House GOP has point, but must use care

State House Republicans have a solid point as they struggle to open up debate this session on contentious issues such as the age of consent and the tax on food and drugs.

But they could lose their moral high ground if they over-play their hand or force the business of the House into disarray.

The GOP point is this: What is the purpose of a constitutional right of the minority to yank bills out of committee if that right does not bring with it an opportunity for public debate? In this case, the Republicans want public debate on a handful of bills currently "iceboxed" in committee.

One is the proposal to raise the age of sexual consent from today’s 14. Another is to eliminate the 4 percent excise tax on food, drugs and rentals.

Both issues carry a powerful punch with the public, but are not particularly popular with the Democratic majority.

On the age of consent, some Democrats have heeded the word of social workers who say it would "criminalize" certain sexual behavior and would drive young people away from treatment.

That is a tough argument to make, however, in the face of public astonishment that a child as young as 14 can legally "consent" to sex with an adult.

On the food and drug tax, the majority opposition rides on concerns that the state cannot afford a tax cut of that magnitude, considering the other demands that are being placed on the state budget. Union pay raises are among those demands.

Again, that comes across as a somewhat selfish argument in the face of the GOP contention that the tax is unfair to poor people.

So if the GOP can get these two matters to the floor of the House for public debate, they win no matter what happens. If the bills pass, they can claim important victories. If they fail, there will be a recorded vote by the minority Republicans to use in the next campaign.

Where the Republicans could lose PR ground, however, is if, in their frustration, they attempt to tie up all other legislative business. That has already happened to a limited extent; much more and they will appear obstructionist rather than principled.

To be successful, the Republicans must target their actions carefully. The minority should serve notice that it expects — that the public expects — open debate and an up-or-down vote on these matters. Properly, that should be in committee.

If a measure stalls in committee for want of a majority vote, then it is absolutely proper for the GOP to force the matter to the floor.

And at that point, the majority Democrats should give up on the parliamentary maneuvering and allow floor debate to take place.

What is the point of such a protection if the bill is yanked from committee only to lie on a table, never to be discussed again? If the Democrats have sound arguments against these bills, those arguments should be heard — first in committee and then again, if necessary, on the floor of the House.

[back to top]