DFLers and Republicans at odds over interpretation of four-year balanced budget requirement

About that bill requiring the state of Minnesota to balance its budget not only for the current biennium but for 2012-13 as well:

As we posted yesterday, Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague) is claiming that the law does not require Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s revised budget (due later this month) to solve the problem of the next biennium because "the Governor has already completed his statutory requirement of proposing a budget." Pawlenty, who spoke only obliquely about the law in his Tuesday press conference, seems likely to make a similar argument.

DFL leaders beg to disagree. Here’s the text of a letter signed by Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis) and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Minneapolis) that was circulated at the DFL’s post-forecast presser:

Dear Governor Pawlenty,

As you know, the legislation you recently signed into law requires you to submit, and the Legislature to enact, a balanced budget for both the upcoming biennium, Fiscal Years 10-11, and the planning estimates for the following biennium Fiscal Years 12-13. This requirement is made easier in the upcoming biennium by the infusion of federal stimulus money but is optentially more challenging in the following biennium (FY 12-13) if the state does not acknowledge the one-time nature of the funds in its budget plans.

To put the state back on a fiscally healthy course, it is imperative that actions be taken in this year’s budget to achieve structural balance by eliminating the gap between spending and revenues now and into the future. Unfortunately, the budget you submitted in January left a structural deficit of $2.5 billion for Fiscal Years 12-13. We look forward to reviewing your supplemental budget and expect that this imbalance is eliminated, as required by Chapter 5, 2009 Session Laws.

No Responses to “DFLers and Republicans at odds over interpretation of four-year balanced budget requirement”

1. Anonymous Says:
   March 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am

   Rep. Laura Brod voted against this new law. She is thus not a qualified source regarding the intent of this law. The author of the adopted amendment made clear its intent was to require the governor to submit the required four-year balanced budget to the legislature this session. The intent of the law is clear from the letter signed by the Speaker and Majority Leader.

   Rep. Brod has these facts yet is attempting to give cover to the governor to aid him in seeking to circumvent the law.
   She should drop this attempt to help the governor avoid the law and instead honor the laws of the state as she has shown to uphold.