by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

Democratic lawmakers express a willingness to examine a spending limits constitutional amendment recently proposed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, but remain cautious.

Two weeks ago Pawlenty presented the initiative, which, if approved by voters, would cap state general fund spending at the revenue level received during the previous two-year spending cycle.

“We need to change the way we budget in the State of Minnesota from what we want to spend to what we have brought in the door,” said Pawlenty, speaking at a Capitol press conference on Nov. 5.

Rep. Paul Gardner, DFL-Shoreview, argues that enshrining such an amendment in the state constitution would serve to shift state government spending onto property taxes. “No, I don’t think it’s a good concept,” he said.

Gardner views the proposal as handcuffing the Legislature — limiting options. Sometimes long-term savings require up-front spending, he argued. Further, Gardner questions whether the governor is willing to work with lawmakers, pulling them into his office, in selling his proposal.

“I don’t think he has any intention of following up on it,” said Gardner, a member of the House Tax Committee. Gardner predicts the initiative will sputter.

Dittrich expresses doubts about wisdom of amendment

Rep. Denise Dittrich, DFL-Champlin, who also serves on the House Tax Committee, expressed doubts about the wisdom of the amendment.

“I think anytime you have one solution for very complex problems and issues, it can become actually problematic,” she said. Still, Dittrich, as have Senate leaders, indicated a willingness to explore.

“I think you need to take all ideas seriously,” she said.

Sen. Jim Carlson, DFL-Eagan, offered a similar appraisal. “I won’t say it’s bad until we look at what it does,” said Carlson. “I think it is something that we do need to talk about,” he said, saying the concept has been tried in other states and is talked about.

If it’s a good idea, it’s good; if a bad idea, make it clear, Carlson explained. “To be honest with you, I don’t think it will go very far,” he said.

Rep. Garofalo says amendment needs more study

Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, withheld judgement on the amendment proposal saying he needed to study it more. “I would say that it would definitely provide more stable and predictable budgets — that’s 100 percent true,” he said.

But Garofalo, a member of the House Tax Committee, suspects there could be unforeseen consequences.

Garofalo believes the proposal has little chance of winding up on the ballot. “No,” he said. “The current legislature is interested in taxing and spending more,” Garofalo said.

“The crowd in charge up there doesn’t have any interest in that,” he said of seeing a spending cap put in place.

Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, is carrying the legislation in the Senate.

“To families, business owners, or regular folks with limited income, it’s just common sense that spending should match income,” said Koch in a press release. Koch did not return calls.

Rep. Scott says amendment is timely

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, who serves on the House Property and Local Sales Tax Committee, views the proposed amendment as timely.

“We need to do something very proactive right now,” she said.

Scott hopes voters will study and consider the amendment proposal, a “very responsible piece of legislation,” Scott said.

She views Democratic assertions that the amendment would limit options as misplaced. “We can still move money around within the budget,” she said.

Beyond this, the legislation allows for emergency situations, Scott pointed out.

The bill will be heard at a meeting of the Senate Tax Committee on Dec. 7.