I was getting out of my car today, on my way to the groundbreaking ceremony for important renovations at New Britain's Human Resources Agency, when a man sitting in front of his house across the street, seeing my legislative license plate, said, "We need a budget."
He did not seem satisfied by my assurance that work is underway on it, so I offered a more detailed response. "We're trying to get the Governor to say 'yes'." He wished me luck and I thanked him.
But, the truth of the matter is that, right now, I am waiting for the state budget, myself.
Currently, the state budget is not in the hands of the legislature - not the whole legislature, anyway. I, and most other legislators, are waiting for the conclusion of budget negotiations between the Governor and legislative leaders. Only after that process concludes will we will be able to see the finished product. Then, we will be able to decide whether we agree or disagree with this negotiated budget.
On the surface, this is an efficient way for elected officials from two different branches of government and two different parties to work out their differences and approve a budget for the state government. But doing our state budget this way comes at a cost to the public. And that cost is a loss of their input into the final product.
The problem is the practicality of this process. When the negotiated budget comes to back to the full legislature, it appears on legislators' desks as a take-or-leave it proposition. We have to decide whether we agree or disagree with the package, as a whole - specifically, whether we think that the good in the budget outweighs the bad.
And, legislators who have decided to support the budget as a whole must vote against all amendments proposed to change the budget deal - even amendments they agree with - because if any amendment are approved, the deal with the Governor would be undone. No budget would be approved, and the public frustration would grow.
I do not think this system serves the public well.
In my mind, a far better system would be for the legislature to approve a budget through the normal legislative process. The budget committees would offer their changes to the Governor's proposed budget. Then, the House of Representatives and Senate would consider the committees' recommendations. After hearing our constituents' concerns about the committee's recommendations, legislators would be free to offer amendments, which would be debated and voted up or down on their merits. And, when the House and Senate approve the budget, with the same amendments, the finished product would be sent to the Governor.
While the Governor would have the authority to veto the entire legislatively-approved budget, it would be much more practical for her, instead, to exercise her constitutional "line-item veto" power. This lets her approve the budget, as a whole, but reject parts of it. The legislature would then have to decide either to override the Governor's veto or approve a level of funding for the vetoed items that the Governor would find acceptable.
This process would allow the state to have a budget approved in timely manner, and yet still reflect the integrity of our system of checks and balances. More important, it would give the public much great opportunity to have their voices heard while the key budgetary decisions that affect them are being made.
The gentleman who spoke to me on the street today would then, not only have a budget approved by now, but he would also havemore say about what that budget would do for the state.
He did not seem satisfied by my assurance that work is underway on it, so I offered a more detailed response. "We're trying to get the Governor to say 'yes'." He wished me luck and I thanked him.
But, the truth of the matter is that, right now, I am waiting for the state budget, myself.
Currently, the state budget is not in the hands of the legislature - not the whole legislature, anyway. I, and most other legislators, are waiting for the conclusion of budget negotiations between the Governor and legislative leaders. Only after that process concludes will we will be able to see the finished product. Then, we will be able to decide whether we agree or disagree with this negotiated budget.
On the surface, this is an efficient way for elected officials from two different branches of government and two different parties to work out their differences and approve a budget for the state government. But doing our state budget this way comes at a cost to the public. And that cost is a loss of their input into the final product.
The problem is the practicality of this process. When the negotiated budget comes to back to the full legislature, it appears on legislators' desks as a take-or-leave it proposition. We have to decide whether we agree or disagree with the package, as a whole - specifically, whether we think that the good in the budget outweighs the bad.
And, legislators who have decided to support the budget as a whole must vote against all amendments proposed to change the budget deal - even amendments they agree with - because if any amendment are approved, the deal with the Governor would be undone. No budget would be approved, and the public frustration would grow.
I do not think this system serves the public well.
In my mind, a far better system would be for the legislature to approve a budget through the normal legislative process. The budget committees would offer their changes to the Governor's proposed budget. Then, the House of Representatives and Senate would consider the committees' recommendations. After hearing our constituents' concerns about the committee's recommendations, legislators would be free to offer amendments, which would be debated and voted up or down on their merits. And, when the House and Senate approve the budget, with the same amendments, the finished product would be sent to the Governor.
While the Governor would have the authority to veto the entire legislatively-approved budget, it would be much more practical for her, instead, to exercise her constitutional "line-item veto" power. This lets her approve the budget, as a whole, but reject parts of it. The legislature would then have to decide either to override the Governor's veto or approve a level of funding for the vetoed items that the Governor would find acceptable.
This process would allow the state to have a budget approved in timely manner, and yet still reflect the integrity of our system of checks and balances. More important, it would give the public much great opportunity to have their voices heard while the key budgetary decisions that affect them are being made.
The gentleman who spoke to me on the street today would then, not only have a budget approved by now, but he would also havemore say about what that budget would do for the state.
