Annapolis.-- The two Democratic delegates from Prince George's County were almost giddy with excitement. Those bungling Republicans had done it again, and they could barely wait to stick it to them.
It was mid-March. The day before, the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee had agreed to borrow as much as $28 million from the quasi-governmental Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund to balance next year's budget and to avoid raising taxes by eliminating Maryland's tax preference on capital gains. It was an idea (which collapsed less than 24 hours after it was proposed) championed by Senate Minority Leader John A. Cade, R-Anne Arundel.
But to Delegates Charles J. Ryan and James C. Rosapepe, respectively the chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee and a Ways and Means subcommittee on taxes, it was a chance to demonstrate yet again the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Borrowing from MAIF, chortled Mr. Ryan, is the type of budgeting that got New York City into trouble.
"I think they shifted the tax burden off millionaires and onto working people," gloated Mr. Rosapepe, who pushed for repeal of the capital gains break in the House. "It's a classic Republican sort of tax plan."
But was it? Was a borrowing plan proposed by Mr. Cade, but also backed by seven of the 11 Democrats on the committee, including the chairman and vice chairman, truly a Republican plan? Or was it just another chance for House Democrats to score partisan points as a rejoinder to last fall's election?
You recall that election: when voters complained about the "big spending" ways of the Democratic governor and gave a Republican unknown 40 percent of the vote; when voters replaced Democrats with Republicans as the county executives in Howard, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties; and when voters increased the number of Republicans in the 141-member House from 16 to 25, and in the 47-member Senate from 7 to 9.
Republicans, at least those in the House, thought the election was the beginning of something big. So did the Democrats.
As a result, the 1991 General Assembly turned into one of the most partisan sessions in recent memory, House criticism of Mr. Cade's MAIF borrowing plan being only one example.
Democratic leaders in the House were forced to fend off Republican challenges to House rules that tend to limit debate, to a state budget and tax plan shaped largely by Democrats, and even to the redistricting process now under way, which undoubtedly will have a bearing on Republican efforts to turn Maryland into a true two-party state.
Bills, amendments and issues -- some as seemingly non-controversial as increasing efficiency in government -- took on a partisan tint no one could have imagined in Annapolis in prior years.
These were not conflagrations, but brush fires, easily doused by the battalions of political firefighters the Democratic majority can still summon. When House Republicans mounted a feeble, 11th-hour attempt to cut the budget, ostensibly to avoid raising taxes, their suggestions were smothered by votes of 114-15, 99-18, 102-13, 98-8, and so on. One even died by voice vote.
The Republicans claimed the Democrats missed their opportunity to scale back the size of government, but the Democrats claimed the Republicans wanted it both ways: to spare government programs from the budget ax, only to complain after it was too late that not enough was done.
"They're grandstanding," complained Democrat Thomas H. Hattery of Frederick, saying all the Republican budget cuts together did not add up to enough money to offset the tax increase they were trying to avoid.
But the House Democrats were worried enough about what the Republicans were doing and saying this session that they decided to exclude the minority leader and minority whip from meetings of the Democratic House leadership -- a sure sign the Republicans had arrived.
Republican efforts to place GOP delegates on specific House committees also were sometimes ignored by the House speaker. And the Democrats felt threatened enough that they resurrected their dormant party caucus and began plotting strategy together.
"The Democrats took seriously the message of the last election, or one of the messages, which is, we have to start thinking and acting more as Democrats in terms of trying to express an approach to government that is consistent with what the middle class majority of the state wants," said Mr. Rosapepe.
To show their concern for the plight of the citizenry in these recessionary times, for instance, the Democratic caucus announced it had set up a special payroll deduction plan so lawmakers could divert part of their pay to the state treasury.
Republicans believe the mere presence of a minority voice, of an opposition party determined to keep the majority party honest, achieved subtle but noticeable results this year. There was more debate and more bills were killed on the House floor, and there was a general loosening of the leadership's grip on the delegates, they said.
"Just that presence, initially, had a lot to do with setting the tone at the beginning of the session: Clay and Mike digging in their heels very firmly against any kinds of tax proposals," said House Minority Leader Ellen R. Sauerbrey, referring to Speaker R. Clayton Mitchell Jr., D-Kent, and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., D-Prince George's.
"From the first day of the session, whenever anyone saw two Republicans together, they'd say, 'Oh, no! Republicans caucusing. What are you all plotting and planning?' " Ms. Sauerbrey says with pride.
The partisan tilt was far most noticeable in the House, primarily because 12 of the 25 Republicans were freshmen and because Ms. Sauerbrey and Minority Whip Robert H. Kittleman, R-Howard, intentionally embarked on a crusade to make the GOP position stand out -- to offer up an alternative.
But Republicans and Democrats alike know that the political horizon stretches far beyond this year's budget or tax fight, or a squabble over House rules of debate. The real focus is on the next legislative election three years hence, or perhaps even the one after that in 1998.
Yet voting patterns for the campaign brochures of the future are being tallied now. That may explain why, for example, a Democratic delegate like Joseph Bartenfelder seemed always to have an eye on the votes taken by the two new Republicans with whom he now shares a Baltimore County district, James F. Ports and Alfred Redmer Jr.
"Freshmen Republicans expect the system is going to be partisan. They say: 'Gee, isn't this the way it is everywhere?' " said Delegate Sauerbrey. "They have a different perspective -- they haven't been here for 12 or 15 years."
Most of the Republicans in the Senate have, and the level of partisan rhetoric there is much lower.
Part of that can be attributed to the already considerable power Senate Minority Leader Cade wields on the Budget and Taxation Committee. With brains and a bullying personality, Mr. Cade is often capable of getting his way. Adopting a partisan approach might actually undercut his power.
"At times, no question about it, you have to compromise, to be pragmatic," said Sen. F. Vernon Boozer, R-Baltimore County, the minority whip. "Some of that may have to go to age, too. A lot of Republicans over [in the House] are younger, inexperienced. After they've been around a little bit, their approach may be different, they may become a little more pragmatic."
John Frece is chief of The Sun's State House bureau.