I’ve secretly been an admirer of Tim Pawlenty for a long time. Not because any of his politics resonate with my own beliefs, far from it in fact, but because I was under the impression that he belonged to the ‘grownup wing’ of the Republican Party. As a strong proponent of a competitive two-party system, I thought our good ‘ol boy from Minnesota was poised to become a leading figure in the effort to remake the Republican Party. Oh boy, was I wrong. Recently Governor Pawlenty sat down for an interview with the Washington Post and gave some pretty devastating answers on a wide variety of questions:
After starting off with a pretty weak self-deprecating joke, Pawlenty tried to pivot to typical conservative budget fluff:
FINEMAN: How would you propose to balance the federal budget?
PAWLENTY: Rather than looking to raise taxes, we should pass an amendment to require a balanced budget with exceptions for war, natural disasters, and other emergencies. Congress should reduce discretionary spending, with exceptions for key programs such as the military, veterans, and public safety. (Bold mine, DT)
Err, nevermind the fact that outside of such ‘key programs,’ there isn’t really much discretionary spending left to cut. Few things annoy me more than when politicians treat defense spending as if it belongs in some magical realm where dollars for extravagant weapons programs materialize out of thin air. Contrary to this line of reasoning, a dollar spent on an unnecessary plane is a dollar that can’t be spent in some other portion of the budget. What’s more, there’s plenty of fat to cut in the defense budget!
FINEMAN: How do we pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
PAWLENTY: We have to push for more fiscal responsibility elsewhere. Congress should cut current domestic spending and reject costly new proposals like a government takeover of health care. (Bold mine, DT)
Said ‘government takeover of health care’ reduces the deficit– ’nuff said.
FINEMAN: Was the TARP a good idea?
PAWLENTY: No. I had numerous problems with it. The goal was to ensure that we didn’t have a lending freeze. [But] there was no requirement that lending would occur, and it hasn’t. No. 2, there were no criteria for who would get the money and under what circumstances and for what. I also thought it was too large. (Bold mine, DT)
Excessively generous lending by financial institutions is what caused the financial crisis! Pawlenty would have preferred a recovery plan that required banks to make the same risky investments which precipitated the crisis to begin with– really? The key objective of TARP was to provide the banking system with enough capital to restore balance sheets back to relatively sane levels– not to permit the same kind of foolhardy lending to continue unabated.
FINEMAN: Let me ask you about social issues your party has been dealing with. In her book, Palin claims that McCain’s handlers wanted her to be silent about her belief in creationism. How would you describe your view?
PAWLENTY: I can tell you how we handle it in Minnesota. We leave it to the local school districts. We don’t mandate a curriculum or an approach. We allow for something called “intelligent design” to be discussed as a comparative theory. It doesn’t have to be in science class. (Bold mine, DT)
Uh… that’s actually not how the Minnesota school system operates. I dunno what state Pawlenty has been running for the past seven years but I am reasonably confident that evolution is mandated at the state level and that teachers don’t have the power to teach intelligent design. After all, if they did have this flexibility, I would have learned nothing but intelligent design in my hometown.
Tim, what happened? You’re turning into a joke.