In this anything-but-usual economic year, the usual happened this week: The DFL-controlled state Senate gave bipartisan approval to a bonding bill larger than most observers expected or than GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty will swallow. Pawlenty promptly issued an ominous sounding letter of objection -- though he restrained himself from using the v-word (veto).

That exchange got relatively little notice among professional Capitol watchers, perhaps because it was so predictable. Typically, this would be the initial skirmish in a long fight.

The need to authorize public building projects and their funding with state bonds, via what Capitolese dubs the "bonding bill," has occasioned an undue share of exhausting partisan quarrels in this decade. Twice, in 2004 and 2007, the fight resulted in no bill becoming law. That's political malfeasance, with real-world consequences. Legislative analysts estimate that every $100 million bonded for construction projects produces 4,700 jobs. That suggests that a not-insignificant portion of the slowdown the state's construction industry experienced in 2008 can be traced to the failure to enact a bonding bill in 2007.

That must not be the outcome this year. State economist Tom Stinson predicts that Minnesota's unemployment rate could climb to nearly 10 percent before this year is over. For the sake of the jobs it would create -- not to mention the value of the projects themselves -- a bonding bill ought to be among the 2009 Legislature's first major accomplishments.

Senate Capital Investment Committee chair Keith Langseth deserves praise for acting early on bonding bill this session. The sooner the bill is enacted, the more job-creating good it will do this year. But the Glyndon DFLer, a 35-year member of the Legislature, assembled his bill in his customary way. He tossed into the legislation enough projects in enough districts to assure it a strong bipartisan reception on the Senate floor. In that, Langseth succeeded: Monday's vote was 56-8.

But that approach produced a $329 million bill -- $200 million larger than the state budget forecast expected, and likely a good $100 million more than Pawlenty would sign on his most liberal day.

To Langseth's credit, he included $85 million for building repairs on state college and university campuses. Those are precisely the sort of quick-start, job-generating projects that ought to be favored this year. But his bill was also laden with items -- including two new higher-education buildings, a new Bell Museum and improved exhibits at Como Zoo -- that are the kind of worthy projects typically reserved for the larger bonding bill that the Legislature takes up in even-numbered years.

If the usual lawmaking pattern prevails, the House will shortly roll out a somewhat smaller proposal. Weeks of negotiation will ensue; Pawlenty will veto some or all of the Legislature's bill, and pulling and tugging over vetoed projects will continue until the session ends.

That sequence is too slow and gridlock-prone for a recession-year session. The House bonding bill is still being assembled. Now's the moment for Pawlenty and House DFL leaders to huddle and come up with a package of projects both support, and that can be placed on a fast track for approval. House Capital Investment chair Alice Hausman said Tuesday that she hopes to meet with Pawlenty staffers shortly. Expedience ought to be their aim.