|
Tim Pawlenty on Government Reform
Republican MN Governor
|
Eliminate the Post Office
Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty pledged to drastically reduce tax rates, eliminate the taxation of savings, and get the federal government out of postal delivery and other services, raising the ante on economic proposals in the campaign.
To help balance the budget, Pawlenty would cap federal spending at 18% of GDP. Since spending is projected to be about 24% of GDP this year, reaching Pawlenty's target would require about $1.1 trillion in annual spending cuts.
He provided no clear roadmap of how to reach that level of spending cuts, but said he would apply a "Google Test": if a good or service can be found on the Internet, the government probably shouldn't be doing it. But
Pawlenty's suggestion to eliminate federal ownership of the Postal Service , Amtrak, and the Government Printing Office would have limited effect on the deficit. The postal service is part of the federal government, but the Treasury doesn't fund it.
Source: Jonathan Weisman & Amy Merrick in Wall Street Journal, p. A4
, Jun 8, 2011
Set a record for vetoes in Minnesota's history
We can't spend more than we take in. You can't do it as an individual. You can't do it as a family. You can't do it as a business. And we can't let our government do it anymore. The big spenders in Washington have us on a course of trillion dollar
deficits for as far as the eye can see. It's not a matter of right versus left. It's a matter of 6th grade mathematics. It isn't going to work. It's irresponsible, it's unsustainable and it's reckless.
The naysayers say "we can't cut spending; we have
to raise taxes." I drew a line in the sand and said, "Absolutely not. We're going to live within our means just like families, just like businesses, just like everybody else."
It wasn't easy. I set a record for vetoes in my State. Vetoed billions of
dollars of tax and spending increases. Had the first government shutdown in Minnesota's history. And, in the last budget period, I cut spending in real terms for the first time in the history of my state. The federal government should do the same.
Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference
, Feb 11, 2011
Politicians rewarded for saying Yes; have the guts to say No
For years, politicians in this country have only been rewarded for saying yes. Yes to more spending. Yes to big bailouts. Yes to finding new ways to bring the bacon back home, no matter what the cost to everyone else. And in the long run, these
programs damage something much more important. They damage the American spirit. Whatever happened to the power of ENOUGH? The power and the guts to say, "No"? More than anything, right now, I believe it's time for America to square its shoulders and get
about the business of fixing our problems ourselves. It's a difficult job. But it's an essential job. It must be done. And it's a job that will serve us well. The political reward system needs to change. We must become a country in which we respect
leaders who are willing to stand up, draw a line in the sand, and say no to the never-ending demands for more spending while saying yes to a future that makes sense not only right now, but for the America our children and THEIR children will inherit.
Source: Courage to Stand, by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, p. x-xi
, Jan 11, 2011
2002: fined $600,000 for campaign finance violation
We agreed to abide by a spending cap, to receive some gubernatorial campaign money. Other groups are allowed to make "independent" expenditures, but they essentially couldn't talk to my campaign. I hired a media consultant to help create some TV ads. We
shot a whole bunch of footage. What happened next is where the problem arose. The media consultant sold some of that footage to the Republican Party, which began airing ads with that footage included. My media consultant thought there was nothing wrong,
as long as the party leaders were the ones who decided when and how the party was going to buy ads. The Independence Party filed complaints with the Campaign Finance Board, which found that the campaign may have violated the rules. Nobody had intended to
do anything wrong, much less illegal. We accepted the finding without further contesting that matter. My campaign negotiated to accept the party's spending as counting toward our cap and to pay $100,000 or so in fines. The total impact was about $600,000
Source: Courage to Stand, by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, p.121-123
, Jan 11, 2011
Proposed 2-term limit for governor & 12 years for Congress
Pawlenty made good on his promise to pursue term limits, though to no avail. His proposal would have imposed 10-year limits on the Legislature, 12-year limits on Congress, & a 2-term limit on governors. He argued that by imposing such limits, "there woul
be less focus on re-election and more on policy." The bill went to a House subcommittee on election law, where it failed to pass with a 5-5 vote. Had it passed the Legislature, the proposal would have gone to popular vote in the 1996 general election.
Source: Sam's Club Republican, by J.A. McClure, p. 15
, May 10, 2010
Guarantee the right to concealed carry
Pawlenty consistently supported legislation in the Minnesota House guaranteeing the rights of
Minnesotans to carry guns in the pockets or purses. He enjoys recreational hunting.
Source: Sam's Club Republican, by J.A. McClure, p. 65
, May 10, 2010
2002: Fined $100,000 for violating campaign finance laws
[Pawlenty's 2002 gubernatorial] campaign was dealt major bad press only a few weeks before voters went to the polls. Because Pawlenty accepted $400,000 in public funding, he was subject to numerous campaign finance laws.
A state campaign finance board ruled the Minnesota Republican Party had illegally prepared and broadcast two television ads on Pawlenty's behalf. The Pawlenty campaign was fined $100,000 and required to count $500,000 of the cost of the ads against their
$2.2 million campaign spending limit, significantly reducing the amount they could spend on advertising in the final days of the campaign.Pawlenty accepted the fine as a "fair compromise."
Public response, however, was mixed, as many saw the ruling as anything but fair. They were unfamiliar with the strange campaign finance laws, which appeared a rather brazen affront to the First Amendment.
Source: Sam's Club Republican, by J.A. McClure, p. 30-31
, May 10, 2010
Page last updated: Feb 23, 2012