Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Why Governor Pawlenty's Criticism of the Federal Stimulus Bill Is Smart Politics

Bookmark and Share

A recent article at MinnPost explores how Governor Tim Pawlenty is out of step with many state leaders, and governors across the nation, in taking a "hands-off" approach when it comes to lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to pass federal stimulus legislation.

Pawlenty has not always been shy when it comes to applauding federal officeholders, even Democrats, for what he believes are good ideas - when it suits his purpose. During his budget presentation last month, Pawlenty credited President Barack Obama for not wanting to raise taxes during the current economic crisis. Opposition to tax increases as a method to solve the state's budget problems is a stated priority of the Governor, and has been a defining principle of his administration.

But if receiving federal aid, and thus alleviating the need for some budget cuts or the DFL legislature's temptation to raise taxes, is in Minnesota's best interest, why then did Pawlenty never get behind the federal stimulus bill which would aid his state and its nearly $5 billion projected budget deficit?

Indeed, Pawlenty has been consistently critical ever since talk of the federal stimulus legislation began - including more than two months ago during his December 4th press conference on the budget forecast. On that afternoon, he severely criticized the federal government, its stimulus packages, and its mindset to "Pay credit card debt with credit cards." Pawlenty flatly accused the feds of being "engaged in a very elaborate ponzi scheme" that is "out of control" and "addicted to a culture of debt."

Those are strong words for a governor about to receive hundreds of million dollars of 'free money' to bolster his state's general fund. Or are they?

For Pawlenty to have done otherwise - and lobby federal policymakers for more spending - would have run counter to his carefully tailored public image and stated policy positions. Pawlenty has carved out a very workmanlike 'common-sense' approach to budgeting that is no doubt appealing to many Minnesotans. For example, during his 2009 State of the State Address, Pawlenty likened the state economic and budget crises to a Minnesota family sitting around a kitchen table:

"Imagine a typical Minnesota kitchen table. A mom and dad have just tucked the kids into bed with a kiss and a prayer, and they come back to the table to confront economic reality. On the table are bills, notices and a notepad with a budget that's tighter than it's ever been. Hope and fear are also at the table. How do we pay these bills? How do we fix the car? How do we pay this mortgage? How are we going to afford college or even retire someday? The same emotions, concerns and urgency at that Minnesota kitchen table must be at all the tables we sit at here at the Capitol - the budget hearing table, the agency tables, and the negotiating tables."

Because Pawlenty's balanced budget proposal relies, in part, on significant spending cuts, including cuts in the areas of higher education and health care, it makes sense that the Governor remains critical of what he deems to be wasteful spending in Washington, D.C. and its "ponzi scheme" stimulus packages. By establishing the premise that government spending (be it federal or otherwise) can be wasteful, makes it just a tad easier for him to propose cuts in his own budget for existing state funding of social services programs.

The fact that a recent poll found 41 percent of Minnesotans favored spending cuts to balance the budget compared to just 4 percent wanting tax increases also strengthen the governor's resolve on this issue, though a plurality, 49 percent, preferred a combination of the two (SurveyUSA, January 2009).

In other words, Pawlenty is putting his ideological purity ahead of the get-what-you-can mindset most governors seem to be taking when it comes to receiving federal money during these trying economic times. In doing so, Pawlenty is undoubtedly enhancing his credentials as a potential candidate for national office, as analyzed by The Fix's Chris Cillizza yesterday at the Washington Post.

Pawlenty can now speak from the rare perch of being a governor who did not beg for a 'bailout,' even in the midst of a state budget crisis. In short, Pawlenty is taking the Republican mantra of "individual responsibility" to a macro, statewide level, and his battle cry against wasteful government spending in D.C. is something that the conservative base of the GOP will always get behind.

Moreover, Pawlenty will look particularly prescient if Washington's 2009 stimulus plan fails to invigorate the nation's economy. No doubt, the Governor has already taken note of the lackluster results of Spring 2008's stimulus legislation signed by President George W. Bush, as well as the troubled financial industry bailout of Autumn 2008.

All the while, and this is where the Governor is particularly shrewd, Pawlenty knows full well he can (and will) accept any federal stimulus money that gets doled out to the Gopher State. But he can do so with ideologically pure hands, while he keeps one eye on his home state and another, potentially, on Iowa.

On the other hand, if the stimulus package works, and the U.S. (and Minnesota) economy is revived in the next few years, what is the worst that can happen? Governor Pawlenty, already popular in the state, can simply ride the wave of an economic recovery right back into the Governor's mansion for an unprecedented third-straight four-year term.

Previous post: Is Coleman's Hands-On Approach to His Court Challenge Going to Backfire?
Next post: Kiffmeyer Challenges DFL on Voter ID: 'What Are You Afraid Of?'

2 Comments


  • "Pawlenty is putting his ideological purity ahead of the get-what-you-can mindset most governors seem to be taking when it comes to receiving federal money during these trying economic times."

    Regardless of the nature of the ideology, one must respect a politician who puts ideology ahead of opportunity. As a bonus, in this case, I happen to agree with his ideology, too!

    Though you do make a good case for this being a win-win situation for the governor. A rarity for the Republicans these days, I suppose.

  • Pawlenty is right about one thing. You cannot get out of debt by taking on more debt. At least not unless you put any new credit you get into a plan for changing the reason you have a debt problem in the first place. You need to invest that new money into tools that will ensure you will have an additional source of income going forward, so that you will not need to ask for money again later. You need to use that new money to find a better way of doing things, that quite frankly brings in more money than you used to earn. And even if you have such a plan you probably also need a bit of luck for your plan to work out. One must ask, what is America's plan for the $600B in extra debt it just took on over the next few months. Is it going to be invested to implement a change of strategy, or will it be used to pay bills as usual?

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting