King Banaian at SCSU Scholars links to a post at NRO in which Gov. Tim Pawlenty responds to the charge that governors like him who opposed the stimulus bill are hypocrites for taking stimulus money now that the bill has passed.
“I have a number of responses to that argument,” Pawlenty said. “Minnesota ranks forty-sixth in terms of getting federal spending in relation to the amount of taxes paid — for every dollar we sent in to Washington, we get about 72 cents back. We’re a major payer of the federal government’s tabs, unlike many other states that I won’t mention. I say, when you’re paying to buy the pizza, it’s okay to have a slice. Now, if you were a liberal Democratic governor and you opposed military spending, are you not going to take National Guard funding? If you were a liberal who opposed No Child Left Behind, are you going to take federal funding in education? So I’m wondering why that standard is only being applied now to conservatives.”
King interprets: Others are taking money so why shouldn’t I; since I have to pay anyway, I might as well get my stuff. (Sounds like the argument for spending on the Twins.) “We wouldn’t accept this logic from our children.”
I couldn’t agree more. A man of principle relishes being held to a higher standard. Regrettably, however, fuzzy principled conservatism is not unique to the governor.
Recently Mitch Pearlstein of the Center of the American Experiment sent around an email posing a question to Minnesota conservatives.
Politicians, commentators, and others are talking increasingly about the need for citizens to “sacrifice.” It’s hard to imagine any sensible person disagreeing with the call in the abstract. But the question at hand is not the least bit abstract: Specifically, what government services currently and directly benefiting you and your family – be those services local, state, or federal – would you be willing to see curtailed or even ended entirely?
The 18 submissions focused on government programs that would not directly affect the submitter. Mitch respectfully, but bluntly noted –
Although to be quite blunt and without intending to offend anyone in any way, the amount of pain implicit in most of these proposed sacrifices seem to be more pinching than wringing.
Bluntly put again, this likely is a product of the fact that the kinds of middle-class and more affluent people who participate in exercises like this (unless they’re on Medicare) generally don’t rely terribly much on the kinds of governmental health care and other social welfare programs slated to be scaled back in coming months.
Sorry, Mitch, but perhaps conservatives need to be offended.
Juxtapose the governor’s statement and the submissions to the American Experiment question, and we seem to have a conservatism that is both willing to have others pay for a better Minnesota and willing to have others sacrifice for a better Minnesota. That heads-I-win-tails-you-lose position is not what I would call a win-win proposition for Minnesotans that inspires confidence in conservative principles.
For the record, my 200-word response to Mitch’s question.
At risk of missing out on the prize, I must sensibly disagree with the call for “sacrifice” in the abstract. “Sacrifice” is accepting a lesser value in place of a higher value. The phrase “sacrificing for one’s principles” is a nonsensical contradiction. The way out of the current economic situation is not further sacrifice, but less. A more revealing question than “What government services would you be willing to see curtailed?” is: “What government services have you, or will you, unilaterally give up?” As no individual virtue is found in imposed government largess for the benefit of others, there is no virtue in waiting to accept curtailment of government largess to one’s individual benefit. Perhaps the answer to your question is as simple as “just say no.”
