|
When
several pro-tax editorial pages turned their heavy
guns on House Speaker William Howell recently, it
was a sure sign that his strong leadership tactics
were working. Howell has rallied the House of
Delegates to stand firm in the budget battle with
the Senate.
For
these editorial writers, there is only one reason
for the budget impasse — Howell’s intransigence.
Yet the only constant in the budget standoffs in
2001, 2004 and 2006 is John Chichester, the
President Pro Tem of the Senate. It is Chichester
who refuses to yield on the budget unless he gets
his way.
When
it became clear more than a month ago that
Chichester would again use the threat of a
government shutdown to try to force the House to
accept a tax increase, he was asked by reporters if
he was concerned that essential governmental
services might be cut off. His response: “I
don’t give a rip.” What’s surprising is that
Chichester’s Senate colleagues put up with this
petulance.
Chichester
was asked during this year’s regular legislative
session why he insisted on inserting his proposed
tax increase in the biennial state budget. Give him
credit for candor. He said he needed the threat of a
government shutdown for leverage against the House
of Delegates to win support for a tax increase.
What
if Chichester prevails? The pro-tax editorial
writers haven’t allowed themselves to think beyond
getting a tax increase this year, but they should
consider the substantial problems brought on by
Chichester’s practice of tying up the budget
process every two years.
First,
the credit rating agencies that determine whether
Virginia keeps its triple-A credit status are
principally concerned about the likelihood that a
governmental entity will pay its bills on time.
Chichester’s repeated practice of stalling the
enactment of the state budget is an obvious threat
to Virginia’s credit rating.
Second,
at some point there will be a judicial challenge to
embedding legislation that enacts a permanent tax
increase in the appropriations act that funds
government for a two-year period. As noted in this
space on previous occasions, embedding permanent
legislation in the appropriations act appears to
violate the single object rule found in the Virginia
Constitution. But Chichester obviously doesn’t
give a rip about the disruption that would result if
a court rules that this practice is
unconstitutional. Perhaps the pro-tax editorial
writers will blame that on Howell, too.
Some
editorial writers have picked up on the talking
points of Chichester’s leading cheerleader, Gov.
Timothy M. Kaine, who contends that the Senate’s
version of the state budget with its $1 billion tax
increase should become law simply because he and
three of the party caucuses in the General Assembly
support it, while only the House Republican Caucus
opposes it.
Fortunately
for taxpayers, that’s not the way votes are
counted under the Constitution. A majority of those
elected to each house must approve a tax increase.
But none of these tax proponents seem to give a rip
about the Constitution either.
The
proper course was to approve a state budget during
the regular session and then address how to deal
with the need for a long-term transportation
solution at a special session. As Kaine insisted
during the 2005 campaign, simply raising taxes and
spending more money on transportation projects the
old way will not provide a long-term solution. Kaine
said that we couldn’t pave our way out of
congestion, but needed new thinking. Now, he’s
prepared to see government shut down unless the
House accepts a tax increase to fund business as
usual.
Go
figure.
--
May 1, 2006
|
