MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:

Sponsor of
Second Opinion

Sponsor of
Community Sketchbook

Our major advertisers

Our in-kind partners

Search Engine Marketing

MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

ERIC BLACK INK

How does the ruling affect the rest of the biennium?

By Eric Black | Published Wed, May 5 2010 12:03 pm

I really will read and summarize the dissenting opinion in the unallotment case. Momentarily.

But as I think about the new key principle on unallotment, which just became the law of the land by virtue of the Magnuson opinion, I want to throw out some first thoughts and questions on where this leaves us in the middle of Minnesota's fiscal crisis.

The new key principle is that the governor's unallotment power does not exist until after there has been a balanced budget adopted by other means.

The budget for the current biennium has never been balanced.

It seems beyond imagining at the moment that Gov. Pawlenty and the DFL-controlled Legislature will agree on a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to create a balanced budget by the end of the current session.

As recently as this morning's papers, Pawlenty has described the Legislature's budget-cutting efforts as "pitiful," and warned that if the Legislature doesn't make the cuts necessary, he will.

But how?

Until there is a balanced budget, he does not have the power to unilaterally unallot.

If you're thinking line-item vetoes (the governor still has that power), I believe it's too late for that. The appropriation bills were signed a year ago. TPaw made a few line-item vetoes at the time, but he can't go back a year later and veto more lines.

The state can run a temporary deficit and take short-term loans, but it is supposed, in fact required, to balance the budget by the end of the biennium, which will be in June of 2011.

A lot more reporting and analysis and expert commentary needed to figure out how this might turn out. But, until this morning, it was often suggested that even if Pawlenty lost the unallotment case, he would have the unallotment power going forward and he would, in the second half of the biennium, be dealing with projected deficits that were truly caused by a revenue shortfall that was unanticipated at the beginning of the biennium.

But the Magnuson ruling is quite clear. No balanced budget, no unallotment power.

Where do we go from here?

Courts | Wed, May 5 2010 12:03 pm | 11 Comments

Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

11 Comments: Hide/Show Comments

(#1) On May 5, 2010, John E Iacono says:

The legislature is required to pass, and the governor to sign or veto a balanced budget before unallotment can kick in.

If the governor vetoes, the legislature is required to override or come up with a budget he will sign.

Now that this problem has been pushed off by the legislature and the courts to an election year in a dismal economic climate, unless the dems can override sure vetoes of bills that raise taxes the dem's are in a fine pickle.

Since, unless some forlorn republicans with suicidal instincts fail to support the gov (and why should they?), the dems cannot override a veto, they have only one painful alternative: huge cuts that will anger their constituents.

The gov, it seems, holds all the cards. He can veto. He can refuse to call a special session unless terms are prior agreed upon. He can shut down the state when the money is gone if dems fail to come up with an acceptable budget balancing bill. And he's not running for reelection.

However, if the tax increases the dems want are to atrocious that it will cost them majorities in the legislature in November, he just MIGHT let their bill pass and let the 2011 legislature repeal them and substitute other fixes.

I wouldn't want to be a dem legislator just now.

(#2) On May 5, 2010, James Hamilton says:

Chief Justice Magnuson's opinion is based on a reasonable reading of statute's use of the term "remainder", in my view.

Justice Gildea's dissent, in which Justices Anderson and Dietzen join, is premised on the belief that "we need not reach the question of whether the word remainder can refer to the whole biennium or refers to a period that is less than the whole." Her conclusion is based on the fact that the unallotment did not take effect until November 1, 2009, "well into the biennium". She fails to address the fact that the unallotment was made before the biennium began, i.e., at a time when the remainder of the biennium was the entire biennium.

The dissent's claim that the majority engaged in wholesale revision of the statute is unwarranted, in my opinion.

(#3) On May 5, 2010, James Hamilton says:

I suppose it's too much to ask to expect that all concerned would sit down and engage in legitimate negotiations to resolve our budget problems, especially when so many are on the campaign trail to one office or another.

(#4) On May 5, 2010, Dimitri Drekonja says:

I'm not sure this is a position that Pawlenty, or any Governor would want to be in. Sure, he can veto bills, refuse to call special sessions, and shut down the government, since the legislature is a few votes short of the super-majority needed to over-ride him. (Assuming republicans put party above governing, which I assume they will, since many have already shown that they are willing to vote for a bill, but then not vote to override the gov. Talk about trying to have it both ways).

But- that essentially frames it as one person against a sizable (albeit not super) majority. When parks shut down, payments to state workers stop, state funded construction stops..., all so that Tim gets to have it his way, will that really be the best thing for him, or his party?

It's too much to hope for, but I long for a govenor who understands what compromise means. Raise some revenue, and cut some services. Compromise.

(#5) On May 5, 2010, Sheila Ehrich says:

Dimitri, do you really think the Governor will be able to find time in his busy schedule to actually sit down with the Legislature? He might have to get his hands dirty doing so actual work.

(#6) On May 5, 2010, Don Medal says:

Is it true that Minnesota has a regressive income tax scale? I think that's relevant to the discussion.

(#7) On May 5, 2010, Lance Groth says:

I think the ruling, combined with Pawlenty's intransigence, have just handed the Dems a much needed weapon for the upcoming campaign. Sure, Pawlenty's not running for reelection, but his party wants to retain the office. If I were the Dems, I'd go ahead and make 3.5 billion in draconian cuts - cuts where they will hurt the most - and then spend the rest of campaign season pasting the Repubs with it. "This is what you get when you have a governor who won't negotiate, who won't consider both sides of the problem, who spends his time trying to please the national party for a presidential run rather than governing the state, and who uses his veto to create the budget imbalance in order to give himself an excuse to unallot, which exceeded the law, btw" - that sort of thing. All the Dems need is a
take-no-prisoners campaign manager to make proper use of this mess.

Pawlenty created this, er, crap-storm. The Dems just need to be sure it sticks mostly to him.

(#8) On May 6, 2010, Brad Robinson says:

The Republicans won't buck Tim on this, or any issue. Remember the retaliation towards the Republicans who voted to increase the gas-tax? If it were me, I'd send a couple bills to the Gov. to have him veto, THEN blame him. If the Democrats send a bill with only draconian cuts to get Tim's approval, the Democrats will get blamed. Can't you just here it, "The DEMOCRATICALLY controlled legislature cut [name your pet program]!" Kelliher in particular will have a very difficult race for Gov. since she will likely be blamed for the whole mess.

(#9) On May 6, 2010, Thomas Swift says:

"If I were the Dems, I'd go ahead and make 3.5 billion in draconian cuts - cuts where they will hurt the most - and then spend the rest of campaign season pasting the Repubs with it."

Tear my arm off and beat your enemies about the head and shoulders with it: the oldest trick in the Democrat playbook.

Oldest as in old and busted; busted as in everyone with half a brain is on to it.

By all means, be our guests.

(#10) On May 6, 2010, Neal Rovick says:

It seems quite likely that Pawlenty was preparing to follow the same path this year--executing unallotment after the session ended. The decision was delayed trying to get to a bigger consensus, but it was clear that positions were fixed, and the legal matter HAD to be resolved before it could happen again.

(#11) On May 6, 2010, Brian Simon says:

"But the Magnuson ruling is quite clear. No balanced budget, no unallotment power."

Very interesting point. Will that be enough to incent the governor to negotiate, or is he going to play chicken with the Lege again? I disagree with John Iacono about the governor holding all the cards. It is true that if the Dems play hardball, he will be the person with the choice of calling a special session or shutting down the government, but even the latter option does not solve the problem for him. The crux of the problem is whether he is competent to run government even when the legislature is held by the opposition. If he cannot, his Presidential ambitions would seem to die as well; it might be good enough to excite the Repub base, but he won't attract any swing voters with such a record.

Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.

RECENTLY PUBLISHED POSTS

minnpost.com/ericblack

Eric Black is a former reporter for the Star Tribune and Twin Cities blogger. He writes about politics and government of Minnesota and the United States, the historical background of topics and other issues. Click here to view Eric's previous postings at former blog, Eric Black Ink. He can be reached at eblack [at] minnpost [dot] com.

Search Engine Marketing

ERIC BLACK INK

How does the ruling affect the rest of the biennium?

RECENTLY PUBLISHED POSTS

minnpost.com/ericblack

Recent Posts by Eric Black