The Political Notebook 4.21.23
The politics of Hobbs' record-setting veto spree; Phoenix's prevailing wage dance; a federal spending freeze has merit.
The record-setting veto spree of Gov. Katie Hobbs serves the political interests of both her and the MAGA Republicans in the legislature. But it also illustrates what a narrow political world the MAGA Republicans think they inhabit.
The Arizona Agenda has provided a useful categorization of Hobbs’ vetoes. But it is the sheer volume of them – not the individual bills, the merits of which can be debated – that is the politically salient phenomenon.
In the campaign, I thought Hobbs underplayed the argument that she would serve as a check on the excesses of a Republican legislature, which already was held in low esteem even before it became pure MAGA. Moreover, Hobbs didn’t enter the office with a political persona as a strong leader.
The GOP legislators sought to overawe her. A hostile committee was set up to vet her nominations to staff her government. They sent her a flood of partisan, Republican-base-pleasing legislation. And they tried to quick pitch her and Democratic legislators by passing what they purported to be a status quo budget, but wasn’t really.
Hobbs has not been overawed and now holds the record for the most vetoes in a legislative session, eclipsing Janet Napolitano the previous record-holder, who was dealing with a far more pragmatic and constructive GOP legislature.
This enhances Hobbs’ image as a leader among Democrats, independents, and disaffected Republicans who don’t trust the MAGA legislature.
On the other hand, the MAGA Republicans can point out to their base all the stuff they passed. Owning the libs is big in MAGA land. And in a way that defies sense or logic, sending Hobbs bills that she doesn’t like and vetoes is regarded as putting it to her.
Outside the MAGA world, however, it seems like a waste of time that could be better spent trying to find common ground given the political reality of a razor-thin GOP majority in the legislature and a Democratic governor.
The discussion over a Phoenix prevailing wage ordinance for construction projects has failed to frame the issue plainly. The way a prevailing wage is calculated it is effectively the union-scale rate. The federal Davis-Bacon Act, which establishes the prevailing wage regimen, was intended to tip the scales in favor of awarding public works contracts to unionized construction firms.
The Phoenix City Council passed, over the objection of Mayor Kate Gallego, a prevailing wage ordinance for construction projects. At her urging, the council, with two new elected members, just rescinded it. But it might be back before the council for consideration. Frankly, it's unclear where Gallego stands on the policy – with union workers or getting the best deal for taxpayers.
A Phoenix prevailing wage ordinance would be in clear violation of state law, which flatly prohibits prevailing wage requirements in public works projects. State policy is to require all government entities to get the best deal for taxpayers.
The law has been on the books since 1984 and there has never been a challenge to its preemption of any city action or ordinance to the contrary. Yet, there seems to be a belief in Democratic circles that the current attorney general, Kris Mayes, may be inclined to bless a skirting of the state law. Even if she did, that probably wouldn’t be the last word. Taxpayer groups and non-union contractors would likely challenge it in court.
The anti-prevailing wage law was actually enacted by the voters, in what was a bit of a political miracle. The legislative referral was championed by the Tucson Chamber of Commerce. It joined a long list of 15 propositions on the ballot in 1984.
There was heavy spending and advertising on two competing hospital rate regulation measures. A few weeks before Election Day, then school Superintendent Carolyn Warner said publicly that the ballot propositions were too complex and confusing, and she was voting against all of them.
That seemed to give license for a tidal wave of voters doing the same. Fourteen of the ballot measures failed. The sole exception was the Tucson Chamber’s anti-prevailing wage law.
I’m not in favor of attempting to use an increase in the debt ceiling as leverage for other policy concessions, including on future spending. That’s what the budget process is for.
In fact, I’m not in favor of a debt ceiling at all. It isn’t constitutionally required. And it’s principally a source of increasingly risky political showmanship.
The inclusion of a repeal of recently enacted clean energy subsidies in the debt ceiling proposal by Speaker Kevin McCarthy exposes it as a political gambit, not a serious negotiating starting point. The subsidies are regarded as a signature achievement by President Joe Biden. A good-faith attempt to kick-start negotiations wouldn’t include such an obvious nonstarter.
That all said, there is merit in McCarthy’s call for a spending freeze followed by slow growth in discretionary spending. There has been inadequate attention paid to the extent to which supposedly temporary Covid spending has been converted to permanent base spending.
If pre-Covid federal spending in Fiscal Year 2019 had been increased by 5% a year, the 2024 budget would clock in at $5.7 trillion. That’s $1.2 trillion less than Biden’s budget proposes to spend in 2024. Biden’s $6.9 trillion budget represents an increase of over 9% a year from the pre-Covid level.
With the Covid health emergency over and the economy producing plenty of jobs, federal spending should be going down as the need for the supposedly temporary measures abates. A freeze is actually a modest proposal, and would have considerable merit in a debate over a budget resolution, which Congress was supposed to have passed by April 15, rather than with the clock ticking down on the good faith and credit of the federal government.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.