Republican Candidate for Governor

The veto is an important tool that establishes the governor as leader of the state, but it should be used sparingly as a last resort to stop bad legislation. The governor should be actively involved with the General Assembly as legislation is drafted and considered. When the governor's opinions are clearly defined in the process, a veto will not come as a surprise. I believe the veto is a key to changing the culture of arrogance and secrecy that dominates the state legislature. If the General Assembly and governor work together, legislation can be prepared in the open with a mutual respect and understanding.

WHAT HE WOULD HAVE VETOED AS GOVERNOR

House Bill 1473, 2007 Appropriations Act: Budget bills are a prime example of the culture of secrecy and arrogance. I will veto any budget that is negotiated behind closed doors and includes new items not included in the House or Senate version of the budget. Over 100 items were added to this budget behind closed doors by a few members. I also would have vetoed this bill because it raised taxes by $300 million and increased spending by 9.5 percent. At the same time, the public debt was increased by $669 million without a vote of the people.

House Bill 2436, 2008 Appropriations Act: While this budget was much better in the area of increased spending and new taxes, it was still flawed. At the last minute, behind closed doors and without debate, the leadership added 50 items not considered by either the House or the Senate. Without the knowledge of members, pork projects that were defeated on the floor were added and new laws were inserted. In addition, another $872 million in debt was added without a vote of the people.

House Bill 1492, Solid Waste Management Act of 2007: I would have vetoed this bill for several reasons including the fact that it cost North Carolinians jobs, hurt our economy and raised taxes. The legislation takes authority away from local government and places unfunded mandates on local officials.

Mike Munger

Libertarian Candidate for Governor

I think the veto should be used sparingly and as a last resort. It is like spanking your child. It is a defeat for both of you. So I would be concerned with always using the threat of a veto to try to get my way. I would try to work with the members of the General Assembly. I am a conservative Libertarian, and I have been the chair of the Duke political science department now for three terms, nearly 10 years. If you think of Duke's political science department, I am used to working with people of different persuasions.

WHAT HE WOULD VETO AS GOVERNOR

SPENDING: First, the use of earmarks. I am worried about using, for example, the Highway Trust Fund or other public monies as a kind of big cookie jar that is awarded as a way of rewarding politically powerful districts. If something goes to someone, it should go to everyone. So if it is not fairly distributed, if it is not going to the places that need it, and it clearly is just a politically motivated earmark, then I would veto that.

INTRUSIONS INTO PRIVACY: Anything that is an increase in what I see as regulation of consensual behavior. We have a lot of laws that regulate consensual behavior now, and I think, if anything, it is too much. So I would try to argue against any more increase in victimless crimes.

BUSINESS RESTRICTIONS: Attempts to restrict competition, attempts to insulate certain professions or make it harder to get licensing. A lot of the expenses that we pay in this state, whether you look at teachers or lawyers or optometrists or other professions, are licensing regulations that actually are just entry barriers that reduce the number of services that are available to our citizens and increase the prices that people pay when they try and get those services.

Beverly Perdue

Democratic Candidate for Governor

As governor, I will veto any legislation that I deem to be dangerous to the public, a waste of tax dollars, or self-serving to those involved with its passage. As a hands-on governor, I will also be sure that legislators know in advance when I have serious objections to a bill in an effort to improve the legislation before it reaches my desk. I also believe that North Carolina's governor should have line-item veto to remove wasteful spending from the budget.

WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE VETOED AS GOVERNOR

House Bill 917, Conform Mortgage Lending Laws, 2003: It would have hurt North Carolina's working families while benefiting only a narrow interest.

House Bill 381, Mental Health System Reform, 2001: The reforms went too far too fast for the agency to handle. Neither the agency nor the mental health system were prepared to handle it, and as governor I would insist on a detailed plan with timelines to evaluate whether or not such a reform package could be implemented prior to allowing such a bill to become law.

House Bill 706, Facilitate Hiring of Teachers, 2005: Lowering our standards is not the way to recruit more teachers and would have been harmful to North Carolina's kids.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.