I think I have the blog set up correctly. If we need to make any changes or if you have any issues, please let me know. I will be posting today, hopefully by noon, the discussion subject for this week.
After reading Chapter 3 in Rubin, I was particularly interested in the section on Budget Process and Power and how state governments are affected. I have to admit that I did not know off the top of my head which veto option Governor Rendell has at his disposal, but after a quick Google search I learned that he has the right to veto legislative bills as well as the power to line-item veto specific provisions of a bill. The argument behind this type of veto power in the book is that it provides a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, in this case of state government. Therefore, whenever members of the legislature are using the state budget to pursue self-seeking or partisan objectives, the governor will step in and “seek the public policy goal of balanced and efficient budgets, with the minimum of waste.”
I suppose my question for the group is whether or not we agree with the assertion that governors who are elected to act in the best interest of the entire state population are able to be non-partisan in their use of vetoes or line-item vetoes to remove unnecessary appropriations from proposed legislation. We can even go further with the topic and discuss Governor Rendell’s use of the line-item veto in Pennsylvania or we can keep the topic more general.
Personally, I have to agree with the authors, Glenn Abney and Thomas Lauth, referenced on pg. 85 in Rubin, who determined that governors are more likely to use veto power, specifically line-item vetoes when they face a majority of party opposites in their state legislature. Therefore, it seems obvious that partisan politics have a larger impact on the practice of vetoing appropriations than whether or not they are beneficial to the general population. While I am not saying that the only reason governors veto legislation or parts of legislation is to squash an opposing party’s agenda, I do think the use of such vetoes deserves a closer examination of the politics behind the decision.
After reading Chapter 3 in Rubin, I was particularly interested in the section on Budget Process and Power and how state governments are affected. I have to admit that I did not know off the top of my head which veto option Governor Rendell has at his disposal, but after a quick Google search I learned that he has the right to veto legislative bills as well as the power to line-item veto specific provisions of a bill. The argument behind this type of veto power in the book is that it provides a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, in this case of state government. Therefore, whenever members of the legislature are using the state budget to pursue self-seeking or partisan objectives, the governor will step in and “seek the public policy goal of balanced and efficient budgets, with the minimum of waste.”
ReplyDeleteI suppose my question for the group is whether or not we agree with the assertion that governors who are elected to act in the best interest of the entire state population are able to be non-partisan in their use of vetoes or line-item vetoes to remove unnecessary appropriations from proposed legislation. We can even go further with the topic and discuss Governor Rendell’s use of the line-item veto in Pennsylvania or we can keep the topic more general.
Personally, I have to agree with the authors, Glenn Abney and Thomas Lauth, referenced on pg. 85 in Rubin, who determined that governors are more likely to use veto power, specifically line-item vetoes when they face a majority of party opposites in their state legislature. Therefore, it seems obvious that partisan politics have a larger impact on the practice of vetoing appropriations than whether or not they are beneficial to the general population. While I am not saying that the only reason governors veto legislation or parts of legislation is to squash an opposing party’s agenda, I do think the use of such vetoes deserves a closer examination of the politics behind the decision.