About Me

Name: Lady Logician
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Veto Fallout

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:17:38 PM
The breathless hyperbole from the left (over Governor Pawlenty's line item vetoes) has been predictable and entertaining to watch.  For example,  Rep. Ellen Anderson accused the Governor of "hating the people of St. Paul".   Rep. Tony Sertich accused the Governor of "singling out" projects in DFL Districts, but considering that the majority of the money spent in the bonding bill was going to DFL districts - since the DFL HAS overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, what DID Rep. Sertich expect?  Some examples include:
 
  • $24,000,000 for a new Natural History Museum on the UM St. Paul Campus
  • $2,000,000 for UM classroom renovations in Crookston, Duluth, Morris and TC Campus' (Morris is represented by Republican Torrey Westrom BTW)
  • $11,000,000 for the Lake Superior Technical College for an addition to their Health and Science Center
  • A $240,000 appropriate for ISD 11 to buy and develop a property - why should taxpayers in ISD 719 pay for property purchases in ISD 11?
  • $3,000,000 for an expansion of the National Volleyball Center in Rochester (represented by a Republican and a Democrat)
  • $2,000,000 to remove and replace the old Cedar Ave Bridge for bicycle users    AND
  • $11,000,000 for renovations to the Como Zoo gorilla exhibit

It is the last one that has the writers of MinnPost in a lather.  "Pawlenty to gorillas: Drop dead" is the headline to this breathless rant at "The Glean"

Gorillas in shoeboxes. Trains wrecked. Gov. Tim Pawlenty tore through the bonding bill, line-iteming $208 million, twice as much as needed to get under his $825 million ceiling. The $70 million cut from a Minneapolis-St. Paul LRT link gets most of the press (the state would lose $450 million in federal dollars). However, $11 million nixed for bigger Como Zoo facilities, mostly gorilla habitat, punches the animal-welfare hot button.

I've been to the Como Zoo and while the gorilla enclosures could be a little bigger, it's not like the funding cut was going to FEED them or anything.   If the gorilla enclosure is that important to the City of St. Paul, why don't they go to their taxpayers for the money?  The answer is that the City knows that they will have a riot on their hands if they did.  Just ask Mitch about what it is like to live in St. Paul.

For those of us who have bemoaned the media bias in this state, the Glean provides us with plenty of examples of proof.

Bonding politics: the PiPress cover says it all: "Sorry, St. Paul." (Hat tip to Finance & Commerce for this: "Pawlenty to St. Paul: Drop Dead.")

The funny (ironic and funny ha ha) thing is that both Minneapolis and Duluth papers are claiming the same thing.  Come on guys....which is it?  Which city does the Governor "hate" more?

And then there is the reaction from the Sorosphere. 

Today, Minnesota Monitor compared Governor Pawlenty to a murderer:
“On Monday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty gave the state Legislature’s bonding bill a haircut almost as extreme as the one Javier Bardem wears in No Country for Old Men. In fact, much of the recent drama over the bonding bill seemed like a pale reprise of the Coen Brothers’ screenplay, with Pawlenty trading in his veep-quality coiffure for the malevolent comb-over of ‘No Country’ villain Anton Chigurh, who kills at the toss of a coin.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, April 8, 2008
“Once he had killed $100 million in spending from the bill, Pawlenty just kept killing.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, April 8, 2008
“Well, maybe Pawlenty is not such
an indiscriminate killer after all…” Source: Minnesota Monitor, April 8, 2008
“Even if you gave him the money [Pawlenty] still kill you. He’s a peculiar man.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, April 8, 2008

Emphasis in the original.  What can you say?

Seriously, folks.  The Governor does not "hate" any of the cities.  He just did the hard work that the Legislature refused to do.  They were warned not to go over the 3% limit.  They were TOLD that if they did the Governor would veto.  They CHOSE to challenge the Governor and they lost.  It's politics and if you are going to play the game, you have to be prepared to lose as well as win.  The DFL legislature "won" on the Transportation bill and they "lost" on this one.  When our side "lost" on the Transportation bill we were told to "suck it up".  Well, it's turn about time kids....

UPDATE:  I got an email overnight from Chris Stellar asking that I please note that the emphasis in the quote above from MinnMon was from MDE and not in his diary.  So noted.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Governor Responds

Posted by Lady Logician on Monday, April 07, 2008 7:58:56 PM
I have, in my virtual fingers, a copy of Governor Pawlenty's response back to the Legislature on his signature of the line item vetoed Bonding bill!
Dear Speaker Kelliher,
 
I have signed into law, with a number of line-item vetoes, the Capital Investment Bill, Chapter 170, House File 380.
I am very disappointed that the legislature ignored an understanding between my office and legislative leadership and my repeated warnings to abide by the state's longstanding debt limit.  It is irresponsible to exceed the "credit card limit" that has been maintained by governors and legislators from both parties for the past 30 years.  Doing so could jeopardize our state's strong credit rating and low interest rates.  The overall limit is $855 million, invlufinh $60 million already allocated in the transportation bill.  The legislature spent well behond this figure.
In addition, this bill reflects misplaced priorities.  As just one example, I find it inconceivable that legislators would fund a brass band music lending library and yet provide no funding for a much needed new nursing facility at the Minneapolis Veterans Home.
 
As a result, I have exercised my line-item veto authority to remedy the situation to the best of my ability under the constraints of the bill as presented.  These vetoes reduce the overall amount of general obligation bonding in the bill from $925 million to $717 million.
Reducing the bill to this level reflects my commitment to fiscal discipline and an attempt to prioritize important state projects.
The legislature should keep in mind that upholding the state's three percent debt service limit guideline is important to oir ovall fiscal well-being.  Debt service is one of the fastest growing items in the general fund.  Based on previously enacted bonding bills, the state's debt is projected to increast $239 million from the 2006-07 budge to the 2010-11 budget.
 
He then goes on to summarize the line-item vetoes and his recommendations.  I will cover those in other posts.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »