Viewpoint: Current budget debate misses the point Minnesotans are making
04/19/2009
The following piece appeared in the Crookston Daily Times.
By now we are used to the grim economic news that fills our newspapers
and airwaves on a daily basis. What people are interested in is a plan
to move forward toward economic recovery. On this question, however,
two very different conversations are unfolding.
In Washington, the conversation is about how to get our national
economy moving again, how to create jobs, save homes, provide health
care, and help people get back on their feet. At the center of these
questions is the role of government. In tough times, what can
government do for people that people cannot otherwise do on their own?
In St. Paul, Governor Pawlenty has shaped the debate squarely on cuts,
cuts, and more cuts. He has focused on tax cuts for corporations as
well as deep cuts to essential public services that Minnesotans need
now more than ever due to job losses and home foreclosures. Cutting the
jobs of public employees who provide the vital services we all depend
on and who are themselves essential to our economic and social
well-being.
At his inauguration, President Obama said that the question we should
ask "is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether
it works." So why is the debate here in Minnesota about how best to
shrink government, as though small government were the solution to an
economic crisis of this depth?
The Minnesota State Constitution mandates that the state budget be
balanced by June 30. While this provision is bad public policy (nearly
all economists agree that measured deficit spending is prudent in tough
economic times), our budget will be balanced by either difficult
legislative compromise or gubernatorial fiat (also known as
unallotment). But a debate only about how to balance the books, with
the needs of one neighbor pitted against the other, misses the point
entirely. In this economic climate, Minnesotans expect more from state
leaders than "balancing the budget" and "ending on time."
People are concerned about how the economy impacts their own bottom
line - not just the state ledger. State leaders should be debating how
our budget will restore economic security, fairness and opportunity for
all Minnesota families. That means jobs, access to health care and the
ability for families to remain in their homes. That's really what
Minnesotans are asking for. And that's what we expect the Governor and
legislature to figure out through whatever mix of revenue increases and
program restructuring are necessary.
Our state history shows us how state leaders are instrumental for
economic recovery. In the early 1930s, our economic outlook was much
more dire than today. Governor Floyd B. Olson's response was to create
the state's progressive income tax structure, institute a minimum wage,
propose a statewide unemployment insurance system, and direct
significant state funds to public works programs. He used the resources
of the state to address the immediate crisis of its residents and put
in place a sustainable path for economic recovery.
Governor Olson did not achieve such transformational change on his own.
He was the state's first Farmer-Labor governor, and as such was
accountable to a base of people who created the political space for
bold change to happen.
Making government disappear isn't going to help our state. We are
economically and morally obligated to get people back on their feet and
to provide a sustainable path for economic recovery for future
generations. To that end, a different conversation is needed up at the
Capitol. I hope the governor and state leaders are ready to talk.
McGrath is the executive director of TakeAction Minnesota.


Recent Comments