Fair is fair

Columnist Robert Robb takes on the Governor's budget vetoes in today's column. As a reminder, Governor Napolitano vetoed 4 budget bills on Friday last that she and Republican leaders in the state legislature had agreed to as part of a larger budget-compromise. Said Republican leaders did not react kindly to what they perceived as her betrayal of that agreement.

Says Robb: Gov. Janet Napolitano undoubtedly believes that her actions on the state budget were justified.But it's hard to square those actions with any reasonable notion of fairness or honor.The budget deal was struck between Napolitano and Senate President Ken Bennett and House Speaker Jim Weiers.

According to Napolitano, the deal included a sunset provision requiring the corporate tuition tax credit to be reauthorized after five years and an English-learner program that legislative Democrats supported.According to the Republican leaders, the deal was to subject the corporate tuition tax credit to the same legislative review that all tax credits receive, which does not require reauthorization. The English-learner commitment was to pass a program and to consult with Democrats about it, but not necessarily to pass a program that Democrats supported.

The most important discussions took place with only the principals, so it's impossible for an outsider to know precisely which is the more accurate account. However, their plausibility can be evaluated.

...

As a result of this huge philosophical divide[on the English learner provision in the education bill(s)], it's highly unlikely that Bennett and Weiers would make a commitment to an outcome (a bill Democrats would support) as opposed to a process (a bill would be passed and Democrats would be consulted).

All this serves as set-up to the main point. Napolitano made the agreement, she broke it and what she said after-the-fact doesn't jibe:

Regardless of what the deal actually was, Napolitano's chief budget negotiator, George Cunningham, signed off on the corporate tuition tax credit language before it was passed with the five-year review rather than the hard sunset. He scrutinized the language carefully enough to insist that a $5 million-a-year cap apply to all donations, not just large ones, as initially drafted.

Napolitano's subsequent veto effectively neuters Cunningham, who generally has done a very good job for the governor, as a future negotiator. After all, the governor has demonstrated that he does not speak for her.

Neutering Cunningham may not be smart management, but it's largely Napolitano's business. Nevertheless, there was a week between the passage of the budget bills and their transmittal to the governor. Republican leaders were holding them up to include an English-learner program, to fulfill what they perceived to be their commitment.

During this week, the Governor's Office discovered the lack of a hard sunset on the tuition tax credit. If this was fatal and would earn a veto, she had an obligation to so inform the Republican leaders. Republicans could then decide whether to acquiesce or to re-evaluate their willingness to give Napolitano what she wanted.

Instead, Napolitano sandbagged the Republican leaders. Her staff raised the sunset provision along with a handful of other lingering budget issues. But there was never any indication that the corporate tuition tax credit would be vetoed without a hard sunset provision.

If the problem as defined in her post-veto comments truly existed, she had the time and the responsibility to make it known. Robb goes on in agreement with me when he says:

The governor's lack of straight-dealing enabled her to pocket all of what she got out of the accord, while negating the cement she knew held the Republican votes together to get those things to her in the first place. Republican leaders were left feeling, with considerable justification, betrayed.

He says it far more eloquently than I, but the conclusion is the same; Janet comes off looking like a self-serving Indian-giver.

In the interest of fairness, I want also to post commentary from state Democrats on this issue. The other day I posted comments from state Representative Steve Tully (R).

Democrat Harry Mitchell of Tempe responds today to Rep. Tully's statements in a letter to the Republic. Read and decide for yourself which analysis rings more true.