MN legislature fails to overturn Pawlenty veto eliminating duplicate entitlement program

posted at 9:30 am on March 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats in Minnesota lost their latest battle with Governor Tim Pawlenty last night when they failed to get enough Republican votes to override a veto on a key budget battle.  Pawlenty had struck almost $400 million for the General Assistance Medical Care program using a line-item veto, one of several programs providing medical coverage to low-income families in the state.  The DFL — Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party — howled that Pawlenty had balanced the budget by stripping the poor of health care, but GAMC recipients will get transferred instead to another existing program:

Despite intense lobbying from religious leaders and community activists, the Minnesota House on Monday failed to override a veto of legislation that would have restored a state health care program for some of the state’s poorest and sickest residents.

The DFL-controlled House lurched toward the vote even after Republicans vowed to uphold Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of a plan that would have resurrected General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) before it expires April 1.

Well, that sounds just awful, right?  It does — until readers get to the next paragraph (emphasis mine):

The state now will forge ahead with plans to transfer 32,000 people from the program to MinnesotaCare, a subsidized insurance program that requires participants to jump through more hoops and offers less coverage. Pawlenty and legislators are scheduled to return to the bargaining table Tuesday morning to see if there’s a better option for GAMC, whose enrollees include many who are homeless, veterans or who suffer from addiction and mental illness.

Well, we can’t see the editorial bias of the Strib in that paragraph, can we?  “Jump through more hoops”?  Is that meant literally, or is that a common journalistic shorthand for “I didn’t bother to research what actually takes place, but I’ll bet it sucks”?

In fact, as John Hinderaker points out at Power Line, GAMC would have expanded rapidly in the next two years had Pawlenty kept the current funding in place.  In this year’s budget, remaining GAMC costs amounted to $381 million from a $500 million outlay in the biennial budget, but by the next biennial that cost would have grown to $748 million — an increase of almost 50%.  Given that the state also has MinnesotaCare for low-income families, Pawlenty’s decision to cut costs in the face of a budget crisis without eliminating the safety net makes plenty of fiscal sense.

However, Democrats plan to sue Pawlenty again, apparently as an attempt to get the judicial branch to exercise a political veto:

The fight could enter the courtroom as House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and other DFL leaders hinted that a legal challenge from groups representing the poor was imminent.

Kelliher did not identify who would mount the fight but said, “I would not be surprised if someone in the next 24 hours files something to create an injunction to stop the ‘auto enrollment’ from going forward.” MinnesotaCare was designed as a program for lower-income working families, sustained by paid premiums and a tax paid on provider visits.

Welcome to the entitlement mentality.  Suddenly Minnesotans had a right to GAMC as opposed to a different government program.  Most people I know in Minnesota want to have some sort of safety net for the poor, but funding duplicate programs and watching their budgeting shoot up 50% from one budget to the next is unacceptable — especially with Minnesotans struggling to make ends meet in a recession.  MinnCare works perfectly well, and we’re not required to offer a smorgasbord of safety-net programs.  Furthermore, if the Democrats that controlled both chambers of the legislature hadn’t overspent in the first place, the vetoes and “unallotments” would not have been necessary.

In order to fight that, the DFL wants to dismantle the political system and put judges in charge of executive vetoes, a breathtaking challenge to the separation of powers and the entire idea of representative, accountable government.  This demonstrates the power of entitlement thinking, and the difficulty any Republican will have in attempting to dismantle it, or even reform it.  We saw the same thing when George Bush proposed reforming Social Security in 2005; suddenly, Republicans wanted Grandma to starve, rather than tried to save the system from utter collapse.  Minnesota’s DFL is running the same playbook, and apparently so is the Star Tribune.

John concludes:

Meanwhile, on the national scene, Pawlenty sometimes gets a bad rap from activists who judge him by his demeanor and conclude he isn’t a “real conservative.” In fact, where it counts–results, not image–it would be hard to find a politician in America who has a more successful record as a fiscal conservative than Tim Pawlenty.

There are a few; Mitch Daniels comes to mind, and perhaps Haley Barbour and Rick Perry, but all three of those ran states that are considerably more conservative or center-right than Minnesota.

Update: I had to recall 1.3 million instances of using GMAC instead of GAMC.  Sorry for the confusion!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Meanwhile, on the national scene, Pawlenty sometimes gets a bad rap from activists who judge him by his demeanor and conclude he isn’t a “real conservative.” In fact, where it counts–results, not image–it would be hard to find a politician in America who has a more successful record as a fiscal conservative than Tim Pawlenty.

There is more to conservatism than fiscal conservatism as much as the so-called moderate to RINO faction of the party claims. Results count on social issues too.

highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM

“Jump through more hoops”?

Come on, just give me my free sh#$!

artist on March 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM

2nd look at T-PAW?!

abobo on March 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM

In order to fight that, the DFL wants to dismantle the political system and put judges in charge of executive vetoes, a breathtaking challenge to the separation of powers and the entire idea of representative, accountable government.

By any means necessary. It’s ok, though, because they mean well, ostensibly, right?

trubble on March 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Someone has GMAC bailouts on their minds. Easy to do when MN’s program is GAMC.

WashJeff on March 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Well, I certainly hope Mr. Pawlenty appreciates all the pro bono PR work Ed and the Powerline guys do for him.

But the fact is, if Pawlenty can’t by himself convince conservatives that he’s conservative, HotAir and Powerline will not be able to do it for him. I’m just sayin’. Climate change, anyone. The infamous “creeping tyranny of the bureaucracy” comment?

DaydreamBeliever on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I wish he would just stay put. We need him to stay right where he is.

gophergirl on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Despite intense lobbying from religious leaders and community activists

Danger, Will Robinson!

mankai on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I look forward to the T-Paw v. Mitch-D cage match in 2011/12.

WashJeff on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Second look at Tim (Milt Milquetoast) Pawlenty?

BuckeyeSam on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Pawlenty’s a hero in my book. Probably no Republican governor other than Schwarzenegger has had to deal with a legislature that is as leftist. In 2007 he vetoed a “predatory lending” bill pushed by ACORN that would have shut down mortgage lending in the state, costing hundreds of jobs and denying thousands access to mortgages. He was under enormous pressure to sign that bill but stood firm and there was no override.

rockmom on March 2, 2010 at 9:39 AM

However, Democrats plan to sue Pawlenty again, apparently as an attempt to get the judicial branch to exercise a political veto:

They could just give all the money they’ll spend fighting it to these families directly and save everyone time, effort, anguish and cash. Is it the Civil Liberties Union fighting this? which we all pay to fight for issues few of us believe in. Now there’s a group we could do nicely without!!

jeanie on March 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Despite intense lobbying from religious leaders and community activists,

You know, these whiners would do a lot more good if instead of demanding government action, they themselves created a private program to do what they want. But then again, it isn’t about actually doing something, it’s about government control.

In order to fight that, the DFL wants to dismantle the political system and put judges in charge of executive vetoes, a breathtaking challenge to the separation of powers and the entire idea of representative, accountable government.

They won’t be satisfied until there is one-party government, with them in control.

rbj on March 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Clearly the Tribune needs to change it’s name to “Red Star Tribune.”

doufree on March 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Hmmm, I wonder who Ed and the Powerline guys want as the 2012 nominee??? Sorry, I’m not buying.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The fight could enter the courtroom as House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and other DFL leaders hinted that a legal challenge from groups representing the poor was imminent.

Ah Margaret – you wouldn’t be doing this cause you yourself is running for Pawlenty’s job?

I hate the dems in this state.

gophergirl on March 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

This is exactly what will happen if the GOP tries to repeal obamacare. The democrats and the media will screech endlessly about it and lawsuits will descend like locusts.

Mord on March 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

is/are – sorry not enought caffeine this morning.

gophergirl on March 2, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The DFL’s threat to use the courts to override Pawlenty’s veto is yet one more example of the liberal/left’s contempt for democracy.

WannabeAnglican on March 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

All the quotes have it properly marked as GAMC, but Ed has written GMAC. Pretty sure that GMAC recipients will not be getting transferred to other programs……
No worries Ed, but you may want to edit before someone decided to lose their mind over your “misguided” reporting.
Just sayin.

JeffinOrlando on March 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

In fact, where it counts–results, not image–it would be hard to find a politician in America who has a more successful record as a fiscal conservative than Tim Pawlenty.

There are a few; Mitch Daniels comes to mind, and perhaps Haley Barbour and Rick Perry, but all three of those ran states that are considerably more conservative or center-right than Minnesota.

Mark Sanford (SC) is still a strong fiscal conservative despite what one may think about his morals.

SouthernGent on March 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Stay crazy, Minnesota

Asher on March 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Transcribed from a beanbag interview:

‘why would you not want quality health care for everybody that you don’t have to think about, and you don’t have to, you know, you don’t even have to pay for it. Like it’s much less expensive if you have everybody to pay for health care, from the government. As individuals, we pay a business, who’s making money off of us.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVwVlvVYlwk&feature=player_embedded

Oh what a wonderful world it would be…

Jocundus on March 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

great post, check your typo in “emphases mine”

Mark30339 on March 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

JeffinOrlando on March 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I blame ‘autocorrect’ and ‘add word to spellcheck.’

James on March 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM

My adopted state representative, Steve Gottwalt, has written legislation, appropriately called the Healthy Minnesota Plan, that would save Minnesota’s taxpayers an estimated $350,000,000 annually. Obviously, that would stabilize the fasting growing segment of Minnesota’s budget.

By sustaining Gov. Pawlenty’s veto, the DFL is now forced to consider passing Steve’s bill, which I write about in this post.

LFRGary on March 2, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Ed, did you really just call Rick Perry a Fiscal Conservative? *facepalm* C\’mon now.

Dopavash on March 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Despite intense lobbying from religious leaders and community activists

Translation:

Religious leaders= Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and like groups who hide their liberal agenda behind so-called religious values. These people are not leaders of any faith.

Community Activists= ACORN by whatever names they are known in MN.

highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Furthermore, if the Democrats that controlled both chambers of the legislature hadn’t overspent in the first place, the vetoes and “unallotments” would not have been necessary.

OMG that is the funniest thing I’ve read today!!!!!! If the democrats hadn’t overspent…man, that is rich!

search4truth on March 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Our state is bankrupt. What we need is more spending damn it!

angryed on March 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Clearly the Tribune needs to change it’s name to “Red Star Tribune.”

doufree on March 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Not sure if you’re from MN, but most people I know refer to it as the Red Star. It’s not a new name either. My father called it that 15-20 years ago.

strictnein on March 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM

The DFL — Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party

DFL? What does that stand f?or? Dumb Fu#king Liberals?

conservnut on March 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM

In order to fight that, the DFL wants to dismantle the political system and put judges in charge of executive vetoes, a breathtaking challenge to the separation of powers and the entire idea of representative, accountable government.

And people called me crazy for pointing out that the Supreme Court had turned into a bunch of unelected lawmakers. Now these idiots are proposing to do the same thing all over again?

Dark-Star on March 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Look at New York, California, and the latest from Illinois to see the result of unchecked liberal legislatures. Thanks, T-Paw, for at least forestalling the inevitable crash that will occur when the Franken, Klobuchar and Ellison voters have their way with the governor’s mansion too.

wright on March 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM

f?or?

Wow, how did I do that? FOR of course.

conservnut on March 2, 2010 at 10:02 AM

God Bless Ed and everyone who must endure the socialists up there in Minnesota.

In the meantime, today we celebrate Texas Independence Day, and many of us can’t wait for TID 2.0.

TXUS on March 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM

So those working, and struggling, and paying for their health care, get to give up even more, to pay for those who can’t, or won’t?

I’m all for helping, and charity….but where does it end? How much is to much? Just handing this out, only makes the entitlement mentality worse, than making some strive for better, and earning it to some extent.

Obama says, we’ll wipe the slate clean on your college loans, if you work for government for 5 years. What’s wrong with asking some who take from the dole without doing a thing for it, to earn their keep as well?

capejasmine on March 2, 2010 at 10:05 AM

DFL? What does that stand f?or? Dumb Fu#king Liberals?

conservnut on March 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Democratic Farmer Labor

strictnein on March 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM

God Bless Ed and everyone who must endure the socialists up there in Minnesota.

In the meantime, today we celebrate Texas Independence Day, and many of us can’t wait for TID 2.0.

TXUS on March 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM

And I voted this morning! :D I’m so proud of me :D

capejasmine on March 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Most people I know in Minnesota want to have some sort of safety net for the poor, but funding duplicate programs and watching their budgeting shoot up 50% from one budget to the next is unacceptable — especially with Minnesotans struggling to make ends meet in a recession.

We are going to have to get over that mentality. This is essentially charity, and the government makes a very poor distributor of charity.

GAMC, whose enrollees include many who are homeless, veterans or who suffer from addiction and mental illness.

The problem is government cannot be subjective, and charity needs to be subjective. Charity needs to care for the deserving and, even though it sounds terrible, it needs to ignore the undeserving, and let them suffer their fate. The addicted need to suffer as a cautionary tale for our young kids. Without that ability to discriminate government charity becomes a subsidy encouraging bad behavior.

DFCtomm on March 2, 2010 at 10:07 AM

I suspect the staffers at the GAMC program are union. Anyone know for sure?

desertdweller on March 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM

That’s almost $13,000.00/person covered. Not only is that redundant it is outrageous. IMHO, the donks won’t be happy until the productive receive less pay and services than the unproductive.

jukin on March 2, 2010 at 10:13 AM

highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM

I am sorry, but there has to be a solid, unwavering core to our outlook, and that is a fiscal conservative. That is the only conservative that really matters at the end of the day. Once you start straying into social conservatism, that starts heading into moral choices which then stray into religious beliefs. I personally follow Reagan’s big tent, as long as the center ring is fiscal conservatism. Call me a RINO all you want (which is interesting, since I am an independent conservative), but I disagree that social issues should be the driving factor of the conservative movement. If that ends up being the case, then you leave a lot of potential allies outside the tent.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM

There is more to conservatism than fiscal conservatism as much as the so-called moderate to RINO faction of the party claims. Results count on social issues too.

highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM
______________________

Yeah, only if you live in a dictatorship.

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 10:16 AM

If that ends up being the case, then you leave a lot of potential allies outside the tent.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM
_____________________

You have to remember Wolftech, Conservatism isn’t about fiscal responsibility, it is about controlling the lives of people and making them do what conservatives approve of.

Freedom is overrated to liberals and conservatives both.

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Jumping through more hoops is the kind of exercise that might improve the health of some of those people.

D2Boston on March 2, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Update: I had to recall 1.3 million instances of using GMAC instead of GAMC.  Sorry for the confusion!

Ed, just be sure to address her as Senator Boxer when they drag your sorry behind in front of a Congressional hearing to explain why you have so malicously used GMAC in error. Don’t you know how many children have been harmed you heartless blogger you?

turfmann on March 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Here in the land of Wellstone & Franken, T-Paw is as conservative as we could hope for – the lefties absolutely hate him up here. Pawlenty is a decent and honorable guy that probably had to moderate a few non-fiscal issues to get elected up here. His nod to global warming is not even that far out of character for a guy who is a sportsman. T-Paw is kind of boring but he is a fiscal conservative who happens to have some pragmatic abilities. Don’t sell him short just yet…

Tony253 on March 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I wish he would just stay put. We need him to stay right where he is.

gophergirl on March 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM

That’s for sure, your taxed to the hilt. And I remember hearing about all the programs and benefits my friend loved to use when they lived there. You guys fed her kids breakfast at school for crying out loud. Can’t people feed their own kids before they go to school?

wi farmgirl on March 2, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Hmmm, I wonder who Ed and the Powerline guys want as the 2012 nominee??? Sorry, I’m not buying.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

You’re not buying what? Your own made up conclusion? Or the facts of the story?

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Conservatism isn’t about fiscal responsibility, it is about controlling the lives of people and making them do what conservatives approve of.

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Name one thing a social conservative has made you do that you do not want to do.

On the other hand liberals force me to:
– buy health insurance when I don’t need it
– buy a certain kind of light bulb when I don’t want it
– buy a certain kind of car when I want an SUV (see 2016 emission rules)

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

angryed on March 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Pawlenty wins the important battles, and the local leftists hate his guts. But what Pawlenty doesn’t do is bang a drum, make lots of noise, while he’s eviscerating his prey. He just gets it done.

RBMN on March 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM

You have to remember Wolftech, Conservatism isn’t about fiscal responsibility, it is about controlling the lives of people and making them do what conservatives approve of.

Freedom is overrated to liberals and conservatives both.

uknowmorethanme on March 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM

I generally am a social con, but I have come to realize that it is pointless to attempt to legislate morality. The culture wars need to be fought and won, but the legislature is the wrong arena. However, I do think it is acceptable to oppose socially liberal legislation such as gay marriage.

DFCtomm on March 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I am sorry, but there has to be a solid, unwavering core to our outlook, and that is a fiscal conservative. That is the only conservative that really matters at the end of the day.
Wolftech

It’s not either/or, it’s AND. Appeasing the demands of the politically correct class costs money; you can pay for saving transgendered polar bears from dying of “Global Warming” via international multicultural bureaucracies and call it “fiscal big tent conservatism”, but count me out.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM

The Strib? Bias?

Surely you jest.

drjohn on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM

desertdweller on March 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Almost all government employees in Minnesota are union.

The staffers would be members of MAPE (Minnesota Association of Professional Employees) and AFSCME.

notropis on March 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Ed, we are going to 20% ethanol in our fuel, thanks in no small part to Govenor Green.

He hasn’t been all bad but he does have major blind spots.

jpmn on March 2, 2010 at 10:47 AM

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM

And what part of “saving transgendered polar bears from dying of “Global Warming” via international multicultural bureaucracies” fall under fiscal conservatism? None. Stop putting words in my mouth. I am a fiscal conservative. I believe the federal government’s powers stop at what is listed in the Constitution. I do not believe in entitlements. I am, however, a bit socially liberal because I am of the opinion that government has no business in our personal lives. (which if you don’t want the government in your wallet, why do you want them in your bedroom?). I dont believe in AGW because it is bad science used for a political agenda and used by liberals to force their agenda on people (Although climate change is real, but it wasn’t caused by man and all of us driving hybrids will not stop it). Above all, I believe in personal responsibility.

I think you need to stop and think about what a fiscal conservative truly stands for, rather than just assuming that means a RINO.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM

A conservative vetoing an entitlement…it’s a good start.

orlandocajun on March 2, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I am sorry you cannot afford health insurance but
what makes you think I can afford to provide it for you?

patriotparty1 on March 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Pawlenty shaving the MN budget with Ockham’s Razor:

ENTIA NON SVNT MVLTIPLICANDA PRAETER NECESSITATEM
(Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.)

The Monster on March 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Think of it as “Single Payer”, Lefties.

The Monster on March 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

And what part of “saving transgendered polar bears from dying of “Global Warming” via international multicultural bureaucracies” fall under fiscal conservatism? None.
Wolftech

Ever heard of a thing called “cap and tax”? Embrace left wing social ideology if you choose. Legalize crack, claim the term “marriage” has no meaning (like the Constitution it’s “living, breathing” – i.e.disposable), jump on any bandwagon that comes down the fringe-left pike. You’re welcome to pick up the tab of the results in a fiscally conservative way, of course. But leave real conservatives out.

I am, however, a bit socially liberal because I am of the opinion that government has no business in our personal lives.

There’s a saying about being “a bit pregnant” that comes to mind, heh.
Try telling that to a couple where an ex-wife is demanding support. But, of course, if the government is not to be involved the guy could just smoke the ex. That would not only stick it to the man, but also save some money. Hmmm…anarchy is very “fiscal”.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

We need more of this kind of cost cutting. We are simply out of money. We can’t keep expanding government programs no matter what they are for.

crosspatch on March 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 11:04 AM

I think you need to learn reading comprehension. In no way, shape, or form would a true fiscal conservative ever support cap and tax. And you are once again, putting words in my mouth. How can you assume that because I consider that fiscal conservatism to be the rightful core of the conservative movements, I would support the far left socialist agenda? I am not seeing how you can draw those conclusions with some sort of failure at logical conclusions. Did you not read the whole of my posts, or just assume that it says what you THINK it said. Did you NOT read that above all, I believe in personal responsibility? Perhaps I used too broad a stroke. Do I need to spell out my personal beliefs on every subject, or are you just going to continue to attack me in a trollish manner?

In that last example, The man WOULD be responsible for child support if it his offspring. That is personal responsibility. And yes, IF the man failed to live up to that responsibility, then the woman would have legal recourse to seek that support with the aid of the courts.

You accuse me of wanting to jump on any bandwagon that comes down he liberal turn-pike, but nowhere did I say anything to the like. I loathe most left wing social ideology. I also am not to fond of the far right, either. As far as my statement that government has no business in our personal lives is concerned, that is not a call to anarchy. It is simply that the government has no business regulating who I love, who I live with and how I spend my time. If I am not hurting anyone, then that is no ones business but my own. I did not say anything about legalizing drugs. I am of the opinion that if you are stupid enough to do drugs, then you can deal with the consequences without me footing the bill because of your stupidity. As far as “marriage” is concerned, it is a social arrangement based on a religious ceremony. If your beliefs say that same sex couples can not be married, then good for you, but you have no right to deny same sex couples the same rights that a ‘married’ hetero couple has as far as taxes and such. By doing so, you are forcing your morals on someone else, which is just what the liberals love to do.

You say leave real conservatives out, but I doubt you can grasp the concept of what a conservative really is.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Here in the land of Wellstone & Franken, T-Paw is as conservative as we could hope for – the lefties absolutely hate him up here. Pawlenty is a decent and honorable guy that probably had to moderate a few non-fiscal issues to get elected up here. His nod to global warming is not even that far out of character for a guy who is a sportsman. T-Paw is kind of boring but he is a fiscal conservative who happens to have some pragmatic abilities. Don’t sell him short just yet…

Tony253 on March 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

This is pretty much my view.

He certainly isn’t perfect, but it could be so much worse for us. If not for him calling a reporter a “Republican whore” late in the campaign, we’d be talking about Governor Mike Hatch right now. [shudder]

The Minnesotans here know how bad off we’d be if that were the case. I have to remind some of my friends of this every time they start ragging on Pawlenty.

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Fiscal conservatives are social conservatives. Social programs cost money and were not intended in our FEDERAL system. If you want to pay for Social stuff, do it at the State level.

Gay Rights = all for it, until they want to make it equal to Marriage. We give tax and other benefits to people on the basis of this social construct Marriage. If you eliminate all financial benifits of marriage, the gays wouldn’t be pushing nearly as hard.

Abortion = not for it, but the left wants the income from the procedures. Again, they push States to mandate coverage under insurance programs and Government programs. Most of the support would disappear if a State took over the abortion business like they do the alochol business.

EVERY Social issue has a fiscal component. Always follow the money!

barnone on March 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM

barnone on March 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but I don’t quite agree with them, either. For example, you talk of eliminating all financial benefit for marriage in order to keep gays from marrying. Isn’t that like cutting off your nose to spite your face? Wouldn’t it simply be better to allow them the same benefits that a hetero married couple enjoys?

As far as abortion is concerned, if a woman decides to abort a pregnancy early, then that is her right, but the man also has the right to say no, for it is half of his genetics in that fetus. As far as funding, I don’t think it should be covered. I also don’t think the states should go into the abortion business.

Yes, every social issue has a fiscal component. How you approach that issue is what is important. I would not support funding for any social programs without the money being there to pay for it without compromising things like defense and infrastructure. Those social programs would have to be proven necessary (for example, the food stamp program). Funding some guys artwork, not so much. Science funding is allowed because the research betters mankind. Same for space exploration (how many products do we use in our daily lives came from the space program? Lots).

If anything, social programs fall under society, not government, so therefor fall to private sector charities to handle.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Wolftech:

I believe in personal responsibility

In that last example, The man WOULD be responsible for child support if it his offspring. That is personal responsibility.

Since everybody has their own idea of what they are “personally responsible” for, then who is to say who is right; especially since no law should impact such very personal affairs such as marriage?

And yes, IF the man failed to live up to that responsibility, then the woman would have legal recourse to seek that support with the aid of the courts.

i.e. the government should step in and make the decision, even if it upsets the “fiscally conservative” husband. How dare it do that??!!

It is simply that the government has no business regulating who I love, who I live with and how I spend my time.

Since their are no laws that dictate any of those things, that’s totally moot.

I am of the opinion that if you are stupid enough to do drugs, then you can deal with the consequences without me footing the bill because of your stupidity.

That hardly strikes me as an overwhelmingly persuasive argument in favor of legalizing crack.

you are forcing your morals on someone else, which is just what the liberals love to do.

Then you would have to be a “lberal” since you believe your own views are the way it should be. Everybody tries to “force” their point of view on others – that’s why you (and everyone else) are here.

If you vote, then that is an attempt to “force” your views on others. So the only question then is: “Will you stop voting and encourage others to do likewise?”. Can’t have anybody deciding what’s right or wrong for the populace as a whole.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I give up. There are two kinds of folks you can’t reason with: Stupid and Fanatic.

I think you are both.

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

DFL? What does that stand f?or? Dumb Fu#king Liberals?

conservnut on March 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Democratic Farmer Labor

strictnein on March 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Think socialism/communism. You know the farmer = sickle and the labor = hammer.

Mirimichi on March 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM
I give up.

It is wise to quit when it has dawned on you that your points are false – totally moot red herrings:

the government has no business regulating who I love, who I live with and how I spend my time.

There are no such laws.

(Well, to be fair, the law punished the Manson family for how they choose to “spend their time”, so maybe you got a point there.)

And I suspect you’re experience some massive cognitive dissonance trying cope with your inconsistency (as I stated):
“If you vote, then that is an attempt to “force” your views on others.”
But you attack others for doing the same – attempting to make their views the law of the land.

You cannot refute either of these points and maintain any from of logical consistency.

Welcome to real life. I do agree with you it can be frustrating.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Good call. I’m surprised you spent as much time as you did.

I would mention, however, that there is a group of otherwise well-spoken and intelligent conservatives – like Mark Steyn – who also believe that “merely” being a fiscal conservative is not enough.

Their arguments are as unconvincing, but at least they are readable. ;-)

jmuchow on March 2, 2010 at 12:53 PM

jmuchow on March 2, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I’m glad the left has some emergency backup to attempt a rescue when one of their own is caught desperately tossing out red herrings! :)

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM

If anything, social programs fall under society, not government, so therefor fall to private sector charities to handle

This is very well said.

I believe I fall under the title of ‘social conservative’ as well as ‘fiscal conservative’, and I would like to address at least one of your points.

You said that you think removing the government from marriage altogether is a ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’ comment. I do not agree. Specifically, as long as the government allows incentives and entitlements to marriage, it can exert control over it.

Let’s face it. If someone truly does not want the government to ‘tell you who you should love’, that person should be against a marriage tax break. This is a direct incentive by the US government to marry. It is also the wedge that homosexuals use to fight for ‘marriage rights’.

They are also right. Consider the ‘freedom of religion’ argument for just a moment. If the government allows tax incentives for marriage, those should apply to all marriage. Certain religions allow homosexuals to marry. Ergo, the government should provide tax incentives for homosexuals to marry. To do otherwise is to ipso facto favor some religions over others.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

The DFL — Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party — howled that Pawlenty had balanced the budget by stripping the poor of health care

Just wondering if this fits:

The DFL — Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party — howled that Obama had made ObamaCare deficit-neutral by stripping the elderly of health care

BobMbx on March 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Bob: That glass slipper cracked a long time ago, I think. ;)

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM

If someone truly does not want the government to ‘tell you who you should love’, that person should be against a marriage tax break.
Scott H

You do realize that is a totally bogus argument, Scott? The government has zero ability to “tell you who you should love” just as it has no power to tell you which flowers you like.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 1:27 PM

whatcat: Please note that I did not say that the government did ‘tell you who you should love’. I am simply pointing out that if you think the government does, then you should be against a tax break.

I will say, though, that the government exerts influence on this aspect through tax incentives. In the same way that government subsidizes certain industries through tax cuts, it also subsidizes marriages.

I believe it would be better for the government to stop doing this, even though I have a very traditional view of marriage. As, I believe, you pointed out yourself, if you remove the monetary benefits of marriage, then that removes one substantive argument for homosexual marriage.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Pawlenty doesn’t do is bang a drum, make lots of noise, while he’s eviscerating his prey. He just gets it done.

RBMN on March 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Pawlenty made as much noise as he could drum up on his global warming regional tour with Artic explorer Will Steger as he tried to saddle us with his regional Cap & Trade program and the local media did give it much coverage.

While not able to ram Cap & Trade down our throats Pawlenty did sign into law that our utilities have to buy increasing percentages of “green” energy, in effect an ever increasing tax on the citizens of Minnesota.

RJL on March 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Scott H
As, I believe, you pointed out yourself, if you remove the monetary benefits of marriage, then that removes one substantive argument for homosexual marriage.

I didn’t point that out, Scott. Either way, I don’t consider it a substantive argument. To be more on point; the argument has “substance” – as does every argument – it consists of something. But I don’t see the substance in particular as valid in the end. I would view it somewhat as the equation 2+5=8 having numbers as substance, but the conclusion is incorrect.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Pawlenty made as much noise as he could drum up on his global warming regional tour with Artic explorer Will Steger as he tried to saddle us with his regional Cap & Trade program and the local media did give it much coverage.

While not able to ram Cap & Trade down our throats Pawlenty did sign into law that our utilities have to buy increasing percentages of “green” energy, in effect an ever increasing tax on the citizens of Minnesota.

RJL on March 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I believe he was also a driving force behind laws barring smoking in bars and other places. The bottom line is – Pawlenty is a major Nanny-Statist who claims we should have listened to Jimmy Carter. Oy.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I am sorry that I misidentified you, then.

Removing the earlier issue with the argument, this is what I think.

I believe that the federal government should remove itself from marriage completely. The government should not offer civil unions, should not offer tax breaks on marriage, or anything like that.

Currently, one of the arguments against homosexual marriage is that all of the legal benefits can be obtained through current law, correct? This means that the same laws can be used for all ‘marriages’. Legal benefits like powers of attorney and the like can be contracted by any two consenting adults, and this can be used to duplicate current marriage benefits, but in a realm that is far more cut and dried.

This would allow the debate on homosexual marriage to be carried out on a purely social level, ignoring the legal benefits.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM
I am sorry that I misidentified you, then.

No problem, Scott. :)

This would allow the debate on homosexual marriage to be carried out on a purely social level, ignoring the legal benefits.

I see your point, but I disagree it. I put in the “means well, but….” category.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM

what: May I ask why you disagree with it? I guess that’s what I’m searching for, at this point.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM

what: May I ask why you disagree with it? I guess that’s what I’m searching for, at this point.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM

I think it’s mostly the framing of the argument, which seems to be drawn from a thought line (argued here by others) that there’s a dichotomy between government and society. To me, that’s a patently unreal and goofy notion.

You stated your belief as:

I believe that the federal government should remove itself from marriage completely.

Can you define “remove itself from marriage”?

Second, I’m wondering what role local & state governments would have in that regard? Would they also be so “removed”?

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM

All right, this is very useful to move the discussion forward. Thanks. =)

When I refer to ‘society’, specifically regarding marriage, I refer to those apolitical organizations that have a hand in marriage. Mainly churches, but there might be others as well. More generally, ‘society’ can refer to those vehicles of group expression that are not political in nature. Organizations like the Boy Scouts can be argued to exert societal or cultural influence, but not political influence.

I can certainly drop the distinction, however. I used it mainly because others had done so.

By ‘remove itself from marriage’, I meant exactly what I later extrapolated. Government should not offer civil unions or any other legal ramifications that use the term ‘marriage’. This gives the government a lever to influence marriage.

Having said that, certain protective measures that married couples currently enjoy (such as powers of attorney) can be duplicated with legal measures. Decoupling this from the status of marriage allows for a more uniform legal code.

Local and state governments would most likely also be removed, since I believe that current marriage laws are on a state level.

Does this help in understanding my viewpoint?

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Scott H
When I refer to ’society’, specifically regarding marriage, I refer to those apolitical organizations that have a hand in marriage. Mainly churches, but there might be others as well. More generally, ’society’ can refer to those vehicles of group expression that are not political in nature. Organizations like the Boy Scouts can be argued to exert societal or cultural influence, but not political influence.

That’s way too much compartmentalization for me. My definition would simply be “people”, which pretty much covers everybody. :)

By ‘remove itself from marriage’, I meant exactly what I later extrapolated. Government should not offer civil unions or any other legal ramifications that use the term ‘marriage’. This gives the government a lever to influence marriage.

Having said that, certain protective measures that married couples currently enjoy (such as powers of attorney) can be duplicated with legal measures. Decoupling this from the status of marriage allows for a more uniform legal code.

Local and state governments would most likely also be removed, since I believe that current marriage laws are on a state level.

Does this help in understanding my viewpoint?

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM

It’s helpful in expanding and expounding on it but I’d still disagree. I think it’s one of those ideas that might sound good until you take it apart, check out the devil-details and unintended consequences.

Just as one example of such things: if government were not involved in marriage you’re going to have a real problem when people decide they want out of it (and with the divorce rate at 50% – if not higher – that factors in mightily). What are the terms? Who gets what? What about the kids? Support, alimony, visiting rights? How would these decisions be enforced?

I suspect you’d rule out a McCoy-Hatfield shoot-out between the friends & families of the estranged couple. :)

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Whatcat: I was actually going to talk about divorce before.

Without any contractual agreement between the parties, the idea of ‘legal divorce’ disappears entirely. This may not be desired, though.

However, any two consenting adults can form their own contract regarding what assets are owned in common between them. In fact, this already happens in prenuptial agreements, true? Basically, in the legal sense you would have contracts between people that could have specific dissolution criteria, and impacts when that happens.

If someone is accused of breaches of contract, I believe there’s an entire specialty of law that deals with these disputes.

I am not sure that the divorce issue is, in fact, a dealbreaker under these circumstances.

Scott H on March 2, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Scott H
However, any two consenting adults can form their own contract regarding what assets are owned in common between them. In fact, this already happens in prenuptial agreements, true? Basically, in the legal sense you would have contracts between people that could have specific dissolution criteria, and impacts when that happens.

Well, Scott, there’s still a catch-22; that would require laws that either mandate prenuptial agreements or make divorce illegal. Government would still set be setting the requirements for marriage.

Also, the courts are not private – the are to set up so that the laws established by the government (chosen by the people) are observed – by compulsion by other governmental agencies (law enforcement) if need be.

So there will always be governmental involvement in marriage.

However, my bottom line is there’s no need at all to toss the baby out with the bathwater and reinvent the wheel (to mix my metaphors). Will that tick some people off? Yes, but they’ll have to deal as all the rest of humanity has to deal with things in life that they don’t like. I don’t intend that as meanness, just as a simple fact of life with which we all must live.

whatcat on March 2, 2010 at 4:55 PM

My wife and I live in Northeast Minnesota where the economy is in the pits. I have not been able to find meaningful employment. That really means I have only been able to find a part-part-time job that pays $90 per month and I am very grateful to have that. My wife has been on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to a disability since the early 1990s. She did not qualify for Social Security because she was “only a housewife” when she became disabled. Through SSI she gets $674 per month and was on GMAC. We received a notice in the mail last month that she would no longer be on GMAC. Instead she would be transfered to another existing program and that she would still be insured. This was a big relief to us since her illness requires medications that cost $1800 per month. So the DFL in Minnesota is outright lying on the fact that Pawlenty’s move will cause poor to low-income families to lose any coverage. My wife and I are very thankful for the coverage we have had and what we will be getting. I believe I will find a job and will be able to afford our own health care insurance.

By the way every job that I have had that offered insurance, even after my wife was disabled, did not have a preexisting clause.

rsbarc011 on March 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM