The Truth Behind Minnesota's Woes

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 03, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    Much like President Obama inherited Dubya's mess, apparently Minnesota's current financial troubles stem from the previous administration.

    And previously, Minnesota was governed by Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/02/minnesota-shutdown-2011_n_889161.html

    With the shutdown of the Minnesota state government, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty has come under fresh scrutiny after declining to seek a third term as governor of the state last year.

    The Star Tribune notes that Pawlenty has pushed back when asked about a projected $5 billion budget shortfall on the day he left office.

    “This two year budget cycle ends in the black this summer and the deficit two years after — that is a projection,” he recently said when asked about the matter at South Carolina's first presidential primary debate of the election season, Time reports. “It’s based on preposterous assumptions. It assumes a 25% or so increase in state spending. That’s outrageous. If they live within their means there’d be no deficit at all.”

    Nevertheless, the Wall Street Journal reports:

    Various outside agencies have flashed warnings about the state's fiscal position for well over a year. Moody's Investors Service, which grades the credit-worthiness of bonds, warned early last year that Minnesota was overly reliant on one-off fixes to balance its books. A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures last year said Mr. Pawlenty had used different one-time maneuvers to patch over more than 41% of the budget, second in the use of such maneuvers only to Alaska.
    "This is entirely Pawlenty's legacy," said former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, a Republican. Mr. Carlson led the state for two terms in the 1990s and has become a Pawlenty critic. "This governor and this legislature did not create this problem. They inherited it," he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2011 4:40 PM GMT
    Well, he did refuse to spend no infrastructure leading to bridge collapse...
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 03, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    hmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2011 7:03 PM GMT
    Bachmann is a goddess. She's absolutely right about how the GOP is applying the mantra: "Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism." (or is the other way round?)

    http://minnesotaindependent.com/83578/gop-pressed-for-abortion-stem-cell-research-bans-during-budget-negotiationsDuring budget negotiations the week before Friday’s government shutdown, Republican leaders pressed Gov. Mark Dayton to include a ban on abortions at 20 weeks gestation, a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions and a ban on some forms of stem cell research. Even as the shutdown of Minnesota government had begun, the principal anti-abortion lobby, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, continued to push its agenda.
    ...
    Talks may have also broken down because an earlier GOP offer asked Dayton to accept controversial policy positions the Republicans pushed for this year, including photo ID requirements at the polls and abortion restrictions. An offer sheet provided to the Star Tribune said the policy adoptions were in exchange for “new revenue in a compromise offer.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2011 7:07 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidBachmann is a goddess. She's absolutely right about how the GOP is applying the mantra: "Social conservatism is fiscal conservatism." (or is the other way round?)

    http://minnesotaindependent.com/83578/gop-pressed-for-abortion-stem-cell-research-bans-during-budget-negotiationsDuring budget negotiations the week before Friday’s government shutdown, Republican leaders pressed Gov. Mark Dayton to include a ban on abortions at 20 weeks gestation, a ban on taxpayer-funded abortions and a ban on some forms of stem cell research. Even as the shutdown of Minnesota government had begun, the principal anti-abortion lobby, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, continued to push its agenda.
    ...
    Talks may have also broken down because an earlier GOP offer asked Dayton to accept controversial policy positions the Republicans pushed for this year, including photo ID requirements at the polls and abortion restrictions. An offer sheet provided to the Star Tribune said the policy adoptions were in exchange for “new revenue in a compromise offer.”


    So it's not about the budget, but more Christian fundamentalist BS? Nice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:13 AM GMT
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:14 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidWell, he did refuse to spend no infrastructure leading to bridge collapse...


    Except it didn't lead to the bridge collapse. Yep. Keep scapegoating: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/washington/15bridge.html

    Too bad about those pesky things called facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:15 AM GMT
    The truth? Talk about spin. My guess is that the forced shut down by the current governor will backfire.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/a-tale-of-two-shutdowns.php

    Minnesota’s government shutdown has made national news, in part because it foreshadows, in some respects, the battle that will play out in Washington over the next month on the debt ceiling. What has happened in Minnesota is clearcut: our Republican legislature passed a budget for the next two years, consisting of nine spending bills. Our Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, didn’t think the legislature spent enough money, so he vetoed them. As a result of Dayton’s vetoes, state agencies ran out of funding as of July 1 and, with the exception of certain critical functions, the state’s government shut down.

    Dayton’s claim that the legislature didn’t want to spend enough money will resonate only on the far left, given that the nine bills appropriated more money than Minnesota has ever spent in any two year period. But put that fact to one side: it is simply indisputable that the legislature appropriated funds for parks, roads, schools, drivers’ license bureaus, etc. If those agencies have shut down, it is solely because of Governor Dayton’s vetoes. In this context, for the Democrats to claim that Republicans somehow shut down the state’s government is ludicrous.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 4:27 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.


    How is it scapegoating? Do you really think the effects of a previous administration simply vanish once a new administration enters?

    Pawlenty relied on patch jobs to balance the budget.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.


    How is it scapegoating? Do you really think the effects of a previous administration simply vanish once a new administration enters?

    Pawlenty relied on patch jobs to balance the budget.


    Because current spending bills are already higher than previous years. The current Governor wants to spend more - but to veto them and force a shut down can hardly therefore be attributed to past budgets.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.


    How is it scapegoating? Do you really think the effects of a previous administration simply vanish once a new administration enters?

    Pawlenty relied on patch jobs to balance the budget.


    Because current spending bills are already higher than previous years. The current Governor wants to spend more - but to veto them and force a shut down can hardly therefore be attributed to past budgets.


    Have you ever thought that he wants to spend more as investment to get more in return. It's not his fault Pawlenty failed miserably as a governor. If Pawlenty hadn't screwed up, then this current administration wouldn't have to ask for as much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:42 AM GMT
    creature saidHave you ever thought that he wants to spend more as investment to get more in return. It's not his fault Pawlenty failed miserably as a governor. If Pawlenty hadn't screwed up, then this current administration wouldn't have to ask for as much.


    The word "investment" when used by politicians is almost always consistently in reality just spending. It's your view that Pawlenty "failed miserably as a governor" when the actual facts suggest nothing of the sort - and while hardly a perfect record, hardly a failure. The vitriol and hyperbole while sometimes entertainment can also be quite boring.

    Ultimately, what you term "investment" then is what the current governor has deemed important enough to shut down the government - but it requires far too large a logical leap be blamed on Pawlenty. That's not to say that extremists won't attempt to make it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:43 AM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.


    How is it scapegoating? Do you really think the effects of a previous administration simply vanish once a new administration enters?

    Pawlenty relied on patch jobs to balance the budget.





    Apparently, riddler and his fellow Repubs think that holding Bush and other Repubs accountable for their shitty job performance is somehow "scapegoating".
    In actuality - it's called accountability.
    And all politicians are rightly to be held reponsible for the success or failure of their actions and their time in office.
    There's NOTHING unfair about it.

    The facts make it very clear that Pawlenty and Bush (ESPECIALLY Bush) did very poor jobs, and that they failed to address problems that arose while they were in office.
    Problems that they should have addressed and that they had a responsibility to address.
    Instead they let the problems (in Bush's case: a housing crisis, a banking crisis, a ballooning National Debt) fester and worsen until they became unmanageable monsters.
    And then they passed their messes on to the next guy.

    What's particularly despicable is that they've not only failed to apologize or accept responsibilty for their failures, they've been trying to pass the BLAME for their messes on to the next guy too.

    Truly the Repubs have no shame.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:46 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidAlternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.

    Exactly -- existing problems that did not suddenly appear the day a Democrat took office, but which Democrats revealed when they did take office. Just as the media had been reporting would happen in Minnesota, before former Republican Governor Pawlenty (and current Presidential candidate) left office with a disaster in his wake.

    And why do Republicans think social conservatism, in the form of barring abortions, banning gay civil rights, stricter voter restrictions, etc, will HELP the economic situation? I would like some of the Republicans here to explain that relationship for us. Because those are the Republican priorities, the things they want accomplished first, in this time of economic necessity.

    It's an answer I don't think any of them can provide. Nor, I would hope as gay men, can endorse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:47 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidhmmmm.....does anyone see the parallel between pawlenty and dubja bush....and the mess the both left behind?


    Alternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.


    How is it scapegoating? Do you really think the effects of a previous administration simply vanish once a new administration enters?

    Pawlenty relied on patch jobs to balance the budget.





    Apparently, riddler and his fellow Repubs think that holding Bush and other Repubs accountable for their shitty job performance is somehow "scapegoating".
    In actuality - it's called accountability.
    And all politicians are rightly to be held reponsible for the success or failure of their actions and their time in office.
    There's NOTHING unfair about it.

    The facts make it very clear that Pawlenty and Bush (ESPECIALLY Bush) did very poor jobs, and that they failed to address problems that arose while they were in office.
    Problems that they should have addressed and that they had a responsibility to address.
    Instead they let the problems (in Bush's case: a housing crisis, a banking crisis, a ballooning National Debt) fester and worsen until they became unmanageable monsters.
    And then they passed their messes on to the next guy.

    What's particularly despicable is that they've not only failed to apologize or accept responsibilty for their failures, they've been trying to pass the BLAME for their messes on to the next guy too.

    Truly the Repubs have no shame.


    Parenthetically, point proven.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 4:52 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidHave you ever thought that he wants to spend more as investment to get more in return. It's not his fault Pawlenty failed miserably as a governor. If Pawlenty hadn't screwed up, then this current administration wouldn't have to ask for as much.


    The word "investment" when used by politicians is almost always consistently in reality just spending. It's your view that Pawlenty "failed miserably as a governor" when the actual facts suggest nothing of the sort - and while hardly a perfect record, hardly a failure. The vitriol and hyperbole while sometimes entertainment can also be quite boring.

    Ultimately, what you term "investment" then is what the current governor has deemed important enough to shut down the government - but it requires far too large a logical leap be blamed on Pawlenty. That's not to say that extremists won't attempt to make it.


    If you read the initial post, you will see that former GOP governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, also blames this problem on Pawlenty.

    And the Moody's Investor Service warned Palwnety's administration about fixing the problems of Minnesota with patch jobs that offer no real permanent solutions.

    Sorry, but it doesn't take a far leap to reach the conclusion that I have reached.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 4:56 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    riddler78 saidAlternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.

    Exactly -- existing problems that did not suddenly appear the day a Democrat took office, but which Democrats revealed when they did take office. Just as the media had been reporting would happen, before former Republican Governor Pawlenty (and current Presidential candidate) left office with a disaster in his wake.

    And why do Republicans think social conservatism, in the form of barring abortions, banning gay civil rights, stricter voter restrictions, etc, will HELP the economic situation? I would like some of the Republicans here to explain that relationship for us. Because those are the Republican priorities, the things they want accomplished first, in this time of economic necessity.

    It's an answer I don't think any of them can provide. Nor, I would hope as gay men, endorse.


    Not being a Republican, I'm only economically conservative. I think that gay marriage will have a positive financial impact in NY - as it should. But the reality is that most social concerns for the Republican party have been placed on the back burner given that it is economic concerns that have been paramount particularly for tea partiers.

    Just as many in the media had been reporting prior to the stimulus package that it would not work, and would leave us in a far worse situation financially, the current Obama Administration continues to blame Bush for economic woes and lack of job creation.

    Pawlenty's record is strong as a candidate for the Republican nomination precisely because of his ability to cut spending - particularly given how difficult it has been for any governments to even hold the line on spending. If you're going to talk about records though, Pawlenty inherited a projected 4.3 billion dollar 2 year budget deficit. But his record is mixed given the rise in property taxes over the same period. But given the option, larger local spending tends to be more efficient simply because people can see it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 5:00 AM GMT
    creature saidIf you read the initial post, you will see that former GOP governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, also blames this problem on Pawlenty.

    And the Moody's Investor Service warned Palwnety's administration about fixing the problems of Minnesota with patch jobs that offer no real permanent solutions.

    Sorry, but it doesn't take a far leap to reach the conclusion that I have reached.


    If you're referring to the same Arne Carlson who is an Obama and was a John Kerry supporter, yes I had noticed that. As for far leap? Yes, it does considering the budget deficit that Pawlenty himself inherited.

    To suggest that more spending is somehow the answer to what is already a spending problem as criticized by Moody's is what is classically termed "chutzpah".
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 5:01 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Art_Deco said
    riddler78 saidAlternative view: the massive scapegoating and the lack of responsibility for existing problems.

    Exactly -- existing problems that did not suddenly appear the day a Democrat took office, but which Democrats revealed when they did take office. Just as the media had been reporting would happen, before former Republican Governor Pawlenty (and current Presidential candidate) left office with a disaster in his wake.

    And why do Republicans think social conservatism, in the form of barring abortions, banning gay civil rights, stricter voter restrictions, etc, will HELP the economic situation? I would like some of the Republicans here to explain that relationship for us. Because those are the Republican priorities, the things they want accomplished first, in this time of economic necessity.

    It's an answer I don't think any of them can provide. Nor, I would hope as gay men, endorse.


    Not being a Republican, I'm only economically conservative. I think that gay marriage will have a positive financial impact in NY - as it should. But the reality is that most social concerns for the Republican party have been placed on the back burner given that it is economic concerns that have been paramount particularly for tea partiers.

    Just as many in the media had been reporting prior to the stimulus package that it would not work, and would leave us in a far worse situation financially, the current Obama Administration continues to blame Bush for economic woes and lack of job creation.

    Pawlenty's record is strong as a candidate for the Republican nomination precisely because of his ability to cut spending - particularly given how difficult it has been for any governments to even hold the line on spending. If you're going to talk about records though, Pawlenty inherited a projected 4.3 billion dollar 2 year budget deficit. But his record is mixed given the rise in property taxes over the same period. But given the option, larger local spending tends to be more efficient simply because people can see it.


    If you think that Republicans put social concerns on the back burner, then I'm sorry to say, but any credibility you may have possessed has just been shot down.

    Since day one Republicans have been going after abortion rights, which is a social issue. Does Planned Parenthood ring a bell?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 5:04 AM GMT
    creature saidIf you think that Republicans put social concerns on the back burner, then I'm sorry to say, but any credibility you may have possessed has just been shot down.

    Since day one Republicans have been going after abortion rights, which is a social issue. Does Planned Parenthood ring a bell?


    I fail to see the issue here - there is no reason why governments should be spending money in part in organizations that spending money to lobby government. As for priorities - there were a wide range of programs that Republicans have been attempting to cut - particularly when most funding for planned parenthood comes from private donors anyway. So as for credibility - back to the point of your logical leaps. Try again.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 5:15 AM GMT
    You said social issues were put on the back burner. And it's more than just Planned Parenthood. There have been a lot of abortion laws created since the 2010 elections, all as a result of Republicans taking over the houses in their respective states.

    But going back to Planned Parenthood, attempting to strip the organization of its federal funds is largely because of a social issue, not a fiscal one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 5:18 AM GMT
    creature saidYou said social issues were put on the back burner. And it's more than just Planned Parenthood. There have been a lot of abortion laws created since the 2010 elections, all as a result of Republicans taking over the houses in their respective states.

    But going back to Planned Parenthood, attempting to strip the organization of its federal funds is largely because of a social issue, not a fiscal one.


    Social issues are on the back burner - however this was as much a spending issue as it was a social one. The priorities however continue to be fiscal.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jul 04, 2011 5:22 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidYou said social issues were put on the back burner. And it's more than just Planned Parenthood. There have been a lot of abortion laws created since the 2010 elections, all as a result of Republicans taking over the houses in their respective states.

    But going back to Planned Parenthood, attempting to strip the organization of its federal funds is largely because of a social issue, not a fiscal one.


    Social issues are on the back burner - however this was as much a spending issue as it was a social one. The priorities however continue to be fiscal.


    Right...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 5:24 AM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidYou said social issues were put on the back burner. And it's more than just Planned Parenthood. There have been a lot of abortion laws created since the 2010 elections, all as a result of Republicans taking over the houses in their respective states.

    But going back to Planned Parenthood, attempting to strip the organization of its federal funds is largely because of a social issue, not a fiscal one.


    Social issues are on the back burner - however this was as much a spending issue as it was a social one. The priorities however continue to be fiscal.


    Right...


    Precisely right - just like the leap of logic that you've used to suggest that it is Pawlenty that bears responsibility for the shutdown and your suggestion that spending more will somehow result in less of a patch work solution to the problems Moody's has pointed out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2011 5:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidSocial issues are on the back burner - however this was as much a spending issue as it was a social one. The priorities however continue to be fiscal.

    "Backburner" in politics means your agenda items that you advance last, after you have achieved your priorities. In virtually every US State and to some extent in Congress, the first thing that was introduced by Republicans was social, not economic. Anti-gay rights & anti-abortion, primarily. Please address that issue, which you've been asked before, but avoided.

    Hardly backburner issues for Republicans, because they raised them first, using valuable legislative time that might have been spent on fixing the economy. Please address and explain that, in terms of economics.