If excuses were dollars, the Utah Legislature could easily have appropriated $2 million for emergency medical services for blind and disabled Utahns.

But in a special session Wednesday, lawmakers didn't even debate the issue of poor people's dental care. They did approve spending $15 million to build a 270-car parking garage east of the Utah Capitol.

Some lawmakers said they couldn't single out funding dental services when so many other Medicaid issues deserve just as much or more consideration. But as an "optional" service, dental care deserved to be singled out because of great demand, the relative low cost and the tremendous public health benefit. After all, lawmakers singled out Medicaid dental and vision care three years ago, when the funding was intially axed.

Others resented Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., for placing the matter before the lawmakers in special session. Refusing to fund emergency dental services could potentially make lawmakers appear insensitive to the needs of the poor and disabled. But politically, they didn't want to acquiesce to Huntsman, who isn't facing election in the fall and has plenty of political capital to expend.

Some lawmakers said emergency dental services could be funded by the Utah Department of Health now, but that's problematic, too. The Huntsman administration argues that such a move would require legislative approval. Even if it was technically possible, would it be prudent of health department officials to fund a service lawmakers specifically refused to consider in special session?

It's important not to paint with a broad brush here. The Legislature — on a party line vote — refused to consider this matter. Several Democrats expressed outrage that in a time of plenty the dental needs of Utah's poorest residents were not addressed.

Credit is due Huntsman, who clearly understands that people who would qualify for this assistance have little or no resources to seek dental care on their own. Their needs are urgent.

Through political maneuvering on the part of Republicans, lawmakers didn't have to stand up and be counted on this $2 million appropriation. But their political challengers can still call into question why, at a time when the state has sufficient resources to address this need, that they didn't stand up on behalf of people who most need their help.