Gov Tim Pawlenty: Santorum “A Champion of Pork” + Santorum’s Falsehoods on MA Healthcare

Thus far in the campaign, Rick Santorum has been tickled to ham up being the one who is above the fray. Well, he wasn’t polling high, hasn’t truly been vetted, and up until his 34-vote win in Iowa, wasn’t getting a lot of attention. Interestingly, Santorum gets plenty bristly-haired during the debates (political pundits note that he comes across as mean), and closer inspection of his record could elicit some real squealing from him.

Yesterday, Governor Tim Pawlenty held an enlightening press conference call which highlighted Santorum’s propensity for pork-barrel spending. Here’s the entire call:

Highlights of the Rick Santorum’s Long History Of Pork-Barrel Spending call:

GOV. TIM PAWLENTY: What I wanted to focus this morning on the notion that Rick Santorum is presenting to caucus attendees in Minnesota and to conservatives beyond that Rick Santorum is really as conservative as those caucus attendees and he’s not. If you look at his record overall there’s a number of things that should be concerning about that record to conservatives. And I’ll just focus this morning on the spending and fiscal aspects of that. Rick Santorum has been a champion of earmarks, when he was both in the House and subsequently in the Senate. He reflected on his time in the House at one point by saying that he is no longer a fiscal hawk. And the reason he cited for no longer being a fiscal hawk is because he wanted to spend the surpluses which is not the philosophy or perspective of somebody that conservatives would look to as a strong, unabashed fiscal hawk. In fact he just admitted and disclaimed that he was no longer a fiscal hawk. And his votes and his behavior in the Congress reflected that drift away from fiscal discipline.

He proudly and enthusiastically embraced earmarking. Some of the more well-known examples of earmarking he supported was the so-called ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ which was one of the biggest earmark debacles in the modern history of the Congress. He supported things like a polar bear exhibit in Pittsburgh that was federally funding under one of these earmarks. He provided a Philadelphia developer an earmark for a project in the Philadelphia area, and there was a developer that he had some other contacts and associations with. He voted numerous times to raise the debt ceiling and here we as a nation facing fiscal crisis, I mean literally on the edge of the fiscal abyss.

We need a next president who’s been strong and proven in fiscal and spending matters, and we had Rick Santorum voting numerous times to raise the debt ceiling. So, he clearly has been part of the big spending establishment in Congress and in the influence peddling industry that surrounds Congress. He has been part of that. He has been a champion of earmarks, and to hold himself out now as somebody who is an unquestionable conservative in these matters, just is not supported by the facts. So we wanted to call that out this morning as part of his record, part of debate back and forth, and the contrast between these candidates, and Rick Santorum is clearly not as conservative on these matters as Minnesota caucus attendees or Republican or conservative activists and the people who are part of the conservative movement more broadly. So that’s the message we wanted to convey with you this morning, but we also wanted to give you a chance to ask questions or make comments about that topic or others that may be of interests to you, or obviously on the eve of the Minnesota caucuses, as well as other contests around the country tomorrow and the Romney campaign is in full gear as you know and there’s a lot of activity going on, so we’ll be delighted to take your questions on any topic related to those things.

Governor Pawlenty also released this statement yesterday:

“Rick Santorum is a nice guy, but he is simply not ready to be President. Plus, he wants Minnesota conservatives to believe he’s as conservative as they are, but he’s not. As a U.S. Senator, he was a leading earmarker and pork-barrel spender. He described himself as ‘very proud’ of the billions of dollars in pork-barrel projects he championed, and promised to defend the wasteful spending. Even in the face of crushing federal debt, Rick Santorum voted for the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ That type of leadership will not help us rein in government and slash the unprecedented federal debt.”

(emphasis added)

Voters need to know about Santorum’s piggy-pork record while serving on Capitol Hill. He loved toting home taxpayer bacon for his state.

By the way, I greatly appreciate Pawlenty’s press conference call and his continuing hard work for Governor Romney.

Disappointingly, Santorum has also been hog-jowled on the campaign trail giving false information about health care in Massachusetts. Click below the fold for a must-read summary from the Romney Press Office:

SANTORUM FALSEHOOD – Romney Instituted A “Top-Down, Government-Run Health Care System”:

FactCheck.org said Santorum’s claim that Romney instituted a “government-run health care system” was “not true.” “Santorum wrong on ‘government-run’ health care: Santorum called [Romney’s health care] law ‘a government-run health care system.’ That’s not true.” (“South Carolina Smackdown,” FactCheck.org, 1/20/12)

· FactCheck.org: “Santorum Wrong On ‘Government-Run’ Health Care” (“South Carolina Smackdown,” FactCheck.org, 1/20/12)

PolitiFact: “We rate Santorum’s claim mostly false.” “Santorum called Romney’s health law ‘a top-down, government-run health care system.’ … We rate Santorum’s claim Mostly False.” (Molly Moorhead, “Rick Santorum Calls Massachusetts Health Law Top-Down And Government-Run,” PolitiFact.com, 1/27/12)

· “There’s no case for calling it ‘Government-Run’ … That characterization is simply wrong.” (Molly Moorhead, “Rick Santorum Calls Massachusetts Health Law Top-Down And Government-Run,” PolitiFact.com, 1/27/12)

The Washington Post: “Santorum goes too far … It looks like a decidedly free-market plan.” “[Santorum] goes too far in calling it a ‘government-run health-care system.’ The vast majority of Bay State residents … still use some form of private insurance … Couple that with the fact that the program doesn’t include price controls, and it looks like a decidedly free-market plan.” (Josh Hicks, “Rick Santorum’s Debate Attacks Against Mitt Romney,” The Washington Post, 1/24/12)

SANTORUM FALSEHOOD – Romney’s Health Reforms Led To Sick People Missing Out On Care Because Of High Costs:

The Washington Post found “no proof” of Santorum’s claim that Romney’s health reforms exacerbated the problem of sick people missing out on care due to high costs. “Santorum suggested that Romney’s reform law exacerbated the problem of sick people missing out on care because of high costs. He’s only right to the extent that any amount of unmet need poses a problem. But the fact remains that Massachusetts has shown improvement in this area, at least according to the latest statistics we could find. We found no proof of the candidate’s one-in-four claim.” (Josh Hicks, “Rick Santorum’s Claims About Massachusetts Health Reforms,” The Washington Post, 1/30/12)

SANTORUM FALSEHOOD – Romney’s Health Care Reforms Dramatically Increased Insurance Premiums:

FactCheck.org found Santorum’s claims on Massachusetts’ premiums were not true. “Santorum wrong on premium costs: Santorum claimed Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the country, 27 percent more than average. Neither claim is true.” (“South Carolina Smackdown,” FactCheck.org, 1/20/12)

SANTORUM FALSEHOOD – Romney’s Plan Led To An Increase In Waiting Times:

FactCheck.org: Santorum “Gave A Misleading View Of The Law’s Impact On Waiting Times To See Doctors.” “Santorum also gave a misleading view of the law’s impact on waiting times to see doctors … Those numbers come from reports by the Massachusetts Medical Society, which said in 2009 that the average wait time in the state for both family medicine and internal medicine was 44 days. But the group has been lamenting long wait times and doctor shortages for many years, since before the law was enacted … The medical society said that ‘primary care shortages continue in Massachusetts, but they predate health reform by many years, and mirror shortages in many other areas of the country.’ … It’s hard to draw firm conclusions on the law’s impact.” (“South Carolina Smackdown,” FactCheck.org, 1/20/12)

SANTORUM FALSEHOOD– Romney Advocated The Massachusetts Plan For The Entire Country:

Santorum has repeated the discredited claim that Romney wanted the Massachusetts plan for the entire country. “In a Republican presidential debate on Oct. 11, 2011, Texas Gov. Rick Perry attacked Romney saying that in his book No Apology, Romney called the Massachusetts health care reform he enacted a model for the nation and said that he deleted the passage from the paperback version. During an Oct. 18 debate in Las Vegas, it was Rick Santorum on the attack. ‘It was in your book that it should be for everybody,’ the former Pennsylvania senator told Romney. ‘You took it out of your book,’ he added.” (Molly Moorhead, “Rick Santorum Has It Wrong On Mitt Romney’s Book,” PolitiFact.com, 10/18/11)

PolitiFact: “That’s An Exaggeration … Mostly False.” “[Romney] was in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice – not a pitch for a mandatory national approach. We rated Perry’s comment Mostly False. Now Santorum has said, ‘It was in your book that it should be for everybody,’ and added that Romney took the assertion out in a later edition. That’s an exaggeration. We rate his statement Mostly False.” (Molly Moorhead, “Rick Santorum Has It Wrong On Mitt Romney’s Book,” PolitiFact.com, 10/18/11)

America needs to know Santorum is glossing over his pork-barrel spending history and is speaking falsely about MA healthcare. He’s vowed to keep chipping away on the trail, using free media whenever possible, and hoping to pick up support if when Newt Gingrich falls. Newt and Santorum are beginning to annoy each other; as long as they both are in the race, so be it, but the sooner both decide to call it a day, the better. (This month will be defining).

Because Santorum glibly glosses over his earmarking record and isn’t telling the truth about MA health care, it’s time to open the barnyard gate on him… otherwise, voters are looking at a pig in a poke.

► Jayde Wyatt