Cynicism gets in way of praising politicians for good judgment
Not to be too cynical, but how many of you think the rush to stop furloughs of air traffic controllers is tied to the fact that flight delays delay members of Congress and their contributors?
Naturally it hurts the economy and tourism, but senators and House members could be stuck at airports like everybody else — and with everybody else.
So the sequester that was supposed to force across-the-board federal cuts won’t apply to air traffic controllers. On Thursday, the Senate voted to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to shift dollars around to pay air traffic controllers. The House did the same Friday.
The Democrats and the White House, which insist cuts had to be across the board, blinked first.
When it became an inconvenience for them and theirs, when suddenly they all faced the wrath of people who missed their flights or waited for hours in airports, then a blinding light showed that this was a mistake. Now was the time to strike an agreement and make an exception.
The bill allows the FAA to take as much as $203 million from other FAA accounts to stop those furloughs between now and Sept. 30.
The airport improvement account will take a hit, but who cares if the airports are improved if no one wants to fly?
Small airports nabbed a break in this bill. The planned closures will not occur. That’s good, particularly in the large Western states. Another $50 million will save those small airports.
The negotiations were closed-door, but surely someone brought up the public relations nightmare for Democrats and Republicans if an airplane accident occurred, killing hundreds of people, and it was caused not by terrorism, but by the lack of a traffic controller.
What spin doctor could spin that one?
The precedent now has been set. Government agencies should be able to cut the $85 billion where the cuts will do the least damage. Set a percentage but let budget cutters at each agency aim first at whatever fluff they can find.
In other words, use judgment.
Not to be cynical for a second time, but I suspect if someone like former Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, a Democrat, had introduced the mining tax bill introduced by Republican Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, Democrats would have pushed and shoved to get in line to back it.
Roberson wants to put a 10 percent net proceeds tax initiative on gold and silver, double the 5 percent cap approved in 1989.
His catchy name for this is the Education Priority Initiative because the money raised would go toward education.
Anybody remember Jim Gibbons’ Education First Initiative? The one that went before voters in 2004 and 2006 and was approved by them? By mere chance , Gibbons was running for governor in 2006.
His great initiative to help education required that legislators close the education budgets early in the process so they couldn’t be held hostage in the end-of-session wrangling.
I don’t recall anyone now saying Education First has helped education, but it helped boost Gibbons into the Governor’s Mansion.
Anyway, Democratic leaders are critical of Roberson because it doesn’t do anything now to improve education.
The $300 million a year it would raise would have to be in the future, so it’s not a speedy resolution.
Gov. Brian Sandoval already has positioned himself against the initiative, which is supported by a vast army of five other GOP senators — Greg Brower, Scott Hammond, Joe Hardy, Mark Hutchison and Ben Kieckhefer.
Assembly Republicans greeted the idea with noticeable coldness, while the mining industry dismissed it as a “political stunt.”
Yet if a prominent Democrat had pitched it, I suspect it would have had a warmer reception.
Oh dear. My cynicism returned.
Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0275.
