From the Asheville Citizen-Times, Sept. 25

An extraordinarily severe economic downturn made for some extraordinary fiscal decisions in Raleigh regarding the state budget. Due to a recent court decision, one of the strategies used in battling the crisis is under fire.

The state actually wound up spending $724 million less in 2008-2009 than in the prior fiscal year, and with expenditures of $19.65 billion, spent $1.7 billion less than budgeted.

Gov. Beverly Perdue was able to use nearly $700 million in federal stimulus funds to help plug the budget hole. She also made a huge grab out of state trust and reserve funds totaling more than $800 million.

It’s likely to be difficult enough, given the unhappy mood of North Carolinians. Tar Heels aren’t happy with their elected officials. Any of them. Freshman Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan pulled an approval rating of 32 percent, Republican Sen. Richard Burr hit 38 percent and Gov. Beverly Perdue had an anemic approval rating of 27 percent.

There may be a variety of factors in play regarding Perdue’s numbers, but it’s safe to say the economy is likely factors one, two and three. Back to the ruling. In a case involving actions by former Gov. Mike Easley, the court ruled the transfer of $80 million from the state Highway Trust Fund to the general fund in the 2001-2002 budget year exceeded the governor’s power under the state constitution. Judge Robert N. Hunter Jr. wrote that North Carolina’s ruling document “does not create a power to transfer and spend funds appropriated for one purpose to another purpose without statutory authority.” Given that Gov. Perdue seized school construction funds, lottery reserves and clean water grant monies to plug this year’s budget hole, the ruling raises a lot of implications for how to deal with potential future budget crises.

The state constitution also says, “To insure that the State does not incur a deficit for any fiscal period, the Governor shall continually survey the collection of the revenue and shall effect the necessary economies in State expenditures...” The case has the possibility of wandering deep into constitutional underbrush.

A combination of unstable political footing and fuzzy constitutional lines regarding the budget hold the potential for a fiscal train wreck next year. The state can appeal the ruling. We’re not saying it’s right or wrong; we are saying it throws some critical duties up in the air. The lines need to be clearly drawn before the players take the field to battle over next year’s budget. There are signs the economic picture may not be so nightmarish come next year. But if it is, everyone needs to be certain what the rules are when it comes to dealing with it.