Friday, May 2, 2003 | 5:29 a.m.
Anyone trying to tune in to The Great Tax Debate has been frustrated by a cacophonous chorus of shrill notes. Cut first. The governor's a Democrat. Gaming is heavy-handed. No one's taking charge in either house. The business folks are breaking their tax-us-please pledge. How can we get re-elected?
The Gang of 63 has flipped back and forth from singing the blues to chanting a no-tax rap to listening to all that jazz from lobbyists. Now, with sine die four weeks from Monday, they may finally be ready to rock and roll.
The Economic Forum didn't make significant changes to revenue projections when it convened last week, so that escape hatch disappeared for any wishful thinkers. And last week lawmakers began closing significant budgets, including higher and lower education -- and made only minor changes to the governor's spending plan. That means, and this happens session after session, that lawmakers will make very few changes to the executive budget, preferring to engage in three months of hectoring state bureaucrats before giving them essentially what they ask for. Yes, folks, it is bipartisan and biennial -- the governor almost always gets what he wants.
So for months we have seen the maneuvering, the posturing, the complaining as lawmakers have railed about Kenny Guinn, about the gamers, about their e-mail in-boxes, about their re-election chances. And in so doing, they have been able to avoid talking about what they should have been talking about: The Great Tax Debate.
But now they have no choice because, as everyone knew they would eventually, they have painted themselves into a corner. By not making gargantuan cuts in the governor's budgets, they have acknowledged that they intend to fund anywhere from a $700 million to a $1 billion increase.
Some lawmakers continue to debate how much they should agree to raise because of the political consequences. But do any of them really think whatever damage they absorb will be greater if they raise $990 million, as the governor wants, or $850 million? Or $700 million?
The inside baseball played in the hallways of the Legislative Building reminds me of how some of those folks would fare if they put on a uniform and faced Randy Johnson. Stick to what you do well, folks -- and whatever that is, it ain't political consulting.
There are some who think the gang should just offer up the $700 million needed just to break even because of increasing caseloads in education and social services. Others believe that the so-called enhancements in the budget -- such as beginning a project called all-day kindergarten -- are essentials and should not be sacrificed, especially if the political downside is no greater with $900 million rather than $700 million.
As important as that debate should have been and still might be in the final month, the most significant accomplishment -- or failure -- of Session '03 will not be the amount of money raised. It will be how the money is raised.
The overplayed song we have heard so many times before is the one that goes like this: "Time is running out, let's just cobble some taxes together without any regard to policy and go home." This approach has served many lawmakers well politically and also is directly responsible for the current fiscal fix.
Here's an idea: If you are going to enact the most massive tax increase in history, how about doing it right? That is, lawmakers already have decided to pass a record tax package. Maybe they could turn the volume down on the rhetoric and listen to a new song that goes like this: "Let's use some of the ideas that have sprouted this session -- a real estate transfer tax, for instance. But let's find a way to make the tax base more stable by passing that business tax we've been talking about for years."
Indeed, the crowning accomplishment of this Legislature could be to pass a stable, thoughtful funding source for the state's future. No, not a sales tax on services, which has very little support in the building. And the gross receipts tax will not pass in its current incarnation -- although the Anti-Tax Gazette (aka the Review-Journal) on Friday tried to make it sound (erroneously) as if Assembly Democrats won't pass some form of gross receipts.
But as I said last week, they can try to kill the gross receipts tax all they want. But in some form and with a different name, it remains the most likely candidate to be standing after all the static subsides. Maybe there will be exemptions, maybe the rate will be changed. But it's still the most palatable solution -- unless they want a net profits tax, which will really bring out the stuck pig singers.
So maybe a more euphonious sound will be heard from the legislative radio as time goes by. But even though there remains talk of a special session, especially if the governor decides not to sign the budget, the real issue here is that the Gang of 63 does not want to play the same tax increase song twice this year.
If they choose to vote once for taxes in May and then again in June, no amount of static next year will stop voters from tuning in to their opponents' frequency.
archive
