Legislative Report: When Good Bills Go Bad

After three years in the Maine Legislature, I’ve noticed some interesting tactics in the bill-making process. I would like to share these observations so residents can better understand the tricks and techniques of a part-time, citizen legislature.

Let’s consider four areas of concern: the misnaming of bills when initially submitted; the gutting of bills; the unintended consequences of a bill; and lastly, how bills submitted by executive branch departments or the governor take precedence over ordinary bills.

The misnaming of bills is a tactic used by senators and representatives to intentionally make the bill sound more benign and acceptable, giving it a better chance of passage. If the real intention or purpose of the bill were to be placed in the title, the bill would most likely not see the light of day. In a novice, term-limited Legislature, with constant turnover of members, this deceptive tactic is both confusing and offensive.

Let me provide a couple of examples from the current Legislature. The majority party passed LD 1264, entitled “An Act to Stabilize Funding and Enable DirigoChoice to Reach More Uninsured.” A more accurate title would be “An Act to Make Health Insurance More Expensive to Prop Up a Failed Program.” This bill, now a law, imposes a 2.14 percent “Dirigo tax” on every medical claim paid by a private insurance company. It is, essentially, a tax on doctors’ bills. Naturally, the insurer transfers the cost directly to private insurance premiums, jacking them up even higher.

The failure of DirigoChoice is so spectacular that it receives national coverage. After spending $155 million in tax money, it has managed to insure just 3,400 previously uninsured people. When the program was launched, amid great fanfare, the proponents said that by 2009 it would insure all 128,000 uninsured Mainers. Rather than admit failure and try something better, the governor and his party decided to tax people with private insurance.

Another misnamed bill is LD 1495, “An Act to Implement Tax Relief and Tax Reform.” This is the infamous tax shift that will come up for a people’s veto in June. A more fitting title would be “An Act to Cut Taxes for the Wealthiest Mainers While Hammering the Poor and Middle Class.”

This legislation, passed by the majority party and signed into law, expands the sales tax to hundreds of services and activities and eliminates some popular tax deductions, such as mortgage interest, property tax and charitable contributions. The law strikes savagely at some 300,000 poor and elderly residents with such low incomes that they don’t even file tax returns. For them, this is just a huge sales tax increase with no upside. The only Mainers who will see a substantial benefit are those making over $350,000 per year.

Another tactic used in the State Legislature is the gutting of bills, which neutralizes their actual purpose. This is usually done by leadership with the intention of appeasing the person who submitted the bill, while at the same time rendering its initial purpose completely ineffective. In many cases, the bill will maintain its same title without the sponsor even knowing what has occurred. This particular tactic can lead legislators to provide false information to their constituents inadvertently.

The third observation is not so much a tactic, but rather becomes a result of misnaming or misleading bill titles. The unintended consequences of a bill that is passed without sufficient study, research or knowledge can cause unemployment to rise in communities, taxes to increase and factories to be shut down. It is important that all bills be studied sufficiently, so that the unintended results, whether positive or negative, will be fully exposed. In some cases, the unintended results seem to be purposely silenced to make passage more likely. As we have seen repeatedly, the Legislature does not necessarily represent the will of the people. Instead, it frequently seems to represent the most vociferous groups or the ones with the deepest pockets.

Finally, bills submitted by the executive branch seem to have a much better chance of passage than those submitted by ordinary legislators. There are a number of reasons that may explain this phenomenon. Many legislators feel that the bill carries the prestige and weight of the State; they are intimidated by it. Usually, a number of expert witnesses testify on behalf of the bill; those same witnesses have the inside knowledge necessary to defend the bill. This is especially true with a governor’s bill. In any case, these bills often pass without adequate scrutiny.

All of these issues give cause for concern. I don’t like constantly trying to determine the motives behind a bill. Like most legislators, I would prefer the luxury of taking a bill at face value instead of constantly being suspicious about why it was submitted.

Although this legislative mischief might seem trivial, the cumulative impact is detrimental to honesty and fair dealing in legislative affairs. Our democratic system remains the finest means of governing in the world, but we must always be alert to the vagaries and vanities of human nature.

State Rep. Bernard Ayotte (R-Caswell), a second-term legislator, serves on the Natural Resources Committee

###