Letter to the editor: Lillie mailer deceives
The first mailer of the 2012 election season came to our home from some business independent expenditure group, urging us to thank Senate Majority Whip Ted Lillie for his apparently valiant attempts to restore public school funding while Gov. Dayton thwarted his efforts: “Senator (Lillie) voted for the bill that would start paying our schools back. Unfortunately, the Governor opposed the payback and vetoed it.”
The first mailer of the 2012 election season came to our home from some business independent expenditure group, urging us to thank Senate Majority Whip Ted Lillie for his apparently valiant attempts to restore public school funding while Gov. Dayton thwarted his efforts:
“Senator (Lillie) voted for the bill that would start paying our schools back. Unfortunately, the Governor opposed the payback and vetoed it.”
The mailer gave “chapter and verse,” but as is so typical, left out almost the entire story: eight years of a Republican governor and two years of a Republican House and Senate have done severe damage, particularly to public schools.
In 2012, the Republicans, presumably “whipped” by Sen. Lillie and others, passed the electioneering bill for which they then could ask for “thanks,” while blaming a Democrat governor. Conveniently they forgot the rest of the story: that Gov. Dayton was interested in first beginning to restore state financial reserves, a necessary first step to state financial stability.
Succinctly, the vetoed bill was the script for a clever and dishonest campaign ad.
And Sen. Lillie didn’t even have to be responsible for the content of the message.
Public school finance is an extraordinarily complex business. I’ve heard it said that there are only a handful of Minnesotans who have a fairly clear grasp of all its nooks and crannies.
So, if someone wants to make political mischief, public education is a good target.
Succinctly, for Sen. Lillie and the 2011-12 Legislature and the four prior bienniums under Gov. Pawlenty, public education was easy and legal pickings. It was a bit like “borrowing” from a child’s piggy bank, promising to (maybe) repay the loans later.
And they could say they were against tax increases.
Caveat emptor.
Dick Bernard - Woodbury
Tags: letters to the editor, news, elections
More from around the web