Like A Crack Whore With A Stolen Gold Card
By Mitch Berg
Wonder why the 2010 elections are going to be important for conservatives to mount a real opposition?
Margaret Anderson Kelliher wants to gut the last protection Minnesota taxpayers have under Minnesota law (emphasis added):
I am going to say for the record that I believe you and the governor have taken the unallotment statute far too far. And in fact I believe it is going to be necessary for the Legislature to change the law next year to modernize the unallotment law in accordance with what other states do.
Y’know – all those states that are also way over budget…
No one could have imagined before this point that a governor would veto a balanced-budget bill in order to go it unilaterally and go it alone in balancing this budget.
Sadly, it is all too easy to imagine that a DFLer would call the tax-hiking, pork-laden abomination the DFL rammed through with fifteen minutes to go in the session before anyone had had a chance to read it a “balanced budget bill”.
“And so I think it’s very necessary at this point to put on the record that there will be a bill–there have already been two bills introduced, but I believe there will be a bill that legislators bipartisanly can hopefully support, so that this never happens again, whether the governor’s a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent. This has been a move that I believe is out of step and illegal in many aspects.
Watch for the DFL to keep harping on the unallotment being “illegal”. It’s an ugly word, and sticks in peoples’ minds easily. It’s straight out of Alinski. It’s also a lie.
Kelliher, like every DFLer on the budget issue, is lying.
We will maybe never know if it is not challenged in court.
“If”!
But I do think the Legislature must retain the power of the Legislature has to change the law. And I think it is necessary to say that at this point that it is absolutely imperative that the Legislature curb the power of a chief executive in terms of impinging on the legislative powers of this state.”
On the off-chance that Kelliher has an intellectual point, and that unallotment is excessive power for an executive? That might intellectually be true…
…provided we ever had a more responsible legislature.
That’s not going to happen with a DFL legislature whose intellectual marching orders come from Cy Thao: “If you win, you get to keep your money. If we win, we take your money!”
Wonder if Kelliher will show up at the Tea Party on Saturday?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
“Illegal” or “Absolutely legal, but we don’t like it”?
Very imperious, and yet vacuous. Is it time for Queen Kelliher to step down yet?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am
Here’s a silly question: Suppose they pass a bill that denies Pawlenty the unallotment power, and he vetoes it? Better yet, suppose he signs it, in a supreme act of bipartisanship, and then unallots anyway because the Constitution of Minnesota requires a balanced budget?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
After they get rid of unallotment they can look into that pesky veto power. I mean, why should the Governor be able to deny them all the good things they want to to do?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
If nothing else, this whole unallotment brouhaha should make an excellent case for the republican system as opposed to the parliamentary system. Imagine how bad off y’all would be if a power-addled pol like Kelliher or Thao was Prime Minister of the state.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Without unallotment in its current form, the following would occur in the Legislature:
The Legislature submits a budget that the governor will veto.
If submitted very late in the session, it gets pocket vetoed.
If submitted in time for an over-ride, lose the over-ride attempt due to lack of opposition support.
Because the state requires a balanced budget, a special session would be in order.
Legislators collect extra pay and per diem.
Keep submitting bad budgets, keep getting vetoed, keep losing over-rides, keep collecting money.
Sounds like a huge scam to me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I like your use of the drug addict analogy. Addicts who obtain prescription drugs by deception are brimming with excuses why they can’t possibly reduce the number of pills they take; moreover, they minimize the actual amount they are using and confabulate why they always seem to run out of their pills early. The only solution: don’t bargain with addicts. They need to hit rock bottom before there is a prayer they can go straight.
Note to libs: I’m waiting to see reports of bodies piling up in the streets after the unallotment goes forward.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Keep submitting bad budgets, keep getting vetoed, keep losing over-rides, keep collecting money.
Sounds like a huge scam to me.
And I think that’s a big part of why our solons are so angry with T-Paw. They lost out on some coin because T-Paw didn’t let them come back into special session.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
I think your comparison may be unfair to crack whores, even the kind that steal credit cards.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Thats why I titled the post “Like…”
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
A. The budget is not balanced until the Gov signs or is overridden.
B. Go ahead – repeal unallotment. Now what? Simply stop writing checks around May 2010 – no money – per the Constitution.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Hypothetically speaking, if unallotment was restricted, couldn’t Gov. Pawlenty just as easily use his line-item veto authority to cut spending?