News-Record.com

Here's the deal: The House rolled out its complete budget package on Monday. The Democrats are in charge, so it’s a document that largely reflects their priorities and ambitions.

Fair enough.

Of course, Republicans have some ideas for things they'd like to change, which you'd expect. Otherwise, why bother having two parties, right?

Easy enough so far.

So, let's take the Republican ambition of ending the two "temporary taxes" - essentially cutting the sales tax by a quarter-cent and reducing the upper-end income tax to 8 percent. (Ignore for a moment whether you think this is a good idea or not.) Well, if you lower the revenue coming in, you need to spend a bit less, right?

Right.

Now we have a problem, actually, we have two problems involving the rules of the House.

Problem one: Two main committees review the entire budget: Appropriations and Finance.

Appropriations is the committee that's supposed to spend money. Finance is the committee that supposed to raise money (read: do the taxes).

House rules prohibit the Finance Committee from messing with Appropriations, and prevent the Appropriations Committee from messing with the finance stuff.

So, if you want to cut a tax in Finance, you can't offset it with a corresponding cut in Appropriations. And you can't just cut the tax, because that would throw the budget out of balance.

Where might you be able to make such a change? The House floor. But that's where we come to problem number two.

Amendments to the budget have to consistent with the title of the bill. That wouldn't be a problem if the title was something generic, like "An Act to Raise and Spend Money Next Year." However, this is the original title of the bill:

AN ACT TO MAKE EXPANSION AND BASE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR CURRENT OPERATIONS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AND AGENCIES; TO EXTEND THE STATE SALES TAX RATE AT 4.25% UNTIL JULY 1, 2009; TO EXTEND THE UPPER INCOME TAX RATE AT 8% THROUGH 2009; TO UPDATE THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE REFERENCE; TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL AND BUSINESS TAX RELIEF THROUGH AN EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT, A LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE CREDIT, AN ADOPTION TAX CREDIT, A CHANGE IN THE TAXATION OF SOFTWARE PUBLISHERS' MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, AN INCREASED TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED R&D EXPENSES, AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE TAX CREDIT FOR CONSTRUCTING RENEWABLE FUEL FACILITIES, AN EXPANSION OF THE SALES AND USE TAX REFUND FOR AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING TO INCLUDE AIRCRAFT PARTS, AND AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE TAX RATE ON PROPERTY COVERAGE INSURANCE CONTRACTS; TO SET THE INSURANCE REGULATORY CHARGE, TO SET THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY FEE, TO INCREASE CERTAIN FEES TO SUPPORT RECEIPT-SUPPORTED SERVICES, TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINANCING OF VARIOUS HIGHER EDUCATION AND STATE FACILITIES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

So once the thing gets to the House floor and you want to amend it - say to cut that sales tax again - you can't do it because your amendment would be in conflict with the title of the bill.

Now yes, the title can be amended on the House floor: by a two-thirds vote. That's a pretty tough standard and procedurally difficult.

So basically, if you're political philosophy leads you to believe one should cut taxes by cutting spending, you’re stuck. It's possible, but very, very hard.

This is not all to say there aren't some rationale for "drawing the title tightly," as the practice is called around these parts.

"I believe what goes on in Finance ought to be protected from those beats in Appropriation," said Rep. Prior Gibson, an Anson County Democrat and Finance Chairman.

Drawing the titles tightly, he said, is a way to make sure the Appropriations Committee doesn't mess with the will of the Finance Committee.

A little turfism is healthy now and then, I guess.

Still, if you're wondering why your friendly local member of the GOP is looking all aggravated today, that's why.