The trouble with reading conservative blogs is you can get caught up in wanting to correct the spin, the errors and the outright prevarications — many of which are indistinguishable to the casual reader.
Here is a classic example, in service of an argument against a proposed tax increase. Note the simple declarative authority of the statement:
When Gov. Pawlenty was first elected, he inherited a $4.5 billion deficit, which was the result of runaway spending increases.
Now look at this chart, which shows state and local government spending as a percent of Minnesotans' personal income.
Click, if you need to, to see the dramatic drop in revenue from 1998-99, before Pawlenty took office. As you may remember, the state was running a budget surplus at the time of predecessor Jesse Ventura's election. Ventura, the last comedian to beat Norm Coleman, believed the money should go back to the taxpayers.
I suppose "runaway spending increases" is one way to describe what caused the deficit. Another explanation might be "normal spending increases following expedient tax cuts," but that doesn't flow as well.
You can look at the state spending history dating back to 1960 and judge for yourself. Most people won't, of course, so the distortions stand — and gain credence through both mindless and mindful repetition.