Archive for the 'Minnesota House' Category
As I predicted yesterday, State Representative Kurt Zellers has been elected the next Leader of the House Republican Caucus. Zellers was probably the best choice for the House Republican Caucus, especially considering his opponent was failed CD1 candidate Randy Demmer (who I mistakenly called Paul yesterday, an error all the more inexcusable given the number of posts I wrote about Demmer during his incompetent congressional campaign).
Tom Emmer, a prominent House Republican, certainly isn’t. I hope he’s not representative of the rest of his colleagues.
Watch Speaker Kelliher have to scold Emmer for listening to a CD during a budget hearing:
This morning I got another video from the House DFL demonstrating how Governor Pawlenty’s proposed budget cuts would hurt real Minnesotans. This one startled me…
I know the man in this video. He’s not a close friend, or a family member, but I recognize his face. When I worked for Amy Klobuchar in 2006, one of my responsibilities was to walk down the street to KSTP every so often and check the public file to find out who was buying ad time and how much they were spending. The man in this video, Mark, worked at the front desk. I remember him as being an unnaturally friendly man. He seemed to know the name of every single person who came through the lobby, and he even remembered my name after only two or three visits. I am sad to learn of Mark’s misfortune. I think its all too easy, especially when you are dealing with a problem as big as a multi-billion dollar deficit, to focus on the numbers and forget the human consequences of budgeting. But when you see how someone you know will be directly affected by these proposed cuts, it really brings it home.
Very powerful video from the House DFL…
After watching a video like this one, its easy to understand why the DFL legislators at the Capitol are unwilling to go along with Gov. Pawlenty’s budget. Its reckless and cold-hearted.
Amen to Tony Sertich:
“Let’s cut the bull. Let’s start compromising and get this deal done,” said Sertich. “Why do we have to wait for the last weekend? Why do we have to do a silly dance of, ‘I’m going to tell you what I think over and over again? I’ll just restate my position over and over again.’ I’m sick of it.”
I couldn’t agree with Sertich more. Enough grandstanding — it’s time to see some compromise at the legislature. Isn’t coming to a consensus our policymakers’ job? They should be working to build consensus 24/7, not just in a mad scramble during the last few days of the session.
Particularly this year, when there’s so much at stake, we really need both parties to cut the bull and come together on a compromise. The DFL should accept greater cuts, particularly to Health and Human Services, while the GOP should accept tax increases. Maybe between the increased revenues and reduced spending, we can eliminate unhealthy and dishonest budget gimmicks.
Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington), the chair of the House Tax Committee, asks conservatives to tone down their rhetoric on the tax bill. She argues that many of the provisions in her bill are based on policies enacted by conservative hero Ronald Reagan.
She also points out that Republicans are focusing only on tax deductions that were removed, and not on tax credits added. For example, the tax deduction for organ donation was replaced by a tax credit. After all, the way it was previously structured, wealthy Minnesotans would receive a large tax break for organ donation, while poorer Minnesotans would receive nothing. Is that really what we want?
Lenczewski argues that she’s doing something similar to what Reagan did at the Federal level two decades ago: Cleaning up and simplifying the tax code. Reagan himself cut many tax deductions, such as a sales tax deduction and a credit card debt deduction.
Check out her speech, courtesy of the good folks at The UpTake. It start to get good at the 2:30 mark.
I don’t think anybody envies the DFL for having large majorities in the House and Senate during this biennium. Our enormous deficit means that DFLers have some tough choices to make. It’s easy for Republicans — even Tim Pawlenty — to criticize the DFL’s plans, but it’s another thing altogether to be responsible for the outcome at the end of the day.
I don’t agree with all the choices being made by leaders in either house, but I do appreciate that they’re doing what needs to be done. The legislature is well on its way to balancing to budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. The House and Senate each released a tax increase plan this week, and now the House Health and Human Services Finance Division has approved a funding bill that would make $400 million in cuts.
Ultimately, there will probably have to be deeper cuts to Health and Human Services funding, but DFLers have made a good start so far. They seem to recognize that everyone will have to make sacrifices in order to balance the budget; there’s simply no way around that, unfortunately. It’s probably not going to make them popular — nobody likes being asked to make sacrifices — but I think Minnesotans will appreciate that the DFL leadership has made some tough choices that will benefit our state in the long run.
It’s that time again. Every year, as the Minnesota Legislature’s commitee deadlines approach, a non-democratic tradition rears its head: The combination of many small bills into large omnibus bills. These bills can often weigh in at hundreds of pages, combining dozens of bills that have come before the committee. It’s no surprise, then, that lawmakers sometimes find they’ve passed provisions they were not even aware were in the omnibus bills.
Once bills in the legislature get so large and complicated that citizens are unable to follow them, we can no longer truly stay involved in the legislative process. It’s nearly impossible to follow these bills without paid staff; thus, ordinary citizens need to rely on special interest groups to stay informed towards the end of the legislative session.
Many Minnesotans praise our system of part-time citizen legislators, but I would gladly trade our system for one in which the combination of bills into large omnibus bills is prohibited, even if the legislators needed to work for most of the year.
Dusty Trice has a nice catch:
Here’s a bill that’s bound to ruffle a few feathers over at the Capitol.
The bill, H.F. 770, is authored by Rep. Ron Shimanski (R-Silver Lake) and co-authored by Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) and Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Wabasha).
The bill calls for two-term limits for the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor
The bill would not effect Pawlenty’s ability to seek a third term (it wouldn’t take effect until after 2010), but the fact that Republicans are proposing term limits at the same time that the Governor is considering a re-election campaign cannot be seen as a sign of confidence.
Shimanski and company also want to term limit the other constitutional officers and the entire state legislature. Talk about a solution in search of a problem. Over half of the Minnesota House is made up of members in their 3rd term or less. That’s a lot of fresh blood. In addition, no Governor in the history of Minnesota has been elected to more than eight years in office (Rudy Perpich served 10 years, but two of those were after suceeding Wendall Anderson and only eight years were consecutive).
The truth is, Minnesota already has term limits. They are called elections. Minnesota voters are engaged and smart enough to know when it’s time to make a change. Its too bad that the MN GOP has such a low opinion of voters.
Regular readers know that I’m no fan of the budget plan proposed by DFLers in the House. However, it’s at least better than Tim Pawlenty’s plan. And while I may not be thrilled about the House plan, Rep. John Lesch (DFL-66A) makes some excellent points about how the DFL plan contrasts with Pawlenty’s plan.
In particular, Lesch writes that we have to raise revenue to balance the budget. Even the Governor’s plan raises revenue — it just raises it more unfairly:
The critical disagreement in the two proposals is how we generate the revenue and who pays. The House proposal would raise $1.5 billion largely through a progressive tax increase on the wealthiest Minnesotans. The Governor would borrow $1 billion through a 20-year loan (to be paid off by future generations) and assumes $600 million in property tax increases through deep cuts to local government aid.
Whether or not to raise revenue isn’t the importation question - we already know the answer. The question is how do we raise the revenue? Do we raise it today, or should we ask our next generation to pay for it? Should the wealthiest Minnesotans share in the burden or should it only be lower and middle class homeowners? [MN Progressive Project - Emphasis Added]
For too long, Tim Pawlenty has sought to avoid the consequences of his decisions by passing the buck — first to cities and counties, and now to future taxpayers. He refuses to raise state taxes, but he can’t bring himself to impose the sort of cuts his rhetoric would actually require. So he finds sneaky ways to raise revenue without calling it a “tax”. However you raise $1.6 billion, though, it’s still $1.6 billion. Let’s pay for it today, instead of making our kids pay for it.
At first glance, a proposal by Rep. Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) to create a local-option sales tax makes sense, given dramatic cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA) and County Program Aid (CPA). Because of huge cuts in LGA and CPA during the Pawlenty years, local property taxes have skyrocketed (see chart). Marquart’s plan aims to avoid continued property tax increases by giving counties the option to increase their sales tax instead.
There’s one huge problem with the idea, though, as far as I’m concerned. It accepts cuts to LGA and CPA and lays the groundwork for a system in which they no longer exist. Giving counties a tool to raise money in place of CPA is sending a signal that CPA is never coming back. Once CPA goes, so will LGA. There are major reasons why we shouldn’t accept an end to the LGA/CPA system:
- State mandates should be paid for by state funds.
- Local levels of government have a more difficult time raising revenue than higher levels.
- Locally-based taxes mean more larger gaps between rich and poor counties.
A cynical person might say that Tim Pawlenty knew exactly what he was doing what he cut LGA and CPA every year; he wants to seriously cripple local governments by cutting off their access to funding. I am one such cynical person. And looking at Marquart’s proposal, I can’t help but think it will allow Pawlenty to win the debate on LGA once and for all
I understand the inclination to play politics, but I’m disappointed by the House DFL’s budget proposal:
House Democrats would raise taxes by $1.5 billion over the next two years, cut spending by $843 million and employ a larger accounting shift than Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposes in an effort to balance the state’s budget without resorting to borrowing. [Emphasis added]
At least it’s more honest than the Governor’s budget, which relies on $1 billion in borrowed money despite our constitutional requirement to have a balanced budget. But the use of accounting shifts is a sign that lawmakers are shirking their responsibility to sustainably fix our budget problems, in favor of political expedience. Yes, it sounds better to say you’ll be cutting less and raising fewer taxes. But all that really accomplishes is pushing our problems into the next budget cycle.
I firmly believe that Minnesotans will support the DFL if they have the courage to put together an honest budget that makes the tough choices and structural changes we need to keep our state healthy for the coming decades. The formula is simple:
- Cut spending
- Raise revenues
- Eliminate the use of budget gimmicks
Minnesotans can understand that we’re in a tough situation right now, and they’ll side with the party that makes the hard choices to fix our budget problems for the long term.
On my previous blog, I started a practice that I intend to continue here — following important and/or interesting bills as they travel through the MN Legislature. I will compile all of the bills I’m tracking here, so check back often!
Ed. Note: I announced today that MNpublius is adding two new authors, Jeff is one of them and this is his first substantive post. Enjoy!
Conservatives like Tim Pawlenty love to talk about responsibility. They complain that stimulus money is going to people who don’t deserve it. They say that lower- and middle-class Americans have been irresponsible with their money. But why is it that they see no need to act responsibly themselves?
Governor Pawlenty has a responsibility to Minnesotans. Just as Americans need to be responsible with their family’s finances, the Governor has and obligation to be responsible with the state’s finances. He has a responsibility to protect our common wealth and keep our state strong for the future.
Instead, his budget is reckless and irresponsible, made with his own national ambitions in mind, rather than the good of our state. Just think what he and his fellow conservatives would say about a person who treated their household budget like Pawlenty has treated the state budget. What would they say about a regular Minnesotan who shared some of Pawlenty’s “solutions” to our budget problem?
- He’s written postdated checks to our schools, hoping he’ll have enough money in the bank by the time they’re cashed.
- He’s taken out new credit card debt to make the payments on our existing debt.
- Even as he plans to borrow $1 billion, he’s still giving expensive gifts to his rich corporate friends.
Taking out new credit cards to make your existing credit card payments is a sign that you have a serious problem. Once a family starts engaging in these desperate budget tricks, things tend to unravel quickly, and it’s no different for our government. The Governor can’t make ends meet, and he’s rapidly pulling us into a spiral of debt. But even though the bills are piling up, he won’t stop giving gifts to his rich friends like a corporate income tax reduction.
If Minnesota were a household instead of a state, Pawlenty would say we shouldn’t get any stimulus money. He would say we don’t deserve it — we’ve made bad choices, and now we have to live with the consequences of our actions.
It’s time for the DFL-controlled legislature to stand up to Pawlenty and pass a responsible budget. We need a budget that will put an end to the constant deficits we’ve experienced under Pawlenty’s “leadership.” The budget will certainly have to have spending cuts in it; there’s simply no way to avoid them. But a responsible plan would also raise revenues to make sure we can afford to pay for our childrens’ schools. We can’t keep telling our children “we’ll pay you next year.”
From the Political Animal:
While most of the legislators, lobbyists and reporters that I talk to at the Capitol speculate that it will take a special session to pass a budget, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher today said lawmakers could wrap it up by the May 18 constitutional deadline.
“I think we can make it,” Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said in remarks at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute.
I worked at the legislature during the last budget session. All spring long, everyone thought a special session was inevitable. In the last few days of the session, an on-time ending seemed impossible. But then it happened and for the first time in I don’t even know how many budget sessions, the legislature adjourned on time. In the aftermath, Speaker Kelliher got a lot of the credit from both Poggemiller and Pawlenty. Same thing happened after the 2008 session ended on time - Kelliher was lauded for managing to wrap things up on time.
This time, the Speaker has a much tougher task. The size of this deficit is catastrophic. Once again, it seems absurd to think that the DFL legislature and T-Paw will be able to come to an agreement by mid-May. But if - and its an enormous if - Kelliher gets the hat trick (ends three sessions in a row on time), I think she’ll be in a great position to run for Governor. Talk about a real record of compromise and getting things done.
People Are Shouting
RSS