Pawlenty proposes amendment to limit state spending

After seven years of budget battles, Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Thursday proposed a constitutional amendment to limit state spending.

[Do not Trust T Paw]

On the face of it, T-Paw's idea is intriguing. Then I remember that he was a major player almost a decade ago when Gov. Ventura and the Republicans forced tax reductions that mainly benefited the rich and led to the roller coaster of budget crises that the state has faced since that time. I also remember that T-Paw continues to dodge responsibility for raising taxes by his raising "fees", his shifting the burden on local governments, and his many accounting 'shifts' and capitalizing on the Federal stimulus payment to the state that saved our butts. All while T-Paw criticized that program. T-Paw has no honor and that's why I'd reject his constitutional amendment suggestion.

[me in st paul]

Maybe it would be worth considering if Pawlenty had been more honest about the budgeting process as Governor and in the legislature. As it stands now it is mainly about enhancing his national profile. Since he never actually accomplished what he is proposing himself, why hamstring future governor's abilities to deal with emergencies?

[Lucifer]

You can trust us.

[Matt Nixon Entenza Quam]

Why in the world would the Pio-Norm Press call the biggest liar in politics, Matt "Nixon" Entenza Quam and has him what he thinks about the latest bone headed idea by the 'governor?' Matt "Nixon" Entenza Quam has no credibility talking about money matters. He is spending his wife's, Lois "Pat Nixon" Quam Entenza's back dated stock options she earned while working and denying health care coverage at United "we fight all" Health Care "reform" Group. Pat and Tricky Dick should give back the blood money, and skulk away into the night like the vermin they are.

[Entenza Quam Gimmick]

Matt "show me the backdated stock options" Entenza call this a gimmick. I will tell you what's a gimmick. It's his wife Lois " I was against a public option before I was for it " Quam trying, like Matt, to recreate history. Lois Quam worked for and recieved millions and millions and millions of dollars from United ( we oppossed, even when Quam worked here all those years, all) Health Care (reform) designing strategies and proposing acquisitions which led to the denial of health care coverage and reimbursements to untold numbers of Americans. She left that job because it was a political liability to Matts AG campaign. Now years later she comes out for a public option (a month ago) and attacked her former employer in a speech recently.
Gimmicks Quam and Entenza. Stop the hypocrasy and just give back the back dated stock option blood money to the state or organizations who will provide health care coverage to those denied by United(we oppossed, even when Quam worked here, all) Health (care reform) Group.

[JoeMerlot]

Bell Research Center wrote:

"If TABOR applied to families, workers would have to refuse merit raises above inflation and might even have to give back any bonuses. A family that ran its finances according to TABOR could well go bankrupt." .

OK, I'm not sure if it's the reporting that mangled Bell Research Center's point or if Bell Research Center is simply grasping at making a case against spending caps, but the above quote makes absolutely no sense. As I understand Pawlenty's proposal, you wouldn't have to give anything back, you simply couldn't spend it and would have to either put it in savings(budget reserve) or spend on a one time initiative. Further, how many families forcast and spend their bonuses and merit increases before they receive them or have confirmation as to how much they will be. Any that do are likely to go bankrupt.

Although I'm for anything that tightens state spending controls and oversight and this proposal sounds like an idea worthy of serious consideration, there are legitmate questions to ask. I understand that the proposal would implement a cap on spending and that the cap is set based on past real revenue. Is there any additional mechanism to prevent the state from spending more than it will receive in the current budget cycle? It's technically possible with revenue fluctiations to have past revenue's higher than current revenue's so what would prevent that scenario from ocurring. Would it be based on the new spending cap AND forcasted revenue or is it designed to work on a backlog concept (which would be bad).

I absolutely expect the DFL to give this cursory consideration and to resist as much as possible. DFL'ers are like my ex-wife. They think that a need or want makes money magically appear and have no concept of prioritization.