A guest commentary in the Free Press on Minnesota’s budget raised good points that I share. However, the governor’s letter asking legislators to suggest deeper cuts deserves inspection. The governor’s “request” was slipped under legislators’ doors two days after the legislative session ended and we had returned home. Many legislators never saw the letter. I found it and hand delivered a response.
Morrow032609-1218TO.jpg

Here’s my letter (with some changes for space and clarity reasons):

Dear Governor Pawlenty:

I write to respond to your request for assistance regarding the state budget and your decision to unallot. My concern with this request focuses primarily upon the sequence of events and the proper roles of the legislative and executive branches of government. For five months, the Legislature heard bills in committee, received public input, amended and debated these bills, and then sent the bills to you. The Legislature’s budget cuts in these bills exceeded your proposed budget cuts.

You signed the final versions of the budget bills, knowing the level of spending that they contained.

You knew that your $1 billion borrowing proposal was rejected in the House by a vote of 130-2. Since you signed the budget bills and as your borrowing proposal had been rejected, two recognized options to fixing the final $1 billion gap remained. You could sign the Legislature’s revenue bill with the same $1 billion or you could negotiate regarding different sources of new revenue.

Your decision to announce — days prior to the session’s end — that you intended to unallot remains troubling. The precedent of using unallotment as a pre-emptive tool could undermine the legislative process in ways that erode the checks and balances of democratic governance. I urge you to consider carefully the precedent-setting change you propose.

I urge you to reflect upon the potential impacts of your decisions to unallot. School districts, cities, nursing homes, and hospitals in my area have communicated with me concerning the harms they anticipate. Especially in rural Minnesota, where property-tax bases are often quite low and nursing homes, hospitals, and long-term care facilities are often sparsely situated, service reductions can threaten an area’s safety, health and jobs.I look forward to engaging in the constructive, respectful dialogue that Minnesotans rightly expect and that has been a hallmark of Minnesota’s tradition of governance.

Sincerely,

Terry Morrow

To recap: The Legislature did pass a balanced budget. The governor signed every spending bill. The governor proposed a $1 billion, one time loan, which lost in a bipartisan landslide, largely because it cost $600 million in interest. The Legislature proposed a pay-as-you-go approach: a temporary tax increase on higher incomes — for example, $9/month on joint filers earning $300,000/year; about 4-5 cents/drink (not raised since the 1980s); and a surcharge on some credit card companies. The governor vetoed it. The $1 billion gap remains.

Cuts cost — whether it’s higher property taxes, higher medical bills, higher health insurance premiums, higher tuitions, higher nursing home fees or other costs. Knowing that looming cuts will cost all Minnesotans, I remain ready to sit down for open, honest discussions with the governor.

Mankato Free Press (6/6/09)