 1.2 percent ceiling within reach. According to the Washington Policy Center and referenced in New’s opinion, low‑wage workers participate in the program least frequently; in fiscal year 2025, workers earning $61 or more per hour used PFML more than twice as often as those in the lowest wage group. New argues that this dynamic undermines PFML’s portrayal as a safety net, instead turning it into a regressive system where the least able to afford deductions are least likely to benefit. 

Here is a breakdown of key dynamics raised by the opinion piece, paired with factual context:

• Shift in rate‑setting authority: SB 5292 would move rate‑setting from a statutory formula with a fixed cap to an actuarial model prioritizing solvency and reserves. Critics view this change as a path toward future cap increases. 
• Escalating premiums: Rates have risen from 0.4 percent in 2019 to 1.13 percent in 2026, nearing the 1.2 percent statutory cap. 
• Disparate benefit usage: Higher‑wage workers disproportionately utilize PFML benefits compared to lower‑wage peers, raising concerns about equity in the program’s design and effect. 
• Alternative reforms suggested: Rather than increasing taxes, New calls for reforming program structure, such as tightening eligibility or limiting repeated usage—changes that proponents argue could improve solvency without placing additional burdens on workers. 

Why this matters locally: While PFML is a statewide program, its premium increases affect local workers and employers across Washington, including in Cowlitz County. For residents already feeling the pressure of rising costs, incremental payroll tax hikes—even modest—can stretch household budgets. Moreover, if benefit access remains skewed toward higher‑income workers, the program’s fairness and utility for communities like Longview and Kelso may come into question.

Columbia Countercurrent reached out to ESD and legislative offices for comment on the bill’s projected fiscal outcomes and equity implications, but as of publication, no official response had been received.

Why this matters: SB 5292 raises fundamental questions about how Washington funds worker benefits and balances fiscal sustainability with fairness. The debate touches on constitutional values like taxation, representation, and the use of public funds. As the state legislature weighs this measure, local voices—especially from those who contribute but seldom benefit—should be part of the conversation.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include 2026 PFML premium figures and to reflect new legislative provisions affecting the implementation timeline and reserve requirement.