Week in Review: July 4, 2025 - with Josh Cohen

Claudia Balducci Details Platform for County Leadership from Hacks & Wonks

“WA is the No. 1 target in the GOP’s health care slashing bill” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times

“COVID era’s historically lowrate of uninsured continued through 2023 — even after public health emergency declared over” by Wei Yen from Washington State Office of Financial Management

“Central and Eastern Washington brace for possible Medicaid cuts” by Mai Hoang from Cascade PBS

“County Assessor Wilson Jailed on Allegations of Stalking, Violating Protection Order” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“King County Assessor John Wilson arrested in stalking investigation” 

by David Gutman from The Seattle Times

Recalls - King County, Washington

“City Council confirms Shon Barnes as Seattle’s Chief of Police” by Josh Cohen from Cascade PBS

“Local Public Safety Sales Tax Increase Could Include Some Treatment Funding (In Addition to Cops)” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“​​Rinck Retools Housing Affordability Bonus with More Density” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“Seattle upzoned single-family neighborhoods. What will get built?” by Josh Cohen from Cascade PBS

“Seattle dropped key NIMBY rules. Why aren’t developers swarming?” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with King County Executive candidate Claudia Balducci about her approach to the region's biggest challenges, emphasizing housing affordability, prevention-focused public safety, and regional coordination.

Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Cascade PBS city reporter covering Seattle government, politics, and issues that shape life in the city, Josh Cohen. Welcome back!

[00:01:03] Josh Cohen: Hey, Crystal - thanks for having me back.

[00:01:05] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. Well, we have a lot to talk about today, starting with the fact that as we are discussing this - recording on Thursday morning - our Congress, specifically the House, is debating a bill that would really fundamentally change a lot of things nationally and in our community. Trump calls it the Big Beautiful Bill. Democrats have called it the Big Brutal Betrayal. But one of the things in here - there's a lot in there - one of the issues is that there's a lot of cutting of healthcare funding, specifically from the Medicaid program. So just talking about this and the impacts that it could have in our state, what is this looking like it would do in its current state?

[00:01:54] Josh Cohen: Yeah, it's going to do a lot. Danny Westneat at The Seattle Times wrote about this, and I thought his framing was good - Washington State has done so much to get people enrolled in Medicaid and brought it from double-digit percentages of people who had no health insurance pre-Obamacare to down to, like, four point something percent of people uncovered. So that's a lot of people covered, and now a lot to lose if this bill passes the House and a lot of people get cut from the Medicaid program. There was some research by the Kaiser Family Foundation that Washington stands to lose $36 billion in coverage over 10 years. They estimate that 490,000 people would lose their Medicaid coverage. And another 150,000 could be priced out when they had to go try to find health insurance on the marketplace, because part of the bill is some of the subsidies for private insurance are also expiring. So, yeah, tons of people will be left without healthcare is the bottom line.

[00:03:10] Crystal Fincher: Those are staggering numbers. Here in Washington State, Medicaid - it goes by Apple Health, that's the name of our Medicaid program here in Washington State - and looking at over half a million people, over 600,000 people over the next decade, losing coverage because of this. Whether it's, as you said, directly being kicked off Apple Health or being priced out of the health insurance marketplace, because the subsidies that make it more affordable are looking to be cut. It's really dramatic. When it comes to our House delegation here in the state, it's split. We have Republicans and Democrats. And in Representative Dan Newhouse's district, the Fourth District in central Washington, they would be more impacted than anywhere else in the state. I think that's something a lot of people who don't pay close attention to this may not realize. This isn't something that one party is impacted by, another party isn't, that people from all walks of life aren't impacted by. These effects are broad. What is the situation in Dan Newhouse's district?

[00:04:16] Josh Cohen: Yeah, Dan Newhouse out in the Fourth - central Washington, sort of just east of the Cascades, Yakima County is the biggest population center, but goes, I think, all the way up to the Canadian border. He has the most constituents covered by Medicaid, by Apple Health, in the state. Nearly 40% of residents in the district are covered by Medicaid. And then, for residents under 19, 70% in the district are covered by it. So just an enormous number of people reliant on Medicaid, on Apple Health as we call it here, for their healthcare. And yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see how Newhouse votes. I don't know if there's a huge expectation that he will vote against his party, but I do think there's a lot of pressure from constituents who are rightly worried about what it would mean to lose their healthcare if this bill passes in Congress. And Newhouse, he wrote an op-ed - I think in the Yakima Herald - earlier this year, because already there has been this fear of Medicaid getting cut, because it has been something that Republicans have promised for decades now. And he wrote this op-ed, saying he isn't going to cut Medicaid, wouldn't touch it, wouldn't support efforts. But, as has been the party line, said - I do want to go after waste, fraud and abuse. And study after study has shown there is just very little waste, fraud and abuse - and especially fraud and abuse, I think, fair to say - within the program. But nonetheless, that is sort of the Republican messaging on this. It's not that we're going to kick you off your healthcare. It's that we're going after bad actors who shouldn't be on Medicaid or are somehow defrauding the program.

[00:06:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, basically a message saying that if you get kicked off your healthcare, you didn't deserve it in the first place. And particularly from him in his district, where 70% of kids under 19, 40% of residents overall rely on that for healthcare, rely on that for community care, is a pretty bold statement to make. And I think one that a lot of people would find offensive. And this is something that I don't know is on a ton of regular people's radar. I mean, certainly it's getting some coverage, but the details of it - I don't know how much those are penetrating, particularly with our current media silos that we have and the type of messaging that's penetrating. We're all in echo chambers right now. And so it's just really daunting to think about what the impacts of this can be. Like I said, right now they are essentially debating the bill. Republicans do hold a vote advantage. The expectation is that this will probably pass. But the vote total is close, and there is a lot of advocacy still happening with key members. Reportedly, a couple of members have flipped. They're trying to achieve a couple more. I think we've seen a number of members feel particularly vulnerable about the prospect of running for reelection after cutting so many of their constituents' healthcare moving forward. So we'll continue to see what this does. But by the time this airs, we could have a definitive vote that has passed this. We will see.

Also want to talk about news that I saw break last night from Erica Barnett of PubliCola - that King County Assessor John Wilson was arrested for alleged stalking. This is not the first time he has received coverage or criticism for stalking or misconduct. But last night, he was arrested for allegedly violating a restraining order. What happened here?

[00:08:13] Josh Cohen: Yeah, as longtime listeners of Hacks & Wonks might know, this has been an ongoing thing - all year, at least. I mean, it sounds like it's been going on for a long time, but certainly the coverage of it has been going on since January, February. King County Assessor John Wilson - his longtime partner has taken out several restraining orders against him. This is the second time she has taken out a restraining order against him. And he has said that it's just personal business and it has nothing to do with his campaign. And King County Councilmembers Claudia Balducci and Girmay Zahilay led the sort of charge saying that he should not only drop out of the race for King County Executive, but should also resign from his position as King County Assessor. The King County Council voted unanimously to censure him with a vote of no confidence. And Wilson has just sort of dismissed all of this as politics and interfering with the campaign, and voters should decide, et cetera, et cetera. And so, yeah, a real mess, to say the least. And I guess also worth noting that the King County Council and Executive have no authority to remove Wilson from his position as King County Assessor and his term is not up at the moment. So no matter what happens with the King County Executive race this year, he would still remain in that position as King County Assessor for another few years, unless he resigned or voters recalled him.

[00:09:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a big challenge. And again, this is a recurring issue - something that seems to have first made the headlines early this year. Then, in late May, made news where - alleged stalking allegations once again. And I think it's important to say John Wilson has characterized an on-and-off relationship between him and the woman involved in this. They have been partners on and off. He's tried to paint it as just an on-and-off tumultuous relationship - and they're together, they're fine - especially in the latest round. You know, essentially he was saying - It's not a big deal, these are just dust ups that we get into, everything's good, we're all back together, this just happens sometimes. It's important that his partner has not said that with this latest round of allegations prior to this arrest, about a month ago. Did not say everything was fine and they were back together. And, in fact, shared some text messages where she flat out says - Leave me alone. And he responds with - Never. And he seems to be following through on that. And I think what has people disgusted and concerned is just the rejection of any kind of accountability, the rejection of just the concept of consent here. You have someone saying - Leave me alone. He's saying - Never. And he's doubling down on that. And then publicly trying to speak for her, saying everything is fine when she's clearly not saying that. And now, once again, he has gone - reportedly went to her house repeatedly last night. And then she called - and because he was in violation of a temporary restraining order, that's when he was arrested. That's what has been reported between PubliCola and The Seattle Times. So it is just really concerning. And I think more people have gone through stalking situations than a lot of people might think. And just the feeling of being powerless and no matter what you say, someone not accepting that. And just your word not mattering is just such a frustrating and scary situation.

The calls for his resignation have been pretty broad. They've gone far beyond King County Executive candidates, as you said, Claudia Balducci and Girmay Zahilay. The King County Council overall voted to essentially censure him, call for his resignation. Mayor Bruce Harrell, King County Executive Shannon Braddock, state Senator Manka Dhingra, and several others have called for his resignation. And this just seems like he is unfit to serve, if he can't keep himself from continuing to stalk this woman to the point where the law actually has to step in and intervene. And also, if you're familiar with stalking cases and activity, that's a pretty high bar to clear. That doesn't happen very often. This is scary, continuing activity and escalation. And so I'm certain we'll hear continued and renewed calls for his resignation.

[00:13:09] Josh Cohen: Yeah, and it's just been escalating month after month since those first stories came out earlier this year. And, as you said, that it has gotten to the point of the King County Sheriff's Office arresting him. He has not been charged - as we speak on Thursday morning - but certainly, as you said, the allegations are pretty stark and have just been consistent and piling up all year.

[00:13:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, quite concerning. This week - pivoting to Seattle news - Police Chief Shon Barnes was officially confirmed by the Seattle City Council. What happened here? What'd they say?

[00:13:50] Josh Cohen: Yeah, so after about five and a half months as interim police chief, the City Council unanimously confirmed Shon Barnes as the police chief. Pretty glowing praise from the Council - they're very excited about what he brings to the table. For those unfamiliar, his last job was as police chief of Madison, Wisconsin's police department. He also has experience at the civilian oversight body in Chicago, was a beat cop and a captain in North Carolina, has academic experience too. And his whole framing is - really wants to bring back community policing in Seattle, headlines in his confirmation materials about he wants officers when they're not responding to an emergency to be out in the community, meeting people in the neighborhoods that they're patrolling, that they're policing, wants to be a reformer - things like that. Public Safety Chair Bob Kettle really emphasized that reform piece of this as what he's looking forward to in working with Shon Barnes. The reform stuff is interesting. Barnes does say, on paper, he really supports accountability and again, has all this experience on the sort of civilian oversight piece of it. In his materials, he does hedge pretty strongly when it comes to the punitive aspect of police accountability. He's like - You know, there are rare circumstances when an officer should be punished and that is what accountability is. But that accountability, it needs to be this much more holistic thing. And like better training and better support for officers and all of these things. So I think that is telling and we'll sort of see what that means as he really takes leadership of SPD.

[00:15:49] Crystal Fincher: I think that's right on. He certainly has stated those intentions. And the city councilmembers - to a person, I believe - in the confirmation hearing had positive and hopeful things to say. Certainly, that was shared with expectations of improvement in key areas - both on the safety and accountability, internal accountability, front. But I think they all saw him and shared sentiment that they viewed that he could be a constructive partner there. But I do think there are some things to keep in mind when we talk about a police chief in Seattle. And I think - when we think about police chiefs and we see them depicted in media and entertainment, they lead the department, they're the powerful ones. But where power actually resides in the police department is distributed and varied. And a lot of that doesn't actually rest with the police chief here in Seattle and in many departments - one, the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract stipulates and dictates a lot of accountability in and of itself. That has been a point of controversy, where lots of people feel like accountability measures should not be bargained - that that should be something that the City holds and controls. But that's not how it is right now. The police chief also answers to the Mayor, to the executive. And so the buck stops with the executive, with the Mayor in the City of Seattle. So a lot of what you see is authorized, explicitly or implicitly, and at the direction of, implicitly or explicitly, the Mayor's office. So, the police chief is not an independently elected official - they're one of several department heads that serve under the Mayor in the executive administration. So this is going to have to be a team activity if we're going to have accountability. And I think a lot of people are wondering if all of those members of the team are on the same page, particularly when it comes to the issues that SPD has been struggling with - namely a lot of accountability issues, treatment of women, dealing with protests and mass enforcement activity. And so we'll see how this turns out. It seems like there is a lot that people are looking forward to working with with Chief Barnes. And we'll see how the team performs on their stated goals.

[00:18:27] Josh Cohen: Yeah. And as you said, especially that accountability piece - although also certainly the crowd control piece - has been a very longstanding issue for SPD. And it will be really interesting to see if Chief Barnes is the one to lead SPD out from under federal oversight, which it's been under for more than a decade now. And those are the last two pieces - accountability and crowd control - that Judge Robart, who's been overseeing the reforms says Seattle still needs a fair bit of work on. And so I think that is why the Council emphasized reform and accountability so heavily in their final confirmation vote.

[00:19:10] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. I also want to talk this week about a new proposal for a sales tax in the City of Seattle to help fund public safety and treatment options. What's being proposed, who's proposing it, and why?

[00:19:24] Josh Cohen: So, it's a little bit of a interesting - it's like a proposal for something to do if another proposal comes down the line - classic Seattle politics stuff. So, stepping back, this year in the State Leg, legislators and Governor Ferguson passed a law and put forward $100 million in grant money that says - basically the money is to help cities hire police officers, address the officer shortage. But the stipulation is they have to pass this 0.1% sales tax, and the money from that sales tax has to go to public safety measures. And so, sort of broadly expected that everybody, including the City of Seattle, will do this. But the Mayor's office told me that they are considering a sales tax - it's on the table, or it's certainly not off the table yet - but that it's not their focus right now. They don't have immediate plans to introduce one. They're focused on that B&O tax revision that I know you talked about in last week's episode. So that's the context for this resolution that Council President Sara Nelson is introducing that says - if the city passes that 0.1% public safety sales tax, up to 25% of it would go towards treatment funding, treatment services and outreach, a mix of groups like REACH and Purpose, Dignity, Action, We Heart Seattle, DESC, a sort of broad range of groups involved in either frontline outreach or frontline substance use disorder treatment. And so it's kind of a funny thing of - it's all very theoretical right now. But comes - again, per our previous Medicaid discussion - comes at a moment when all of these groups could be truly devastated in their funding if a lot of their clientele drop off Medicaid and they can't get Medicaid reimbursement for the work they're doing. And so I think Nelson is sort of looking ahead to that potential devastating loss of funding for this work and looking at options on the table. But there is no sales tax proposal on the table yet. And so, yeah, we'll see what happens.

[00:21:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it'll be really interesting to see here. And there's a lot interesting about this. One, this seems to be a turn for Councilmember Nelson. This seems to be in opposition to some of her previous statements about what taxes she would and would not support. And I think this may be reflective. And again, we say that we do want this from our elected officials and councilmembers - that they're listening to and responding to the pressure they've received from the public and feedback that is happening from the public - that seems to be pretty clearly contrary from the voters of Seattle to Sara Nelson's stated "No new taxes" stance of before, particularly with the potential funding losses from this administration, the instability of the current budget and the structural deficits that they're working on fixing. That some revenue seems like it's going to be possible, if anything resembling the services that are available from Seattle government right now are to remain and resemble what they have looked like.

I think it's always important to mention - here in Washington state, when we're talking about these types of proposals - And, oh, the Legislature enabled a 0.1% sales tax ability for local governments - is that there are lots of people who get sick and tired of hearing the sales tax, it's a very regressive tax. There are no two ways about that. We're the 49th most regressive taxation state in the country, and it's because we don't have an income tax. Is because we don't have that on a state level like so many other states do. And so because that is the progressive tax, where people with more have more of a burden, people with less have less of a burden - that because we can't rely on any of that, it comes out in these taxes and fees and assessments that when you compare them to other states, seem really high. And when you look at this, if this were to come through, if other sales tax proposals would come through, we would have one of the highest sales tax rates in the country, realistically. But that's because we don't have the other taxes that so many states are able to rely on that enable lower levels of sales tax and other kinds of fees that we see here in the state. And we did just have a pretty contentious conversation in this last legislative session, where the Legislature came in saying - Hey, we want to talk about a wealth tax - on the heels of residents of this state, a few months before then in November, saying - We like the capital gains tax that we currently have. Two-thirds of our state said - We want to keep them when they had a chance to repeal them. This is a state that appreciates its government functioning and services, wants to keep them - judging by last November's election results. But the challenge is government's hands are tied - unless and until we deal with wealth taxation, unless and until we address the issue of having an income tax - they're going to be expressed in sales taxes and fees and assessments and all those little things for every little government service, whether it's car registration, a gas tax, anything else. Those are going to be where we make up for the revenue that we aren't getting from wealth taxation or other progressive taxation. And that is me on my let's-understand-the-real-tax-situation-here high horse. But we will continue to follow that, as well as the other tax proposals in the city and county.

Another interesting thing this week was Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck is bringing back former Councilmember Tammy Morales' community development incentive program. What is this program? What would it do?

[00:25:52] Josh Cohen: Yeah, so I think the shortest version of it is - if it passed, it would give community-led development projects a bonus that would allow them to build denser, taller buildings. The logic of that is - if you can build more units, it makes a project more valuable, also does more to address the need for more affordable housing. Sort of the idea is these would mostly be projects led by either private developers or nonprofit affordable housing providers, but I think largely private developers working in partnership with a community organization - say, El Centro de la Raza, or Africatown, or some of these other real grassroots, community-centered organizations that are trying to both build housing for their communities and also build community spaces for community needs, whether it's like space for childcare or health clinics, or just like a community gathering space.

And yeah, the origins of this idea go back a couple of years now, as you said, former District 2 Councilmember Tammy Morales had this proposal - essentially the same proposal - in the works before the 2023 election, when the sort of new, more conservative slate of city councilmembers were voted in. But when she introduced it in early 2024, she got a lot of pushback from Councilmembers Maritza Rivera and Cathy Moore and Tanya Woo. They took a lot of issue with - I think fair to say, the framing was basically like, this is a giveaway to private developers, and it's just going to lead to more gentrification in low-income communities. And so that bill died on the vine, despite the fact that Morales' argument for it was basically like - This incentive will get more private developers to build us that subsidized affordable housing we need without any real cost to the city. That argument didn't carry weight with the Council then, but flash forward to now. We have Councilmember Rinck leading it, appointed D2 Councilmember Mark Solomon has already signed on as a co-sponsor. I think by the time it moves forward, Councilmember Cathy Moore will have resigned from the Council - she leaves on July 7. And so, yeah, you just have a different mix of politics already just a year and a half later, and gives it a lot more chance to pass.

[00:28:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that that was right on. From just recalling that debate - and this was covered then and now by Ryan Packer of The Urbanist. I think, as Ryan put it - In the works before the 2023 council elections, but put forward after a wave of five new moderate councilmembers took office, the idea faced a litany of concerns that seemed secondary to the fact that Morales was the bill's sponsor. I think that you, Josh, certainly reflected the concerns that they expressed. I think that is some background that I think a lot of people felt at the time. And I think, just recalling that debate, there also seemed to be a misunderstanding by several councilmembers of what it would do. So now that they have had time to reflect on that - after this has been reviewed by and analyzed by the City Attorney - this does seem to have some momentum coming forward. As you said, District 2 Councilmember Mark Solomon has signed on to this as one of the co-sponsors. And this is really looking to improve access and affordability in the places where it has been most denied, in places previously impacted by redlining and covenants that prevented certain specific people of color from buying in certain areas. And those areas continue to be the least affordable, most exclusive areas in the city. And that's something that a lot of Seattle believes needs to be corrected and solved for - and that we have further to go in the push for true equity and opportunity there. And so it'll be interesting to see how this proceeds, but it certainly seems like it's a sound idea - that it has precedent and acceptance in other areas and among a number of councilmembers - but it's, I think, one to get into and excited about.

Also, looking at more housing news, missing middle rezone is now in place in Seattle. But how will that impact what gets built? Will anything get built as a result of it? This is something that you've covered. What did you find?

[00:30:56] Josh Cohen: Yeah, continuing with wonky housing policy talk this morning. So this was an interim law passed by the Seattle City Council - a month ago now - to align city zoning rules with the state's missing middle law that passed a couple years ago. And essentially means that anywhere - any residential neighborhood, including formerly single-family neighborhoods, you can now build up to four to six units per lot. So four units anywhere, and then six units on a lot that's within a quarter mile of high-frequency transit. Or they can build six units if two of the units are below market rate affordable. And so the whole idea of this is we need more housing, we need broader, more diversity of housing types. Seattle largely just has single-family homes for sale and apartments for rent. And as we all know, those single-family homes for sale are supremely expensive - the median, I think, is above a million dollars now for a single-family home in Seattle. And then obviously we have a lot of townhouses too. And so, yeah, the ideal version of it is - we now are allowing all these different types of houses, like cottage housing, which is a bunch of little single-family homes on a lot, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, so on and so forth.

But in talking to developers and architects about what they expect to see, the reality is probably going to see just a continuation of townhouse development - you know, your sort of tall, skinny, couple of units on a lot, or a combination of that with a detached accessory dwelling units in the backyard. Those are your backyard cottages, although they're often taller than the main house. And they also say that the reality of the market right now is like, probably not going to see a flood of this stuff. Land is supremely expensive. Construction costs are extremely expensive. Permitting is expensive and time-consuming. Buyers and sellers are feeling a little hesitant these days, with high mortgage interest rates and also just the uncertain state of the world and the economy. And so, even though this is an extremely significant rezone of the entire city, I think in practice - at least in the immediate term - it's not going to have a tremendous effect. You're not going to all of a sudden see all of Wallingford get bulldozed and replaced with rowhouses or apartments, or whatever else it might be. I think it's going to be pretty slow. Again, architects I spoke to are like - Yeah, you're going to see development where it's a small 1940s home that's in some state of disrepair, would be expensive to refurbish. You're going to see that get torn down and replaced with four units, but you're not going to see a good condition, million-plus dollar house get torn down and replaced - because it just doesn't pencil out.

[00:34:16] Crystal Fincher: Well, that seems to be the concern from lots of folks that I've heard testify at some City Council meetings - concern that the neighborhood character is going to be destroyed, that trees are going to be clear cut and none will exist anymore, and that we're destroying Seattle while Seattle is dying. But it is a challenge looking forward. There is, aside from some of that feedback, I think, broad agreement that more housing supply is needed moving forward. And a variety of plans to get there - this being a significant one. But looking at the prospects for what building is actually going to materialize - that's much more challenging, and not necessarily looking promising at the moment that this is going to unleash the floodgates of development. There are a lot more considerations - just the overall cost of building, which has increased significantly over the past several years, is one of the major ones. So this is going to be a continuing battle, I think, and a lot of partnership and work is going to be needed to actually get this and other legislation, other programs to result in the development that is so badly needed.

[00:35:34] Josh Cohen: Yeah. As you said, definitely an ongoing conversation. And like I mentioned, the rezone that passed was a interim rezone just to meet the state's deadline for its missing middle law. The City Council is continuing to work on the "permanent" version of its missing middle rezone. And I know there are a lot of architects, developers, real estate people out there pushing for tweaks and changes to the next version of this that the City Council passes - to try to address some of those problems and create conditions where they can build more.

[00:36:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 4th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is our favorite, Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Cascade PBS city reporter, covering Seattle government, politics, and the issues that shape life in the city, Josh Cohen. You can find Josh on Bluesky at @jcohenwrites. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks, and you can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our midweek topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - and we'll talk to you next time.