State Economist Tom Stinson estimates the spending cuts Gov. Tim Pawlenty will start making today will cost Minnesota 3,300 to 4,700 jobs.



By contrast, Stinson told the Legislative Advisory Commission on Tuesday, the $1 billion income tax increase that the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed and Pawlenty vetoed in May would have cost the state an estimated 1,000 jobs over the next two years.



In other words, "Governor Pawlenty's budget proposal is going to cause three to five times as many job losses in the state as the legislative proposal," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm.



He scored that political point during a scrappy, two-hour meeting of the commission made up of the Democratic chairs of the House and Senate budget committees. The panel continued reviewing the Republican governor's plan to reduce spending by $2.7 billion to balance the state's next two-year budget.



Pawlenty is required by law to run his budget-balancing plan past the commission, but the lawmakers can only advise him; they can't change his proposals.



"I believe the governor has abused his power, but we can't do anything about it," Sertich said.



In response to his charge that Pawlenty's approach is killing more jobs, state Management and Budget Commissioner Tom Hanson said a tax increase would have made the state less competitive for jobs. He said reducing the size of government would put Minnesota in a better position to grow when the recession



ends.



Stinson's analysis showed cities and counties would sustain 40 percent of the job losses under Pawlenty's plan. The governor intends to cut $300 million in state aid to local governments. Stinson predicted cities and counties would respond by eliminating 1,630 to 1,970 jobs over the next two years.



Cities already have reduced staffs by 9 percent since 2002, Jim Miller, executive director of the League of Minnesota Cities, told the commission. The next round of cuts will have "very, very serious impacts" on local government services.



Stinson said state agencies, including colleges and universities, are expected to eliminate 870 to 1,630 positions after Pawlenty cuts their budgets by 2.25 percent.



The governor plans to delay $1.8 billion in state aid payments to school districts, resulting in the loss of 300 to 600 faculty and staff jobs, Stinson said.



He estimated private employers, including health care providers and social service agencies, would abolish 500 positions after Pawlenty cuts $236 million in health and human services funding.



Those job losses represent one-sixth to one-eighth of 1 percent of employed Minnesotans, he said.



But Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, warned against belittling the loss of jobs. Coming on top of rising unemployment numbers, he said, "We're going in the wrong direction."



Two weeks ago, state budget director James Schowalter estimated the potential job loss at 3,000. But in the worst case, he said, it could be as high as 11,000.



Stinson made his estimates after his staff performed a sophisticated economic analysis of the budget cuts.



Nonetheless, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said Stinson's analysis only counts jobs directly affected by the budget reductions. If indirect impacts were tabulated, she predicted the job losses would be closer to 11,000.



While it is powerless to act, the commission unanimously passed a resolution asserting that Pawlenty's planned spending reductions "would be unwise and not in the interest of the state's long-term financial stability."



The lawmakers took that vote after the Department of Management and Budget forecast a $4.4 billion deficit in the next budget cycle, which runs from mid-2011 to mid-2013. Legislative analysts have projected a $5.9 billion shortfall for that period.



Pawlenty intends to use his executive power of "unallotment" to singlehandedly cut 10 times more spending than any previous governor.



"This has gone way too far," Kelliher said.



She said she or another lawmaker would introduce legislation next year to rein in the governor's unilateral budget-cutting power.



"It is absolutely imperative that the Legislature curb the power of the chief executive in terms of infringing on the legislative powers of this state," she said.



While governors need the authority to reduce spending when a deficit looms, she said the Legislature could limit that power to narrowly defined emergencies or a small fraction of the budget.