Comments on: Winona Daily Post lies about unallotment

By: pqkrug

pqkrug — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:25:05 +0000

h4LdWw rywryqxftkas, [url=http://opbmlkflhdwn.com/]opbmlkflhdwn[/url], [link=http://ptxfrzbthrca.com/]ptxfrzbthrca[/link], http://modsblfuidil.com/

By: Hiram

Hiram — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:49:28 +0000

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?

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:31:05 +0000

Same here. You listening, webmaster?

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:25:07 +0000

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.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:03:51 +0000

The spending bills were already passed and signed so no shutdown. Unallotment is what happens with this kind of impasse.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:02:57 +0000

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.

By: Kerosene Hat

Kerosene Hat — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:17 +0000

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.

By: @CharlieQuimby

@CharlieQuimby — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:47:02 +0000

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.

By: theoko

theoko — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:30:45 +0000

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.

By: theoko

theoko — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:29:10 +0000

"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.