Election framing already happening with Dayton, GOP

One of the last acts of the 2012 Legislature will likely be one of the first themes bandied about in the 2012 elections between DFLers and Gov. Mark Dayton and the Minnesota GOP that controls the Legislature.

Dayton vetoed the GOP business and property tax relief bill in a move that many Republicans called everything from outrageous to underhanded. They claimed they met Dayton "half way" on his spending limits for the bill and he still vetoed it.

They claimed there was an understanding that if GOP helped passed the Vikings stadium bill, Dayton would help them with one of their main priorities in business tax relief.

Dayton vetoed the bill saying they should have known better and that he made clear he was not going to sign any bill that increased the state deficit.

It's always hard to decipher who is more truthful in these deals because it often relies on what someone meant when they said such and such.

But, from a strictly political perspective, Dayton would seem to have the upper hand in the narrative. I'm not saying he's right. In fact, the tax bill he vetoed didn't sound very far off from a bill a Democrat Rudy Perpich - one of Dayton's mentors - would have signed a few years ago. And there certainly were provisions in there that would help many small businesses in outstate Minnesota.

But this is where the narrative comes into play. Most typical voters don't really want to invest a lot of time in understanding detailed nuances of legislation. Who can blame them? It's time consuming and well, sometimes, mind-boggling.

So for those folks who just vote based on more simple explanations of things, here's how it will play out.

Dayton: "I vetoed that bill because it increased the deficit." Done, end of story.

Republicans: "Dayton is a job-killing governor for vetoing our tax bill that would have given business property tax relief."

Most people can see with clarity that the bill would have increased the deficit. The Republicans are not denying that.

But it's more complicated to know if a bill would have created jobs or not. Besides, most folks see that jobs are on the rise, so what's the big deal if a few more are "not created."

I'm no political pundit or prognosticator, I just know from 25 years in the newspaper business, how people read things and how they hear and understand things.

Bottom line: My view is that Dayton has an easier sell through a less complicated message. It doesn't make it right. But if one thinks about it, he has framed himself as the "fiscal conservative" and put Republicans in the bad spot of proving him wrong.

When have Republicans ever put on the defensive to claim a Democrat's fiscal conservatism is not right? Not often. And, again, it's going to be tough to prove. The bill would've increased the deficit. No one on the other side is denying that.

Again, I would not be qualified to be hired as an advisor to the Republican Party, but I would have figured out a way to cut spending to pay for the business tax cut. Then, at least, they can say, they weren't going to increase the deficit.