Tim Pawlenty seems to be focusing his brand on spending and the budget deficit right now.
Those two topics aren't exactly foreign for Republican candidates, but T-Paw's spent an unusual amount of time dealing with it.
The tangible proposal from his rhetoric? A constitutional amendment requiring Minnesota and the U.S. to balance their budgets.
In an ideas column for Politico today, Pawlenty continues to liken increased government spending to a Ponzi scheme (we need a T-Paw mashup for every time he makes the comparison on cable TV), one requiring a solution.
That’s why we need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget with limited exceptions for war, natural disasters and other emergencies. Every state but one has a balanced budget requirement, and while such requirements make for difficult decisions, they work.
Back in December 2009, the Wall Street Journal's Amy Merrick noted the political implications of T-Paw's laser-like focus on budget issues, but wondered just how realistic the goal is.
The proposals could boost Mr. Pawlenty's popularity with conservative interest groups, some of which have been longtime proponents of a balanced-budget amendment. But it is unclear how much support his budget-capping plan will have in Minnesota, where residents historically have supported generous social-service spending.
Mr. Pawlenty's state proposal has some similarities to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights amendment passed in Colorado in 1992. That amendment limited state spending growth to inflation plus population increases. Excess revenue was returned to taxpayers via rebate checks.
The amendment lost support as Colorado began experiencing service cuts, such as declines in the number of children with health insurance. In 2005, voters suspended portions of the amendment for five years.
