What a time they had!

After years of going through the misery of a legislative session with little money to spend and much to do, lawmakers this year found themselves at the budgetary Golden Gate.

The state was running a healthy surplus (call it $600 million or more) over expenses. This left plenty of room for handing out goodies and making nice to the voters in an election year.

The extra money also relieved what had been a fairly high level of tension between the Democratically controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. While substantial differences remain, the money was able to paper over some of their most difficult problems.

Lingle, whose ability to take a sharp jab is undiminished (take a look at what she said about the Mufi Hannemann administration's handling of the homeless situation), had many nice things to say about the Legislature this year.

Yes, the governor was disappointed by the Legislature's unwillingness to jump with both feet onto the tax cut bandwagon, but she acknowledged they did make a start.

And there was praise from the governor's office on other fronts, including housing and education.

This theme was echoed at the Legislature itself, where closing remarks from Republicans (usually more than unhappy with what the Democratic majority comes up with) had kind things to say.

Thanking Senate President Robert Bunda, Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings declared the 2006 version "an interesting and productive session."

Still, if the political tension between the fifth floor and legislative chambers cooled this session, it heated up on the legislative floor itself. The big driver: the stampede of lawmakers running for the congressional seat soon to be vacated by U.S. Rep. Ed Case, who's running for the U.S. Senate.

The joke is you can't open an office door at the Capitol without hitting a candidate, announced or unannounced, for the U.S. House.

This leads to, shall we say, a certain amount of jockeying for advantage, disadvantage and political credit.

Case in point: The legislative effort to "do something" about the gasoline price-control legislation. The champion of this effort is state Sen. Ron Menor, a Democrat, one of many running for Congress.

Fairly or unfairly, the gas-cap law has become a political albatross, particularly for Democrats who pushed it through over the strenuous objections of the governor.

The House leadership, for instance, began the session firmly defending the cap, only to do a 180 and vote almost unanimously against it once the force of the political winds became clear.

Menor felt the heat himself and finally conceded to a compromise that would suspend the gas cap while a study is made of gasoline pricing patterns in Hawai'i. If it develops that prices are getting above what the cap would have allowed, the governor would be authorized to reimpose the cap.

But Menor added a new wrinkle to the formula that is used to determine "capped" prices. He threw in Singapore spot prices, since Southeast Asia is where much of our oil comes from and where we would likely buy an alternative source of gasoline.

But here's the kicker: The Singapore price is usually lower than the U.S. Mainland prices used under the original price-cap formula. Putting Singapore into the mix would make the gas cap look "better" for consumers and — presumably — would make gas-cap advocates such as Menor look better as well.

An effort was made at the last minute on the Senate floor to throw out the Singapore factor as well as make several other lesser changes. Speaking ardently for the amendment were Democrats Gary Hooser and Colleen Hanabusa, who coincidentally are running for Congress as well.

Senate Republicans, obviously enjoying all this byplay, jumped to Menor's defense, announcing they would vote against any floor amendment.

"Is this about petty, petty politics in the state Capitol?" Hemmings wondered aloud.

Added Republican Sen. Paul Whalen: "Why are we watering the bill to keep the cap up high? Big Oil is pushing this."

Noses were counted. Recesses were called, and the amendment was quietly tabled.

Over in the House, which already had passed the amendment, there was a quick regrouping and the amendment was withdrawn.

The other big political fight, one which will be replayed on the campaign trail this year, was over tax relief. Lingle began the session pushing for a big tax-relief package that would have chewed up much of the surplus.

Her reasoning, shared by many Republicans in the Legislature, was that if the state has a tax surplus, plain and simple it means people are being taxed too much and deserve to get the money back.

Declared GOP firebrand state Sen. Sam Slom:

"Where does the surplus come from? It comes from our over-taxed citizens. The people should be be here with pitchforks and torches."

In the end, Democrats grabbed most of the surplus for other needs (the Department of Education got money worth fully half of the amount) and put forth a relatively modest package of tax cuts focused on increasing the standard deduction and widening tax brackets so people at the lower end of the tax spectrum would pay fewer or no income taxes at all.

The value was set at $60 million, but that includes a one-time $10 million tax-relief plan for citizens hurt by recent flooding and rains.

After all the talking, most Republicans held their nose and voted for the tax-relief package on the theory that a little relief is better than none at all.

What was not really discussed was that this $50 million package is for all intents permanent. That is, it is $50 million in relief going forward forever, unless repealed.

In the end, reality led to a fair amount of compromise and cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. But the other political reality, the upcoming campaign for Congress and for control of legislative seats, meant the 2006 session was merely the first skirmish of what will be an interesting political year.

Jerry Burris is The Advertiser's editorial page editor.

Reach Jerry Burris at jburris@honoluluadvertiser.com.