Gov. David Ige, it is gratifying to see, seems willing to take some politically difficult stances, judging by his newly released list of legislation lined up for his veto pen.

For example, it’s never easy for an elected official to face off against legislation championed by one of the powerful public employee unions, but Ige has done so by including Senate Bill 2077 on Monday’s list of potential vetoes.

This measure seeks to expand the severance benefits for the state-run Maui and Lanai hospitals’ employees — most of whom will retain their jobs once the facilities are converted to private management.

The governor must follow through and spike the bill, guided by his tentative conclusion that SB 2077 would run counter to the fiscal principles he favored as a state senator himself. According to conservative estimates, it would cost the state $40 million and add to the state’s unfunded liability in benefits owed to its retired workforce, a deficit Ige has long sought to whittle back.

Supporting the bill are its beneficiaries — the United Public Workers, which is suing to block the transfer of the facilities to Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, and the Hawaii Government Employees Association.

Regardless, this spendthrift bill is patently counter to the privatization initiative’s fiscal soundness. Ige’s veto here would reveal a political courage that eluded most state legislators.

The turnover of the facilities to Kaiser offers the best hope of making the Maui district’s health care safety net far more financially sustainable, rather than the chronic drain on taxpayer funds that it is today. These facilities need to be run more efficiently, if they are to continue fulfilling the critical role providing care to the islands’ communities.

Ige also seems positioned, wisely, to axe a bill that, in the short term, seems a boon to state tax coffers.

House Bill 1850 would allow Airbnb and other transient accommodations brokers to handle the collection of tax from vacation rentals. This is not so much a bad idea, but one whose time has not quite come.

Ige rightly points to Act 204, enacted only a year ago, that was put in place to ensure that owners and managers of vacation rentals post their tax numbers in advertisements so that county regulations governing them can be enforced and fines for violations can be assessed. That enforcement mechanism is not yet in operation, so HB 1850 is premature.

Additionally, the bill does not compel the lodging brokers to comply with Act 204. That disconnect must be rectified by reintroducing the Airbnb measure next session — with the compliance requirement firmly in place.

Counties have been struggling to get a handle on the burgeoning vacation rental industry. Its critics maintain that their proliferation has redirected rental units away from the residential market, curtailing the inventory and pushing up rents as a result. County officials should have the ability to track the rentals for compliance with local zoning regulations, and undermining Act 204 would be a disservice to that aim.

In passing HB 1850, Senate and House leadership said the measure would help the state collect millions of dollars in unpaid taxes, while leaving enforcement against illegal short-term rentals up to the counties.

The “Airbnb bill” was pushed by high-powered lobbyists and moneyed interests, so it’s heartening to see a willingness to resist. Again, Ige should go ahead with this veto, without delay.

Ige seemingly has applied a common criteria in evaluating the other bills under veto review. They are being judged for their necessity, and whether there is a practical means for implementing them.

That is a good matrix to use. It also helps to explain his decision to pass another controversial measure, HB 2501. This bill allows Alexander &Baldwin Inc. to continue short-term permits for diverting water from streams in East Maui while challenges to its permits are resolved.

Critics are right that the state’s management of its water resource has been ineffectual, and that a return to long-term leases that assess the proper value for water use is essential. However, the reality is that the state does not yet have the capacity for such permit reviews. The Department of Land and Natural Resources must make this a priority, and A&B must accelerate the right-sizing of its water use, in the three-year term of the permit extension HB 2501 allows.

Good legislation requires that laws have not only the best of intentions but the means of executing their objectives. Ige’s tentative positions on these bills demonstrates he grasps that reality. We hope he delivers on it.