Viewpoint: Current budget debate misses the point Minnesotans are making

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.

Comments

[Nathan]

How come so many of these debates never address the underlying causes of the problem?

As I see it, most of society's ills come directly from private control of community resources: primarily Land and Money. Because we have put land into the hands of private citizens, people purchase it and sit on it or use it for lesser purposes until they receive the price they want to either sell or rent it. Without access to natural resources, people who do not own (free and clear) enough land cannot revert to subsistence farming in order to feed themselves during harsh economic times.

Money is even worse - any society with a high degree of specialization (like our own) requires money to allow trade. However, when economic conditions make it prudent for individuals, companies, and banks to hoard money - they do. But this makes the problem worse. The reverse is also true, during times of inflation, it is prudent for private interests to spend money - which they do, making the inflation worse.

Though privitized land and money creation both contribute to our problems, all other forms of power concentration in private hands is equally harmful. Large corporations, large unions, large unresponsive governments all concentrate power, money, and real wealth in the hands of a few who hoard it at the expense of society.

For both land and money, private interests are in opposition to society's interests. Until our property laws, monotary policies, and other regulations make what is best for the individual match what is best for society no amount of "cost cutting", "tax relief", "minimum wage", or "balanced budget" will improve society.

Any real solution requires that all communal resources be restored to the community. Although I do not recommend communism, we need a clear line between communal resources and private property.

For land, this means no private ownership of raw land. Everyone should lease land from the community. Even homeowners should lease the land on which their home sits from the community.

For money, fractional reserve banking must be abolished and the power of money creation returned to the community. For most people reading our nation's constituation, Congress should be creating and controlling our nation's money supply. At the moment, they've outsourced this to the Federal Reserve and now borrow all federal money from either the Federal Reserve or from anyone who purchases government bonds, including foreign governments.

For businesses, unions, and all other overly large organizations - the bigger they are, the more they should be regulated and taxed. We should never allow any business to gain more than 5% market share in any developed market. If they are natural monopolies, like railways, telephone companies, and most power companies they should be returned to the communities they serve as publicly operated utilities. Labor unions should be no larger than the business in which their employees are employeed. In other words, one large plumbers union covering an entire city would have unfair advantage over three hundred small plumbing companies who are not allowed to form a citywide cartel or trust. Thus even labor unions should be restricted in size.