Conquering the 2010-11 Budget

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
April 9, 2010

Once more into the breach, once more into the teeth of the fray, up boys, arise virtuous maidens, cast off your drowsy ways — for your state has need of you again. Come gallant lads and lassies, take up the cudgel, draw back your bows of burning gold, fire your souls with the screaming music of battle, welcome death as an embracing brother and run headlong into glory to conquer the merciless 2010-11 budget.

Yea, though the yawping jaws of deficit hell lash you with fire, and the demon serpents of cuts and taxes eat away your fiber, your spirits will not weaken, your flesh will not fail, your mighty cause will not be dulled — for your hearts have been purified with the sparkling waters of public service. And though you may yet fall, the majesty of your unvanquished characters will be as a mighty glowing beacon to all who take up your sword to follow, and know from your comforting seats at the great feast beyond that your grateful citizens will, their eyes swimming, say to their children: “Never forget that here they stood, they fought and they conquered even as they fell for us. Never forget these the most worthy, the indefatigable brave, the unfailingly kind, the eternally patient, the most serenely wise, the 95th Michigan Legislature.”

Yeah, whatever.

The “working break” the legislature took over the Easter/Passover holidays has come to a close, though how much work was in fact accomplished will be left to later generations to tally. It is April and, in such economically dangerous times, this month marks a delicate moment.

There is still the retirement proposal of Governor Jennifer Granholm, which she had called on the legislature to enact by April 1 (though she did herself no favors by failing for more than six weeks after she announced the proposal on January 29 to have ready the bills for lawmakers to act on) in order for school districts, especially, to try and convince those eligible to retire to take up the deal.

There is, of course, the budget, which though not technically due until October 1, is in a critical stage. Ms. Granholm and top lawmakers have all called for it to be completed by July 1. While that means nearly three months remain to finish the document, the lines so far set by the opposing sides are troubling.

The Senate continues to call for more cuts, the House seems to be aiming in all directions, and Ms. Granholm seems to have retired from the field on her tax proposals in terms of winning allies, hoping instead that a battlefield vision will open the eyes of lawmakers to the necessity of her sales tax proposition. Progress towards resolution, any resolution, seems halting and tentative.

And May 11 is the filing deadline for the August primary and November elections. Once the names for the 148 legislative campaigns are set, and the campaigning really begins in earnest, the ability of legislators to reach concurrence on anything complicated and controversial will flicker and dim. So the so-called three-month time frame to complete the budget by July 1 stands in doubt.

Overlaying all of this remains both a serious lack of straight talk about what will be the result of any budget decisions, cuts or tax increases, as well as an unsettling sense that officials aren’t showing the creative intellectual chops to work through the problems.

The latter point first: last month the legislature, specifically the Senate, failed to approve a resolution that would have voided a 3-percent raise in 2010-11 for state workers. Republicans were solidly for it, all but one Democrat was against it. Ms. Granholm was officially silent on the matter, since her administration had negotiated the contract and she was worried about creating an unfair negotiating point, but the administration would have been very happy had the raise been rejected. (The administration did, for example, ask and convince the Civil Service Commission to reject the same raise for non-unionized workers).

So the raise was protected, making Michigan somewhat unique as states across the nation have actually cut the pay of their workers. In so doing, the Republicans won themselves a campaign issue, portraying the Democrats as willing to spend money the state could have saved without costing, at least pre-inflation, state workers anything.

But when at any point during the debate on the pay raise was there an effort not to eliminate the pay raise, but cut it? The constitution gives the legislature the power to cut a pay raise or eliminate it. Would it have saved as much money for the state to cut the raise to 1.5 percent from 3 percent? Of course it wouldn’t have. But it would have saved the state money, and might have won the day. Enough Democrats might have supported it and, grumbling though they would have, the Republicans would have voted for it as well. The workers would have still been unhappy, but probably willing to go along with a reduced pay raise.

So when did that come up? Not until a reporter posed the question and responding lawmakers seemed puzzled that it was even an option. By then, the time frame to act at all had passed.

Okay, even smart people get tied up sometimes and fail to see solutions. But now is not the time for officials to ignore all the possible ways to resolution. Especially since resolving the budget will in the end require a multi-textured solution.

But it is a multi-textured solution that will mean pain. And that returns to the first point about the continuing lack of straight talk about what solutions will require.

Consider the retirement proposal. What could be better than offering retirement to workers who have put in 30 years plus of dedicated service? It almost brings to mind those silly commercials of happy retirees frolicking on the beach or swinging strongly on the golf course. Now, to help convince these workers to retire the state offers a combination of sort of a carrot and a definite stick (although the stick probably doesn’t seem that stiff to those in the private sector who have been funding their retirements largely on their own).

The problem the administration faces is that legislative Democrats are balking at the plan. Why? Because teachers and state workers don’t like the proposal. In this economically fragile time, being forced into retirement doesn’t seem dreamy to them. State workers and teachers have made it plain that they don’t want to be forced out.

Because someone who has worked 30 years could just now be in his or her early 50s, possibly have kids ready for college, or parents needing help, or struggling with underwater mortgages. Retirement, hell, they have told reporters and legislators alike, they need jobs, and finding one outside their current workplace will not be easy.

Yet, the state finds itself needing to take hard action. And hard actions mean pain, whatever those actions are, be they budget cuts, tax increases or big changes in services or employment benefits. Someone will suffer. Perhaps many people will suffer. Yet, that’s what a politician is supposed to have signed up for. The only successful politicians die in office before they get voted out.

Facing that fact square, and combining it with some creative juice, is needed now. Coming up with a workable plan will mean probably the state doesn’t save as much and the retiring workers don’t grumble as much. It will certainly mean no one is happy, but happiness is not required of good government.

So gird yourselves, our brave and bold ones, put on your shining armor. Time to take the hits, but gain the grudging respect. Unsheathe your cunning, you must have some cunning somewhere, which should be your sharpest weapon and fear not to use it. Better to be impaled in the fight than meekly sit at your desk.

Better to act now, and act bravely, ’cause you will have to act, and acting weakly just means the 95th legislature will be remembered as an endless, annoying headache.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. 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.