|
News
reports from Minnesota, North Carolina and
California about government shutdowns or threatened
shutdowns due to budget impasses bring back memories
of a similar problem in Virginia in 2004.
Could we be looking at a replay in Richmond when the
current budget is due to expire in 2006?
Senate
Finance Chair John Chichester, R- Northumberland,
with the help of Gov. Mark R. Warner, brought about
a legislative stalemate during the 2004 regular
session of the Virginia General Assembly when the
Senate and House failed to reach agreement on a
budget. The Senate insisted on a major increase in
state taxes to fund the 2004-2006 budget. The House
refused to do so after weeks of nonproductive
haggling with the Senate.
To
avert a government shutdown while negotiations
continued, the House passed legislation that would
continue the 2002-2004 budget beyond June 30, 2004,
when it was scheduled to expire, while increasing
state funding for public education by almost eight
percent. Warner and Chichester rejected the stopgap
legislation and accused the House of attempting to
disrupt the budget negotiations. Warner
went so far as to threaten to veto the stopgap
legislation, using the prospect of a government
shutdown as a political weapon to force the House to
agree to raise taxes.
The
threat worked. It was a clever and effective
political tactic, but very poor public policy.
How
other states have responded to the same kind of
budget impasse is instructive. Earlier this month,
the Minnesota legislature refused to enact a stopgap
budget and suffered an almost complete shutdown of
state government.
California
and North Carolina, on the other hand, kept their
respective governments operating this year by
agreeing to stopgap legislation. California has done
so for five straight years.
Which
is the more responsible approach?
Averting
a shutdown and making a bill to raise taxes succeed
or fail on its own merits rather than tying it to
the enactment of a state budget would seem to be the
wiser course, but Warner, Chichester, and their
pro-tax allies don’t appear to agree.
Now
is the time to confront this issue because Virginia
will face another potential budget impasse in 2006.
This time the fight is likely to be over a proposal
to increase the motor fuel tax or other taxes to
provide funding for transportation.
Chichester
has been critical of the positions of the two major
party gubernatorial candidates to use revenues from
existing general fund taxes to pay for
transportation projects. He and his Senate colleague
Russell Potts, an independent gubernatorial
candidate, have proposed a substantial hike in
special fund taxes (for example, the motor fuel tax)
to pay for new transportation projects.
The
responsible course is to resolve in advance not to
have legislators enact another state budget with a
gun at their heads, the gun being the threat of a
government shutdown. Legislation to increase taxes
should be addressed as an independent matter.
Special
interests that favor tax hikes won’t be pleased
with this approach. Neither will their allies in the
General Assembly. But a majority of Virginians will
support separate tracks, one for the budget and
another for any legislation unrelated to
appropriating revenues currently authorized.
Last
session, the Senate declined to take up House-passed
legislation to prevent either chamber from creating
a budget impasse by inserting a tax increase into
the budget bill. Are a majority of senators prepared
to use the budget impasse tactic again in 2006?
--
July 11, 2005
|
