Pawlenty introduced a question about what the United States should do about Iran with his view that “it’s inevitable that that situation is going to come to a head.” Powell said recent political turmoil has revealed “fissures,” as people press their desire for “liberalized government.”

Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Powell said the United States had two choices: Take out nukes militarily, or warn them, Cold War style, that any nuclear aggression on their part would bring greater retribution against them.

One area of shared interest wasn’t touched on in Pawlenty’s talk with Powell: the future of the Republican Party.

Also left unmentioned: Powell’s views on the recent arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, and President Obama’s nationally-televised response in which he referenced racial profiling.

Only last week, the NAACP centenary brought Powell together with Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, whose “nation of cowards” speech in February marked the Administration’s other rhetorical milestone on race.

(Idle question: Would Minnesota DFL Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller have broached that timely issue of race with Powell, given the equal time from WCCO that he has asked for?)

Here’s the video of Pawlenty on Fox on Thursday, responding to Obama on health care:

[Via Political Animal]

By constitutional mandate, redistricting takes place every 10 years: Each state’s legislature must redraw the lines that define congressional and legislative districts. But it rarely happens the same way twice; when politicians fail, judges step in to finish the job.

Stakes are especially high in Minnesota, as the state may lose a congressional seat after the 2010 U.S. Census reapportionment. And if Minnesota loses a congressional seat, the redistricting process will decide whether the district of Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann or another incumbent will be relegated to the history books.

The bill, carried by Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis), takes up recommendations from a group led by former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Gov. Arne Carlson.

The Mondale-Carlson group (technically, the Advisory Board for the Minnesota Redistricting Project of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota) proposed saving time and sweat by getting judges to draw congressional- and legislative-district lines before legislators themselves get involved. The reverse sequence — Legislature, then courts — is responsible for the state’s current political lines.

But some who were among the closest to the work of reshaping Minnesota’s political boundaries last time around seem to think the existing system worked pretty well.

Redistricting reform got nowhere last session, but this year Pogemiller pushed through his bill by a vote of 39–28 in the final days before the state Legislature adjourned. Next stop: the House’s Committee on State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections, which could hold discussions on the topic before considering the bill itself when the legislative session resumes in February, according to legislative staff.

UPDATE: In an email, Committee Chair state Rep. Gene Pelowski promises that the committee “will be looking at redistricting over the summer and this bill will be included.”

Reform advocates, led by Mondale and Carlson, have argued (pdf) that the current system is “broken” — badly enough that it won’t do for the next round of redistricting after the 2010 census.

The new system would create a commission of five retired appeals court judges to make the first maps of new district boundaries based on the latest census data. The majority and minority caucuses from both the House and the Senate would appoint one judge each. The four judges would together choose a fifth to join them.

Their first plan would go to the Legislature for an up-or-down vote — no changes allowed. If that fails to pass, the commission would work up a second plan, which again would be subject to an up-or-down vote by the Legislature. Only if the second plan fails to pass would legislators have a chance at concocting their own plan.

Musical chairs

Demographic estimates predict the count in Minnesota may fall about 2,000 people short of the number needed to retain the state’s current complement of eight congressional districts. If that happens, the question of which party’s incumbent loses a seat in Congress will fall to the state’s redistricting process — and will likely make the decennially debilitating battles over creating new legislative boundaries look like cake walks.

So the rules for what could become a titanic game of musical chairs matter deeply. And exactly who applies those rules depends on who wins the race for governor next year. If Democrats retain control of the state Legislature but lack veto-proof majorities in both houses, then a Republican in the governor’s mansion keeps things complicated, as both the state’s legislative and executive branches must approve a new plan.

On the other hand, if a Democrat succeeds Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the struggle for the DFL becomes one of drawing the most advantageous plan possible under constitutional requirements.

The last time the state took on this task, after the 2000 census, it was not simply a matter for one party, or even two. For the first time, redistricting was a three-way partisan game: The Independence Party’s Jesse Ventura was governor, Republicans held the House, and the DFL controlled the Senate.

Each assigned a staffer to draw a redistricting plan. (Wielding somewhat less influence were the minority caucuses from each legislative body, whose redistricting staffers included one Michael Brodkorb for the Senate Republicans.)

Veterans of the trenches

Over the past few weeks, the Minnesota Independent interviewed key staffers from each party as well as the man who ran redistricting for the state Legislature: Peter Wattson, now secretary of the Senate.

All had a hand in drawing — or, in Wattson’s case, evaluating — maps that eventually got redrawn by the courts. But all seem satisfied by the result.

Wattson said the redistricting process last time was “pretty orderly, actually.”

Greg Peppin, who drew redistricting maps for the Republican House majority, recalls that “everyone felt that the plan was pretty fair.”

Vic Thorstenson, Peppin’s counterpart for Senate Democrats, said: “We were pretty happy with the court’s plan.”

Joe Mansky, who represented Ventura and the Independence Party, concurred: “We were pretty happy with the outcome,” he said.

That doesn’t mean all four oppose Pogemiller’s plan. Thorstenson and Wattson still work at the Capitol and wouldn’t give their opinions on the reform proposal.

Peppin, now a political consultant, said “the process is just steeped in politics” and reckons that a judicial panel assigned first crack at drawing maps “will not be able to do it better than the Legislature.”

Mansky supports the plan, in part because it hearkens back to a commission Ventura formed for the same purpose.

Popularity and obscurity

In his current role as elections manager for Ramsey County, Mansky became a familiar face this year to the dedicated followers of the Norm Coleman/Al Franken Senate race, due to long hours he spent on the witness stand of the recent election-contest trial.

But seven years ago, the trio toiled over their redistricting maps in relative obscurity — outside of the state Capitol, that is.

“We mapmakers were very popular,” Peppin recalls. Legislators of every stripe were eager to know how things were shaping up — particularly for their home districts. “There was a reason for changing the locks and giving us all fresh keys,” he said.

Thorstenson’s recalls his home-away-from-home during those days the same way: “I was in a room at the State Capitol that even the janitors weren’t allowed to go into.”

Coming: Scenarios past mapmakers see for the redistricting to come

Pawlenty claims that the DFL-controlled legislature has authorized spending of roughly $34 billion, while only creating revenues of $31 billion. “Your approach puts me in the position of evaluating your bills without having a viable plan from you to pay for them,” Pawlenty writes. “Before we commit the state to write checks from the public checkbook, I need to know how you intend to cover the $3 billion hole in your plan noted above.”

On Saturday the governor vetoed a tax bill that would have raised $1 billion in revenue. Pawlenty also states in the letter that he’s available to meet with the DFL leadership. Legislative leaders met with the governor yesterday, but both sides reported little progress. The legislative session is slated to end in five days.

• • “Significantly reduce” his use of nearly $1 billion in borrowing.
• • “Accept the Senate position on budget reserves.”
• • “Move toward the House position” on a K-12 funding shift

He says these areas would generate a billion dollars in revenue, equivalent to the funding level in the tax bill he vetoed, and he reiterated he’d oppose attempts to raise taxes.

Read the governor’s letter to Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (pdf).

The governor called for a $33.6 billion budget — or 2.2 percent less than in the current two-year cycle. His plan includes tax cuts for corporations and increased funding for K-12 education, but also mandates steep reductions in spending on higher education, local government aid and health and human services.

In addition, it relies on more than $3 billion in one-time fixes, including increased federal funding via the looming stimulus package, accounting shifts and future tobacco revenues.

“Our nation and our state faces a historic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since World War II,” Pawlenty said, in announcing the budget proposal. “This is bringing on a profound sense of concern and challenge for our citizens in Minnesota.”

The deficit is projected to be $4.8 billion for the next biennium, but that figure is widely expected to grow as the economy continues to flatline and jobs disappear. The current budget cycle runs through the end of June.

Under Pawlenty’s proposal, adults without children would no longer be eligible for state health insurance programs, while coverage for adults with kids would be limited to those earning less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level ($21,200 for a family of four). It’s estimated that 84,000 Minnesotans would lose their health insurance under the proposal. Despite these proposed cutbacks, the budget for health and human services spending would still increase by 9.6 percent over the next two years.

Higher education would also take a significant hit. The University of Minnesota would lose roughly $150 million in funding, while the the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system would be out $146 million. The cuts represent an 8.2 percent reduction in spending on higher education from the current biennium.

Pawlenty also proposed additional cuts to local government aid, which has been repeatedly slashed in recent years. Under the governor’s plan, such spending would be reduced an additional 5.4 percent, to $2.9 billion.

The specter of more cuts to local government aid prompted a strong reaction from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

“This budget will take the state of Minnesota in a direction most Minnesotans don’t want to go,” said St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, a vice president of the organization. “We’re all eager to work together toward a solution to the challenges the state faces, but this proposal puts a disproportionate burden on communities throughout the state of Minnesota that can simply not afford it.”

One area that emerged unscathed in Pawlenty’s budget plan is K-12 education. Pawlenty proposed increasing funding for schools by 2 percent. In return he wants all school districts across the state to implement Q Comp, a compensation system that bases teacher salaries on student performance.

Corporations would also benefit under Pawlenty’s budget plan. He proposed cutting the state’s corporate income tax by more than half — from 9.8 percent to 4.8 percent. He offered up a series of additional tax breaks for businesses aimed at spurring job growth.

The initial response from Democratic legislative leaders was wary.

“We absolutely want everybody to know that we are going to work with his budget as seriously as we can, and we assume there are some excellent proposals there,” Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller told reporters at the capitol.

But House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher raised concerns about the $3.2 billion in one-time fixes proposed by Pawlenty.

“I would say this budget appears to be full of some gimmicks, and we are going to take a close look at that,” she said. “It is a concern that if you build a budget completely out of those things the long-term financial health of the state could be at risk.”

Anderson Kelliher also said that Democrats will hold hearings across the state to get feedback on how to solve the budget crisis before offering up their own proposal.

Brian Melendez, chair of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, was less restrained in his reaction.

“Minnesota’s tax system is already unfair,” he said in a statement. “Governor Pawlenty would make it even more unfair with tax breaks to corporations so that they can pay bigger bonuses to their executives and buy nicer artwork for their boardrooms — not create the jobs that Minnesota desperately needs.”

Republicans, not surprisingly, were more receptive to Pawlenty’s proposal.

“Thank you, Governor, for giving us a solution and helping us find our way back into prosperity,” said House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, speaking to reporters at the Capitol.

He called on Democrats to step up and offer their own proposal for dealing with the deficit.

“At some point they need to lead,” Seifert said. “We know what the problem is. So now we need solutions and we need leaders.”

More: Pawlenty’s proposed budget cuts draw angry response

But the proposed stamp reduction quickly sparked opposition from Democrats. “This is the way many members stay in touch with their constituents,” said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller. “You don’t have to use up this total allotment if you don’t want.”

Sen. Steve Murphy echoed those comments. “Many of us that have larger districts … we depend upon that postage to stay in contact with our constituents,” noted Murphy, a DFLer from Red Wing. “Today, more than ever, we need the input from our constituents.”

Ultimately the proposal was voted down by a 38-27 margin, largely along party lines.

Photo: Lisa Yarost, Flickr

Will state funding for education take a hit in efforts to close Minnesota’s gaping $5.3 billion state budget deficit?

State Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, thinks so. “Do the math” was his pessimistic analysis at a panel in Bloomington last Tuesday, pointing to education’s 40 percent share of the state budget. Without new taxes, significant cuts throughout Minnesota’s budget will have to be made, and education’s huge share of the budget makes it a tempting target, said State Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville) in an interview on Friday.

Ask public school officials, though, and they’ll probably tell you what Lois Rockney, the chief financial officer of St. Paul Public Schools, says: After years of underfunding, “[t]here’s no fat left to cut” in school districts’ budgets.

In St. Paul, the Capitol may be dividing against itself over the issue of funding. Pogemiller has floated the idea of a 1.6 percent cut in every major budget area, and while the idea is not even a firm proposal yet, it’s already eliciting strong reactions from other members of the Legislature.

“I don’t think that’s a sensible approach,” said Greiling, who chairs the House K-12 Education Finance Committee. “The House does not agree with [Pogemiller’s suggestion],” she said flatly.

And Greiling feels she has Gov. Tim Pawlenty in her corner. According to Minnesota’s Constitution, Pawlenty has the authority to unilaterally cut unspent funds in the current fiscal biennium (ending in June), and he will propose the budget for the 2010-11 biennium. In an interview last week, Greiling said, “The governor has named education funding as one of his priorities to protect, and I look forward to holding him to his promise.”

If the governor decides to protect education funding, this would mean other huge budgets, like health care and welfare dollars, would see deep cuts — hardly a popular decision and one that could severely impact those sectors of government.

“We don’t know what we’re going to do for the long term” if education funding is cut, said Peggy Ingison, the chief financial officer of Minneapolis Public Schools. Most districts rely heavily on aid from St. Paul to fund all aspects of their operations. On average, 20 percent or less of a district’s funding comes from local property taxes.

Minnesota’s school districts vary widely –- some urban, some rural; some small, some large; some financially healthy, some barely holding their heads above water –- so any cuts in state education aid would impact them all differently. Some school districts may weather this crisis relatively well, because their voters have recently approved multiyear property tax levies that will give some cushion to their budgets through the most tumultuous times of this recession. Dennis Peterson, superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools, said he was confident his district won’t even start feeling pressure until 2010-11 because a property tax levy passed in 2007 makes up 27 percent of the budget. In 2005 the district restructured itself, anticipating declining amounts of state aid, and now draws students from area private and charter schools.

But to most of the school officials this reporter spoke to, the future is unclear, verging on gloomy, and many were anxious about their districts’ future health.

In Minneapolis, Ingison says district leaders are afraid parents will pull their children from the district if too many specialized programs — such as culturally focused schools or language immersion programs — are cut. After struggling with declining enrollment for many years, MPS established many of these programs in recent years in an effort to woo parents back to the district and away from the charter schools that have attracted parents with these kinds of alternative education options.

“The 2010-11 school year doesn’t look good,” Burnsville-Eagan-Savage schools Superintendent Randy Clegg said in an interview Friday. While that’s 16 months away, if state aid gets slashed, the most serious cuts will hit then. Clegg said his district “needs to know what we can live without.”

In New Ulm, in southern Minnesota, Superintendent Harold Remme said his schools would be freezing all non-essential new hiring, and were also experimenting with ways to share some administrative personnel with neighboring districts. For Remme, this is a bitter decision. “We just came off of six years of declining enrollment… [where] we cut $700 million from the budget each year.”

“We’ve made as many reductions as we possibly can,” said Superintendent Chuck Futterer of the Cook County Schools, on Minnesota’s North Shore. “We’ve been looking at reductions for many years” as enrollment has declined and state aid has not kept up with inflation. “We’ve cut bus drivers, custodians, support staff, maintenance workers, and we’re looking at cutting one principal [out of two],” whose duties Futterer will take on. “The only thing left to cut is teachers.”

Superintendents are waiting on tenterhooks for January, when the governor is to issue his proposed budget for the next two-year fiscal cycle, so they can start planning ways to accommodate any state budget cuts. Most schools, they said, will manage to scrape by through cutting what are usually considered essential staff and programming. However, it’s an open question how healthy and effective public school systems will be after serious cuts like these.

Photo: Lisa Yarost

Speaking at a press conference in the governor’s reception room, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he was “very concerned” about the possible impact the merger could have on the state.

“I’m extremely concerned about this, I think all the legislative leaders are,” said Pawlenty. “We will need to see what kind of arrangements or what kind of offer they’re going to make for Minnesota.”

  Northwest Airlines, the world’s fourth-largest airline, is headquartered in Minneapolis and has one of its hubs at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Merger talks have been under way for some time with Atlanta-based Delta Airlines, the world’s second-largest airline, and a deal is expected to be announced later this week.

The potential for a loss of Northwest’s headquarters was a key focus for the governor and legislative leaders alike.

“Northwest Airlines has been an excellent company for Minnesota, and Minnesota has been excellent for Northwest Airlines,” said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis.

Pawlenty echoed those sentiments.

“We would hope that in light of all we’ve done for them over the years and decades, and what they’ve done for us, that this positive partnership could continue,” Pawlenty said. Noting that Northwest had previously committed to keeping its hub and headquarters in Minnesota in exchange for state aid, Pawlenty said that any decision to leave the state would require compensation to the state.

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said that she knew the possible loss of jobs was of “great interest” to Minnesotans. She also cited a potential loss of rural air routes as a concern.

“We are working toward assurances about rural air service in this state,” she said.

Pawlenty expressed some optimism that the merger could benefit Minnesota.

Referencing a previous merger involving a Minnesota fixture, Pawlenty said, “When Wells Fargo purchased Northwest Bank, the headquarters moved to San Francisco, but the number of people employed in Minnesota actually increased.” He added later, “Our position about the merger will depend on how they treat Minnesota.”

“When legislators and the Governor assemble the state budget, we shouldn’t assume that every program should grow on autopilot. We need to examine every taxpayer dollar that will be spent and ensure that we are streamlining and keeping government efficient and effective,” said Pawlenty. 

Accusing Democrats of failing to heed his warnings about the language, Pawlenty said, “When complaints come about provisions lost as a result of this veto, I would encourage people to contact DFL leaders who chose to keep controversial policy language in rather than passing a clean bill.”

Pawlenty’s veto at least temporarily halts additional property tax relief for homeowners, as well as an increase in the ceiling for renters’ credits.  It also stops an increase in Local Government Aid, which may force cities and counties to raise property taxes further to maintain current service levels.

The veto also blocks $500,000 in aid to the Grand Marais area to help with recovery after wildfires and provide tax relief for those whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the fire; additional property tax relief for disabled veterans; tax credits for those serving in the military and Tax Increment Financing Districts in a number of cities.  The veto also stopped tax relief for a $140 million addition to the Thomson West campus in Eagan, as well as the $1.8 billion expansion of the Mall of America in Bloomington, and tax support for the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, expressed disappointment in the veto.“Allowing for inflation when constructing a budget is a conservative, honest, common sense standard that is employed by most responsible governments and businesses,” Pogemiller said.  “This bill would have provided some tax fairness by making sure corporations paid their fair share and by giving homeowners some property tax relief. It’s unfortunate the Governor vetoed a bill with widespread bi-partisan support in the Senate.”

Pawlenty could call the legislature into a special session to craft a new tax bill that omitted the language he objected to, but he has not indicated that he would do so.  If the legislature was called back, it would be able to deal with any other issues it wanted to.