ÀÏ˾»úÖ±²¥

The second special session of 2024 ended Tuesday night with a compromise between Gov. Jim Justice and Republican legislative leadership on an additional 2% cut in personal income tax rates.

During an address last Wednesday, Justice did a touchdown dance and criticized those in the Legislature and media who said he would never get a tax cut over the special session finish line.

As I don’t make predictions, I never said one way or another whether there would be a tax cut. I only relayed what my sources in the Legislature were saying, which was they did not see a pathway for Justice’s original proposal of a 5% cut in personal income tax rates. In the short term it could be done, but beyond fiscal year 2026? That was the question.

When it comes to tax cuts, everyone points to Kansas, which more than a decade ago reduced much of its taxes in one big swoop. But it did so too quickly for the predicted economic growth to happen and it resulted in budget shortfalls and other issues. Now, Justice has always wanted to go big at the personal income tax, once proposing a 50% cut in rates. The GOP-led Legislature always desires to phase out the personal income tax, but they have always wanted to do so in baby steps.

But based on information I had the week before and answers to a question of mine by Gov. Justice, I had a feeling that perhaps there was a pathway to a cut of less than 5%, and I proposed that scenario in last week’s column. Sure enough, that is what happened, with lawmakers agreeing to 2% after officials in the Governor’s Office showed how the $46 million that would be returned to taxpayers could be paid for.

Another part of the compromise was delaying future potential tax cuts that could come from the tax cut trigger mechanism put in place in 2023. We are getting a 4% cut in personal income tax rates in January along with the 2%. That 4% cut was determined in August based on a formula comparing general revenue collections in a previous fiscal year minus severance tax collections compared to the base year of fiscal year 2019 and tied to inflation rates.

However, with the change in when the trigger goes into effect, when the Department of Revenue and the State Auditor’s Office determine the next triggered tax cut in August 2025, instead of going into effect in the January 2026 tax year, it will go into effect in the January 2027 tax year.

While lawmakers like the tax cut trigger, there has always been an underlying concern about having the triggered tax cut go into effect so fast before its impact on the upcoming fiscal year general revenue budget can be ascertained. The trigger delay will allow future state budgets to prepare for the loss of tax revenue. And if cutting taxes helps boost new economic development and jobs, then we should easily be able to absorb future tax cuts.

So, good job to the staff of the Governor’s Office, Department of Revenue, and legislative leadership for coming to a compromise. Not specifically for the outcome as much as showing that compromise is still a thing.

—

Just about the only thing people reached out to me about last week was House Concurrent Resolution 203, a resolution that had no hope of ever being put on a committee agenda or taken up for a vote in either the House or Senate.

HCR 203, which was sponsored by nine House Republicans – probably the furthest right of the House Republican caucus – would have requested the Legislature not recognize an illegitimate presidential election based on illegal or fraudulent acts. Some of the things the concurrent resolution lists are so vague that it boggles the mind.

One of the things the resolution called for was not recognizing the election of any Democratic president if the Republican presidential candidate or vice presidential candidate was assassinated, injured in an attempted assassination, incarcerated, barred, or subject to legal actions that prevent them campaigning for office.

Now, I get some of these things have happened to former President Donald Trump, but wouldn’t this be unequal treatment under the law since it doesn’t give the Democratic candidate reciprocity? Other requests to not recognize the election of a Democratic president are even more open-ended and vague.

Trust me, I get the reaction people had to HCR 203. However, the reaction showed that some people don’t understand the difference between a bill and a resolution.

The only things that matter in the West Virginia legislative process are bills which make or amend laws, and joint resolutions that are used to put questions to voters about amending the state Constitution. But resolutions and concurrent resolutions have no force of law. These kinds of resolutions merely express the thoughts of lawmakers.

And again, HCR 203 was never going to be voted on. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which did not meet during the special session since most of the bills dealt with spending tax dollars.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t express your frustrations, especially at the lawmakers who signed on as co-sponsors. It’s obvious the resolution was never vetted by a legal professional who would have told them nearly everything they wanted the state to do would be invalid.

But I took some criticism for not writing about this resolution in a news story. The reason is simple: any crank can introduce a bill or a resolution. But as I’m one person who has to keep an eye on both the House and Senate, I focus on bills and resolutions that committees recommend. And if it doesn’t get put on an agenda, I don’t cover it. Because if it doesn’t get put on an agenda, it might as well be dead.