After two weeks exploring reforms to improve the functioning of state government that could be pursued by our next governor, it’s time for this column to return to State House reality.

Or perhaps not.

There’s something surreal about the way the current governor, Paul LePage, is conducting his fourth year in office.

We’ve all become familiar, through constant repetition, with the governor’s claim that those who want to provide health care to 70,000 fellow Mainers “lack compassion.”

But it’s the way LePage pursues his claim that he alone can uphold the fiscal stability of state government where things really get weird.

To pick up were we left off: The Legislature had approved a bill to restore $40 million in municipal revenue sharing, with a grand total of one Republican senator opposed. LePage, who refers to this 40-year division of sales and income tax with towns and cities as “welfare,” did nothing. The constitutional limit for a veto passed, and the bill became law without his signature.

This week, though, LePage called a news conference to reiterate his opposition to the bill that was already law, and tell reporters he’ll submit a budget bill to reverse a $21 million draw on the rainy day fund contained in the bill. He blamed Democratic leaders, and, alarmingly, seemed unaware Republicans had also voted overwhelmingly for the bill until reporters pointed it out.

There are multiple problems here that have as their common theme LePage’s desire to be sole arbiter of every question involving state government.

After keeping his commissioners from testifying throughout the budget off-season, LePage refused to submit a budget, even though the Appropriations Committee has been at work for months. Now he’s vowed to submit one covering only $21 million of a shortfall expected to exceed $100 million.

If lawmakers don’t like it, he’ll resume withholding his signature from bonds until the rainy day fund is restored. But LePage had his chance to weigh in on how revenue sharing would be handled. He gave it up.

Normally, governors pack a lot of policy into their budget proposals, which then shape the legislative debate. Giving up that prerogative is much like abdicating.

Further, it’s by no means clear the governor has any authority to interfere with bonds once they’ve been approved by the Legislature and ratified by the voters. That was true when he ordered bonds impounded in 2011 for programs where money had already been spent, a stance he maintained until recently.

At that point, he touted a $2 billion, three-year plan to rebuild transportation infrastructure. The state doesn’t have the money beyond the first year, and even that’s dependent on a $100 million bond LePage now says should be re-impounded.

Behind the scenes, Republican and Democratic Appropriations Committee members submitted bills to “clarify” the governor’s role in bond-issuing, specifying limited reasons for delay – none involving disagreements over financial policy. But Republicans have now withdrawn their support, so the law won’t change this year.

But even in its current state, it’s doubtful LePage can hold up bond issues. After they’re approved by voters, it’s the state treasurer who decides when they should be issued, in consultation with agencies using the funds. The governor’s role is limited to signing the warrant – more or less checking the box.

There are good reasons for avoiding confrontation. When the governor’s office and the treasurer work together, the state can get better rates and terms. But if the logjam persists, the treasurer can go ahead solo.

Ironically, the financial uncertainty created by LePage’s many conflicting moves is what might ultimately cause a state credit downgrade. A $21 million withdrawal from the rainy day fund, by contrast, is no real cause for concern.

LePage assumes support even when he doesn’t have it. Municipal leaders, for instance, seem to have made up their minds. From Piscataquis County, one of the most Republican regions of the state, Sangerville Town Manager Dave Pearson had this to say: “The governor seems to harbor a spiteful streak, and seems not to respect that other elected officials or the public vote has legitimacy as well as himself.”

We might also consider a comment from former GOP Congressman Dave Emery, who tried to help LePage in the early days of his administration, but left abruptly.

In an interview looking back on his days in the Legislature and Congress, Emery said, “Any good legislator, after awhile, transitions from the ideology to the intellectual, because there has to be an intellectual or logical content to the things you do and the work you choose to participate in.”

But not everyone gets the message.

 Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 29 years. He can be reached at drooks@tds.net.