Is state budget bill headed for veto?

If there's a bill in this Legislature with the governor's veto bull's-eye on it, it's HB352.

Rep. Margaret Dayton's measure on state budgeting flew through a House committee Friday afternoon with a unanimous vote, and only praise from those representatives who spoke on it.

But Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and his top aides maintain the bill "is a power grab."

Asked if the governor would veto HB352, Huntsman deputy chief of staff Mike Mower said: "It's too early in the session to use that word. But we don't like it any more (after the committee hearing) than we did before."

Dayton's bill is a reincarnation of a measure argued in the 2005 Legislature, then sponsored by House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, and Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem.

Mower said he and the governor had hoped that it wouldn't be introduced again this year.

But Dayton, R-Orem, said she actually sees it as a minor measure. That's because by rule the House and Senate have decided to adopt early in each session a "base budget" which reflects the current year's spending. And if the Legislature ended today, those "base budgets" would just continue.

HB352 says that if for any reason — a gubernatorial veto or legislators failing to act — the Legislature doesn't adopt all or part of the next year's budget, then the current budget for that disputed part just continues from last year until the new budget is finally voted into law.

If the Legislature never acted, last year's budget would just flow through the next 12 months.

While legislators may think Dayton's bill doesn't do much — one even said it was "benign" — Mower staunchly disagrees.

"It is not benign. It's a dramatic shift in power in the budgeting process of the state," Mower said.

He added that not only is HB352 bad policy for the executive branch, it's really bad for the legislative branch, as well, and for Utahns in general.

"It would allow a majority in one house (Senate or House) to just walk away" from budget negotiations if those legislators were willing to live with last year's spending.

"It could thwart the other house, the minority of that house and the governor."

And, said Mower, it's unlikely those other public officials and the public itself would be satisfied with ignoring needy state programs until the wayward legislators came around.