In the post below, I posted the link to CT’s balanced budget amendment. Our constitution mandates a balanced budget. Connecticut’s fiscal year begins July 1st. The Constitution simply requires expenditures not to exceed estimated revenue.
Here’s a link to the bill signed by Governor Malloy. The legislation contemplates the legislature having to go back to the cutting room prior to July 1, 2011.
Here’s the relevant text of the bill signed by Governor Malloy:
Sec. 12. (Effective from passage) (a) Any agreement reached through negotiations between the state and the State Employees Bargaining Unit Coalition (SEBAC) concerning wages, hours and other conditions of employment to achieve the labor-management savings specified in this act shall be subject to approval of the General Assembly in accordance with section 5-278 of the general statutes.
(b) (1) On or before May 31, 2011, the Governor shall submit the plan described in this subdivision in writing to the General Assembly. If an agreement described in subsection (a) of this section has been reached, such plan shall include (A) recommendations for legislation to apply terms comparable to those contained in such agreement to nonrepresented employees for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and (B) if such agreement achieves less than two billion dollars in savings over the biennium ending June 30, 2013, recommendations for budget adjustments to achieve the difference between that amount and two billion dollars. If no agreement described in subsection (a) of this section has been reached, such plan shall include recommendations for budget adjustments not to exceed two billion dollars over the biennium ending June 30, 2013.
(2) On or before June 8, 2011, the General Assembly shall enact legislation to (A) apply terms comparable to those contained in an agreement described in subsection (a) of this section and approved in accordance with section 5-278 of the general statutes to nonrepresented employees for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and (B) achieve budget adjustments not to exceed two billion dollars over the biennium ending June 30, 2013, to the extent such savings have not been achieved under any such agreement.
(c) The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall make reductions in expenditures not to exceed two billion dollars over the biennium ending June 30, 2013, (1) as provided in an agreement described in subsection (a) of this section and approved in accordance with section 5-278 of the general statutes for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and (2) contained in legislation enacted by the General Assembly under subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section.
With respect to 2) … the GA passed legislation requiring it to pass legislation in the future. If the future GA doesn’t pass the legislation, thwarting the will of the present GA, what happens? Do they get arrested and go to jail? Who passes the laws, then?
Yes it’s political. But aren’t law and politics always intertwined?
Here’s where the Supreme Courts Bysiewicz decision becomes really troubling… as I said in an earlier post, the best way to clear the docket of political cases is to toss them on jurisdictional grounds. That’s what should have happened in the Bysiewicz case. This is doubly true for the current debacle over the budget; who, after all, would have standing to challenge budget? Who is “injured.” There is, after all, no taxpayer standing.
In normal circumstances, I would say this is no brainer, but after Bysiewicz, I’m not so sure. The men and women in black on Capitol Avenue like to meddle, and I would count on them shying away from this.
Bysiewicz case is unique. She had every right to bring a lawsuit to understand her rights (a declaratory action). The real question is whether the republicans had standing to bring an appeal. Dan Klau asserts that the republicans lacked standing to appeal.
The Court won’t deal with a hypothetical. Right now, the legislature has said, this is how we’re choosing to balance the budget. How they do it is their call. It’s not for the court to decide how the legislature is to formulate a budget.
If either concessions or cuts weren’t made then the budget would be subject to a constitutional challenge but we’re not their yet. The legislature has by law, given itself more time.