Will it be change
or status quo?
By May's adjournment, these are
the issues on which the big picture
questions will be answered
WITH the Jan. 26 bill introduction deadline past, most proposals by legislators, state and county governments and other constituencies are before the Legislature.
Matching these proposals against the first-week speeches of the governor, legislative leaders and others, the litmus-test issues for the 2001 session begin to emerge. By May's adjournment, these are the issues on which the big-picture questions will be answered: did the Legislature lead; did we embrace change or defend the status quo; did we work with or against the governor; did Republican gains make a difference; how vulnerable are incumbents in 2002?
Here are some of those issues:
State budget. While projected revenues are up, projected expenses are even higher. There are three basic choices: (a) increase revenues to meet expenses through tax/fee increases, special fund raiding, gambling or other "revenue-generation" measures; (b) reduce expenses to meet conservative revenue projections; or (c) mandate increased government efficiency to make conservative revenue projections go further toward paying for increased expenses. Early indications are that the legislative majority, lacking the stomach for the latter two, is inclined toward some form of revenue generation.
Taxation. The personal income and general excise tax cuts of 1998 and 1999 were phased in over four and seven years, respectively, because of a reluctance to accept short-term revenue (and expense) reductions to gain sustainable long-term revenue growth. The governor and some legislators want to use current revenue growth to accelerate tax cuts or fund other tax reforms like low-income food and drug excise tax exemptions. Early indications are that the majority has already spent those increased revenues on current expenses and doesn't have any money left over for tax reform.
Public employee pay raises. Funding all requested public employee pay raises will cost hundreds of millions per year more on a continuing basis. The three basic choices are: (a) fund all raises without cutting elsewhere in government and balance the budget by revenue generation; (b) fund all raises and cut deep into core government services elsewhere; (c) fund raises partially and/or conditioned on government efficiency measures. Early indications are that the majority, as unpalatable as "a" is, favors it over the even more unpalatable other two choices.
Public Employee Health Fund. Another budget-buster, the cost of public employee and retiree health benefits, is still projected to increase from almost $300 million today to $1 billion by 2013. Unless health-care costs and retiree proportions decrease -- both highly unlikely -- the only way to afford this system over the long run is to reduce government's share of total benefit costs. Thus far the majority's response has been avoidance. Unfortunately, it can probably put off the inescapable hard decisions a bit longer.
Government reform. Meaningful civil service/collective bargaining reform, and full authority for state and county governments to privatize, could offer sufficient efficiency to balance the budget without revenue generation or core program reduction, and with at least partial pay raises. While the majority has thus far proven incapable of implementing either in the face of union opposition, reform may ultimately prove more palatable than the alternatives as budget realities close in.
Gambling. The gambling industry, its allies in the visitor industry and their legislative supporters are making another run at legalizing gambling in Hawaii. They have figured out their best chance, given general public opposition, is to allocate revenues toward an acknowledged public need like education or long-term care. The majority thus far opposes gambling, but the test will come when proponents try to frame the issue along these lines: gambling or say no to public employee raises, or to education funding; gambling or union-opposed government efficiency; etc.
Education. While education tops most agendas, there is a deep legislative division over whether the problem is simply lack of money or lack of efficient administration and prioritization (governance). Thus far, the majority perceives mainly a funding problem, in part because governance reform risks antagonizing the teachers' and administrators' unions, and because most legislators have pet education programs they don't want to risk to analysis. Budget realities may force legislators away from a throw-money-at-the-problem orientation.
Felix decree. Another budget-buster, special-needs education, is thus far viewed by the majority as a matter of simply opening the checkbook to whatever the executive branch and special education community say is needed to comply with federal law and the consent decree. However, greater legislative oversight forced by budget realities may lead to action on what Legislative Auditor Marion Higa has already demonstrated: Like education generally, the problem is as much if not more about governance and administration as money.
Environmental protection. With the budgetary emphasis in recent years on tax reform, education and public safety, and government employee salaries and benefits, neglected natural resource protection funding appears to be an increased concern of both the majority and the executive. Over the tourism industry's opposition, the perceived nexus between record tourism arrivals and state parks and other resource degradation may lead finally to a fixed allocation of the hotel room tax to environmental protection.
Renewable energy. Increasing oil prices and electricity bills are serving to highlight our virtually complete reliance on imported oil for energy needs, and are heightening efforts to require electric utilities to use local renewable energy for a portion of their energy production to develop that market. Despite the best PR-spin capability in the islands today, utility monopoly Hawaiian Electric Industries continues intense opposition to this initiative behind the closed doors of the Capitol. This is one of a few litmus-test issues in which the majority appears willing to break out of the status quo, but will it be able to overcome decades of assiduous cultivation by HEI?
Public campaign financing. A second litmus-test issue in which the legislative majority advocates change, this proposal would establish a test of public financing of campaigns for the 2002 City Council elections. Primary opposition continues to come from those both within and outside the Legislature who most benefit from the current quid-pro-quo system.
Alternatives to incarceration for drug-related offenses. Both the governor and the majority seem poised to implement a different approach to non-violent drug-related offenders. The obstacles appear less philosophical and more funding- and implementation-related.
Age of consent and other social issues. Since the same-gender marriage wars of 1997-98, there has been an uneasy standoff between liberals, conservatives and everyone in between over the difficult social issues of abortion, gay and lesbian rights, and the role of religion in government. This debate may flare up again as the Legislature likely addresses raising the minimum age at which a female may have consensual sex from the current 14 years.
While the majority appears poised to implement a compromise position disallowing consensual sex for 14- and 15-year- old girls whose partners are substantially older (addressing "sexual predation"), it seems inescapable that social conservatives will seek parental notification or consent to contraceptive services to minors. Although domestic partnerships (civil unions) for same-gender couples has again been proposed, early indications are that the majority is unwilling to return to that debate.
Ed Case, a Democrat, represents
Manoa in the state House of Representatives.
