People ask me if being a legislator is everything I expected. I usually answer that I am not sure what it is I should expect. Something tells me there is no standard expectation in this line of work. Even the preparation that people who have been here before gave me, could not have prepared me for what I have now had the opportunity to experience.
At the beginning of the session, all the buzz was around oil taxes, and any talk of a special session rested solely on working through a revision of the tax structure that provides nearly 90 percent of our state government's revenue.
A budget impasse definitely was not part of that discussion.
Here I am now, though, in a special session, with the capital budget the main topic of the disagreement between the two bodies. Sure, there were more than just budget items on the call the governor gave us when he called us back; we have acted on some of those. The only constitutionally required item is the operating budget, which we passed on Friday, and the companion capital budget is a useful tool that employs Alaska workers and builds infrastructure for Alaska's future.
We need to complete these to leave. Unfortunately, language in the capital budget does not sit well with members of the House of Representatives. One thing I have come to understand clearly is that the Legislature is commonly grouped together as one body, and many times we act in that manner, but we are definitely two distinct bodies.
Each body has its own rules, traditions, and structure; just because one body agrees to something does not mean the other will follow suit. It is actually part of the beauty of the bicameral legislature. I have been told that in Nebraska, where they have only one body, they pass 75 percent of the bills proposed. Two bodies allow every piece of legislation to be well vetted.
In this case, the House is expressing its constitutional authority by disagreeing with language proposed by the Senate in its version of the capital budget. It is truly a disagreement on process. The process of vetting has not been to this point honored. The language is unacceptable to the House because it places good projects on the same level as projects that may not be as viable or clearly thought through. The governor has the authority and responsibility granted to him by the constitution to make that judgment call; we do not want good projects to be at risk if he chooses to veto one.
The House has not even received the capital budget to express this disagreement, and while both bodies like to have these things fleshed out before the budget gets passed in negotiations, this language is a non-starter as far as the House is concerned.
Until that changes we will continue to be at an impasse. What are my expectations for the end of all this? I have learned expectations do not stand a chance down in these hallowed halls.
Rep. Lance Pruitt, R-Anchorage, was elected to the state House in 2010.
By REP. LANCE PRUITT