Saturday, October 27, 2007

Will Senator Decker face the Monster?

(Warning: I have indulged in a rare vulgarity to make a point here. See if you can find it!)

As I suggested on Wednesday, months of legislative deliberation and negotiation about the size of government and the amount of taxation over the next biennium were materially altered on Friday by the use of the governor's extraordinarily broad veto powers.

Last year,the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment to end this silliness and they should do so again during this session. It has already passed the Assembly, but Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker isn't sure that he wants to bring it to a vote.

Why not? This isn't about Governor Doyle or the Democrats. Tommy Thompson fed his Frankenstein too and we will have Republican governors in the future.

If Decker doesn't want to bring this to a vote then he needs to explain why it's good policy to let the Governor turn a law passed by both houses of the legislature into something else entirely by treating it as a puzzle. Even if you think that the Governor should be able to make law subject to veto by a super-majority (and no one does), requiring him to do it by playing word Scrabble is inane.

Of course, he can't defend this. No one can. If this doesn't come to a vote, it's because Doyle has him on a leash. The legislature does many things and I understand that Senator Decker and the other legislators have many balls in the air. But isn't this important?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now that's funny...I don't care what anybody says...

karl marx said...

It's the "date rape" principle.
He said/she said.
"Stop don't, stop don't, stop don't."
Redacted becomes. FrankenSpringStein veto becomes...
"don't stop, don't stop, don't stop."
Or even more poignant.
"WE SHOULD NOT, WE MUST NOT, I WILL $?$ RAISE TAXES".

Dean said...

Tricky, posting that warning so we'd read the whole post trying to find that vulgarity (balls? Wow, I thought I was a good fundamentalist Christian).

As if we wouldn't anyway. :^)

Billiam said...

Nice one. In answer to your question, NO, Decker will not. That would be a betrayal in the eyes of his party. Showing character is not allowed if it hurts your own.

Anonymous said...

We would not be in this pickle if the Republican legislators now crying for a ban on the Frankenstein veto had any "balls" (your work, Rickie) when TGT was Governor and the goofy vetoes began emerging from the East wing.

Billiam said...

Anon, While that's true, what does that have to do with Decker? The Dems have the opportunity to do something aboutit. Instead, will they, like the Republicans before them, cower doglike and lick their master's(Doyle) foot? Or will they sack up and fix it. You already know where my money's at.

Dad29 said...

Anony 3:53, I think allowing the Governor this veto power is ridiculous--and I thought to when TT was the Governor, too.

You may recall that TT was responsible for a FIFTY PERCENT increase in State employment during his 16 years of robbing taxpayers...

But will Decker bring it up?

Nope.

Anonymous said...

Yes, more reason why public confidence in goverment has eroded...uncredible in - uncredible out...so it goes to our detriment.

Christian Schneider said...

Anon -

Actually, the Legislature did rein in Thompson's veto authority when it passed a constitutional amendment outlawing the so-called "Vanna White" veto. That was the practice of vetoing out letters to create new words - as opposed to the act of vetoing out words and numbers to make new sentences, as is being done now. It's the same concept, just with letters instead of words - but in both cases, governors have been able to pass new laws never considered by the Legislature. Several Republican legislators crossed over to oppose Thompson on that vote.