Analysis by Matt Towery, Founder InsiderAdvantage
With just days to go, two of the most controversial issues remaining in this year’s legislative session are how to fund transportation in Georgia and whether to make a liquid form of medical marijuana legal. With adept handling, both should be capable of passage without much fear of any negative political repercussions for those who vote to support these efforts.
First, transportation. It has been my fairly often stated opinion that the messaging of Georgia’s transportation needs has been poor if not disastrous for quite some time. The fiasco that was the 2012 T-SPLOST effort proved that. Those asking for a funding bill from the legislature this year seemed destined to fall into the same messaging trap. The public has told us in one opinion survey after another that they do not care about expanding business in Georgia by increasing the amount we spend on transportation. In fact, they really don’t care much about “improving” transportation at all.
Arguments of traffic relief or economic development have missed the issues that actually move public opinion on the matter of funding transportation.
Because our population is growing and will continue to do so, the demands on an aging system of highways, roads, and bridges will soon become overwhelming. Since 2003 Georgia has made little progress in funding basic transportation needs. A combination of silly political maneuvers and a series of unrealistic laws as to how we account for funding of projects and approach debt service all left the state way behind in funding transportation needs. And with the potential of additional trucks and vehicles related to an expanded Port coming in the future, Georgia’s leaders now feel they must take action.
While the House proposal did not necessarily poll well with the public, it likely was a good way of measuring the level of strength of opposition to the concept of raising motor fuel excise tax. My take is that the opposition to that bill or any similar one is tepid and will become more diffuse just a matter of months after any bill of this nature passes and is signed into law.
Having served with the great Democratic Speaker Tom Murphy, with whom I enjoyed a pretty strong relationship as a Republican, I see some very similar qualities of leadership in our current Republican Speaker, David Ralston. There is little doubt that Ralston’s decision to push together a coalition of members to vote for a transportation bill took both guts and a decision to put what he considers the state’s best interest ahead of short term political ramifications.
And in speaking in favor of the bill, House members started focusing on the more effective message of why the state needs additional funding for transportation. Safety of bridges and roads and keeping up our overall infrastructure appeals to voters because they are issues that make sense and matter to them. And that’s what many who rose to support the bill mentioned as the impetus for their support.
With that explanation the Senate now considers alternatives to the House bill. And several proposals merit strong consideration. But polling suggests that the difference in the two bills as to the actual amount of any new tax at the pump is of no real significance. The public really doesn’t follow a difference of pennies per gallon. When asked in past surveys, few respondents could identify the amount of tax they pay per gallon in filling up their vehicle.
If legislators will continue to focus on the issues of keeping roads and bridges safe and maintaining the current flow of traffic, which of course requires more capacity as use continues to increase, they will find a receptive public in 2016. But they must once and for all forget using economic development as a reason for their actions and avoid using terms like “big and bold” when it comes to transportation. Instead we should hear words like “safety,” “reliability,” and the term “maintaining the flow of traffic.”
As for the difficulty in passing a medical marijuana bill, I am a bit puzzled. Poll after poll tells us the public overwhelmingly supports such measures and for a fairly broad set of necessary medical circumstances (where current alternatives are ineffective). If there is to be a political price to be paid over this issue, it will more likely come to suburban Republicans who fail to pass a bill. Surveys show that older voters (who often deal with more substantial medical issues and vote overwhelmingly Republican) are among the most supportive of a “liquid” medical marijuana bill. Combined with younger parents, that is a powerful political base.
The bill related to “religious liberty” is the most difficult to decipher. When polled the state seems to be split in numerous directions, with no side of the issue having anywhere near to a clear advantage. Interestingly, in testing the concept earlier this year, we did learn one thing. Not all religions are viewed in the same light. When Georgians were asked if they would approve of the rights afforded in the bill if those rights were afforded to those of the Islamic faith, disapproval of the legislation skyrocketed.
Of these three issues, both transportation and “liquid” medical marijuana seem likely to cause little political harm to legislators in the future and will both likely pass in some form or fashion. The issue of “religious liberty” remains up in the air and will be a matter of messaging, grassroots communications, and legislative maneuvering in the waning days of the session.
