Wrong. The Assembly would override the veto in ten minutes, all Democrats will rally around the leadership under an "us versus the governor" banner, and the Governor will be left with no leverage at all in the real fight, the FY10 budget. The supplemental is a technical exercise; the FY10 budget is where the real policy will be made.

What leverage does it provide the governor to rubber stamp a gutless supplemental? I'd say he'd have more leverage the more he makes it clear that the General Assembly will have to own its decisions — that the Democrats won't have the cover of pointing to the governor as an excuse for their own inability to face reality.

I've been told point blank that the Gov will be vetoing the budget next week. I hope nothing has changed in the intervening few days. There is literally no reason whatsoever why he should sign it, or even let it pass without his signature. Assuming that he does veto it, it would be an almost entirely symbolic gesture, but I think, it's still an important one.

It is important that he veto it, to show the public that it is not his budget, but the Democrat-led General Assembly's budget. Every year, they try to take the credit for any "good" in the budget, and attempt to stick all the blame for the "bad" on the Gov, when he often has little to nothing to do with it, once it's sent to the legislature for the usual butchering. Although this budget crafted in the back rooms of the legislature was as predictable as a sunrise -- for every hard choice it ignored, and every easy road it could take -- he doesn't need to give it his explicit or implicit approval in any way whatsoever.

Pragmatist, quantify for us how much leverage the Governor would gain in shaping the 2010 budget by signing this supplemental budget. More precisely, do you contend that he would acquire a substantial amount of leverage by signing this budget and would gain none by vetoing it?