Almanac: At the Capitol

A popular bumper sticker from the 2004 presidential campaign simply stated: "November 2nd," signifying the date of the election and those displeased with the politics and policies of the Bush administration to change course.

Had that bumper sticker — and the election calendar — been in effect in 2006, the 2007 legislative session would have been decidedly different.

That's because the extra week in last year's election may have made the difference in this year's session as the gubernatorial outcome profoundly changed the potential direction of the North Star state. To be sure, as far as momentous media points in politics, Mike Hatch's media meltdown about the ethics of ethanol policy and reporters' loyalties doesn't compare with Ed Muskie's wet tears in the wet snows of 1972 New Hampshire, or even Thomas Dewey's rage against railroad workers that may have cost him some of the union vote and 1948 election. But as far as session 2007 goes, it still is the defining dynamic that resulted in near status quo.

Had Mr. Hatch won, it's likely the legislature would be looked at historically: Historically bad, of course, to many Republicans who would have watched taxes rise to pay for more state spending. Historically good, however, to DFLers hoping that Minnesota would regain its progressive position of investing in health care, transportation and education. The state would have been significantly different not only in 2007, but beyond, as the spending — and taxes — took root.

Instead, a stalemate that vexes voters and politicians alike now stands, as Minnesota again sits out any decisive action on the direction of the state. And it's likely to stay this way for the next several sessions, unless Governor Pawlenty tires to move from the Mississippi to the Potomac as a veep candidate for Senator McCain, or has other political ambitions. Right now, he benefits by emulating the sport he loves, as he plays defense as a goalie from whatever the DFL throws at him.

How the electorate responds in the future will depend on many factors, but the entire legislative grind may make it harder to recruit candidates from both sides, as well as those passionate about the political process, as voters may grow weary of the ordinary threats of special sessions, governmental shutdowns and little action in either direction.

So, the last few months were most affected by a few moments and a slip of the tongue — first by Judi Dutcher, then by Mike Hatch — that may be one of those accidents of history that may not only have framed Session 2007, but 2008 and beyond.

And after years of the legislature proposing and the governor disposing of new initiatives — including transit funding — there may be plenty of time to look for a new series of bumper stickers, including one supporting one party control — or a third party — to avoid a second decade of inaction.

With the 2007 session now concluded, I can let you know there's some good, bad and ugly in terms of the results and cooperation from the House Republican perspective.

There are lessons to be learned as we head to the 2008 session: When the DFL actually involved the Governor and House GOP, results were bipartisan, well-received and easily passed. These initiatives include the Ag and Veterans package, the alternative energy bills and bills of local interest.

When the DFL ignored the Governor and Republicans, the results were disastrous: The twice botched bonding bill is the best example. The DFL whipped together a huge pork-filled package with little input from Republicans and the Governor. The first time they did this, they got a veto of the whole bill in early May. Almost no discussion took place in terms of the second bill. The DFL and Chair of the Committee never talked to me or the Governor's office on marking up a second bill, but ended up whipping up a second bill and trying to jam it through on the last night. That blew up in their face as we ran out of time. With 2008 being a heavy bonding year, I'd ask the DFL to work with the Governor and the Republicans or a similar fate is going to happen. A reasonable, affordable bill that treats the whole state fairly and is bipartisan had better be in mind. I also think that roads and bridges need to be a high priority and perhaps the MVST/Governor's package needs to be part of the mix in order to get the jam on transportation unclogged.

The recently vetoed Tax Bill is a good example of Senator Pogemiller playing the political "Dr. Kevorkian" by inserting political poison pills into good legislation and, therefore, killing it. He knew full well that the auto-growth factor for government was a killer and a veto for the Tax Bill. He did it anyway and knew many people who liked the tax bill would be angry at the Governor for keeping his word and issuing a veto. Lesson learned for next session: When the Governor says he'll veto something, he means it. Whether it's a porky and oversized bonding bill, a tax increase or other poison pills. Please listen and learn for next time.

For those concerned about the last day of session, keep in mind that the House sat in recess doing nothing well over 6 daytime hours on the last day of session. In the last week of session, we sat in recess for dozens of hours, rather than processing supposedly high-priority items.

The Constitutional Amendment for dedicated funding and tax increases ran out of time, as did the non-negotiated Bonding Bill. A supplemental nursing home funding bill also ran out of time, because the DFL couldn't prioritize nursing homes over their massive welfare programs in the Omnibus Human Services bill. The "Denny Green time management" of the House DFL needs improvement one way or another, but it may be the citizens and rank-and-file DFLers who will need to make this point for the DFL leadership to listen.

Let's take a look at the jam at the end, in which the DFL is trying to blame Republicans for having the audacity of asking how their school kids and nursing homes were treated under the quickly assembled bills:

The House DFL spent $26 billion in its last six hours of the last day of session. Remember that the over-all budget is less than $35 billion.

In terms of spending:

• That is $4.3 billion per hour.


• That is $71 million per minute.


• That is $1.2 million per second.

My question to the DFL, who want to ram unread bills through the legisalature: Could you lend me a few seconds?

The Good

The Bad

The Ugly

It ain't over until it's over. Governor Pawlenty's actions in the next week may turn some of this on its head.

Traffic congestion grows. We use more gas as its price skyrockets.

The Taxpayers League convinced middle income people to oppose tax increases that impacted them in only one way: property tax relief. Now that's ugly.

Last January, I was asked to make a wish list for the coming legislative session which has now (maybe?) come to a close. While I had a number of specific policy initiatives I wanted to see lawmakers act upon, I had one overriding piece of advice: Think big.

Well, some folks at the Capitol must have been listening because there was some big thinking going on up there these past four months about the environment, taxes, transportation, and education. Seeking to rectify the growing regressiveness of the Minnesota's tax system, Democrats passed legislation raising income taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans while providing critically needed relief for working families and homeowners living on fixed incomes trying to keep up with annual double-digit property tax increases, themselves a result of deep and regressive cuts in Minnesota's state aid to cities. They also proposed ways to fund mass transit — the Twin Cities are quickly turning into the most congested urban area in the country — and to lower the costs of attending state colleges.

Unfortunately, the Governor was thinking big, too, except he wasn't thinking big about the state, he was thinking big about his own personal ambitions. Taking a page from the Bush playbook, he vetoed proposals that had the overwhelming backing of Minnesotans — like the proposed changes in income taxes — or forced the DFL to back off other proposals for transportation and education that also had strong public support. All so he can head to the 2008 Republican national convention and be able to proclaim that he kept his "no new taxes" pledge (not to be confused, of course, with a "no new fees" pledge he apparently did not take), even at the cost of the future of the state he purportedly leads. While this may prove to be smart politics in the long run (though I personally doubt his gambit is going to pay off), from a policy standpoint, it is nothing short of disgraceful. Like Bush, a chastened Pawlenty last fall proclaimed that the election had opened his eyes to the need to walk, yea, in the paths of bi-partisanship. Since then — again like Bush — he has continued to operate in the narrowly ideological, highly partisan mode that characterized his first term.

Still, the session was not without its bright spots. In terms of environmental policy it was, arguably, the most significant in Minnesota's history. From the historic "25-by-25" renewable energy bill spearheaded by Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL-St. Paul), to initiatives to cap and then reduce carbon emissions, to an energy efficiency bill that mandates that utilities cut their use of fossil fuels, it's been a good year for green legislation. Fortunately, Pawlenty chose not to stand in the way of these bills.

On the other hand, none of these green policy initiatives entails an increase in taxes or spending, so his acquiescence was hardly a profile in courage. In a previous blog I referred to Pawlenty as Macho Man; at the moment, Little Big Man seems more apt. Given the field of midgets currently clogging up the race for the GOP Presidential nomination, Pawlenty's smallness may prove beautiful — at least among that party's dwindling base. I suspect the general electorate will not be similarly impressed. To paraphrase an old saying, a Governor all wrapped up in himself makes a mighty small package.

• The actions on energy and smoking were significant. I'm sure there were others.


• I remain hopeful that we'll still see breakthroughs on some of the issues with the most genuine political opportunity. Transportation funding/pricing comes to mind as the most obvious.


• I remain hopeful that some of the worst ideas of the session (e.g. charter school moratorium) will go down with the vetoes, while some of the best ideas (mental health reform) will be resuscitated.

• At least in the short term, this session may "do no harm." That's not bad.


• But faced with potential long-term crises in education, workforce readiness, tax revenue sustainability, long-term care and health care policy more generally, I think that "not doing harm" might be good enough for right now, but not for the next generation. Major opportunities for reform to address these issues have probably passed.

Leadership is about vision, hope and investment in the future. (No — I don't mean the type of "investment" that is only spending money.)

More than anything, it's not the lack of "harm" that concerns me. It's the lack of leadership.