Legislative leaders resolved at the start of this deficit-dominated session that, this time, their fiscal repairs wouldn't be mere patch jobs. Unlike in 2002, 2003 or 2008, they wouldn't leave a foreseeable gap between revenues and spending in the next four years. They would enact remedies that would stabilize state services and the taxes that pay for them for years to come.
That laudable goal is behind a statute signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty on March 2. It requires that "a budget proposed by the governor and enacted for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 must also provide for a balanced general fund budget in fiscal years 2012 and 2013."
That may sound simple and straightforward. But legislators and Pawlenty are discovering that the new law's implications are anything but. Last week, Capitol watchers got a preview of what could become a major battle this session -- not over how to balance the state budget that's just ahead, but the next one.
On March 17, Pawlenty presented the Capitol press corps with a one-page summary of his proposed 2012-13 state budget. The numbers raised as many questions as they answered.
For example, Pawlenty proposed to cap state health and human services spending in 2012-13 at $9.9 billion. But according to his own finance department, the budget he is proposing for 2010-11 contains measures that would lead in 2012-13 to human services spending of $12.4 billion.
How would the governor change health and human services programs to shrink spending by an additional $2.5 billion in 2012-13? Other than commenting that he wanted to move away from formula-driven spending, he wasn't saying. No bills have been introduced to adjust human services programs to that extent. Yet Pawlenty said he believed he had complied with the new law.
DFLers were quick to dispute that claim. But they were vague about just how far Pawlenty -- or the Legislature -- needs to wade into the 2012-13 budgetary weeds to meet the new law's requirement. Most said that they are not obliged to set a full four-year budget. But if not, what does the new law mean?
That's become a troublesome question for lawmakers of both parties. Legislators' early resolve not to load the next budget with temporary measures is being tested by their political survival instincts, which urge delaying bad news and hard votes as long as possible. Thanks to federal stimulus money and an array of available one-time shifts and gimmicks, pain postponement is now an option for state government. It's possible to set a 2010-11 budget that pushes the responsibility for tax increases mostly onto local government shoulders, and only nicks the people and services that directly rely on state funds.
