Governor Branstad signed eight bills into law yesterday, none of which was SF 209. So, we continue to wait. Iowa Public Radio and the Des Moines Register have reported that the governor hinted that he may veto the tax provisions of SF 209. Most of the quotes I’ve seen are him indicating that tax provisions shouldn’t lumped together with appropriations. It’s my understanding that he’s in favor of the supplemental appropriations, so I’d be surprised if he dumped the whole thing. Though, stranger things have happened.
One thing we probably should keep our eyes on is the current battle over budgets for next fiscal year and beyond. The governor has said he won’t accept any budget from the legislature that is for only one year. Though I’ve heard many say that they support fully budgeting the indigent defense fund in the future, the question remains when the new budget will be finished. There’s talk of the legislature staying in session past the scheduled end on April 29. Will they have a new budget by July 1? What happens if they don’t?
I still wouldn’t count on him vetoing the tax provisions and signing the appropriations. I expect he’ll veto the whole thing and send it back, as the whole point of not doing the appropriations was to use it as “leverage” by the House to get what they wanted, especially since the majority in the House and the Governor are the same political party.
I found this online from a newspaper in Indianapolis! http://www.indystar.com/article/D2/20110421/NEWS10/104210339/Branstad-rejects-Senate-budget-deal
This is the Des Moines Register article I linked to in the post, re-published by another Gannett news outlet. I think the budget deal the headline refers to is the proposal by Sen. Maj. Leader Gronstal to budget for the next 1.5 fiscal years, instead of 2, which the Governor is demanding. The governor’s office says that SF 209 should be resolved by close of business tomorrow. I still suspect that the appropriations will be signed into law and, if anything is vetoed from the bill, it will likely be the increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I think what is most disappointing to me is the silence from the Judicial Palace. It would not be a violation of the separation of powers for the Chief Justice to make a public statement about the benefit to the Judicial Branch and the public at-large to have these past due bills paid immediately. I am sure he would have plenty to say if the Court personnel were not being paid. The Court sure knows how to whine at the lawyers every time it wants to protect their pay, or jobs for that matter.
I tend to agree. I’ve gone back and forth as to the judiciary. I think they have already been politicized too much, but at least a small amount of support would have been warranted and appreciated. That goes for the rest of the Iowa Bar, as well. There were a number of emails going around the YLD listserve about this issue and I was disappointed at the number of attorneys who had no desire to hear any part of it. They just wanted to be removed from the email list so they weren’t bothered.