Friday, May 30, 2003 | 5:28 a.m.
No, I don't recall ever hearing that.
And this session, the end is especially egregious, whether or not a special stanza is needed (I am writing this Friday.) No matter what they do, the Gang of 63 essentially had one major policy decision this session -- yes, I'm talking about taxes -- and they are ending the way they started: Scared of their own shadows or, more accurately, the shadow of Campaign '04.
One must be careful as sessions wane to not be colored by the biennial disgust that permeates the building. It's bound to be ugly, it's bound to be rushed, it's bound to be frightening. New ideas sprout in the final days that have not even been considered in the previous 100-plus. Bad ideas become law and must be fixed in future sessions.
It is like watching a psychological experiment where the worst of human behavior is on display in all its execrable forms. Rank pettiness. Arrogant posturing. Craven dodging. And no therapy -- from the governor, from lobbyists, from obnoxious pundits -- seems to help.
And now, as Session '03 winds down (or not), the nadir has been achieved, the possibility of the third special session in two years, the second straight session that they may not be able to complete their business on time as mandated by law.
The voters, in their less than infinite wisdom, passed the 120-day limit. It was a bad idea -- lawmakers should meet until they get the business done properly. But it is the law and for legislators to flout it, especially when they have known for months (years?) what they need to do on taxes, they deserve to be caricatured as terrified children instead of thoughtful solons.
"It's insulting, it's despicable and it's ridiculous," understated one longtime legislative observer.
Said another: "I've been here a long time and I have never seen so many people afraid of doing the right thing."
Don't misunderstand, dear readers: Most of the Gang of 63 believe that a tax package is necessary. But they are using all manner of disingenuous deflections to try to explain why they find it so difficult to support what they know is needed. This from a bunch of people who knew coming in what the problem was and most of them still couldn't pass a simple test on that tax task force report.
If they were honestly and philosophically motivated -- such as state Sen. Ann O'Connell and Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick -- that would be fine. But this is not about core beliefs; it's about re-election.
So instead of real debates about education funding or state spending on social and human services, we get unreal arguments about whether the tax increase should be $850 million or $930 million. As if the number itself is freighted with so much significance. No, it's all about who wins, with no regard to how little the difference makes politically. Ironically, all too many of them care about politics and the difference in political damage from $850 million and $930 million is nonexistent.
Message to lawmakers who are mewling about getting skittish about the number going north of $900 million: Anywhere in that neighborhood, I and others will write that it was "about a billion-dollar increase, the largest in state history." Sure, some of us will say it was needed; some of us might say you should have done more, that if you are going to pass the largest tax increase in history, might as well go the whole hog.
And those who don't like it -- the Review-Journal, GOP rabble-rousers -- will not like it any better if you pass a payroll tax instead of a gross receipts tax, if you pass $850 million instead of $900 million.
The wrangling over what the number should be is the most asinine argument I have heard in all the sessions I've covered (and I've heard a few). It is moronic and meaningless.
It might have been too much to ask these folks to stand up from Day One of this session and talk about the need and explain to their constituents why the tax package was needed. Gov. Kenny Guinn, while I had hoped he would have done it two sessions ago, did so in January and has been bludgeoned ever since.
But he has remained consistent, which is a quality many in the Legislative Building have forgotten. There are a few exceptions -- for instance, Speaker Richard Perkins has been remarkably resolute about a broad-based business tax and funding education. And he has held together his caucus for almost the entire session, which is more than any other caucus leader here can say.
What would truly make this an end-of-the-session to remember would be if there were speeches from leaders of both parties, from Democrats and Republicans not in the hierarchy and even from some teeth-chattering freshmen saying to their constituents: "We came here to do a job. We don't like having to raise taxes. But it's the right thing to do and we can hold our heads high as we leave here and prepare to explain why we have done what we have done."
I'm waiting.
archive
