Marching to the beat of different drummers – that is the perception most Georgians have of Georgia Republican leaders in state government – and for good reason. Any reasonable person would almost certainly reach that conclusion based on the reports regarding the last days of the 2007 Georgia General Assembly.
Some argue that that these differences started to emerge during the 2006 Georgia General Assembly. During the budget negotiations, Georgia House and Senate leaders differed intensely on Georgia’s budget. Yet, the 2006 General Election loomed on the horizon. Cognizant of the gloomy national political forecast for Republicans, Georgia Republican political leaders put aside their differences just long enough to get through the election. Having successfully weathered the negative 2006 political climate, Georgia Republican leaders picked back up right after the election. The rest is political history.
And, the media loved it.
In the rush to fan the flames of political divide, controversy driven reporters and pundits have largely ignored the changes in Georgia government over the last few years that make this public political domestic dispute so significant.
Obviously, the players changed. There is a Republican Governor, a Republican Speaker of the House, and now a Republican Lieutenant Governor. With three Republicans in leadership positions, some might ask a relatively obvious question: if they are all from the same political party, how could they differ so much? It is a good question.
Interestingly, they all started their political journey with the same destination in mind. They wanted to wrestle control from an old party structure in order to change the direction of Georgia government. This included imposing some serious and stringent fiscal controls on budgeting and spending. Within just a few years, they made it. It is also where the problem is.
Everyone had agreed on where they were going, but they had very different views on what do when they got there. Starting in 2006, and continuing in 2007, the rewards of fiscal restraint paid off. As budget surpluses continued to grow, the disagreements about what to do with those surpluses mounted. Increasingly, as folks started to focus on where they were (budget surpluses), virtually everyone had forgotten where they had been (budget shortfalls). Hence, the context of the debate was lost.
Three different approaches have emerged – set aside more for the reserve fund, return some money to the taxpayers, or invest more in programs that suffered during the lean years. Now, if the choice was between any one of these options, on the one hand, and the budget shortfalls, on the other hand, then the choice would be obvious.
But the debate has shifted. This is not unprecedented. A similar thing happened in Washington, D.C. in 1994. As Republicans assumed control of the Congress, the debate centered on whether to balance the budget. After they assumed control, the question shifted from whether to balance the budget to how to balance the budget.
In Georgia, the debate has shifted from how to fill a budget shortfall to what to do with a budget surplus. Budget shortfalls are no longer an option. The center of debate has moved and it is a dramatic shift.
This shift does not diminish the significance of the differences among the Governor, Senate leaders, and House leaders over what to do with budget surpluses. It does, however, put them in context.
There is little doubt that the debate over the next few months will be passionate and even contentious. Unlike the backroom governments of years passed, it will undoubtedly also be a very public debate. After all, it has already been open to the public.