Our Democracy was based on certain ideals like a constitution that protected rights of people and like separation of powers into three branches of government. Constitutionally making corporations into people has broken the rights of people. The budget and policy rights of the legislature have been taken by presidents and governors. Our Governor Tim Pawlenty's deliberate planned use of unallotment to essentially remove legislature power is part of a court filing, quoted in one of today's recommended diaries on DailyKOS:
It would dramatically change the structure of government created by the Minnesota Constitution if this Court were to sanction a process in which this or any other Governor could sign appropriations into law, then veto revenue bills, and then use unallotment to ignore legislative appropriations and to rewrite the budget according to the Governor's own legislative priorities. This in fact is what has occurred. This use of unallotment was unauthorized by any law and was unconstitutional.
The Uptake will be streaming live coverage of the oral arguments today before Minnesota's Supreme Court.
The executive power has also been abused through how the law is enforced. Republican governors have particularly not enforced selected laws. Now judges and sheriffs are now getting into the process of overruling legislatures through how and which laws are enforced. This totally violates the principles of separation of powers, democracy and values of fairness.
In perhaps the most bizarre twist of all, my local Ramsey county Sheriff's race now has a group of ***DFL*** supporters and perhaps the campaign arguing for voting for the Sheriff based on legislative policy issue stances! My endorsed candidate, Matt Bostrom, from the beginning of the campaign declared that legislative issues are off limits unless they are very directly related to the Sheriff's office. For there is no perception of fairness when officiating civil rights issues when then personal stances of law enforcement officials is known. For example, Sheriff Fletcher is widely known to be a pro-war advocate. Especially law enforcement and judges ought to be selected by character, integrity and fairness (as well as ability to do the job).
So the real questions are: Do we stand up for principles of democracy and separation of powers always? Or is the DFL as bad as Republicans in erosion of Democratic principles when it is in our policy favor? Will we be suddenly for unallotment and expanded gubernatorial powers when we have a Democratic governor?
Last night, on AM950 Radio's "Minnesota Matters - Friday Edition" show, we had State Senator Jim Carlson, DFL, SD-38 on, to discuss how Minnesota, under the "fiscally (non)conservative" Gov. Tim Pawlenty got the state into it's latest budgetary mess.
Well, we also talked about The Sons Of Nixon's Plumbers, a story that's not going away, and we played "False or False Witness!" too - Bachmann MotorMouth Overdrive's quote is below the fold, at the very end. But, the bulk of the show was how Gov. TBag deliberately put the State into an unbalanced budget, so TBag could exercise Unitary Executive Power (Nixon would be so proud!).
When the podcast/download becomes available, I'll update and link to it.
In the meantime, Senator Carlson's sheet explaining what we talked about is below the fold.
In a nutshell, here's what happened:
The February 2009 Forecast predicted revenues of $31.1 Billion (rounded). Knowing that number, Gov. TBag proceeded signed Spending Bills of $33.8 Billion (rounded) anyway.
This created a deficit from Governor-approved spending (remember, when TBag signed those spending bills, they were now law) and the Feb 2009 Forecast of $2.7 Billion (rounded). A bill to balance that deficit, HF-2323, was passed and presented to Gov. TBag to sign. Except, TBag didn't sign that revenue bill to balance the budget; he vetoed it.
Upon creating an unbalanced budget, TBag immediately claimed unilateral power to fix the problem he created, and then hit the campaign trail. As to TBag's actions creating an anticipated budget problem, then using powers to deal with unanticipated budget problems? The Court was not amused.
- WCCO has what is apparently intended as a cautionary message. People better not get the idea that this will be a serious problem for Gov. Pawlenty, the man whose presidential run is going to be 'CCO's ticket to an almost frantically longed-for ratings boost...in their own minds, anyway.
Though I've been having fun with debunking the right, I see a need to debunk something on the left too. Specifically, I'm referring to this moroseness afflicting many of us who were getting ready to party a year ago as we looked forward to a new Congress and new president. Plenty has gone wrong this year, sure. We poured our personal wealth and elbow grease into electing people who in some cases have disappointed us. It seems we're always having to give up something really good in hopes of getting just something.
However, a lot has gone right in this year ending tonight, more than many of us have recognized. The health care bill has sucked the air out of the proverbial room. More troops heading to Afghanistan has grabbed most of the attention available for foreign policy. The biggest complaint of many on the left, me included, has been the continuation of Bush policies in regard to civil liberties and human rights.
It's been long enough since I posted part 2 (and here's part 1) that I felt a need to explain the point of these posts again. My own experience is I thought this would be one post, and I was surprised when I finished part two that there was plenty for a part 3.
That's a good thing.
What got me to finally get on this today is something I just learned, and that I'm pretty sure is not common knowledge, but should be. Ever wondered why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Voting Rights Act was passed separately in 1965? Because the only way to get the Civil Rights Act past the conservative (including the dixiecrats who make up the base of the modern GOP) filibuster was to drop voting rights. Voting rights? And we thought dropping the public option was tough! But voting rights got through the next year, so don't anyone despair about having to do things incrementally.
So let's get started, and I think I'll start with what I expect will be the most controversial silver lining (you can tell me in comments if I'm right), the things that went right in regard to war crimes, human rights and civil liberties.
Of course the primary source for information and righteous opinion regarding yesterday's court decision spanking Gov. Tim Pawlenty for his abuse of unallotment is this very blog, i.e. scroll down to the posts by Grace Kelly and Joe Bodell. Very righteous opinion!
The other must-see was put together by Mike McIntee of The Uptake, and is posted at Daily Kos. His interview with David Lillehaug runs about twelve minutes.
Since this is unquestionably a setback for Guv. TBag - though the potential magnitude of it is still quite unclear, and it may be unwise to get too excited yet, even if you detest TPaw's governorship as much as I do - it's perhaps surprising local corporate media isn't trying to brush it off entirely on its golden boy's behalf.
Wow, while most of us saw Governor Pawlenty's use of unallotment as a total violation of legislative power, it is still very nicely reassuring when courts say the same thing:
It was the specific manner in which the Governor exercised his unallotment authority that trod upon the constitutional power of the Legislature, and the Legislature alone to make laws that, in the Court's opinion, was unconstitutional.
(snip)
The governor used unallotment rather that calling a special session of the legislature or vetoing the appropriations bill to balance the budget. He did this after singing numerous spending bills which taken together, he knew would not balance the budget unless revenues were raised. He used the unallotment statue to address a situation that was neither unknown nor unanticipated when the appropriations bills became law. The Governors actions in this instance differed from his use of unallotment in the Rukivina case. In that situation the governor used unallotment to protect the state from a financial crisis that was both unknown and unanticipated whiten the appropriation bills were signed.
(from an emailed copy of the court brief)
Good thing that the legislature is about to go into session, otherwise Governor Pawlenty would have to call a special session. Now Governor Pawlenty may have to learn the meaning of the word "negotiate".
the law requires the judge to take into account whether the plaintiffs have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the end, which means that Gearin thinks it's' reasonably likely that she will ultimately overturn Pawlenty's ruling.
Gearin specifies in the order that the governor's power of unallotment is constitutional, as previous court rulings have found, but the use of it in this specific instance was unconstitutional because it violated the balance of powers bwtween the executive and legislative branches of the state government.
It is noteworthy that the basis of her ruling is constitutional (not statutory) and the logic of her ruling would seem to apply to the entire unallotment, not just to the case of the few plaintiffs whose aid would have been cut off.
The constitutional vs. statutory point is important -- if Pawlenty's use of unallotment were simply a matter of law, that law could easily be changed. However, since the judge has found that there's a reasonable chance that Pawlenty has violated the state constitution, it puts T-Paw in a much more tenuous legal position.
Note to 2012 GOP convention delegates -- if the judge ultimately overturns Pawlenty's unallotment, it means he didn't actually keep to his reactionary promises on taxes and revenue.
As you may have noticed, I haven't written much lately. Normally and just going by past history, I really hate Teh XMas Season. I often get a case of ennui and angst this time of year and don't want to do anything. Strangely, the season doesn't seem to the problem this year. While the peanut isn't really old enough (15 months Wednesday) to understand XMas, becoming a father has changed my attitude.
Instead it seems that healthcare reform, the effects of unallotment and fears about the 2010 election have supplanted it.
In a time of America's desparate need for leadership combined with an unprecedented opportunity to fix how America does healthcare, America was given Sen. Harry Reid. Sen. Wetnoodle did his utmost, not just to grasp defeat from the jaws of possible victory, but to clasp that misbegotten, foul-smelling wretch to his chest in a loving embrace. Millions will be insured now which is good, but Congress protected the insurance industry when we had the chance to stop their evil ways. I kinda feel like Charlie Brown agreeing to try and kick the football again.
Tim Pawlenty is willing to stomp all over Minnesota's young, poor, elderly, disabled and mentall ill to further his presidential ambitions. Aw heck, he's willing to make all of us suffer but especially those least able to adapt to the changes. Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-Mpls) described it best with her analogy that Pawlenty's idea of a diet plan was amputation. The real effects on real people's lives is going to be horrific.
"The federal government is running a Ponzi scheme on the Potomac, and it needs to come to an end." -- Tim Pawlenty, GINO-MN, Dec. 16th, 2009
Well, if TBag says so; after all, if there's anyone that should know Ponzi Schemes, it's Tim "I'm the unalloterer!" Pawlenty - shown here with his good pal, Tom Petters, who was recently convicted for running a $3 billion Ponzi scheme:
Someday, TBag is going to have to explain his relationship with not only Tom Petters, but Frank Vennes, too.
Birds of a feather flock together. And the initials are "t" and "p." As in Tim Pawlenty. As in Tom Petters. As in enough slime to gag a maggot. (more, here)
(Finally, some good news. Thanks, Eric - promoted by The Big E)
There are many people on the left feeling like every thing has gone to crap since we celebrated Obama's inauguration. The approval ratings of Obama and Congress are lousy, in no small part because of disgruntled Democrats who feel Obama has followed Bush's policies on the wars and civil liberties. Allegedly Democratic senators are on the point of killing health care reform, conservatives are resurgent and feeling quite cocky about their prospects for next year. At the state level, Pawlenty is so far getting away with unallotment and somehow still has about half on Minnesotans liking him.
However, some things have gone well over the last year, and even some disappointments have their mitigations. Suspect if you want that I'm keeping the glass half full by pouring a bucket into a bottomless glass, but consider a few things. All right, a bunch of things, which is why this is just part 1 instead of the whole thing. It was getting rather long for a blog, but let's get started:
I read Joe Bodell's piece (below this one) about the conservatives "owning" Minnesota's latest budget disaster (a shortfall of 1.2 billion dollars.) Of course Joe's right--the principle is so basic that even a conservative can understand it, if he wants to: if you speeeennnd money, you have to paaaay iiit baaack--and in government, that means increased taxation. You can cut spending to the bone and beyond, but at a certain point you must raise taxes to pay for what has been spent. It happened after Reagan, it happened after Bush I, and it is happening right now after Bush II.
But this is very funny: just two days ago, some poor GOP b*****d in the state legislature just published an article that said these problems were solved and there was nothing more to worry about!
Here's what this legislator, Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) wrote just two days before the announcement of a 1.2 billion dollar deficit:
November 30 2009
Unallotment match is over - let's move on
Regardless of your feelings surrounding Gov. Pawlenty's unallotment of the state's budget earlier this year, most of us have recognized that the state's books are balanced...
By: Rep. Tim Kelly, The Republican Eagle
Regardless of your feelings surrounding Gov. Pawlenty's
unallotment of the state's budget earlier this year, most of us have recognized that the state's books are balanced and are ready to have their lawmakers tackle Minnesota's problems when session reconvenes in February... ( continued below)
I'm going to jump ahead of the obvious criticism of that headline and acknowledge it's premature. We don't yet know how the health care debate will come out. I'm going to expound on the lessons learned anyway for two reasons, only the weaker of which is that at this point, we've seen enough to be pretty sure what some of the lessons will be. With the acknowledgment that this assertion is arguable, I'm confident that most of what I say will hold up when a bill is passed and when some time has passed.
However, the second reason is not arguable at all: the legislative fights to which these lessons must be applied are starting already. The state legislature goes into its non-budgetary session in January, where it will be trying to reverse some of Pawlenty's unallotments, especially GAMC. There will also be the bonding bill which is always contentious, at least with Gov. Wounded Deer still in office. Congress is already working on financial reform and global warming legislation, the corporate lobbyists have already chosen their targets, and conservatives are certain to use the same tactics they've been using to obstruct health care, the stimulus, and pretty much everything. That's why the heading says "apply" instead of "learn". What particularly worries me is I see the same mistakes being made at this early stage.
In all the kerfuffle of Netroots Minnesota this weekend, I didn't get a chance to read the amicus brief filed by the House of Representatives in the lawsuit accusing Tim Pawlenty of overstepping his gubernatorial authority by using unallotment earlier this year.
The amicus brief stands on several main points:
1.) Defendants' Own Actions Led to the Budget Shortfall That They Have Used to Justify Their Unallotment Actions.
2.) Defendants Unallotted State Spending Using Projections from the February Forecast.
3.) Defendants' Unallotment has no Precedent in Minnesota History.
And then their argument is summarized as follows:
1.) THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS TO REDUCE ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE UNALLOTMENT STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN MET FOR THE 2010 - 2011 FISCAL BIENNIUM.
A.) Defendants Have Not made the Required Statutory Determination that "probable receipts * * * will be less than anticipated" as required by § 16A.152.
B.) The Unallotment Statute may only be used after the Biennium has begun.
2.) IF THE UNALLOTMENT LAW ALLOWS NEGATING OR REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES KNOWN WHEN THEY WERE ENACTED INTO LAW, IT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE.
A.) The Minnesota Constitution Provides Means for Resolving Disputes between the Legislature and the Governor in Order to Adhere to a Balanced Budget.
B.) If the Unallotment Law Authorizes the Executive Action Taken in This Case, Then the Unallotment Law is Unconstitutional.
C. Rukavina v. Pawlenty Has Limited Application to This Case.
D. Invalidating the Executive Action in this Case is Consistent with the Case Law in Other States
There's a lot in there, but basically the House appears to be saying this: the conditions intended to trigger the possibility of unallotment were not met when Tim Pawlenty said he was going to use the power. He used it incorrectly (by improperly using the February budget estimates, and the way he tried to unallot -- by signing an appropriations bill but not a tax bill, and then slashing appropriations to fit his fancy, despite the fact that he already knew what tax revenues were going to look like -- is unconstitutional.
Unallotment is intended -- by law -- to be used once a budget biennium has begun, and tax receipts are lagging behind what two-year-old projections indicated they would be. Instead, Pawlenty unallotted a future appropriations schedule before any of those conditions had been met, essentially rewriting the laws passed by the legislature in doing so.
The point about Rukavina v. Pawlenty is an interesting one. I'm not familiar with the case itself, but this amicus brief makes it sound like the issue in that case was whether unallotment as a whole was even consitutional. The court held that it was, but the House appears to be getting ahead of any counter-argument that might use that 2004 case to argue in favor of Pawlenty's unallotment.
According to the House Session and Committee schedule, the hearing will be held in the basement--hopefully in an unheated, poorly-lit part of it, with nothing served for refreshments, and maybe while members wear weather-inappropriate and threadbare clothes. This would help members experience the quality-of-life effects that losing funds through TPaw's nutrition plan and renter's credit unallotment are having and will have on many of the poorest Minnesotans, most of them either children, the disabled, or disabled children.
MPR news reports that the committee will discuss
whether to file a friend of the court brief in a lawsuit that challenges Gov. Pawlenty's unallotment authority. A spokesman for House Democrats says the members will discuss whether the Minnesota House should file an Amicus Brief on the matter
.
While they House members are deliberating, they may want to take into account that Pawlenty's irresponsible economic antics, besides being cruel and unusual, haven't even got a chance to solve the problem he claimed they would. The State of MN will still need to pull out its credit card in a big way, as the StarTrib reports
Tom Hanson, commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, told a legislative subcommittee Thursday that the slow recovery could trigger general fund shortfalls in the spring significant enough to warrant short-term borrowing for the first time in a quarter-century. The state's tax collections are already $223 million lower than officials predicted.
If our Congress or the Court is going to allow Pawlenty to tapdance on the State Constitution in order to shake out money that has been legislated for the needy, does that mean we've decided to forego that whole checks and balances thing?
"In my judgment the law does not allow that" said former US Attorney David Lillehaug of the Governor's action, "and now we'll find out for sure." David Lillehaug has been counseling clients about unallotment, however he does not currently have an unallotment case.
Six people have filed in Ramsey County court, represented by Mid-Minnesota Legal Services, to undo several billion dollars of "unallotments" that Governor Pawlenty made at the end of this year's legislative session.
