Carney will be at the Legislature Thursday of this week, working to promote the "unallotment reform" bill

Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-824-4479 (home and business)

Note: please use this e-mail temporarily -- bobcarneyjr@msn.com

My e-mail address at republicancontract currently has technical problems -- Bob

Note: if you prefer to receive news releases at another e-mail address, please let me know -- Bob

For an archive of all news releases, and more information, please visit: www.republicancontract.com

For immediate release                                                                              

Minneapolis, MN, April 7, 2010 -- Moderate Progressive Republican candidate for Governor Bob Carney Jr. is calling on candidates for Governor of all parties to encourage Legislators of all parties to give serious consideration to an "unallotment reform" bill.  The chief sponsors are Representative Lyndon Carlson (HF 2866) and Senator Richard Cohen (SF 2566).

Carney has drafted an article (see below), to be published on the op-ed pages of the Star Tribune, and other Minnesota news publications.  Carney is contacting candidates for Governor, and asking them to subscribe to the article. 

DRAFT OF OP-ED ARTICLE (about 700 words)

MINNESOTA CAN REFORM OUR UNALLOTMENT LAW

Editor's Note: The following candidates for Governor, representing ___ of the three major parties, have signed this article: {list}.

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard the first "unallotment case" March 15th. The Court wanted to know if there is anything in the current law to prevent a Governor from changing priorities and policies of the Legislature based on "whim or caprice." The current issue before the court may be resolved on narrow grounds. However, it was clear from the questions asked by the justices that the constitutionality of this law is in doubt.

We don't all agree on all questions regarding unallotment. But we do all agree on these two fundamental principles:

In "... a republican form of government...," the Legislature is responsible for lawmaking, policy, and setting priorities.

The voters can and will hold the Legislature accountable for fulfilling these responsibilities.

The Legislature is now considering an "unallotment reform" bill. This bill would not affect the 2009 unallotments -- at this point only successful court challenges could do that.

Instead, the "unallotment reform" bill looks to the future, and reforms unallotment in three important ways, per the House summary:

First: unallotment is limited -- to 2% of the general fund budget. No appropriation could be reduced by more than 10%. This is about $600 million for our current biennium. Governor Pawlenty unalloted $2.7 billion in July of 2009, and reduced the Political Contribution Refund appropriation to zero.

Second: "unallotment authority can be used only with respect to that portion of a projected deficit that was not known at the completion of the last legislative session." Last year, the projected deficit of $2.7 billion was known before the end of the Legislative session.

Third: priorities cannot be changed -- reductions can only be proportionate. Last year, Governor Pawlenty's reduction of the "renter's tax credit" had the effect of rewriting the statute.

We need to clear up a misunderstanding. Some have suggested that without unallotment, Minnesota might end a biennium with a deficit, violating our Constitution. More generally, Minnesota might "become another California."

In fact, the Minnesota Constitution provides for both short term financing of a biennial deficit, and for a "day of reckoning". If a biennium ended with a deficit, both the Constitution and Minnesota law allow the Governor to "roll over" certificates of indebtedness (short term borrowing) for up to seventeen months. However, the following December 1, -- five months after the end of the biennium -- is the "day of reckoning". If there isn't enough cash in the account to pay in full any and all current certificates of indebtedness, then our Constitution requires the State Auditor to levy an across the board property tax to repay the certificates within one year.

A tax increase required by the Minnesota Constitution? Yes.

This is why Minnesota is in no danger of becoming "another California."

None of us want this to happen. We all demand a balanced budget from our Legislature. All we're saying is this: unallotment is a convenience. It can sometimes help us to ensure a balanced budget. But unallotment is not a necessity. If our Constitutionally required property tax surcharge was ever triggered, the voters of Minnesota would hold accountable every Legislator and state elected official who caused it. We all know this.

In short, Minnesota is in no financial danger -- with an unallotment law, or without it.

We are a group of sometimes feisty candidates for Governor from three different parties. You may not be surprised to hear that we don't all agree on every aspect of this bill. Amendments will probably be offered. Some of us will vote for it, others may vote against it.

However, we do all agree on this: Minnesota is heading for some very tough budget decisions in the next few years. It is important for all of us to work together whenever we possibly can. It is especially important for people of all parties to work together in the Legislature.

We all agree that the "unallotment reform" bill merits serious consideration by every individual Legislator. We believe that the caucuses should not take a position on this bill. Every Legislator should be free to vote their own conscience.

We encourage Governor Pawlenty, Commissioner Tom Hanson, and others in the administration to work with the Legislature, to improve our unallotment provisions as we go forward.

<end>