I strongly disagree with this editorial.  A deal is a deal, but what if the courts intervene to undo one party's contribution?  The editorial doesn't even mention that this tax break was traded off for PERS cuts, later struck down.
I also reserve blame for the Democrats, but for a different reason.  Any group with a half a clue, and knowing the history of PERS challenges, would have included a key element in the legislation.  And that would have reversed the S-Corp break if the PERS cuts were ruled unconstitutional.  This is Legislation 101, and Kotek, Courtney, and company flunked.
The writers of this editorial are doing a disservice to readers by telling half the story!