I’ve been recently asked about the Michigan House’s action to claw back unspent funds in the state budget, and the Attorney General’s opinion that doing so was unconstitutional. The short answers are: the clawback is a good thing, and the Attorney General is wrong. Here’s why:
1. First, any money allocated (the term they use is “appropriated”) is designed to be spent in one fiscal year. So when the House, Senate and Governor complete a budget in September of 2024, the money has to be spent by the end of that budget year (September of 2025).
2. When the money is not spent, without further action, it’s sent back to the State Treasury.
(so far, so good)
3. There are SOME projects that take longer than a year to complete. Think of, say, the construction of a building. Unless the work is done very quickly, there is work left to be done, and money left to be spent, at the end of a budget year.
4. When that happens, the Governor can send a message to the Legislature that those are “work projects,” as defined in the statute. (Edit: Rep. Ann Bollin, super sharp in this area that the designation can also be put in the original legislation–that is, if they KNOW the project will take longer than a year, they can just write it into the law. They didn’t.)
(hope you’re with me so far)
5. That designation is SUPPOSED to be for long, continuous projects, not programs that are ongoing. It would apply for the construction of a building (which can’t be built in a year) but not for , say handout programs (where they CAN be spent in a year, but didn’t spend it).
6. Under the law, the House and the Senate each have the right to object to that designation. These rules have been in place for 25 years.
(ok, so now you understand the framework)
7. The Governor sent to the Legislature a bunch of “work projects,” that were approved in the Sept 2024 budget without a single Republican vote.
8. Some of these project have VERY dubious uses, and aren’t “work projects” by any stretch. As an example, you may have heard about RX Kids, where your tax dollars are given to mothers in Wayne County, without any limitations on use, without any verification of need, and without even making sure the recipient is a citizen.
9. The House, rightly, passed a resolution under MCL 18.1451(a)(3), indicating that they were not approving some of the unspent funds as “work projects.” Again, the law granting them this power has been in place for 25 years.
10. The Left went into a tizzy, as predicted.
11. The Governor’s right-hand woman, Dana Nessel, quickly crafts an “opinion,” where she claims the law, again in place for 25 years, is magically unconstitutional. This is notwithstanding all the other rules above.
12. If the right to claw the funds back is non constitutional, neither is the right to designate projects as “work projects.” Nessel’s opinion, declaring that only the objection part of the statute is unconstitutional, is patently absurd.
Speaker Matt Hall issued the attached statement, but I hope that my explanation is clear. If you have questions, you know where to find me.