AZ Policy Wonk

People who watched television news this weekend might be confused into thinking that Monday’s “emergency” meeting of Governor’s Office policy advisers is significant – as if some sort of budget solution will emerge now that the governor has gotten serious. 

Those of us who spend more time at the Capitol know it’s a publicity stunt. It’s the kind of PR move initiated by people who know more about lobbying and campaigning than they do about actually communicating with the public and the media. 

Tack on the word “emergency,” and it looks as if something is finally going to shake loose after more than a year of budget problems and months of deadlock on how to close the deficit. And, of course, television reporters who spend about five hours per year covering the Capitol will jump on board and exclaim to hundreds of thousands of at-home viewers that the governor is rushing to action now that the Legislature has failed to close a $1.6 billion deficit.

These TV reporters will stand in front of the cameras with stern looks on their faces as if they understand how dire a situation this really is, but the fact is that they know far more about chasing ambulances than they do about state government. (On Saturday, one television station reported a statement from House Minority Leader David Lujan, pronouncing his last name as Loo-jen.)

Those of us who spend 10-12 hours per day at the Capitol are much more suspicious about the notion that the governor’s emergency meeting will produce anything other than sound bites to aid her election campaign. And, if we’re wrong, then why hasn’t she taken a more active role in the legislative process so far? Why has she waited until now – halfway through the fiscal year – to call an emergency meeting?

The longer it takes to come up with a solution, the tougher it is to balance the state budget. We’re six months into fiscal 2010, so we have only six months to cut spending from a budget that is already half-spent. The roughly $8 billion state pie that was available for adjustments in July has been eaten away to about $4 billion.

For 11 months now, the governor’s spokespeople have said as little as possible about the governor’s plans to solve the budget problems. In fact, when the Capitol press corps asks questions about the budget, Brewer’s communications office says pithy things like “She’s in the process of talking to legislative leaders now to come up with solutions that will be something lawmakers and the public can support.” Asked for more details, they decline comment. It’s happened hundreds of times during Brewer’s time in office.

We ask for time with the governor, and we are told she’s too busy to talk to the media. So we follow her to luncheons and other public appearances, and listen to the same speeches over and over, just so we can ask two or three quick questions as the governor is herded into an awaiting car by her staff.

And now they’ve called a dog-and-pony show – and opened it to the media – to give an impression that the governor has a plan and that she’s ready to make things happen. Make no mistake, there will be lots of media at the meeting. It will be packed with video cameras and people with recorders and notebooks, ready to capture every sound bite. Our reporters will be there too.

But you will have to forgive me for being skeptical. The only plan we’ve seen from the governor so far is a proposal to raise sales taxes, a plan that, by the way, lacks the necessary support from the Legislature. And, even if lawmakers pass a referendum and allow voters to have a say, it might fail at the ballot anyway. And if it does pass, it’s only going to fill about one-third of the fiscal 2011 deficit – it’s far too late for a sales tax increase to rescue the fiscal 2010 budget. 

The bottom line: Gov. Brewer is in a weak spot politically. She can’t seem to rally support among members of her own party for the one thing that she continues to ask for over and over. And she’s facing an election in which she is not considered the favorite. She’s tried to be tough with the Legislature – taking them to court on one occasion, vetoing budget bills on another – and she’s even tried to play nice with them by agreeing to spending cuts that she had opposed on prior occasions. Nothing has worked.

So, now we have an emergency meeting of her cabinet members. Look for lots of bluster, little substance and probably a lot of backlash from lawmakers after it’s all over. But there is a bright side for Brewer: The television media doesn’t know enough about politics to pick up on it, and the staged drama will probably be on every evening newscast in the state. Good for election campaigns, bad for the people of Arizona.

It looks like Republican lawmakers are putting a lot of pressure on a few Senate Democrats in hopes that at least one of them can be lured into voting for the budget package.

Likely suspects include Sens. Albert Hale, Manny Alvarez and Richard Miranda. But even less clear is what they would get in return for their support of a budget that so far has been opposed by all Democrats in the Arizona Legislature.

This sort of quid pro quo has become necessary because Republicans have failed to convince a few from their own ranks to buy into specific parts of the package. Some won’t vote for the sales tax referral. Some won’t vote for the tax cuts.

And none of the holdouts seem willing to change their minds. Sen. Carolyn Allen, hampered by a knee injury, has been absent from the Capitol for more than a week. And, after a short phone conversation with reporter Luige del Puerto on Aug. 11, it was clear she remains unmotivated to tip the balance in the Senate.

Sens. Ron Gould and Pamela Gorman aren’t moving either. They won’t vote for the sales tax measure.

Sen. Jim Waring also stands opposed to the sales tax referral, now that it’s been split away from the income tax cuts. He was going to vote in favor of the bill before it was split, but only if he was the deciding 16th vote.

So, as it turns out, splitting several controversial provisions of a budget bill now seems like an exercise in futility. Clearly, it hasn’t produced the numbers needed to pass the package.

All I can say is, what happened to the idea of five-way budget talks with Dems, the GOP and Gov. Jan Brewer? Brewer said she was open to the idea more than a month ago. Democrats have said they wanted that since the beginning. 

Not only would that seem to make some sense given the stalemate we’re in, it also might have created at least an illusion of camaraderie in a Legislature that seems to have fractured beyond repair.

Don’t expect the budget to gain much traction this week – at least not the version passed by the House that includes a mix of income tax cuts, a 5 percent reduction in the state work force and a ballot referral for a sales tax increase.

We hear it’s a no-go in the Senate, where Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould are holding out because of the tax referral and Carolyn Allen is holding out because of the tax cut. Allen stayed away from the Capitol last week because of knee injury that might require surgery, but she told us she is opposed to the budget plan and won’t vote for the proposed $400 million income tax cut.

None of those three are likely to change their minds. Gould ain’t voting for it; he just keeps getting more and more opposed to taxes as each day passes, saying last week that he’ll never vote for a tax increase. Gorman likely won’t vote for it; she already spent hours getting cajoled by the governor, but nothing came of it. And Allen voted against some of the budget bills, even before the income tax reduction was added, so she’s likely to stand firm as well.

Sen. Jim Waring is out of town, but he said he’d come back if his vote was needed to pass the budget. So, we’re counting him as a “yes,” though technically he’s absent.

Same goes for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Gray, who is on a cruise but is expected to be ready to fly back to cast his vote if necessary.

That leaves 15 votes in the Senate, one short of the number needed to pass the 10 budget bills. That’s the same math that stalled the budget’s passage last week. It’s likely to do the same this week, unless a new round of negotiations begins.

Because no action is likely this week on the existing proposal, GOP leaders might opt to go back to the drawing board with Democrats to see if they can craft something with bipartisan approval that is strong enough to override a governor’s veto.

The only other option, besides continuing to pound on the three Senate Republicans, would be to try to peel off a Democrat. Janet Napolitano was masterful at finding a Republican vote or two when she needed them, but it remains to be seen if Brewer has the same skills or cache.

It’s likely a lot of people will want to weigh in on the budget proposal the House voted through last night. So, I’ll post ‘em as I get ‘em. Already received a few statements in my e-mail inbox this morning. And lawmakers had a few things to say last night after the vote.

Let’s start with Attorney General Terry Goddard, who blasted not only the Legislature, but the governor as well. Go figure. Here’s his statement:

“The Legislature and governor have, once again, failed in their most basic constitutional duty – passing a balanced budget. This gridlock just makes Arizona’s economic situation worse and reveals a total lack of leadership at the Capitol.”

Here’s something from the governor:

“I’m very grateful for what happened over in the House and I think that we will be successful,” Gov. Jan Brewer said after meeting with Sen. Pamela Gorman. The governor was referring to the House’s passage of the budget deal.  

Now Gorman:

“I can’t even begin to tell you what’s wrong with this (proposal),” she said.

From the House:

“Folks, sometimes being down here is pure hell. And that’s what it is right now: pure hell,” said Rep. Ray Barnes, a Phoenix Republican who supported the budget package.

“It’s either take this deal, settle on a worse deal or run out of money and leave schools and everyone else in the lurch, and I just can’t do that,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Glendale Republican.

Arizona Democratic Party Chair Don Bivens put this in a statement:

“Arizona is a full month into the new fiscal year, but the governor and Republicans are still stuck back on June 30. There is no budget. There is no legitimate inclusion of duly elected Democrats. Nothing has been accomplished. Their failed leadership has repeated itself day after day, while our state continues to suffer. Arizona needs a strong governor, but what we have instead is a Republican-led deadlock.”

More to come, and don’t forget comments are encouraged.

It now appears as though the Senate is going to push one more time for a budget. And at least one key member who was planning a vacation has indicated she will stick around for one more day.

Sen. Pamela Gorman said last night she would postpone her trip and stay at the Capitol in case budget measures are voted on today. And we hear Sen. Jonathan Paton is planning to be here today; he had military obligations yesterday and wasn’t at the Capitol.

But it’s been difficult for both chambers to corral members these past few days, and it’s not clear whether House members who were planning to be out of town will be here instead.

It’s going to be an interesting ride today. Almost always is.

The Senate has adjourned, which can’t be a good sign for those who were fond of the most recent budget proposal. It sounds like there will be lawmakers missing on Thursday and Friday – lawmakers who were expected to vote yes on the budget legislation – so another delay is likely.

It might turn out that this budget incarnation is already dead. Once again, lawmakers thought they had a deal but couldn’t muster the support, at least in the Senate, to warrant bringing it to the floor for a vote.

Lawmakers were working under the assumption that they had a window of opportunity to pass something this week because, as rumor has it, a handful of lawmakers will go missing due to other obligations starting tomorrow. Now that the window is closing, Republicans might choose to go a different yet familiar route toward a budget deal: Democrats.

The minority party was all geared up earlier in the week because, after watching from the sidelines all session, they were only about $500 million away from a budget deal with the GOP. But those talks ended abruptly when Republicans patched things up with Brewer and came up with the most recent plan.

It all happened so fast, really, after a painfully slow start. Republicans had envisioned working with Brewer on the budget, and proceeded with that in mind for about six months. Then, in the final night of the regular session, Brewer and Republican leaders teased Democrats with stop-and-go talks that amounted to nothing.

The rest goes like this: Brewer vetoes. Democrats in, Brewer out. Three weeks of special session. Brewer in, Democrats out. Republicans fail to muster votes again.

Anyway, I might be getting way ahead of myself. It might turn out that they come back next week and vote on a proposal similar to the one on the table now. Or maybe they’ll do it later this week after all.

But Democrats, in the meantime, might want to be on stand-by.

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.

It was, without question, a strange set of circumstances that led to the unanimous approval of four budget bills on July 6. Four months of infighting among Republicans. A legal challenge of the original GOP-authored state budget. Sweeping vetoes by a Republican governor. A last-minute effort to involve Democrats. And Bob Burns letting lose a tirade of criticism for whom many people expected to be the Republicans’ next best hope for retaining the Ninth Floor.

Yet, somehow, 70 or more lawmakers were able to agree on the four budget bills. And nobody in the House or the Senate opposed them.

So, it’s notable anytime the Arizona Legislature votes unanimously for anything of substance; lawmakers do find themselves in accord, perhaps a dozen or more times each year, but usually on minor, technical changes. Yet the newfound camaraderie between Republican and Democratic lawmakers exhibited on the first day of the special session seems to send a strong signal to the Gov. Jan Brewer that the Legislature intends to assert control over the rest of the budget process – whether Brewer likes the final package or not.

After all, it would be very difficult, if not completely impractical, for the governor to reject a budget that has solid bipartisan support, even if it doesn’t include her proposal for a sales tax increase. Forty representatives and 20 senators can override her veto.

That doesn’t mean Brewer won’t get what she wants; legislative leadership plans to meet tomorrow to discuss other budget issues that have yet to be resolved, and lawmakers still need to come up with the revenue to plug a deficit of at least $2 billion. A tax increase may be used to raise revenue, more cuts may be enacted, the state may sell additional assets or even borrow into the future.

That will be decided sometime after lawmakers restart the special session on July 13, which, by the way, is Brewer’s deadline to sign or reject the 180 or so non-budget bills that were passed in the final weeks of the regular session. The weeklong delay, intentionally or not, removes any possibility that Brewer could hold hostage any non-budget bills while trying to negotiate a positive resolution to her sales tax proposal.

Meanwhile, Brewer has given all appearances that she’s thrilled by the Legislature’s swift action. She told Capitol Times reporter Jeremy Duda that the additional $400 million for education included in H2001 shows that lawmakers have responded to her calls to protect public schools’ funding and that they intend to come up with some way to raise the revenue necessary for a balanced budget.

That seems logical to a point; Brewer has indeed been pushing for shallower cuts to education, and her vetoes made possible the second round of budget bills. But then she went on to say it wouldn’t surprise her if lawmakers passed a sales tax increase on their own. In other words, no referendum.

Hmmm. Not sure what to make of that, considering it was not possible to rally a simple majority to approve a ballot measure that would allow voters to decide for themselves whether to raise sales taxes. So, rounding up a legislative supermajority to support a measure that would raise taxes without asking voters seems like wishful thinking. Politically – and for some, ideologically – that scenario is completely unpalatable.

Even after Brewer convinced Senate President Bob Burns to prop up her sales tax referral in the final days of the regular session, it’s highly unlikely he would vote for legislation that increases taxes without allowing voters to weigh in. Add to that list Sens. Russell Pearce, Jack Harper, Ron Gould, Thayer Verschoor, Jim Waring, Steve Pierce, Chuck Gray, Pamela Gorman, Sylvia Allen and others – and that’s just in the Senate.

Many Republicans in the House also have warned Brewer to count them out. And Democrats in both chambers have withheld support for raising the state sales tax.

So, to me, the unanimous vote on the four budget bills carries a much different message than Brewer seems to have received. One way of looking at it is that lawmakers are saying she can veto all she wants, but to no avail. And that wouldn’t bode well for her tax plan.

With 2010 around the corner, Democrats wouldn’t be too upset if Brewer emerges from this chaos looking as though she lacks the political muscle to push her agenda. And, judging by Burns’ recent comments about Brewer’s leadership abilities, it might not disappoint him too much either.

In this case, unanimity among lawmakers, many of whom weren’t involved in serious budget talks until last week, should be somewhat unsettling to Brewer, even if she did get part of what she had requested.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has recessed twice after starting today’s budget hearings hours later than they had planned.

The first recess was called after the committee voted down the first of 9 budget bills on the agenda. S1470 was rejected after a 4-4 vote. Sens. Pamela Gorman, Al Melvin, Russell Pearce and Sylvia Allen voting for it, while Sens. Paula Aboud, Ron Gould, Jack Harper and Steve Pierce voting against it.

After the vote, Gould called for a recess. 

The panel then reconvened a few minutes later, but was interrupted again shortly thereafter when more Democratic members of the committee entered the room. Aboud was the only Democrat on the committee who was there for the first vote.

Seeing that the additional Democrat votes might sink the proposal again, another recess was called.

Gould, meanwhile, said he needs at least four hours to study the measures.

“I want to at least know what I am voting on — to know whether I can hold my nose and move the thing out Appropriations,” he said.

-Reporting by Capitol Times writer Luige del Puerto

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.