Yesterday, during a discussion of the Stewardship program, Russ Decker managed to lay out the biggest problem Republicans have in this budget negotiation.
Cribbing from Greg Bump...
Decker makes it seem as though the Democrats are willing to move on oversight in exchange for a bonding number more to their liking. This would be a good deal for Republicans if, ultimately, it wasn't such a bad deal.
The Republicans have fought to regain legislative oversight of stewardship ever since Governor Doyle cleverly removed it with his veto pen in the 2003 budget. As long as Republicans control one house of the Legislature, oversight provides a mechanism for Republicans to obstruct controversial purchases.
(Let's set aside the fact that in the history of Stewardship, I only need one hand to count the number of purchases JFC Republicans have blocked, and having done that, I will have fingers left over.)
So on the surface, one would think Decker's offer might not be a bad deal. He'd be giving the AssGOP something they've wanted for a long time. But in fact, Republicans have a electoral problem that makes the negotiation more complicated.
The overwhelming sentiment among those under the marble big top is that it's extremely likely the Democrats will take control of the Assembly in 2009. Even many AssGOP members will say as much, and countless AssGOP staffers are seeking jobs in the private sector or the administration before the reaper comes next November for over two dozen staff positions on Team AssGOP.
If the AssGOP cuts a deal with Decker on oversight, there's a better than average chance that it could all be meaningless in a year and a half. Stewardship oversight by a committee with 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans is like not having oversight at all - in which case, Decker and the Senate Dems will have successfully negotiated to have their cake and eat it too. They'll never even need to risk the political damage of giving oversight away again because they'll never block a purchase by the administration.
By offering up oversight, Decker is giving a way a lot in theory, and ends up giving away virtually nothing in fact. Such is the conundrum of the AssGOP. In order to protect its interests in the long-term, it has to negotiate this budget as though it is heading into the minority.
As long as the AssGOP stays in the majority, it can use oversight to block purchases and effectively reduce bonding totals. That'd make Decker's offer a win-win for Republicans. But if they lose the majority, Democrats will have a field day rubber-stamping even more stewardship purchases. That's a lose-lose for Republicans.
That Decker would float such an idea seems to suggest what he thinks of the Republicans' '08 prospects. How the Republicans approach Decker's suggestion could tell us all a lot about what AssGOP leadership thinks of its own electoral chances next November.
Cribbing from Greg Bump...
Rep. Fitzgerald said he would review the Dems' stewardship package, and said Republicans would explore a counter-offer. He also said he'd like a counter from the Dems on the GOP K-12 package.
Sen. Decker noted that that there may be a potential deal to be struck on stewardship.
"The oversight seems to be a bigger deal to you people than the level of bonding, so maybe there can be some type of talking going on there," Decker said.
Decker makes it seem as though the Democrats are willing to move on oversight in exchange for a bonding number more to their liking. This would be a good deal for Republicans if, ultimately, it wasn't such a bad deal.
The Republicans have fought to regain legislative oversight of stewardship ever since Governor Doyle cleverly removed it with his veto pen in the 2003 budget. As long as Republicans control one house of the Legislature, oversight provides a mechanism for Republicans to obstruct controversial purchases.
(Let's set aside the fact that in the history of Stewardship, I only need one hand to count the number of purchases JFC Republicans have blocked, and having done that, I will have fingers left over.)
So on the surface, one would think Decker's offer might not be a bad deal. He'd be giving the AssGOP something they've wanted for a long time. But in fact, Republicans have a electoral problem that makes the negotiation more complicated.
The overwhelming sentiment among those under the marble big top is that it's extremely likely the Democrats will take control of the Assembly in 2009. Even many AssGOP members will say as much, and countless AssGOP staffers are seeking jobs in the private sector or the administration before the reaper comes next November for over two dozen staff positions on Team AssGOP.
If the AssGOP cuts a deal with Decker on oversight, there's a better than average chance that it could all be meaningless in a year and a half. Stewardship oversight by a committee with 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans is like not having oversight at all - in which case, Decker and the Senate Dems will have successfully negotiated to have their cake and eat it too. They'll never even need to risk the political damage of giving oversight away again because they'll never block a purchase by the administration.
By offering up oversight, Decker is giving a way a lot in theory, and ends up giving away virtually nothing in fact. Such is the conundrum of the AssGOP. In order to protect its interests in the long-term, it has to negotiate this budget as though it is heading into the minority.
As long as the AssGOP stays in the majority, it can use oversight to block purchases and effectively reduce bonding totals. That'd make Decker's offer a win-win for Republicans. But if they lose the majority, Democrats will have a field day rubber-stamping even more stewardship purchases. That's a lose-lose for Republicans.
That Decker would float such an idea seems to suggest what he thinks of the Republicans' '08 prospects. How the Republicans approach Decker's suggestion could tell us all a lot about what AssGOP leadership thinks of its own electoral chances next November.
No comments:
Post a Comment