The Governor took a big risk by ending the session the way he did. You can judge the decision on two levels: politics and policy. I’m going to spend my time on the former, because my thoughts on the latter are pretty predictable.
So what are the political consequences of the end of session? Well, that depends on whether you think Pawlenty is running for a third term. Assuming Pawlenty plans to seek re-election, I think his decision was an epic mistake. Pawlenty’s decision to balance the budget with line item vetoes and unallotment means that he now has sole ownership of Minnesota’s budget. The image of Pawlenty acting unilaterally to cut the budget will probably be the lasting impression left by the 2009 session on Minnesota voters. That’s good news and bad news for the Gov. On the one hand, he looks like a strong and decisive leader. On the other hand, he owns every single cut made to health care, to education and to local government. There is no compromise here, no group culbability - its all on Pawlenty.
The next operative question is whether Pawlenty’s budget cuts will be popular and its hard to imagine that they will. The SurveyUSA poll out last week indicated that the public wanted a mix of cuts and tax increases. In fact, only 18% of Minnesotans wanted to see the budget balanced through budget cuts. This number will only get worse as the cuts are made and people start to see the true impact of Pawlenty’s budget.
In short, Pawlenty owns total responsibility for some very unpopular budget cuts. That isn’t a great place to start a re-election bid (particularly when 57% on Minnesotans don’t want you to run in the first place). But, as long time readers of this blog know, I strongly believe that Pawlenty has no intention of running for re-election. Pawlenty wants to play in national politics, and looking at his decision to unallot from that perspective, it doesn’t look so politically unwise. Judging from the national GOP’s current posture, the party is looking to move to the right in the 2012 elections. Pawlenty’s cuts might look pretty good to a conservative activist in western Iowa.
Where does that leave us back here in Minnesota? First, even if Pawlenty does not seek a third term, he just gave the DFL a huge set of issues to run a 2010 campaign. The DFL will try to saddle the Republican nominee with Pawlenty’s cuts - which would be a heavy cross to bear - though its far too soon to know how successful they will be in making that connection (and it will depend in part on who the MN GOP nominates, its hard to imagine that Jim Ramstad would make an easy target for example). But even if democrats are unable to tie the GOP nominee to Pawlenty’s budget, the DFL nominee will be able to run on a platform of investing in health care and education. Polling suggests the public would be receptive to such a platform.
Some people will argue that the end of session is a major impediment to a gubernatorial candidacy by Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher. In the short term, that is probably true, but in the longer term I really don’t think its a problem. Among insiders, Larry Poggemiller is seen as the Leader more responsible for the DFL’s strategic bumblings and as I said earlier, I think the lasting impression of the 2009 session on the general public will be Pawlenty’s unilateral budget cutting, not the Speaker’s alleged strategic ineptitude. I still have Kelliher in the top tier of potential DFL challengers along with Mayors Rybak and Coleman.
A good analysis. I would argue though that ownerships is something still to be determined. The Governor has been saying that the DFL sent him a budget that didn’t pay for itself. While I’d say (and I think you would) that this isn’t true, it does speak to something: the same polls which show only 18% of the people wanted the deficit solved through cuts also by a majority think the state has enough revenue. In fairness to the Governor’s political skills, his planned budget fix, of borrowing and hoping nothing goes wrong, is how a huge chunk of the state paid for their TVs and cars the last few years. In a way, his words are the unintentional truth - he did want to use the principles a lot of families and businesses used to balance their budgets. However well these didn’t work, it is how a lot of the electorate thought.
But I digress. I would say know that the race is on - is this the budget the DFL’s for spending and not compromising? Or the Governor’s - for not compromising and unallotment? One can argue that simplistic, they want to spend money and raise your taxes is how the GOP won an awful lot of elections here and nationwide for an awful long while. One the other hand, you can also say that message hasn’t worked that well the last few times. However, outside the bubble, there are few people willing to say that state-level DFL messaging is anywhere near the Governor’s in appeal and sophistication.
I hope we can pin this on Pawlenty. But he’s a good communicator, and it looks enough like we spent our selves up and didn’t want to pay for it that I’m not ruling out his odds of a second term. Remember, all he needs is 47%, if a nasty enough endorsement sends the more pious metro liberals to the IP. And if this unallotment looks good in the ‘burbs and in Greater MN, and the DFL forms a circular firing squad before the endorsement, he could get it.
Zach -
I always enjoy your analysis.
I agree that much of what happens will be pinned on TPaw. I have two different takes, though.
1) This is a major recession. All you have to do is look around to realize that TPaw isn’t acting in a vacuum. He is responding to an economy that has slowed to a crawl. Unless you are the Federal Government who can print money, or North Dakota who has struck oil, you are in a major budget crisis. TPaw is responding to the economy, he didn’t create it.
2) At the same time, Pawlenty made a choice: Do not to go the people to ask for more of their money in a year when they have less income and less certainty about their own situation. You tend to focus on the disbursement side of the equation: What will people not get that they would have gotten otherwise. There is a chunk of people in the state who take a different tack: Should we cough up more to the government during a year when the pie has shrunk for all? Some say yes, some say no. Many say “just take it from the rich guys”. Well, TPaw has the problem of 49 other states for the rich guys to move to. At the highest income levels, unless you are a doctor, your income probably results from activities in many states and perhaps multiple countries. What is to prevent you from moving to a lower-tax state? Sure, we hear here alot “why don’t you just move to Mississippi?” But how about gorgeous Puget Sound in Washington? Denver or Colorado Springs? The comfortable northern suburbs or happening Lincoln Park of Chicago? Madison, Wisconsin? You don’t have to move to Mississippi to escape high taxes.
on MAK, it will be interesting to see what happens. I dont’ see her as having executive branch appeal for many. She isn’t charismatic and strikes you as more of a task master than a leader, but maybe I’m wrong.
With all that said, I’ll go on the record (once again) saying I would have supported a temporary (2-year) tax increase. I just abhor the idea of a permanent one. Government can always find a way to use a tax stream once they have it, whether effective or not.
Zack, here’s the problem with your analysis - you are assuming that GOPers will deal with the fallout of T-Bag’s actions honestly.
While past performance is no guarantee of future results, it’s fairly safe to assume that they’ll spin what happened to make T-Bag look like a hero.
After all, “waterboarding and torture are all Pelosi’s fault” at the federal level; what makes anyone think that the forced abuse T-Bag is about to inflict on those least able to defend themselves will be any different at the state level?
Unintentionally, TwoPutt puts his finger on it. What happens when everyone on left goes after Pawlenty any old way, some of them like TwoPutt shouting what a lot of voters call obscenities. Those get media play, whilst Pawlenty does his usually of being on message, and so nice, in-offensive, unwilling to rock boats and everything else this state’s population loves? If its our discordant cacophony against Pawlenty epitomizing what a lot of this states voters like to think about themselves, don’t rule out a third term.
So, John, you picked up on what - exactly - “(cheney)” stands for?
OUT(cheney)in’STANDING, John!!!
But, hey - I’m just using the lessons Newt “Is My Wife Well Enough To Divorce Yet?” Gingrich taught so well, all those years ago…..
I have to belive that when it comes down to brass tacks, this budget will hurt Pawlenty…I do not belive he will run again and face the kinds of decisions that will be so unappealing…Almost inevitably the gov in 2011 will have to raise taxes or make cuts that will be even more painful than the current and rather horrendous unallotment. There are a lot more people that will be hurt by the cuts than will be helped by holding the line on spending. This was a major risk by Pawlenty and one that is more likely to help him at the national level among the conservative base than with Minnesotans who are stuck with it.
The session didn’t help Kelliher, but I don’t think it kills her chances either. Roger Moe “lost” the 2001 session on property tax reform and went on to win the DFL endorsement in 2002. Kelliher was in a similar situation after the 2007 legislative session, but went on to have a better 2008 session.
I think people’s decisions will be based more on what’s going on in 2010 then what happened in 2009. But yeah, again, this session didn’t improve her chances any.
I agree with Zack about Kelliher and Rybak (although not Chris Coleman) being the big fish who haven’t yet entered the pond. Coleman’s appeal four years ago was that he wasn’t Randy Kelly. Rybak and Kelliher on the other hand both have a lot of supporters in the party framework and seem like natural leaders when I’ve watched them. They both have their strengths and drawbacks, and I have some reservations about both. My impression is that Rybak might be a better candidate, but Kelliher would be a better Governor. We’ll have to see whether they actually decide to run, though. I think Rybak will. I’m still not sure about Kelliher.
1. People can’t afford a nominal tax increase…
How about the 3000 people about to lose their entire income because of the cuts?
Tax increases can be targeted, but budget cuts are guaranteed to hit the poor. Under the supply side dogma, the wealthy are the only ones who benefit in a boom and the only ones protected in a bust. That is wealth redistribution at its worst.
Entrapaneurs will always, always find ways to fulfill demand, even in tight times, but if you cut wages through layoffs there will be no demand.
Zack
It could work out that way but you are discounting the national economy.
As we come out of the current situation optimism will rise. T-Paw can use that. By next summer the economy should be replacing many of the lost jobs, the budget will look much better and T-Paw will be in a strong position despite.
Unless the DFL can spin it another way, the budget and spending is not being decided by Pawlenty on his own. Pawlenty was given the spending priorities of the DFL in their budget bills, which he signed. Governor Pawlenty by cutting $3 billion off the $34 billion in spending will only be deciding 9% of the budget expenses. I don’t see how deciding on 9% of the spending puts the oweness on the Governor.