Commentary; Posted: 5/21/03

Pawlenty doesnít waver on tax promise, but keeps escape clause

T.W. Budig

The 2004 campaign season began by default late last Friday afternoon. Standing alone at a podium, Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger, DFL-St. Peter, announced that the DFL Senate caucus had decided to abandon its proposed $1.2 billion tax increases and adopt the Republican budget.

Hottinger, just months into his new position of majority leader, explained that shutting down government would accomplish nothing because Gov. Pawlenty was immovable on the issue of not raising taxes.

The governorís inflexibility stemmed from a foolish campaign promise, Hottinger argued.

Senate DFLers wholly reject the Republican budget and will take their objections to the voters, he said.

One local DFL senator echoed Hottingerís sentiments.

ìItís terrible,î said Sen. Leo Foley, DFL-Coon Rapids, of the Republican budget plan.

Republicans styled the Senate DFL decision a ìcapitulation.î At the same time, theyíve been careful, for the most part, to keep any gloating backstage.

Hottingerís arguments for a DFL splendid retreat are perfectly logical. The eternally open question is whether logic has anything to do with politics.

Whether Senate DFLers could have squeezed anything out of Pawlenty in terms of even a minor tax increase is exceedingly doubtful.

For one thing, simple arithmetic works against Senate DFLers ó the two of the Republican governor and House against the DFL Senate.

Whether Pawlenty sincerely believes his no new tax approach is the best medicine for an ailing economy or whether party politics exacted a promise will be argued for a long time.

Whatever its origin, Pawlenty has never wavered from his no new tax stance over the past months.

The capitol has brimmed with protesters of all sorts ó students, union members, local government officials ó and the governor held firm.

That took more than a dose of fortitude.

Yet just last Saturday, Pawlenty ó showing a gifted politicianís ability to avoid labeling ó suggested that his no new tax philosophy contains an escape clause.

This is, if the economy should markedly deteriorate, he would ìreevaluateî the promise.

This may be read as a small concession to Democrats.

It may also suggest wearing an albatross around the neck is ultimately uncomfortable.

Getting back to Hottinger, the odds of Senate DFLers wringing concessions out of Republicans seemed bleak.

So Senate DFLers ó who have charged for weeks that the Republican budget will drive up local property taxes besides being inhumane ó will take that message to the voters.

In the final analysis, the Senate DFL approach ó which Hottinger said had ìoverwhelmingî support in the caucus ó was a simple nod to reality.

And it has its benefits.

The stateís projected $4.2 billion deficit is so vast, the Senate DFL tax increase proposal didnít come anywhere near filling the void.

Deep cuts would still have to be made.

So DFLers, who naturally would have been depicted by Republicans as tax and spenders, would have been assailed on two sides.

It makes sense: take the message to voters and go home.

Where does this leave House DFLers?

House DFLers are something of political orphans right now. While Senate Republicans were drawn into the debate by events at the Capitol, House DFLers were marginal.

News reports has some House DFLers upset by the Senate DFL retreat.

But that seems to vary.

Rep. Rebecca Otto, DFL-May Township, said while she believes Senate DFLers should have fought longer, also pointed out that the Senate and House are two different bodies.

Pawlenty wants the special session over by Memorial weekend. It might be.

The issues arenít going away. Look for them on campaign brochures starting next summer.

Top of Page