Guv is Halfway to Being All Out Compromise will get Granholm Nowhere in '06

Published April 27, 2004. By Derek Melot. Lansing State Journal.
Compromise will get Granholm nowhere in '06

Responding to one of my rants (say you aren't surprised) about the lack of thought that infuses Michigan politics these days, a colleague offered the following thesis about the hottest of issues ... mourning doves:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed a trial, limited hunting period - in response to Republican-led efforts to legalize dove hunting statewide - in order to gain political ground on other, more important issues. Specifically, he meant Michigan's vastly unbalanced budget.

There's a long and proud tradition of trading votes and support in politics. It's possible Granholm has no strong feelings about dove hunting and may see her trial idea as a way to pick up chits from the GOP. All well and good ... except it ignores almost every single event of the last 16 months. From that time, name the top initiative Granholm has rammed, or cajoled, through the Legislature?

In fact, the partisan lines are drawn deep over Capitol way. And why shouldn't they be? Legislative Republicans work from a two-pronged premise:

1. Their solid majority in both legislative chambers is going to stay solid for years. Partisan redistricting of legislative seats is proof against all but the largest voter revolts against Republican control. And Democrats have hardly been throwing waves of cagey, well-financed candidates at the GOP lately.

2. Granholm is a temporary office-holder, one they expect to be gone after 2006.

Yes, her poll numbers look great; yes, she has a real knack with the people. But, ask yourself, what will her campaign slogan be in 2006 ... "It coulda been worse"? Her first year in office was dominated by a $1.7 billion budget deficit. Her second year is being dominated by a $1.3 billion budget deficit. And, thanks to Michigan's structural deficit, there is every reason to believe budget gaps will dominate the next two years, too.

Republicans know this, in no small part because they helped create the state's fundamental fiscal problems. They also know that governors get too much credit for any state success and too much blame for any failure.

A Democratic governor running on a record of four straight years of deep budget cuts (and some unavoidable tax and fee increases) is unlikely to energize the faithful or excite independent voters.

Republicans, by contrast, have a vested interest in making the state's problems worse so their 2006 standard-bearer can ride the usual platitudes about efficient government and tax cuts into office. They have little reason to be reasonable with Granholm on the budget, or on any issue. If they just wait a couple of years, they'll get to do things their way ... as they did when John Engler reigned.

So, every time Granholm & Co. talk compromise, Republicans can say "thank you very much" and do pretty much what they planned to do all along. It's not nice. It's not fair. But if politics was about playing nice and being loved, would Engler have been a three-term governor, while Granholm is on her way to being a one-termer?