[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Gov. Tim Walz will get to decide how to spend the money — unless the House and Senate can agree to spend some of the funds in whatever budget compromise emerges from the 2021 session, and provided the governor agrees to sign such a budget.[/image_caption]
In a Friday letter [PDF] to the state’s legislative leaders, Walz triggered a section of state law that requires him to give members of an advisory committee of lawmakers, the Legislative Advisory Commission, an opportunity to hold up expenditures of that money.
But because those holds expire when the regular session of the Legislature adjourns on May 17, the governor will get to decide how to spend the money — unless the House and Senate can agree to spend some of the funds in whatever budget compromise emerges from the 2021 session, and provided Walz agrees to sign such a budget.
A complicated law
The Legislative Advisory Commission was created in 1943, though the law has been amended many times since then. The purpose was to allow the expenditure of federal funds when the Legislature is not in session. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the funds were usually small amounts, often federal disaster relief payments or specific grants in social and human services.
That changed with the CARES Act, which last spring delivered $1.87 billion to the state, money Walz spent after giving notice to the LAC. Under the CARES Act, the administration made 96 individual “requests” for spending, even though he was simply serving notice, not seeking permission.
[image_credit]State of Minnesota[/image_credit]
An example of how the LAC law would apply to the current session is a proposal by the governor to spend $100 million of the latest federal funding for summer schools to help students catch up after a year of distance learning. Had he waited until this week to place the issue before the LAC, the members would have 10 days to advise the governor on the spending, though they couldn’t delay it.
Because the proposal was part of a federal funds request submitted last week, however, any member of the LAC could put a hold on the money, delaying it until the Legislature agrees on how to spend the money — or the session adjourns.
And since it will take weeks if not months for the U.S. Treasury to tell states and local governments how they can spend the various pots of money they will be getting from the ARP, it will likely be after adjournment that the first actual spending of the funds is done by the state.
Legislative Republicans not happy
Legislative Republicans have been unhappy since last spring about what they consider the governor cutting the Legislature out of the process of spending federal money. They were even more unhappy after getting Walz’s letter.
During a meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee Monday, during which state budget director Britta Reitan described the provisions of the American Rescue Plan [PDF], Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, asked how the administration planned to spend the ARP money.
After describing the process under the law, Reitan said that by submitting Walz’s letter on Friday, rather than waiting until this week, the administration made an effort to give the Legislature more authority under the LAC law.
“We did make sure we submitted it through the 20-day process,” Reitan said, referring to the window that gives the LAC the ability to review federal spending requests made by the administration and to place temporary holds on the money.
“This creates a window of time between now and the end of session where there is the ability to allocate those funds in cooperation with the Legislature,” she said. “If the funds are not put on hold, after 20 days there is authority to spend.”
[image_credit]State of Minnesota[/image_credit]
Reitan said the LAC process provides the opportunity to weigh in.
[image_caption]State Rep. Pat Garofalo[/image_caption]
But Garofalo disagreed with that interpretation of the statute, saying Walz “does not have the power to do that.”
“That is an opinion of this administration that he can do that,” Garofalo said. “That’s not how I interpret it. We need to know the administration’s position on this issue, that … in the absence of legislative agreement during the regular session, they do believe they have the authority only constrained by the guidance of the federal law.”
Garofalo asked DFL members of the committee if they “have any problems with one dude deciding how to spend $8 billion. Maybe it’s just a Republican thing.”
Walz administration dials up emergency powers into overdrive. Now saying capital projects/revenue of billions of dollars only requires CONSULTATION of legislature not AUTHORIZED appropriations.
Just like emergency powers, no sign that Team DFL is going to disagree with the King.
— Representative Pat Garofalo (R) (@PatGarofalo) March 22, 2021
The leading GOP budget writer in the Legislature also objected to the Walz letter. “The legislature is in session to pass a state budget,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, said in a statement Monday. “It’s incredibly disappointing the governor is going to go it alone with the federal funds and limit the input from local leaders across the state. Nonetheless, we will do our best to work with the Governor to ensure the funds are distributed fairly across the state and prioritized to mitigate the impacts COVID-19 has had on businesses, employees, families, seniors, and students.”
[image_caption]State Sen. Julie Rosen[/image_caption]
Several times over the last year the Legislature has attempted, with limited success, to pass legislation to spend the money rather than allow Walz to act alone. While lawmakers did agree on distributing $841 million to cities, counties and townships, no deal was reached on rental and mortgage assistance, which meant Walz alone created a $100 million fund for the purpose.
Walz also used CARES Act money for a variety of purchases, including COVID-19 testing and tracing, food assistance for children, seniors and low-income residents, emergency child care grants, small business grants, help to schools for distance learning and return to school costs, grants to farmers and money to relieve crowding at homeless shelters.
With the ARP money, the state will not dictate the spending for all of the $8 billion-plus coming to Minnesota from the federal act. Of that total, more than $1.3 billion is being sent directly to school districts, $552 million to colleges, $550 million in grants to child care providers and in child care supports and $348 million to transit agencies, all based on existing federal funding formulas.
But the state will control billions of dollars, much of it coming from its share of a $350 billion appropriation to state and local governments under the ARP. The state expects to get $2.76 billion that it can spend on COVID-related costs, including covering $450 million in revenue losses over the last year, reimbursing itself for the $750 million it spent with state revenue to fight the pandemic or for other new expenditures.
Even that number does not include more than $200 million for rental and mortgage assistance or for costs related to vaccination ($85 million), virus testing ($751 million) or genome testing meant to identify new variants ($17.5 million).
I didn’t really even need to read the article but I did. Even my Democratic friends have said this has gone on for far too long. As many have said, the emergency is gone. Has this what our country has turned into? Presidential rule by executive powers and now state rule by emergency powers?
This is shameful, and our founding forefathers never intended for the country to run like this. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty, and this is why I have said for years we need a viable third party to force all sides to agree on something. Otherwise every 4 years we will get jerked from one extreme to the other.
Come on, Betsy – you’re smarter than this. You know very well that Gazelka and company are not legislating or even offering to legislate by a long shot. They are playing politics, pure and simple. They are pissed off that the governor has retained his emergency powers in direct response to the fact that they are not meeting him anywhere near adulthood. To them it’s all politics, while Walz, whether you like his politics or not, is actually trying to lead the state through this pandemic.
I would join you, Betsy, in urging Walz to abandon his emergency powers today if the Republicans put anything reasonable forward. Anything at all. Would you concede precious influence to the party that is still – believe it or not – insisting that there was widespread cheating in the last national election, cheating that stole an election that, according to trump, he won by a landslide? Do you want to give power to people spewing that nonsense? Neither do I.
Thank goodness there are some DFLers keeping our state from going down THAT cesspool.
Think of it this way: when the Republicans are in control, they LOVE executive orders (which are statutorily legislated by both parties btw); when they are in the minority they whine and scream and yell “not fair, not fair, not fair.” A little maturity on their part would be welcome at this point. It’s becoming a hysterical body of those who have no desire to govern.
I think we can all agree that Florida is the worst run state in America.
It seems like the MN GOP objection can be summarized that they fear, should they through incompetence or ineffectiveness fail to pass a budget to spend this money, the Governor would do it. The Governors office has taken steps to give them MORE opportunity to do their jobs by notifying now.
I can only assume their posturing and predictions are just preconditioning us for another failure on their part to govern and a plan to deflect blame to the Governor.
Republicans, rather than wasting time on symbolic bills that will never become law, cooperate in setting bipartisan agreement on how to spend this federal money. Whine or negotiate. Chose wisely – as it what is best for the state ins pandemic.
“rather than wasting time on symbolic bills that will never become law,”
See U.S. House of Representatives for a small sampling.
How’d all of those ACA repeals work out? Literally dozens of GOP grandstanding attempts to dismantle a program loved by progressives and conservatives alike.
If we have a choice between Governor Waltz’s judgement and financial competence or the idiot Republican congresscritters, I’ll talk Waltz any day. I wouldn’t trust those 1%-owned, personally incompetent and corrupt, anti-science, anti-education, anti-democracy Republicans with the loose change in your pocket.
He loves the power. Even better when he can spend other people’s money without the legislature.
Actually, in reality, as the facts are, there is ample time for reasonable spending plans to be shared with the legislature–
EXCEPT, they would have to cooperate on such a plan.
So Republicans simply need to put forward a spending plan. That’s a fact.
The question is when will we see actual plans from Republicans? IMO, Gazelka needs Julie Rosen to lead them out of their snit. He hasn’t the leadership skills to get his caucus to do much of anything except complain and posture.
“EXCEPT, they would have to cooperate on such a plan.”
This would also mean that they would be making a tacit admission that Governor Walz – a Democrat – was legitimately elected. That may not seem like a big deal today in Minnesota, but it goes against the current of thinking in the national Republican Party that only Republicans may legitimately hold public office.
Who knows where this admission could lead? Today, they’re saying Governor Walz holds office lawfully. Tomorrow, they may acknowledge that President Biden did not steal the election.
Every slippery slope starts somewhere.
I’m really disappointed with this guy. I thought he would be more bipartisan than Dayton.
When Democrats are in power, “bipartisanship” means still letting the right wingers have what they want, just maybe less-so than if Republicans were in power.
When Republicans are in power, “bipartisanship” means blaming the relatively few, actually left-leaning Democrats of being obstructionist.
It’s the ratchet effect. We’ll ratchet our way towards the right no problem, but when you try to ACTUALLY move left, you’ll find the ratchet doesn’t work that way and you’re just spinning.
And it’s a mirage of politics: whereas the Democrat and Republican PARTIES are actually quite bipartisan and rarely disagree on foreign policy, macroeconomic policy, education policy, issues of foreign trade, etc., because left wingers effectively have no where else to turn than the center-right Democrat party, you get the illusion that the Democrat party is further to the left than it really is
He needs a LOYAL opposition.
He needs a partner in order to negotiate.
Walz has made it clear they can act now but they can’t get anything after the May deadline. What more can he do?
The “Bi “in Bipartisan is missing a gambit, a suggestion, a concrete deal, a method that doesn’t start and end with negativity or insults. I suggest Rs try a little kindness toward the governor and toward Senate Democrats. Their approach has not produced anything but obstruction.
GET TO WORK!
Why? There is no one active in the Republican portion of “bi-partisan” with any substantive ideas to add. They are empty vessels, spouting recycled talking points, from other failed conservatives, to enrapture their diminutive base. If they wish to continue in their current role as mildly annoying, powerless, opposition (and continue to lose every statewide race for ANOTHER decade or more) they’re welcome to proceed.
We can add “bipartisan” to the growing list of words in the American political lexicon that are devoid of meaning.
Why is bipartisanship thought of as an inherently good thing? The only advantage to it is that it looks like a refutation to the simplistic notion that anything produced while one party is in power is inherently bad (“But it was bipartisan!”). It’s an acceptance of hyperpartisanship to say that “bipartisan” is an end in itself.
Is a law or an action within the constitutional authority of the legislative or executive? Will it produce good results? These are the questions that should be asked. Looking to see if members of both parties left their fingerprints on it is beside the point.
Paul Gazelka and Kurt Daudt are utterly incapable of compromise in any fashion and have proved it over and over for years before Walz became governor.
There are people like Julie Rosen who have shown some ability to compromise and if they were to select leaders like her we would have at least some hope of bipartisanship.
Portraying Walz as some wild eyed socialist is ridiculous, but it is all that Daudt and Gazelka are capable of. Walz needs to go it alone and not waste his time with current R leadership.
I don’t really understand why anyone would make the argument that emergency funds, even in the high amount as discussed here, should be deliberated on ad nauseum only to come to a decision well after the emergency relief was needed and when the relief will have less bang for your buck. This is exactly why we have three branches of government: everyone knows the Legislature is about slow, incremental change whereas the Executive is for snap decisions like this.
Okay, I lied, I do understand why someone would make the argument to support emergency spending by committee: they just don’t like how Walz will spend it. Too bad for them, most people do like how Walz will spend it.
Seems to me Walz has initiated the opportunity for House and Senate to have a lot of input into how funds are spent. What remains to be seen is either more whining, or actual work getting done. Ball is in the court of House and Senate.
The prospect of watching Paul Gazelka and Kurt Daudt on television, spraying spittle over reporter microphones while expressing their outrage over the Governor’s letter, is very, very appealing, but I’m not overly keen on the Governor being able to pull quite as many strings as the emergency allows him to, fiscal and otherwise, without any consultation with the legislature at all. That said, however, I’m also not overly keen on the one-sided nature of “bipartisanship” typically presented by Minnesota Republicans, which usually boils down to “Do it our way or else, and while you’re at it, reduce taxes.” Others have already stated the obvious: “compromise,” for Republicans, means adopting the Republican agenda. Gazelka and Daudt have demonstrated zero ability, or even desire, to meet the DFL halfway on almost any issue of substance in the 11 years I’ve been here. I credit Governor Walz with managing to keep at least a dozen plates spinning simultaneously during one of the worst years the state and country have seen since World War II. He hasn’t pleased everyone, including me, all the time, but at least from my viewpoint, he’s doing the best he can to help as many people in the state as possible to negotiate personal, family and regional issues and concerns. Republicans are doing little to aid him in that task, but are working just as hard as ever at obstruction…
Gazelka and his fellow Republican politicians…and fawning posters…. wonder why no one listens to them. The answer is simple. Republicans have lost the trust of the people of this State, and this Country, with their continual lies, mismanagement, and deceit
If we allowed the legislature more say in how these emergency funds should be spent we would still be waiting for them to decide on the money from a year ago.
I wonder how much it will cost to rewrite school textbooks?
The current ones that state that the legislature has the “power of the purse” and controls all spending need to be rewritten.
Ask yourself, if the parties were reversed, and the governor was Republican would your opinion on this change? Heck, make it even easier, if Trump was our governor would you want him to be able to spend money however he felt like? Would you be happy with him continuing his emergency rule for this long?
We all agreed that our government would have three co-equal branches of government. Let’s get back to that.
“We all agreed that our government would have three co-equal branches of government. Let’s get back to that.”
And a great first step towards that would be for the GOP to put forth candidates who agree and understand it. As summarized by Alabama’s new Senator Tommy Tuberville:
“Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn’t set up that way,” Tuberville continued, saying incorrectly: “You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.”
As that great philosopher Forrest Gump told us:
“stupid is as stupid does.”
Where are the so called “defenders of democracy?”
They all have moved on to Trump’s Space Force where are they defending the galaxy…
Trying to make sure all Americans have the right to vote.
That’s right — you are all big defenders of trickle down government and unilateral action by a so called benevolent dictator.
I have no idea what “trickle down government” is supposed to mean. What does that haver to do with voting rights?
I think Republicans are the only one calling Governor Walz a “benevolent dictator.” Some people just can handle it when they don’t get their own way all the time, can they?
I’m going to hazard a guess that you are the heaviest user of the word “unilateral” in the state.
Democrats certainly have been standing up for democracy. Sadly, Republicans seem to no longer care about it.
Now that the conspiracists like Sidney Powell are admitting they lied and no one should have believed them, one would think that Republicans would acknowledge the election results. But no, a lot of them are still clinging to the false belief that Trump didn’t actually lose the election by a wide margin.
Exactly!
The gift that keeps on giving from Trump to the Rs is “lie away, there are little consequences” and as Sydney Powell, finally facing legal consequences, now tells is: “Sure I was lying, who would actually believe me?”
This will also be the ultimate defense of Giuliani, Trump and his family. Until then, lie away, there’s lots of folks eager to suck it up.
Seems crazy to me that so many just want to hand the reigns of the government over to the Governor and his ’emergency powers’ for eternity. No matter who the Governor is, what party you are aligned to. Why is it ok for the Gov to have so much power?
The legislature still has until May 17 to work up a spending plan.
However, if they can’t get that done the Governor will have to disburse the funds by the deadline given for spending it. Unspent monies may not be available if not disbursed by that deadline. What else can the Gov do?
“What else can the governor do?”
Play by the rules that were established by our state constitution.
Yes, he says he wants to work with the legislature, but Walz is using his emergency powers to stack the deck. If negotiations don’t go well, he wins and can spend that money however he wants.
If didn’t have his emergency powers and had to operate under our constitution, no deal would mean no spending. Everyone would be incentified to compromise.
With his emergency powers, Walz can run out the clock and then get to make all the decisions unilaterally. He can ask for everything he wants, refuse to bargain and then blame the GOP for “forcing” his hand.
That isn’t how our government is supposed to work. If we wanted One Man Rule, we could amend our state constitution.
Sadly both parties in state legislatures and Congress are all too happy to cede their prerogatives to the Governor/President when that office is held by their party. Institutionally the legislatures should be guarding their rights and be upset when the executive tries to usurp their power.
Walz is literally giving the legislature 7 entire weeks to iron out their differences and present a plan.
This is pretty much the opposite of running out the clock.
You do know this is a FEDERAL program, right?
And if the negotiations go well, Republicans can have a big say in how the money is spent.
What would you do with Federal handouts if you were Governor? Ignore the money like FL did with high-speed rail, or Texas did with Medicaid expansion? Just not accept the money?
Again– what is your actual problem with the governor handling of the Federal windfall? Should he give the decision over to Gazelka?
I don’t understand what you want the governor to do.
“Play by the rules that were established by our state constitution.”
That is exactly what the governor is doing!
“Walz is using his emergency powers”
No, he is using a duly passed law that has been around since 1943! This has zero to do with emergency powers.
If the legislature can’t agree on how to spend the money then, by law, the governor does. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.
The same rationale applies in the other direction, as the only goal of conservatives is “no spending”. The only difference in your scenario is the power being transferred from an executive that won the majority of votes statewide to the Republican majority in the Senate, representing a bare fraction of state voters. I guess conservatives prefer a junta?
Indeed, it is up to the legislature to legislate – to create law. Unfortunately the Republicans boxed themselves into a corner by following the lead of President Trump & downplayed the seriousness of the virus. Perhaps they instead should have treated it like the threat it is. It seems to me they’re focusing far more on criticizing the Governor’s actions than on using the tool they have – writing law – to address the problem.
Because we are in a once in a hundred years pandemic.
How would have WW2 gone if FDR was limited in his responses. Check out lend lease act or Truman on the nuclear bombing decision. Similar numbers of people are dying and fools are holding mask burning parties because their rights are being so imposed upon.
Move ’em back 75 years and they probably would be holding motor caravans to consume gasoline just to show who’s boss in the so called war effort.
Unbelievable! Saw a clip of a mask burner in Idaho screaming about the injustices foisted upon her for having to wear a mask and thought about healthcare workers pulling 16 hour shifts and dealing with the stress of continual losing battles to the virus. Selfish, shortsighted, weak minded losers…
It is my opinion our government “leaders” at the state and federal level have become so polarized, vitriol and dysfunctional that honest, sincere discourse and legislation is impossible. Our “leaders” have lost their ability to lead using rational and logical reasoning, and instead, resort to emotional driven, feel good solutions that usually are detrimental and ineffective in the long run.
I’m sure Republicans are upset about this and claiming it’s just another dictatorial impulse, but I would remind them about their own efforts to eliminate the Executive with veto-proof legislation under Dayton, and Pawlenty’s line item veto/un-allotment stunt. That doesn’t make Walz right, but also doesn’t make him a dictator.
Democrats finally seem to be emerging from a decades long stupor of bipartisan gridlock wherein winning elections was just an opportunity to prove they wouldn’t try to rule without Republican consent. Booshwa! It’s been years of not decades since Republicans made an honest attempt to govern responsibly, or even participate as responsible adults. They literally had to be stunned into cooperation by a deadly virus at the beginning of last year, but they quickly regained their footing and spent the rest of the year being as obstructionist as possible.
So good on Walz for governing like he’s a governor who won the election, and doing what he thinks he needs to do for his constituents regardless of Republican ignorance and irrational impulses!
I honestly don’t see what makes Walz not right. The law is the law, and he’s reminding them that they have a say in what happens to the money now, but not later. So if they can’t get their heads in the game and quit playing the outrage card, they will miss their opportunity. By law and without emergency powers.
He is a Democrat. For certain types, that’s all that is necessary to conclude that he is wrong.
Yeah. But this is Paul talking. I overall appreciate his comments, including this one, but I’m not ok with the “that doesn’t make Walz right” comment in this context. In this context, Walz is absolutely right. There might be other contexts in which he isn’t, but it’s simply both sidesism in this context.
I agree, Walz is NOT wrong. My point was just he’s not right or wrong based on some comparison with something someone did.
I think Republicans simply do not have the skill set to get back in the game. The only thing that has kept them in the game this long is Democrat’s promising/requiring “bipartisan” cooperation. When Republicans get elected they try to impose their agendas. When Democrats get elected, they try to prove how bi-partisan they are, hence Republican’s have always gotten a seat at the table despite their obstructionism and irrelevance. If Democrats walk away from their strategy of bipartisan gridlock, Republicans will simply flounder around their manufactured outrage. Oddly enough, Republicans who have always pretended to be the champions of competition and survival have spent the last several decades demolishing the skill sets they will need to compete and survive on a political landscape that doesn’t afford them privilege and entitlement. The problem with practicing stupid and cultivating ignorance is that you can’t be smart and educated when you need to be. When you look at these Republicans who think they’re so clever, but cannot construct an intelligent or knowledgeable statement about anything, you know these people are doomed politically.
“The time for bipartisanship is through.”
I would go further and claim that the era of “bipartisanship” was a essentially a sham that artificially limited discourse, policies, and objectives to a very narrow range of possibilities. This narrow range of possibilities served a wealthy and affluent status quo while leaving a majority of Americans saddled with multiple crises and challenges for decades.
This was typically labeled as “partisan” gridlock, but it was really bipartisan gridlock because both parties tended to require a condition they knew they wouldn’t meet. How could a very intelligent guy like Obama think he could get bipartisan support for health care? Anwer: He didn’t, in fact, I think moderate Democrats were counting on Republican intransigence to limit their program to a market based “solution”.
You can see and hear the panic in moderate/”centrist” voices now that their bipartisan gridlock appears to be giving way to partisan progress and success. The entire narrative of partisan division is simply incoherent because it pretends that an era of bipartisan failure was the only political possibility in a liberal democracy, as if collective suicide is the only possible alternative to collective progress. All Democrats have to do is move forward with common sense proposals, most of which have been on the shelf for decades.