Feb 19 "Gentlemen, You Don't Have Enough Talent To Win On Talent Alone" - Seifert Blows Major Vote

One of the things for me that has endeared Rep. Tom Emmer to me over the years is that he is not wishy washy. He doesn't play the odds and do what is politically expedient. He doesn't calculate the political windfall of his actions and votes, he uses core principles to do what is actually right. What makes him the perfect choice for Minnesota's Governor is that at this most dire of economic time, he is still willing to make the tough votes that in the long run will make Minnesota a better and freer place to live.

On the other hand is his competitor, Rep. Marty Seifert. Over the years as Minority Leader of the House Republicans I saw a man who seemed more adept at avoiding media scrutiny then I did a man seeking to reform Government and restore freedom. At times he seemed like a man either following orders or playing the odds, not a reformer. As a Republican in the Legislature, Seifert has been on the right side of the votes more then he hasn't, but on some key votes that expose the foundation of what makes a conservative tick, he did disappoint.

 

The shining example from yesterday was the vote on the GAMC "fix" that flew through both Houses and to the Governor's hands. Seifert voted for the spending bill. Emmer voted against.

Earlier in the day, both Democratic-led chambers overwhelmingly approved the plan to continue a pared-back version of the General Assistance Medical Care program through June 2011 at a cost of $284 million. The vote was 125-9 in the House and 47-16 in the Senate, showing bipartisan support. (Source: PiPress)

Bi-partisan? Sure, both Democrats and most Republicans voted for the spending bill, but the key wasn't whether it had 'consensus', but rather was it sound fiscal policy or the proper way to handle Government spending and operations. Also worth noting is that the Legislature tried to pull a fast one on Pawlenty who is in Washington for the weekend. They tried to sneak this bill to his desk for 72 hours before he could return to apply his veto stamp.

Luckily for budget conscious Minnesotans, Pawlenty understands the laws of Minnesota pretty dang well, and he surprised most by properly vetoing the bill from Washington DC. The point of his veto was not because he doesn't think the less fortunate shouldn't receive medical care, but because the state government needs to figure out not only how to improve the system but how to pay for it since we already have a $1.2 Billion deficit. He did so because he believed the "fix" was fiscally irresponsible and just slapping a bandaid on an already inefficient program.

And that's where Marty Seifert blew it big time. Tom Emmer voted against the bill along with 8 other fiscally responsible Republicans. Marty Seifert, a guy seeking to be the guy in Pawlenty's position, voted for a bill that even the cheerleaders at the Republican Party said was an "irresponsible spending bill" despite 38 Republicans voting for it. Folks, this is a huge deal. It is almost like Seifert is tone deaf to the will of the people at tea parties and plain old sick of government doing nothing more the growing and spending more and more. Or maybe he has become so accustomed to the status quo of life in Minnesota Government that he has lost sight of the big picture. Where getting something done is better then doing what is right.

Imagine if we had a Governor Seifert right now who was on the receiving end of the irresponsible spending bill, would he veto it or would he have signed it and created another $284 million in deficit spending the Legislature has to turn right around to deal with on top of the $1.2 Billion already waiting for their attention.

I saw Emmer speak this last Sunday at my business to activists and delegates from the north central inner suburbs, and one of the things that stuck out to me was a line about what he thinks really tells you about politicians. It was a point about when the fire is burning the hottest on policies and decisions, the true test is do you stand your ground based on your principles or do you turn and run.

Yesterday's vote on GAMC was one of those instances. Do you take the easy way out and just vote for the dang thing and avoid negative headlines of "voting against the children etc", or do you hold true to your principles? Do you mean what you say and say what you mean?

Emmer passed his own test. Yesterday was a day that made me proud to be a Tom Emmer supporter and relieved we have someone running for Governor with the wisdom and fortitude to tell the Legislature to take it back and try it again, but do it better this time.

Huh, that almost sounded like something a hockey coach would say to his players who were not giving it their all in a game.

Who do you want on the bench next season of the Legislature? A coach or a guy who knows what it is like to be tired after a game?

Crossposted at Residual Forces