Riley may be ‘Immunized’ from the Fallout of Painful Budget Cuts, Says UA Political Scientist

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. – Gov. Bob Riley’s ability to lead wasn’t necessarily flattened on Tuesday even though his proposed tax and accountability package was, says a University of Alabama political scientist.

Dr. David Lanoue, professor and chair of political science at UA, said Riley is apt to soon propose decisive and painful budgetary cuts but will likely be somewhat politically “immunized” from the pain they cause.

“There still seems to be a reservoir of good will that people have for Bob Riley, personally,” said Lanoue. Riley’s religious convictions — frequently cited by the governor in his promotion of the now defeated plan — were recognized as sincere and reverberated with many voters, including some who voted against the plan, Lanoue said. “This is something to build upon.”

What Riley does in response to the plan’s defeat will define his term as governor, said the UA political scientist. If he dwells on the defeat and appears to be paralyzed by it, he would be seen as an ineffective governor, “but I’m guessing that’s not Riley’s style,” Lanoue said.

“He will propose some serious cuts to a lot of programs which will, on the one hand, give him another chance to control the agenda, but, on the other hand, will cause a lot of pain to a lot of people. ‘I gave it my best shot, but the voters weren’t willing to go along,’” could be the sort of message that will insulate Riley from the fallout of the expected slashed budgets, Lanoue said. The state is facing an estimated $675 million budget shortfall for the 2004 fiscal year which begins Oct. 1.

Linking the defeat of former Gov. Don Siegelman’s lottery plan and his subsequent unsuccessful bid for re-election to Riley’s re-election chances is a comparison that breaks down quickly, Lanoue said. “I don’t think it was the defeat of the lottery that defeated Siegelman so much as it was the sense that he didn’t have a Plan B. Even with the defeat of the lottery and with no Plan B, he only lost by some 3,000 votes.

“Now, you can say the lottery was decisive, but with a race that close, you can say that any number of factors lost Siegelman the election.” Another contrast in the two governors’ failed plans is that Siegelman’s own party supported his plan while Riley’s party generally did not.

Too many things can happen, including many circumstances out of Riley’s control — such as the strength of the national economy — to accurately predict the impact the failed plan would have on a re-election bid for the governor.

“Three years is a lifetime in politics,” Lanoue said. However, it’s possible that it will turn out not to be long enough, he said. “If we’ve learned nothing else about conservatives — over the last 10 years — we know they have a long memory,” Lanoue said.

A segment of those opposing Riley’s plan wanted more than the plan’s defeat. “They wanted this measure to fail badly and wanted politicians nationwide to learn the lesson. If these people determine that part of the lesson is to defeat Bob Riley, they will find, and fund, a significant challenger to run against him in 2006,” Lanoue said.

As for reasons why the plan failed, Lanoue said factors included its complexity and the administration’s failure to communicate a consistent, effective message.

“Complexity scares people, and it’s easier for your opponents to go ‘cherry picking.’” Because the plan was difficult to digest and it contained so many aspects, opponents could find various parts of the plan that did not appeal to some groups and then poor-mouthed those aspects.

Initially, the governor’s administration believed that the state income tax adjustments and property tax increases were the scariest parts of the plan, the UA political scientist said. However, Lanoue said the plan would have likely had more voter support if it had been limited to only those two aspects.

“It would have been a lot harder for the other side to go cherry picking” and voters would have understood it more easily, he said. Lanoue said the administration wasted time in trying to focus on how some would receive a tax break and that the moral argument and its accompanying slogan, ‘Let’s Do The Right Thing,’ emphasized the
sacrifice.

During the final weeks, the focus was on a vision for a better Alabama, one in which its citizens’ quality of life would improve. That approach had more appeal, Lanoue said.

“They didn’t really get on message until late in the game.”