Conservatives like Tim Pawlenty love to talk about responsibility. They complain that stimulus money is going to people who don’t deserve it. They say that lower- and middle-class Americans have been irresponsible with their money. But why is it that they see no need to act responsibly themselves?
Governor Pawlenty has a responsibility to Minnesotans. Just as Americans need to be responsible with their family’s finances, the Governor has and obligation to be responsible with the state’s finances. He has a responsibility to protect our common wealth and keep our state strong for the future.
Instead, his budget is reckless and irresponsible, made with his own national ambitions in mind, rather than the good of our state. Just think what he and his fellow conservatives would say about a person who treated their household budget like Pawlenty has treated the state budget. What would they say about a regular Minnesotan who shared some of Pawlenty’s “solutions” to our budget problem?
- He’s written postdated checks to our schools, hoping he’ll have enough money in the bank by the time they’re cashed.
- He’s taken out new credit card debt to make the payments on our existing debt.
- Even as he plans to borrow $1 billion, he’s still giving expensive gifts to his rich corporate friends.
Taking out new credit cards to make your existing credit card payments is a sign that you have a serious problem. Once a family starts engaging in these desperate budget tricks, things tend to unravel quickly, and it’s no different for our government. The Governor can’t make ends meet, and he’s rapidly pulling us into a spiral of debt. But even though the bills are piling up, he won’t stop giving gifts to his rich friends like a corporate income tax reduction.
If Minnesota were a household instead of a state, Pawlenty would say we shouldn’t get any stimulus money. He would say we don’t deserve it — we’ve made bad choices, and now we have to live with the consequences of our actions.
It’s time for the DFL-controlled legislature to stand up to Pawlenty and pass a responsible budget. We need a budget that will put an end to the constant deficits we’ve experienced under Pawlenty’s “leadership.” The budget will certainly have to have spending cuts in it; there’s simply no way to avoid them. But a responsible plan would also raise revenues to make sure we can afford to pay for our childrens’ schools. We can’t keep telling our children “we’ll pay you next year.”
The problem with your analysis is that it assumes Governor Pawlenty has the luxury of setting policy however he deems fits. In reality, he is held hostage by liberals who are in favor of unlimited government largess and therefore, he’s been forced to offer solutions that don’t provide long-term balances.
The real answer, and one he’d more than likely agree with, is to cut the size of government in a much more straight forward way that wouldn’t result in long-term imbalances. You tell me how he would have gotten that passed with the DFL in control?
Another example of Republican “responsibility”:
We are told how important it is to eliminate government waste. Government waste is of course spending money on programs that don’t work. Or rewarding special interest groups.
Pray tell, how often has the governor or any Republican responsibly demonstrated how many new jobs were created through tax cuts for the wealthy, versus investment in important services for our state? I think the state of our economy is pretty good evidence that maybe job creation is not all that those tax cuts are cracked up to be. Even if this were just a terrible, one-time event, we are never asked whether or not the people who were given tax cuts — ostensibly, because they are all small-business owners (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) — actually created jobs with their tax cuts.
If in fact those tax cuts are not effective and are going to the special interest groups of wealthy donors giving to the coffers of the GOP, shouldn’t we look at eliminating that waste as well?
So while I agree with the superficial nature of the budget fixes that include borrowing how is Pawlenty’s ideas functionally different than anything from the federal plan being touted by Democrats?
Democrats and Republicans alike have mortgaged every bit of their children’s productivity for decades to come. Social Security, Medicare, the national debt and the trillions in underfunded public sector pensions will all need to be paid off by somebody and lord knows it isn’t going to be the people that put the idiotic policies in place. Neither party can use the excuse that the other guys are the ones that screwed it up. They did it together. IF you can’t ensure a program will have funding that lasts as long as the program DON”T IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM! Politicians and the democratic system simply are not capable of being responsible for anything other than collecting votes for the next election. Something that makes being honest and productive nearly impossible as they are motivated to continually push off costs and accelerate benefits.
It isn’t about taking from the rich and giving to the poor it is about stealing from the future and giving to the people that can currently vote. The entire national budget is a ponzi scheme that is just barely starting to topple. The idea that somehow taking money borrowed by the federal government and spending a portion of it on schools is an investment in children is completely moronic. The kids being sent to school, and their kids besides, will end up paying for their own education along with massive amounts of interest. Even the plan to bail out home owners benefits those who currently own homes at the expense of those who do not. Artificially inflating home prices to benefit myopic idiots who think property prices never go down and failed to save any real money. All so that those who saw the bubble for what it was and those who are too young to even comprehend what is going on will have to pay.
If people really were interested in the next generations they would bit the built and pay for everything up front. Quit flushing money down the drain by putting any into defense, deal with the fact they haven’t saved enough for their retirements and should be eating nothing but Spam during their golden years and keep working until they have paid off every bit of both private and public debt they have helped create during their lifetimes.
Instead I imagine Democrats and Republicans alike will encourage the feds to borrow more so the current lot of voters can retire to their lifestyles, where even the most modest retirement looks luxurious compared most anyone from my grandparents generation could have hoped for. Willfully ignorant of what they will leave behind.
Tim Pawlenty is a fan of big government; at least, he is when it suits his need for a photo op. He is more than happy to announce new plans for spending money on some worthy project, but the details get lost in the biennial shuffle to balance the budget again (remember his secret plan to pay college tuition for all high school graduates? I’m still waiting to hear how that one pans out).
His lofty ambitions always run afoul of his fealty to the Taxpayers’ League. For Governor Pawlenty, toadying to the base has always been far more important than following through on any vision to improve the state.
Does anybody who uses the term “improve the state” actually have any opinion to what that means or how it should be accomplished? Pawlenty is a slimy politician, that part is fairly obvious and easy to state. The hard part is admitting that the Democrats don’t have a fucking clue either. If you think increasing taxes a few percent on a small group of wealthy will solve the fundamental failure of the last 60 plus years you might make a slight effort on some sort of explanation of how this might work. The truth is less pleasant then any politician can say and hope to get elected. And as everybody knows getting elected is, in the end, the most important thing to most any politician.
It seems many Democrats posting her agree with Paul Krugman and Phil Gramm. Our current troubles are only psychological, we can simply consume our way out by spending money we don’t have through either tax cuts or big projects. Unless of course Pawlenty says it in which case it becomes complete BS. Think for once people, it is BS no matter who says it.
“But a responsible plan would also raise revenues”
Jeff, why can’t you bring yourself to say raise TAXES? Do think that REVENUE is actually more palatable to the unwashed masses? TAXES TAXES TAXES! Say it loud, and say it proud!
People would take you (and all libs) more seriously if you clearly stated what you mean and stopped trying to hide your real intentions. But then people would see you for the true wealth-redistributing socialists that you are, wouldn’t they?
You have to be crazy to suggest raising taxes/revenue/burden today. I’ll give it you, I do expect government entities to raise enough money to pay for what they buy. But raising taxes isn’t the answer. You gotta cut spending. And not on the part where actual taxpayers feel it most like infrastructure. Start in health and human services.
JP - agreed. Let’s start with a 35% across the board cut on all “entitlement” payments. No one is entitled to anything, especially my money.
JP - Increased spending worked just fine during the depression. We have a track record of success - it will work now too.
Really? - I’m sure you’ve never used tact to get a point across. Incidentally, Jesse Ventura cut taxes across the board. To raise them back to their previous level (on the upper income people) isn’t really a tax increase - more like a restoration. THey paid them before - they can do it again.
To all - While I agree that Pawlenty doesn’t deserve the money, there are thousands of Minnesotans who need help. Let’s impeach Pawlenty (or have a recall election) and get the right person in charge to handle this.
I loved the cartoon in Sunday’s Strib with T-Paw as a Dog biting Uncle Sam’s hand holding Minnesota’s share of the Stimulus money. That’s an example of being a hypocrite!!
What the Guv is doing is propping himself up on the Naitonal scene with all his TV Apprearances for a possible 2012 Presidential run, opposing the Stimulus Bill, but needs the money.