Tim Pawlenty announced yesterday that it was “A Time For Truth.” Hmmm. In Minnesota, the majority who disapprove of Pawlenty’s leadership are left wondering which truth he meant.
The truth he spoke when he railed about federal spending? Or the truth he spoke when he embraced $2 billion to help bail him out of a budget mess?
The truth he speaks when he claims his fiscal stewardship made Minnesota into a land of icy milk and honey? Or the truth told by statisticians who show that Minnesotans’ personal household income, unemployement rate, student-teacher ratios, and road miles in poor or mediocre condition have all gotten worse under his leadership?
The truth he spoke when he talked about government being more like families and cutting their spending to balance their budget? Or the truth he exhibited when he engaged in a slick series of spending shifts and accounting gimmicks to push off the pain of spending cuts onto future leaders?
The truth he was speaking when he formed the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group, launched the Midwest Governor’s Climate Change initiative and supported cap and trade legislation to address the “profound impact of global warming?” Or the truth he was speaking on the presidential campaign trail when he opposed action on global warming?
The claimed truth of his record of not raising taxes in Minnesota? Or his true record of raising the tobacco tax, a long series of fees and, according to his Republican predecessor Arne Carlson, causing one of the biggest property tax increases in Minnesota history ($2.5 billion in increases in the Pawlenty era, more than the previous 16 years combined).
As the only evangelical born again Christian in the GOP race, Pawlenty knows that John 8:32 tells us “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” But it will be up to the state and local news media to determine which truth the American people learn about Pawlenty’s record in Minnesota.
– Loveland
The Same Rowdy Crowd 
I’m not disagreeing with any of your points, Joe, but I did like the way T-Paw talked about the necessity of getting rid of subsidies for ethanol. That was a breath of fresh air, coming from a Presidential candidate in Iowa.
If his convictions cause him to be anti-ethanol subsidy now as a presidential candidate, why didn’t he have the same convictions as Governor a year ago?
His positions seem to be shaped more by near term political needs than consistent principles.
I guess it depends on whether he was using his faux Southern accent when he was talking about these “truths,” or if he was using his real voice.
He’s nothing if not adapable:
Only in liberal la la land is the GOP’s $34 billion budget (the one Dayton just vetoed) – Minnesota’s largest in its 134-year history – considered a Draconian cut.
Get off the hookah, you morons.
I love my morning rituals. Stout coffee, a stack of newspapers, and being called a drug abusing moron by my dear friend Newt. Ah, the simple things in life.
Newt, I know you only like the numbers that come from the Republican caucus, so I rounded up those numbers for you. The Republicans tell me that their higher ed cut is 16%, the environment cut is 29%, the health and human services cut is 6%, the job and economic growth cut is 47%, the transportation cut is 16%, and the state government innovation and veterans cut is 53% cut. All of this is happening when the overall cost of living is increasing 3%/year, and the cost of obtaining medical care, a huge driver in the state budget, is increasing at a crippling 9%/year.
If you were facing at 6%-53% tax increase at a time when your household bills were increasing between 3-9% over last year, I wonder if you would yawn it off.
Joe – you’re not referring to cuts, but reductions in state spending growth.
Minnesota’s total state biennial expenditures would have grown from $32 billion to $34 billion under the GOP budget that Dayton just vetoed.
Yes, I yawn it off.
Re: The % cut numbers cited above.
The Senate GOP Caucus labeled the column where the above numbers came from “Change FY 2012-2013 from Adjusted FY 2010-2011,” which means numerical difference between the actual amount of money spent in the last budget period (their chart says $39 billion) and the amount the Senate Republicans propose to spend in the next budget period. ($34 billion). A $4,750,000,000-ish cut.
Again, this is the Senate Republicans’ chart, numbers and labels, not mine, not the big bad media’s, and not Governor Dayton’s. So, again, would you yawn off a $4,750,000,000-ish tax increase?