Category: Tim Pawlenty

by Dave Mindeman

I understand the latest pitch to Ford to keep the St. Paul factory open. But what I found more interesting is what it told us about the relationship between business and government.

Tom Emmer and the Republicans make it a central argument that business and government are adversaries. That government is an intrusion into business and should stay away.

Yet, when Ford makes examines its situation in St. Paul and makes a purely business type decision, what does Pawlenty do?

The incentive package includes a variety of tax breaks amounting to roughly $90 million if Ford decided to retrofit the plant. The facility currently makes Ranger pickup trucks.

In addition, the St. Paul Port Authority offered to buy the land and lease it back to Ford, allowing the company to use the cash infusion toward renovations.

That was a hefty offer. Now, if what Pawlenty and Emmer have been telling us is true, then you would think Ford would have been very tempted to change their mind and take advantage of all of those government breaks. After all, isn't it the "burden" of government that is driving these businesses away from Minnesota?

But, here's the reality:

But Gov. Pawlenty says Ford's decision may not come down to money alone. He says Ford officials emphasized their need for operations that can be flexible and produce more than one kind of vehicle, and that these plants should be situated near a supply chain.

"At least for automobile manufacturing, Minnesota lies outside the ... traditional supply chain corridor," Pawlenty said. "That's a geographical question we can't change, and there's no amount of money that would easily replace that."

The "decision may not come down to money alone." Now there's the rub. We tend to forget amidst all of the political rhetoric, that business decisions are seldom about corporate tax rates, general tax environment, or even about property taxes.

No, business decisions are more about logistics, work force, supply lines, and geography.

Whether or not Minnesota has a 1% higher corporate tax rate than another state has very little to do with it.

Pawlenty and Mayor Coleman made the only argument that government entities can make.....tax breaks and monetary incentives.

The Ford response makes the point. Business doesn't make its bottom line decisions on taxes.

Category: Tim Pawlenty

by Dave Mindeman

Our current Governor is now bordering on being incompetent. He refuses to authorize the early Federal Health Assistance, costing the state about $1.5 billion. His reason? Because we have to pony up some money in advance. About $200 million to get back $1.5 billion? Most people would find that an acceptable return.... no, change that to everyone except one person -- Tim Pawlenty.

But the new kicker is even more ridiculous. Governor Pawlenty is hesitating about a $263 million return to Minnesota for......his autograph. Yes, you heard right. Our Governor is costing us $263 million because he won't pick up his damn pen.

I am getting pretty tired of hearing about his critiques of Federal spending while we sit in a $6 billion hole. What makes this all so ridiculous is that we have already paid our share in. Yes, we are the state that helps fund everybody else. For every dollar we pay in Federal taxes, we get about 80 cents back... (35 cents if you are unfortunate enough -- like me -- to live in John Kline's district).

Worse yet, Pawlenty is not saving us one thin dime by his little charade. Not a cent. This Federal money is there to help our state in critical areas...but if Pawlenty refuses, it simply goes elsewhere.

This is for people who need help...people who need to keep their jobs. And we have a Governor who suddenly can't find a damn pen.

Category: Tim Pawlenty

by Dave Mindeman

I hope that Pawlenty doesn't give any speeches that promote him as a man of conviction. Because it would not be true. In a move to embrace Iowa social conservatives, Pawlenty put his stamp of approval on a movement to remove Iowa Supreme Court judges that rendered the gay marriage decison. This is good old fashioned pandering.

Pawlenty has a pretty solid legal background. He would seem to understand how the legal system works. Yet, this comes out of his mouth:

Asked about a campaign organized by Sioux City business consultant Bob Vander Plaats — who failed in his bid for the GOP gubernatorial nomination — to remove the justices, Pawlenty stressed that he supports limiting marriage to one man and one woman. "I think the law should support that, and to the extent you have judges inserting their personal views to change that, I don't like it," Pawlenty said.

So let's break that down. The law should support removing judges who decide something that moves against public opinion.

But judges who interpret the Constitution in a possibly unpopular way, and back it up with solid legal precedent.....yes, those judges are inserting their personal views.

Listen, Pawlenty, I don't care if you don't like it. We are talking about the courts.

The Constitution (Federal or state) does not have words directed at the definition of marriage. But it does have strong words on equal protection, equal rights, and equal justice.

These various court decisions in the states have generally come to the same conclusion. Constitutional interpretation of equal rights give gays the same right to marry as anyone else.

Massachusetts, Iowa, California... it came out the same.

The idea of the Constitution (and the state versions that were modeled after it) was to have a basic protection system for all. It was meant to be watched over by the judicial branch. Protected from the winds of public opinion and the temporary insanities of the legislative and executive branches.

The court does not always live up to its protectorate status, but it does still often act as our conscience examiner. It will anger some. It will frustrate others.

But the ultimate goal is that the law can and should be the great equalizer.

Judges who act as keepers of the gates, against the torches and pitchforks, can be removed, but the law will ultimately stand apart. It is forged by years of examination and must stand against mere public opinion.

I suspect that Pawlenty would agree with that, all things being equal -- but for the moment, he fears public opinion on his side of the ledger much more.