By Stephen Winham
Guest Columnist
In the unfunny joke that was the latest “special” [not] legislative session there were no real surprises. After much bickering over a small gobble-de-gook of incomplete solutions and ideas with no goal beyond getting 70 House votes for just about anything, the session finally ended with a whimper that anybody should have been able to predict after 15 days of inaction. We are all left to ask why this debacle ever took place at all.
In the weeks leading up to the session Gov. Edwards threatened to not call it if an agreement on what to do about the “fiscal cliff” was not imminent. Showing a distinct lack of decisive leadership, he not only went back on this threat, but failed, himself, to present a concrete proposal with a combination of cuts and taxes that would yield a recurring balance. He never even really tried and seemed to say he was tired of doing so.
The governor presented a list of “cuts” he said he had already made, too many of which were not really cuts and a few of which were apparently duplicated. Even the unambiguous cuts on the list begged the question of what has really changed as their result? What pain has been inflicted and on whom? At the very least, what services have been diminished?
What evidence did the governor present that his appointees will be held accountable for making government as efficient as possible in the future, so people can have faith the revenues raised or retained will be spent wisely? Ask anybody on the street if they believe state government is improving in that regard and the answer will most often be a resounding “No.” This is particularly true of people who read newspapers and political blogs, listen to talk radio, and watch local television news where negative reports about state government are routine.
It is just plain common sense that people want answers to these questions. If the governor has made meaningful cuts he should be able to provide proof. In other words, it should be possible to demonstrate the effects (not just dollar amounts) in such a way that people can judge whether the cuts should have been made and whether additional significant cuts should be made and, most importantly, specifically where?
For the coming year, the governor presented a list of cuts, but defended none of them as cuts he believed should be made. On the revenue side, he presented a package that didn’t even fund these cuts and which he only halfheartedly supported. About the only hope reflected in the governor’s proposal was that the mediocrity that keeps us on the bottom of practically every list of good things could continue.
The state senate waited the whole session for the house to give them something meaningful to do – Revenue bills had to originate in the house by law. The Senate returned one bill providing tax relief to flood victims and the House concurred.
Despite having plenty of time because of a temporary two-year bridge, solid research of all pertinent issues, and promises to come forth with a plan to simply balance the budget, the house did nothing of the kind. Instead of presenting a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, or even cuts alone, the house argued over pieces of the puzzle on the sheer basis of whether enough people would vote for them – what deals could be cut. And cutting deals to get votes does not necessarily work to the advantage of the state or its citizens.
There was never a serious attempt to construct an enduring solution with more than a trace of desperately needed fiscal reform. If there was a goal, it was to continue what we have had for over a decade – a questionable and temporary balance that makes as few voters and special interests angry as possible. Thrown in were a handful of feel-good measures including ostensible Medicaid reform, a new spending cap proposal, and a promise of enhanced government transparency – none of which should require legislation. Accomplishing their goals should be part of responsible governing. Nobody was made happy -except those who think we should go over the cliff and see what happens.
One measure was anointed the pre-requisite and centerpiece for everything else and every day of deliberation the argument was put forth, “If we can’t renew ¼ of the expiring sales tax, we can’t move forward.” What was so magical about that quarter of a penny? Was it important to continue to punish the poor at least a little for being poor as a starting point, or what? As its author, Rep. Dwight himself pointed out, the prospects for passage of his bill never really improved as the session went on. Worse, it only took care of about a third of the gap and there was no clear plan for filling the rest of it from anywhere. In a word, the bill was worthless.
Representatives Barry Ivey and Kenny Havard stood out as sincerely interested in doing something to help the state and its people move forward. They both repeatedly called out their colleagues for hypocrisy and empty rhetoric. It is unfortunate Ivey did not get his February 28 motion to adjourn sine die on the floor and passed. At least it would have saved the taxpayers the $60,000+ per day costs of the remaining days. Sharon Hewitt and a growing number of others at least had sense enough to see the wisdom in that. Always rational, Rep. Julie Stokes attempted to move members in a progressive direction despite her Republican pedigree. Speaker Pro Tempore Walt Leger offered progressive income tax measures to lukewarm support. A few others voiced frustration but did little to steer what they clearly viewed as a doomed session toward success.
Republican Caucus Chair Lance Harris, himself a true expert at it, said he was tired of the blame game. Rob Shadoin agreed and restated the obvious when he said the session accomplished nothing except failing the people. Speaking of blame, many people were happy to place it on the Black Caucus and their fellow Democrats. If they were to blame for anything, it was for trying to get at a least a minuscule amount of progressive fiscal reform wedged in somewhere.
And speaking of partisan politics, the T Rex in the House was the desire on the part of Republicans to make the governor look as bad as possible. Helping with that were the special interests, including that beacon of conservative light, Americans for Prosperity, founded and funded by the Koch brothers and claiming a membership of over 3 million right-minded people. How many of our elected officials pay homage to its agenda? Its representative at the session wanted the session to go the distance in furtherance of the Louisiana Checkbook, a [non]panacea for the masses that will probably never be satisfactorily implemented regardless of legislation. How many other budget reform laws languish in the books apparently ignored by our policy makers? And, even when stumbled across, there is always the easy out of no money to implement them. Forget about the will to do so.
The special session served one critical function to anybody who paid any attention to what went on. It showed the utter lack of effective leadership in our state’s government. It revealed who among our elected officials has the best interests of our state and its people at heart, i. e., who literally supports our form of government – and who doesn’t.
We can’t immediately recall the people who continue to ignore those of us without deep pockets, but we can replace them at election time – assuming people willing to truly represent us offer themselves for election – a daunting proposition at best. Many current officeholders, with the validation of history, believe they don’t have to represent the bulk of us to be re-elected. All they must do is get enough money from special interests to generate a flood of propaganda and false promises to fool enough people into voting for them.
Let’s prove them wrong.
(Editor’s note: Stephen Winham is the retired Director of the Louisiana Executive Budget Office, having served in that capacity from 1988 to 2000.)
Louisiana Voice 