Many citizens found the debate revolving around some seemingly arcane issues, but the looming $5 billion deficit and a Constitutional requirement for a balanced budget underlay the budget talks.
Dayton had already vetoed untold budget and policy bills he found onerous, and he had cut in half his original request for a tax increase on high-income earners. Dayton considered this a compromise and enough to spawn similar concessions from the Republican majority. They disagreed and stonewalled him for their all-cuts budget. He asked for a mediator to intercede. They refused.
We jump into this discussion in the wake of a two-part series of articles authored by MinnPost columnist and political analyst, Eric Black, taking on the fine print in Minnesota’s constitution versus the historical reality of governing in the 21st Century. The so-called shutdown in 2005, when the partisanship was reversed, was essentially ignored, thanks to a judge’s ruling and then-Attorney General Mike Hatch’s insistence that the requirement that “No money shall be paid out of the treasury of this state except in pursuance of an appropriation by law” represent(s) a breach of separation of powers and that “core functions” of government cannot cease.
Memories are short. Few paid attention to the two-week stoppage six years ago, but this year, it was just as nasty a cessation of salaries and state services. An all-cuts approach to the deficit and to governance was unacceptable to Dayton and many advocates, and budget analysts and activists join us to say why.
TTT’s ANDY DRISCOLL and MICHELLE ALIMORADI talk with our guests as to where this should have gone, could go next year and why.