No matter the result of this fall's election, DFLers will still control the Minnesota Senate in 2015 and, barring an earthquake in the DFL firmament, Tom Bakk will still be majority leader. The Senate's 39-28 DFL tilt is fixed through the 2016 election.
Bakk was given to frequent mentions of that fact during the lawmaking session that ended nine days ago. Sometimes — to the irritation of House DFLers and Gov. Mark Dayton's team — he would allow that he could be the sole survivor among this year's all-DFL leadership triumvirate. Listeners would walk away wondering whether he was predicting or even rooting for that result.
My take: No, on both counts. Bakk said those things in the context of explanations for the Senate majority's differences with Dayton and/or the DFL House on a variety of issues.
The Senate's four-year term, coinciding in this decade with presidential but not gubernatorial elections, gives the smaller chamber a longer-term perspective on state policy than the House and a measure of independence from the governor. Those differences are behind Senate decisions to favor a larger budget reserve fund, some ill-advised business sales taxes, a smaller 2014 spending bill, a gas tax increase, reform of the state's Sex Offender Program, slower growth in the minimum wage, and firmer financial footing for MinnesotaCare in 2016 and beyond.
Bakk was trying to convey the notion that this biennium's all-DFL leadership lineup was an interlude of potentially fleeting sunshine, as in, "Make hay while the sun shines." He was trying to summon in others a sense of urgency — I think.
But with Bakk, it isn't always that simple — whatever "it" is on any given day. Twenty years in the thick of things at the Legislature and prior work as a carpenters' union business agent have made him a formidable negotiator with a propensity for sly complexity. At nearly 60, he's a master at holding his cards close to the vest.
Guessing his cards and his plan for playing them is a popular pastime among the Capitol crowd. No similar speculation attends pronouncements from either Dayton or House Speaker Paul Thissen. Both are more direct by nature and more transparent in their approach to lawmaking.
Neither would be likely to, say, insert authorization for a new Senate office building into an omnibus tax bill, or structure it to avert any need for a clean full-House vote on the project. Or to delay a popular tax-cutting bill for said building's sake — if that indeed was what Bakk was trying to do back in March. Or was he trying to get control of that tax bill, so that he could stuff it with ingredients from the Senate's policy cupboard, like gift and estate tax relief and a bigger reserve?