Quiet Legislative Session in '08? Maybe That's Just What the Chamber Wants

Last night's MDL brings us an AP report on SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry president David Owens's prediction of a quiet 2008 session of the South Dakota Legislature [AP, "Chamber Leader Expects Quiet Legislative Session in 2008," Madison Daily Leader, 2007.10.24, p. 5]. At first, the suggestion seems surprising: with the Zaniya recommendations to unwrap, K-12 funding still inadequate, major budget requests from the Regents, and the Hunt-Unruh-Howie (HUH!) cabal ready ready to rumble again, how can anyone think the Legislature won't be the hottest show in the state this winter?

But maybe the Legislature won't achieve much. Maybe the HUH-sters (someone give me a K, so we can call them HUHK-sters) will drag the Legislature into endless dithering over futile abortion bans. I've heard from one former legislature that right-wing has so polarized the atmosphere with it's tunnel vision on abortion that compromise on practical matters is becoming harder to achieve than it was even a decade ago. Add the fact that it's an election year and that legislators will be eager to get to the fundraisers, where they can now collect $1000 a head thanks to campaign finance reform (reform? did someone say reform?), and we might have a recipe for gridlock: lots of bickering and not a lot of enthusiasm for breaking through to achieve workable solutions.

And maybe that's just what the Mr. Owen and his chamber pals are hoping for. Maybe they approve of the legislature bogging itself down with debates about faux-family-values issues instead of meat-and-potatoes family-values issues like funding education and raising wages. Maybe the last thing the Chamber wants is state government taking a hard look at easing the tax burden on home- and land-owners and more fairly balancing it among private and corporate citizens.

A couple other notes from Mr. Owen:

While the policy wonks know it doesn't work, property tax isn't a huge issue for real people. I haven't seen anyone change the tax theory just to embrace a better theory. You generally change taxes to solve a problem, to put out a fire."

The real person writing this blog and paying high taxes because of neighbors' building choices and arbitrary guesses by a county official thinks property tax is a huge issue and would happily embrace a better theory. But if it takes a fire to motivate change, how about the hot path our graduates are beating to other professions while a big chunk of our teachers head toward retirement?

Oh, but Mr. Owen thinks the whole school funding question "is going to settle down":

Once more money goes to schools, there's no going back, he said. "As soon as you agree to spend more than you have, you have pulled the trigger of dead certainty for a tax increase." [AP, cited above.]

Owen doesn't sound terribly excited about investing more money in education. Oh, by the way, Mr. Owen (and all of your business constituents), where are you getting all your well-trained, computer-savvy employees from?