by Gongwer News Service
October 2, 2009

Let’s recall one of the great scenes in American theatre, in The Odd Couple, when Felix is trying to have a conversation with the British Coo-Coo sisters and they slide into sad memories until all three are sobbing hysterically on the couch. At that moment Oscar comes from the kitchen with a tray of drinks, calling out gaily: “Is everybody happy?”

Ladies and gentlemen, we present you with the 2009-10 budget process: everyone sobbing on the couch for whatever reason — against cuts, for cuts, against taxes, for taxes — when the legislative leadership and the governor come in, all with their own tray of drinks and calling out, “Is everybody happy?”

Don’t like the agreement Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) and House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) made? Don’t worry, there’s a continuation budget. Do like it? Don’t worry, there’s a continuation budget. Don’t like it? Hey, we also have all the budget bills so Governor Jennifer Granholm can veto them. Like the agreement? Hey, we have all the budget bills and maybe Ms. Granholm will sign them. Is everybody happy?

Sure. Maybe. Well, no. Well…what are the options again?

As lawmakers, administration officials and observers keep shaking their heads over the final days of 2008-09 and the dawn of 2009-10 and wondering what all that was about, it is becoming increasingly clear what the underlying mission of the controversial budget agreement between Mr. Bishop and Mr. Dillon was: make everyone happy, give all a critical element of their political principles, satisfy all sides as best one could in the process, and then build a firmer foothold of legislative mutual trust before trekking off into the yawning maw of the burning beast from hell called the 2010-11 budget.

In effect, they tried to give actual meaning to the largely meaningless phrase “win-win.” The agreement, had it been pulled off as intended, would have been a win-win, at least in concept.

Remember, the idea was that the legislature, and by extension Ms. Granholm, would agree to adopt the Senate-originated 2009-10 budget that called for at least $1.2 billion in cuts, and then return in the early part of 2009-10 and restore some revenues (through whatever means, but most likely adjustments to tax credits and loopholes) to reduce or eliminate some of the more onerous cuts. If this had happened, in a world where politics depends elementally on clinging to legalistic semantic accuracies, Republicans could have truthfully said they enacted a budget by the deadline with all cuts and no revenue increases, and Democrats could have said they had succeeded in raising money to mitigate the worst of what are necessary cuts, and then the budget would be in some structurally better position for the more massive restructuring that will be required with 2010-11. Is everybody happy?

Was that really the plan? The more one peers into the evidence and connects the logical dots, it seems it could have been no other plan. Since the agreement was announced, a number of Republicans, lawmakers and staff, all talking off the record (of course) said that when the legislature returned in October and November it would begin to act on some revenue plan. The focus was on adjusting tax credits to raise some hundreds of millions, and one top Republican said, “Everyone knows that’s going to happen. It has to happen.”

Setting aside the Republicans, how else can one explain top House Democrats, such as Appropriations Chair George Cushingberry of Detroit, backing the agreement? They could only have done so with assurances that revenues were coming.

So, let’s make everyone happy. Let’s cut but not disinvest. Nobody likes spending money but nobody wants to be cheap when granny needs medicine, the kids need shoes and the baby needs milk. Let’s treat the state budget like a household budget and, yes, households cut spending but they also add family revenues by getting a second job, holding a yard sale, working overtime.

Why didn’t the agreement work the way it should have? Trust is a big reason, and because the top players trusted too much and too little. The relationships between Mr. Bishop, Mr. Dillon and Ms. Granholm are too fragmented, too brittle, to work off each other’s mindset let alone develop the trust they need. Ms. Granholm was not a party to the agreement, for whatever reasons, and she could not trust that Mr. Bishop and Mr. Dillon would be relied on.

“Dillon keeps telling us, ‘trust me,’ and we keep saying, ‘trust what?’” one top administration official said several weeks ago.

And aside from the lack of trust within the leadership circle, there was the question of the caucuses’ ability to trust their own leaders. Mr. Bishop had a better time of that than did Mr. Dillon, but both had to work overtime to make sure everybody was happy (or at least not disgruntled) to ensure the budgets would pass. Eventually, pass most of them did.

But the lawmaking circle is larger than just the House and Senate, and so it returns to Ms. Granholm. And what will she do with the plan? “Surgical vetoes” have been hinted at already. Aimed at what, in the end, is ensuring that cuts are restored through additional revenues — which means in its own way that the agreement is completed. Happy, everybody, huh?

So what to do to minimize the chance this invigorating exercise is foregone for the upcoming year, which has the potential, against the backdrop of the election, to provoke open madness as the budget is crafted? One suggestion is better overall communications top to bottom, side to side, over, under, around and through, to assure that all players — and all observers — understand the plans, where cuts will have to be made, what revenues will be needed and where.

That alone won’t guarantee a smooth process, but it likely will help make sure everybody is happy.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.