I will admit to being fairly ignorant of the powers of the Minnesota Governor, and was wondering about the lack of Democrats being elected. It seems to be a more powerful spot than what it is led to be. Ventura cheapened it up, that's for sure.
Knowing that most Republicans are conniving, I suspect that when it comes to winning in a Blue State, much of the emphasis in on the Governorship.
But why? Is it actually powerful or symbolic? Just a feather in the cap on the road to a Presidency?
So, I googled and read this:
http://tiny.cc/D7fTF
Excerpt:
"Whereas now, we're in this other sort of situation where the Legislature passed spending bills, and there wasn't enough revenue because the governor vetoed the tax increases. And he's going to use [unallotment] to balance the budget in that context. That "if" statement [in the law] is probably satisfied, because revenues have declined from the February forecast. So he's probably on good ground in saying they're likely to be lower."
Joel Michael
I would contend that is way to much power for one individual and it most likely could be legally challenged.
Gelding isn't an option, I suppose.
The original source for this abomination is this PDF study:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...ubs/
unallot.pdf
Excerpt:
"Unallotment
Executive Branch Power to Reduce
Spending to Avoid a Deficit
This information brief provides background on the workings of and legal
requirements under the unallotment law. This law specifies conditions under
which the executive branch can reduce expenditures to prevent an anticipated
budget deficit. "
So Pawlenty "anticipates" a budget deficit by vetoing the revenue stream and then unallots.
That really Sucks
Delete if this has been covered at this site before.
"Delete if this has been covered at this site before."
If repetition was grounds for deletion, Spot would have been outta here long ago.
The lock-step response of the Entenzabots to some criticism so many many months before even the first precinct caucus has been interesting to watch, I'll tell you that.
Equally interesting, MNO, was the vitriol of the alleged "ABE"ers. And I say "alleged" - because it appears the shot at the Entenza Fine was cheered by at least one that's more of a "I Got My Candidate Picked Out Already" type; rather than an ABEer. Quite frankly, the in-house argument of "your guy is really a douchebag" has the exact opposite intended effect with me.
For The Record: My favorite candidate for 2010 gov is everyone without an "R" after their name.
How dare you say anything bad about a Democrat! You are the worst person ever!
My union likes Bakk
Two Putt, I think that the "vitriol" you feel is the sweet smell of people who don't like their decisions to be made by others. It might also be that comments that can taken as threats don't go over too well either.
Some of us are just too old and cranky to be told that resistance is futile.
For the record, Spot hasn't decided who he would or will support for goober. I've resisted the question whom do you favor, arguing that it is much too early to say. The questions raised about Entenza benefit the DFL, however, because they help pick the right candidate. Right now, as this nascent stage, it isn't smart to think of anyone as a front runner.
Some of us are just too old and cranky to be told that resistance is futile.
Some too cranky and young, as well.
MNO, I haven't seen any comments that could be perceived as "threats" - except from people bound and determined to tank a campaign.
As far as "resistance" - one way to get the ol' twoputter's spine stiffened, is bytellin' me "Hey - TwoPutt - suck it up and get in line."
(cheney) THAT. I did it when I had to, 'cause that was part of the deal. That was many, Many, MANY moons ago.
Not here, and not by you, Two Putt, but other places, by other people.
Well, thanks for the clarification, Spotty.
Dunno if ya saw it, but Jeff Fecke wrote a fine piece today: advocating reasons for a strong, vigorous intraparty battle.
And he didn't call anyone a huge douchebag once....
No, I haven't seen it yet; slow to get to the RSS today. But it sounds like something Mark Gislason would say, too.
D Koski,
A good repetition. Though it's been said, I'm not sure I've seen it put that succinctly: "So Pawlenty 'anticipates' a budget deficit by vetoing the revenue stream and then unallots."
Commenting by HaloScan
