Sen. Ken Bennett says he’ll consider his political options in 2006, when he will be termed out in the Senate, but in 2005, which begins his second term as Senate president, his first choice is to balance the budget. The District 1 Republican from Prescott, recognized as an expert on the budget, leads a caucus that not only picked up an additional member in the 2004 elections but now includes more conservative senators to support the majority agenda. But, “We will work as a body of 30,” Mr. Bennett said in an interview last month. He said the state is in better shape than it was a year ago, but there’s no wiggle room for new spending — and there’s talk about tax reform.

Arizona Capitol Times: Is the state better off than it was a year ago≠

Sen. Bennett Yes. It’s better off because revenues have begun to grow again, and that’s allowed us to reduce the structural deficit [permanent spending compared to permanent revenue]. At the same time, we’ve been able to put resources into education, health care and public safety. To do both these things simultaneously is a step forward.

Is the Legislature better off than a year ago≠

Yes, I think we’re better off just because we’ve worked with the government [administration] that the Arizona voters have decided they want to have for four years.

Is the governor better off that she was two years ago≠

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask her that.

You told new members [Dec. 7] you’d work with Democrats, the House and the governor to come up with sound policies for the state. First, how might the majority’s relationship with Democrat legislators and the governor be different this year≠ Second, what discussions have you had with Speaker-designee Jim Weiers about the relationship between the Senate and the House≠

The fact that the Republican majority in the Senate increased slightly [by one], and the makeup of the caucus is a little bit more unified in what I call a responsible conservative tone, the difference is we’ll be coming from a little bit stronger negotiating position.

Jim [Weiers] and I have talked about working closely together and as cooperatively as we possibly can — development of joint majority programs. We’ve agreed tentatively to some timetables for the session, schedules and some goals to complete the budget and the session.

What are the goals≠

Sixty-five [for the budget] and 100 days [for the session].

How possible are those≠

It’s very possible. The deadline itself is not the ultimate goal. We’re not down here to have a 100-day session. The goal of a 100-day session is a tool that can be used to accomplish the ultimate goal, and that is to set good policy for Arizona and make sure its budgetary foundation is sound.

The reason for having a budget done in 60-ish days and trying to have a session done in 100-ish days is you disconnect budget games and manipulations from bills, and vice-versa.

Last year, the budget really got negotiated almost entirely between the Democrat and Republican leadership in sitting down in repetitive direct meetings at the table. This year, we’re going to try to move it back into the Appropriations Committee process, back more into the caucuses, and let it take that more normal course. Members of both caucuses, obviously, will be involved at the committee and caucus levels. I’m going to have discussions with Democrat leadership on an on-going basis.

Why the change≠

Because the Legislature’s designed to work though caucuses, committees and the floor. What we did last year was kind of a function of an effectively split Senate, where what goes through the committee or either one of the caucuses is not what could get 16 votes when you went to the floor.

Which of the following will pass: trust land reform≠

In one form or another, yes.

Expansion of full-day kindergarten≠

Can’t be known yet.

Raises for state employees≠

Not yet determined. All the additional revenue is completely being eaten up by two programs — AHCCCS and K-12. If all we have is enough to fund the mandated increases in those two programs, then it’s going to be hard to expand all-day K or give state employees raises.

Resolution to ban same-sex marriage≠

Putting something on the ballot in 2006 will pass. I just don’t know if it will happen the first year or the second. And I’m not sure if it will happen in the Legislature or it will go the route of an initiative.

Some form of tax reform≠

I hope so. Whatever form it takes, it needs to surface or mature for it to happen in this session. There’s talk about trying to bring down the gap in the business property tax ratios, without transferring the burden to homeowners. I think there’s going to be some tax reform in the area of eliminating marriage penalties, where you’ve got a tax credit for individuals, but you have less than double that amount when filing jointly.

There’s going to be some talk about sales tax, whether we can broaden the base and reduce the rates — not so there is an overall tax increase, but so it’s just fairer and broader and lower rates.

There might be some movement in business property tax reform to help support high— technology businesses that have huge inventories in equipment and other technologies.

At the end of this state of the state interview last year, you said, and I quote, ‘My plans are to complete my term here in the Senate. Several options will probably be available at that time. I enjoy what I’m doing enough that I’ll probably be looking pretty seriously at some other opportunities. That might be statewide office, that might be federal.’ Where do things stand today≠

Same place. Right now, I’m not planning on running for governor in 2006, but that doesn’t mean I’m not keeping my options open and/or considering what the possibilities might be then. I wouldn’t be the first to move from one house to the other. If [Congressman] Rick Renzi ups and decides he going to do something [else], I’d consider that very seriously. If something happened in one of our statewide races that presented an opportunity I might be interested in, I’d consider that.

So, your number one priority to get the deficit to zero≠

Yes. —