Republican presidential Tim Pawlenty's economic plan

:confused:

The guy was horrid for Minnesota. He kept State spending at about 6% increases per year. He cut the budget by cutting local government aid. Which in turn forced local governments to make up the difference by raising property taxes. Low and Middle class families, aka the majority, are definitely worse off. The rich, well they're ahead.

Balanced budgets were budget shifts. School monies were 'delayed' but they've yet to catch up. This forced schools to borrow against this future payment. Netted that'll cost more. And especially more as the State hasn't made good on any of the IOUs. School class size up and quality is down.

He promised not to raise taxes. Instead he called them fees. And again failed to understand the State / Local relationship which ended up raising taxes. It's just his hand didn't directly sign the property tax increases.

Roads and Bridges were not invested in and we have some of the worst conditions ever. We even lost a major bridge under his watch.

So yeah watch him. What he claims desiring to do is nothing he's done successfully in the past. Heck Jesse Ventura was a better Governor. Leaving the State worse than when he arrived is not a good thing.
 
Another bush? Tom Pawlenty seem to be worst than bush. Tom Pawlenty is too close to as Obama on the Republican side.
 
Tim Pawlenty is definitely touting the party lines to try and get the nomination. This idea that the government shouldn't do anything the private sector does is silly. What it is saying is that the 'free market' always does it best. Now while I do appreciate and enjoy our market. A free market doesn't always do it best.

A couple examples : GWBush outsourced some IRS auditing to private firms. This cost the US goverment more $ per employee focused on auditing. The employees ended up to be a bit worse at their jobs as the money retrieved per employee went down. -- Now if one wants to save the government money and help lower taxes I think we should be picking the most efficent system. In terms of the IRS that's spend less money and collect more money.

Another example : During Katrina the business hired by the government to help secure the area took guns away from the citizens. So while 'a business could do it' it's a worst option because businesses don't have to protect Constitutional rights and in fact they can work opposite to their rights. -- One fix would be pass a law that businesses must follow all the same laws as the government. Having worked in both private and government sectors I know many business owners that complain enough about rules I can only imagine what would happen if we applied even more rules to them. -- And secondly here we see a private military force in our own Country. Certainly we've used private contractors in Iraq and Afganistan. Again private contractors are often better paid and more costly than government employees. They aren't held to the same regulations in Iraq. They don't have to follow military law. They claimed no Iraq government existed so they can't be tried in that manner. They also claimed Iraq does not have to follow US law so USA couldn't try them either. In effect the business argued they were bound by no laws. Now do we really want to pay higher costs to hire mercenaries that are exempt from any laws? All this fits 'a business can do it' mentality but IMO are a far, far worse option.

There are many more of these sorts of example. Private businesses could do most everything. That doesn't mean they are more cost effective or are better able to ensure rights of citizens in the process. I really don't care if I pay the government more or businesses more. More is more anyway you slice it. Instead of a one answer fits all we do have to take up the more complicated analysis of which sector is going to provide a better solution overall for the citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top