Friday, January 7, 2011

Courage to (Grand)Stand

Tim Pawlenty is the former Governor of Minnesota, retiring from that office only a couple of weeks ago when Democrat Mark Dayton was sworn in. Pawlenty, during his tenure, was widely rumored and understood to be positioning himself for a run for the Presidency. In fact in 2008 Pawlenty was likely the 1st runner-up to Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate.

During the last two years of his governorship, the state as well as the nation suffered from job loss, escalation in expenses to help those who were now jobless, loss of tax revenue because fewer people were working, etc.. Prior to 2008, Pawlenty had refused to raise "taxes" as some sort of purity test to prove his conservative bonafides. The result was that prior to 2008, Minnesota had used up all of it's "rainy day" reserves, had used bonds and other extensions of credit (though the state is obligated to not run a deficit by constitutional provision). Consequently, by 2008, the state was really tapped-out in terms of how it could deal with crises, how it would pay for any uptick in obligation. Then of course the crash of 2008 did happen, and the state was left with a 4.3 Billion dollar deficit. Pawlenty attempted to deal with this, rather than by raising taxes, by "un-allotting" costs, essentially refusing to pay bills he felt were not a good idea to pay. His action was found unconstitutional and the state, as he leaves office, is now left with a 6 Billion dollar hole to fill. A hole he very much helped to create by expending rainy day funds, by refusing to seek new revenue, etc.. In short, Mr. Pawlenty used every gimmick in the book to avoid raising taxes, and kicked the can down the road for who would pay for it. He sought his own political future in contrast to the best interests of the state, and now there's a large bill to pay. He left office just before that bill would come due.

Now he's written a book titled "Courage to Stand" proclaiming his "courage" in standing up to requests by both parties to seek additional revenue. He further goes on to admonish (in his book) President Obama for certain "promises" and for Obama's failure to live up to those promises. The contrast of someone criticizing someone else for a failure to live up to promises is remarkable, given that he neither would make such promises, doesn't believe ideas, nor ask such conduct of his own party. To that end, I discuss Pawlenty's criciticism and the ironies/hypocrisy of his supposed stand below. I hope the reader will agree his "stand" has been in fact been really grandstanding, and hardly courageous.

The first point Pawlenty criticises Obama for was for failing to "pay for every penny of spending." Truly, Obama made those kinds of promises prior to September of 2008, but sometimes circumstances change what must be done. Unlike the Republicans in Congress and George Bush who didn't pay for any of their tax custs without comensurate cuts in spending, and who took very large surplusses and turned them into massive deficits, the Democrats called (routinely and repeatedly) for paying for such tax cuts with cuts in spending. Then the crash of 2008 occured. Clearly both the Republicans (Bush and those in Congress) and the Democrats (including Obama) understood the need to spend money (incurring large deficits thereby) to keep the economy from utterly collapsing. Hard-core Wall Street andbusiness types, including dyed-in-the-wool conservatives universally said not doing so would have been a unmitigated disaster. So, Pawlenty admonishes Obama for doing what was necessary, what would and did prevent another Great Depression and what his own party backed.

He also criticises him for spending funds on things like health care, but Pawlenty fails to acknowledge that Obama in fact did have a plan to pay for health care. He planned to pay for it by cutting fraud in Medicare. That fraud amounts to no less than 40 Billion per year and is something which certain Republicans now point to as "corruption" in the Obama administration. Also, they now agree they want to cut it (while improperly insulting Obama and making fraudulent claims of corruption) but of course they fail to note they argued against cutting that fraud during the 2010 election, calling it "wrong" to suggest such cuts, and that such fraud existed during the Bush years and they did nothing about it.

Second, Mr. Pawlenty talks about transparency and working in a bi-partisan way as something President Obama failed to do with health care. In truth, the final bill was passed in a rushed manner, but only after a year of struggling to get a bill which Republicans would back. Obama started from Mitch Romney's plan for Massechusetts, meaning he started from a Republican proposal, he invited Republicans to join, he refrained from calling them out for being beligerant and deceitful and he incurred the wrath of his own party for proposing something too conservative. Yet, Tim Pawlenty claims Obama wasn't bi-partisan. Pawlenty's own party members reversed themselves time and again on prior proposals which they had previously supported and they did so because the national party told them to use health care to kill Obama's agenda. Yet, we are asked to accep that HE, Obama, wasn't bi-partisan? I suppose if you say that because Billy asked Sarah out, and Sarah threw sand in his face, spit on his clothes, and dumped a glass of wine on his head, you could say that Billy didn't work hard enough to get Sarah to go out, but you'd be lying or delusional, and you'd hardly be showing courage for "taking a stand." Where were Pawlenty's criticisms of his own party for abandoning their own prior proposals? Where was Pawlenty's criticism of his own party for fostering fear with crazy "death panel' claims? The truth is Obama tried damned hard to get Republican support, including starting off right of center on the overall program, and for pure political gain and nothing else, Republicans without exeption, turned their back on him and the majority of American voters who voted for him and turned their back on the country's future.

With respect to transparency, while the final bill was passed hurredly, the overall proposals weren't and they were transparent. For the vast majority of the bills and proposals were given to Republicans days ahead of votes. By contrast, Republicans (at the behest of President Bush in many cases), repeatedly from 2001-2008 failed to provide bills to Democrats, voted on them in the middle of the night, and generally cut the Democrats off from any participation in government wherever and whenver they could. They did so gleefully in some cases, Dick Cheney famously telling then Senate Minority leader to "f" himself on the floor of the Sentate when Reid asked for a vote on a bill. There was one famous meeting held in a closet, a meeting to discuss whether President Bush had deceived the country into war, which the Democrats had to hold in a closet because Republicans refused to give them the floor of the house to even discuss it. They repeatedly refused to allow any investigation into the facts behind the run up to the war and only relented when they were embarrassed nationally and lost the 2006 election.

Where were Pawlenty's complaints about that conduct or the conduct of Cheney? Did Pawlenty expect President Bush and the Republicans to be transparent? Would he be transparent? Would he conduct himself better than Bush? On what evidence should we believe that? In short, Pawlenty time and again (on this point, on the deficit, on paying for government responsibly) is criticising Obama for not keeping promises, but they are promises Pawlenty would never make and doesn't believe in. He (by his lack of voice and his own actions) doesn't pay as he goes, doesn't believe in transparency, doesn't believe in bipartisanship. During his governorship he repeatedly vetoed bills which had vast support, and when a handful of members of his own party overrode his veto, he and the Republicans in this state had them run out of office.

Mr. Pawlenty wants to hold Obama accountable for failing to live up to promises made when we weren't in crisis (fiscal prudence) that had to be reversed when we were. Yet he fails to acknowledge that he had no voice for speaking out for prudence when we were in comparative good times. He failed to criticise Bush or Republicans for making statements like that "Deficits don't matter" as Dick Cheney once famously quipped in respoonse to complaints about the failure of the Republicans to pay for tax cuts and the commensurate deficits which accrued even though Bush promised they wouldn't. Where was Pawlenty's rebuke of Bush for failing to keep his promise to not run up the deficit. At least Obama had a reason. Pawlenty used gimmicks to avoid the truth and hard choices in the state, he was deeply partisan, often making scurrilous comments about Democrats which weren't fair or true, and NOW he wants to pretend Obama should keep promises he (Pawlenty) neither believes in, doesn't perform to, and would never make?

If that's courage, I'll take honesty first. If that's bravery, I'll take looking out for the best interests of the country over it, and most assuredly I'll take the word of someone (Obama) who changes his mind in the face of catastrophe over the word of someone (Pawlenty) who seeks his own political fortune at the expense of his constituency. What would he hold for the country if elected President? If his taking a stand means this kind of dishonesty, then I'll gladly ask him to stand aside, while honest well-meaning and more selfless people govern responsibly and truthfully.

No comments:

Post a Comment