Pawlenty’s Vetoes Aim at His Future, Not State’s
Monday, May 14, 2007 at 5:27 pm
- 10 Comments
Undoubtedly over the next week, the DFL-controlled Minnesota Legislature will be sending Tim Pawlenty a series of spending bills that he promptly will veto. He will do so with lines he’s used already, like “the buffet’s closed” and “the all-you-can-eat salad bar is out of croûtons” and “all of Inge Thorson’s tuna noodle hot dish is gone, so if the DFL wants to go back for seconds at this here church supper, they’re going to have to choose between more Jell-O salad and that brown stuff that Barney Olson brought.”
more insideThe GOP will cheer, of course, given that Pawlenty’s veto stamp is the only thing standing between the Minnesota of today and the horror of adequately funded roads and schools. They’ll leverage their tiny minority — just large enough to sustain a veto — for as much as they think they can get.
But negotiations are a two-way street. Doubtless the DFLers knew their first volley would be returned, which is why they’ve been loading up initial bills with every possible dream program ever conceived on the left side of the aisle — so that when it’s time to meet in the middle, the middle is not another single-digit hike in spending and continued neglect of state infrastructure. Indeed, at some point, things will get balanced enough so that the few remaining moderate GOP reps will peel off, if only to forestall the specter of a government shutdown.
Don’t expect Pawlenty to budge, though. So far he’s been toeing a hard line: no new taxes, no matter how much property taxes have to rise at the county level. This may seem like a crazy way to lead a state when you were re-elected by the skin of your teeth, thanks to a DFL challenger’s slip of the tongue while the GOP took an absolute pounding statewide.
But Pawlenty is no longer interested in governing Minnesota. Oh, he’ll do it. I’m not accusing the governor of loafing on the state’s dime. He’ll veto vigorously. But Pawlenty’s eyes are no longer on Summit Avenue but on the Naval Observatory, where he hopes to be residing in two years’ time.
His chances are looking up of late. John “Old Man Surge” McCain is hardly wowing people, but between Rudy Giuliani’s conversion back to pro-choice and continued questions about whether the evangelical wing of the Republican party can embrace Mormon Mitt Romney, “Old Man Surge” is becoming the front-runner by default. At least until Fred Thompson enters the race.
Pawlenty is co-chairing McCain’s national campaign and has been mentioned as a potential vice president so often that the words seem to automatically follow the governor’s name. Should McCain get the GOP nomination, Pawlenty would be the strong front-runner for vice president. And even if McCain loses, Pawlenty’s record as a fiscal and social conservative from a swing state would make him attractive to Giuliani, Romney and Thompson.
But there’s something that could derail all of that between now and next spring. It’s the prospect of a tax increase. If Pawlenty signs off on higher taxes, he’s instantly dead to the conservative base. With the prospect of a non-doctrinaire candidate in the first spot on the ticket, the second will have to go to a solid, unquestionably conservative candidate.
Pawlenty is not stupid. He knows his future hinges on whether he can avoid signing off on taxes. He will veto until the cows come home. The question now is whether GOP members of the House and Senate are going to be willing to march off a cliff for Pawlenty’s future. Because if the government shuts down again, as appears possible, the blame is going to fall disproportionately on a minority party that will be accurately portrayed as obstructionist to the point of obstinacy. And that won’t make GOP fortunes brighter in 2008.
10 Comments
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 8:18 am
My opininon is… I may be willing to swallow another tax on gas, or rate hike on license fees if I KNEW the money was going to go for roads. The problem however is the nasty word TRANSIT that is always thrown in to the mix.
I have ZERO interest in paying one red cent for another train or bus. I don’t use them. I personnally think they are a waste of money for what we get vs. what we spend. If transit is something that is sustainable in the twin cities, I say open it up to the free market and let private companies take care of it. Then we can put all the money toward roads and we wouldn’t need to raise taxes becuase we can shift the funds from transits to roads.
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 8:59 am
This is a debate worth having With one light rail line in the cities, it is difficult to justify the investment to a large number of Twin Cities residents. However, with a network of light rail (or subway, or elevated train, or however it’s done), it becomes a lot easier.
I’ve written a few things on this before, but it’s a question of what kind of metropolis we want in Minnesota. Do we want Minneapolis and St. Paul to develop into cities like Boston, New York, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, or Chicago, all of which have vibrant, useful, and cost-effective public rail systems? Or do we want to be more like Phoenix, Houston, Los Angeles, or any number of burgeoning metropolises in which traffic jams are a way of life, smog chokes the air, and you have to drive an hour and a half to get *anywhere*?
Depending on the choice we make on that question, it makes the investment in public rail look better or worse. However, one thing I would NOT be in favor of is opening it up to private companies. Transit is a public utility, meaning it needs to serve the purposes of all citizens. Opening a service like that up to private companies would add a profit incentive, and lower-income neighborhoods would likely be left out of the equation.
Besides, we saw what happened when California de-regulated their electric utilities….bad stuff all around.
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 9:38 am
I think one can debate different transit options. I for one would be fine with the discussion of dedicated busways vs. rail lines, as I’m a fan of the flexibility and cost efficiency of the former. But while I understand the reluctance to finance more transit, if done well it becomes cost-effective, by forestalling additional spending on roads.
The simple fact is that Minnesota needs a mix of transit and road construction, and that we’re better off biting the bullet and paying for it now, rather than continuing to defer the bill to our kids.
Comment posted May 14, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Governance or Politics ? Pawlenty picks the wrong one. Well reasoned analysis … BUT the polling that I have seen is that the public doesn’t want to pay higher taxes and that bodes well for Pawlenty. The problem as I see it is that the Legislature has not done a good job in explaining their message — they do not want higher taxes but instead fairer taxes … and paying for necessary investments today instead of borrowing on the future.
The gas tax is pretty simple example … people see the pump prices and freak when a politician wants to raise the tax … but do the math … based on my mileage … it would be about $30 a year … or less than a cup of espresso every week. Now, what would I get if they spend it on better roads … less congestion … less time in traffic … better gas mileage. Now, I am convinced it should be done … so the argument is when the bill should be paid … 10 cents /gallon now (the legislature’s plan) … or borrow over time (Pawlenty’s plan) … oh, I see the Pawlenty is truly a Spend and Borrow Republican … gosh I hate them …
Regarding raising the income tax rates … it’s a matter of fairness. Depriving the government of revenue needed for the common good while shifting the tax burden to their neighbors … that’s what Pawlenty is doing by protecting the wealthy … and some wealthy don’t agree with Pawlenty.
Maybe some day when Pawlenty is riding the StraightTalkExpress, he should ask McCain about Spend and Borrow Republicans.
Comment posted May 14, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Fair Comment I would reply–and I think you would too–that people always oppose taxes, no matter what. But that opposition can be strong or weak, or subject to change when things are explained. One of the advantages of selling a gas tax is that it’s something tangible; indeed, I think that’s why there’s at least some hope of overriding Pawlenty on that veto.
Comment posted May 14, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Governance or Politics ? Pawlenty picks the wrong one. Well reasoned analysis … BUT the polling that I have seen is that the public doesn’t want to pay higher taxes and that bodes well for Pawlenty. The problem as I see it is that the Legislature has not done a good job in explaining their message — they do not want higher taxes but instead fairer taxes … and paying for necessary investments today instead of borrowing on the future.
The gas tax is pretty simple example … people see the pump prices and freak when a politician wants to raise the tax … but do the math … based on my mileage … it would be about $30 a year … or less than a cup of espresso every week. Now, what would I get if they spend it on better roads … less congestion … less time in traffic … better gas mileage. Now, I am convinced it should be done … so the argument is when the bill should be paid … 10 cents /gallon now (the legislature’s plan) … or borrow over time (Pawlenty’s plan) … oh, I see the Pawlenty is truly a Spend and Borrow Republican … gosh I hate them …
Regarding raising the income tax rates … it’s a matter of fairness. Depriving the government of revenue needed for the common good while shifting the tax burden to their neighbors … that’s what Pawlenty is doing by protecting the wealthy … and some wealthy don’t agree with Pawlenty.
Maybe some day when Pawlenty is riding the StraightTalkExpress, he should ask McCain about Spend and Borrow Republicans.
Comment posted May 14, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Fair Comment I would reply–and I think you would too–that people always oppose taxes, no matter what. But that opposition can be strong or weak, or subject to change when things are explained. One of the advantages of selling a gas tax is that it's something tangible; indeed, I think that's why there's at least some hope of overriding Pawlenty on that veto.
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 3:18 am
My opininon is… I may be willing to swallow another tax on gas, or rate hike on license fees if I KNEW the money was going to go for roads. The problem however is the nasty word TRANSIT that is always thrown in to the mix.
I have ZERO interest in paying one red cent for another train or bus. I don't use them. I personnally think they are a waste of money for what we get vs. what we spend. If transit is something that is sustainable in the twin cities, I say open it up to the free market and let private companies take care of it. Then we can put all the money toward roads and we wouldn't need to raise taxes becuase we can shift the funds from transits to roads.
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 3:59 am
This is a debate worth having With one light rail line in the cities, it is difficult to justify the investment to a large number of Twin Cities residents. However, with a network of light rail (or subway, or elevated train, or however it's done), it becomes a lot easier.
I've written a few things on this before, but it's a question of what kind of metropolis we want in Minnesota. Do we want Minneapolis and St. Paul to develop into cities like Boston, New York, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, or Chicago, all of which have vibrant, useful, and cost-effective public rail systems? Or do we want to be more like Phoenix, Houston, Los Angeles, or any number of burgeoning metropolises in which traffic jams are a way of life, smog chokes the air, and you have to drive an hour and a half to get *anywhere*?
Depending on the choice we make on that question, it makes the investment in public rail look better or worse. However, one thing I would NOT be in favor of is opening it up to private companies. Transit is a public utility, meaning it needs to serve the purposes of all citizens. Opening a service like that up to private companies would add a profit incentive, and lower-income neighborhoods would likely be left out of the equation.
Besides, we saw what happened when California de-regulated their electric utilities….bad stuff all around.
Comment posted May 15, 2007 @ 4:38 am
I think one can debate different transit options. I for one would be fine with the discussion of dedicated busways vs. rail lines, as I'm a fan of the flexibility and cost efficiency of the former. But while I understand the reluctance to finance more transit, if done well it becomes cost-effective, by forestalling additional spending on roads.
The simple fact is that Minnesota needs a mix of transit and road construction, and that we're better off biting the bullet and paying for it now, rather than continuing to defer the bill to our kids.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
