Pawlenty did what he had to do to balance the budget.
Why?
Because state lawmakers were unable to muster the political courage to make the difficult cuts or increase taxes. In other words, as much as we disagreed with the programs Pawlenty cut, he took action, something the Legislature seemed unable to do for months. Leadership in both chambers of the Legislature was inept.
Wow. No, that’s just wrong. We can argue about whether the DFL’s solution — a mix of spending cuts, accounting shifts, and tax hikes — was the best possible solution, certainly. But there is no arguing with the plain facts: the DFL sent Pawlenty a balanced budget. The DFL sent Pawlenty appropriations bills to fund state services, and the revenue to pay for the appropriations.
A lot of people were obviously not happy about the increased taxes, but with our budget deficit only getting worse, it’s hard to see how we’re going to avoid them. So the DFL mustered the courage to increase taxes to raise revenues to decrease our budget shortfall. Now, not only have the DFLers seen their budget unconstitutionally altered by Tim Pawlenty, they’re taking flak for not having the “political courage” to do something that, in reality, they did.
But the thing is, he DIDN'T balance the budget. Accounting shifts to K-12 districts and leaving another structural deficit that the state will confront in the next biennium isn't "balancing" the budget in any meaningful or substantive way.
Everybody including the legislature was fully aware that Pawlenty would not sign any tax increases. They could have acknowledge this fact and done their job of allocating the available resources. Taking responsibility for their priorities and what got cut while rightfully pointing a finger at Pawlenty for level of resources available. Instead they sent spending bills to be signed that had no chance of being funded. It was that action, the responsibility of which lies only with the DFL led legislature, which provided Pawlenty the ability to unallot.
Passing a bill that you know won't be signed isn't really doing anything of value. Doing it at the last possible minute so as to avoid the job of trying to over-ride the veto everybody could see coming since November of 2006 can't be considered brave.
The Legislature doesn't serve at the pleasure of the Governor. They are the sole body that writes legislation. Simply saying "I won't sign it" isn't an acceptable way to deal with a co-equal branch of government.
But the larger point isn't what Pawlenty did, it is whether it was an actual "balancing" of the budget. As we can see from the accounting shifts and structural deficits left in place by the governor's decisions, it simply was not.
in co-equal branches of government, KH, why does the governor get to dictate what is allowed and isn't in pursuit of a balanced budget? If the congress says, "we will raise revenues no matter what" and the governor says "I will not raise revenues not matter what", at best they are equally at fault. Why, in your mind, does the governor bear no responsibility for his childish, uncompromising ways? He is a petulant child.
I agree that they are equally at fault. Both parties had to do what they did for unallotment to happen, both had options to avoid it. I guess that makes them all petulant children doesn't it. The problem for the legislature is that once it happens the governor has all the power.
Yet again, my last comment disappears.
Though it did get counted in the comment total and under "People Are Shouting". I maintain my dislike of the new commenting system as a whole.
Same here. You listening, webmaster?
Apparently everyone EXCEPT MN Publious lies….
The Governor does not have standing to dictate whether or not there will be tax cuts. The governor does not set the outward bounds of what is acceptable. The governor has the right to give input, he does not set the rules. The rules are set by the Constituion. The Constituion explicitly state that if there is an *unforeseen* shortfall, unallotment may be used to make up the difference. The Constitution does *not* state that if the governor dislikes the budget offered him, he may use unallotment.
You can be anti-tax: that's all fine and dandy. However, you cannot be pro-Constitution and support Pawlenty's actions: you find no justification for them there.
The constitution says the governor can veto bills any bill at all for any reason, reasonable or not. The fact is the legislature passed spending bills first with no agreed upon way of paying for them. The governor cannot force the legislature to cut spending in order to meet revenue projections. The fact that the legislature would spend money it had no way of getting is what was "unforeseen".
"The constitution says the governor can veto bills any bill at all for any reason, reasonable or not. "
This was not a veto. Your point is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
"The fact is the legislature passed spending bills first with no agreed upon way of paying for them…The fact that the legislature would spend money it had no way of getting is what was "unforeseen"."
False. The legislature passed a balanced budget of thirds: 1/3 spending cuts, 1/3 accounting shifts, 1/3 revenue increases. The legislature fulfilled its constitutional duties, the governor exceeded his constitutional limits. You accept the governor's actions because you oppose tax increases. Your arguments are a huge stretch of the meaning and intent behind the laws regarding unallotment. You refuse to accept the rules if the result is against your immediate political concerns.
He vetoed the bill that would have led to a balanced budget. It is relevant because it makes your claim that that the legislature passed a balanced budget completely and utterly moot. No signature or override means the legislation of which you speak has all the legal standing of a campaign sign.
The legislature passed all of the spending bills first, without any hope of being able to raise revenue without the governor on board or the ability to override. Doing so means that my previous statement is completely accurate.
I accept the governor's actions because they seem to be appropriate within the given set of rules. I think the rules should be changed so that either the state isn't forced to balance its budget or there is a clear method of resolving impasses such as this one. The legislature and everybody else knew Pawlenty was not going to sign tax increases. The legislature then had an opportunity to determine spending given the revenue at hand. The only revenue they could rightfully expect if they could not find the votes for an override. They chose not to do that, they didn't even give themselves the chance to override since they passed the bill at the last minute. They instead passed spending that outstripped current revenue which is what opened the door to unallotment. Deal with that fact before whining about the results.
"He vetoed the bill that would have led to a balanced budget"
You're right. He created the shortfall. That you go on stating that the shortfall that you yourself claim he created was somehow "unforeseen" is quintessential pretzel logic.
You're semi-correct that "The legislature and everybody else knew Pawlenty was not going to sign tax increases." They knew he'd taken that position, but they miscalculated that he might put Minnesota's interests above his own and negotiate.
Reasonable, principled people do not take the position that you know your opponent is intransigent and therefore you should concede.
Regardless of what budget the legislature could have passed (and yes, they could have passed a spending bill that exactly matched revenue- but that point is utterly irrelevant), Pawlenty does not have the standing to enforce a "my way or the highway" approach. He was handed a balanced budget. He created a shortfall. The shortfall he created was not "unforeseen".
That they could have passed such a bill is every bit as relevant as Pawlenty vetoing the last minute bill. It means both parties in this case had the power to avoid unallotment. It means that they both together created the shortfall. Neither side can dictate to the other what they have to pass or sign and they both have the authority dig in their heals and refuse to meet the other's terms. The fact is that by statute such a situation provides the governor with all the power to unallot. This begs the question. Why the hell did the DFL pick that path?
"It means both parties in this case had the power to avoid unallotment."
Yeah. "You disagree with me, so I'm going to do something unconstitutional!"
It's clear and obvious that a special session was the constitutional path that should have been taken, assuming the two sides could not have reached a compromise (a pretty safe assumption). It's happened before, in large part because no governor has taken the Pawlenty route despite similar impasses. They didn't take the Pawlenty route because it was unconstitutional by any reasonable reading of the law.
I know very little about this stuff but isn't the alternative to Pawlenty's (unconstitutional)unallotment a government shut down until an agreement is reached. If not that, what would happen with this kind of impass?
The spending bills were already passed and signed so no shutdown. Unallotment is what happens with this kind of impasse.
The editorial is not without it's inaccuracies, but the inaccuracies were predictable, and the gist of the piece is something Democrats must deal with. The decision to file an amicus brief has it's political costs, raising as it does, the issue of DFL incompetence during the closing days of the 2009 legislative session. Since the brief itself makes it less likely rather than more likely the courts will rule against the governor, we have to ask why it was submitted?
h4LdWw rywryqxftkas, [url=http://opbmlkflhdwn.com/]opbmlkflhdwn[/url], [link=http://ptxfrzbthrca.com/]ptxfrzbthrca[/link], http://modsblfuidil.com/
Again, he can for whatever reason veto any bill. When this is done the bill has no legal meaning, zero. The governor and legislature failed to agree on a balance budget. The remedy of last resort is unallotment. The What was unforeseen was that the legislature would only present spending that would create an unbalanced budget with no way of collecting enough revenue to avoid unallotment. I have little doubt that the governor foresaw exactly what was going to happen. But since he can't force the legislature to pass the bills he wants, and they can't make him sign anything we get unallotment. The legislature could have avoided the situation by only spending the revenue at hand.
Your argument is nonsense:
Unallotment is a provision in the Constitution which both by the wording of the law and by established practice is meant only to be used in extreme situations. Your argument is that the governor can create those extreme situations in order to use the provision. Again, pretzel logic.
The governor could clearly foresee the shortfall would result from his veto. Therefore, the shortfall could not possibly be "unforeseen". A situation you create is not "unforeseen"; it was not by some unanticipated side effect of the governor's veto that the shortfall occurred. It was a direct and obvious result of his actions. Again, you cannot choose to create extreme circumstances solely to exercise your rights in those extreme circumstances. That twists law beyond reasonable interpretation.
He did not create the circumstance by himself. It was a complete team effort with the legislature playing a vital, if witless partner. Answer this question. Could the legislature have provided spending bills that only used available revenue?
None of the above justifies unallotment from a constitutional point of view, but does keep the discussion off the point of whether or not the governor was within his constitutional rights.
So, what is the constitutional solution when the legislature and governor refuse to agree on a balanced budget?
The same route that has been taken before by governors who have faced an identical problem but stayed within the bounds of the constitution: a special session/ government shutdown.
Since constitutionally only the governor can call a special session that is not really a different option. The government shutdown was also not an option since all of the spending had already been signed and passed. That means there was no reasonfor a government shutdown
Try again.
They miscalculated for sure. Which are actions were in the interests of Minnesota and which are his own is debatable and completely beside the point. They were fully aware and decided to play chicken with no way out.
They didn't take the Pawlenty route because no Minnesota Governor has had to go through such contortions to present himself as a credible presidential candidate.