Guest Author
If there was any doubt that House Appropriations Chairman and Speaker-In-Waiting Richard Corcoran is a conservative crusader whose commitment to his principles leaves him indifferent to comity, convention and the nuances of legislative diplomacy, that doubt was laid to rest last week when he went on a rampage through the legislative china shop.
It began when Liz Dudek, secretary of the Agency for Health Care Administration, said that renewal by the federal government of the $2.2 billion Low Income Pool (LIP) program that compensates Florida hospitals for charity care was in doubt, a statement amply supported by the facts. Corcoran apparently interpreted Dudek’s sally as an indirect attempt to buttress the Senate’s signature proposal to use federal Medicaid funds to extend basic healthcare coverage to a million working poor through subsidized private insurance, which would soften the blow of LIP nonrenewal. He wasted no time putting baby in a corner, characterizing Dudek’s contention that LIP renewal is in danger as “absolute fantasy” and going on to say that even if LIP isn’t renewed, he doesn’t care, at least not now.
Next, he worked himself into even higher dudgeon, calling the Senate proposal “Medicaid expansion with a bow,” which, to give credit where credit is due, is absolutely accurate, but was not a felicitous choice of words. The rising tide of his outrage crested in his closing oration on the House budget prior to its passage on Thursday. He promised that Medicaid expansion in any guise will not pass the House.
Referring to the Senate and to Medicaid expansion, he said, “They want us to come dance. We are not dancing. We are not dancing this session. We are not dancing next session. We are not dancing next summer. … (W)e are going to do what’s right.”
Unequivocal, preemptive belligerence on this scale by an appropriations chairman concerning an issue of this magnitude before budget conference committees have even been appointed is exceedingly rare, if not unprecedented. As Corcoran’s acolytes in the House shouted hosannas in the insular afterglow of his pronunciamento, everyone else in official Tallahassee looked on in slack-jawed stupefaction.
Corcoran will, of course, prevail on Medicaid expansion because now he must. The loss of face and of influence if he failed would be crippling to him personally, and his failure would in turn shame and weaken the House, so it has to back him up come hell or high water.
And both hell and high water may not be long in coming, for if the Senate does not respond to the Corcoran provocation in kind, thus preserving its own institutional pride and influence, they may have to accustom themselves to the preeminence of Corcoran and the House for the next three years. It is unlikely, however, that battle-scarred veterans like Tom Lee, Don Gaetz, Jack Latvala, Joe Negron and Chris Smith would find a life lived on bended knee to be congenial.
Corcoran and the House may not have to dance on Medicaid expansion, but it is quite likely they will have to pay the piper.
One need not be a prophet to foresee a bipartisan Senate exacting a high price for the House’s hubris. In this scenario, the first things to fall under its avenging sword would be the substantive priorities of House leadership, beginning with Speaker Steve Crisafulli’s comprehensive water legislation. Next, Senate budgeteers would go through the appropriations act like Sherman going through Georgia, torching House member projects left and right to make specific for future reference the costs of blind obedience and unprovoked insolence.
If this happens, the House will reciprocate, and what began with a high-flying speech could end in a down-and-dirty Tong War extending beyond this session and into the next. No one would win, least of all the people of Florida, but the purpose of such a war is not victory in the short term. It is deterrence in the long term. For as important as principles are, the manner in which they are pursued within and between consultative bodies is equally important. Unilateralism and preemptive strikes at the expense of dialogue and respectful attention to the views of one’s interlocutors, even if more feigned than real, may produce immediate gains, but they are not the building blocks of lasting success.
Of course, the Senate may decide to act with mature restraint in the face of the House’s challenge. With the common good in mind, it may elect accommodation rather than war. After all, trying to deal sensibly with the insensate is not a new response to aggression. In fact, there is a word for it. The word is appeasement.
