Now that our eyes are — at least momentarily — unglued from the national political stage, following the Government Shutdown That Wasn’t, let’s focus our attention on our own state of Iowa for a moment.

The next legislative nail-biter is the game of chicken we’re currently witnessing among the Republican-controlled Iowa House, the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate and Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.

In order for the Legislature to adjourn, which it’s scheduled to do April 29, differences between state budget bills must be resolved. Disputes over the bills range from what to do with Iowa’s preschool program to how to help boost the state’s economy. 

But perhaps the most contentious issue, at least on a fundamental level, is whether Iowa should approve a one-year or two-year state budget.

The message from the governor’s office is that he will not accept anything other than a biennal budget, and he will not back down. That’s not stopping the Senate from testing his limits, though.

Branstad and his spokesman Tim Albrecht have said a two-year budget would allow the state to plan more efficiently, as opposed to plugging holes with one-time funds.

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, worry about the difficulty of projecting tax revenue that far in advance. 

There is some legitimacy to that worry, because the Revenue Estimating Conference has yet to release any numbers, whatsoever, for fiscal year 2013.

According to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states practiced biennial budgeting in 1940. By 2010, that number had fallen to just 20 states. 

We share the Senate Democrats’ worry that implementing biennal budgeting in Iowa would take significant oversight from the Legislature and place it in the hands of the governor.

According to the Mason City Globe Gazette, Branstad recently said at a Republican fundraiser of any one-year proposals he might receive, “I’ll veto it, and I’ll veto it, and I’ll veto it until we get a two-year budget and get the state on the right financial track.”

This kind of attitude reminds us of what seems to be a growing trend among governors in the United States.

You can liken it to a surly teenager, who, after being told “no” by a parent, scowls and says, “I don’t care what you say. I’ll do what I want.”

Perhaps most visibly, we’ve seen this from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who took all possibilities for negotiation off the table when he introduced union-busting efforts to the Badger State.

The protests that have been taking place in Madison, Wis., have drawn the most media attention. But residents of other states feel just as strongly that their governor is not listening.

Protesters have gathered in New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and Ohio to rally against Govs. Chris Christie, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott and John Kasich.

The question is, how much of this behavior can be attributed to the presence of an unusually high number of power-hungry governors with bullying tendencies — and how much of it indicates a trend in the way governors interact with legislatures and constituencies?

And the next natural question is, is Gov. Branstad on his way to becoming the next member of the “I don’t care what you say, I’ll do what I want” club?

If his history as governor can serve as an indicator, then probably not. But this is 2011, not 1991. So, here’s hoping Gov. Branstad opts not to model his attitude after the bully governors that dominate the news of the day.