CHARLES S. JOHNSON: Bullock vetoes about saving money

2013-05-11T22:27:00Z CHARLES S. JOHNSON: Bullock vetoes about saving money

HELENA – It’s not personal. It’s fiscal.

That’s what Gov. Steve Bullock told legislators and others before – and after – his barrage of vetoes that ended Monday.

Saving money did seem to be the prime motive behind many of his vetoes.

It couldn’t have been personal because the vetoes angered some of Bullock’s strongest Democratic allies, to say nothing of the Republicans who crossed party lines to support some major administration bills.

In all, Bullock vetoed 71 bills, second only to Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s 78 in 2011.

Forty-one of Bullock’s vetoes were money bills. He slashed $150 million from the budget by deep-sixing the bills.

These vetoes allowed Bullock to achieve one of his main budget goals announced in January, before he took office.

He wanted at least a $300 million general fund surplus – or ending fund balance, in accounting terms – as of mid-2015.

The Legislature left a $182 million surplus, $118 million short of Bullock’s target, according to the Legislative Fiscal Division.

Bullock then began vetoing bills to meet his target.

The projected mid-2015 surplus now sits at $310.4 million, according to updated figures from his budget director, Dan Villa. That’s just enough to exceed Bullock’s target, but it would drop if legislators override any of the vetoes.

So what’s so magic about his goal of $300 million?

Bullock said that’s a reserve of about 15 percent of appropriated general fund spending for fiscal 2015.

Why does he want such a large surplus?

“I can look out my window right now, and I don’t see snowpack,” Bullock said last week. “Be it fires, be it flood, be it an economic downtown, it’s my job to manage this budget when they leave town.”

The Legislature adjourned April 24 and is powerless to do anything about state finances, barring a special session, until January 2015 when the next regular session convenes. Governors will do almost anything within their power to avoid calling special sessions, except for emergencies.

“The legislators, after they leave, aren’t worrying about those numbers like I am,” Bullock said. “Given that we have a legislature that meets every two years, and we’re one fire season, one economic downturn away from going through that 15 percent. I think Montanans understand how they want it managed well and that we need to keep that rainy day fund.”

Asked how Bullock settled on the $300 million target, Villa said the governor looked at the actual recent ending fund balances and settled on a middle range.

Recent actual surpluses were $451.7 million in fiscal 2012, $341.9 million in 2011, $310.6 million in 2010, $392 million in 2009 and $433.6 million in 2008, Villa said.

Bullock’s $300 million is more than twice than Schweitzer’s $125 million surplus goal two years ago, Villa said.

Some legislators expect state revenues to come in much higher, which would produce an even higher surplus.

Senate Joint Resolution 27, introduced in early April by Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, projected $50 million in additional revenue than what legislators predicted in November. The Bullock administration estimated even $50 million more than the SJR 27, or $100 million more.

Senate Republican leaders never allowed SJR27 to be debated on the floor, so the revenue estimates were never updated.

Having a hefty surplus not only protects Bullock and the state financially these next two years against fires, floods and other unforeseen bills, but it also could set him up well for the 2015 session and beyond.

Bullock got most of his agenda through this session – except for the proposal that was the cornerstone of his 2012 campaign. He proposed giving all Montana homeowners a one-time, $400 property tax rebate at a total cost of around $100 million. Republicans killed it in committee.

He borrowed the rebate idea from Schweitzer, who convinced a special session of the 2007 Legislature to pass an identical rebate for all Montana homeowners. It became a key element of Schweitzer’s successful 2008 re-election campaign.

Ditto with Republican Gov. Marc Racicot, who got the 1995 Legislature to pass a smaller income tax rebate, dubbed “Nobody told us to keep the change.” It passed the year before Racicot’s victorious 1996 re-election campaign

When Democratic Gov. Thomas L. Judge faced for re-election in 1976, he sponsored a ballot measure the same year to give tax rebates to homeowners. Voters re-elected Judge and passed his tax rebate measure on the same day.

If the surplus remains healthy, might Bullock have something similar in mind before his 2016 re-election?

Missoulian State Bureau reporter Charles S. Johnson can be reached at (406) 447-4066 or by email at

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. DonaldM
    Report Abuse
    DonaldM - May 12, 2013 10:24 am
    I'm happy that Bullock seems to have a sense of fiscal responsibility; though I don't agree with all of his specific cuts. Such is life.

    However, he made two vetoes which were blatantly politically partisan which disappoints me; I thought he was better than that. One was the veto of the Game Wardens wage increase because their union supported his opponent-that was a great way to win them over; and his veto of the oil-gas impact support for Eastern Montana because they supported the Republican candidate ford Gov.

    He seems to not realize that he is now Gov of all of Montana, not just Montana Democrats.
  2. in the pines
    Report Abuse
    in the pines - May 12, 2013 9:25 am
    But, Charles, how does the veto on HB 499 (think I'm right on that one) that would have exempted rent/lease homes from subdivision review save on money? That veto is not getting any press and it is a change that is sorely needed, in my opinion. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Search our events calendar