Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Governor Pawlenty overstepped his authority when he unilaterally decided to cut $2.7 billion from the State budget.
Unfortunately, the Legislature is considering ratifying the Governor’s unallotments. And that includes the average $129 tax increase on low-income renters through the cut to the Renters’ Credit.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
What makes the Renters’ Credit case so surprising and so unusual is that it is still a case to be resolved in the courts. (I bet you didn’t remember that.) Yep, last week the Supreme Court only ruled on a portion of the case being lead by Legal Aid on behalf of low-income clients. In essence, the Supreme Court said that the Governor can only unallot after a balanced budget has been passed. But the lower courts are currently considering another issue: can the Governor make policy through unallotments? The answer, everyone we talk to agrees, is “No. The Legislature makes policy. The Governor executes policy.” What the Governor did in unallotting the Renters’ Credit is change the equation that leads to a household’s renters’ credit. That’s a policy change. That, we believe, is unconstitutional.
Irregardless of party, why would the Minnesota Legislature want to:
- Take action on an issue that is still in the courts … something, by tradition, they never do?
- In ratifying the Renters’ Credit unallotment, tacitly agree to the Governor making policy through unallotment?
So here’s a strategy suggested by Senator John Marty we think is worth considering:
If his proposal is that we write his unallotments into law, give him a taste of his own medicine — tell him which provisions the legislature objects to, and send it back to him. Tell him to come back with a new proposal. If he comes back with the same proposal, don’t back down — ask him which part of “NO” he doesn’t understand.
If he thinks it is impossible to meet the legislature’s objections, since he has made it clear that he won’t accept any new revenues, tell him that that is his problem. Tell him that the legislature is making it clear we are not going to accept any more cuts in health care for the sick and disabled; that we are not going to accept raising taxes on low income renters. It is his problem. If he doesn’t want to raise revenues, then he needs to find an acceptable solution that doesn’t raise them.
