Finger In Their Eye
By Mitch Berg
I’ve said it before – Tim Pawlenty is pretty much the best stump speaker in Minnesota politics.
And I wish I could have been there for this:
In a State of the State address rich in tributes to Minnesota’s pioneering spirit, Pawlenty urged cooperation across party lines to improve the state’s transportation system. But he drew perhaps his strongest response when he brandished his pen and declared his determination to “restrain taxes and spending,” a message that has been at the center of his tenure as governor.
“I call it the taxpayer protection pen, otherwise known as the veto pen,” Pawlenty said, pulling the pen from his left breast pocket. “As you know I will not hesitate to use it. …”
The threat was a shot across the bow to DFL majorities in both houses of the Legislature, whose leaders have in recent days declared their own intentions to quickly pass several measures to increase taxes, particularly for transportation funding.
For those of you not from Minnesota, the story is simple.
- When times are good, the DFL tries to raise taxes. See: The nineties. There were surpluses (in other words, the people of Minnesota were over-taxed every year; taxes took in more than the budget called for. In every case, up through the end of the Ventura administration (which was a DFL administration with a big, shaven-headed “Independence” party figurehead), the DFL spent every last nickel of every surplus.
- When times are tougher, the DFL on the other hand tries to raise taxes.
Nothing new here:
DFL leaders faulted the Republican governor for providing few specifics on how to respond to weakening economic conditions.
“It was disappointing that the governor did not address more straight on how we can produce more jobs in this state and do our part together to reverse the 23,000 lost jobs in this state in the last six months. That was a real disappointment today,” said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis.
But then, either did Kelliher – also known as “the best Speaker of the House the GOP could have asked for”.
House and Senate Republican leaders heralded one of the few new initiatives proposed in the speech — the idea of a tax reform commission to consider changes in tax law to spur job growth.”If we can’t grow Minnesota business we can’t sustain all the services that government wants to do and perhaps needs to do,” said Senate Minority Leader Dave Senjem, R-Rochester.
What? Taxes?
You’d think a good DFLer would…er…um…
But the proposal of a tax commission fell flat for Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis.
Pogemiller said the state’s tax system has grown increasingly less fair by forcing property tax increases on homeowners, renters and businesses and by failing to close corporate loopholes.
“I think continually admiring the problem is probably not the most productive thing to do. Anybody can cut things. It takes creativity and leadership to bring revenue to the table,” Pogemiller said.
Look at the bright side, Minnesota. With people like Kelliher and Pogemiller in charge on the DFL side of the aisle, we’re probably safe from the spectre of a whole lot of DFL achievements.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“In every case, up through the end of the Ventura administration (which was a DFL administration with a big, shaven-headed “Independence” party figurehead), the DFL spent every last nickel of every surplus.”
Hey Mr. I never lie or stretch the truth:
You didn’t get those Jesse Checks, or do you call that spending when the government refunds overpaid taxes. Time to grease up the wheels on those goal posts again, you’ve been moving them around a lot lately
February 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“Pogemiller said the state’s tax system has grown increasingly less fair by forcing property tax increases on homeowners, renters and businesses”
Who else should pay property taxes? Other than the people who are associated with the property?
The real problem is when people like Pogemiller promote and want to enhance the shell game that the state of Minnesota has created with it’s taxation system. The governmental units that spend the money aren’t accountable since they aren’t the one’s collecting the money. The cities should not be getting ANY revenues from the state. That way the city fathers have to justify to THEIR OWN taxpayers what they are taxing and spending.
Local government units would have to be more responsive to their populace when the people see a real connection between what is being spent, and what their tax bills look like.
Minnesota has created this shell game where local property taxes are “bought down” by sales or income taxes levied by the state.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am
You didn’t get those Jesse Checks
Y’mean, the “Jesse Checks” that were supposed to be $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the state? The ones that the DFL went to the mat to spend on new spending programs, so that the checks actually amounted to a tiny pittance compared to Ventura’s campaign promises, because the DFL regards “surplus” as “more money for us?”
No, I don’t believe I did.
And as always, the goalposts stay firmly in place.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
McFly . . anyone home!!
Well I did, got a couple of ’em. You are the one that said “in every case, up through the end of the Ventura administration (which was a DFL administration with a big, shaven-headed “Independence” party figurehead), the DFL spent every last nickel of every surplus.””
You said ‘Every case’ and ‘every last nickle of every surplus’ I said “Mr. I never lie or stretch the truth”
So it wasn’t in every case or, as you reluctantly admit above (“the checks actually amounted”), not every last nickel. Your attempt at spin was either a bold face lie or playing on the ignorance of your readers. Either one is possible. Now put those goal posts back.
By the way, thanks for Lunch . . . again!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am
OK. So it was “every nickel they could get their hands on, including 80-odd percent of the “jesse check” supposed windfall”.
Here stand the goalposts; the DFL spends like crack whores with stolen gold cards.
That is one post that’s never moved, and will never need to.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I think both parties spend like crack whores for their preferred programs, but the Right uses the gold card and borrows on the backs of the future. At least the Dems have the fiscal responsibility to pay as you go. That is what is always missing from the spending argument. But you knew that.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Oh, now I understand! The big, fat kid who always took my lunch money and said, “See you tomorrow, twinkie” wasn’t really a bully, he was just helping me to learn “pay-as-you-go” fiscal responsibility.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I wish I knew what kind of pen T-Paw wields….I’d send him a gross of replacement cartridges.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
At least the Dems have the fiscal responsibility to pay as you go.
Which is why they want to amend the MN Constitution to add sales tax to give money to “The Arts”.
I do so love that fiscal responsibility.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hey kids, your guys are spending like drunken sailors yet charging it. See, you don’t have a problem with spending, you have a problem with paying. Example, we mostly agree, we need infrastructure investment, you want to charge it, I think we should pay for it. The difference isn’t the spending part, it is the being responsible part.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Do you have a mortgage?
irresponsible drunken sailor!
February 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yes, but only one, and my credit cards are empty *hiccup*
February 14th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
You have credit cards too? What happened to “Pay as You Go”?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
If we keep borrowing and borrowing when do we buy it downt. Some debt is good, actually healthy, but I would argue that at the level we are at right now nationally, and heading to in the state we are beyond that level.
At some point the debt will be called, how do you expect to pay for it. I’ll tell you, you wait for the fiscally responsible Democrat to come in (see Clinton) and do what is takes to balance the budget and buy down the debt. Than when they have cleaned up your mess, you scream Tax raiser and force you way back into the house to mess it up again. Lather rinse repeat.
Flash
February 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Flash, can you name one leading Democrat that doesn’t want HUGE spending increases? Who has promised more growth in big gov’t, McCain or Obama?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
At least the Dems have the fiscal responsibility to pay as you go.
No, the Dems have the gall to take “jacking up taxes to cover infinite spending” and call it “fiscal responsibility”.
The peacetime deficit was created by the Dems during LBJ’s era.
During the Reagan Administration, the Dems had no problem whatsoever with the deficit; they just wanted to spend it on social programs, and jack up taxes to cover it.
Same today, really; the Dems want to hoover our wallets and spend it all.
Genuine Republicans – and George W Bush really isn’t one – advocate cutting taxes AND spending, all other things being equal.
And what Chuck said; show me the spending-side restraint on the part of a Democrat. Outside of Bill Richardson (maybe) that Tic doesn’t exist.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Sure, you take my Guy (Richardson) and remove him from the debate. How fair is that *laughing*
Flash
February 14th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
No, the Dems have the gall to take “jacking up taxes to cover infinite spending” and call it “fiscal responsibility”.
It’s a bit more onerous than that. Much of the cost of government doesn’t come in the form of taxing or borrowing but through regulatory mandates and litigation costs.
Example: Obama/Clinton’s health care “reform” proposals where they each propose that (a) to require employers (or in Clinton’s case individuals and large employers) by law to provide health insurance to their employees (e.g. Obama’s “pay or play”) and (b) to create a new regulatory body that set a minimum level of mandates that any insurance policy either provided by an employer or bought by an individual must cover (right now they’re about 20-25% of the cost of a health insurance policy).
This is a real cost imposed by government but it isn’t counted as part of the “cost” of their health care plans because the government isn’t collecting the money that it’s forcing the rest of us to spend – at least not until it prices even more people out of the private insurance market (like mandates are doing now) and the estimates of for their government-financed health care need to revised (yet again) as the regulatory mandates cause even more employers to drop insurance coverage and make health insurance even less affordable for more people on their own.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Flash-
What’s a more important number, the actual amount of national debt or the % of GDP that debt represents? Just asking.
The problem with your solution of having a fiscally responsible Clinton in the White House is that this time around there won’t be a fiscally responsible Congress. How fiscally responsible was Bill when the Dems had Congress during his term?
February 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Sure, you take my Guy (Richardson) and remove him from the debate.”
You can blame that on Iowa and New Hampshire.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“What’s a more important number, the actual amount of national debt or the % of GDP that debt represents? Just asking.”
I would say, more importantly the % of GDP but I would have to counsel with my favorite SCSU Professor to be sure. But in either case, they both were dropping under Clinton, and back on the rise under Bush II
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I don’t mind trading places with the branches of government once in awhile. The American electorate tends to be pretty savvy folks and don’t very often give one party complete rule, which means advantage McCain right now. But when Clinton took office in 1992, the balance took effect in 94 I believe as I am thinking the Dems kept control in ’92. but that is just memory without looking it up.
You guys had a shot and look where that has gotten us. Time for some fix’n up. I’m thinking the voters will give the Dems a turn and switch up in ’10 as is usually the case. If I was a Blue Senator up in 2010 I would be worried already. I wonder where that list is.
Flash
February 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“It’s a bit more onerous than that. Much of the cost of government doesn’t come in the form of taxing or borrowing but through regulatory mandates and litigation costs. ”
I’d like to see more debate on the ADA act. It’s a textbook example of what happens when you make a law that is somewhat vague, then let the unelected regulators and trial lawyers decide what will happen.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Flash, quite true on mixed control. US likes to have congress and executive from different parties. I like that also as gridlock is our friend. And when Republicans controled everything, they squandered it by acting like Democrats on many domestic issues.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Genuine Republicans – and George W Bush really isn’t one – advocate cutting taxes AND spending, all other things being equal.
wait, so Reagan isn’t a true conservative?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
um, i mean wasn’t…
February 14th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Flash has a point. A good one. Congress, regardless of party affiliation, exists to spend other peoples’ money. Without an executive who will use his veto pen, damn the political consequences, spending spirals out of control.
We have not seen a modest increase in gov’t spending under Bush. It has exploded. The federal budget has increased about fifty percent between FY 2002 & 2009. This is unconscionable.