Tim Pawlenty Videos

Speaker of the House, Margaret Anderson Kelliher spoke with The UpTake's Mike McIntee about Govenor Pawlenty's proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would limit spending in any biennium to the amount of revenue that came in the previous two years. Speaker of the House, Margaret Anderson Kelliher: I think it's a very curious timed announcement. I know the Governor is traveling this weekend down to, I believe, Iowa and I think it's another case where the Governor is putting politics ahead of the good policies that Minnesotans need. You know the strange thing about the Governor's proposal is exactly what Senator Pogemiller said, we're not clear that the Governor has ever proposed this himself in the budgets that he's put forward to the legislature. He's always overspent what is going to come in the door, even in the projections that we have. And think the other thing is that folks would probably be interested in knowing is that when Michelle Bachmann was a state senator she had a proposal like this. I think it wasn't modeled after the colorado law like this or the Colorado constitutional amendment like this. And she wouldn't even come to the Senate tax committee to present the bill. So, I think it's kind of interesting that the Governor is now jumping on this bandwagon. What folks should understand is that this is even more restrictive than any of the other constitutional amendments around the country that have been proposed like this because this binds you to the revenues in the previous two years. So it's almost like saying that even if the economy is improving, we would have to ignore the improvement in our economy and increased revenues. We couldn't put those to schools or health care or anywhere else. We'd have to live under the old scenario. I just think it makes no sense at all. I don't know if it evens things out at all as the Governor says. Mike McIntee: The Governor was trying to make it sound today like well, if we had a "windfall" as he put it, more dollars coming in the door, well, heck we'd be able to decide to spend them. Is that going to be the case by your reading of this constitutional amendment? MAK: Oh, I don't think so. According to the Minnesota Budget Project, which has taken a quick look at this, their analysis of this is that even if that money is coming in the biennium, the biennium we're budgeting for, we have to live by the previous biennium. So here's the example that Minnesotans should understand. So if the revenue collected by the state in the 2010 and 11 biennium, because we budget on two year cycles, is about $31 Billion, $34 Billion. And if say the revenue in this next, it drops by three or four billion, you have to ignore that three or four billion. You cannot put that into your schools and you actually add to the deficit situation going forward. I just think it doesn't make sense. I don't think it's well thought out. And I also believe that Minnesotans recently, last year, just a year ago yesterday, actually decided to make investments in things they value through the legacy amendment. So this is sort of flying counter-productive to where Minnesotans are at in terms of the sorts of things that they value in their state. MM: What struck me about the Governor's announcement, that it might be just political as opposed to actually trying to solve a problem, is one of the reporters asked him 'Well Governor, how does this effect the shifts that have been made.' And the Governor said 'I'll have to get back to you on that.' But that's one of his favorite tools. Why wouldn't he have an answer to a very basic question like that? MAK: I think that gets to ... I believe this is more about politics than good policy for Minnesotans. And its more about political ambition for the Governor than actually doing the right thing by the school kids of our state. And so you look at that and it's pretty clear that the Governor, one of the Governor's favorite tools of shifting actually would violate this very constitutional amendment. MM: Well, let's talk a moment about school kids, because there's nothing in this amendment that says schools. How do we get from what he has in this amendment to schools? MAK: Well, because we're talking about the amount of revenues collected and the ability for legislators and a Governor to make decisions, priority decisions about where the money goes. I'll give you examples of what has happened in Colorado under the similar type of constitutional amendment. In Colorado, the spending on their K-12 schools has gone from 35th to 49th in the nation. That's a pretty big drop since 1992. The average per pupil spending fell by $400 because this thing handcuffs you in a way that you cannot make those choices and in fact what happens is that certain areas of the budget. Say corrections, and this has happened in Colorado where if you have courts that are sentencing criminals, there is more precedent for them to be sentencing the criminals, than school kids to get what they need in classroom because it is such a constrain to budget. MM: The other thing that strikes me political about this is the Governor had an opportunity to sit down and discuss ideas with you and other Minnesota leaders at the Leadership summit, and he said "no no no, we don't discuss those things now." Yet suddenly it's time to discuss these things and we're not in session. I don't get the equivocation here. Have you been able to figure this out? MAK: Well, two things about that Mike that I think are interesting. This idea never came up. And remember we were in a multi-partisan group, both independence party members , republicans and democrats with the former Governors , Speakers and Majority Leaders and Finance Commissioners of the state in early September and not a person raised this idea of a constitutional amendment as the answer to our budgeting woes in this state. They all raised the question of using good judgment and balanced position in Minnesota for a brighter future. The other thing of course is we had breakfast with the Governor just two week ago. And this was again never, never brought up or discussed. MM: Let's for the moment say there is no politics involved . And I know that's a fairy tail, but let's just for the moment say that. Senator Tom Bakk in the tax committee said "hey Governor, come on down. We're willing to talk about this. I hope you show up like Michele Bachmann didn't, and we can discuss what this really is. Are you willing to give this a hearing in the legislative session? MAK: I think that it's probably one of those things that depending on who is carrying the bill, it looks like Representative Paul Kohls might carry the bill, and where the bill would start. Certainly the chair of the committee where it begins might decide to give a hearing if it is in chair Lenczewski committee she may say let's talk about these issues. I think one of the big issues that chair Lenczewski and others might ask the Governor or the representative of the Governor is how does this at all get away from the pattern of this Governor has been, which is to push the tax burden onto the property tax payer. And that has been also another favorite tool of the Governor of the state of Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, and that is the massive rise in the amount of property taxes that people are paying across the state. And I think it's pretty clear that this would do nothing to relieve people of the property tax burden and I'm sure that Representative Lenczewski, Chair Lenczewski would love to ask the Governor that question. MM: Bottom line. Do you think this bill has a chance of getting through the legislature which the DFL has control of in the House and the Senate? MAK: Always difficult to predict something, but I would say this is not one that is going to find a lot of favor right now in the Minnesota House. And I think actually opposition could even be bipartisan. In the past when we've seen ideas like this, very few Republicans even vote these types of ideas. But we certainly are willing to entertain the idea. This is once again the other interesting fact about this is the Governor doesn't need to sign or veto a constitutional amendment. It has to go through the legislative process. And then if the legislature passes it, it goes right out to the ballot. So that is another feature of constitutional amendments that I find interesting. MM: And 17 of those last 18 constitutional amendments have passed. So the legislature is a very important gate on this. **http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/2557/

Michael Steele throws elbow at Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty regarding NY results.

Was Governor Pawlenty acting to solve an "unanticipated" problem... or did he create a financial crisis and overstep his powers as granted by Minnesota's constitution? The answer to that question may be decided in Ramsey County court where five people have filed a suit that could undo several billion dollars of "unallotments" the Governor made at the end of this year's legislative session. Governor Pawlenty took the action after he vetoed a balanced budget passed by the legislature and then removed funding to bring the budget back into balance. Former US Attorney David Lillehaug counseled the people who filed the suit. He talked with Mike McIntee about it during Friday's "Quick On The UpTake" show. "In my judgment the law does not allow that" said Lillehaug of the Governor's action, "and now we'll find out for sure." "The lawsuit... alleges the Governor violated the unallotment statute in the way that he did it and second that what he did violates the separation of powers requirement to the Minnesota constitution. So this may be one of the most important constitutional cases in Minnesota history. "The theory is the legislature passes laws. The Governor can veto a law, but can have his veto overridden. But once the law is passed and signed, the Governor must faithfully execute the laws. Execute means implement... it doesn't mean shoot the law. "And what the Governor did through his own actions, vetoing the tax bill, create a deficit. And then he said 'now were going to use unallotment to make sure that a bunch of this money is spent.' And if you add up the cuts and the deferrals over a two year period, you're talking about $2.5 Billion. "Now it seems to me, and the Minnesota constitution provides that under separation of powers, the legislature is to pass the laws. The Governor is not to make the law and is not to reorder the state's budget through his use of a power that's not even mentioned in the Minnesota constitution. "Essentially what unallotment does, especially this early in the biennium, it gives him a second chance at a veto. Instead, what he ought to be doing is trying to compromise with the legislature, call them back into special session, and resolve our state's budget deficit through the way that is contemplated by the Minnesota constitution. "Going into the legislative session this budget deficit was entirely foreseen. Everybody knew we were going to face a very significant deficit if the legislature and the Governor did not agree on expenditure cuts and revenue increases. "And what happened here is the legislature passed the appropriations bills and Governor Pawlenty signed them, thus creating the deficit and then when the legislature passed the revenue increase he vetoed that. So he has created the very deficit that was in fact foreseen before the session started. And that's why under the Minnesota statute allowing unallotment, I don't think it contemplates this kind of game playing. "There have been unallotments before. There were four before this latest one. But what they were, they were much smaller and they occurred late in the biennium after the legislature had met and there was an unforeseen drop in revenues and if the unallotment hadn't occurred we would have had an unbalanced budget. And we're required that under the Minnesota constitution that at the end of the biennium to have a balanced budget. But this is an entirely different situation. We were at the beginning of the biennium and the Governor created this deficit that otherwise was completely foreseen and then claimed that he had the right to go ahead and essentially restructure the Minnesota budget. "Now can you imagine if we had a DFL Governor and a Republican legislature. And a DFL Governor had done this same thing, but instead of unalloting money for cities and poor people and the mentally ill and chemically dependent people, a DFL Governor had unalloted all business tax breaks. Can you imagine the squawking that would occur? "This is not really a partisan issue. This is a matter of good government of how our government is constructed. And it's a system of checks and balances. It's not a system that gives the governor unilateral power to decide what amount is going to be spent and for whom." Lillehaug says there are cases that have gone both ways on this issue. "There's a Minnesota case involving an iron range minerals fund from a few years ago started by Representative Tom Rukavina. And he lost in the Minnesota court of appeals and there's a very short and frankly unenlightening opinion on constitutionality of the unallotment statute. "There have been similar cases in courts around the country and there are great opinions by the Supreme Courts of Florida and Alaska noting that unallotment that those Governors did was unconstitutional because it would allow the Governor to take over the power of the legislative branch. "On the other hand there is a case from the top court in Massachusetts and they came to a different conclusion and kind of cautioned the Governor not to reorder the state's budget priorities. "So no Governor has done anything this unprecedented, this really radical in terms of reordering the state budget. So I think there are very good grounds for litigation, but I can't give you a prediction as to how it is going to come out. I can give you my opinion which is he has not followed the Minnesota statute and he has not followed the Constitution." Lillehaug says if the rules against the Governor the unallotments would be "ineffective". "Then we would have to go back to the usual process contemplated by the constitution and the law which is presumably the Governor would have to call a special session and he and the legislature would try to come to some agreement. "Now this Governor looks like he's for President, presumably his main calling card is going to be 'I didn't allow any taxes to be raised', there' a question whether fees are taxes and local property taxes are taxes but that's going to be his message. And so he may have a vested interest in just not coming to an agreement. "But we're less than half a year into the biennium and the requirement is that you have a balanced budget at the end of the biennium, so we've got about a year and a half to work these things out." **http://The-UpTake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/2537/

The tone of next year's legislative session could be set on Tuesday as Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller and other legislative leaders sit down for breakfast with Governor Tim Pawlenty. During this year's budget battle which ended with the Governor purposely unbalancing the budget so he could unallot spending, Governor Pawlenty and Senator Pogemiller exchanged snarky comments through the media. On Monday, Senator Pogemiller appeared to be ready to continue that tone, telling the Governor's representative at a budget hearing "Your choice is going to either offer something or come up here and drag it out of you. I think it would be better for all of us if you would offer something as the sitting administration." Senator Pogemiller is still visibly upset that Governor Pawlenty has left the state budget in a shambles, but the consequences will not show up until the Governor leaves office in 2011. Pogemiller noted that only Alaska has used the budget gimmick of "shifts" more times than Minnesota. According to the Governor's Budget and Management Commissioner Tom Hanson, money that by law must be sent to school districts has been deferred until 2012. "So when you're not in office, someone is going to pay it back?" asked Pogemiller grinning like a cheshire cat. Senator Pogemiller pointed out that since the Governor deferred the funds by unalloting them, there is no mechanism to pay back that money. Commissioner Hanson nodded in agreement. "I understand what you're saying." Despite that terse exchange, Senator Pogemiller has struck a very conciliatory tone since the legislature held a Minnesota Leadership Summit on the ongoing structural budget problem. Senator Pogemiller has stated that revenue increases or spending cuts alone can not solve the state's 5-to-7 billion dollar gap. Spending cuts and tax cuts have been a favorite strategy of Governor Pawlenty. Pogemiller says that is a unsustainable strategy, but he doesn't want to spend time looking back and pointing fingers at and casting blame. Governor Pawlenty so far has been absent when it comes to working on fixing Minnesota's long-term structural budget problem. He refused to attend the leadership summit, even though former Governors and legislative leaders of both parties were part of it. The Governor snarked that Minnesota had a "leadership summit" and it is called the legislative session. Instead, the Governor held his own summit the same day with with a handpicked group of business executives. **http://The-UpTake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/2502/

Former Minnesota Governors and legislative leaders agree that Minnesota has to raise revenue to solve its structural budget problem. Former Governor and Congressman Al Quie (R) and Former MN House Speaker and Congressman Martin Sabo talk about how there should be no political divide on what the goal is: a balanced budget that needs more revenue and less spending. Current Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller talk about how they will move forward on turning that recommendation into action.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who is touring the country as he considers running for President said he would follow President Obama's lead and "call out" people who spread lies or try to distort the facts in the health care debate. A few minutes later, Governor Pawlenty repeated a right-wing talking point about long waits for health care in Britain as reason for not going to a single-payer system because it would ration health care. Is that a lie? No... but it could be considered a distortion. According to British Parliament member Maria Eagle the story about long waits was true at one point, but no longer. "We've eliminated them" says Eagle. "We've done that by putting a lot of extra money in. By getting more doctors and nurses working for the health service and by focusing and targeting waiting lists to get rid of them." The British National Health Service (NHS) says that in 1997 it wasn't uncommon to wait 18 months for some procedures. Now more than 95% of all patients see a doctor and are treated in 18 weeks. The NHS says the wait for key diagnostic test appointments is 15.4 days. A recent study from Merritt Hawkins & Associates found that the average wait to get an specialist appointment in the largest 15 US cities was 20.5 days. While not exactly apples to apples comparisons (there are no regular measurements of waiting times in the US), the claims of British wait times now being incredibly long are false. Governor Pawlenty is now on the record as saying he will call out people who distort the debate. If you see such distortions you can contact the Governor at 651) 296-3391 or tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us The Governor also hosts a weekly radio show and would probably welcome hearing about distortions in the health care debate. His show is on WCCO-AM every Friday just after 9 AM CT. The phone number to call in at (651) 989-9226 or (612) 989-9226

Minnesota Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher lashes out at Governor Tim Pawlenty's proposal to borrow $1 Billion for operating funds and pay it back over 20 years. That would rack up another $800 million in interest payments. **http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1999/