Will Montanans swallow budget?

It sounds like Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a handful of legislators, Republican and Democrat, have everything arranged for this week's special session to proceed smoothly.

That's great, if their arrangements are satisfactory to most folks. But we're not so sure that will be the case.

For starters, state spending looks set to increase by at least 23 percent and maybe as much as 27 percent under the agreed-upon budget scheme. Yup, 23 percent! Maybe the Legislature and the governor see the $1 billion-plus surplus as the government equivalent of winning the lottery. But for most Montana residents, a spending increase of anything over 20 percent is hard to swallow.

The governor insists that his spending plan is necessary and "sustainable," but we just don't see how that can be the case. Granted, some of the spending is one-time, but a lot of it is directed at agencies and programs that will be with us forever. It will be a stunning day when an agency or program faces an actual budget cut, rather than a reduced spending increase.

At the same time, the powers-that-be have expressed deep concern about the "sustainability" of so-called "permanent" property tax rate cuts, which so far appear to have a minor role, if any, in the governor's latest budget plan. There are worries, it seems, that the government won't be able to "afford" significant tax-rate reductions.

But rate reductions seem entirely sustainable when one considers that the state's six-year reappraisal of property values is coming around in 2008, with a guaranteed revenue windfall for state coffers, no matter what is done to mitigate the impact on property owners.

A $400 rebate (which is taxable, by the way) plays a prominent role in the governor's tax relief package, but it won't produce the lasting satisfaction in Montana households that rate reductions would.

The proposed tax-relief package commendably includes an increased exemption from the much-despised business equipment tax. But we have to wonder why that tax still exists at all.

In every election cycle as far back as we can remember, we've heard legislative candidates, Republicans and Democrats, talk about the need to do away with the equipment tax because it discourages capital investment and hinders competitiveness.

For that matter, we've heard countless candidates say that constituents in their districts consider property tax relief a priority.

But it never seems to happen in a fashion that matches the priority, and it seems that's again the case as the Legislature goes into special session.

We'll wait to see how the public digests the bloated budget, and whether belly-aching ensues.