(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers May 4, 2015)
This two-year budget cycle that Gov. Sam Brownback has put the state on at first glance sounds like a pretty good idea. Politically, though, it might just be a nightmare for Republicans and for Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections for every seat in the Legislature.
Brownback’s new two-year budget falls at the first year of a two-year House term and at the midpoint of a four-year Senate term. The idea of hammering out a two-year budget and financing it sounds good. Or at least it was when there was a big ending balance that could be drawn down, or plenty of money in the Kansas Department of Transportation to swipe for the state general fund. Not a lot of heavy lifting two years ago on the first two-year budget adventure.
But now, with the surpluses gone and KDOT funds thinning, things are different.
Brownback’s original concept was that in the first year of that two-year cycle, a budget would be hammered out, and the second year there would be time for introspection, looking at agencies, delving deeper into their budgets and operations and making touch-ups based on that second year’s new knowledge about just how the state works.
Sounds reasonable, probably even a good idea…as long as the budget will balance.
But this year taxes are going to have to be raised and lawmakers have lost that “oh, no, that was last session” toss-away line because of the two-year budget. The state is going to have to raise some taxes on some people this session, and the numbers are going to sound big because, well, it’s a two-year budget fix, not just a one-year hole in the bucket to repair.
The decisions lawmakers make this session on raising taxes and cutting spending for a two-year budget will remain largely unchanged between now and Election Day for House and Senate members in November of 2016.
That means the ugly decisions necessary will hang around, and those who vote for cuts and for higher taxes and those who don’t will have to defend their actions for more than a year. That’s a long time to keep explaining votes, isn’t it?
And, the good old days of passing a tax increase in the spring of an election year that doesn’t take effect until after the polls close are over now. Not only will constituents have read in the paper about some taxes or fees rising or their kids crowded in their classrooms, they’ll have had a year living with it before they decide whether they still like their legislators…
Brings everything a little closer, doesn’t it?
Now, this two-year cycle will have a political effect on lawmakers who vote for higher taxes to balance the budget…but it is also likely to have a political effect on legislators who don’t.
Democrats reminiscing that it was Republicans who approved the massive income tax cuts that now require tax increases to finance the budget may work…or not. The budget will be balanced eventually, of course. That’s the law, so it has to happen. And, fixing it, despite the political cost, is probably…well, let’s say “workmanlike,” not “laudable.”
Just complaining from the sidelines—and there are few enough Democrats in each chamber now that it is Republicans who will be responsible for raising taxes and cutting spending—probably isn’t the strongest political strategy.
Another problem? At least in the House, any tax bill vote is likely to be just yes or no to approve a conference committee report that can’t be amended in debate. Not quite a “shall we pull the child out of the burning barn, or not?” decision, but it’s going to sound like it on the campaign trail.
This two-year budget that needs a tax fix? Makes things more interesting, doesn’t it?