Hey,
Look Over There!
You
can't blame Mark Warner for distracting voters with
talk about two-term governors. But the idea is a bad
one,
and we've got more immediate problems to worry
about.
Is
Governor Mark Warner trying to change the subject?
It’s not surprising that he would want to do so
after his recent run of bad fortune.
Warner
doesn’t want to talk about either the voters’
rejection of the two sales tax referendums he pushed
or the additional $1 billion in spending cuts he
still needs to find. Instead, he wants to talk about
a constitutional amendment to allow a governor to
succeed himself.
Virginia
needs real solutions to immediate problems. The
gubernatorial succession proposal does nothing in
that regard.
Allowing
a governor to run for a second consecutive term is a
bad idea, as argued here in a previous commentary.
Warner trots out tired, old arguments for the
proposal. The least convincing is that every other
state allows a governor to succeed himself. When has
that ever mattered to Virginians?
Virginia
has been one of the best managed states for decades
without this succession provision. It has also been
free from corruption. The same can’t be said of
all the other states. Why then would Virginia turn
to other states for a model?
There
is no need to repeat in full the argument against
this proposed constitutional amendment. It should be
enough to note that the present system averts the
danger of an abuse of the office in a reelection
campaign. A governor will always be tempted to
misuse the enormous power he wields to gain an
advantage in a reelection contest.
Have
we forgotten how unseemly Maryland Governor Parris Glendening’s
conduct appeared in his 1998 reelection campaign? He
shamelessly used virtually every power at his
disposal to win votes.
No
one has offered a convincing argument that the
two-term provision would improve Virginia’s
financial management, which is already the best in
the nation. Another neighboring state, North
Carolina, recently permitted a governor to succeed
himself.
Unfortunately,
North Carolina has since lost its coveted triple-A
credit rating.
Proponents
insist that a constitutional provision allowing a
governor to run for reelection would assure
accountability and continuity. Precisely how that
would occur is never fully explained.
Even
if a governor would have an eye on reelection during
his first term and greater familiarity with the
machinery of government during his second term, the
result is likely to be more government, not less.
That’s clearly what the proponents want to
facilitate.
Former
Governor Douglas Wilder’s efficiency commission
was more candid than most proponents when it claimed
that a succession provision would allow for the
development and implementation of long-term goals.
To the uninitiated, that means grandiose new
government programs.
There’s
more going on here than simply changing the subject.
Some of the same business elites who were behind the
tax referendums are pressing Warner to support the
constitutional amendment for reasons of their own.
Approval of the amendment would further strengthen
the office of the governor. The elites obviously
favor an even stronger governor who will be better
able to implement their favored programs.
These
tend to be the same folks who have consistently
advocated more public spending, higher taxes,
additional debt and expanded government programs.
Time and again, the voters have rejected ballot
measures supported by these elites. The
constitutional amendment to let a governor serve two
consecutive terms is just another effort to enlarge
the role of government.
This
is an ill-advised measure that shouldn’t be
allowed to get out of committee. Our governor and
legislators have enough on their plate just to
balance the budget.
--
December 2, 2002
|
