Editorials
Friday, February 27, 1998GOVERNOR Cayetano's economic reform proposals are in trouble in the Legislature and he is looking for a scapegoat. In a talk with reporters, he remarked that Republicans and small-business leaders were fighting the tax package recommended by the Economic Revitalization Task Force, including an increase in the general excise tax to offset reductions in income tax rates. The governor’s search
for a scapegoatHe failed to mention that the opponents of the excise tax increase included Marilyn Bornhorst, chairwoman of his own party, and that his leading rival in the party, Jeremy Harris, has been fighting the proposed reduction in the counties' share of revenue from the hotel room tax. Nobody in the Legislature, needless to say, is enthusiastic about raising the excise tax.
It appears that the governor made a major political miscalculation in thinking that his hand-picked task force, meeting behind closed doors, could produce a package that would sail through the Legislature and give him something to claim credit for in his bid for re-election.
The complaints about lack of representation -- there was no one from the county governments and few from small-business and consumer groups -- went up even before the task force issued its recommendations.
When the reform package came out, the reception was far from supportive, and no wonder. It contained the excise tax, which is anathema to small business and consumer advocates. It endorsed ideas that have been kicking around for years but have never been adopted because of strong opposition -- abolition of the Land Use Commission, county school boards appointed by the governor in place of the state-wide, elected Board of Education, autonomy for the University of Hawaii and -- most controversial of all -- privatization of government services.
The governor took the unrealistic position that all of the task force's recommendations were essential and that the entire package had to be adopted if it was to succeed in boosting the economy. That was never going to happen and he should have known better.
Republicans in the Legislature have made it clear they want no part of the excise tax hike, but they are too few to stop it alone and blaming them for the program's problems is absurd. Liberals within his own party as well as small-business advocates were never going to buy some of the proposals. Even professional economists differ on the merits of the tax package.
There are sound ideas in the task force recommendations, but their political viability is doubtful. One of the best ways to make government more efficient is to privatize services, but a Legislature dependent on the votes of public employee unions is not going to do anything that might threaten government jobs -- and their own.
House Speaker Joe Souki held a strategy meeting Wednesday to try to salvage the governor's reform package. Significantly, in addition to key legislators, it included four leaders of public employee unions -- the real power brokers in state politics. Needless to say, those leaders aren't going to support anything that would hurt their unions. Yet they are a big part of the problem with Hawaii's economy, which has to support a large and generously compensated bureaucracy that keeps the Democratic Party in power.
OPRAH Winfrey's personal triumph in being found not liable to Texas cattle ranchers for her statements about mad cow disease is gratifying to her fans but less important than what happens in the appeal of an earlier ruling in the case. Federal Judge Mary Lou Robinson's ruling last week that the case could not go forward under Texas' so-called "veggie libel" law was an important decision that should be given nationwide scope on appeal. Veggie libel law
State legislatures began enacting the repressive laws nearly 10 years ago after media reports linked possible health hazards to the use of the chemical compound alar, a growth regulator, on apple crops. Thirteen states -- fortunately, not Hawaii -- now have laws allowing lawsuits for making false and disparaging statements about perishable food products, and a dozen other states are considering similar bills. They essentially force those who have made derogatory statements about a perishable food product to prove their case.
Three cattle-feeding operations and four ranches in Texas cited the law in suing Winfrey and vegetarian activist Howard Lyman for remarks made on "The Oprah Winfrey" show in April 1996. Lyman, a former rancher, maintained that feeding ground-up cattle parts to cattle, a practice later abandoned, could spread mad cow disease, which has devastated the cattle industry in Britain, in this country. Winfrey exclaimed that the statement "just stopped me from eating another burger." The audience cheered, and beef prices sank.
Winfrey's attorneys argued that high feed costs and oversupply caused beef prices to drop. A more important point was that she and her guest were exercising their First Amendment right of free speech, which assures the free exchange of ideas and information -- yes, sometimes misinformation.
The judge's rejection of the veggie libel law shifted the burden of proof to the cattlemen in accordance with conventional business defamation law. The jury's verdict in Winfrey's favor was not surprising, even in Texan cattle country.
Only when appellate courts declare the veggie libel laws to be unconstitutional in all states will this dangerous attempt to suppress speech be eliminated.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
