Gov. Roy Barnes weighs in on the need for a special session. -- I say it's been put into play, and Gov. Perdue needs to finish what he started.
From The Marietta Daily Journal:
There is no need for a special session of the General Assembly to deal with the vetoed midyear budget, says former Gov. Roy Barnes . . . speaking from the perspective of two decades in the General Assembly followed by four years in the governor's office.
_______________
Regardless of how the matter of a special session is getting more complicated and involved, I think we need to see this thing through.
As an easy solution seems no where in sight, I wonder if Gov. Perdue doesn't wish in hindsight that he had just vetoed the property tax rebate rather than the whole midyear budget.
As noted in a 4-22-07 post:
[T]he $142 million property tax rebate for Georgia homeowners was technically an appropriation, and as such, the governor had the power of the line-item veto.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the governor had done this rather than vetoing the whole budget bill. The midyear budget would not have been perfect by a long shot, but what should the governor have expected when he had had so little input and involvement during the current legislative session, unlike past sessions.
[I]f the governor had just line-item vetoed the $142 million rebate rather than the whole budget bill . . . I think the governor would have delivered the budget to the House prior to adjournment, and even if the House had voted to override the veto, I think it is possible that the lieutenant governor would have allowed a vote on whether to sustain the veto, and in such case, the veto may well have stuck.
If Perdue had done the line-item veto, and it stuck because the Senate did not vote to override the veto, we definitely would not be having or needing a special session. But Perdue -- ignoring the adage that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered -- bet the house largely because the budget bill gave Georgia homeowners a $142 million tax rebate instead of the $142 million tax break he wanted and campaigned on for upper-income retirees.
There is no need for a special session of the General Assembly to deal with the vetoed midyear budget, says former Gov. Roy Barnes . . . speaking from the perspective of two decades in the General Assembly followed by four years in the governor's office.
_______________
Regardless of how the matter of a special session is getting more complicated and involved, I think we need to see this thing through.
As an easy solution seems no where in sight, I wonder if Gov. Perdue doesn't wish in hindsight that he had just vetoed the property tax rebate rather than the whole midyear budget.
As noted in a 4-22-07 post:
[T]he $142 million property tax rebate for Georgia homeowners was technically an appropriation, and as such, the governor had the power of the line-item veto.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the governor had done this rather than vetoing the whole budget bill. The midyear budget would not have been perfect by a long shot, but what should the governor have expected when he had had so little input and involvement during the current legislative session, unlike past sessions.
[I]f the governor had just line-item vetoed the $142 million rebate rather than the whole budget bill . . . I think the governor would have delivered the budget to the House prior to adjournment, and even if the House had voted to override the veto, I think it is possible that the lieutenant governor would have allowed a vote on whether to sustain the veto, and in such case, the veto may well have stuck.
If Perdue had done the line-item veto, and it stuck because the Senate did not vote to override the veto, we definitely would not be having or needing a special session. But Perdue -- ignoring the adage that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered -- bet the house largely because the budget bill gave Georgia homeowners a $142 million tax rebate instead of the $142 million tax break he wanted and campaigned on for upper-income retirees.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home