Kangaroo Court - The Strib

Kangaroo Court - The Strib starts off last Monday's story about - good heavens, can ya believe it, a conclave of former governors! - with this bon mot:

If Gov. Tim Pawlenty were to turn to one of Minnesota's former governors for budgetary advice, chances are he wouldn't like to hear what any one had to say.

Well, isn't that special.

The group wasn't gathered to praise Pawlenty, they were gathered - and put in front of microphones - to bury him.

The Strib leads with a strawman:

Four former governors -- three from the same party as the current Republican office holder, and one DFLer -- all said Monday that Pawlenty has painted himself into a corner with his no-new-taxes pledge and that disadvantaged Minnesotans will suffer the most from sharp budget cuts.

The three were not from the same party Pawlenty leads. They were to today's GOP what Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were to Ronald Reagan; holdovers from the era when GOPers were just like Democrats, but more polite.

Carlson, Anderson and Quie were behind James Lileks' classic line about Arne Carlson during the 1990 gubernatorial election: "I tell my friends in DC that we have two candidates for governor in Minnesota; the pro-choice, high-tax, anti-gun candidate, and the Democrat".

Republicans Elmer L. Andersen, Al Quie and Arne Carlson and DFLer Wendell Anderson told a Humphrey Institute audience celebrating the career of the late Orville Freeman that a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases is the best way to share the pain of a $4.23 billion budget deficit.

Andersen, governor from 1961 to 1963, jokingly said Pawlenty could refer to tax increases as "revenue adjustments" to avoid violating his pledge.

Which is the thought process that has made so much public life in Minnesota so intolerable. 2+2=5, Winston. Taxation is cheaper, regulation is more free.

For example:

"Taxes put money into the economy, into essential public services, education, culture, parks, highways," said Andersen. "Unfortunately that pledge was made to solve the deficit without a tax increase. People of Minnesota want to get back the kind of state we had."

Actually, a majority in recent polls seems not to want that, but we digress.

Here's the part where an actual, critical media would be nice:

Each of the four governors faced budget problems when they were elected, and each of the four endured special legislative sessions to deal with remedies for their budgets, which included tax surcharges, utilities taxes, income tax increases and sales tax hikes.

Unmentioned in the Strib article: each of the governors responded by further enabling the illness that caused the problems in the first place - raising taxes to enable out-of-control spending. It's like giving an alcoholic a Bloody Mary for her hangover; it may feel better in the short run, but in the mid-term you're still dealing with a dysfunctional drunk.

Some of the hourlong discussion looked at ideologically driven policy and domination of the political parties by members with a narrow range of views and a set agenda.

"Once you turn the system over to people who believe the public purpose is to get elected, the common good tends to dissipate," said Carlson, governor from 1991 to 1999. "You have to protect the interests of young people. And you cannot deny the right to basic health care. . . . It is wrong. The pain should be spread, and that means a tax increase -- particularly on those of us who can afford it."

This was the part of the "Four Governors" broadcast that started me thinking; this isn't about getting their views. It's about defending what I, a member of the loyal opposition, consider the most noxious part of Minnesota Politics: big, wasteful government is considered the norm, the status quo, the fount of all goodness by the part of the public class people like the Four Governors and the Strib editorial board represent, to the point that that philosophy of governance isn't just "the government" - it's the state itself. Dissent from that view is an attack not merely on the government, but on all that is good and holy about the state itself.

Your government is you. You are your government. What's good for your government is good for you.

Does anyone see where this is a problem? Let me know.

By the way, Carlson earned my undying emnity for this little swipe:

Carlson also took a shot at the Legislature and Pawlenty on non-budget matters.

"A gun bill. How can you explain a [conceal and carry] gun bill?" Carlson asked. "How does anyone with an IQ that approaches double digits pass that kind of legislation?"

Former governor Carlson; if you'd care to challenge my IQ, feel free to get in touch with me. It'll be a short discussion.

What do you think? Am I reading this wrong?

Posted by Mitch at May 14, 2003 04:55 PM