
Ok, so most folks really could care less; but,I wanted to give you a look at what an actual “veto message” looks like. Below is the message from the Governor relating to H4800 (aka “the budget”). As you can see, there is a reason listed for each veto. Oftentimes, the public only here’s “He vetoed what?” but now is an opportunity for you to read more…in it’s entirety.
Be sure you read my previous post about the past three years of vetoes as well as a recap of how the voting started (last Thursday) and how it quickly ended.
May 28, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 4800 , R. 293, the Fiscal Year 2008-09 General Appropriations Bill, with the line-item vetoes detailed below. It is this Administration’s view that, as a nation, we are not yet out of the economic slow down that has driven the requirement for some of the cuts already made by the House and Senate – and those outlined on the pages that follow. At the front end of a slowing economic cycle we believe it is vital that policymakers ensure a balanced budget – so as to not require yet greater cuts in subsequent years. While we hope the national economy will quickly improve, it was former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Gordon Sullivan, who wrote that hope is not a method. Accordingly we propose the attached course of action.
This Administration’s goals for our veto message are based on four primary objectives: (1) correct what is effectively unconstitutional deficit spending authorized by the General Assembly in this budget, (2) replenish the funds taken from the OPEB account this year, (3) replenish the funds borrowed from Medicaid this year, and (4) materially reduce the $161 million annualization hole created in this budget.
In approaching our veto message this year, we have tried to be very deliberate and concise in the number of items we vetoed and the objectives that we believe we can realistically attain in the veto process. Given our more than limited and judicious approach, and what we believe to represent an effort to find compromise between the Legislative and Executive Branches in the budget process, it is our hope that the overwhelming bulk of these vetoes will be supported.
The overarching goal in each of the four objectives listed above is to eliminate spending that we believe is inconsistent with the priorities of South Carolinians in these challenging economic times. The line-item veto is a very cumbersome tool from which to get at spending because many of the more troublesome areas of government are rolled up into entire agency budgets. In those instances, the only way to get at spending is to veto an entire agency or category. Given the meritorious or essential work of other parts of the same agency you can begin to quickly work at cross-purposes. What all this means is that in reaching our first two objectives, eliminating deficit spending and not moving backward in beginning to address our $10 billion OPEB liability, we were able to lay out, I believe, a very reasonable list of vetoes in closing what amounts to about a $70 million shortfall. This was not the case when we moved to objectives three and four, but we continue to feel strongly about the dangers inherent in borrowing $100 million from Medicaid and going into next year’s budget cycle with $161 million in annualizations.
As a practical matter to get to the $100 million borrowed from Medicaid at this point in the process, we would have to veto entire agency budgets. Along with gutting the entire agency, offering these kinds of vetoes would make their passage essentially impossible, and therefore, render the exercise indeed counter-productive. A number of the vetoes that we have proposed, if sustained, would begin the process of replenishing the $100 million borrowed from Medicaid. We would also ask that policy-makers earmark any residuals left aside in the Capital Reserve Fund to replenishment of the Medicaid borrowings.
Our Administration will continue to push for common sense in our budgeting practices, and we believe that borrowing from a critical reserve account like Medicaid and, more commonly, borrowing from a whole host of one-time monies to pay for recurring needs of government – as is done in the annualization process – is reckless. The first order of business in our executive budget in the new fiscal year will be addressing the Medicaid borrowings and annualizations, and it’s our sincere hope that the General Assembly will follow suit.
Positives
Before I expand on the reasons behind these vetoes, [Read more...]









