When the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in a 4-3 decision that Gov. Tim Pawlenty exceeded his executive powers when he unilaterally unallotted $2.7 billion before he and the Legislature had finished enacting the state’s biennial budget last year, the court protected the most basic tenet of our representative democracy — separation of powers.
The court reasoned the state’s unallotment statute provides the executive branch with authority to address an unanticipated deficit that arises after the legislative and executive branches have enacted a balanced budget. The key word is unanticipated.
What the statute does not do, according to the court, is allow the executive branch to address a deficit that remains after a legislative session because the legislative and executive branches have not resolved their differences.
Despite the fiscal consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we believe it was the right decision. Had the governor’s unallotments been upheld, a dangerous precedent would have been established by which the executive branch could effectively bypass the legislative branch in crafting a budget.
The House of Representatives is expressly given sole power in the state constitution to initiate revenue bills and the primary responsibility to establish spending priorities through the enactment of appropriations laws. The only formal budgetary authority the governor is given is to approve or veto bills passed by the Legislature, with the more specific line-item veto authority with respect to appropriations bills.
Despite the cry of judicial activism raised by Republican candidate for governor Rep. Tom Emmer in the wake of last week’s ruling, the Supreme Court properly used its constitutional authority to check the power of the executive branch to bypass the legislative branch just as our state constitution intended.
That said, balancing the state budget remains to be accomplished. The Legislature this week may have agreed to go along with the governor’s 2009 unallotments out of sheer expedience, but the seemingly never-ending budget shortfalls besetting the state make us believe there has to be a better long-term solution. Spending cuts alone will not do the job.
In previous editorials we have made no bones about our disagreement with the governor’s ideological intransigence in refusing to consider raising income taxes on the top 1 percent of Minnesotans as a means to help balance the budget. We know that will not change, but we still disagree with him.
Perhaps, as was suggested in an editorial Tuesday in the Star Tribune, the time has come to extend the state sales tax to clothing and personal services, and to raise “sin” taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Let’s include groceries, as well.
Let everyone share equally in the pain of balancing the budget.
