"... [T]he State Constitution concentrates power in the governor?s office more thoroughly than in almost any other state ? a legacy of the late 1950s, historians say, when statehood and a simultaneous trend all over the country toward elevating executive authority coincided."
Given its source, today's article in the NYT entitled The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced in Alaska is remarkably balanced and informative. As PrestoPundit Greg Ransom notes, though, in his post linking the article,
Remember when the Democrat press wouldn't stop telling us about how Texas has a "weak Governor" system, when Bush was running for President? Well, don't expect them to talk much about the fact that Alaska has the most powerful governor in the country.
From the article itself:
That said, by other measures [than budgetary, given its current budget surpluses], Alaska is harder to govern than a smaller, more settled realm in the Lower 48. With vast distances, large numbers of indigenous peoples and a narrowly based extraction economy ? with a handful of giant multinational oil corporations dominating the game ? some economists say a country like Nigeria might be an apter comparison.
"Alaska really is a colonial place," said Stephen Haycox, a professor of history at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. "One third of the economic base is oil; another third is federal spending. The economy is extremely narrow and highly dependent. It?s not to say that Alaska is a beggar state, but it certainly is true that Alaska is dependent on decisions made outside it, and over which Alaskans don?t have great control."
Overlaid across all of that is a distinctly informal Alaskan style. At the annual governor?s picnic, usually held in July, the governor is expected to turn the brats and burgers on the grill ? something Ms. Palin has done with gusto ? with cabinet members in aprons rounding out the kitchen staff.
... [T]he State Constitution concentrates power in the governor?s office more thoroughly than in almost any other state ? a legacy of the late 1950s, historians say, when statehood and a simultaneous trend all over the country toward elevating executive authority coincided.
The NYT misses an important point, though: When exploding revenues lead to budget surpluses, that's when it's toughest to sustain vetoes that have stripped pork-barrel projects from the state budget ? yet that's exactly what Gov. Palin has done.
Remember when the Democrat press wouldn't stop telling us about how Texas has a "weak Governor" system, when Bush was running for President?That is actually true. It's not the "Democrat" press that will tell you this, it's any Texan who understands the history and functioning of state government.
The Texas governor was stripped of some power due "Ma" and "Pa" Ferguson, a popular, but corrupt, husband and wife who each spent a term in governor. "Ma" Ferguson won the office after her husband was impeached and thrown out of office.
The Fergusons were popular because she was anti-Klan and anti-prohibition, but they were corrupt in the way the doled out pardons (up to 100 a month) and state contracts.
The Ferguson legacy of corruption ended up forcing the Texas legislature to roll back the power of the governor. Today, the Lt. Governor is considered the person with the most actual power.
Anyway, Palin may have a lot of power in the government, but if the legislature only meets 90 days a year, it can't be that hard a state to run. In contrast, the California state legislature meets from January-September.