Taking another whack at the Governor

Republican legislative leaders Ken Bennett and Jim Weiers take another whack at Governor Napolitano in their op-ed piece in today's Republic. Most importantly, for the first time they address the question of "English-only."

If you recall, the Governor vetoed select bills that were part of the budget agreement last month. Specifically, the corporate-tuition tax credit was axed. When pressed as to why, Napolitano stated that the bill that finally came to her was not as-promised. Subsequently, the Governor's office also said that a deal had been reached on English-only in Arizona classrooms, and that it had been breached by the legislature by the time she received it for signature. That became the second of the double-barrel attack against the Republican-led state legislature.

The legislators tell a tale very similar to what columnist Robert Robb told us two weeks ago: After the agreement, six drafts were written to satisfy concerns from Cunningham, though he did not object to the standard provision that called for a legislative review of the tax credit after five years. To us, it was a non-issue.

We did, however, change numerous portions of the bill to satisfy the governor's concerns. For instance, the bill would have counted only contributions above $10,000 toward the $5 million cap. She asked that we change that language to ensure all donations counted toward the cap. We acquiesced.

Cunningham agreed that we made the changes needed to ensure the bill was palatable to the governor, signing his "OK" to the final version of the amendment. The governor now says that Cunningham, former gubernatorial chief of staff and legislator, "missed" the issue.

The Governor has no-clothes. It is clear, and her office has remained silent on this point to-date, that she did in fact know what was in the bill when it came to her; there were no surprises, she simply decided to veto it.

After forcefully ramming home the point that the Governor's office was indeed kept in the loop on the progress of the tax-credit bill, Bennett and Weiers move on to the question of English-only: The night we sat down with the governor, she had one more request: Talk with legislative Democrats to come up with a plan to deal with the so-called Flores lawsuit that requires the state to spend extra money to teach English to the children of illegal aliens.

We agreed to work with them but in no way gave a promise to accede to their demands. The budget, and particularly the tuition tax credit component, was not tied to a compromise on the Flores issue.

It was not until after the session ended that we began to hear rumblings the governor was unhappy with the agreement. In our one conversation between passing the budget and ending the session, she never mentioned that she had a concern about the five-year review issue. While the veto of school-choice expansion is receiving the most notoriety, the governor broke her word in several other areas.

This is in-line with Robb's analysis where he says: On the sunset issue, it seems likely that there was just a failure by the parties to nail down precisely what they intended.

On the English-learner issue, however, it's simply implausible that Bennett and Weiers would commit to a program supported by Democrats.

and then: Republicans crafted a plan to force the true implementation of English immersion. The Democrats generally oppose English immersion and want to simply increase funding for the current prevailing approach. As a result of this huge philosophical divide, 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).

As best I can tell, the only folks attempting to carry water for the Governor on this point are Democrat Harry Mitchell from Tempe and Republic columnist EJ Montini. Neither makes a convincing case or sufficiently bolsters the argument that the Governor got bushwhacked by state Republicans who negotiated one thing and delivered another.

In fact, it seems clear that it is the Governor who negotiated one thing only to deliver something quite different. As Bennett and Weiers put it: In the end, the governor took what she bargained for and scrapped the things she didn't like because of outside political pressure. That is the very definition of acting dishonorably. Trust must be at the core of dealings among leaders of this state. Because of the governor's actions, trust no longer exists.

While that smacks of political rhetoric, it does at it's core underscore the basic point--one that I made in my original post on the subject: Janet looks like an Indian-giver. This episode damages Governor Napolitano with people like me--conservatives living in a red-state with a blue-Governor. She needs people like me to keep her job next year.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt throughout the first half of her term. As I pointed out here just days before news of the budget breakdown hit, I had no obvious reason to blind-vote (R) in '06. This whole incident has gone miles and miles toward changing that perception and I teeter on the verge of outspoken opposition to my Governor.