WHO CAN FORGET the pigs?

We’re coming up on the anniversary of Gov. Mark Sanford’s decision to do something he should be ashamed of, in response to the House having done something it should be ashamed of.

That means we’re coming up on the next flashpoint of confrontation between the governor’s idea of what constitutes a responsible budget and the Legislature’s. Since neither the governor nor lawmakers appear to be ashamed of their actions last year, it’s important to remind them all of how inappropriately they acted. And it’s important for legislators and the governor to avoid a repeat of this embarrassing episode when the governor releases his latest round of budget vetoes later today.

The House failed in its duty to deal responsibly with matters of state when it rushed through Mr. Sanford’s 106 budget vetoes in 99 minutes — before the ink had even dried on the veto message he had sent up barely more than 12 hours earlier. Most legislators had not even seen the governor’s letter, and they certainly hadn’t had a chance to think through the reasons the governor gave for striking each individual item from the budget. They simply looked at the sheer number of vetoes, took the word of a few House leaders who characterized them as an attack on the Legislature and acted in what can best be described as a fit of pique.

It’s quite possible that representatives would have overridden the vetoes after a proper debate; while the vetoes were reasonable and consistent, there was room for an honest difference of opinion on nearly every one of them. But that wasn’t what we got.

The public has a right to expect that our legislators will know what they are voting on, will consider the arguments on all sides and will react in a thoughtful instead of an emotional way, whether they’re considering a new bill or a governor’s rejection of all or parts of that bill. Those are essential responsibilities of elected officials at any level. While a handful of representatives might have met those expectations, the body as a whole most assuredly did not.

But Mr. Sanford is not without blame. He was justifiably upset with representatives’ dismissive actions, and he had a legitimate desire to make sure the public knew how the House had acted, but his means were totally inappropriate. Even when a legislative body refuses to act responsibly, an honorable person should still treat the process with more respect than the governor did. Mr. Sanford’s actions, which could have landed ordinary citizens in jail, were beneath the dignity of a governor.

The House can avoid a repeat of last year’s ugly confrontation (which appears to have hurt legislators more than the governor) by ignoring the impulse to railroad the process this time around; there’s certainly plenty of time left in the session to make sure everyone has had a chance to consider the governor’s objections. And no reasonable person could argue with one contention Mr. Sanford is likely to make: that the budget contains a number of “special appropriation” projects for powerful legislators’ home districts. That one-time money should be used to replenish raided trust funds — or at least repair our crumbling roads.

Even if the House doesn’t do its job adequately, Mr. Sanford needs to leave the livestock on the farm — along with any other undignified stunts. No matter how egregious the first one is, a second wrong is not going to make things right.