Gov. Tim Pawlenty, barely coy about his 2012 presidential aspirations, penned a Politico op-ed yesterday ("Cut up the credit card") advocating a federal balanced budget amendment.

I sort of glossed over the piece when I read it, figuring it was just another reflexive tick on a GOP hopeful's policy checklist.

But this morning, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly ripped the guv a new one, calling Pawlenty's handiwork "blisteringly stupid," "an insane policy prescription" and "right up there among the most ridiculous pieces I've seen in a long while." And oh yeah; TPaw "has a child-like understanding of economic basics."

Insults aside, here's the nub of Benen's argument:

Trying to balance the budget in the midst of a financial crisis is the exact opposite of what every sane person realizes we need — a government stimulus to help spur the economy. Why would Pawlenty recommend slashing hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending right now? ... This piece suggests Pawlenty looked back at the Great Depression, and became convinced that Hoover was right.

To quote any more would deny Benen some clicks, which I don't want to do. But there's also a tasty section mocking Pawlenty's likening of government budgets to family budgets.

To be fair, Pawlenty's budget-balancing proposal allows "a limited exemption if supported by a supermajority vote by Congress." Which makes me wonder: Minnesota's Constitution requires balanced budgets but has no supermajority exception; would Pawlenty support giving us one here?