STATE BUDGET Afraid of Scrutiny? Two Items in Particular in

By O. RICARDO PIMENTEL

When legislators start affecting who is liable for what in lawsuits, the battle lines get drawn quickly. Think about insurance and business groups decrying staggering damages that encourage runaway litigation. Think trial lawyers thundering about justice for grievously injured defendants.

But it's inescapable that amid this rhetoric are real policy issues, affecting real people. That's why any legislation causing such changes should get the kind of full and proper vetting that generally accompanies stand-alone bills.

There are several such items in the governor's budget that the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee should strip from the document. And if their supporters think they can stand the scrutiny, they should submit them as separate pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, the committee leaders -- Rep. Mark Pocan (D- Madison) and Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) -- said on Tuesday that they would allow some of these key measures to remain in the budget.

Among these is one dealing with joint and several liability. This has to do with the ability for injured parties to get full damages from one or more of defendants if other defendants don't have the money.

Another has to do with auto insurance provisions in the budget that would force motorists to maintain higher minimum liability coverage.

All sides make compelling points. Why, for instance, should an injured party (or the state through BadgerCare or Medicaid if this person is low-income) have to bear the full cost of recovery while one or more of those who caused the injury skip out on any damages? Or, in the case of auto liability, is it worth the pain higher premiums will cause consumers?

We will, in a future editorial, weigh in on the worthiness (or lack thereof) of the governor's proposals. Our point today, however, is that because there are compelling points to be made on both sides, these are serious policy issues that demand an open and lively debate. They will likely not get it as part of a 1,700-page budget.

On Tuesday, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau listed these items among others in the Gov. Jim Doyle's budget as having no fiscal impact or whose policy implications may outweigh such impact. Joint Finance Committee chairs are nonetheless free to choose which ones remain in the budget. And we know that just because they're in for now doesn't mean that the committee chairs can't strip them later.

In the case of joint and several liability, there is fiscal cost but, in our eyes, the policy change is the true issue. It deserves a full vetting. And the auto insurance change affects so many people that, even if there is no state fiscal impact, there is enough personal impact to warrant full vetting outside the Joint Finance Committee.

Miller and Pocan should reconsider their inclusion in the budget. But if they balk, the committee should reject these items and direct them to other committees as stand-alone legislation.

Should joint and several liability and changes in auto insurance remain in the governor's budget? E-mail your opinion to jsedit@journalsentinel.com to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor. Please see letters guidelines.