Veto Shifts the Balance of Power
The media focused on how Governor Easley avoided suffering his first veto override on the tiremaker-incentive bill.
But the real story is how fundamentally the veto has changed the balance of power in
I blogged before that the veto, which Jim Hunt got passed in 1996, was Hunt’s gift to Easley. Both Jack Betts of the Charlotte Observer and Under the Dome now have commented on Hunt’s role in the veto and the incentives bill.
Hunt’s argument for the veto was not only that it was a statewide check on bad legislation, but also that it forced the legislature to take the Governor’s views into account.
Unlike Hunt, Easley is famously missing in action when it comes to working the legislature. He apparently didn’t get involved in the incentives bill when it passed. But he got involved once the legislature went home. And his veto forced the legislature to listen to him – and change the bill.
In the hands of a more activist governor, the veto threat will be even more powerful. When the legislative leaders sit down to hammer out deals, they won’t be able to ignore the governor. They can’t keep his – or her – key people out of the room. And they can’t – as Democratic legislative leaders did to Governor Jim Martin – throw the governor’s proposed budget in the trash can when it comes over.
Easley is a lame duck and not the most popular guy with the legislature. But he had the veto. So the legislature had to listen to him. Imagine how much the veto pen will strengthen the hand of a more forceful and visible chief executive.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.
Veto Shifts the Balance of Power
The media focused on how Governor Easley avoided suffering his first veto override on the tiremaker-incentive bill.
But the real story is how fundamentally the veto has changed the balance of power in
I blogged before that the veto, which Jim Hunt got passed in 1996, was Hunt’s gift to Easley. Both Jack Betts of the Charlotte Observer and Under the Dome now have commented on Hunt’s role in the veto and the incentives bill.
Hunt’s argument for the veto was not only that it was a statewide check on bad legislation, but also that it forced the legislature to take the Governor’s views into account.
Unlike Hunt, Easley is famously missing in action when it comes to working the legislature. He apparently didn’t get involved in the incentives bill when it passed. But he got involved once the legislature went home. And his veto forced the legislature to listen to him – and change the bill.
In the hands of a more activist governor, the veto threat will be even more powerful. When the legislative leaders sit down to hammer out deals, they won’t be able to ignore the governor. They can’t keep his – or her – key people out of the room. And they can’t – as Democratic legislative leaders did to Governor Jim Martin – throw the governor’s proposed budget in the trash can when it comes over.
Easley is a lame duck and not the most popular guy with the legislature. But he had the veto. So the legislature had to listen to him. Imagine how much the veto pen will strengthen the hand of a more forceful and visible chief executive.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.