Should the governor be able to act alone to set the budget?
Posted at 5:00 AM on May 6, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(32 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
The Minnesota Legislature may be asked to clarify the circumstances under which the governor can use unallotment to balance the state budget. Today's Question: Should the governor be able to act alone to set the budget?
Comments (32)
Hello amigo
I read a lot of complaints about the Governor. However, we voters put him there because we knew the legislature hates but needs the equivalent of a Dutch uncle to quench their lust for unbridled spending and taxation with no regard to the consequences of their actions.
Three emergency checks and balances were provided in our State Constitution. Two of them are draconian (unallottment and a Statewide property tax). The third (line-item veto) makes sure that the Governor is not held hostage to sign legislation containing unrelated and frivolous mesures on its coattails.
A better solution is to restore a balance of power WITHIN the legislature so the Governor does not have to use these draconian measures. Compromise produces a lose-lose solution nobody wants that is equally unfair to all. Successful negotiation produces win-win solutions that effectively solve problems. A lack of balance of power produces dictatorial win-lose solutions that do not serve the people.
We need to elect people that have the moral backbone to resist playing political games between party rivals and is willing to represent ALL the people. Any politician that uses attack ads to destroy a rivals personal reputation and personal character cannot earn the trust of his or her peers. Politics becomes a spectator sport if we voters allow that mischief to happen. I personally have had enough of that behavior. Have you?
No - it's called checks and balances for a reason.
This has been a very good read! Thank All!
Jessica I really liked yours!
No one person should have that kind of power but, yes there is a but, a one line veto to remove an addition to a bill is a good thing!
I didn't vote for Pawlenty..I knew of him from the law firm he worked at that was enough for me....
I support a Flat Tax rate. Of course there are common sense caps for the low income but it would be a fairer system.
I find it interesting that in 10 years with projecting the legislation could not see the coming short fall....what are they doing there just a spending spree?
Of course not! Pawlenty seems to have forgotten Civics 101: The governor and legislature (and courts) are CO-EQUAL branches of government. The governor seems to have too much power.
I look at my kids and the way that they socially organize themselves is so interesting. Every now and then they will play "restaurant" or "nature center" and one kid will call the shots as the others run around carrying out all the other parts of the game. However, if the kid calling the shots doesn't bow out or listen to the others, it is mutiny, and then it's "Mommmmyyyyy..." They have such an innate sense of justice. In fact the only game that I could think of in which the person who is "IT" is all on his own, is hide-and-seek. My eldest sometimes plays a version of the game called hide-so-I-can-go-do-what-I-want-until-you-realize-I'm-never-going-to-come-find-you. Is that what we want our leaders to play? Hide-and-seek with "fees" instead of taxes. Hide-and-seek tax breaks? Hide-and-seek corporate welfare? How about some face-and-face? How about a little more negotiating?
Why are people who make the lowest incomes in the state having a higher percentage rate of tax drawn out of their paychecks each week (12%), while those making 30 million per year are paying 7% (MN Department of Revenue 2006 Tax Incidence Study)? I really feel that the problem many of us have with this governor is his failure to face the fact that the wealthiest people in this state need to pay the same percentage of income tax as the rest of us. Business owners are NOT the only contributors or components to economic stability and growth! He's cutting himself and his buddies breaks while cutting medical services for the homeless, some of whom are veterans. Supreme Court ruled in the little guys favor, but the money is already spent.
Some kids never have to play fair. They grow up with every thing they need - food and clothes are not even issues for their families. When there is always more than enough a person doesn't have the same sense of urgency to learn to share or negotiate.
A "sense of entitlement" creeps in when you always expect to have because you always have had. An "entitlement" is NOT food support when you have an unexpected medical bill and there is never extra and your wages are cut $2,000 per year over 30 years. Food support, medical care, unemployment benefits, an equal education, maternity leave, welfare to work; those safety nets are needs being met as the result of successful, democratic societies. Tax breaks, bail outs, bonuses, cash for clunkers, and too big to fails are wants that result from "senses of entitlement."
Is anyone else ready to scream Ollie, Ollie, Umphrey! or is it just me???
James DTOM, you write such clever, pithy satire! You really capture the absurdity of the extreme right-wing rhetoric. I mean, the idea that what we got is "socialized medicine"-- what a hoot! The sad thing is, some people actually believe rhetoric like that.
I walked into the Document Processing Center at the office today to get a box of papers as there was a conversation between the workers going on. I heard one of them say something to the order of, "Did you hear about that whacked-out guy from Egan....?" As I was leaving the room I said, "you mean the Governor?" They all laughed.
No.
However, Obama pretty much single handedly shoved socialized medical down our throats.
DTOM
No. As many people have pointed out, checks and balances are critical to our model of government.
What I think many people who want to cry 'No more taxes!' are missing is that the BALANCE between taxes is what is critical. On one scale you have the need to keep tax rates at a level that's affordable and attractive to businesses. On the other hand you have the social obligation to provide for people in poor social situations. Move EITHER one too far and you mess up your economy. Businesses leave town or lower hiring rates in one case, people starve, crime rates go up, and children go without proper education in the other case.
I'd recommend advocates of a 'NO TAXES, ALL MY MONEY IS MINE MINE MINE!' think about what an all capitalist system would look like. For the money you pay in taxes, could you send your kids to a private school? Afford to have every road you have be a toll road? Have the police or the fire department drive away without helping you because you don't have a check for them in hand when they arrive?
And on the other side... we all know socialism doesn't work, not because it's inherently an evil system that takes away all our freedoms and hates us for being American, but because it provides no system to motivate people to try to better themselves. If I run up 100K in bills to become a doctor but get paid like someone with a 10K degree, why bother?
So, checks and balances. All of it.
Absolutely not!
Calling Minnesota government a democracy will continue to be a joke until this issue is cleared up.
(and to think.. I voted for him.. lesson learned, I guess.)
Of course the governor should be able to act alone on the budget. (S)he should likewise write legislation & control the judiciary - we can dispense with two entire branches of government. Let the Governor invalidate union contracts as necessary, make up environmental law as (s)he sees fit, etc. It'll cut a heck of a lot of red tape out of government. Shoot, the ensuing economic growth might just rocket our state off the planet, it would be so hot. I just hope we don't supernova.
No. Unless we want to be governed by a monarchy.
I can't believe today's question actually asks should the governor be able to act alone to set the budget. Does anybody in America ever read and learn from history? The whole reason we have our democracy is because King George had the legal authority to tax us, the 13 colonies, whenever he wanted to. Yet, here MPR is today, asking listeners, if we think the Governor should have sole legal authority to set the budget, as if the only issue being decided is the state's deficit. What if Governor Pawlenty had the legal authority to do the budget himself and he decided to include a swimming pool for the Governor's mansion and nobody could oppose this budget item? Does that crystallize this dumb question for us now? Every last one of us should praise the founding fathers for the system we have today. We shouldn't even have to think about this question.
Except, Craig, that the Legislature did indeed pass a balanced budget. That is, it was balanced until T-Paw unbalanced it by vetoing the tax part, which gave him the excuse he wanted for unallotment.
No. Veto gives the governor the power to force a rework of the budget until it is sufficient in his sight. An unreasonable governor can have his veto overriden if a sufficient number of legislators approve.
No matter how much they dislike each other, the governor and/or legislators need to work together and determine a compromise budget. That's why we elect them.
Both the governor and the legislature had an incentive to force un-allotment.
By putting forth an unbalanced budget, the legislators avoided voting for unpopular cuts that might have hurt them in the next election.
The governor, on the other hand, had no incentive to press for a balanced budget because un-allotment gave him a salient opportunity to portray himself as a fiscal hawk, which bolsters his presidential ambitions.
Each side played the un-allotment game to their personal advantage.
No! The governor is not a dictator, regardless of how much the current one likes to think he is. How hypocritical is it that the same party that has a gubernatorial candidate arguing that all social safety net programs should be eliminated because they are not in the constitution is also arguing that Pawlenty did have the right to do an end run around the Constitution with unallotment?
No.
Last year it felt like the Governor engineered a situation in which he would proceed with unalottment. It felt like he was not negotiating in good faith, just so that he could do what he wanted.
I think there should be a law that says, in effect, if a Governor does that, then taxes absolutely will rise to pay for the things he failed to negotiate in good faith about.
In other words, the default would be that the Governor loses if it seems like he's not negotiating in good faith. The reciprocal could be that, if the legislature is not negotiating in good faith, then the default might be that the programs are cut.
That said, the problem seems to have been that Governor Pawlenty does not negotiate at all. He absolutely should lose because of that irresponsibly intransigent attitude.
No. We are a democracy of checks and balances, not a monarchy or dictatorship
> Should the governor be able to act alone to set the budget?
Obviously not! What's next, governing with emergency measures with the force of law, to "protect the public"? Dictatorships are worse in the long run, even if the dictator is elected; for example, look to Venezuela.
How do we bring the legislature and governor to agree on a balanced budget? The budget problem will probably become more difficult in the years ahead, not easier. Maybe less vacation for the legislature is an option, until they have decided on a budget.
No, we elect representatives to work with the governor to solve these budget shortfalls. Pawlenty has decided to take this power away from all the voters in Minnesota. I want to be represented at the negotiation table. He was not elected a King or Dictator, but a Governor of a constitutional democracy.
It seems necessary since the Legislature can't seem to get anything done, they're
always hurrying around at the last minute.
I don't like the governor having the ability to unilaterally decide important issues, but ...
@Clark: Why wait? Get out now!
I have to agree with Deb about the purpose of unallotment: to make changes between legislative sessions under unforeseen circumstances. I don't know how it was originally written, and if that was the intention behind it or not, but it seems like the most reasonable case for using it.
NO, we elect our representatives to speak for us "the citizens" of this state and the governor to implement what they legislate. Unallotment is the governor trying to be a legislator after falling to balance the budget WITH the legislative branch.
NO! I want to see legistlators and the govenor come together, make the hard decisions and act in the best interest of the state, not personal or professional gain.
Sure, why not? It would be so much easier if one person would just make the decision, and everyone else would just go along. Why waste the time of 201 legislators by making them debate issues? Think of how much more efficient our government would be if there were just one decision-maker. The rest of us wouldn't have to pay attention to the news or fret about whom to vote for. Wouldn't that be great?
No, not alone.
But looks what's happening in Greece and Europe right now. They can't afford their government and it's killing their economy. No matter how much they tax, they still can't satisfy the insatiable beast called government. Government spending takes capital out of the private sector. Without a robust private sector, we have fewer private sector jobs to pay for the increasing government jobs.
We are headed that way. We can't tax ourselves into prosperity. Our state government is unsustainable.
No.
Previous Governors have worked with the legislature. Pawlenty has refused to. He seems to think he is the sole decider.
In addition to the budget, he and/or his office has stated that he will sign a specific bill and then he vetoes it.
To me, the unallotment procedure was written for the Governor to unallot ONLY between sessions because of some unforeseen change in available money.
It is time for Governor Pawlenty to be the Governor of the State of Minnesota. To work with the legislature as previous Governors have.
In short, it is supposed to be a triumvirate approach that starts with the Governor (a proposed budget), followed by deliberations and action by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The use of unallotment should be the tool of last resort, not the first. The expectation is that the legislative branch and executive branch would make good-faith efforts to reach an accord on budgetary matters. In our present situation, both branches share the blame, IMHO.
It would also be interesting to see how many states in the 21st century operate on a biennial budget versus an annual one. Switching to an annual budget is not a panacea by any stretch of the imagination, but it *might* reduce some volatility.
Keep in mind that for 115 years (until 1973), the Minnesota Legislature only convened in odd-numbered years. While it would be nice to dream of a return to the legislature meeting every other year, it is also unrealistic.
Yes, yes and Yes. I am a moderate who is very tired of having my income confiscated by the wagon riders in this state.
As more and more companies begin to relocate out of Minnesota, the far left will soon understand who actually pays the bills.
Gov. Pawlenty has been a great Govenor and had the courage to stand up to the far left whose only mission is too insure equality of outcome as they do not believe in"merit" .
Go ahead and raise my taxes again and see how long I remain in this state!
No. Under no cirumstances. No. No. No. I am politically left leaning, and don't favor Pawlenty's "choices". However, I wouldn't want a democrat or independent with that power either. the budgeting process of government is supposed to be elected officials working for their values and causes - but working out a mutually acceptable end point. And the governor - should be participating as a negotiator - not as the foot stamping "I won't signer". Beligerent politics as the starting point is bascially the role of a quitter. Also, I am not very happy with line-item veto's unless their is a limit on how much can be excised - thus forcing a governor to really have to work through his LOV's. Gov. Pawlenty seems to think his role is the deciderator. Fine - he can go have Tea with Sarah. But don't be crabbing about the deal that gets done.
| May 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock