Secrets of the City

Wow that was a profoundly stupid Op-ed, gov. This type of economic response we would have seen from John McCain.

It is a poorly written editorial, just a bunch of name-calling and derision. Any commenter on the Star Tribune website can do that. That’s too bad because the essential point is dead on: trying to balance the budget during a recession is exactly what Hoover did, and it exacerbated the problem.

Now is the worst time to worry about a debt that’s been mounting for 30 years.

T-Paw: “This initiative is based on the common sense, kitchen table logic that most Americans and businesses live by.”

Please.  Businesses and consumers depend on credit to get them through tight cashflow periods and economic downturns… not to mention capital investment during good times.  Same principal for government.  Of course they should borrow to invest in capital improvements like clean energy, modern power grids and mass transportation. 

I second the “child-like understanding of economic basics”

This dude is seriously bumming me out with his lack of vision and stubborn, Bush-like refusal to govern based on facts rather than clinging to his ideology.

Basically, he’s saying, let’s do on a national level what hasn’t worked in Minnesota. And in Minnesota? Let’s just do more of the same thing that hasn’t worked for 5 years, and with policies that have f’ed up one of the country’s consistently strongest economies. In what world does that equal common sense?

T-Paw is trying to keep his profile up there, but his substance free sam’s club republic, kitchen table logic schtick is going to hurt his credibility. A constitutional amendment to require a federal balanced budget is an ideological crusade. People are tired of ideology from republicans, they want health care fixed, more jobs instead of less, a growing economy with effective regulation instead of the mess that was left for us.

I third the “child-like understanding of economic basics” for both the idiot that wrote that editorial and Pawlenty.

People are tired of ideology from republicans

I am tired of ideology coming from republicans AND democrats. I call for a new party called the “Pragmatism Party”. Check the ideology at the door and get something done.

It takes someone of the stature of Pawlenty to make me long for the republican leadership of Richard Nixon. Nixon famously admitted to some knowledge of economics — “We are all Keynesians now.”
It takes an appreciation of the enormous ignorance of economic theory as well as audacity for Pawlenty to think he can get away with this pandering pap. He can count on the backing of the same economists that backed McCain — none.

I’ll say one thing for Pawlenty — he’s nothing if not consistent. One of the ways he’s managed to keep approval ratings high is to stick to his taxes pledge and make that his overarching issue. Our legislature can argue about gay marriage, abortion, light rail, etc., but Pawlenty frames everything in terms of taxes and fiscal responsibility. It all sounds good to the average Minnesotan, and he avoids getting mired in the day to day infighting, letting the rest of the caucus handle the mudslinging.

But when he sticks his neck out to try to secure a higher national profile, and doesn’t provide much to back it up, it’s no surprise he gets dinged for style over substance. His piece was superficial, poorly vetted, and painfully narrow.

“Check the ideology at the door and get something done.”

If you don’t have an ideology, what, exactly, do you want to get done?

Not to be snarky, but there are still people out there nostalgic for Nixon?

You’ll have to wait to see how many people see Frost/Nixon at the theater, AC.

I’ll be one, I think.

Of course, I remember Nixon.

If you don’t have an ideology, what, exactly, do you want to get done?

I’m not following, Jeff. Are you saying no work can get done without an idiological framework? I suppose a case could get made that pragmaticism is a sort of idiology, which seems to be what the post you are responding to is calling for, but that’s not quite the same as making decisions from a Republican or Democratic viewpoint.

No, I’m saying that there’s a bunch of people crying for “non-partisan cooperation” in order to “get stuff done”, but I honestly don’t know of any thing the government needs to do that is non-partisan. It’s not like there’s a bunch of leaves we need them to rake or something.

Take an example. Something that needs to “get done” is to deal with the economic crisis. But your idea of the fair way of doing that depends completely on your ideology. If we keep electing roughly equal members from each party, they’ll simply keep blocking each other.

Granted you’re in the bounds of reality – both parties have been known to be guilty of some truithness. There are things we know factually simply do not work (eg, abstinence education), but once you’ve established those facts, it’s your philosophy that tells you how to deal with ‘em: capitalism-at-all-costs or keep-everybody-fed.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a lot of chatter about Pawlenty rejecting money from the feds. I didn’t pay much attention, because I assumed that they were referring to all the federal highway money that he’s left on the table all these years.

It seems though, that Pawlenty is making noises about rejecting the revenue sharing for the states that the Obama team has been talking about including in one of the stimulus packages next year.

So, with a $5+ billion dollar deficit on the horizon, he stands ready to protect the state of Minnesota from receiving money from the feds.

Well, that’s good, I suppose, but is it much better that he might be willing to fight against the money even becoming available? With $5 billion, the state should be looking for any revenue stream it can find.

that he is tepid about the idea of the feds throwing money at the states when the fed has no money.

Except the Feds have the ability to run deficits. It’s Keynesian  economics. Like Kurtis said: this is not the time to be worrying about the debt.

arrgh. Not sure of the lack of italics is my fault or the RTF editor.

I may or may not be nostalgic for Nixon, but I’m really looking forward to doing my two-sided jigsaw puzzle, with Nixon on one side and Agnew on the other. I need to do it on a glass table* and I expect it will be really hard.*

*that is what she said.

Probably the text editor. It sucks.

You must all breathe a lot easier now that maz no longer stops by to ridicule your ignorance of basic economics.

Talking in the third person is The Rat’s schtick.

You must all breathe a lot easier now that maz no longer stops by to ridicule your ignorance of basic economics.

Lord knows I do. It’s like I’ve been given a new lease on life, no longer having to be subjected to the withering scorn and irrefutable putations of that towering intellect.

You must all breathe a lot easier now…

You’re welcome!

Oh, I miss hearing from maz how Krugman, Stiglitz, Geithner, Volker, Summers, Goolsbee, et al. don’t understand basic economics, and are all wrong when they advocate for Keynesian economic stimulus.

Not.

Our own Tom Bartel rips Pawlenty a new one.

Tom has no luv for our Gov.

I for one appreciate T-Paw underestimating my intelligence by replacing the word “tax” with “fee”. We need more mad libs in government.

wait is this the same governor who loves to issues bonds because he doesn’t have an adequate revenue stream to fund even the basic needs of the state because he’s such a dipshit he refuses to adjust the tax rates at all?