Call In The Fire, Whiz On The Dogs
By Mitch Berg
Sarah Janecek at Politics in Minnesota on the likelihood, and politics, of a state government shutdown:
As I contemplated that question and spent a few hours reviewing what happened in the shutdown of 2005, I couldn’t help but be struck by how different the politics are now.
In 2005, Pawlenty was positioning himself to run for reelection in 2006. The conventional wisdom was that then-DFL Attorney General Mike Hatch would likely be his opponent in 2006, which is, of course, what happened.
In the ensuing four years, Pawlenty won reelection, became a national figure in GOP politics and an almost VP contender. Meaning, unlike 2005, there’s an aura of confidence in his own leadership that was missing in 2005. Pawlenty continues to receive good numbers in popularity polls. Whether or not he decides to seek a third term, he’s had a good two-term run. Just saying no to tax increases from Democrats not only suits his fundamental political principles, it also bodes well for him making the jump as a presidential contender.
There’s almost palpable eager anticipation emanating from Pawlenty, a “bring it (tax increases) on, Democrats, I’ve got nothing to lose,” attitude and zeal. Adding to Pawlenty’s confidence is the trouble House Democrats had this week in taking their own tax increase package out of committee to the floor. Three suburban Democrats, Reps. Maria Ruud (DFL-Minnetonka), Paul Gardner (DFL-Shoreview), and Denise Dittrich (DFL-Champlin), defected and voted against the DFL House tax bill (as well they should have if they want to keep their seats). So much for all that bravado Democrats have demonstrated for moths in intimating they could pick off three Republicans to override a veto. Democrats will be lucky if they can pass a tax increase bill on the House floor, period.
The other trouble Democrats have is how simply Republicans can frame the issue to the public. We’re in a recession, the Minnesota unemployment rate is 8.2 percent and Democrats want to shutdown the government to force tax increases?!
Pawlenty has the catbird’s seat on the politics of a shutdown.
I don’t know that he has anything to lose, and much – like, a huge burst of base-enhancing cred, the one thing he completely lacks today – to gain.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am
The Democrats are trying to set up a sting like they did against Bush 41 in 1990. If T-Paw compromises with the DFL and agrees to a small tax increase, the lefty party will then use that against him in 2010.
“Pawlentry lied. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes and then he did.”
April 27th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Maria Rudd is my representative, I didn’t vote for her because this defection seems atypical but it’s a welcome deviation.
I hope that Governor Pawlenty sticks by his guns and vetoes any tax increase. On the issue of taxes, my only complaints against him are (a) trying to pass off an increase in the cigarette tax as a “health impact fee” and (b) supporting that ridiculous constitutional amendment to devote at least 40% of the MVET to “mass transit.” That all being said, he’s done about as well as any of us could hope and I fully support him in any vetoes of any tax increases.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Gardner is sitting in Phil Krinkie’s old seat, so I imagine it’s probably getting pretty hot for him.
April 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Then turn up the heat even more.
I write to Gardner.
I told him last year I was opposed to him supporting the $6.6 billion increase.
I told him it was the refusal to significantly cut spending that put us in this deficit. I told him now is the time to entice business to the state…
I expressed to him that this one vote is not enough and this will take a continued effort to take a stand for his taxpaying constituents.
Krinkie was a very good representative; about as good as they get.
April 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
K-Rod, did you sprinkle in lots of stock phrases in bold and a healthy dose of liberal fascists for good measure in that letter? Maybe a link here to all of your top notch arguments to put the fear of god in him?
The DFL needs to explain their tax increases if they want them to pass. In this climate, luxuries don’t go over well with people.
April 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
No, Liberal Fascism does not become ingrained in a politician until their second or third two year term. But some on the far left are born with it and hit the ground running. Paul, as his vote shows, might have a clue. Or, because of the letters we sent, he can feel the heat of the seat…
“to all of your top notch arguments”
That is one thing on which we can all argee!!!
Don’t give up trying to learn and better yourself, stooj. I am here to help. You’re welcome.
“fear of god in him?”
What do you think you are saying, boy? Seriously, once again you lose.
I suppose it will be up to the DFL & Liberal Fascists to define “luxuries”.
Yes, stooj, I can spot that Liberal Fascism a mile away.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Nope, it’s up to people to decide what they think are luxuries and are willing to pay for. My guess is that people right now won’t agree with what the DFL Lege thinks is “necessary.” Pawlenty will be able to veto without problem, and the DFL will come away looking bad for trying to pay for stuff people don’t need right now.
At least that’s what I’m saying. You seem to know my politics so well, K-Rod, what is it I actually think?
April 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“it’s up to people to decide” = liberal progressives = Liberal Fascists = stooges
How dare you tell me that a cigar and scotch is a luxury. It relieves stress, leading to a healthier life… preventative medicine…
Wine with dinner is a luxury? What would Jesus say?
The Liberal Fascists say the government will determine what is a luxury and how much more it will be taxed. Then the subjects will decide if they are willing to pay for such luxuries as ice cream… potato chips…
DFL LEGISLATION TO INCREASE TAX ON FAST FOOD 5000%, $20 CHEESEBURGERS STARTING JULY 3 IN CELEBRATION OF DEPENDENCE DAY
April 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I love scotch. But I wasn’t talking about personal luxuries, I was talking about luxuries that the government pays for, like poets laureate and green roofs. People don’t want to pay for them right now, and the DFL will have to figure that out or be in big trouble.
So again, you summed up my argument by saying the exact opposite of what I said. Well done.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“luxuries that the government pays for, like poets laureate and green roofs”
Wow, that should take care of the $6 billion deficit in a hurry!!
Better talk to your buddy Flush, he said, “One persons Pork is another person essential service.”
Here is a clue, the DFLers love to increase taxes on “luxury” items like scotch, cigars… and when it comes to government spending we don’t call it luxury, we call it PORK.