Leadership Summit sends recommendations; legislative subcommittee to ponder them

Recommendations from the Sept. 8 Legislative Summit on how to pull the state out of its ongoing budget problems — signed by 12 former governors and top legislators (mostly, but not all, DFLers) — were turned over to current DFL legislators today.

In response, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller and Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher, both of Minneapolis, said they’ll form a joint subcommittee to craft recommendations that reflect the findings of the Leadership Summit. They’re calling it the Subcommittee on a Balanced Budget, and it will will be a subcommittee of the Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy.

Co-chairs will be Pogemiller and Rep. Lyndon Carlson, DFL-Crystal, and they’ll begin meeting soon to seek some solutions for the 2010 Legislature.

The Summit document says that in the nearterm and over the long run, state expenditures will continue to significantly exceed revenue. The state can’t outgrow the problem, leaders said, so it requires a balance of tax increases and spending cuts. They also call for an “appropriate budget reserve” and a strict policy that the state will spend only an amount equal to the current revenue raised in a biennial budget period.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty did not attend the event, saying he knew it would result in a call for more taxes.

Those signing the statement were:

Former Govs. Wendell Anderson, Arne Carlson and Al Quie,; former House Speakers Phil Carruthers, David Jennings, Dee Long, Martin Sabo, Harry Sieben and Bob Vanasek; and former Senate Majority Leaders John Hottinger, Dean Johnson and Roger Moe.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 09/28/2009 - 11:24 pm.

    I am glad the GOP has a plan. Especially one I understand. Denial

  2. Submitted by Glenn Mesaros on 09/29/2009 - 08:24 am.

    They should talk to banker Peter Gillette, and read his op ed to todays Star Tribune to restore Glass STegall Act. This has been fanatically opposed by Banker’s Boy Barack, and his crew of behaviorist economists, and their liberal mass of trial lawyers. This break through policy shift by midwest bankers shows their true, and accurate, contempt for Wall Street speculators. It echoes the policies of Senator Robert LaFollette, Sr. of Wisconsin. IT also shows that a few key elements of the Republican party have surpassed all liberal Democrats in their understanding of fixing the financial crisis. Republicans will now smash their opponents in Virginia and New Jersey this November, while Neo Messiah Obama is campaigning for the Olympics and global warming in Copenhagen.

  3. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 09/29/2009 - 04:47 pm.

    Mr. Mesaros; It is always a big mistake to theorize before one has data. Because one begins to twist facts to suit theories. Instead of theories to suit facts.

    It is called the Glass-Steagall Act. Which was established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It was created as a result of the financial crisis that is known as the Great Depression.

    The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate and by a bi-partisan 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives.

    The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup today is considered by many to be a Zombie bank as a result of their CDO’s and SIV’s.

    Your further assertions in your comments are really quite a hoot. Your piece sounded more like an opinion. Something that needs no fact or basis to support its claims.

Leave a Reply