Tim Pawlenty has come up with an intriguing amendment to put on next year’s ballot in Minnesota; he wants to cap state spending at the level of revenues from the previous biennium. The Star Tribune has more:
If the proposed “Spending Accountability Amendment” had been in place in 1960, general fund spending since then would have been reduced by over $22 billion, an average of more than $900 million for each two-year state budget cycle, Pawlenty said…
His proposed amendment reads: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require that state government general fund expenditures be limited to the amount of actual general fund revenues received by the state in the previous two-year budget period?”
Pawlenty likened the current system of basing state spending commitments on estimated revenues to building a house on a foundation of sand. The amendment would eliminate those revenue “guesses,” he said.
The proposal would allow additional expenditures to provide for the public safety, or health in the event of a declared national security or peacetime emergency.
Pushing his proposal at a state Capitol news conference, Pawlenty said that during the past 40 years, state spending increased by, on average, more than 10 percent per year, but has grown by only 2 percent a year during his tenure.
Excellent news. T-Paw clearly intends to target the deficit hawk group.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Going to have to be some kind of adjustment to that proposal to account for inflation, etc.
Other than that, sounds good.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Great idea, but if inflation takes off, WSU has a point.
I’ve been saying for a while that Pawlenty’s message is “It’s the deficits, stupid.”
Hooray for TPaw!
November 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
TPaw has the credibility, track record, and vision to ride the rising anti-deficit wave.
You combine that with his SoCon bona fides, and you’ve got a winning cocktail in 2012.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I like the idea. In Alberta we have a few dedicated revenues that are adminstered the same way. For example, the Alberta tourism levy (a 4% sales tax on hotel rooms) is used to fund government tourism efforts. The current year’s budget is set equal to revenues generated two years prior. This gives the tourism department lots of time to adjust their future year spending projections when revenues fall and provides them revenue certainty in the current year. Doing this for all government spending would be helpful.
I can just imagine a government that didn’t spend beyond its means. It’s a pipe dream though, especially considering government is run by individuals like you and I who know how to do nothing but overspend.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Great for Pawlenty. Put Gregg on the ticket as VP and we would trounce Obama.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Oh, I forgot. VP is supposed to be an attack dog, and that sure isn’t Gregg.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
BREAKING NEWS: 12 dead, 31 injured in Fort Hood shooting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
November 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Pelosi’s health care plan charges a premium specifically to cover abortions, and pays for them out of the Treasury:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
November 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Honestly, this is the message the GOP should have been practicing and preaching since 2000. Had they adhered to this kind of thinking, they’d still control Congress and the White House.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Richard,
Agreed.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Obama Faces Political Concern on Jobs After Election Setbacks
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoskJcrIjb0&pos=9
November 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Aron,
And Pelosi is forcing a vote on health care one day after those figures are released.
Talk about tone-deaf.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“At his economic meeting on Nov. 2, Obama said the U.S. must “get serious” about reducing the deficit. ”
Is that supposed to be a joke?
November 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Steele Warns GOP Centrists: “We’ll Come After You”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/05/steele_warns_gop_centrists_well_come_after_you.html
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan:
November 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Club for Growth Goes After Crist
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/05/2120605.aspx
November 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
IL Sen: Dissuading Sarah
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/05/2120471.aspx
The DSCC has fired off this “memo” to Palin and Malek, which digs up unfavorable things Kirk had said about Palin:
November 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
LMAO #16
November 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Great news from Pawlenty. This is in effect a cyclically balanced budget, allowing for deficits in times of recession and necessitating surpluses in better days, which is precisely what fiscal policy ought to be doing.
And 16,
The Dems clearly want to throw Palin into a tough situation of looking weak if she endorses Kirk, one who is supposedly against her principles. Of course, Kirk is by far and away the best leader possible for Illinois, so hopefully she’ll ignore this shot.
Overall the Democrats are trying to paint us as taken over by the conservative purists, when the vast majority of conservatives have always gotten behind our state candidates as Republicans, and we’ve done fine. Our message should always be one of leadership over ideology and partisanship. Conservatism can speak for itself.
Good news also is that the Democrats know that soon enough the cameras will all be on them as the progressives purists which already *have* hijacked their party prepare to purge the conservative and independent Dems like they did Lieberman.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
If Rubio wins, it will be because a majority of Republicans agree that he’s the better candidate, not because the Club for [Democrat] Growth + Sarah Palin get behind him to purge Charlie. Rubio could use their friendly support of course but he has to demonstrate that he’s a Republican of broad vision, not a party-purger.
I wish these guys would mostly shut up and let the state races play themselves out.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Yeah, lots and lots of Dem/MSM breast-beating about the “nasty civil war” in the GOP. It’s a slapstick “Quick! Look over there!” move to distract from their own divisions.
It all results in some of the “Most Absurd Post-Election Spin”:
November 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Sleeper Cell?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/malik-nadal-hasan-fort-ho_n_347620.html&cp
November 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Wouldn’t Pawlenty be competing for many of the same voters as Romney? I’m sure Mitt would run as a deficit hawk as well.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Let’s listen in to hear what Patrick Hughes thinks of Kirk’s fancy footwork remarked on in #16:
November 5th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Consistently supported Obama’s legislative record, says Hughes? He’s deviated a tiny bit with cap-and-trade, but in everything else from the stimulus on he’s worked with our party. I don’t mind Kirk breaking with orthodoxy now and then on some issues, because he’s representing a state that is not the least bit conservative and a district that is above all else moderate. He’s a solid moderate himself.
Hughes may be eager to Scozzafava him but his strength as a candidate – and Kirk is a very strong candidate to be running even with the Dem in Illinois – and record as a Republican simply won’t back a challenge up.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Good for Mr. Pawlenty. He is proving himself to be an acceptable candidate for President.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
ICYMI…Kirk flip-flopped on cap & trade just 25 days after voting for HR 2454 in late June.
Mark Kirk: I Voted For Cap And Trade In The House, Would Vote No In The Senate (And Crowd Cheers)
September 14, 2009
Check it out at the 3:10 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPZ6oRK_6lk&feature=player_embedded
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/mark-kirk-i-voted-for-cap-and-trade-in-the-house-would-vote-no-in-the-senate-and-crowd-cheers.php
Kirk Backpedaling On Cap-And-Trade
July 21, 2009
http://progressillinois.com/2009/7/21/kirk-backpedal-cap-trade
November 5th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“I’m sure Mitt would run as a deficit hawk as well.”
Pawlenty has the cred.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
““I’m sure Mitt would run as a deficit hawk as well.”
Pawlenty has the cred.” BINGO!
November 5th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“Pawlenty has the cred”
So does Mr.Romney have you forgotten that he turned around the fiscal mess in Massachussets. The state had a surplus all 4 years he was governor.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
“So does Mr.Romney have you forgotten that he turned around the fiscal mess in Massachussets. The state had a surplus all 4 years he was governor.” However, they still call it Taxachusetts and if he is not going to stand in the way of the RNC pissing away a million dollars (which is a big amount to many Americans) how can he be trusted in running the country’s fiscal affairs.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Sean,
Well, Mitt did some good things with the MA budget. I’ll concede that. But he also created a new entitlement program that has caused…… problems…. for the state budget since he left.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
“Pawlenty has the cred” LOL… where exactly in Romney’s life does he NOT exhibit credibility in financial matters?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“where exactly in Romney’s life does he NOT exhibit credibility in financial matters?” How much money did it cost him per delegate in 2008? So far, 2009 is proving that he learned little from that campaign.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
His decision to suspend his campaign was not based on sunk cost. He understands that no matter how much money or time is invested in a particular endeavor (or gov’t program etc.), one bases his decision on the future payoff and expected returns.
Not everyone gets that.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
“However, they still call it Taxachusetts”
Look at the lop-sided state legislature he had to deal with. I do believe he pushed for tax cuts not sure if he ever got them or not.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Loren,
The “cred” was specifically in regard to deficit hawkishnessity.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
MWS, you might want to pick your battles with more discretion. If Romney falls on his face before the primary or early on in the primary, who do you think his supporters will go to? Most likely Pawlenty, as he is the most acceptable alternative. Do you really want to alienate them with your endless carping? Maybe you should choose a different target to attack.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Dan,
Just doing my little bit to help him fall on his face a little sooner.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Calstate,
“His decision to suspend his campaign was not based on sunk cost. He understands that no matter how much money or time is invested in a particular endeavor (or gov’t program etc.), one bases his decision on the future payoff and expected returns.”
That’s kind of like what we who play poker call “pot odds.”
November 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Honestly,
While i am excited about the prospect of a pawlenty presidency….it is SAD that every day i feel we are getting farther and farther away from the possibility of a romney presidency. I’m not a big romney fan…but i think he is “valuable”. He may be what we need…he may not. I do know this….WE MUST WIN. If we lose in 2012, it will be the end of the republic.
I feel that Mitt is losing ground…mostly because others are either gaining ground…or the focus of the general public is NOT on Mitt. He needs to get out there a little more, if he is SERIOUS about running. If had to make the decision TODAY, i think he would say no. I think it only gets worse for him as pawlenty gains momentum. Pawlenty went from like 1% in a poll to 4% the next time. Those are grassroots supporters…the kind of people that will build an organization for Pawlenty. He’s going to be the BIGGEST obstacle for either Mitt or Mike in obtaining the nomination…and the fact that they probably will concentrate more on each other leaves a big opening for Pawlenty. If I was gonna bet on it, i’d say a Pawlenty/Huckabee ticket is a smart choice. Especially if Huck doesn’t want to run for the nomination again, and just wants to slide in the easy way as VP. He would be VERY valuable at the bottom of ANY ticket the GOP produces. He is a perfect balance to any of our top prospects. It cannot be said that Mitt would balance a Huckabee ticket…but Huckabee sure would balance a Romney ticket. It’s so weird, but i think it’s true.
Romney better get on his horse fast…or this race is gonna fly away without him.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Pawlenty plays down Snowe-storm, says he was inartful in talking about Sen. Snowe this week
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/69290112.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUgOy9cP3DieyckcUsI
November 5th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
MWS, I’m not saying Pawlenty does not have credibility with being a deficit hawk. I’m saying he is not the only one.
I’m looking at Romney’s record from business to the olympics to his governership and from all indications, cutting costs, balancing budgets and solving financial difficulties puts him on equal footing with the best of them.
Pawlenty does have “cred” and if he’s the last one standing, he has my support. Whoever is the last one standing will have my support. At this point, I think Romney has the strongest skillset to build an administration that can repair all the damage obama’s thuggery is creating.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Loren,
Likewise, I would take Romney over Obama any day of the week, and twice on Tuesdays.
But Pawlenty is the man.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
SurveyUSA California Favorability Poll
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4a49af39-b308-49b3-85b0-a20e47d978b3
Barbara Boxer
Favorable 33%
Unfavorable 37%
Neutral 21%
No opinion 10%
Carly Fiorina
Favorable 11%
Unfavorable 24%
Neutral 30%
No opinion 35%
Chuck DeVore
Favorable 8%
Unfavorable 15%
Neutral 26%
No opinion 51%
Al Ramirez
Favorable 10%
Unfavorable 12%
Neutral 23%
No opinion 55%
November 5th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
MWS
Nobody’s “the man”. They all have weaknesses. It’s funny but even Reagan, based on decisions he made during his governership, would get crucified from various groups on the right if he were running today.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:17 am
I’m 100% in favor of any effective cap on government spending, although this one doesn’t guarantee much in the way of government cuts. Romney’s program in ‘08 GUARANTEED cuts in government spending. It’s nice to see Tim imitating him like this. Maybe it will become a habit. He remains, as always, my #2, albeit a pretty distant #2.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:42 am
When the Presidential Campaign gets going Mitt’s gonna to blow everybody out of the water. He’ll be one step ahead of everyone.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:53 am
#44 The good news is that now that Carly is a candidate she can work on those favorables. She seems like a likeable person perhaps a large number of people have an unfavorable opinion of her because of what they’ve heard about her tenure at HP.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:18 am
lkv,
Too bad Mitt isn’t one step ahead now. I’m glad you are psychic though…so that you can tell us how it is going to be.
Honestly, he has the most to lose over the next few years. He has an uphill battle against the “mock” Mitt in T-Paw who is essentially the same thing except that t-paw has cred with the socons for both being an ACTUAL socon, and for being an evangelical….not that i care about the religion factor myself. Mitt has to swing from both sides. He has to attack everyone to come out on top. Who wants to win that way? Well, apparently he did in 08…except he lost. He needs to refine the strategy.
I feel bad for him. If he had never been governor of Mass. he could have run for something in Utah. That would’ve been a better building ground for a presidential run for Mitt. He would’ve HAD to govern as a socon, AND he could’ve done the other things he wanted to anyways.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Note, I’m not a Rombot or anything and this comparison is gonna look really overexaggerated, but Reagan was Governor of California and his record was never perfectly conservative there. He knew that it was impossible to be perfectly “conservative”, because America was not perfectly conservative nor was conservatism perfect.
Not that I’m saying Romney is anything like Reagan. They are two different men. But Romney overall governed very well in Massachusetts, and overall is a bit more solid as a leader than other candidates who are also good picks generally – Huckabee and Pawlenty – in spite of his botched ‘08 run. If (and that’s a big if) he stays on target with the issues rather than trying to prove himself to the whole world this time, I think Republicans and the general electorate will accept him well.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Why does T/Paw get so much comment on here? Especially after his awful week.
And as for that person saying that Romney needs to get a move on lol it’s THREE YEARS till the next election relax dude. His unofficial campaign starts with his book tour early next year.
Watch the Palin train wreck in the next few weeks – will be a blast!
November 6th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Pawlenty seemed to be a nice guy. I like him better than Mitt Romney. Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is not conservative. I don’t like his politic because he look like he stay angry and he doesn’t have an idealogy like former the late Pres. Reagan. Romney flip-flop every issues that he sounded a liberal and conservative. I believe the liberal news media are taken polls to tell us on the news that Romney and Huckabee are the front runner for 2012. Both Romney and Huckabee won’t get the nominee in 2012. They are done!
November 6th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Heath,
Would you prefer that every thread devolve into a Huck-Palin-Romney 3 way flame war?
November 6th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Heath, Pawlenty doesn’t get all that much comment here at Race and he deserves a lot more. He is a very capable leader with great ideas. I wish that we talked about him as much as Huck or Palin.
I predict that Romney’s book will be a snoozer.
The Palin train wreck began months ago and is ever entertaining.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
How is this different from the old TABOR in Colorado that Bill Owens realized was unsustainable during times where population and growth falls?
November 6th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Steve,
MN has a much steadier population than CO, which tends to fluctuate quite a lot, relatively speaking.