Pawlenty proposes spending-cap amendment, but prospects of passing slim
Thursday, November 05, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Gov. Tim Pawlenty believes Minnesota has a “binge” spending problem. In order to fix this addiction, he’s proposing a rather radical solution: an amendment to the state’s constitution that would strictly limit future expenditures.
Pawlenty unveiled the proposal at a state Capitol press conference Thursday morning.
Under his plan, the state’s general fund budget would be limited to the amount of revenue collected in the previous two-year cycle. The two-term Republican governor argued that such a stringent cap on spending is necessary because legislators have proven unable to contain spending. Since 1960, he pointed out, general fund budgets have increased by an average of 21 percent every two years.
“That is an amazing, startling, frightening number,” Pawlenty said. “It is unsustainable going forward.”
Such an amendment would need to be passed by the legislature and then approved by voters. Pawlenty wants the proposal to be on the ballot next year.
But it is unlikely to get a favorable reception from Democrats, who control both legislative bodies with substantial majorities. Pawlenty acknowledged that.
“I suspect they won’t like it,” he said of his DFL counterparts. “Anything that limits spending growth they won’t like.”
Democratic leaders insisted that they will give the proposal serious consideration. “I’m intrigued at learning more about it,” said Tom Bakk, chair of the Senate Taxes Committee and a candidate to take over Pawlenty’s job in 2011. “This will require some very thoughtful consideration.”
But Democrats also pointed out that Pawlenty has never proposed a budget that would have fit within the fiscal strictures he hopes to set for future administrations. In the current biennium, for instance, Pawlenty initially proposed a $34.4 billion general fund budget — more than $2 billion over revenue collections for the prior two years. In addition, the state is currently facing a $5–7 billion budget deficit.
“We’ve got a $5–7 billion iceberg in front of us and I think it would have been better if he would have proposed something of this significance earlier in his term,” said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller. “But let’s give it some thought now, on his way out the door.”
Indeed, Pawlenty is not running for re-election next year and is clearly eyeing a 2012 presidential bid. Burnishing his credentials as a fiscal conservative could help with that cause — even if it does nothing to solve Minnesota’s budget problems.
Many conservative commentators, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board to Americans for Tax Reform, hailed Pawlenty in June for unilaterally slashing $2.7 billion from Minnesota’s budget over Democratic protests.
The DFL party was quick to characterize Pawlenty’s proposed amendment as another ploy to bolster his political ambitions.
“If a budget cap is such a good idea, why did Gov. Pawlenty wait until he was nearly out the door before proposing it?” asked Brian Melendez, chairman of the DFL party, in a press release. “The answer is simple: so that he wouldn’t actually have to govern under it, because he has no plans to follow through with what is really just a political stunt aimed at boosting his national notoriety.”
5 Comments
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Not spending more than you make, what a novel concept! It’s DOA of course…
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Hmmmmm, why would he pick 1960? I mean, that is 50 years ago. Why would he do that?
Because the country’s population and economy grew rapidly from 1960 to 1980. And government grew with it.
Governor, if you want to make a valid point, why don’t you take the last 5 years? Or even 10 years? Because it won’t yield the big number you want.
If you have such a great idea, why do you have to pull bogus numbers to support it? 1960, 50 years ago, what a joke.
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
Conspicuously missing from this piece is the part where this “cap” could be overridden in instances of “unforeseen emergencies” and “to bolster public sector jobs.” Meaning, the terrorists are here, we NEED 20,000 More police! Only the “terrorists” could be anyone- not limited to American citizens protesting their tyrannical government!
What better way to hand over Minnesota to the FEDS than capping our capacity to handle economic conditions at a local level and force the supplementation of our State’s business further via yet more FED funding and privatizing of profits and publicizing of debts. Pawlenty is a FED GOON.
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
1960 was before there was a huge surge in public sector spending … the Sputnik scare was being funded with military expansion, funding higher ed expansion … Johnson’s “Great Society” programs expanded social spending, and Vietnam was increasingly expensive.
picking 1960 advantages Mr. Pawlenty’s point, starting the series at the low point just before the surge. it’s not an arbitrary choice
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Isn’t this TABOR, the thing passed in Colorado? The plan has the effect of strangling the government of funds because each time you cut the budget you ratchet down total spending, making the cut level the new baseline, thus making the government progressively smaller year after year.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.






