Not it!

As
county legislators debate the 2003 budget proposed by County Executive Jack
Doyle this month, there’ll be a lot of discussion about how the cuts Doyle’s
proposed could hurt various groups of people: abused children, the poor, the
disabled, the homeless. But when it comes to discussing a property tax increase
to restore some of those cuts, the interests of one special group of people
most certainly won’t be aired in public: the legislators themselves.

            When county lawmakers consider the
damage a vote for a tax increase can do to their political careers, their
personal interests may very well trump those of everyone else.

When
Republican County Legislators Ray Santirocco and George Wiedemer
came out of the closet earlier this month with a call to consider a tax
increase, the stage was set for a political drama that could play out well into
this decade.

            The Republicans hold a 16-13
majority in the Legislature. Thus, if all 13 Democratic lawmakers united with
Santirocco and Wiedemer behind a tax increase measure, they’d have the majority
necessary to pass it.

            But, of course, it’s not that
simple. For one, the Democrats are hardly united on the subject of a tax
increase — or, for that matter, anything else these days. Democratic Minority
Leader Stephanie Aldersley says the caucus is probably about evenly split on
the issue (she has yet to decide herself).

            Another factor is that any effort to
increase the property tax rate would likely have to have the backing of at
least 18 legislators. That’s the number necessary to override a veto by Doyle.

            The Republican county executive has
steadfastly refused to consider a tax increase to close a budget gap that may
reach $65 million next year. Doyle hasn’t said he would veto a budget that
increases taxes, but he’s made it pointedly clear it’s well within his powers
to do so.

            “I have a right to veto whatever
they do,” Doyle told WXXI radio on October 4, a day or so after Santirocco and
Wiedemer went public with their interest in raising taxes. “Of course, I
wouldn’t speculate on what I would do, nor will I speculate on what [the
legislators] are going to do. But that’s the way it works. I present the budget
and it’s their decision to adopt a budget.”

As Aldersley
and some other Democrats see it, it’s the Republican legislators’ job to increase
taxes, because increasing taxes isn’t a task the Democrats could accomplish
even if they wanted to.

            “The Republicans have gotten us into
this mess and we Democrats are given no information,” she says. “So, while we
may want to jump in with some kind of a solution, we’re not in a position to do
that and we’re not in power to do it. It’s pretty much going to have to be the
Republican side that comes up with whatever solutions it can find.”

            But the Democrats’ hesitation to
increase taxes is about more than their ability to get enough votes to do it.
It’s also about each individual Democrat’s ability to get reelected to the
Legislature in 2005; or, if term limits prevent them from seeking another term
that year, their ability to serve in another public office.

            “If you get a bunch of Democrats to
vote for a tax increase [necessitated] by the Republicans, then the Republicans
use that against them in the next election, it’s like miserably failing an IQ
test,” says Democratic Legislator Jay Ricci.

            The Dems “are not going to band
together and save the day” without a significant number of Republicans joining
them in calling for a tax increase, says Ricci, who’s also deferring a decision
to support a tax increase until he sees the budget. “Politically speaking, you
can stick your neck out only so far.”

            Ricci has heard there may be as many
as eight Republicans willing to support a tax increase; Aldersley’s heard
rumors of as many as 10.

“The
discussion around increasing taxes becomes so toxic that people
instinctively shy away from it,” says Mayor Bill Johnson, who’s not shy about
telling Democratic county lawmakers his opinion on such matters. “That’s why
[county Democrats] are looking for bipartisan cover. It’ll become extremely
hard for the Republicans to criticize a bipartisan coalition,” but “they’ve got
to have more than one or two Republicans.”

            Dems concerned they’ll be criticized
in future elections for increasing taxes should consider the fallout from not
doing so, Johnson says. “What a terrible legacy for them to have on their
records: that they presided over the dismantling of county government.”

            Monroe County Democratic Party
chairman Ted O’Brien is also lending the caucus his advice. “What I’m going to
encourage people to do — and this may sound funny from a political party
chair — but we have to put politics aside and encourage people to act like
adults,” he says. “Whatever the right thing to do is, [that’s] what we’ve got
to do, irrespective of who wins or loses politically.”

            “It would be tragic to think that
political considerations would enter into this debate,” says Democratic
Legislator Lynda Garner Goldstein. “But if the recent past is any indication, I
fear people won’t rise above it.”

This article appears in Oct 9-15, 2002.