I’ll have more to say on this — in my own words — in the morning.
— -
Pawlenty’s Proposed Parting Gift to Minnesota: Instability
Governor proposes constitutional amendment that would leave Minnesota unable to provide for its citizens
St. Paul (November 5, 2009) — The DFL Party released this statement from Chair Brian Melendez on Governor Pawlenty’s proposed changes to the Minnesota Constitution to cap the state budget at the level of revenue received during previous budget period:
“If a budget cap is such a good idea, why did Governor Pawlenty wait until he was nearly out the door before proposing it? The answer is simple: so that he wouldn’t actually have to govern under it, because he has no plans to follow through with what is really just a political stunt aimed at boosting his national notoriety; and because he needed yet another public demonstration of how far to the right he will go in his campaign for the White House.
“Similar constitutional amendments, like the Taxpayers Bill of Rights in Colorado and Proposition 13 in California, have been disastrous for the states that have adopted them. Governor Pawlenty has even called California ‘America’s first failed state.’ Yet his proposed budget cap would take Minnesota down the same disastrous road.
“Minnesota already has a sound budgeting process that has worked for 151 years: it’s called the Minnesota Constitution, and it provides for responsible budgeting and lawmaking through executive and legislative branches that check and balance each other. Governor Pawlenty has already shown his contempt for the Minnesota Constitution when he nullified the legislatively enacted state budget and began governing by unilateral unallotment. And now, having shown his contempt for the state constitution, he is showing his contempt for the state’s future by proposing this dangerous folly in order to advance his own personal ambition.”
I disagree with Pawlenty's proposal. I see the same major flaw in it that others see.
With that said, I love the idea of setting a spending cap of some sort. I think it makes all the sense in the world. And if it is a bad idea, voters will reject it.
The the methodology behind Pawlenty's cap, of which I've read what I can, leaves the state too handcuffed.
"And if it is a bad idea, voters will reject it. "
Ehhhh. Are you familiar with voters?
Yeah, those darn voters. Silly foundation of our democracy.
DtM,
I think there is a very good reason we have a representative democracy, don't you? Do you like the American model of democracy, or a direct democracy of the masses? A thoughtful man recently quoted Jefferson (It was you)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
I think it works that we are a Republic where lawmakers really study issues( I know that can seem a statement laughable sometimes). The public actually have jobs and can't spend time analyzing every proposal. That is why we have a representative democracy, or Republic.
I always think I am right, but I know in my heart I don't always know all the possible ramifications of every proposal.
Hey, I love the process. I'm just saying voters don't always make sound choices. They can clearly be manipulated, no?
I like Pawlentys proposal. I think most of us budget based on what we take in….no?
Timing? Who cares really. Its never too late.
Other than that, I can really appreciate Loja's comment. It says a lot.
"I think most of us budget based on what we take in….no? "
Average household credit card debt is $8,000
Uh huh. And your point is?
You don’t own a credit card, do you?
It is too easy to amend the Minnesota Constitution. Since we're borrowing ideas from western states (isn't T-Paw's proposal based on the disastrous Colorado TABOR?), perhaps we could adopt one from Nevada. In Nevada, constitutional amendments are submitted to the voters for approval only after they pass two separate biennial legislative sessions. This takes away the temptation to amend the groud rules for he operation of the state on a current hot topipc, or as a means of gaining cred for a national political run.
Just another pointless pontification that will go nowhere, like his idea to opt out of national healthcare.
No kidding. You just figure that out?
Maybe we should just select a group of citizens who you feel are smart enough to vote for us all.
Alec and Lojasmo -
We send representatives to Washington and St. Paul on our behalf to hammer out legislation and put the will of the people into action. You are right in that there is no way for every citizen to be versed enough on road construction, for example, to know which DOT projects for the upcoming year need to be prioritized higher than others. That is why we have representatives.
This, however, seems to me to be a different category. We're setting a ground rule for how we'd like our state to operate. Predefining that our state government should never require more than X of our GDP to operate on, for example, is something every citizen could research, grasp, and weigh in on.
Let the people set broad parameters for how they want their government to operate, and then let representatives determine the policy within that framework.
Well, they certainly made a sound choice in the election YOU ran in, Don.
Its a GWB Brazilian!!!
Pawlenty is merely applying the “Bush Razor!”
This is the same - “make a mess & then get out of Dodge” that worked for junior.