In the end, Walker and the legislative leadership compromised. But the deal included a tax increase, and some financially conservative legislators are still fuming. They say the veto power gives a governor too much leverage in budget negotiations with the Legislature, and they want to change the rules of the game.

House Speaker Greg Curtis is sponsoring a bill that he says would remove the budget club from the governor's hand. Under House Bill 97, if the Legislature failed to pass an appropriation for a particular purpose, or the governor vetoed that item, the appropriation for that purpose from the previous budget would continue for the next fiscal year. Put simply, the funding level from one year would be duplicated for the next. This scenario would not apply if it caused appropriations to exceed revenues.

This proposal sounds harmless, but it would be a mistake, chiefly because it would remove the deadline from the budget process. One need only look to Washington, D.C., where Congress often fails to pass appropriation bills by the deadline, to see how continuing the current funding levels allows politicians to put off tough decisions.

We know something about meeting deadlines. The pressure shortens your life, and it may cause you to make a mistake in the rush to finish, but deadlines have one great virtue: They focus the mind and force you to get the job done.

Besides, HB 97 is silent about appropriations for new programs. Because there would be no appropriations for new programs in the previous budget, a legislature could stymie anything new, like Walker's reading program.

Under the existing process, the governor proposes a budget, but the Legislature is free to change it. Once it is passed, the governor may veto the whole thing or any line item. The Legislature then may reconvene to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds majority of both houses.

If the governor vetoed the entire budget, and the Legislature could not muster the votes to override, the state would be left without a budget. Because only the governor can call a special session, political pressure would be fierce for him to do so. Because general sessions end in early March, there would be time for further negotiations and passage of a new budget before the fiscal year begins July 1.

But a crisis of this sort has never occurred. Governors and legislatures always have reached compromise, partly because a deadline forces them to, and that keeps government moving forward.

Which is an excellent reason to leave the status quo alone.