Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Why (the DFL Thinks) Pawlenty Does Not Want A Structurally Balanced Budget

Bookmark and Share

One of the frequent refrains heard throughout the DFL leadership this session has been a criticism of Governor Tim Pawlenty's budget as failing to be structurally balanced beyond the 2010-2011 fiscal years, and a disapproval of the Governor's use of one-term solutions, such as tobacco bonds, to facilitate the State's constitutional requirements to balance the budget by May 18th.

On MPR Wednesday morning, Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said four years out, in FY 2012-2013, the budget deficit is projected to be at over $6 billion:

"There is an underlying problem in the structure of our budget...And the fact of the matter is the Governor's comfortable kicking the can down the road and passing it along to another day."

In a press release on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate DFL caucus accused Pawlenty of "Using federal funds to hide the real problem," and made a vague reference to the Governor in its warning that, "This is no time for political aspirations to be ahead of the needs of the public." (emphasis added)

The DFL has also made frequent reference for the need to have "All the options on the table"; Speaker Anderson Kelliher chooses to use the analogy of the legislature needing, "All the trays in the toolbox," and calls Pawlenty's vow of no tax increases, "Sabre rattling."

These 'options' and 'tools' that the DFL wants to use, but does not want to always address by name are, of course, tax increases on Minnesotans. The Speaker prefers the term, "Fairer revenue raise."

All the while the Governor remains a model of consistency, pledging again on Tuesday that he would oppose any tax increases for Minnesotans and Minnesota businesses.

Even party loyalist GOP House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, however, has concerns about the Governor's budget proposal. On MPR Wednesday morning he stated:

"I don't disagree with the Speaker that the securitization of the tobacco bonds are a revenue source. The one thing we have to be careful about is it's a one-time pot and if the Governor's budget structurally changes 30 percent of spending and on a one-time basis 70 percent - I'm concerned about that. I'm just going to be honest with you about that. I don't mean to criticize him - he does have a solution out there, and I want to thank him for the solution...(but) It's got to be a little heavier on the long-term structure because we'll be back in the soup again in 2011...We have to have more structural reforms."

At Tuesday's media availability, when asked whether or not he would be able to solve the budget imbalance for not only this biennium, but also the 2012-13 biennium, without increasing the revenue that comes into the State, Pawlenty elected to punt for one of the few times all morning:

"We're going to have a balanced budget that meets the constitutional requirements of the State of Minnesota."

The lines connecting the dots here are short and straight.

Pawlenty's non-answer answer regarding the 2012-13 budget, taken together with the Senate DFL's reference to Pawlenty's 'political aspirations' fuels the DFL's speculation that:

1) The Governor is purposefully leaving the budget unstructured.

2) The Governor is leaving the budget unstructured, because he knows the only way to resolve the $6 billion 2012-13 deficit is to institute tax increases today.

3) The Governor is willing to "kick the can down the road" because he does not want to break his "no tax increase" pledge.

4) The Governor does not want to deviate from this "no tax increase" mantra because he wants to leave open the possibility of running for President in 2012.

5) Should the Governor sign off on tax increases (and focus on what the DFL believes to be the long-term financial health of the State), his potential Republican presidential primary rivals could use any such tax hike as a weapon against him in the presidential primaries. As of today, he could enter the 2012 GOP field with fairly clean, conservative hands.

As such, the Governor is continuing to hammer away at non-tax raising solutions to make the budget as structurally sound as possible - such as through more spending cuts and governmental pay freezes (including the politically shrewd move of reducing his own salary as Governor).

Of course, the Governor could take an arrow out of the DFL's quiver by announcing his intention to run for Governor in 2010 - if that is indeed his intention. The announcement of his 2010 plans are expected sometime in the next 10 months, though the odds are not high that the Governor will do so until after this legislative session is completed.

Previous post: Minnesotans' Approval of Obama Holds Steady As Support Wanes Nationwide
Next post: Pawlenty Approval Rating Sinks to Lowest Level Since October 2006

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting