Missouri's Republican Governor Matt Blunt announced today that he would not run for a second term. Along with an appropriate level of rejoicing, a few are asking why.
He says he met all his goals, and wants to "spend more time with family." It just doesn't ring true. After a bit of history I will provide a scary hypothesis about his real intentions.
Matt Blunt is the son of US Rep Roy Blunt (R-MO), known for close ties to Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. The elder Blunt is also known for his penchant for plastic surgery.
His son Matt, an extremely young governor, won handily in 2004 against a lackluster democratic incumbent. Among his first official acts was to balance the state budget by eliminating access to Medicaid health care for nearly 100,000 poor people.
Blunt has spent the rest of his term trying to overcome the resulting dismal poll numbers. This despite the majority rural, fundie, ultraconservative nature of the state. "He Balanced the Budget on the Backs of the Poor" became the mantra in a surprising number of places.
There have been ethical lapses too. Covering for sexual harassment in high places, deleting official e-mails (sound familiar?) and selling state bureaus to campaign contributors under the banner of "privatization" seemed par for the neocon course.
But, like the Planet of the Apes, Missouri's electorate shows that evolution can work in reverse. Despite Blunt's callous conservatism, widely reviled, his election poll numbers have been competitive, and his donors from HMO's, alcohol, tobacco, gambling and pharmaceuticals have been quite generous. With the help of a little smear and fear I think he could have won a second term.
So why quit now? Some have predicted that new details from one of Governor Blunt's old scandals are about to emerge, or that some new scandal is about to hit. His decision not to run effectively takes the sting out of either since he is now a self-made lame duck. I don't buy it.
With the help of solid conservative majorities in both houses, a spate of tax cuts to "spur economic growth" have been approved in recent years. Last year, for example, a social security tax cut was heavily marketed to poor, rural seniors. Although wealthy seniors were the only beneficiaries, it served as a rallying point for the conservative base.
Now, the cumulative, effects of tax cuts are being phased in, like a looming Missouri thunderstorm. Missouri doesn't spend much. It is ranked near the bottom on almost any comparison with other states (health, child care, education, etc.). But, it takes in even less. I have seen optimistic estimates that place the state a half-billion dollars in the red in just 2 short years. This is the impact of voodoo economics.
Even in Missouri, I think most Neocons understand that 2+2 can't equal 5. Only significant economic growth can save us now... But wait! the news from wall street is grim. On the same day that markets are tanking Blunt makes his announcement he won't run again. I think the timing is more than coincidental. Blunt is bailing out so that Jerimiah (Jay) Nixon, the presumptive future democratic governor, will inheret the inevitable budget time bomb. Blunt thinks it will destroy Nixon's career. You can already see the political ads..."I left the state with balanced budget and look what the Nixon and democrats did, it's a huge deficit..." It's too perfect.
Blunt will jump ship unscathed, to fight another day. He keeps his (bogus) claims of success in balancing the budget, saying he accomplished his goals, saved the state, and he keeps his war chest. Sure, in the short-term he will enrich himself as a lobbyist or consultant, but where will he emerge? My guess is that he is eyeing a US senate seat. He will sit out the democratic-dominated 2008 election and ramp up attacks against freshman Senator McCaskill. Hope I'm wrong.