I had been thinking of writing about this anyway, and Tim Pawlenty’s recent power grab here in Minnesota — made possible by the liberal use of his line-item veto — has made this a timely subject. Pawlenty’s use of the line-item veto has turned him into a legislator. Rather than simply signing or returning the bills passed by the legislature, he will craft entirely different policies by removing items he doesn’t like from the legislature’s spending bills.
This is a power above and beyond what the governor should have. Specifically, it is a legislative power held by the head of the executive branch. The line-item veto was adopted in Minnesota over a century ago, by a constitutional amendment in 1876, but it remains a mistake that gives the governor too much power.
The most outrageous partial veto authority is the “Frankenstein veto” held by the governor of Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, even after several constitutional amendments to reduce the governor’s veto power, governors can eliminate individual words within sentences in order to completely change the meaning of legislation. This is certainly an excessive amount of legislative authority for a governor, but why should any governor have the authority to make decisions that are typically only made by a deliberative body?
I should add here that none of this should be considered an excuse for Minnesota’s DFL-controlled legislature. Yes, the line-item veto is a level of legislative authority the Governor shouldn’t have. But it’s been a fixture in Minnesota politics for 130 years, and there’s no excuse for the DFL’s ham-handed maneuvering. They should understand the political realities of the line-item veto, and yet they gave the governor the opportunity to hijack the policymaking process.
I don’t have any real hopes that Minnesota will eventually eliminate the line-item veto. It’s been with us almost as long as we’ve been a state. But it is bad policy that gives too much power to the executive branch and shouldn’t be extended to the President. It was overturned once by the Federal Supreme Court, and that should be the end of it.
George F. Will wrote an intersting critique of the line-item veto recently (basically, Jeff, making much the same argument as you did only basing it more on the balance struck between Articles I and III of the U.S. Consitution). Of course, Will being Will, he couldn’t leave it at being bad public policy and a dangerous expansion of executive power: he had to say that it was favored by big-government liberals who want the Executive Branch to run America.
The viability of line-item veto is certainly debatable. However, it does not appear to be the abuse you claim. It’s more of a last resort and in this case, the legislatures failure to uphold the constitution by passing a balanced budget forces the governor to do the work the legislature failed to do constitutionally.
At the very least, MN’s ought to throw out those responsible for not submitting a balanced budget. Taxes have never been the issue. Your tax base is a reflection of the prosperity of all MN’s. When that prosperity goes down, tax revenue goes down. When our revenue goes down, we need to cut back, when the tax revenue goes down, they need to cut back. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.
To suggest the state must always spend more money this year than the last is the big elephant in the room. It simply doesn’t make sense.
To suggest the state has responsibilities to those less fortunate is an 800 lb gorilla. The worse the economy gets, the more people could be dependent on state services causing a vicious cycle of placing more and more responsibilities on the state and presto, with that kind of thinking, we have socialism. Get over it, enjoy the taxes you do get and kiss the arse of the rich who are still willing to live here instead of many more tax friendly and weather friendly environments. We don’t exactly live in Utopia.
To suggest the state has responsibilities to those less fortunate is an 800 lb gorilla
One person carrying a 800 lb gorilla = failure.
5,220,393 carrying a 800 lb gorilla = shared success.
Pay now, or pay more later. And what about kindness and help for fellow wo(men)?
No one wants a system that makes it so people can’t get off welfare or have some sort of free ride. But to turn your back on the less fortunate is stupid, selfish, and un-minnesotan.
The Legislature did pass a balanced budget. Mr. Pawlenty’s objection to it rested on its increased taxes.
I refuse to “kiss the arse” of anyone solely because they have more money than I do. Toadying to anyone is anathema to democracy.
I never thought of allowing people to keep more of the money they earn as “kissing their arse”. To each his own, I guess.
Just using CommonSenseRambler’s words, nothing more.
Jeff, the problem with repealing the line-item veto (and I think your analysis hits it out of the park) is some thing basic in human psychology. The legislative session is noisy and confusing, and that noise and confusion is frightening to most voters who only occasionally tune in. Double that in a time of economic uncertainty. In the face of all that, the line-item veto allows the gov to be the man on horseback, sweeping in and saving all the townsfolk when things get that confusing.
And at the end of the day, as someone who has volunteered, who has done voter contact, I can tell you that’s what the voters want, a whole lot more than separation of powers or democracy.
Yup. Jeff is right. It is refreshing when someone on this side of the aisle recognizes that government power has its limits.
To this Dan, some so-called man (strange that he finds it necessary to assert his purported masculinity in every post. plus, does this guy have a life, or does he just live on this blog?):
as far as “keeping your money” — what about paying your way?
who pays for the roads you drive on? the sewer systems that carry your crap away? the epidimiologists who track down food bourne illnesses that could kill you or people you care about? the police detectives who track down those who hurt other people? where did you get educated? who pays to educate the work force of this state, which is responsible for its prosperity? who pays for the research that has spawned many of this state’s fortune 500 companies? where do groups who go into schools (including suburban and rural) to teach violence prevention (which occurs in every socio-economic group) get their funding?
anyone who is prosperous in this state has prospered in part due to state investment in our infrastructure. They have USED services. It’s time to pay your way. I know y’all think you did it all on your own, but that’s delusionary bull crap. Get over your ego. You wouldn’t be where you are if it weren’t for public investment in this state.
If you’re so enthralled with low taxes, go live in Arkansas or Mississippi.
It’s time to pay my way? OK. Sorry I’ve been “dodging the system” for so long, as must be the case. I’m a leech on society. I’m all take, take, take, and no give.
Pulling out my tax returns right now… total tax bill for last year was in six figures. Six figures of taxes. Holy cow. And no, I’m not some fourth-generation heir to a family fortune. I go to work every day like everyone else, paid off student loans like so many do, had to save up to put a down payment on my house. Nothing most of you haven’t done or aren’t doing. That kind of tax bill is relatively new to me, but I had the same fiscally conservative beliefs back when I was a starving student.
But what I’m asking is that the six figures I paid in taxes go as far as possible, and that the state doesn’t have to come back to the well for even more.
I use services, and so does my family. Do I use six figures’-worth per year? Nope. But i realize we have a progressive tax system in this country and in this state, and will gladly pay more than my share because I had a good year. But can someone look me in the face and say that now they need another $5,000 to run the state? My first question back would be “are you truly doing EVERYTHING you can to make the money I already gave you go as far as possible?”
So Linda, I’ll gladly pay my way. In fact, I’ll pay the way for quite a few families other than mine. But given how much we’re all paying, isn’t it a fair question to ask if every last service is needed, and if so, is it being run in the most efficient manner possible? I just love how you frame this argument in a way to make it sound like someone who doesn’t agree with a tax increase above what we already pay is suddenly some no-taxes carmudgeon.
Hey Dan are you in Texas? Just wondering. Not really a related question.
Nope. I’m not in Texas. I’m in Taxes.
You are a completely full of shit individual.
You either are a person of fairly modest means (as you have claimed) or you earn nearly half a million dollars a year (based on your reported tax bill)
You can’t have it both ways, you lying sack of excrement.
Hmmm.. that is awfully close to being a personal attack.
“You” - he/she (she) is clearly directing this at me personally
“are” - the transitive verb. She is clearly going somewhere with this.
“a completely” - a superlative. she feels strongly about the point she is about to make.
“full of shit individual”. The claim. Later, she rephrases as “lying sack of excrement”. Good reinforcement of the point.
Perhaps lojasmo should be banned for such a clear personal insult.
So Dan, if your total tax bill was six figures, and we average that out to $500,000, then with tax rates as they are, you made roughly $1.3 million last year. You pocketed about $800,000.
Is taking home $795,000 that much of a hit to you? I realize it’s the principle, but since you can’t prove the tax money is being wasted, why not give it the benefit of the doubt?
Worse case scenario - you’re out 5 grand, and nothing changed.
Best case - Several people didn’t die for lack of medical treatment. Hundreds of kids did well in school because they were fed a decent meal in the morning. The list goes on and on.
Since you’ll never really know what happened to that money (other than some vague accusations of waste), what’s the loss to you?
ALso, if you lived in Minnesota in the 90’s, they YOU ALREADY PAID the rates the legislature proposed. Obviously you survived that, so you can pay them again.
You’re one of the few decent right-wingers on this blog, btw. I appreciate your candidness and willingness to acknowledge when you’re wrong. That’s rare (on both sides, I might add).
Pete -
My income was quite a bit lower than the example you used, but your point is valid. My family could pay another $5,000 and it wouldn’t be a hardship. It would certainly be felt, but it wouldn’t be a hardship. I guess my concern is we could use that logic over and over. We could say that some rich guy (or in our case, some family who hopes to be first-generation financially-independent) has “enough”, and that he can pay another $5,000, another $7,000, another $6,000, etc.
At the same time, I’ll be quite an easy target to phase out any type of tax incentive for. Energy efficient home? Don’t qualify. Tuition for my kids? I’ll be paying the full rate, no doubt. Social Security and Medicare? If a means test is ever advocated (which I support in concept), I’ll be the first to forego my benefits. Society will expect me to pay my own way later on, and I need to be saving at a different rate than someone who is going to be supported by a government pension or whose kids will have heavy financial assistance. Society will expect me to, and I expect myself to.
All the while, I’m funding much more than my “fair share”. And that’s fine. It is just obtuse of people like Linda to claim that I’m trying to get something for nothing. I fully realize my tax bill supports much more than what me or my family consumes, and I’m ok with that.
P.S.
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING - that’s what most of these Republicans want.
Grow up!
No, Linda. Something for the already-significant tax bill that we all pay. You and I both.
“You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free
You won’t get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be”
~Geddy Lee
“You don’t get something for nothing”
But do I get something for 7.85% of my gross paycheck?
DantheMan,
“But do I get something for 7.85% of my gross paycheck?”
Are you the poor, the needy, the lesser among us?
I’m guessing not, judging from your right wing ideological commenting history.
There is nothing financially sound or financially efficient about kicking poor people off of health care. There is nothing financially sound or efficient about people using an emergency room for their care. There is nothing financially sound about not educating people.
This is typcial Republican short-term, irresponsible, me-first thinking.
And government and these other organizations have already been cut to the bone.
If you are paying six figures in taxes, bully for you. You were able to get there due to the investment of previous generations of Minnesotans. Others deserve the same opportunities.
All the DFL was asking is that the upper tier of earners pay their fair share. Pawenty’s own revenue department has documented that upper tier is paying a lower tax rate than the middle class or below. That’s a FREE RIDE, and that’s whose “arse” Pawlenty is kissing.
In addition to kissing high-buck Minnesota arse, Pawlenty, as is so clear to everyone, is kissing arse of the destructive Grover Norquist crowd and the extremists in the national republican party, to position himself to 2012 Iowa delegates. He just got big kudos from that group!! Cheers for right-wing ideoligical purity!
He doesn’t give a rip about this state and everyone knows it.
I paid the most taxes I’ve ever paid in my life. Several times more in taxes than my first full-time job total salary was. I’m grateful for the income, and also grateful that I’m in a position to help others through my tax dollar and charitable contributions.
Yet, I’m getting a free ride. Gotta love the lefties.
Just when i think that I might be veering a little left of center, especially on social policy, I get in a tax policy discussion with someone and realize that I will never be more than a middle-of-the-road Centrist.
After all this, I just want to reiterate something I said on other posts:
I’m for the tax increase, IF it is TEMPORARY. Don’t solve a temporary budget crunch with a permanent tax hike. Make it last 2 years. After two years, it is gone. No extension, and nobody is allowed to do some long-term budget assuming these revenues will exist. They go away.
Seems reasonable to me.
I’m not sure it is possible for one to be a conservative (who generally want a smaller, weaker federal govt) to support giving the President the line-item veto. There is no Constitutional basis for it. The line-item veto is a power grab that all executives seek, on both sides of the aisle.
Some states, like MN, allow for it Constitutionally. Those executives should have it (like it or not). The U.S. Constitution does not provide for it, so no President should have that power.
The good news is, by having to execute the budget he has created, he is responsible for this entire mess now. Kinda like Obama picking McChrystal and now he owns the AfPak war, T-paw is now in the hot seat to get his government to run on the fumes he has left it.
And, overall, especially with MN’s very rare unallotment provision, this man weilds far too much power.
Tactically, I think it’s interesting that he chose it. I think the DFL in Kelliher finally have someone as speaker who was willing to call Pawlenty on his years of dishonest, bad-faith negotiating.
Pawlenty has been famous for demanding changes in legislation from DFLers, which IMO they gave too easily, then he vetoed them anyway, giving massive black eyes to the Lege. Congrats to Ms. Kelliher. As devastating as Pawlenty’s cuts will be, and real human suffering will result, we have a speaker with guts, smarts and spine!
I say yay to that!
Well, we knew it was coming. DFL legislators want to help the middle class by ensuring there’s safety nets and appropriate service, and Pawlenty wants no new taxes. Does no new taxes help the middle class? We’ll see. Roads are falling apart, hospitals are in jeopardy, people are getting really nervous. Less jobs can’t be good.
Responsible governors realize it’s smart to expect a slow, steady tax increase (during the good times especially). Is the Minnesota government is too large? Just look at what happens in other states. Pretty soon our lifestyle will match, and there will be a lot of angry people. And I get a bad feeling about that.