Andanh.com

' The state budget recently passed by the Legislature is far from being "bipartisan," as commonly described.

Instead, it is most accurately described as a Democratic budget, enabled by a handful of Republicans.

Only four Republicans in the Senate and four Republicans in the House voted for the main appropriations bill. In all, Republicans opposed the budget 39-8. In contrast, not a single Democrat voted against the budget.

The last time there was such Republican opposition to a budget, it was mostly centered in the House. And it resulted in several House Republicans who voted for the budget losing their seats in contested primaries.

The targets are fewer this time around. Of the eight Republican votes for the budget, four came from legislators who do not face primary challenges (Carolyn Allen, Jay Tibshraeny, Michele Reagan and Lucy Mason) and two came from legislators who are leaving (Senate President Tim Bee and Jennifer Burns).

However, two of the Republicans voting for the Democratic budget do face primary contests with conservative challengers -- Sen. Tom O'Halleran from Sedona and Tucson's Pete Hershberger, who is trying to move from the House to the Senate.

I suspect voters in their districts will be hearing a lot about this vote in the next few months.

' This budget has to be seen as a colossal failure of leadership by Bee. The contrast with his predecessor Ken Bennett couldn't be sharper.

Bennett was also often given a bad hand to play in budget negotiations. However, he usually held most of his caucus together.

Bee couldn't even hold his leadership team together. His majority leader, whip and Appropriations chairman all voted against the budget. That never happened to Bennett.

And regardless of how much he had to give, Bennett always got something in return, such as a tax cut or an expansion in school choice.

Bee turned the keys to the joint over to the Democrats and walked away with nothing to show for it.

' John McCain's offer of a $300 million reward to anyone inventing an improved battery for plug-in vehicles is about the nuttiest political gimmick I've ever seen. Right now, plug-ins run on the equivalent of less than $1 a gallon of gasoline. Anyone inventing a battery that increases their range will make a fortune in the private market. Taxpayers don't have to sweeten the pot.

' The position of congressional Democrats on drilling also makes no sense.

Democrats are opposed to opening up coastal waters to drilling. They claim that oil companies aren't drillings on their current leases and threaten to impose use-it-or-lose-it clauses.

The implied allegation is that oil companies are sandbagging. They could be bringing more domestic production to market but are choosing not to.

If, however, oil companies aren't interested in bringing more domestic production to market, there's no risk in opening up the coastal waters.

On the other hand, if Democrats think the oil companies will develop new coastal water leases, that undermines their contention that Big Oil is sandbagging on existing leases. There's no reason for the oil companies to prefer prospective leases to ones already in hand.

In reality, Democrats oppose additional domestic production of oil and natural gas, but don't want to say so in the midst of public anger and anxiety over $4 gas. So, they are searching for a way to arrange the result without getting caught.

' The state Democratic Party, in the meantime, has turned itself into a nasty-gram machine, churning out invective-laced attacks on every Republican who moves or thinks about moving.

For the most part, these are thinly based and so over the top that they are easily, and most appropriately, ignored.

I'm going to make an exception for one recent mugging. The party sent out an attack press release alleging that Republican congressional candidates John Shadegg, Sydney Hay and David Schweikert "would raise food prices by 23 percent."

And how would that be?

Well, all three have expressed some degree of interest or support for the FAIR Tax, which would abolish all income and payroll taxes in favor of a national sales tax.

Abolishing all income and payroll taxes on producers and workers would, of course, dramatically reduce prices. There is an honest disagreement among economists about the net, overall effect of the FAIR Tax on prices. But no substantive critic disputes that the initial effect will be to lower prices prior to the new sales tax being applied.

That makes the Democratic Party's assertion that Shadegg, Hay and Schweikert support increasing existing food prices by 23 percent more than just a partisan distortion.

It's thoroughly and shamefully dishonest.

(column for 2.29.08)