Like almost everybody else, I've been assuming that Gov. Pawlenty would pay the bill for higher spending on K-12 education from the state's general fund. Well, you know that old line about never assuming. It looks like a good chunk of the extra spending for schools would come from property tax increases, which you remember aren't covered by the governor's "no new taxes" pledge. Patrick Sweeney breaks the story in today's Pioneer Press:

Property taxes for schools would increase an estimated 23 percent next year under the budget that Gov. Tim Pawlenty is scheduled to recommend to legislators today.

In each of the two years after that, the portion of property taxes homeowners pay for schools would rise about 9 percent annually, the Education Department predicts.

Changes that Pawlenty is urging in the way school districts pay for their operations would accelerate a trend — in place since the recession of 2001 — toward property taxes paying an increasing share of school expenses. The property tax increases have come as lawmakers and Pawlenty struggled to cope with a series of state budget deficits, the most recent of which is a $700 million shortfall predicted for the next two years.

The result is that a huge property tax cut that homeowners and businesses received under former Gov. Jesse Ventura is gradually being eaten away by tax increases approved in school district referendums across the state.

So much for that Big Plan Gov. Ventura had. Sweeney's story goes on to quote an education department official who says local voters will have a choice to accept or reject the increases. DFLers are already steamed about the plan. They will no doubt use it to back their contention that the "no new taxes" is a shell game that replaces a higher income tax with a higher property tax.

Another big target in Gov. Pawlenty's budget plan will likely be state-funded health care programs. MPR's Tom Scheck takes a look at one called General Assistance Medical Care:

There are about 35,000 Minnesotans who are on General Assistance Medical Care or GAMC. In order to qualify, you have to be an adult without children who makes no more than $600 dollars a month. It's supposed to help those who have no other options for health insurance. Many on the program are homeless. Others work part time.

The problem with GAMC is it's expensive. The state paid $243 million to run the program last year. It's projected to increase to $379 million by 2007. Gov. Pawlenty says the growth of GAMC and other state-run health care programs need to be reigned in. Minnesota is only one of a handful of states that offers a program for low-income single adults.

In December, Pawlenty hinted that GAMC will see significant changes.

"If you're not a senior, you're not disabled, if you don't have children in other words you're an able bodied, single adult who can otherwise perhaps find an opportunity in the marketplace," Pawlenty said. "Those are the kinds of people we're going to look at and say are our benefits out of line?"

Pawlenty would not elaborate on how state run health care programs would fare in the upcoming budget. But some who advocate on behalf of the poor worry that Pawlenty will eliminate GAMC and roll the people currently on it into MinnesotaCare. That's the state's health insurance program that requires a enrollees to pay a monthly premium and offers fewer services. They say many people would opt out of the program because of the cost of the premiums and would go without care, at least until it's absolutely necessary.

The problem with that, Scheck points out, is that hospitals, clinics, and later down the line people with private health insurance, end up picking up the tab for that expensive, so-called uncompensated care. And that means in the absense of a big picture fix the cost of health care for everyone keeps going up. It was exactly that problem that led state officials to create the MinnesotaCare program a dozen years ago.

After talking about the possibilty of new casinos in Bloomington and Anoka County, you could almost bet that other cities would weigh in. Both the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune report that St. Paul is looking at the allure of slot machines. This is from Jackie Crosby's story in the Strib:

Locations being bandied about range from the Radisson Riverfront Hotel (which Lantry said owes the city some $34 million) to land across from Xcel Energy Center, which is owned by the city and abuts the site where Kelly wants to build a Twins ballpark. The riverboat idea remains a consideration as well.

Some civic leaders speculated that Pawlenty might be interested in creating a gaming commission that would review proposals from cities interested in establishing casinos. The process could be similar to one set up last year to consider ideas for building stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings.

But the process would be complicated by the federal, state and local laws that control gambling. And it's unclear how much support Kelly could garner on the City Council or among St. Paul's legislative delegation.

St. Paul and Bloomington aren't the only cities under consideration. Others could include Alexandria, Stillwater and St. Cloud.

In Minneapolis, Mayor R.T. Rybak said only that "my focus during this legislative session is going to be public safety, local government and education funding and the city's bonding proposals."

Even if the tribes bought land in the cities, they would face scrutiny from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Department of the Interior. And some wonder how the expansion of gambling would play out in the conservative states that helped hand President Bush a second term.

Of course Bush lost Minnesota. But he'll remember that Democrat mayor of St. Paul who went out on a limb and endorsed him, won't he?