State's budget is a puzzle that can be solved

There's even what might be called a nuclear option, but let's not use it.

By BOB CARNEY JR.

This article was published January 13, 2010 on the Star Tribune's op-ed page.

Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin, in her recent ruling rejecting Gov. Tim Pawlenty's unallotment of a nutrition program, has given us another piece for our Minnesota budget puzzle. Can we the people solve this puzzle?

Here are the pieces -- and one solution:

•Gearin's ruling: The judge held that Pawlenty "crossed the line" with his end-of-session unallotments. She wrote that unallotment "is not meant to be used as a weapon by the executive branch to break a stalemate in budget negotiations with the Legislature."

•However, here's a less publicized excerpt from the judge's opinion: "It would be improper for this court to revisit the constitutionality of the unallotment statute itself. It is constitutional. It was the specific manner in which the governor exercised his unallotment authority that trod upon the constitutional power of the Legislature."

•Pawlenty's record and agenda: He appears to be running for president, as a tough-minded fiscal conservative. Here's a fair question: Might the imperative of presidential fundraising be a corrupting influence on the governor?

In the 2006 campaign, Pawlenty did not renew his 2002 "no new taxes" pledge. At the 2006 Fifth District convention, I handed the governor a contract that included this point: "The governor will not be bound by any economic special interest pledge." Pawlenty said he would read it, and his campaign manager wrote to me that "the governor has decided not to sign any pledges for interest groups or individuals at this time." That included the "no new taxes" pledge -- and this remained his position through the campaign.

Here's his record (like it or not): For four biennial general-fund budgets, spending has increased an average of 2 percent per year -- half a point less than inflation.

•The June/July unallotment: Pawlenty vetoed the last revenue bill, which would have balanced the budget with $900 million in new taxes and $1.8 billion in shifts to the next biennium. The governor unallotted the same $1.8 billion in shifts, but without means to repay them.

According to the most recent forecast, in November, the state faces an additional shortfall of $1.16 billion for the biennium.

Here's a reasonable two-step process for putting this puzzle together:

•First, the governor and Legislature should agree on a revised version of the last revenue bill, including the $900 million in tax increases. This will retroactively balance the budget as of the start of the biennium.

There will probably be continuing legal battles about unallotment -- but with a focus on statutory interpretation, not constitutional questions. The governor will not have violated any promise made in the 2006 campaign. And his eight-year record of general fund spending increasing at less than inflation will be virtually unchanged.

•Second, the governor and the Legislature can and should negotiate on the additional $1.16 billion shortfall. But this must be understood: If Pawlenty follows the letter of the unallotment law, he has the power -- per Gearin's order -- to unallot the full $1.16 billion if he and the Legislature can't negotiate a solution.

• • •

This puzzle can be solved. But what if the governor refuses? Then we have to look at the final piece.

The Legislature can impeach -- on noncriminal grounds -- for "corrupt conduct in office." If the House impeached Pawlenty, he would immediately be suspended from his duties. On the day Gearin heard arguments in the unallotment case, I testified before the House Rules Committee. I recommended that a study be commenced of how the phrase "corrupt conduct in office" should properly be understood.

In the final analysis, wouldn't we all rather see the Legislature and the governor use their "institutional competencies," as Gearin termed them, to solve this puzzle -- rather than dragging the Minnesota Supreme Court into the mud?

Impeachment is a malady with a high fever, but the constitutional provisions are clear. And we have a way to break impeachment fever: elections. We the citizens of Minnesota can, should and will hold legislators accountable -- up or down -- if they conclude impeachment is necessary and proper.

This puzzle looks a lot better without that final piece.

Bob Carney Jr., of Minneapolis, is a candidate for governor. A separate lawsuit he filed challenging Pawlenty's unallotment of the state's Political Contribution Refund program was dismissed on Monday by Gearin.