It's time for the Speaker of the House and his team to stand up and do the right thing on the state budget

It's one of the great philosophical questions of democratic government and college political science classes. It goes something like this: To what should elected officials look when staking out their positions on the issues they confront – the desires of their constituents or the dictates of their own consciences? Is it better to do what one knows will please a majority of the voters tomorrow (or in the next election) or what one knows in one's heart is "the right thing?"

In the real world, of course, most elected officials opt for some kind of hybrid solution that varies from issue to issue. On Monday, a lawmaker may simply determine that it's foolish and unproductive to be the sole "no" vote on a popular bill that's going to pass regardless of what he or she does. Why jeopardize one's opportunity to stay in office and accomplish many good things by supporting a lost cause – especially if it's not even a matter that's at the top of one's priority list? "Better to live to fight another day," goes the old saying.

On Tuesday, however, he or she may decide to take just such a stand – especially if it's an issue about which the lawmaker has strong personal feelings and on which there is at least some support back home. On Wednesday, he or she may find an issue on which there is a happy confluence between his or her personal views and popular opinion. On Thursday, another scenario may present itself and on Friday another. The shades of gray can be numerous.

For most elected officials, however, the moments of true moral crisis are relatively infrequent. Most – especially those elected to represent a specific district – tend to reflect the attitudes of a goodly portion of their constituents on a lot of issues and few rise to the level of becoming "make or break," career-threatening matters.

When the stakes get higher

Occasionally, however, a moment in history comes along in which the nature of the decision confronting an elected leader or group of leaders rises to a level at which the normal political calculus can and should no longer apply – especially for those in high office.

One of the most famous stories from the Lincoln presidency, for instance, involved a controversial cabinet vote during the Civil War in which a proposal passed with only a single "aye" vote – Lincoln's. More recently, both Lyndon Johnson's approval of civil rights legislation (despite his accurate prediction of what it would mean for southern Democrats) and the first President Bush's decision to raise taxes to balance the federal budget despite his previous "read my lips" rhetoric and the attacks he knew he would suffer from right-wingers are good examples of powerful people "doing the right thing" at critical moments.  

In contrast, George W. Bush's now infamous decision to ask nothing in the way of sacrifice from most Americans in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks is one of the great examples of an elected official doing precisely "the wrong thing" at a critical moment.

North Carolina's challenge

Here in North Carolina we have arrived at such a critical moment – a time in which, for better or worse, smart people have been placed in office and given the burden of making a difficult decision that will affect our state for decades. And, as with many of their predecessors in American history, it is a decision in which "the right thing" may not be the politically popular thing in the near term.

The issue, of course, is how to deal with the state's gaping, $4.6 billion budget hole in the midst of an historic recession. It is a tremendous and unprecedented challenge that would rock the world of even the most confident and competent elected official – especially given the drumbeat of bad economic news and the apoplectic squawking from the anti-government do-nothings on the right.      

Right now, the man on the hot seat is House Speaker Joe Hackney. For better or worse and through no fault of his own, the timing of the budget process has placed the buck squarely on the desk of the veteran Orange County lawmaker at the most critical moment. Today, one month before the end of the state fiscal year, at a point at which all the bad revenue numbers are in and the Governor and Senate have already taken their shots, circumstances have conspired to give this one man more power than any other official in the state over an issue of historic importance.

So what will he do?

Thus far, Hackney has pursued a path that he almost always follows – that of quiet, tough, competent, behind-the-scenes work. Unfortunately, the product of this work has not yet been impressive or encouraging.

According to indications on Jones Street, right now Hackney and his leadership team are genuinely serious about crafting a new biennial budget with zero tax increases – none, not even a significant loophole closure. (The Governor and the Senate, in contrast, both proposed significant tax hikes even before the worst revenue figures were in.) This means that the House of Representatives – ordinarily the most progressive of the three main budget players – is planning to opt for the most regressive, backward-looking state budget in history; a budget that not even the wackiest of the far right government haters could have dreamed of only a few months ago.

The human carnage that would result from such a disastrous choice is becoming clearer and clearer every day. This week, we learned that House Appropriations subcommittees were actually considering laying off tens of thousands of public education professionals and imposing massive cuts to vital human services that will, literally, shorten the lives of thousands of innocent people – seniors, disabled the mentally ill and others.

To make matters worse, Hackney and his team would take such action at the precise moment in time that the state economy desperately needs state spending to promote economic activity. Rather than standing up and doing all within state government's power to confront and push back against the downturn, Hackney would apparently have us retreat into a do-nothing shell.    

More to the story?

The hope that's being voiced in many progressive circles is that there is more than meets the eye to the Speaker's strategy. Under this view, House leaders understand the need for new revenue to limit the size of the inevitable budget cuts, but feel a need to spark public outrage at the potential scope of the service reductions that could occur in order to generate the necessary political cover for raising taxes. Maybe. But if that's so, it's an extremely risky strategy.

As Elaine Mejia of the N.C Budget and Tax Center noted in a recent commentary, attempting to generate a public outcry in favor of tax increases can be extremely difficult under the best of circumstances. Just ask the folks in California who now face selling off hundreds of vital public properties in an effort to try and avoid fiscal calamity after the failure of recent ballot initiatives.

Sometimes, important political leaders must come to terms with the simple fact that events have conspired to place the burden for making tough, often-unpopular choices (choices that are nonetheless vital to the long-term well-being of the state) on their shoulders. It may not be "fair" or match up neatly with all of the political hopes and aspirations of those leaders and their allies, but sometimes that's just how the burden of leadership works out.

Republican governors in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi have already figured this out recently. Let's hope that Speaker Hackney – a man widely respected as one of North Carolina's most honest, intelligent and caring political leaders – works his way to such a conclusion very soon as well.