I’ve been watching the 6th District debate hosted by Tom Hauser. I had to stop for a moment and write about Tarryl’s last answer. Hauser asked if cutting spending was her first option in balancing the budget in 2009 considering the fact that she’d voted to raise taxes in 2008.

Tarryl said cutting spending was her first option. That isn’t what I’ve recorded on this blog. During the first week of the 2009 session, Tarryl Clark and Marty Seifert appeared on @Issue With Tom Hauser. During their interview, I transcribed this exchange between Tarryl Clark and Tom Hauser:

Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won’t be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.

Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.

At the time, the budget deficit was $6.4 billion. Tarryl told Tom Hauser that cutting spending was her first priority in balancing the budget. Based on this exchange alone, Tarryl wasn’t being truthful.

That’s before considering the fact that the DFL leadership was counting on a huge chunk of stimulus money to help them balance the budget without cutting spending.

In fact, the stimulus was roughly $4 billion, the first tax increase that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed was $1.6 billion and Tarryl’s spending cuts were less than $750,000,000.

Based on these figures, cutting spending was Tarryl’s lowest priority.

During the debate, they played an ad that Michele ran against Tarryl, outlining the various regressive tax increase Tarryl voted for since 2007. It included a sales tax increase caused by Tarryl Clark and the DFL voting to put a state sales tax increase on the ballot for the Legacy Act as well as the gas tax increase and other regressive tax increases.

Tarryl said that Michele was “spreading lies” about her tax votes. She then said that she didn’t vote for the Legacy Tax tax increase. She voted for putting it on the ballot so voters could decide. Without Tarryl’s vote, that tax increase wouldn’t have happened.

Let’s remember that this bill was changed so part of the funding would go to the arts, which essentially guaranteed its passage on the November ballot. Ergo, a vote to put it on the ballot was a vote knowing it would pass. Let’s also remember that this wasn’t accidental.

This was something put together by the DFL leadership in conjunction with their special interest allies.

This is a perfect examply of a politician claiming plausible deniability after they’d worked hard to structure the bill so the DFL’s special interest allies would get the bill passed.

Tarryl, that ad was deadly accurate, which is why you’re now fighting so desperately to distance yourself from your votes.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Today’s ABC’s: Anderson-Bachmann-Clark Debate”

  • Zabazoom says:

    Yup the voters of Minnesota, are a special interest group. What a moronic point you attempted to make.

  • Gary Gross says:

    You mean the public employees’ unions that negotiate pensions that non-unionized workers can only dream about? Yeah, that’s what I’d call a special interest group.

    Especially considering the fact that these public employee unions negotiate their contracts with people who agree with them.

Leave a Reply