The way Michigan's budget crisis was handled -- without state government having to shut down for more than a few hours due to last-minute legislative action -- is being blamed on term limits and none other than the Michigan Chamber of Commerce is behind the proposal to repeal them.
I'm skeptical.
Having well-heeled lobbyists for business propose something makes me suspicious right off the bat. When term limits were passed in 1992, some of the speculation was that inexperienced lawmakers would rely on lobbyists for advice and that lobbyists would essentially run the House and Senate, even more than they were doing already. Apparently, that hasn't happened, at least not to the extent the Chamber anticipated.
I didn't like term limits when they were passed in 1992, and I still don't like them. I'd like to see them gone entirely so that voters can decide for themselves who should go and who should stay in office.
Term limits make it difficult for the average lawmaker to learn the complicated budgeting process and bring that experience to bear on balancing the budget in financially challenging times. Lawmakers who are only around for a few years also do not have time to develop trust among themselves that can make it easier to reach solutions. And more importantly, they don't have to worry about the problems that their short-term solutions create, because they will be gone and won't have to deal with the fall-out. It will be someone else's problem.
But even after saying all that, I'm not sure that term limits alone are to blame for whatever problems people perceive in Michigan's legislative process. And the idea of docking lawmakers' pay if they don't show up for work seems even less likely to have a major impact. Other structural problems in Michigan's government play a bigger role, in my opinion, and should be part of any effort to change term limits if the proposal is to have significant impact.
One of the biggest problems is the open-ended nature of Michigan's budget process, due to our full-time Legislature. Although the legislative session begins early in the year and the governor presents an annual State of the State message in January, followed by a detailed budget proposal, lawmakers feel no pressure to act for months at a time. Governors have little power to force another branch of government to act.
This doesn't mean necessarily that lawmakers are lazy, although it can mean that. Witness the arrogance of Senate Republicans who went on vacation this summer even as state universities were begging for action on the budget.
Partly, it's human nature to put off distasteful jobs until later. When budget news is bad, there's always the hope that prospects will brighten as the year goes on. Why vote for unpopular budget cuts or tax increases early in the year that turn out to be unnecessary by year's end? You can bet lobbyists who oppose tax increases were whispering that into lawmakers' ears during the last 11 months.
Furthermore, negotiations on budget cuts take time. Who makes their final offer right off the bat when buying a car or a house? People usually dicker back and forth for a while. Imagine the amount of dickering that must go on when negotiating not just one deal, but dozens and dozens of them that go into a multi-billion-dollar budget, especially when all the deals have unpopular aspects.
Term limits, by putting inexperienced people with little trust of each other in charge of the process, makes the tendency to delay even stronger.
But to make sure the budget is finished earlier, lengthening time in office won't be enough. Any constitutional amendment that attempts to deal with the problem should include a deadline for legislative action on a balanced budget -- say July 1.
A July 1 deadline would help schools and universities plan for the year and set tuition levels. It also would ensure that a budget is in place in time to avoid a government shutdown before the Oct. 1 state fiscal year.
If fiscal conditions worsen after July 1, throwing the budget out of balance, lawmakers can always revisit the budget or the governor can take executive action.
Of course, both houses of the Legislature could enact their own rules requiring the budget to be finished earlier, but with different parties controlling each chamber that's unlikely to happen. And those rules could always be suspended by lawmakers, although that would look bad.
Another reform that should be included to avoid the problems seen this year would be to change the election of senators so that half stand for election every two years.
Under the current arrangement, no senator will be up for re-election in 2008. The entire chamber is insulated from public opinion until 2010. By then, voters will have forgotten the way the Michigan Senate impeded efforts to deal with this year's crisis. If half the senators were facing re-election next year, they might have been more anxious to get the job done for fear voters would take out their ire on them at the polls.
If public-spirited groups want to make fundamental change in Michigan's budgeting process, they need to do more than lengthen term limits or people will be disappointed with the results once again. And we certainly don't need more cynicism about public service.
No comments:
Post a Comment