Political fighting getting into full swing at Capitol

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb
Published: Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 1:56 p.m. MST
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Webb: Fights between the legislative and executive branches of government are always good political theater, and news reporters and political junkies love to watch and keep score.

But keep in mind that these power struggles are perfectly normal, have occurred since the nation's founding and are even healthy in our finely balanced system of government. The founders intended that the three branches of the federal government, replicated pretty closely in the states, would check and balance each other, creating a natural tension that occasionally flares into open conflict.

It's really not executive/legislative fights we should worry about. It's when those fights stop occurring that we should start worrying, because that would signal one branch has become far too dominant.

Thus, we ought not to get terribly worked up over current posturing between the Legislature and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. over a couple of issues on the Hill. It's likely they will work things out somewhat amicably before the current session expires on March 1.

Personally, I'm split on two specific issues being debated. I'm with the governor on one and the Legislature on the other.

Story continues below
I agree with the governor on the bill requiring that state budgets revert to the current fiscal year's level if the Legislature fails to pass, or the governor vetoes (and the veto is not overridden), any budget bill or appropriation. This legislation reduces the clout of the governor's veto and diminishes the need for compromise and further work on budget disagreements. It also reduces the discipline of the deadline looming at each session's end. Currently, there's a lot of pressure to perform because budgets disappear if not reappropriated. But if lawmakers know funding will continue at the current year's level, they have less incentive to make hard choices and reach agreements with the governor and with each other.

On the waste dump issue, I'm with the Legislature. The bill being debated would simply put these issues on par with every other crucial issue faced by the Legislature and the governor. Why should the governor have special veto-proof authority on this issue above any other? Is the siting or expansion of a garbage dump any more important than the death penalty, raising taxes or our children's education? The governor could still sign or veto any hazardous waste bill, but the Legislature would simply have the opportunity to override a veto.

Nothing is more politically charged in Utah (and elsewhere) than waste management. Old-timers may recall that the current system was set up not just to protect Utahns from hazardous waste, but also to protect incumbent waste dump operators from new competition, and the governor's veto-proof authority was part of that.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.