Posted by
Ron Devito on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:24:13 AM
This is in response to questions and comments I have received pertaining to this announcement:
Just
like at the federal level, a state legislature can override a
governor's veto. So, if Governor Palin had vetoed, yes it would have
been overridden -- the legislature overwhelmingly wanted that money. Of
course, since she is the one signing the bill, those who hate Governor
Palin are accusing her of being a hypocrite -- this is why we need to
be well-informed about this matter. It's complex, and quite frankly --
dry subject matter -- and easy to just "sloganeer".
Had the
legislature not accepted her compromise -- had they just blindly
ramrodded it through -- veto would have been the right thing for
Governor Palin, and that's what I had been advocating -- even with an
override. This would be to put her on the record as having rejected
this money.
Once Governor
Palin's compromise was accepted and her criteria complied with re: the
33% of the stimulus money she questioned -- she could not now turn
around and veto what was agreed to -- when it was her criteria that was
agreed to! Doing so would have been a double-cross and a back-stab.
The
Governor offered a compromise that she would accept much of the that
portion of the money so long as it replaced state funds and the state
does not end up funding this stuff two years later when the federal
money dries out. The legislators originally were not interested. That
was a circumstance for which veto was indicated. That circumstance changed 180 degrees.
The legislators accepted the Governor's compromise. They complied with her criteria. They wrote it into the house bill.
So long as this is how the bills are when they reach her desk, then
passage is now the right thing. You can't turn around and back-stab
people who after a long negotiation complied with most of what you
wanted. If she were to do that, Governor Palin would have a hellish
remainder of term awaiting her (and with people abusing the ethics
complaint system as a political tool, her work life is already not
exactly pleasant right now).
Remember too she has 20 days to
pass or line item veto once it reaches her desk. If the legislators
sneakily remove that which they agreed upon, we'll be back to square
one. Hopefully, that does not happen.
Finally, the stimulus
package was different for different states. Governor Palin accepted 67%
of the money without issue, because it was for capital projects and
automatically met the criteria she set forth: no unfunded state
mandates and no federal encroachment into state affairs. What was in
question was 33% of it and that is now resolved.
Different
states had a different mix and different amounts. Each state is unique
in how the stimulus was handled. For instance, my home state of NY has
a Democrat governor who I refer to as "Obama II" When he's proposing
much higher taxes on annual income over $250K -- just like Obama is
doing at the federal level -- and supports Obama in every way shape and
form, I think the the term is apt. NY accepted its package, lock, stock
and barrel with nary a thought as to whether any of this money is
poisoned. But, NY is also mainly a Democrat state and the few
Republicans we have here are RINOs. For instance, pro-choice Democrat
Senator Gillibrand was regarded as a "right-winger" and she is now
"evolving" her views. Lovely. NY got much more money than AK, but since
this is a liberal state with a governor and legislature on the same
page, we took the money without even a thought.