Governor Pawlenty ‘Line Item Vetoes’ Bonding Bill

Perspective

The governor originally called for a bonding bill not to exceed $725 million. The DFL legislature passed two bonding bills this session but through procedural maneuvering only sent the most recent on for presentment, the process that allows a Governor to formally act on legislation.

Governor Pawlenty delivered, as expected, on a promise to cut back the bonding bill by exercising his ‘line-item veto’ authority. As an aside, this is one gubernatorial authority that nobody questions as opposed to another battle that begins today—unallotment authority. But I digress, as this is an issue for another day. The bill as presented was larger than $1 Billion and the Governor has paired the bill down to $680, below even his threshold limit. The Governor cut from infrastructure projects in areas such as Community Colleges, Coon Rapids Dam, Public Housing, Trails, and other projects of regional significance. Not to be missed was the Governor’s ability to successfully implore the legislature to re-insert some of his own priorities including funding for sex offender lock-up facilities.

Proponents of each project will likely decry the lack of commitment to certain priorities by offering the proverbial “This is the time to bond and build,” indicating a preference for spending while the cost of borrowed money is cheapest. Additionally, expect post line item veto rhetoric to include quips about “lost opportunities on shovel ready projects.” Meanwhile, the republican responsorial will be “living within your means” and having the fiscal discipline to say no. The often invoked mantra is “it’s like charging up your credit cards, when you are flat broke.” Democrats will contend the Governor unfairly retaliated on projects in key Democratic strongholds. Though, Republicans will point out that Democrats loaded the bill with “Christmas presents” for those same constituencies.

As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. No one can deny that bonding is relatively inexpensive in today’s economic environment. Yet, fiscal prudence requires restraint and an eye towards maintaining Minnesota’s bonding rating and not burdening future budgets with excess debt service obligations. So ultimately it comes down to balancing these competing priorities. Might I suggest that despite all the maneuvering, grandstanding, and political showmanship, an unfortunate side effect much like any modern era legend drug, the process actually worked as intended? How refreshing?

For a complete listing of vetoed items SEE LINK

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/Vetoes/veto_results.asp?veto_id=529