MPR’s Polinaut reveals that gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert has signed the Taxpayers’ League “no new tax” pledge.  So eager is Rep. Seifert to tout his anti-tax credentials and toady to the Taxpayers’ League that he has signed the same pledge twice within the span of about a month.

Now might be a good time to review the track record of the last eight years of “no new tax” leadership, as documented in a recent Minnesota 2020 report and other sources.  Since 2002:

• Minnesota employment growth has lagged well behind the national average.
• The number of road miles in poor and mediocre condition has more than doubled.  Minnesota’s rank among the 50 states in road condition has fallen from 8^th to 27^th.
• Real median household income in Minnesota has declined, while national median household income has increased.
• Growth in average annual pay has been two percent below the national average.
• Class sizes have increased.  Minnesota’s ranking on pupil-teacher ratios in public schools has fallen from 25^th to 37^th.
• Real per capita state and local spending on education has fallen by 5.3%, compared to a 1.0% decline nationally.
• Minnesota has fallen below the national average in public elementary and secondary school current spending per pupil.
• Growth in Minnesota Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is lagging behind the national growth rate.

The true believers among the “no new tax” crowd will argue that Minnesota’s performance has lagged behind other states only because we have not cut taxes enough.  Don’t be fooled.  Since 2002, Minnesota has cut taxes, charges, and other own-source revenue more than any other state in the nation.  In fact, from FY 2002-03 to FY 2012-13, real per capita state general fund spending is expected to decline by nearly 10 percent after adjusting for shifts and takeovers.  According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, total taxes in Minnesota are “just about average” relative to other states.

With few exceptions, the anti-tax crowd has had their way since 2002.  To the victors goes the accountability.  The anti-taxers rightfully own Minnesota’s disappointing economic performance over the last eight years.

And this is not all they own.  Anti-tax policies have contributed huge state budget deficits, accounting gimmicks that shift costs on to future taxpayers, and spiraling property taxes.

The goal of the state’s chief policymaker should not be to avoid revenue increases at all costs.  That’s the approach we’ve been trying for the last eight years and it’s not working out very well.  Rather, the goal should be to deal with the state’s budget deficit in a way that is least damaging to the state’s economy in the short-term and most conducive to sustained prosperity in the long-term.  In pursuing this goal, all options—including spending reform and prioritization and revenue increases—should be on the table.

10 people like this post.

Unlike

St Paul Pioneer Press reporter Bill Salisbury, in his “Cut, Cut, Cut,” article today, affirms what most of us have known for quite some time: conservative gubernatorial aspirants insist Minnesota should only budget cut its way out of the state deficit.

That approach, implemented last summer by Governor Pawlenty, isn’t working. Minnesota revenue is stagnating because the economy is stagnating. Conservative public policy leaders and advocates, without exception, insist Minnesota only has a spending problem rather than a revenue problem. Profligate, out-of-control government is solely to blame. Reducing government, they insist, will solve all problems.

Perhaps, I’ve been too harsh, too dismissive of this policy argument. For the sake of experimentation, let’s pursue the conservative suggestion. Let’s immediately curtail all state monies flowing to the districts and/or home communities of State Representatives Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert; former State Representative Bill Hass; former State Senator David Hann; former State Auditor Pat Anderson; and businessman Phil Herwig.

This means no more state highway or public safety funds, no education money, no more MNDOT service center hours, no more state health inspectors, and no Met Council utility and infrastructure expansion projects. We’ll have to close Southwest Minnesota State University, of course, because it’s in Marshall, Rep. Seifert’s home town. Milaca, Mr. Herwig’s home town, wouldn’t be able to have the nursing home without state financial assistance. I can’t imagine that Eagan’s Thompson-Reuters, BCBS of Minnesota, Coca-Cola Bottling and UPS hub will function without state transportation infrastructure but perhaps Ms. Anderson will successfully explain to Eagan residents that a government-free greater good is worth embracing.

I suspect that true government-free zones will look like the financial equivalent of grossly contaminated Superfund clean-up sites, incapable of supporting life. This conservative anti-government attacks seems untenable, with residents losing far more than they gain. Unless, of course, conservatives really want other constituencies to bear budget cuts while they and their supporters continue to enjoy Minnesota’s rich opportunities and investments.

I believe that Minnesota’s rewards should flow to every Minnesotan. We contribute differently but we contribute. I’m reluctant to harm hard-working Minnesotans because of the blind ideological precepts of a few gubernatorial contenders but, maybe, we should let their home communities test the painful waters first.

I await Seifert, Emmer, Hass, Hann, Anderson and Herwig’s enthusiastic, voluntary response.

Like

Unlike

Just when you thought that the school voucher debate was dead, dead with a wooden stake piercing its heart, it shows sign of life.

Former State Auditor Pat Anderson, president of a very conservative, tax-exempt advocacy group, the Minnesota Free Market Institute, and a Republican candidate for governor, recently attacked fellow conservative and Republican gubernatorial candidate State Representative Marty Seifert for not aggressively supporting school vouchers as Minnesota educational policy.

School vouchers are a publicly-funded private school tuition subsidy mechanism. Private school students could use some or all of a government issued funding certificate with an assigned value to pay private school expenses. Some voucher schemes subtract a particular student’s voucher costs from the student’s resident school district while others would expand the state budget, creating a separate voucher fund.

Framed as a “school choice” educational policy proposal, voucher proposals are supported by conservative policy advocates intent on undermining and defunding public schools. Following a contentious legislative fight in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a voucher-less policy compromise created Minnesota’s charter school enabling legislation.

For the most part, the charter school option, along with considerable negative public reaction to vouchers, effectively reduced the Minnesota school voucher policy debate to a low, wet smolder.

I thought it pretty much gone away altogether until Anderson attacked Seifert. Seifert suggested that voucher schemes wouldn’t pass a constitutional test and that conservatives should focus on other school “choice” issues. Anderson, responding, went for the jugular.

“”Marty is simply wrong on the constitutional law in play on vouchers, and I can’t let his error stand to give aid and comfort to the opponents of meaningful parental school choice,” said Anderson.

Apparently conservatives haven’t abandoned the school voucher strategy for attacking Minnesota’s strong public education tradition. Anderson’s comments reinforce the general strident, divisive conservative public policy prescriptions that have done great harm to Minnesota. I expect that we’ll be seeing and hearing a lot more of school vouchers along with the pantheon of discredited conservative public policy proposals over the next year.

Buckle up, Minnesota. It’s going to be bumpy ride.

Like

Unlike