I hate to defend the Guv after all the harm he's done to this state, but a recent Cato Institute attack on him is so indicative of the state of conservative politics, I had to share it. The Cato Institute derides him for being in favor of "big government." As far as I can tell, what they mean is that he has on occasion voted to improve our economy and quality of life.
In the post, they complain that Pawlenty:
* Supported health care for all children;
* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform;
* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising;
* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
* Increased the state’s minimum wage; and
* Imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country.
It boggles my mind that the Cato Institute could complain about these things. How can you be so obsessed with saving a buck that you oppose health care and education for children? Cato will seemingly not be happy with any politician that acts for the good of their state. And if Pawlenty has done too much good for their tastes, I'd hate to be represented by a governor they DO support!
(News of the Cato Institute posting courtesy of one of my favorite news sources, Rachel Stassen-Berger's Political Animal blog).
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
 Subscribe by RSS |
 Subscribe by Email |
0 comments:
Post a Comment