Judging by Sunday’s performance on “Meet the Press,” Gov. Tim Pawlenty would swing his budget ax just as recklessly in Washington, D.C., as he has in Minnesota.

Under his watch, the state, once considered a leader in health care, education and quality of life has slipped steadily and now trails a good share of the country. Pawlenty promises more of the same for the entire nation if he ends up in the White House. Exhibit A are his remarks favoring radical changes in Social Security and Medicare. Pawlenty indicated that he would preserve benefits for those nearing retirement, but would dramatically alter the programs in the future. What this means is anyone’s guess, since the governor was short on specifics. But it could be everything from the elimination of the programs to reduced benefits or longer waits to begin receiving them.

The argument for change is that existing programs are, in Pawlenty’s terms, essentially bankrupt and the country can no longer fund these liabilities. But neither Social Security nor Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, and Pawlenty knows it. Social Security is projected to bring in enough revenue to pay all promised benefits for decades (although it is on a path to a negative cash-flow thanks to raids on its funds to pay for other things, including the war in Iraq). Medicare is drawing on its trust fund reserves.

Meanwhile, Medicaid, which relies on general federal revenues and is partially paid by the states, is no more bankrupt than any other federal program. Pawlenty wouldn’t call the Defense Department bankrupt although it brings in no revenue and the government that pays for it is in deficit.

Pawlenty’s critique of Social Security isn’t just out of whack, it’s out of touch with a majority of Americans. A recent national poll asked people to choose between cutting taxes and government spending or strengthening Social Security. Of those responding, 66 percent (or two in three Americans) supported strengthening Social Security over cutting its benefits to address the national deficit and current economic crisis. And they’re willing to pay for stronger benefits. The same poll showed that nearly three in four Americans (71 percent) preferred raising taxes to reducing benefits.

Reducing benefits for future retirees is simply unjust, since workers today pay a much higher percentage of their paychecks to Social Security than those currently collecting benefits. At present about 15.3 percent of payroll earnings goes to Social Security compared to half that as recently as the 1980s. After paying more than any previous generation, Pawlenty now wants current workers to shoulder the biggest cut in benefits of any generation? How fair.

Perhaps what is most galling about Pawlenty’s approach is that he targets programs that affect the most vulnerable people in society while leaving other options off the table. He talks about cutting taxes and getting government out of the way to stimulate job growth, but ignores the Wall Street players, who took advantage of lax federal oversight and tax breaks to enrich themselves and nearly destroy our economy.

By the same token, Pawlenty never includes the country’s bloated defense budget in his spending cuts. The military, along with veterans and public safety, are his key exceptions to reducing discretionary spending. Someone needs to inform the governor that, minus his key exceptions, all discretionary spending amounts to $400 billion a year. Even if you eliminated every cent for these programs, it would hardly dent a deficit topping $1.4 trillion.

Like a number of Republicans these days, Pawlenty just bashes the current administration without offering any substantive solutions of his own for dealing with the nation’s economic woes. When a house needs repairs, you reach for a tool box not a book of matches to burn it down. Putting Pawlenty in the White House would be similarly irresponsible.