News-Record.com

So you want to pass a bill that contains $21.4 billion in spending without all that troublesome debate that you run across in a representative democracy?

Then the N.C. Senate might just be the place for you.

Click here for a version of the AP's budget story, which gives the broad outlines of Wednesday's budget debate.

Budget discussion was moved along at a brisk pace by senate leaders, mainly Majority Leader Tony Rand, who used his powers to cut off debate on several amendments and out and out kill a few others. Of the eight amendments that we heard about on the Senate floor Wednesday, three were tabled or ruled out of order. Others were offered but debate was cut off after they were introduced.

As an example, the last amendment of the day was offered by Sen. Harry Brown, who wanted to take some money from funds set aside for dropout prevention to fund vocational educational programs.

Brown is a consistent advocate for vocational education, saying that more kids should be encouraged to pursue trades rather than channeled toward college.

At any rate, the amendment ran into an objection from Sen. A.B. Swindell, who argued the dropout prevention grants were doing good throughout the state and ought not be raided.

Click here to join Swindell as he decries Brown's amendment and then moves that it be laid upon the table.

Tabling an amendment essentially kills it, although it's theoretically possible to resurrect the thing. Essentially, it's a tool of the majority to keep measures they consider undesirable at bay.

After the tabling Rand, as you can hear on that take, moves the previous question. English translation: Rand cuts off debate on the bill, curtailing all other pending amendments and any discussion of the bill on its second reading.

So it was done, the vote 33-16. Don't expect to hear any debate Thursday either.

This sudden ending of the debate did not sit well with Republicans who used words like "offensive" and "disrespectful" to describe the sudden shut down.

"They've got the majority.... They're going to get the budget bill they want," said Sen. Phil Berger , an Eden Republican and the Senate minority leader. "But the idea that they can't countenance debate seems to me to be offensive to everything that we expect from an elected body."

You can click here to listen to more of Berger's thoughts.

From talking with folks who have been around the General Assembly longer than I have, the GOP has something of a point here. Even if GOP amendments had failed before, they at least got something of an airing. And cutting off debate entirely is something that, if not unheard of, is rare.

And it's quite the contrast to the House process used this year. Here's how I described it for a story in Thursday's paper:

When the House debated its version of the budget, members were allowed to offer amendments during two sets of committee meetings as well as a protracted floor debate.

But rank-and-file senators were given a copy of the two-volume, 337-page budget Monday afternoon and had to offer any changes for committee consideration by 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Then Wednesday, leaders allowed only eight amendments to be offered on the Senate floor, with three of those dismissed by way of parliamentary rulings and motions.
By contrast, the House fully debated and voted on more than 20 changes on the floor.

Berger said that Republican Senators had a bunch of other amendments in waiting, some relatively innocuous, like one that would require state agencies to use tap water rather than bottled water for their employees. Others were definitely more political, like one that would have prohibited More at Four Pre-Kindergarten funds to be used for the children of illegal immigrants.

So why did Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight have debate shut down? Basnight said he was protecting his members from having to vote on amendments that were politically motivated.

"You will have an amendment that will come in for the sole purpose of not necessarily changing what's in the budget. ...The purpose would be to put people on record without any kind of protective debate on the subject," Basnight said.

Click here for more of Basnight's thoughts.

Those votes, he said, could be used against his members during the campaign. Basnight added that Republicans were not showing their amendments in advance of offering them and that if they had been more forthcoming more debate would have been allowed.

An alternative explanation:

Republicans said they did share some of their proposals and suspected one in particular may have prompted the clamp-down.

The Senate budget would give Gov. Mike Easley authority to raise teacher salaries by up to 7 percent if tax revenues come in higher than forecast over the next four months.

Berger wanted to amend that so that other state employees would receive the same raises teachers got. Such an amendment would pit the interests of teachers and state employees, two key Democratic constituencies, against one another.

Republicans also said the idea that politics should be scoured from the budget debate was disingenuous, pointing to an amendment offered by Hagan that would allow the state to expand available slots in a children's health insurance program earlier than planned.

"I know that's not an issue in the campaign for the U.S. Senate. That was a pure coincidence," said Sen. Tom Apodaca , a Hendersonville Republican.

Hagan is running to unseat U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole and gave differences over federal funding of the state children's health insurance program as a key reason she entered the race against the Republican.

I would imagine the real reason for stopping is some blend of those two, some ones I haven't guessed yet and the ever-popular "we were just freaking tire of talking about the thing."

I don't have much of an opinion about the substance of any of the amendments shot down or left hanging. But the expression "politics ain't beanbag" kept running through my head tonight. Shouldn't the honorables running for one office or another be able to withstand what head would have been created by a few more amendment votes or debate? Or was Basnight right to protect his members from potentially volatile discussion.

You thoughts welcome below.