In 2010 when Congress was in the midst of a contentious debate over the Affordable Care Act, later dubbed Obamacare, Republican opponents angrily argued the massive legislation was being railroaded through with no opportunity for serious study or sober contemplation of its impact.
In reply, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously uttered, “We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it.”
State Senate Democrats channeled their inner Pelosi in a near midnight session to rush a proposed $54.3 billion state budget through committee, barely beating the deadline to position the bill for a full vote before the constitutionally mandated July 1 start of the new fiscal year.
Printed copies of the budget were not available to committee Republicans or to the public, even as reports surfaced that Democratic votes were recorded despite not being present.
Senate President Nick Scutari (D-Union) waved off the criticism, pointing out that Democrats had access to the entire budget proposal and in an odd bit of justification added, “Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder.”
Transparency versus skepticism
Accuracy was not at issue; appropriating billions of taxpayer dollars to finance government operations and programs was.
At a time when the word “transparency” has assumed near mythical status in politics and government as an essential component in gaining and maintaining public faith and confidence, Democratic leadership chose instead to say, in effect, “trust us, we know what’s best.”
Public skepticism of government and its institutions has reached unprecedented levels, driven by a sense that honesty and integrity have been supplanted by political expediency and advantage.
It is inevitable that suggestions of private influence and favoritism will arise in the absence of openness and transparency.
Acting on what is arguably the most significant single proposal in any legislative session in the dead of night and without public debate only advances that skepticism and distrust.
The budget has been in the hands of the Legislature for four months, a time period traditionally sufficient to discuss, debate, amend and act to avoid the eleventh-hour rush to avert a possible government shutdown. It is, moreover, a time for a public accounting of proposed expenditures and programs before they are signed into law.
After the frenzy comes suspicion
It should surprise no one that the last-minute frenzy that occurred this year creates suspicions about what spending items have been slipped quietly into the document and by whom.
The budget as proposed adds $1.2 billion to Gov. Phil Murphy’s initial recommendations, largely without justification or explanation. Once signed into law, neither will be forthcoming.
What favors were promised? What accommodations made? What rewards offered? What future considerations pledged?
It is inevitable that suggestions of private influence and favoritism will arise in the absence of openness and transparency.
Sen. Scutari’s reference to “accuracy” notwithstanding, the circumstances of the final act in the budget drama reflected poorly on the majority party.
Nearly 110 years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in a court opinion: “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
Rather than embrace the Pelosi theory — “You have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it” – the Legislature would have been far wiser and more public-spirited by following Brandeis.