I admit the same question could have been posed at the point when Bill was running.
But - in my state, when the Governor is “officially on vacation” or out of state, the Lt. Governor is “officially” in charge and gets paid more per day to do it.
So, whilst his state is withering away in the dust, is George W still collecting his pay as governor? do they have a liberal “time off” policy for that position, that would allow him to not be in the state (I know he’s wandered back for the appropriate signing of stuff and executions)? what’s the status of the average Texan tax payer - are they in essence paying for a gov who is off trying to get a new job?
From what I’ve learned about the workload of the office of Governor of Texas over the last several months, I don’t think anybody in Austin’d really notice (for a few weeks, anyway) if Dubya quietly expired in his desk chair.
The title of Governor of a US state is equivalent to that of a Premier of an Australian state. If GW Bush was a premier and was campaigning to run for Prime Minister of Australia, he would be required to resign from the job as Premier.
Under Australian electoral law, a nominated candidate seeking elecxtion to the federal parliament is forbidden to have an office of reward “under the crown” (a government job).
There was a case of an independent MP who was elected to federal parliament a few years ago. However, it was found that he was still employed as a teacher by the education department in the state of Victoria. Despite being on leave of absence at the time (without pay), he was deemed to have been ineligible to stand for election, hence a by-election had to be run.
At about the same time an Australian premier did indeed make a few noises about campaigning for the Prime Minister’s job. A reasonable amount of momentum built up behind him, but then it all fell flat - probably when he was reminded of his obligations under electoral laws.
even if you’re not paying INCOME taxes, I would hesitate to believe that there’s a collection plate going around the state for donations to paying the guv, or that he’s doing it for free. So, whichever taxes are paying him, does he collect a check while he’s obviously doing something else full time?
It’s true that we don’t have an income tax here in Texas, but we do have higher property taxes than most states. From what I’ve seen, the vast majority of politicians running for a “higher” office than they currently hold, will keep drawing pay for their current office. Also, the Texas legislature is not in session right now, so his duties are greatly diminished now anyway. I’m not quite sure what the govenor could do about lack of rain combined with high heat (temperature, not a baseball pitch) here anyway.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the govenor of Texas is not the real power position in the Texas government. It is the Lt. govenor. The Lt. govenor has the sole, and absolute power to pick and choose which laws get voted on in the legislature. The Texas constitution was not intended to be this way. The govenor was supposed to be the more powerful position, but there was a provision in the Texas constitution that dictated that if a bill were ever to stall, without getting voted on in the legislature, the Lt. govenor would have the power mentioned above. Such an instance arose, and was never settled. I’m not quite sure why it’s never been resolved. The bill that was not voted on, had to do with landscaping of some of the government grounds around Austin, and the rule that gave the Lt. govenor his power is now known as the “rosebush rule”. I tried (admitidly half-heartedly) to do a search for it, but came up empty, but that’s how I’ve always heard it.
Why is this question being asked about George Bush and not about those two other elected officials - Al Gore and Joe Lieberman? True, there is no offical provision designating their powers to a leutenant vice-president or leutenant-senator. But there is no official provision requiring the Governer to give up his salary. So it boils down to shirking work, which all are doing equally.
It is a mistake to define the powers of a given position by whatever might be written in the State Constition. The position of governer carries a leadership role, similar to that of a US president, which goes beyond his official role. Thus the legislative bodies look to the holders of these positions for leadership even if they have little constitutional power.
I don’t see the Democrats denigrating the power of the governer when they are trying to claim that Texas ranks last in this or that category.
The question was asked that way (and may I point out that the same thing was appropriate to Bill Clinton) because I was curious about that issue, since there generally are a long list of things that a Gov is responsible for, even if the legislature is not in session (as opposed to the "duties of the VP which come under the realm of "if the pres is unavailable, + presiding over the senate, which is not in session)
If you were referring to my previous post, I was simply giving information. Just to let it be known that the govenor position in Texas was intended to have more power than he does, and more power than the Lt. govenor. It just hasn’t worked out that way.
The leadership role of the govenor (as far as the legislature goes) is only in effect (for the most part) when the govenor’s political party controls the legislature. When the govenor’s political party is in the minority in the legislature, the legislature isn’t going to give a rat’s behind about what the govenor wants. At this point, the govenor’s power comes from his ability to gather the press, so that he may speak for his party.
I could cut and paste it (the Gov doesn’t do that much), but in a nutshell, he:[ul][li]signs bills into law for a part time legislature (the Lege is in session for a few months every other year), and[]he calls special sessions of said legislature to deal with specific issues. These special sessions cannot last more than 30 days.[/ul]FWIW, I could be wrong, but I think that the last special session was in the Eighties, with Mark White.[/li]
He also:[ul][li]Can ask legislators and/or state senators to introduce legislation (just like you or me);[]Acts as commander-in-chief of the state guard units;[]Makes a speech at the start of a legislative session;[]Grants reprieves, commutations and pardons, if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.[/ul][/li]
But for the most part, his job is to chat it up at the Capitol and sign papers.
…And as Steve-o said, the Lege is out of session. With the Governor up for president, he isn’t going to call a special session, not even if God himself wanted to discuss sending rain.
Based on the link provided by cornflakes, it would appear that the governor also appoints heads of state agencies and can veto bills.
I don’t see any difference between the job of governor and that of a US president. (This is a bit of a hijack - sorry). It would seem to me that the only differnce between Texas and other States is that the Lieutenant gov has an additional legislative role, but that the roles of governor are similar.
Yes, and what a powerful role it is. Think about one person deciding on whether a bill should be even voted on or not. That’s absolute veto power that cannot be overridden by any vote.
My mistake, and a big one…
I called up the Governor’s office for appointments. The governor does make appointments to boards and commissions and appoints judges. Some of these, notably judicial appointments and appointments to the education board and Railroad Commission (which handles commerce in general) are elected positions. The rest (such as secretary of state and Department of Health commissioners) are up for approval in the next legislative session. The governor cannot remove people from the boards or bench. Once they’re on, they’re on.
Of course, Arlene Wohlgemuth, a simple legislator, can kill scores of bills with a single point of order.
My impression is that each legislative session is a cattle stampede of bills. Whether the legislature can override is irrelevant, since time will run out anyway before the bill could be placed back on the agenda. I haven’t followed state govenment lately, but it seems like the time constraints force the government to work on consensus and good-old-boyism. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
I didn’t include veto power because I thought that it was implicit in the power to sign bills. He’s a weak Governor, not a puppet. This is probably the most important part of the job. Hence, he signs paper for a job.
Actually, if you mean who has power in the executive branch, the real power rests in the railroad commisioner, who despite the title has his/her fingers in everything.
And a warning about Texas statistics – watch out any time the Dems give a number that isn’t a percentage. Yes, Texas has more “stretches” of river that are polluted than any other state. It also has a whole lot more rivers period than any other state. We are talking about a state that is four times the size of all of New England.
With all the negative P.R., my Yankee friends were confused as all heck that I went swimming on my last vacation there, since no one can swim in the waters around here. Does the entire Charles count as one big stretch? Boston – love that dirty water.