AZ Policy Wonk

It sounds as though we might finally see some action on the budget. But, then again, that might just be what they want us to think.

If I sound paranoid, it’s only because I’m delirious after seven months of budget yammering.

Anyway, my point is this: With GOP lawmakers working toward dueling deals with Democrats and Governor Jan Brewer, both sides might feel a bit more pressure to capitulate. If Republican lawmakers can’t get what they want from the Democratic minority, then they can fall back and work out something with the governor – or vice versa.

It seems like simple strategy. Work one against the other. If not for the political consequences of going to Democrats earlier on, this tactic might have played out months earlier. How would it have looked, after all, if Republicans, with a solid majority in the Legislature and a Republican on the Ninth Floor, had gone willingly to Democrats in, say, April?

Plus, Republicans may actually have thought they could string something together among themselves in the final days of the regular session, a magical time that sometimes turns idealists into pragmatists. Perhaps their rank-and-file would relent and agree to a sales tax referral, or maybe Brewer would buckle and let the whole thing slide.

But neither of those things happened, and here we are 27 days into the fiscal year without a budget. We’re one of only a few states still stuck in this purgatory.

Some lawmakers have said a deal is near and an agreement might be struck within a week or so. But which deal? The one with Democrats, or the one with Brewer? Actually, it may serve GOP leaders well to give the impression that they’re about to close the deal on both ends.

In any case, it wouldn’t be the first time that everyone was fooled into thinking a budget agreement was in hand. I, for one, started holding my breath on June 30.

Nobody likes working ’round the clock. And nobody will say publicly that it’s a good idea to pass a budget at 4 a.m.

But it happens. And I get why it happens – sort of, at least.

Lawmakers have put in a lot of hours trying to get their minds around a huge, complex budget problem. They spent months working toward a consensus. They held hearings, grilled department heads, conferred with tax experts, etc. Then they pressed on toward an agreement that attempts to fill a $3.2 billion deficit and, in the meantime, everyone was trying to understand how to best position the state regarding the receipt and use of federal stimulus money.

There were substantial reasons that led to the delay so far in terms of coming to a budget agreement. Big deficit. Serious disagreements over taxes. And Election Day 2010.

For the first five months of session, the Senate wasn’t making any progress on non-budget bills, but at least I sort of understood the order of things, the logic in it all. The budget was a huge, hairy beast that needed to be a priority – and for some, it made sense to make it their sole priority.

But during the last week in May, something changed; there was an urgency among lawmakers to pass a budget quickly. A few days later, on June 1, Gov. Jan Brewer finally offered her competing budget plan, and it became clear why the hurry. But the reasons for the rush, however obvious, became less logical and started to seem more like the politics Arizonans have seen in the past several years of state budget negotiations. Only this time, it wasn’t a Democratic governor keeping legislative Republicans at bay – it was the GOP’s own governor.

The result of that confrontation was the passage of a legislative budget only three days after Brewer’s was released. It went quickly, after months of slow-pacing the process. So quickly, in fact, that lawmakers worked from Wednesday morning on June 3 until Thursday morning on June 4 to pass a budget that almost nobody really thought was the best plan for the state.

What was once a deliberate process sped up considerably, perhaps too quickly. Many lawmakers don’t like the budget they voted for, but legislative leaders were trying to send a message to Brewer that they weren’t going to do it her way. And they needed to show that they had enough like-minded colleagues in tow.

Through all of this, though, one negative side-effect has emerged: It’s not good for the state, its residents or democracy in general when lawmakers hold the first floor debate and vote on the fiscal 2010 budget in the middle of the night.

What gets lost is openness in government, public participation and the idea that scrutiny and criticism from all sides makes for better policy. Those virtues go out the window when 10 budget bills are voted upon at 4 a.m. while residents sleep, after most Democrat lawmakers have gone home and in front of a diminished Capitol press corps.

I get that there was only a month left to finish budget work before the fiscal deadline. Lawmakers had to pull the trigger at some point. But now, here we are, a week later, and we’re stalemated with all three branches of government involved.

Here’s a novel concept: Maybe the negotiations should have been handled ahead of time, rather than the governor’s release of a budget that she knew lawmakers wouldn’t like, the Legislature’s decision to pass a budget in the dead of night that they could have guessed the governor wouldn’t sign and the ensuing legal battle that has now involved the state Supreme Court. 

There is a risk to the process of democratic government when issues that will affect millions of Arizonans are debated and decided in the dead of night and in front of a half-full chamber of lawmakers. And now the whole process is going to get murkier to most voters, now that the court has a chance to weigh in.

This isn’t exactly the kind of government transparency that I, for one, had in mind when the session started.

Back in early May, someone close to the Governor’s Office told me that Gov. Brewer had worked up her own budget proposal and was simply waiting to release it until the Legislature had tied itself up in knots over the details of what everyone expected would be a fiscal 2010 spending plan that cuts services for Arizona’s low-income families, children and the elderly.

The source also said Brewer had a budget plan all along, details and everything, and was just waiting for the right moment to swoop in and end the stalemate among GOP lawmakers negotiating the budget. By offering a more moderate proposal, one that includes tax increases to cover part of the deficit, the governor was hoping to galvanize enough support among lawmakers and, if so, be seen as rescuing the state from an unpopular strategy that includes deep cuts to education, health care and a host of other programs designed to assist thousands of residents.

It made sense. After all, what kind of a governor would want to sit on the sidelines, as Brewer appeared to have been doing, while lawmakers work to solve the state’s most-pressing problem? Certainly, there are risks to crafting a budget that starts out with a $3 billion deficit. But anyone who assumes the position of governor must inherently believe that their own judgment is best and, therefore, would do the state a disservice by standing silent at a time of crisis.

After she released details, five months into the session, it became clear at least that Brewer has not been standing by idly. With the release of her full budget plan, though, she has put herself in direct conflict with legislative leaders who have different thoughts on how the state should manage its finances.

Until the end of May, though, Brewer and her staff had done a fairly effective job of keeping details within their inner circle. Asking for Brewer’s thoughts on the budget had been a monumental waste of time for reporters at the Capitol. Spokespeople said nothing. And Brewer stuck to generalities while regurgitating her five-point plan in front of various groups of stakeholders.

Even the minutia was useless and, at times, just plain confusing. Reporters who cover the governor typically develop a sort of sixth-sense that helps them determine what message the governor is trying to convey even though it might not be said overtly. For instance, a governor who normally signs bills immediately after they reach their desk might be sending a signal of displeasure if they say they will need to take some time to study the merits or legalities of a particular piece of legislation that has been passed.

But these types of signals from Brewer were difficult to distinguish. For instance, when asked early on whether the temporary tax she proposed would be a necessary element to getting her signature on a budget, she said it was only a last resort in case all other budget-balancing options were to fail. But only days later, she answered the same question by saying it is, indeed, necessary to raise taxes and that lawmakers will have to come to that conclusion eventually.

That sort of back-and-forth also occurred when Brewer announced in February that she would release a full budget proposal “in the near future,” and then said weeks later that she had decided to leave the details to lawmakers.

Since then, however, leaders in the House and Senate have failed to craft a budget that would carry the support of rank-and-file members. Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams have been in a holding pattern after passing budget measures through committee, both saying they don’t have the votes to pass a budget on the floor of either chamber. And for much of that time, they said they would like to hear from the governor, so they could craft a budget that she might support.

Brewer’s people must have thought releasing the budget late would bring more lawmakers to the table, perhaps in desperation as the deadline approaches. But it also sets up a winner-take-all situation for Brewer and the Legislature, which means at least one side has to lose.

If the idea was to allow Brewer to jump into the budget fray and save the day, then any street cred to be gained by Brewer would be contingent on her ability to sell her plan to lawmakers and to satisfy at least some of her goals in its eventual passing. If she fails to do so, then she will appear to have lost a major battle waged between her office and members of her own party.

If this wasn’t the strategy all along, then circumstances set in motion what could be a huge political victory – or embarrassment – for the Brewer administration going into an election year.

Either way, there’s a lot at stake.