Over a Candle

Yesterday, Tim Pawlenty was the guest on The Daily Show. John Stewart asked him about his fiscal views, and Pawlenty replied that he thought government should worker smarter, not just throw more money at the problem. Stewart agreed, and then Pawlenty went on to give an example.

His example? Education. Specifically, higher education. He claimed that, in 20 years, no student will want to drive thirty minutes to a campus and “sit and listen to some boring person drone on about Econ 101 or Spanish 101.” Rather, we will want a new model for education, and new model for paying for it. He asks, on behalf of students, “instead of paying thousands of dollars, can I pay $199 for iCollege…?”

There is a lot to unpack in Pawlenty’s remarks, and I’m not sure I can do it all here. But I’ll touch on some of the important issues. The first is that Tim Pawlenty has no education background, as far as I know. He doesn’t know how to teach. He has no expertise in educational theory. He is, in short, a politician talking out of his ass. When people complain that government needs to get out of the way and let others more capable run things, this is one of those areas I tend to agree. Pawlenty is usually one of those people, but not when it comes to education.

Pawlenty’s disdain for education and educators is obvious when he describes professors as “boring people who drone on” about their subjects. I grant you that professors who drone on are boring. But the good professors, many of the ones I work with, don’t drone on, and their students don’t describe them as boring. I would want to know from the governor how recording a video of a boring person drone on and selling it on iTunes (as he seems to suggest doing) would improve the educational experience? Even boring lectures can be made more engaging by the prospect of interaction. But when they are prepackaged affairs, even engaging lectures can be boring.

Why do I mention prepackaged lectures? Because I don’t know how the governor plans on getting the cost of education down to $199 without resorting to prepackaged classes. Is the cost of education too high? Yes. Why is it so high in Minnesota? In part because of Pawlenty’s fiscal mismanagement. And in part, because Pawlenty has supported the centralization of the bureaucracy which takes a hefty chunk of the budget meant to go to the educational system. Instead of reducing administrative overhead, Pawlenty has encouraged its growth. How could he now hope to reduce the cost of education down to $199 (is that per course or per degree?)? Well, the only way that occurs to me is to develop a standard course that is delivered online and sold throughout the state.

Is there any evidence this is a good way to educate? No. Rather, it meets Pawlenty’s goal of giving the consumer what he or she wants. He has no regard for education.

I have no doubt some people (who never took a course in reasoning) will attempt an ad hominem refutation at this point. Of course if the iCollege becomes a reality, I am likely to be out of a job. That is a simplistic way to dismiss my objections, and I have no doubt it’s all some will notice. But it is a fallacy, and that more people don’t know it is part of the problem.

(Incidentally, some people objected to the Iraq war on the grounds that Bush and his cronies would benefit from the oil. That is an ad hominem of the same sort, and I criticized it at the time. I didn’t like the war, but that’s a bad argument against it. In the same vein, you might support Pawlenty’s position, but attacking my position on this ground would be a similarly bad argument. Find another one.)

Even were I to leave education behind, I would oppose Pawlenty’s proposal. And anyone who is concerned that the next generation of Americans be competitive in the world should likewise be concerned.

If you want to see the whole interview (at least the portion that was broadcast – there were other segments posted on the website that they didn’t have time to air)… The education comments start at about 5:00 minute mark.

A little background: Last year, Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, signed all the spending bills passed by the state legislature. Then he vetoed the revenue measure because it raised taxes. To balance the state budget, which was now out of whack because he signed all the spending bills, Pawlenty engaged in unallotment, a process by which he could cut spending to balance the budget.

The problem is that the governor was sued for abusing his unallotment power. The state Supreme Court ruled against the governor recently. And now the state is in a bigger budget hole than we were already.

So now the Democrats passed a bill to balance the budget. How did they do it? Well, most of the bill reinstated the governor’s cuts from his unallotment. About 85% of the bill is stuff that Governor Pawlenty has already agreed to. Indeed, they were his ideas.

Why did he veto the bill? Well, the bill created a new tax bracket for the wealthiest Minnesotans. Governor Pawlenty has signed a no new taxes pledge and thus vetoed the bill. (Of course, he raised cigarette taxes years ago – under the guise of a “fee”. In short, he doesn’t mind raising regressive taxes, but balks at a more progressive tax.) So even though the legislature would more than meet the governor halfway in solving this crisis, he could not bend that last 15%.

I mention all of this to you because it is widely expected that Pawlenty will be a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. This is how he has operated as governor. The word “compromise” does not exist in his vocabulary. It is his way or no way.

The state of Minnesota is now in a 3 billion dollar hole thanks to the governor’s veto. And if they can’t fix it in the next five days (before the legislature adjourns), it could be left for the next governor to deal with.

So in two years, please remember Mr. No-Compromise, Pass-the Buck Pawlenty. He could be our next president. You’re welcome.