Brayton v. Pawlenty

781 N.W.2d 357, 2010 Minn. LEXIS 235, 2010 WL 1780074

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Decided: May 5, 2010
• Docket: A10-64
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

MAGNUSON, C.J.

This case presents questions about the authority of Minnesota’s executive branch under MinmStat. § 16A.152, subd. 4 (2008), to reduce allotments in order to avoid deficit spending. The Ramsey County District Court held that use of the statutory unallotment authority to reduce funding for the Minnesota Supplemental Aid-Special Diet Program in the circumstances of this case violated separation of powers principles. We affirm, although on different grounds.

Six Minnesota residents who qualify for payments under the Minnesota Supplemental Aid — Special Diet (Special Diet) Program brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. These plaintiffs, respondents on appeal, challenge the validity of reductions made by the executive branch to unexpended allotments of appropriated funds available for payments under the Special Diet Program for the 2010-2011 biennium, which began July 1, 2009, and ends June 30, 2011. The plaintiffs assert that the reductions in allotments to the Special Diet Program violate the terms of the unallotment statute, Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4, and are unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers. The defendants, appellants on appeal, are Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Commissioners of the Departments of Management and Budget, Human Services, and Revenue.¹

As part of the obligation to “manage the state’s financial affairs,” Minn.Stat. § 16A.055, subd. 1(a)(2) (2008), the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), is required to “prepare a forecast of state revenue and expenditures” in February and November of each year. Minn.Stat. § 16A.103, subd. 1 (2008). The Commissioner’s November 2008 forecast for the 2010-2011 biennium projected a deficit of $4,847 billion, based on anticipated revenues of $31,866 billion.

The Commissioner’s February 2009 forecast projected a deficit of $4.57 billion, based on anticipated revenues of $30.7 billion.

In January 2009, the Governor submitted a proposed budget to the Legislature with anticipated revenues of $31.07 billion. In March 2009, after the February 2009 forecast, the Governor submitted a revised budget to the Legislature based on anticipated revenues of $29,905 billion. An April 2009 economic update from MMB showed February and March revenues as $46 million less than projected in the February forecast.

On May 9, 2009, the Governor vetoed a revenue bill that increased taxes in order to meet the anticipated revenue shortfall. The Legislature was unsuccessful in its attempt to override the veto. Between May 4 and May 18, the Legislature passed and presented to the Governor appropriation bills for the 2010-2011 biennium. These appropriation bills reduced spending below the levels projected in the February 2009 forecast so that the projected deficit of $4.57 billion was reduced to $2.7 billion. The Governor signed the appropriations bills into law, exercising a limited number of line-item vetoes not at issue here. House File 1362, the Omnibus Health and Human Services Bill, which provided funding for the Special Diet Program that is at issue in this case, became law on May 14. Act of May 14, 2009, ch. 79, 2009 Minn. Laws 690.

On May 18, 2009, the same day it was required to adjourn, the Legislature passed House File 2323, another revenue bill that would raise taxes to address the $2.7 billion projected deficit remaining after enactment of the appropriations bills. As he had done with the prior revenue enactment, the Governor vetoed the second revenue bill. Because the Legislature had adjourned by the time of the veto, the $2.7 billion projected deficit remained. The Governor did not call a special session of the Legislature.

The Minnesota Constitution allows the state to borrow money for only limited purposes. See Minn. Const, art. XI. As a result, the state’s biennial operating budget must be balanced — that is, expenditures cannot exceed revenues for the biennium. The statute at issue in this case, Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4 (the unallotment statute), provides the executive branch with a means to address a budget deficit, including creation of and authorization to use á budget reserve fund and, if the reserve fund is depleted, authority to reduce unexpended allotments. The statute provides:

(a) If the commissioner determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the Legislative Advisory Commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.

(b) An additional deficit shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, be made up by reducing unexpend-ed allotments of any prior appropriation or transfer. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the commissioner is empowered to defer or suspend prior statutorily created obligations which would prevent effecting such reductions.

(c) If the commissioner determines that probable receipts for any other fund, appropriation, or item will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the term of the appropriation or for any allotment period will be less than needed, the commissioner shall notify the agency concerned and then reduce the amount allotted or to be allotted so as to prevent a deficit.

(d) In reducing allotments, the commissioner may consider other sources of revenue available to recipients of state appropriations and may apply allotment reductions based on all sources of revenue available.

(e) In like manner, the commissioner shall reduce allotments to an agency by the amount of any saving that can be made over previous spending plans through a reduction in prices or other cause.

MinmStat. § 16A.152, subd. 4. An “appropriation” is the Legislature’s authorization “to expend or encumber an amount in the treasury.” MinmStat. § 16A.011, subd. 4 (2008). The executive branch “allots” the appropriated funds for spending throughout the biennium. Minn.Stat. § 16A.011, subd. 3 (2008) (“ ‘Allotment’ means a limit placed by the commissioner on the amount to be spent or encumbered during a period of time pursuant to an appropriation.”).

In a June 4, 2009, letter, the Commissioner informed the Governor that the conditions to trigger application of the unallotment statute existed and that it would be necessary to reduce allotments to avoid a deficit. In the letter, the Commissioner stated: “I have determined, as defined in Minnesota Statute 16A.152, that ‘probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the [2010— 2011] biennium will be less than needed.’ ” The Commissioner further explained that the February 2009 forecast projected revenues for the biennium of $30.7 billion — $1.2 billion less than anticipated in the November 2008 forecast — and that based on the bills enacted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, forecasted revenues would result in a $2.7 billion shortfall for the biennium. The Commissioner also noted that the national economy had worsened since the February forecast and that year-to-date receipts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 were down $70.3 million compared to the February forecast.

On June 16, 2009, in accordance with subdivision 4 of section 16A.152, the Commissioner proposed allotment reductions to the Governor. The Commissioner met twice with the Legislative Advisory Commission to report on the allotment reductions. The Governor approved proposed allotment reductions of approximately $2.5 billion on July 1, the first day of the biennium, and the Commissioner implemented the unallotments beginning that month. The Commissioner notified the legislative budget committees of the unallotments within 15 days, as required by Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 6 (2008). Some of the unallotments were effective for both the first and second years of the biennium; some were effective for only the second year of the biennium which begins on July 1, 2010. These changes were effected not only by reducing the number of dollars for specific allotments, but in some instances, by changing substantive criteria that established eligibility for payments or formulas for spending.² In addition to the $2.5 billion of unallotments, the Commissioner implemented $210 million in administrative savings to make up the remainder of the $2.7 billion projected deficit.

The unallotment at issue in this appeal affected funding for the Special Diet Program. The Special Diet Program is part of a broader Minnesota Supplemental Aid (MSA) program, which provides monthly cash payments to supplement federal Supplemental Security Income benefits. See MinmStat. §§ 256D.33-.54 (2008)! The Special Diet Program provides for payments to qualified MSA participants on medically prescribed diets. Minn.Stat. § 256D.44, subd. 5(a). That statute requires county agencies to pay monthly allowances to qualified individuals based on United States Department of Agriculture standards as specifically set out in the statute. Id. The Special Diet Program funding is included in the general appropriation to the Department of Human Serr vices for all MSA programs. Act of May 14, 2009, eh. 79, art. 13, § 3, subd. 4(j), 2009 Minn. Laws 690, 991.

The MSA appropriation was $33.93 million for FY 2010 and $35.19 million for FY 2011. Id. The Commissioner reduced allotments from the MSA appropriations by $2,866 million for FY 2010 and $4.3 million for FY 2011, including allotment reductions to the Special Diet Program of $2,133 million for FY 2010 and $3.2 million for FY 2011. The effect of these unallotments was to eliminate Special Diet Program payments from November 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011, the end of the biennium.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 3, 2009, in Ramsey County District Court. The plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order requiring the defendants to reinstate the Special Diet Program funding while the action was pending, and the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

In an order and memorandum filed on December 30, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The court enjoined defendants from reducing the allotment to the Special Diet Program, retroactive to November 1, 2009, and until further order of the court.

The district court concluded that it was bound by Rukavina v. Pawlenty, 684 N.W.2d 525 (Minn.App.2004), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 2004), a court of appeals case holding that subdivision 4 of section 16A.152 is constitutional. Nonetheless, the district court held that “[i]t was the specific manner in which the Governor exercised his unallotment authority that trod upon the constitutional power of the Legislature.” The court did not expressly find that the executive branch had failed to comply with the requirements of the statute. The court concluded, however, that because the projected budget shortfall “was neither unknown nor unanticipated when the appropriation bills became law,” the executive branch’s use of the unallotment authority was invalid. The court stated:

The authority of the Governor to unallot is an authority intended to save the state in times of a previously unforeseen budget crisis, it is not meant to be used as a weapon by the executive branch to break a stalemate in budget negotiations with the Legislature or to rewrite the appropriations bill.

Shortly after the temporary restraining order ruling, the parties stipulated to the denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding the Special Diet Program funding and to entry of final judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 in favor of plaintiffs on that claim. The district court entered a final partial judgment, and defendants filed a notice of appeal to the court of appeals and petitioned for accelerated review in this court. We granted accelerated review and ordered expedited briefing and oral argument.

I.

Appellants here, defendants below, argue that the district court erred in concluding that the unallotment authority in subdivision 4 of section 16A.152 can be exercised only for budget deficits unforeseen while the Legislature is in session. Appellants contend that the challenged un-allotment action was consistent with the plain language of the statute, and that even if the statute is ambiguous, their interpretation that there are no temporal restrictions on the statute’s triggering conditions is supported by the canons of statutory construction.

Appellants also contend that because respondents did not challenge the constitutionality of the unallotment statute in the district court, that issue is not properly before us. Appellants argue that if we reach the constitutional question, the statute does not violate separation of powers principles. Appellants assert that the statute does not confer “pure legislative power,” because the validity of appropriations is not affected by unallotment. Rather, unallotment is within the authority of the executive branch to administer the laws and the budget. Finally, appellants argue that the statute fully complies with case law requirements for delegation of legislative authority to administrative agencies.

Respondents argue that under the plain language of the statute, the conditions required to trigger implementation of unal-lotment contain temporal limitations that precluded unallotment in the circumstances of this case. Specifically, respondents assert that the unallotment authority is intended to he exercised only in the event of unforeseen fiscal conditions that arise after the beginning of a biennium. They maintain that even if the plain language of the statute does not require their interpretation, the canons of construction compel it. Respondents further argue that if we adopt appellants’ reading, the statute would allow an unconstitutional infringement on the Legislature’s appropriation power because the executive branch could create a deficit situation by refusing to agree on revenue measures and then unilaterally alter spending priorities that had been enacted into law.

II.

We first address the statutory issue raised by the parties. Because we conclude the unallotment at issue here exceeded the scope of the statutory authority, and thus affirm the district court, we do not address the arguments raised concerning the' constitutionality of the unallotment action or the statute. See In re Senty-Haugen, 583 N.W.2d 266, 269 n. 3 (Minn.1998) (we avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which we may decide a case).

Our goal when interpreting statutory provisions is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008); accord Educ. Minn.-Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695, 662 N.W.2d 139, 143 (Minn.2003). The statutory question here is whether the Legislature intended the unallotment authority conferred on the executive branch in Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4, to apply in the circumstances of this case. We determine legislative intent “primarily from the language of the statute itself.” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 516, 8 N.W.2d 808, 816 (1943). If the text is clear, “statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and [we] apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn.2001). But if a statute is ambiguous, we ■ apply canons of construction to discern the Legislature’s intent. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2008).

The parties offer competing interpretations of the language of the unallotment statute, as outlined above. Both sides argue that the plain language of the unallotment statute supports their interpretation, Plain language controls only if the text of the statute is unambiguous, that is, if the language is susceptible to only one reasonable meaning. Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14, 21 (Minn.2009). The first question we address, then, is whether only one of the proffered interpretations of the statute is reasonable.

Respondents’ interpretation, accepted by the district court, is a reasonable reading of the statute, particularly when the two , clauses of section 16A.152, subdivision 4(a). (“probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the.biennium will be less than needed”) are read as a whole and the words are interpreted in accordance with their common meanings. See Minn.Stat. §§ 645.08, 645.16 (2008). “Remainder” is defined as a “remaining group, part, or trace.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 986 (10th ed. 1993). “Remain” is defined as “to be a part not ... used up.” Id. The common meaning of “remainder” is thus something less than the whole, after part of the' whole has been removed or consumed. Accordingly, the requirement that the Commissioner find that “the amount available for the remainder of the bienni-nm will be less than needed,” Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4(a), reasonably means that the triggering circumstance (amount less than needed) cannot logically be met until some of the biennium has passed, and that the unallotment process can never apply to a full biennium. Moreover, the two clauses are joined by the conjunctive “and”; when read together, the natural conclusion is that the determination about receipts being “less than' anticipated” must be related to “the amount available for the remainder of the biennium.”

Appellants present a more strained interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4(a). The meaning appellants attribute to “remainder” — ’that the remainder can be the entire biennium before anything is removed — does not comport with the common understanding of that word. On the other hand, appellants are correct that the probable receipts clause contains 'no express language dictating a timing element for the “less than anticipated” criterion, and the assertion that there is no timing limitation on this triggering condition is not unreasonable. But rather than establishing the plain meaning of that criterion, the absence of any timing definition leaves it ambiguous — subject to precisely the kind of debate about the proper baseline for “less than anticipated” that is presented in this case.

Although the competing interpretations advanced by the parties are each reasonable, that fact simply brings into focus the failure of the statutory language to clearly answer two questions: (1) probable receipts anticipated when? and (2) amount available for what purpose? Because we determine the language of the unallótment statute is ambiguous, we must employ the canons of construction to determine what the Legislature intended by the language it used.

Minnesota Statutes § 645.16 provides that when the words of a law are not explicit, we may ascertain the intention of the Legislature by considering, among other matters:

(1) the occasion and necessity for the law;

(2) the circumstances under which it was enacted;

(3) the mischief to be remedied;

(4) the object to be attained;

(5) the former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;

(6) the consequences of a particular interpretation;

(7) the contemporaneous legislative history; and

(8) legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute.

In addition, the Legislature has provided that courts may be guided by certain presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent, including that “the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain,” Minn.Stat. § 645.17(2) (2008), and “the legislature does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this state,” Minn.Stat. § 645.17(3) (2008).

The challenge to the unallotment authority is directly related to the functions of both the legislative and executive branches in establishing the state budget. Accordingly, we must interpret the statute in that context. We therefore briefly review the budget-creation process as it is constitutionally defined, and the roles of the legislative and executive branches.

As the names of the two branches suggest, the legislative branch has the responsibility ,and authority to legislate, that is, to make the laws, Minn. Const, art. IV, §§ 17-23,. and the executive branch has the responsibility and authority to execute, that is, to carry out, the laws, Minn. Const. art. V, § 3. Under the Separation of Powers Clause, no branch can usurp or diminish the role of another branch. See Minn. Const, art. III, § 1. In State ex rel. Birkeland v. Christianson, we said:

The three departments of state government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, are independent of each other. Neither department can control, coerce, or restrain the action or nonaction of either of the others in the exercise of any official power or duty conferred by the Constitution, or by valid law, involving the exercise of discretion. The Legislature cannot change our constitutional form of government by enacting laws which would destroy the independence of either department or permit one of the departments to coerce or control another department in the exercise of its constitutional powers.

179 Minn. 337, 339-40, 229 N.W. 313, 314 (1930).

The Legislature has the primary responsibility to establish the spending priorities for the state through the enactment of appropriation laws. Minn. Const, art. IV, § 22; id. art. XI, § 1. The executive branch has a limited, defined role in the budget process. The Governor may propose legislation, including a budget that includes appropriation amounts, which proposals the Legislature is free to accept or reject. But the only formal budgetary authority granted the Governor by the constitution is to approve or veto bills passed by the Legislature. See Minn. Const, art. IV, § 23. With respect to appropriation bills, the constitution grants the Governor the more specific line-item veto authority, through which an item of appropriation can be vetoed without striking the entire bill. Id. If the Governor exercises the veto power, the Legislature may reconsider the bill or items vetoed, and if approved by a two-thirds vote, the vetoed bill or item becomes law. Id.

Once a bill has been passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor (or a veto is overridden), the bill becomes law, and the constitutional responsibility of the Governor is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Minn. Const, art. V, § 3. If this process of legislative passage and gubernatorial approval or veto does not succeed in producing a balanced budget within the normal legislative session, the Governor has the authority to call the Legislature into special session. See Minn. Const, art. IV, § 12.

After appropriations are enacted, the executive branch undertakes a process of allotment. The Commissioner approves spending plans and establishes spending allotments for segments of the biennium, thereby managing the pace at which executive branch agencies spend their appropriations. See Minn.Stat. § 16A.14 (2008). In normal circumstances, the allotment process functions simply as a device to manage the cash flow of the state as the funds appropriated by the Legislature are spent for the purposes intended.³ Unallotment occurs when the prior spending authorizations are altered, or, as in this case, canceled. The question before us is whether the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process in the circumstances presented here.

Appellants and respondents both argue that the purpose of the unallotment statute supports their favored interpretation. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16(1), (4) (court may consider “the occasion and necessity for the law” and “the object to be attained”). Appellants offer a broad purpose for the statute — the elimination of budget deficits — to support their view of the broad reach of the statute.⁴ Respondents argue in support of their narrower reading that the statute has the limited purpose of addressing short term, unanticipated deficits.

The distinct roles and powers allocated by the constitution to the two branches in the budget-creation process inform us concerning the purpose and intent of the Legislature in enacting the unallotment statute. The general veto and the line-item veto are the specific tools provided by the constitution to the executive branch for achieving a balanced budget. See Johnson v. Carlson, 507 N.W.2d 232, 235 (Minn.1993) (“The state constitution, recognizing the governor’s oversight responsibilities for the state’s budget, provides a gubernatorial line item veto to enable the state’s chief executive officer to engage in cost-containment, subject, of course, to the possibility of the veto being overturned.”). But we have recognized that the special line-item veto power the constitution confers on the Governor for appropriation bills must be construed narrowly to prevent usurpation of the Legislature’s proper authority. Inter Faculty Org. v. Carlson, 478 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Minn.1991).

In the context of this limited constitutional grant of gubernatorial authority with regard to appropriations, we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted.⁵

Appellants’ interpretation of the unallotment statute envisions a much broader role for the executive branch in the creation of biennial budgets than the process established by the constitution. Under appellants’ interpretation of the unallotment statute, the executive branch has authority to modify spending decisions previously enacted into law if revenues projected (apparently at any time) for the biennium fall short of the spending authority in appropriation bills passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, whether the shortfall results from revenues lower than projected, a gubernatorial veto of a revenue bill, or legislative failure to pass adequate revenue legislation. The unallotment authority so construed would result in an alternative budget-creation mechanism that bypasses the constitutionally prescribed process. There is nothing to suggest that was the purpose for which the unallotment statute was enacted.⁶

On the contrary, it appears clear to us that the object to be attained, see Minn. Stat. § 645.16(4), was the creation of a mechanism for adjusting expenditures, to be available in the event of an unanticipated revenue shortfall after enactment of a balanced budget. This narrow purpose and interpretation is consistent with and reflected in all prior use of the statute. See Peter S. Wattson, Legislative History of Unallotment Power 4-5, 9, 11 (June 29, 2009).

The requirement of a balanced budget as a necessary precursor to the use of the unallotment authority in section 16A.152, subdivision 4, provides necessary meaning to the triggering condition of “receipts less than anticipated.” The parties agree that for a current amount of receipts to be “less than anticipated,” there must be some past baseline amount to which the current amount is compared. But appellants’ argument that there are no temporal limitations on this requirement leaves it entirely untethered — and virtually meaningless— because the executive branch could assign any previous projection of greater revenues as the baseline. This result is contrary to the statutory presumption that “the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.” Minn.Stat. § 645.17(2) (emphasis added). Reading the statute to require enactment of a balanced budget as a predicate to the exercise of unallotment authority provides a definite and logical reference point for measuring whether current revenues are “less than anticipated.” The anticipated revenues are measured as of the date the balanced budget is enacted.

This conclusion is bolstered by consideration of the second triggering condition. The only purpose for which revenues would be logically “needed” in the context of the unallotment statute is to fully fund all appropriations. Thus, in order for “probable receipts ... [to] be less than anticipated, and ... the amount available for the remainder of the biennium [to] be less than needed,” there must have been a point in time when anticipated revenues appeared to be adequate to fund appropriations — i.e., when a balanced budget was enacted.

The temporal limitations implicit in the common meaning of the words “less than anticipated” and “remainder of the biennium” constrain the statute’s use to circumstances consistent with the distinct powers and roles conferred on the legislative and executive branches in the constitution. Those circumstances do not include use of unallotment authority to address a deficit known to exist but not resolved by the legislative and executive branches using their constitutionally specified powers to enact spending and revenue legislation. The unallotment statute provides the executive branch with authority to address an unanticipated deficit that arises after the legislative and executive branches have enacted a balanced budget. The statute does not shift to the executive branch a broad budget-making authority allowing the executive branch to address a deficit that remains after a legislative session because the legislative and executive branches have not resolved their differences.

Because the legislative and executive branches never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-2011 biennium, use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the statute. We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that the unallotment of the Special Diet Program funds was unlawful and void.

Affirmed.

Concurring, PAGE, J. Concurring, ANDERSON, PAUL H., J. Dissenting, GILDEA, ANDERSON, G. BARRY, and DIETZEN, JJ.

1 . Although the commissioners of the three departments are appellants, unless otherwise noted, references in this opinion to the Commissioner mean the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget, who implements the challenged statute.

2 . For example, the other unallotment challenged in this lawsuit, but not part of this appeal, was to the renters’ property tax refund program. Under this program renters are eligible for a refund of a portion of the rent they pay based on a percentage that the Legislature deems attributable to property taxes. The unallotment was accomplished by changing the portion of rent used to calculate the refund from 19% of rent paid, as set by the Legislature, to 15%. Another example is the unallotment for the Medical Assistance Program. The eligibility criteria are established in statute, including the asset limitations of $20,000 for a household of two or more people and $10,000 for a household of one person. See Minn.Stat. § 256B.056, subd. 3c (2008). The unallotment was accomplished by reducing those limits to $6,000 and $3,000, respectively.

3 . The parties discuss at some length the nature and scope of inherent executive spending authority, and to differing degrees, assert that these principles should guide our decision. We have not previously addressed this authority, but other state courts have. Most courts conclude that the executive branch has some inherent authority and discretion over spending, particularly to spend less than appropriated, but only within the scope of legislatively enacted spending priorities. E.g., Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 375 Mass. 827, 376 N.E.2d 1217, 1223 (1978) ("The constitutional separation of powers and responsibilities, therefore, contemplates that the Governor be allowed some discretion to exercise his judgment not to spend money in a wasteful fashion, provided that he has determined reasonably that such a decision will not compromise the achievement of underlying legislative purposes and goals.”); Hunter v. State, 177 Vt. 339, 865 A.2d 381, 390-91 (2004) (adopting rationale of Opinion of the Justices in noting that although the Governor has some discretion in deciding whether to spend appropriated funds, "[i]f the Governor has a free hand to refuse to spend any appropriated funds, he or she can totally negate a legislative policy decision that lies at the core of the legislative function”); Rios v. Symington, 172 Ariz. 3, 833 P.2d 20, 23, 29 (1992) (explaining that the Legislature "establishes state policies and priorities and, through the appropriation power, gives those policies and priorities effect” and the executive branch then retains discretion to prevent wasteful spending while still effectuating legislative goals); Colo. Gen. Assembly v. Lamm, 700 P.2d 508, 520, 522 (Colo.1985) (recognizing executive "authority to administer the budget” but holding that the authority does not extend so far as to “directly contravene major objectives or purposes sought to be achieved” in an appropriation). The inherent authority of the executive branch concerning actual spending decisions once appropriations are made is not, however, directly implicated in the issue we decide today, that is, whether Minnesota’s unallotment statute was properly invoked in this case.

4 . Appellants also argue that the consequences of their interpretation, see Minn.Stat. § 645.16(6), and the public interest, see Minn. Stat. § 645.17(5), favor their view of the statute, but these arguments are essentially variations of their argument about the statute’s purpose. In addition, appellants contend that the Commissioner’s interpretation is entitled to deference. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16(8). Because the question presented is not one that invokes the expertise of the Commissioner regarding the intricacies of the state budget and his interpretation is not a longstanding one, deference is not warranted. See Resident v. Noot, 305 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Minn.1981) (stating that deference to administrative interpretations of statutes is appropriate when the administrators have specialized expertise in the subject of the statute and the interpretation is of long standing).

5 . Courts in several other states have considered similar, but not identical, statutes and resolved both statutory and constitutional challenges to actions taken under those statutes. See, e.g., New England Div. of the Am. Cancer Soc’y v. Comm’r of Admin., 437 Mass. 172, 769 N.E.2d 1248, 1257-58 (2002) (holding that the acting governor complied with terms of Massachusetts’ unallotment statute and that the statute was constitutional); Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So.2d 260, 267-68 (Fla.1991) (holding that Florida's unallotment statute was unconstitutional because it did not contain sufficient guidelines to guide the executive branch in exercising delegated authority); Univ. of Conn. Chapter of AAUP v. Governor, 200 Conn. 386, 512 A.2d 152, 159 (1986) (upholding the constitutionality of Connecticut’s unallotment statute). None of those cases, however, confronted the situation that we face — that is, use of statutory adjustments of legislative spending decisions in the absence of a duly enacted budget. See, e.g., New England, 769 N.E.2d at 1249-50 (addressing a challenge to allotment reductions in response to decreased revenue projections that occurred months after the enactment of a budget). As a result, although we may take some guidance from those cases regarding general principles of legislative and executive authority for appropriations and spending, in the end, we can and do resolve the case before us based on our reading of the statute enacted by the Minnesota Legislature. On that point, we find the greatest guidance in our established canons of construction, and the words of the statute before us.

6 . Appellants argue that the statute does not allow the executive branch to change the actual amount appropriated, and the executive branch cannot use funds for a purpose different than they are appropriated for, Minn.Stat. § 16A.139 (2008). The result, according to appellants, is that the decisions of the Legislature are not substantively affected by unallotment. But this argument ignores the practical effect of unallotment. Although the funds from a program whose funding is cut are not technically redirected to the program whose funding is not cut, the effect of selective unallotment is the same. Linder the unal-lotments made by the Commissioner, some programs received full funding, some received reduced funding, and some, like the MSA Special Diet program received no funding, effectively eliminating the program which the Legislature had enacted.