After complaining that the DFL legislature isn’t cutting enough from the Health and Human Services budget, Pawlenty tries to put a positive twist on his raid of the Health Care Access Fund:
…part of my solution integrates public financing of health care programs by merging the Health Care Access Fund with the General Fund.
Oh, “merging” the two funds sounds nice. Much nicer than, say, “taking the money from the Health Care Access Fund to pay for the rest of my budget.”
There are some, though, who might dispute Pawlenty’s use of the word “merge.” For instance, recipients of MinnesotaCare might not say their health care access has been “merged.” No, they’re more likely to say it was “eliminated.” A fine point, perhaps, to Pawlenty, but not so much to those who rely on the Health Care Access Fund.
The amazing thing about Pawlenty is that the left doesn’t think he is willing to comprimise, and if you listen to the right, they are saying that TPaw has “sold out” and is much more centrist than how indicated when he campaign in both 04 and 06.
Perhaps the sign of a good, reasonable moderate is that they simply piss everyone off.
How about a third way, Dan? 1st way you have one side winning and one side losing, 2nd way you have each side losing so all sides are pissed off, as you say, but how about a third way where you take the best from each side to craft a reasonable solution?
T-Paw says he will “compromise” as long as Dems do not consider any ways to raise revenue.
Easier said than done. We’re broke! The government’s broke and the people are broke. Could you find that solution?
Nice try, C-Man,
Some people are broke. Some people, due to Republican redistribution of wealth, are doing better than fine. Now don’t start crying about Democrats wanting some communist regime where everyone gets the same. The country was rolling along just smashingly when the richest had 200 times the wealth of the average Joe. If you think 200 times the wealth of the average Joe is impoverishing the rich, then I guess we have nothing to talk about. In 1929 and then again in 2009, the wealth gap reached 800+ times the average person. That type of wealth redistribution is not healthy for a Democracy. 200 times wealth gap, fine, but 800 times wealth gap is not.
Our wealth gap stayed stable at about 200 times from middle to wealthiest for half a century, from the first Republican crash to this Republican crash. In 1980, when Regan started wage suppression and wealth redistribution, the gap started skyrocketing again.
C-Man, we did not have any major depressions outside the normal business cycle during the 50 years when wealth distribution was reasonable. We do not want a zero gap. 200 times is just fine. There are people who can start paying their fair share again.
Check out the chart at http://www.pnhp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/plutocracy_graphic1.jpg
Notice the country was strongest overall when the gap leveled out between 1932 and 1980.
C”Rush”,
Where’s your solution?
Just saying “no” to Democrats and repeating the same old failed rhetoric is not a solution.
I think America gets that now.
So, what is the solution?
Easy. Cut the tax on the wealthy so they have more money to help this great nation. Get rid of Social Security. No real American’s need or want it anyway-its communism. Get rid of the death tax. Increase military spending. Done.
The link that you sent, Alec, doesnt tell me a whole lot about how America is doing, and certainly doesn’t tell me how “strong” America is as you imply.
Being out to get the super rich isn’t a constructive government approach. You imply that if we “solve” that “problem”, everything else will take care of itself. How that figure translates into more meaningful data, however, is important. If we have the scarcity mentality and assume that those super rich having that much money takes away jobs and competitive pay from others, then there is in fact a broader problem. If we have an abundance mentality, and assume that whatever the super rich have, there is enough opportunity for all according to their work ethic and ability, then it isn’t as relevant.
The Legatum Prosperity Index, for example, shows us that the highest potential countries on earth, in terms of opportunities for their citizens to prosper, use government as more of a referee than a hub. Here is what they say about the US:
“The success of the US economy is due in part to a long-standing, non-partisan consensus in support of private enterprise and minimal state intervention. This has created an excellent regulatory environment for competitiveness and entrepreneurship — helping to ensure that the large amount of capital investment that the US generates and attracts is efficiently allocated. This is reflected in an excellent score for quality of regulation, as reported by the World Bank.”
Your figures are interesting, but show me how they translate to success or not of a large and mobile middle class.
Here is the problem Dan, we quit being a referee in 1980. Remember de-regulation? We went 50 years from 1930-1980 without a banking scandal or major recession. Then with every deregulatory step we had a scandal. Savings and Loans — -> Enron et al. — -> the Derivatives crash of today. From 50 years of reasonable regulation to a major financial scandal every ten years, with those making the money knowing they will get bailed out.
I am not out to get the super rich even one little bit. I would just like them to pay their fair share. If your trickle down and abundance theory worked, then why, as the economy booms the middle class wages in real dollars have remained stagnant, while the wealthy have increased ten fold. I don’t think wanting to return to the days of a 200 fold advantage is really “sticking” it to the wealthy.
The problem is, and why trickle down doesn’t work, is that there is just so much someone can spend to invigorate the economy. After that it is all just about passing around paper, and creating nothing.
There is a direct, and to me, obvious correlation between an unstable wealth gap and a collapse of an economy. It’s right there before your eyes!
In addition, if you are worried about the deficit, take a look at when it exploded. Starting in 1980 the graph looks like a hockey stick. The deficit exploded under Regan’s unnecessary tax cuts.
“We went 50 years from 1930-1980 without a banking scandal or major recession.”
I just about spit up the coffee I was drinking when I read that line! There were at least 5 recessions between 1930 and 1980, not to mention the great depression lasted until about 1939. In fact, the most comparable situation to where we are now, in terms of a historical parellel, is what happened in the 70’s. That was driven by the energy industry and secondarily a war (Vietnam). This one is causing by a housing/banking industry, and a war (we all know which one).
Your other points, however, have some merit. The question is how far we take regulation, and what the purpose of Govt is.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, I wondered why Tim Pawlenty’s “compromises” always result in him getting everything he wants.
To the author…I find this quote amazing. In order for you to write it, you have to believe we live under a dictatorship. See, the governor has no authority to write a law or write a check. With an over-ride majority in the Democratically (for 30 plus years now) controlled Senate, and almost the same majority in the House, there is NO WAY Pawlenty can demand, and get…ANYTHING he wants. The statement is utterly and entirely ludicrous.
Alec, we have not quit being the referee. In the last 80 years, government, on a state and federal level, has increased mandates and regulatory systems 20 fold. In fact, I would argue that over regulation and excessive mandates INCREASE the wealth of the ultra-rich, and squashes free enterprise and competition. How? If the government sets XYZ mandates and regulations in an arena of business where 20 companies exist, under the guise of “evening the playing field” or whatever other socially acceptable term you want to use, 10 of those companies will NOT be able to compete because they will automatically not be able to spend the money and time required to meet the mandates and regulations. Out of the remaining 10, 5 will meet the regulations but will take those costs onto the price of the product or service, and the consumer will not purchase them, because of price, and those 5 companies will go under. Leaving what? 5 companies to compete for all of the dollars that 20 companies used to vie for prior to the mandates and regulations. Thus, one or two Alpha companies will exist and control the market, while the other 3 hang on for dear life. The two alpha companies will then take the lions share of wealth, thus widening the very gap you abhor.
Now, this scenario plays out every day in this country….and it is BECAUSE of the very mandates and regulations the government imposes. If you had a lawn mowing company, and were told by the government that in order to renew your business license, you had to only mow on Sundays, and use only bio-fuel in your mower, and take all clippings to an approved dump, and discount all prices for minorities, and and and and…what would the result be?
There has NEVER been a better economic system than the free enterprise system of the US. The proof is in the utter change the world saw after we set the standards for individual success, growing into social and economic success. Over the course of 100 years of continued regulatory additions, taxes, mandates, etc, on businesses, we have taken what once was a system were individuals could make their own decisions about what to buy and how mush to pay, and converted into a system where a limited amount of companies sell us what the government says they can, at a price reflective of the sum of all things.
With the exception of auto and banking crisis’s, is there another arena in which you believe the government should have more regulations, and why?