Dillon reveals Bishop tax strategy?

There’s a very interesting statement from House Speaker Andy Dillon in the middle of this Chris Christoff article in the Detroit Free Press. It may be quite telling about the political considerations going on behind the scenes in the state legislature:

Dillon said Bishop gave in to a $1.3-billion tax increase in 2007, and he was convinced the Senate leader wouldn’t go for another one as he pursues the nomination for attorney general from a Republican Party where the anti-tax right wing will call the shots.

“Politically, for him to think he had a future as attorney general, he couldn’t allow in the first phase of the budget a tax increase. He needed pressure to build to force a few of his members to break,” Dillon said. “That’s why I agreed to do what I did.”

Dillon said he counted on public pressure to force Republicans to approve more revenue to restore cuts to schools, Medicaid, revenue sharing and the Michigan Promise college scholarship.

If this is accurate, it clearly indicates that Bishop is concerned more about his political viability in a primary election for attorney general next year than in doing the right thing. In order to win that primary, this suggests, he believes he has to stick absolutely to the no taxes pledge that is favored by hardcore party activists.

So perhaps he cut a deal with Dillon whereby he could continue to take a strong anti-tax position in public while Dillon hoped that he could build up enough pressure to peel off a few Senate Republicans to vote for a revenue increase over Bishop’s objections. Thus, Dillon could say he was still opposed to the revenue increases while ultimately getting those increases to stave off the deepest budget cuts in the most controversial areas.

If that was indeed the plan, Bishop has certainly kept up his part of the bargain, valiantly fighting any and all attempts to raise revenue to lessen those cuts. Dillon told Christoff that he didn’t think enough pressure was building to raise revenue because “people assume they can accept these cuts.” But if the pressure in place now is not enough to force such a vote, it’s hard to imagine what kind of pressure would do so.

Gov. Granholm certainly turned up that pressure to 11 with her line-item veto of more than $50 million in funding for 39 school districts with funding out of line with state formulas, the so-called 20-J districts. That particularly turns up the heat on those Republican Senators whose home districts will take the deepest cuts.

Between Granholm’s actions and the significant protests that have greeted K-12 budget cuts, cuts to local revenue sharing that will impact police and fire departments and the elimination of the Promise scholarship, the pressure ought to be pretty high right now. That leaves two obvious questions yet to be answered:

Can at least two Senate Republicans be convinced to jump ship and vote for new revenues?

And would Bishop let a vote come to the floor if he thought that would happen?

If Dillon’s suggestion is correct, Bishop should invite such a vote and allow it to occur even while publicly opposing the revenue increases. Stay tuned to see if that happens.