Pronouncements From the King-makers

The Commercial Appeal has been running its endorsements for the past week. We hope to have a statistical breakdown (incumbent v. challenger, Dem v. Repub, white v. black, etc.) sometime this week, our regular employment permitting.

To no great surprise, in the US Senate race they prefer Lamar! Alexander on the Republican side and Bob Clement for the Democrats. Noting that Alexander and Ed Bryant, his challenger, are little different, in their opinion, they plump for Lamar!'s experience as the deciding factor.

Most Republicans would beg to differ, of course. For them, the differences are stark and determining. Lamar! represents the same moderate-to-liberal, Establishment Republicans that Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, has been pressing for across the country. That strategy has produced clearly failing results, most dramatically in California, Virginia and New Jersey to date. Grass-roots conservatives, believing candidate Bush's professions of conservatism, are turning out in droves, agitating to push the party back to the right against Rove's "capture the middle" efforts. Bryant represents the same no-apologies conservatism that Bill Simon reflects in California. Bryant suffers from a lack of name recognition to much of the general population, but that may not be a factor in a party primary.

Clement gets the nod for experience as well, and for policy, but the CA's two paragraph endorsement seems nearly perfenctory, which it may well be in the Republican-leaning state. It's interesting to note that Lamar! gets nearly three times as much ink as Clement, and even Bryant gets slightly more.

In their gubernatorial endorsements, there is a seeming mild surprise. Neither front runner, Phil Bredesen for the Democrats nor Van Hilleary for the Republicans, gets the nod. Instead, the CA pulls for the also-rans.

Jim Henry, the Republican, is the kind of candidate that papers build up. He has no real hope of winning, but the wretches at their desks pull for him anyway. And Randy Nichols, the Democrat, is so far out of the running that the endorsement seems almost farcical.

But there is a real issue, one that the CA has refused to give up on, even after the debacle and meltdown of this past Legislative session, powering their endorsements. That issue is an income tax. Both Bredesen and Hilleary are on record with anti-income tax pledges, though neither candidate is showing real enthusiasm for keeping it. The CA has shown ruthless willingness to do whatever it has to in order to help the income tax clause. If that means backing "Hail Mary" no-hopers, then so be it.

We're going through these endorsements paragraph by paragraph. Please bear with us.

Nichols and Henry have trailed in opinion polls and money raising,
but they must not be written off for those reasons. Their
campaigns have been more honest and substantive than those
waged by the ostensible front-runners in their races, and they
appear better prepared to work effectively as Tennessee's chief
executive.

Running on issues is what they have to do, having nothing else. And their losing positions show what their party-mates think. Calling either "better prepared" is pure opinion that simply cannot be demonstrated. Strictly speaking, Bredesen is the best prepared of the lot.

The next governor will inherit the budget mess the General
Assembly deferred, but did nothing to solve, by raising the state
sales tax rate this month after provoking a partial government
shutdown. Our state now has the highest average state-local
sales tax rate - and arguably the least fair, least efficient tax
structure - in the country.

More of the same disinformation and propaganda the CA has promulgated in the effort to secure the income tax. The Legislature did punt the issue, so that voters can speak their minds clearly and the next session can proceed from whatever mandate they get. Nothing was accomplished this session precisely because Speaker Naifeh's iron "my way or the highway" control wouldn't allow any other considerations. He blocked, thwarted, bullied or threatened all other options, so that his would be the only possibility left standing. He failed, twice, and the Senate finally got fed up with his obstinancy.

The sales tax increase will expire at the end of this fiscal year. Legislators know this and know they have to do something permanent. This Fall will tell them what that is. As to the "least fair, least efficient" charge, TaxFreeTennessee have been doing admirable jobs in demolishing it.

Increasing state government's already excessive reliance on
sales tax revenues merely compounds its structural budget
problems. Reversing course and placing Tennessee on a sound
footing - and speaking candidly to taxpayers about this state's
fiscal condition - is the most important task the new governor
must face.

There is no structural problem. There is a spending problem, plain and simple. It is worth noting that Tennessee was on sound footing, without an income tax, for many bountiful years. Extravagance and lack of foresight are what doomed us.

"Speaking candidly...?" The CA lecturing us on "speaking candidly?" Please pardon us while we laugh derisively.

Lame-duck GOP Gov. Don Sundquist has tried to promote tax
reform - including an equitable, broad-based state income tax - in
his second term. But his opposition to an income tax in his
previous campaigns for governor cost him essential credibility.

No. It was his sudden about-face, right after a re-election campaign in which he repeatedly denounced an income tax, that doomed him. It was Bush 41's "read my lips" taken up an order of magnitude. It made him a pariah in his own party and the most reviled person we've seen in politics, Nixon included.

This year's leading (in polls, anyway) candidates for the
Republican and Democratic nominations - U.S. Rep. Van Hilleary of
Spring City and former Nashville mayor Phil Bredesen - have
followed the prevailing political winds and built their campaigns
largely on opposition to an income tax. When the state House
seemed ready to look favorably on an income tax measure this
year, their me-too vows to seek its repeal as governor helped
seal its defeat.

Bredesen and Hilleary lead in every way. When only orthodox black and socialist-left Democrats, the teacher's unions, and ultra-wealthy Republicans support the income tax, it doesn't take much to read the winds. It took everything Naifeh had, every trick and every threat he knew, to still fall five votes short. Both Bredesen and Hilleary acted to let the Legislators know that it was time to get past that stalemate and onto other solutions.

In the process, they alienated many lawmakers and foreclosed
options. That would not seem a good position for a would-be
governor who wants to lead a responsible debate and achieve
bipartisan compromise.

They led. They made it known that they did not support Naifeh's thuggery. They effectively undercut him and helped to move the issue along. They both showed admirable leadership quality, at least in that case.

Nichols, the Knox County district attorney general, is the only
major candidate of either party who explicitly favors the kind of
tax reform Tennessee needs: a fair income tax coupled with
reductions - not increases - in state sales taxes. Such changes
would reduce the state tax burden for most Tennessee families
while equipping the state to pay for vital services more
adequately. Nichols's courageous advocacy of tax reform, instead
of the evasion or obstructionism displayed by other candidates,
merits support.

And it's why the CA favors him. Period.

Just as important, Nichols, who grew up in rural West Tennessee,
emphasizes spending reform. His familiarity with law enforcement
administration enables him to offer credible ideas for cutting the
cost and improving the efficiency of the state's criminal justice
system without risking public safety.

As a prosecutor, Nichols also speaks persuasively of the value of
investing in such things as higher teacher salaries, community
mental health programs, early childhood enrichment, and
long-term care of elderly and disabled Tennesseans, to save
money that might otherwise be needed later for police and prison
costs.

And where, in this laundry list of increased spending, is there any reform? It's all more of the same..

Bredesen insists that fixing the state's broken budget is
essentially a matter of better "management." Such skills will be a
necessary attribute for the next governor, but the state's budget
problems have grown so severe that they realistically will not be
sufficient.

While he has been eager to tell voters what he opposes,
Bredesen has been less willing to discuss specific tax measures
or program cuts he would favor. Such change-the-subject rhetoric
may help win votes, but it also could limit his ability to govern if
he is elected.

We hope that Bredesen will force the departments under him to tighten up. But given his record in Nashville as mayor, and his party affiliation as a Democrat, we don't hold much hope there.

Among other Democratic candidates for governor, Charles Smith,
a former state commissioner of education and chancellor of the
Tennessee Board of Regents, has said important things about
the value of a strong public education system to economic
development. That investment message also demands voter
attention.

And Tennessee's parents have been saying just as loudly that they believe their education dollars are being misspent. No efforts at true education spending reform have happened, and with the Tennessee Education Association blocking it, likely it won't happen soon. So parents rebel against more money as the same old answer.

On the Republican side, Henry, a former mayor of Kingston, offers
voters an appealing blend of public and private sector
experience. As a Republican leader of the state House in the
1980s, Henry showed his ability to work with lawmakers of both
parties to achieve productive consensus on such issues as public
school reform.

Henry's background as president of a private placement agency
for mentally disabled children, and as a former chairman of the
state Republican Party, reflect political and executive skills and
leadership that also would serve him well as governor.

TaxFreeTennessee has done a remarkable job in this story of dismantling that myth. Henry was, to borrow their words, a "water carrier" for Governor Alexander's spending increases. No reason to believe he won't do more of the same as Governor himself.

Henry, like Hilleary, says he opposes an income tax. Unlike
Hilleary, he concedes the tax structure must be overhauled. He is
willing to place the matter before a state constitutional
convention and abide by the popular will.

Although he cites his conservative credentials, Henry also
emphasizes the importance of enhanced state investment in
higher education and in maintaining TennCare as a safety net for
poor and chronically ill Tennesseans.

Henry's anti-tax credentials have been called into serious question, as we noted above. He admits the need for "tax reform," the code for "income tax." And he supports expensive, socialistic government. This is a Republican?

Hilleary, who lacks the breadth of Henry's experience and
knowledge of key state issues, has seemed content to sit on the
advantages in poll numbers and fund-raising he has acquired
during three years of campaigning. He has refused to debate
Henry during the primary campaign.

Finally, we agree! It is the tactic of a winning candidate and it is no credit to Hilleary. AC Wharton's Memphis mayoral campaign is similar, but the CA approves of that.

The wisdom of that strategy often is validated when Hilleary
speaks up. He at first denied the structural, long-term nature of
the state's budget deficit, calling it a "fictitious myth." When he
finally acknowledged the state's fiscal crisis, he blamed it on
TennCare and suggested the answer was to cut the program -
which costs Tennessee taxpayers less than many other states'
comparable Medicaid programs while insuring more people - to
shreds.

It is a fictitious myth. Spending is the problem and TennCare is a major part of that. Serious TennCare reform can save the State up to $400 million. Reversion to Medicaid might save more. And once again, the CA out and out lies: TennCare does cost more and is insuring numbers and groups it was never intended to insure.

Hilleary recently conceded the state needed more revenue, but
declined to specify a source. His platform might be summed up by
his memorable campaign utterance: "Whatever the voters are
buying, that's what I'm selling."

Voters of both parties deserve better approaches. The
nominations of RANDY NICHOLS and JIM HENRY would give
Tennesseans their clearest, best choice for governor in
November.

And Memphians deserve a real newspaper, not a propaganda arm of special interests. But we have choice there, now do we?

Until next time, that is all.