Pogemiller: Why does Pawlenty want legislative blessing on a schools shift now?

If you’re wondering about the implications of Judge Kathleen Gearin’s temporary injunction in the unallotments court case last week, you’re in good company. Legislators, Pawlenty administration officials and staffers in both branches are still scrambling to digest what it all means for the bleeding state budget and the upcoming legislative session.

This morning I talked by phone with Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller about the Gearin decision and the meeting between Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislative leaders this Friday. Among the questions on Pogemiller’s mind: What difference would it really make if the Legislature authorized a school payment shift, as Pawlenty is now asking? Though Pogemiller parses his words carefully, it’s clear he suspects that it’s an attempt at political window-dressing by another name.

“I’m going to ask him on Friday” about the shift request, Pogemiller tells PIM. “I think it’s possible that he does question whether he has the legal authority to have done what he did. But it’s more likely that he’s just trying to figure out a way to re-characterize the unallocation. Because it’s clearly a cut to education.”

Here’s the brief interview.

PIM: Based on what you can see from here, just days after the Gearin injunction, do you have any clear notion of what that case could mean for the state’s cash flow picture and the dynamics of the upcoming session?

Larry Pogemiller: I don’t know about the cash flow yet. We’re actually having some people work on that. It’s also not clear, frankly, how it affects the session. The Gearin ruling only affects the $5 million in funding for that program, and it’s unclear if anything else is going to happen [i.e., further legal action concerning other unallotments].

I think we were all a little surprised-we don’t know why the governor is asking for a special session, really, on the unallotments to schools. We’re meeting with him on Friday. [House Speaker] Margaret [Anderson Kelliher] and I talked yesterday, and we’re not clear on his reasons. The court didn’t deal with [Pawlenty's "mimic" of a school payment shift].

I don’t see Gearin dealing with [the shift question] at all unless somebody else does something. Her ruling is fairly limited. It says the unallotment statute is constitutional, but the way he used it is inappropriate. So unless a higher court says something else-like the whole thing is unconstitutional-it’s not clear to me how this affects that situation.

PIM: Then why do you suppose the governor’s so urgent about getting a legislatively authorized shift now?

Pogemiller: I don’t know. I’m going to ask him on Friday. I think it’s possible that he does question whether he has the legal authority to have done what he did. But it’s more likely that he’s just trying to figure out a way to re-characterize the unallocation. Because it’s clearly a cut to education. And I don’t think anyone sees a way in the foreseeable future that that’s going to be repaid. He won’t even be in office when that bill comes due. So all I can figure is that he’s trying to characterize it as something other than an unallotment.

PIM: Would a legislatively enacted shift take some pressure off the longer-term deficit?

Pogemiller: I don’t think so. That’s already counted in the $5.4 billion [projected deficit for 2012-13]. And he’s calling for the Legislature to ratify [the shift]? I don’t know why. Under his construction, that’s not necessary, unless he’s changed his mind. But it’s unclear to me why he’s trying to re-characterize it. We’re actually fairly uncertain what he’s talking about right now. He says he’s going to appeal the Gearin ruling. I just don’t understand, unless he’s gotten some further legal advice [in the wake of Gearin's ruling].

From my perspective, I think [the Pawlenty shift] is a cut, it’s always been a cut and it will remain a cut, because we aren’t able to pay it back. But again, I think we’re waiting and seeing right now what his thinking is.

PIM: The Senate, of course, didn’t join in the amicus brief that the House filed in the case, and I know that last summer, there were concerns among Senate staff about the grounds for the challenge and the practical question of what the remedy could be when the money to restore funding simply wasn’t there. Are you worried that Gearin’s decision could open a budgetary hornet’s nest?

Pogemiller: I don’t see how-I think the decision’s important, and I do agree that the governor overstepped his authority. I don’t see, though, how this fundamentally changes the mathematics. When the Senate chose not to participate, it was only because it didn’t seem to change the mathematics of this whole thing. But I absolutely agree with the point that the governor overstepped.

That [overstepping] could be fixed several ways. It could be fixed by changing the law. But I don’t know how this court decision changes the fundamental mathematics. It’s just a fact that there’s not enough money to pay for repayment of shift, whether it’s a genuine shift or a mimic shift. And, even with a fairly significant tax increase, you still have to make very dramatic budget reductions. So on a long-term legal, constitutional, balance-of-power basis, I think this is an important issue. But I don’t see how it affects the math of the budget situation very much.

Of course I’m working off the assumption that earlier action is better on the budget. So to the extent this [ruling] creates some urgency to address the issues, that’s a good thing. If it peels back the denial, that would be a good thing. So if the governor is now feeling urgency, I think that’s a plus.

I just heard a couple of Republicans, Sen. [Geoff] Michel and Rep. [Kurt] Zellers, both say on the radio that everything’s on the table. Zellers called for across-the-board budget cuts. So obviously they feel a sense of urgency now that they didn’t last year. That’s a good thing.

PIM: Will there be any effort, do you think, to pursue new revenue this time?

Pogemiller: I think if you’re going to balance the budget, you have to do that. Having talked with House leadership in last couple of days, I think we’re all going to start out trying to find ways to reduce spending to get as far as we can in balancing the budget. The governor has said he’ll propose a budget that balances strictly on the basis of cuts, and we’re expecting to see that in a supplemental budget proposal in mid-January. I’ll just repeat, I don’t think you can get there that way, but I’m willing to start there. If he would provide us an honest budget that does that, I think the Legislature will try to see if that’s possible.

I can tell you that there’s no scenario under which you could do this totally with cuts without broad bipartisan support. That means Republicans would have to vote for deep permanent cuts too. But I’m willing to try to find out if we can.

That’s a long way of saying I think we’ll have to get some revenue in this to solve it.