A mandate without funds

Few favored phrases in the political parlance can match frequency with the dread “unfunded mandate,” a cry that rises whenever government imposes with one hand while leaving closed the one clutching the money. Responses from school officials to the words “No Child Left Behind,” for example, are patellar: Utter the phrase, and the knee jerks with the bleat: “Unfunded mandate.” So now Republicans have picked up the linguistic hinge on which Democratic money reaches commonly swing.

His party having taken a predictable pounding over a refusal to take $125 million in federal stimulus money to extend unemployment benefits, Republican gubernatorial frontrunner Bob McDonnell has come forward with a request accompanying an explanation widely panned.

The problem, McDonnell along with state House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, contend, is that once the federal stimulus well runs dry in two years, the state will be required to pick up the extra unemployment benefits’ cost, which it will pass on through higher unemployment taxes, which will result in employers hiring fewer people. Such a scenario sounds a bit ominous, particularly at a time when unemployment in places like, say, Waynesboro, has topped 11 percent.

The solution, according to McDonnell and Howell, is for Congress to snap the stimulus strings, removing the requirement for the state to pick up the tab and eliminating – here it comes – the “unfunded mandate.” This drew reflexive sniffs from Democrats – suddenly unperturbed by those unfunded things. Del. Ward L. Armstrong, the House Democratic leader, called it a “bait-and-switch tactic to put the onus on Congress. Once again they have misjudged public opinion.” His solution is for the state to take the money now and urge Congress later to change the requirement.

Well, that makes sense, especially considering government’s record in removing so-called unfunded mandates, such as those associated with No Child. Democrats have been unshrinking in lamenting the signature domestic initiative of the Bush administration. We agree with Dems on this. No Child is the wrong answer to the right question of how to improve schools.

And we see, as Armstrong evidently does, McDonnell’s point about the danger of adding further tax burdens to business at a time when layoffs, furloughs and spending cuts, all spurred by dwindling revenues, are cycling through virtually every sector. Even if the economy brightens, there is little reason to believe that businesses will be significantly less concerned about increased taxes in two years. So why not push Congress to make the change now?

We suspect the answer follows the same line that likely led to the Republican proposal. For politicians, all issues are political, even when the economic forecasts are dire and the times hard. Republicans opposed stimulus money for meritable reasons. But only after the winds of public sentiment raged did Republicans suggest an alternative. Democrats, having seized political ground, now are loath to relinquish it.

This demonstrates, again, the nature that prevails in America’s two parties. Compromise is artful, as in artificial, when it involves a surrender of principles, something ideologues on both sides accuse both parties of doing. Compromise is sensible when two sides find points on which they can agree, which looks to be the case here, since Armstrong allows for the possibility of the benefits requirement being lifted later.

Lawmakers should ask Congress to lift the burden before placing it, and Congress should comply. After all, the last thing anybody needs – and the last thing we want to see – is the specter of another “unfunded mandate.”