Tim Pawlenty’s Deficit Fraud
For an article really be “about” how the budget deficit should be smaller, the article would really need to suggest some programs whose spending should be reduced or else some taxes that should be increased. This makes it difficult to characterize this Tim Pawlenty Politico op-ed. It refers to the federal government’s practice of having expenditures that exceed revenues as a “Ponzi scheme” (which is a mischaracterization, but never mind) and seems to call for a reduction in borrowing. But it doesn’t mention a single area in which Pawlenty would prefer to see lower expenditures or higher revenues.
The only concrete policy idea Pawlenty offers is that congress should reject Barack Obama’s policy proposals:
Spending reduction tools alone will not meet this challenge. We must also grow the economy. To that end, Congress should reject federal legislation that places additional burdens on growth, such as the proposed health care overhaul, cap-and-trade bill, labor union card check and tax increases.
Even if you accept all this, however, that leaves you with the status quo. A status quo which, according to Pawlenty, is unsustainable. And when you get right down to it, the health care bill reduces the deficit. Cap and trade can easily be structured so as to produce at least a moderate amount of deficit reduction. And of course tax increases reduce the deficit. So while he’s ready to lead a flock of deficit peacocks he’s clearly not ready to actually face up to the problems facing the country.
32 Responses to “Tim Pawlenty’s Deficit Fraud”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 1st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Talk of reducing the deficit is always funny to hear involving politicians of both parties, because they never, ever want to write their name next to wanting to cut X program by Y%, or any increase in taxes(though Democrats are more brave on this front lately, but only slightly).
Its akin to me discussing my annual New Year’s resolution to lose 20 lbs, without ever saying how many more times I’ll show up at the gym, or what foods I’m going to stop eating. Its just bullsh*t in other words.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Right now the State of Minnesota is shorting local school district by as much as 4 months of their state aid, so that the districts have to get loans. The state is in crisis, and Pawlenty refuses to consider any solution except spending cuts and creative accounting. He’s transparently shifting the immediate problem to the municipal level and kicking the current problem over to the next governor, but that’s what the teabaggers and the Club For Growth want.
Minnesota traditionally is a well-governed state which supports education well, but Pawlenty is changing that. And that makes him a Republican superstar.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
1) So why don’t the Democrats address the criticims by Reducing the federal debt?
Specifically, point out that $9 Trillion of the federal debt was incurred by the last three Republican Presidents, that those Presidents were installed by the Superrich, and
so make the Superrich meet their responsibilities by leving a 20 percent income surtax on incomes over $400,000.
2) Answer: Because the Democrats are spineless cowards who run their mouths but who never actually DO anything.
Even when they control the WHite House and both Houses of Congress with huge majorities.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
And don’t give me a crock of bullshit by claiming that raising taxes on the SUperrich in a recession will kill jobs.
The Superrich aren’t investing in America — they’re investing in China. That $2 Trillion tax cut that Bush and the Blue Dog Democrats gave the Superrich in 2001 went to create jobs in China, not in the USA.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“deficit peacock” cannot currently be used too much.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Another pablumbrain with delusions of adequacy.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
And this is an indictment (as if we need another one) of the “mainstream media” to not ask these people who are in government or want to run the government to answer, in plain black and white, what taxes they will raise and what programs they’ll cut, and how much will it reduce the deficit when they do so. This is what being a leader means, making hard choices and explaining why.
Any of this spouting platitudes about the deficit without detailing what to do about it should just be mocked, because its unserious.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
And this is an indictment (as if we need another one) of the “mainstream media” to not ask these people who are in government or want to run the government to answer, in plain black and white, what taxes they will raise and what programs they’ll cut, and how much will it reduce the deficit when they do so.
Some reporters tried this recently with Judd Gregg, I believe, and he had a hissyfit all over himself, and started throwing accusations at the reporters. So even when a journalist tries to talk seriously about this, a politician will respond with a whiny “How dare you!”
February 1st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
And of course, there’s always Mitch McConnell, who loves a deficit commission until Obama says he likes it. Then he hates it. Because he is a petulant 5 year old who looks like a turtle and is a poopypants.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Re: Sen. Gregg on MSNBC, that was a useful moment when he went nuts when asked to write his name next to govt programs he’d cut. Anybody can rend his garments and howl at the moon about the deficit, these are actual legislators elected to govern this country, not just comment on the state of things.
I understand fully why a senator is hesitant to raise his hand and publicly say “I think the defense budget should be cut 10% immediately and get rid of X, Y, and Z to do so” or “I think we should cut Medicare by 15% over the next 10 years by doing X” but thats what the media should be shoving them at every opportunity to say, because thats their job.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
If you push him, you will learn what Pawlenty’s cunning plan is: reforming earmarks and eliminating government waste.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:07 pm
If you push him, you will learn what Pawlenty’s cunning plan is: reforming earmarks and eliminating government waste.
Where have I heard that one before? Wasn’t that on G.W. Bush’s pank in 2000 and on McCain’s last year? Not to mention a hundred other GOP Congress-critters.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
He would recommend that we cut out ear-marks, waste, fraud, and abuse. Oh, and lower the minimum wage.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Yeah, I hate it when Republicans speak about politics as if it doesn’t inevitably involve making choices which require painful tradeoffs. This approach is much better…..
“You said earlier that you wanted to tell the American people what’s in it for them, how will their family benefit from health care reform. But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you’re pushing there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care. When you describe health care reform you don’t — understandably you don’t talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think — do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?”
THE PRESIDENT: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier….”
February 1st, 2010 at 2:15 pm
So, let me get this straight. We’re all in this deep, deep hole.
Pawlenty: We ought to stop digging.
Matthew: If we stop digging, we will still be in the hole, so therefore it is dumb to stop digging.
Great response, Matthew!
February 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Pawlenty: We ought to stop digging.
Matthew: Put down the shovel.
Pawlenty: My digging is the good kind.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“Ponzi scheme,” in reference to the federal budget, is wingnut cant for Social Security.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Will Allen, you might have more credibility in complaining about politicians whose rhetoric about spending doesn’t match their actions if you hadn’t voted twice for the guy whose budget busting policies are responsible for our current disaster. And how did he manage to create such a mess? Partly by feeding dumbshits like Will Allen a line about how cutting taxes increases revenue (yes, yes, even Will isn’t stupid enough to believe that, but it’s still there to make him feel better) and by putting Will Allen’s favorite slaughter of innocent brown people off the budget
February 1st, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Matthew: Put down the shovel.
Hahahahahaha!
Matthew not only never says “put down the shovel”, he in fact says “dig faster!”
February 1st, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Al’s metaphor is more damming then he realizes.
If the goal is getting out of the hole, then the response he ascribes to Mathew is spot on
Without a plan to get out, whether you are digging or not is moot.
Let alone the hypocrisy that TPaw is not suggesting
but instead clamoring for one less grain of sand per hour.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Pawlenty: We ought to stop digging.
(grabs the shovel, starts digging twice as fast)
Matthew: WTF?
Pawlenty: We will soon be on the other side!
February 1st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Actually, Stupid, one of the reasons that W. Bush was marginally preferable to his opponents was that his bribe to non-poor retirees was slightly smaller than what his opponents advocated.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
[...] reducing the deficit (regardless of whether they will actually do so) is the… Democratic Party. Yglesias: Even if you accept all this [Pawlenty’s proposals], however, that leaves you with the status [...]
February 1st, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Actually fuckwit, one of the reasons why Bush was substantially worse than any of the alternatives was his budget busting war on innocent brown people.
What a fucking joke you are Will. You think Medicare Part D was a “slightly smaller bribe?” Even though Bush rammed it through as a massive giveaway to the drug companies – explicitly eliminating cost controls?
And, let’s be honest, you’ve spent the past decade explaining why the Iraqi people needed to be brutally murdered so you could steal their oil. This new bit about how you care about the federal deficit is just more bullshit to cover your bloody hands.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
if the sorts of things pawlenty thinks are impediments to growth actually were impediments to growth, our economic performance 1946-73 and 1993-2001 would have been considerably worse than it was, since these represented periods of strong unions, considerable regulation, and higher taxes.
i had a right-wing acquaintance to whom i no longer speak, but when we did converse, he was once carrying on about how tax cuts always increase revenue. in that case, i asked him, why not cut taxes to .0000000000001%? revenues should explode?
his answer: “i never thought about that.”
the entire republican party is full of people who never think about anything.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Stupid, you are still too dishonest to admit that you have been participating in the theft of Persian Gulf Oil for your entire life, and you advocate that the theft continue unchecked, and if any brown people protest, you are quite willing to pay their despots to have them killed.
Yes, Stupid, the Democrats for the most part wanted the drug benefit to be even larger. If you don’t like the pricing that patents allow, why not be honest about it, and simply advocate that they be repealed and reduced?
February 1st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Yeah, howard, and the Democratic Party is full of thinkers, which is why they lap up sewage like that spewed by the current President, excerpted above. Every dunce who affiliates with a political party believes in a magic pony, they just differ regarding the color.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Yes dumbass, you are more than happy to steal the oil of any brown people who have the bad grace to have been born on your oil (tell me fuckwit, what governments are you currently agitating to overthrow?). And, when you decide that the despots your government propped up are no longer suitable you are more than happy to start murdering them in order to steal some more of their resources.
You claim that I am willing to pay to have protesters put down, but oddly, only one of us has *ever* advocated killing people over oil. I’ll give you a hint, it’s the bloodthirsty asshole who decided that he knew best how the Iraqi people should be ruled and if any of them didn’t like it he was going to agitate for their slaughter. Not just on message boards, but even going so far as to vote for someone who would be sure to drop bombs on them – twice (voting, not the dropping bombs, that was a hell of a lot more than twice).
What amuses me, you dimwitted thug, is that you imagine yourself somehow better than those who opposed the brutal slaughter of innocents because in your tiny little mind, the ends justify the means. No wonder your hero is Pol Pot.
And are dozens more people you’ve helped get away from that nasty habit of living near your oil. You are truly one sick fuck, you know that?
Oh, and your fig-leaf about Medicare? Pretending that the costs are based on the patent laws, rather than on the removal of the same power any insurance company has to negotiate prices just shows once again what a partisan hack you are (don’t pretend, you actively supported Bush and even now are defending his indefensible, irresponsible, spending).
February 1st, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Stupid, unless you are living in a yurt, you have been paying despots to murder people, so you can burn oil, your whole life. You are just too much of a preening phony to admit it.
Your last paragraph is really too stupid for words.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:22 am
will, the democratic party has its dinos, its simpletons, and its spineless jellyfish, but it also includes among its senior ranks a large number of thoughtful people who do not forget lord keynes dictum that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
the entire senior ranks of the republican party – every single last one of them – believes that he or she is entitled to his or her own facts.
every single one.
so yes, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the entire republican party as a pathetic bunch of right-wing thugs and liars who have no truck with empirical reality and live entirely off sloganeering. it is not perfectly legitimate to call the democrats – despite their numerous flaws – as equally asinine and stupid, because they are not.
wake me when a single leader of the republican party today says something that isn’t based on what rush and glen and the rest of the crazies say.
in fact, wake me when you find a single honest person who can stand the republican party as it exists today.
i’ll be peacefully slumbering while you look for this fabled honest man (or woman).
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:42 am
All 40 Republican Senators voted against extending the debt ceiling. What happens if they have the numbers to block it next time? Financial panic? Default? The only thing I know is that they are fanatic enough to do anything.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:53 am
Well, howard, I will take your word for it, but apparently the most important member of the Democratic Party isn’t among those who adheres to Lord Keynes’ dictum. I don’t mean this as notable criticism; there is about as much wide-spread interest in having an honest President of the United States as Tiger Woods had in living a quiet domestic life.
We have an electorate, right, left, and middle, whatever those labels mean, that, above all else, absolutely demands that it be lied to. Their public officials are happy to oblige.