[Speed Gibson,
Monday May 23, 2005 at 12:35am]
Can't we all get along?
When I hear a call for bi-partisanship at the Legislature:
Lori Sturdevant writes the same basic column we see several times by many authors when the Legislative deadline looms. "Excessive partisanship" is the enemy of all the good these 201 people would otherwise get done, and on time.
Mother Strudevant agrees, yet doesn't realize that her daughter might understand this better than she does. Of course it's partisan. That's our system. We don't have a parliamentary form of government where you deal to make coalitions among many parties. We have a two-party system where we go head-to-head. We need decisions, not agreement.
In business, we know that compromise is usually bad. No one is truly accountable for the result, and the staff is not always clear on what's to be done.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48 I believe. But whether 52 or 92, the decision was made, and Justice Thomas rules with the same authority. The Republicans took full responsibility for his selection and performance, just as the Democrats took full responsibility for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But in either case, suppose we had in the spirit of bi-partisanship picked a mushy moderate, oh, like Arlen Specter to serve. Trying to please both sides, he invokes "Scottish Law" and both sides complain, even the winner because the decision looks silly and establishes no meaningful precedent. (Can you imagine a court with nine Arlen Specter's on it?)
Getting back to the Strib, Sturdevant offers four suggestions for overcoming the partisanship:
How does this help? Narrowing the gap will produce even closer votes, fewer decisions, and even more partisan pressure on both sides. If anything, the split should be widened, assuming that your goal truly is to get the work done.
This is a reasonable point, but again - how does this help? Replacing rookie partisans with veteran partisans doesn't change anything. It also unclear that tenure is a reliable indicator of the ability or willingness to get things done. I submit that rookies of either party are likely to be less partisan than Phyllis Kahn or Larry Pogemiller.
Earth to Lori: the DFL caucus leaders wanted that bill on the floor. The committee would have been "re-populated" had it not passed it.
Besides, let's count all the votes, shall we? Suppose a committee's minority happens not to like a bill, but the full body can live with it. Committee chairs should be under orders to craft bills that truly address their stated purpose, explaining their reasoning to the full body if necessary. Let the caucus leaders count the noses. That's their job.
I told you to grab your wallet! Look, in every big bill is plenty of inefficiency which can be trimmed to cover any minor increases necessary. Take MnSCU (our state colleges) for example. We could close five of its several dozen campuses with virtually no effect on educational opportunity for our students, but saving significant money and holding down tuition.
Finally, Lori Sturdevant goes after the Governor for being partisan! Incredible! In case you haven't noticed, an increasing segment of the GOP is increasingly unhappy with his many bi-partisan outreaches. He is certainly less partisan than a Governor Roger Moe would have been. But of course, you would have labeled him principled, not partisan.
I have a better proposal, Lori: a unicameral Legislature.
- Why is it always the DFL or their media friends asking?
- Why do their offers require near total GOP capitulation?
- Why do I get a dull ache near my wallet?
Lori Sturdevant writes the same basic column we see several times by many authors when the Legislative deadline looms. "Excessive partisanship" is the enemy of all the good these 201 people would otherwise get done, and on time.
"Why aren't they getting their work done?" asked her teenager.
"Because the way they set the state budget is so partisan."
"So? Everything is."
Mother Strudevant agrees, yet doesn't realize that her daughter might understand this better than she does. Of course it's partisan. That's our system. We don't have a parliamentary form of government where you deal to make coalitions among many parties. We have a two-party system where we go head-to-head. We need decisions, not agreement.
In business, we know that compromise is usually bad. No one is truly accountable for the result, and the staff is not always clear on what's to be done.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48 I believe. But whether 52 or 92, the decision was made, and Justice Thomas rules with the same authority. The Republicans took full responsibility for his selection and performance, just as the Democrats took full responsibility for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But in either case, suppose we had in the spirit of bi-partisanship picked a mushy moderate, oh, like Arlen Specter to serve. Trying to please both sides, he invokes "Scottish Law" and both sides complain, even the winner because the decision looks silly and establishes no meaningful precedent. (Can you imagine a court with nine Arlen Specter's on it?)
Getting back to the Strib, Sturdevant offers four suggestions for overcoming the partisanship:
• Committee membership should more accurately reflect the partisan composition of each chamber. The 68 GOP/66 DFL split in the House this year should have meant, for example, that the 38-member Ways and Means Committee had a 20/18 partisan split. Instead, it's 22/16.
How does this help? Narrowing the gap will produce even closer votes, fewer decisions, and even more partisan pressure on both sides. If anything, the split should be widened, assuming that your goal truly is to get the work done.
• No freshmen members, and few sophomores, should serve on the committees that craft the big budget bills. That's an old rule that lapsed for reasons that had nothing to do with governing well. It assured that the legislators who oversee the budget have a measure of political security in their districts, and a better-than-rookie sense of state stewardship.
This is a reasonable point, but again - how does this help? Replacing rookie partisans with veteran partisans doesn't change anything. It also unclear that tenure is a reliable indicator of the ability or willingness to get things done. I submit that rookies of either party are likely to be less partisan than Phyllis Kahn or Larry Pogemiller.
• Committee chairs should be under orders from caucus leaders not to bring to the floor big spending bills that lack minority support within their committees. That rule would have kept off the Senate floor a DFL-backed tax bill that last week could muster only a miserable 12 votes in the House.
Earth to Lori: the DFL caucus leaders wanted that bill on the floor. The committee would have been "re-populated" had it not passed it.
Besides, let's count all the votes, shall we? Suppose a committee's minority happens not to like a bill, but the full body can live with it. Committee chairs should be under orders to craft bills that truly address their stated purpose, explaining their reasoning to the full body if necessary. Let the caucus leaders count the noses. That's their job.
• House leaders should allow amendments to increase the size of spending bills during floor debates. Since the GOP took over in 1999, the House (but not the Senate) has adopted a Washington-style budgeting process that imposes spending ceilings for the big bills before they are assembled. Once the cap is set, amendments to enlarge those bills with general-fund money are ruled out of order, without debate.
I told you to grab your wallet! Look, in every big bill is plenty of inefficiency which can be trimmed to cover any minor increases necessary. Take MnSCU (our state colleges) for example. We could close five of its several dozen campuses with virtually no effect on educational opportunity for our students, but saving significant money and holding down tuition.
Finally, Lori Sturdevant goes after the Governor for being partisan! Incredible! In case you haven't noticed, an increasing segment of the GOP is increasingly unhappy with his many bi-partisan outreaches. He is certainly less partisan than a Governor Roger Moe would have been. But of course, you would have labeled him principled, not partisan.
I have a better proposal, Lori: a unicameral Legislature.