Over 700 bills to sign, but not a drop to drink

In a classic game of political chicken this morning, Governor Schwarzenegger repeated his intention to veto most of the 700+ bills sent to him in the final days of the 2009-2010 legislative session unless the legislative leaders address California’s water crisis. The Governor has until 11:59 PM on Sunday, October 11, 2009 to sign or veto bills on his desk.

This isn't a surprise move by the the Governor. He issued his first threat in August to veto bills sent to him if there was no agreement on legislation addressing the water crisis. As usual, the Democratic leaders, including our own Senator Oropeza, chose to ignore the Governor's plea on behalf of the citizens of California, especially our Central Coast friends struggling to grow crops.

The issue, as most of you know, deals with the Delta Smelt fish that enviro-activists have decided are more worthy of survival than 24 million Californians and the state economy that depend on the waters of the San Joaquin Valley. Our pandering legislators are visited daily by lobbyists of these groups, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Friends of the River, California Trout, the Bay Institute and Baykeeper that have all decided that the California economy is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of a fish. And because our legislators are always in Sacramento and rarely down here in their districts, the lobbyists always seem to win the upper hand.

It appears that Governor Schwarzenegger is not ready to accept this scenario, and -is not including the fate of the Democratic-run Legislature Agenda in that price to pay. Of course, the whining by Democratic State leaders, including Assembly Speaker and State Senate President Darryl Steinberg, has begun, claiming that the Governor has a "moral obligation" to address each of the 700+ bills on his desk "on their merits".

I agree with this statement, with one caveat - the merits of each bill needs to be weighed against the priority to have it signed over dealing with the Central Valley Water Crisis. If the bill does not deal with an issue more important than the 24 million Californians affected by the water crisis, it should be vetoed.

The Governor did not say that he would veto all of the 700 plus bills sent to him, saying this morning in San Francisco that “I made it very clear to the legislators and to the leaders that if this does not get done then I will veto a lot of their legislation, a lot of their bills, so that should inspire them to go and get the job done.”

Democratic legislative leaders delayed until late in September to actually send most of the bills to the Governor that the Legislature passed earlier in the month in the final days of session, worried that he would veto many or all of them. With the October 11th deadline approaching, legislative leaders late in September finally had to send all the bills they held to the Governor, expressing optimism that the Governor would not veto those bills because of the lack of a water deal.

Last Year, the Governor threatened not to sign any bills until a budget was passed. The Governor didn’t take action on bills until the final week in September after the budget was signed. He came through on that threat, which makes it even more insane to think why the Democrats did not take him seriously this year.

But what do you think? Is the use of the veto power to get an urgent priority addressed an abuse of power, as many Democratic leaders claim?

Or is this a good example of a Governor asserting the power of the office to get a crisis addressed despite the lack of caring and attention given to it by an enviro-activist friendly legislature?

You can't please all the lobbyists all the time, I guess!