Conference may be key to income tax
By Frank Cagle
July 3, 2002 -- Sleep deprived Capitol Hill reporters have given you blow by blows of the current marathon known as the General Assembly. They must be tempted at this point to call home and tell the city desk to send over the feature writer that covers the circus.
There is so much up in the air and so many plans floating around there may be only a dozen people who understand it all.
Let's focus on what has come to be known as the Fowler bill. If we get an income tax that's most likely where it will come from. It was a Sunday. Downtown was quiet except for a few diehard horn honkers that looked more forlorn than ferocious.
After a rambling sililoquy by Lt. Gov. John Wilder involving Bed Buddies, Devils, Uncle Sam and things that go bump in the night the Senate got down to passing a revenue bill. Sen. David Fowler, a Republican from Signal Mountain (known to the rest of the state as Chattanooga), offered Speaker Naifeh's income tax proposal with a new wrinkle. It included an amendment that set up a referendum in November in which you could vote Yes against an income tax and No for a constitutional covention. Is that clear?.
Leaving the merits of the bill aside, it became apparent to some of us that a referendum on the income tax in November would be a boon for conservative Republicans beyond belief. Amid recesses and sessions, with Wilder slamming the gavel and telling them to do something, even if it's wrong, the Senate moved toward passage. Democrats on cell phones in the hall were frantic. At some point they got some Democrats in a room and a big-time consultant from the Democratic National Committee relayed the word that voting for this damn bill would make them all dead meat. Rumor has it Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Bredesen had the DNC make the call, because if there is one thing he doesn't need come November is a turnout of every conservative anti-income tax voter in the state. Because no matter what the press says, every conservative knows that in the governor's race Republican Van Hilleary is the only candidate that guarantees no income tax. Ever.
Since Bredesen was in Memphis confering with Al Gore on how to take back Tennessee for Gore in '04 he didn't have any trouble getting hold of any Democratic National Committee officials.
But despite the dawning of political consequences, the Naifeh plan with the Fowler amendmemt proceeded to pass.
In the process, the Sundquist administration, in its usual inept fashion, decided to improve on the bill. They got Fowler to substitute some new language that reduced the rate from Naifeh's 4.5 percent to 3.75 percent and some substitute revenues to make up the difference. Introducing a complex change in a bill on Sunday afternoon when the state faced a deadline of midnight had to be in the top three most irreponsible things the Sundquist administration has done over the last four years.
So the bill passed the Senate and went to the House. Speaker Naifeh and the Democrats had to kill it at all cost. It sank in on the Democrats that this was not a good thing.
So Naifeh took the opening to criticize the bill as poorly drawn, full of errors and worthy of disposal. So they killed it and we had a government shutdown.
But it didn't have anything to do with the merits of the bill. The Democrats could not allow an income tax referendum on the ballot in November.
That doesn't mean they don't like the bill. After all, in the final analysis the Senate passed an income tax bill. The only problem for income tax proponents is that it called for a referendum.
On Tuesday, Sundquist proposed a new plan. An income tax of one percent that would start Jan. 1, 2003 and a constitutional convention call in 2004. In other words, you get the income tax now and have a convention on whether you want it two years from now. No one seems to be paying any attention to it at this point.
If the Naifeh/Fowler/whoever bill should pass then the whole mess goes to a conference committee. The speakers decide who is on the conference committee.
The conference committee can rewrite the bill any damn way they please. Then the bill they craft goes back to the House and Senate for an up and down vote. Most likely at midnight with no continuation budget and the prospect of a complete government shutdown looming.
The alternative to this scenario is the CATS bill, which raises revenue and does some cuts. It's between the DOGS, kill everything budget, and an income tax. It failed in one vote in the House Tuesday night. The decision is left with Naifeh. If they give up on the income tax then CATS could pass. But Naifeh would be conceding leadership to Rep. Frank Buck, its sponsor. (See previous post.)
If the Naifeh plan does not pass look for Sen. Jerry Cooper and Naifeh to propose their own CATS budget. Then they pass CATS, but they don't pass the Jackson/Buck bill. This face-saving measure is designed to prevent Buck and the rank and file a victory.
There is one other piece of skulduggery possible. CATS passes in different versions. It goes into conference as CATS and comes out as an income tax bill.
Then the lid blows off. Stay tuned.
Thanks a thousand times!!
Then the lid blows off. Stay tuned.
I'm watching carefully. If they pull a stunt like that, I'll be in Nashville by Saturday, fists clenched and ready for action. GRRRRrrrrrr!!!