According to this Strib article, that’s the name that Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark is calling Gov. Pawlenty. It was part of her lament that he’d vetoed the pork-laden bonding bill. The DFL-dominated legislature passed a bill costing $334 million, a stark contrast to the $71 million emergency bonding bill that Gov. Pawlenty proposed.

“The DFL majority is utterly incapable of exercising any restraint,” said the Republican governor. Noting that the bill is more than four times as expensive as his $71 million bonding proposal, he said it is “too large” and “not acceptable.”

Gov. Pawlenty proposed a 9.8 percent spending increase for this biennium’s budget & a $71 million emergency bonding bill. The DFL said that neither was acceptable, instead passing legislation that would increase the state budget by 17 percent & the aforementioned $334 million bonding bill. Here’s how Tarryl responded:

But Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said the veto will engender “a lot of disappointment, frustration and maybe anger” from communities around the state that would have benefited from building projects in the bill. She likened the governor to “a 2-year-old just saying ‘no, no, no.’ “

Tarryl, perhaps he wouldn’t just say “‘no, no, no” if you didn’t keep sending him bills that increased spending by unsustainable rates. You started with a $2.2 billion surplus, passed spending bills that devoured that surplus in a single gulp, then passed tax increases to spend billions more.

Tarryl has lost her way since the days when she made these quotes:

“Incoming Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, wasn’t available, but his top deputy, Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said: ‘This forecast does not represent a heyday for people looking for money.'”

‘But we want to be prudent. The good news is, it’s not a deficit,’ Clark said. ‘We want everything to be sustainable so this isn’t a smoke-and-mirrors session.'”

Perhaps she lost her way because all she had for a compass were mirrors. Let’s hope she refinds that ‘moderate’ compass soon.

The bill could be revived by a veto override, which requires two-thirds votes by the House, then the Senate. But House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, promised that first step won’t happen. No House Republicans voted for the bill on Monday, and none will vote to override their party’s governor, Seifert said. That would leave the DFL at least five votes short of enacting the bill over Pawlenty’s objection.

Rest assured that if House DFL freshmen vote for the bloated bonding bill, the vast majority of them won’t get a second term.

Langseth, meanwhile, said Pawlenty hasn’t proposed that help for Browns Valley. “But the governor says he’s for all these things, then he vetoes them,” Langseth said.

Mr. Langseth, when did Gov. Pawlenty say that he’s for “all these things”? Let me rephrase that. Mr. Langseth, why don’t you prove that he’s for “all these things”? If you can’t prove your statement, then perhaps you shouldn’t have said it in the first place.

Then again, when has a liberal ever needed proof before he made an accusation?

Technorati: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Gov. No, No, No???”

Leave a Reply