Skip to Content
Community Voices

Legislative session was no victory for DFLers; Minnesota must downsize and economize

By Luke Hellier | 05/28/10

Democrats have been trying to spin the last legislative session as a victory for their caucus. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Gov. Tim Pawlenty released his budget in February and waited for a response from House and Senate Democrats.
 
The Democrats, led by Margaret Anderson Kelliher, failed to lead and were unable to find a solution for economic recovery in Minnesota. They delivered nothing until the last week of session when the DFL-controlled Legislature passed a $435 million tax increase on small-business owners and job creators.

Democrats continue to think the state needs new revenue, which to liberals means higher taxes. Their plan was to increase taxes on joint filers who make more than $200,000 a year.  Fifty-eight percent of those who would have been impacted are small-business owners, which are the biggest source of job creation in Minnesota. 
 
Compromise in last moments
Pawlenty courageously vetoed the job-killing tax increase. Because of the governor's strong leadership, the legislature reached a compromise in the last moments of session. The compromises eliminated the DFL tax-increase and left open the possibility of enrolling in Obamacare between now and the 2014 deadline.

 
Now, after months of gridlock, Kelliher is trying to spin the session as a DFL victory in order to preserve her campaign. She claims, "We secured $1.4 billion in federal funding to keep our hospitals strong – money from Minnesota taxpayers that would otherwise have gone to other states."  But opting into Obamacare, as state Democrats are proposing, would stop Minnesota's economic recovery dead in its tracks. Enrolling thousands of Minnesotans into federal health-care systems at extremely high costs will cripple any effort at recovery.
 
The 2010 election will be a referendum on Obamacare.

More important, the upcoming election is about structural deficits in our government. Minnesota spends $200 million dollars more a month than our state is bringing in. 

We must downsize and economize government
It's time to peel back the onion of health-and-human-services spending and identify which programs are the best uses of Minnesota's money. This election must be about how we can work to downsize and economize our government. I think the candidate who can lead on those issues is Tom Emmer.
 
Tom Emmer says, "We should have taken this opportunity to redesign our government to provide expected services in a sustainable and sensible manner and we should have taken this opportunity to eliminate redundancies and excess in government. Instead, we have yet again postponed the day of reckoning and kicked the can down the road to the next governor and the next legislature."
 
Local and national pundits may think the election is about the past, but it's about government actually being functional and responsible.

It's time for Minnesota to put together a 21st century strategy for making government more efficient and competitive. Both Independence Party candidate Tom Horner and DFL candidates have one thing on their mind for our state's strategy: tax increases.
 
Luke Hellier is the writer for MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com and tweets at www.twitter.com/lukehellier

Related Tags:

Comments (8)

Submitted by John Olson on May 28, 2010 - 7:46am.

Yawn. Same old talking points.

Dear MinnPost: If I want to read Luke, I'll go to MDE. I'm 150 percent certain he would not extend any of your writers the same courtesy if you asked to post something on his site.

Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on May 28, 2010 - 8:46am.

The only failure to "lead" in this session was Governor Pawlenty's failure to lead himself out of his own self-imposed exile in the wilderness of "no new taxes."

Since King Timmy insisted on maintaining his lonely position out there in that alternate reality, seeking after his own version of the Holy Grail (nomination by the national Republican Party as presidential candidate in 2012), and refused to turn aside from that goal even though his pursuit of it was destroying his own state, there was no alternative for Democrats but to pass what was needed and would have worked knowing that vetoes would be phoned in by the King from "somewhere, out there."

Last minute compromise was the only possibility left to the DFL in their attempt to limit the damage King Timmy insisted on continuing to inflict on the rest of us.

As to featuring a politically, economically, and mathematically fact-challenged hack like Mr. Hellier in the "Community Voices" column of MinnPost, can we please return to people with intelligent, interesting points of view and let those such as Mr. Hellier spin their stinking B.S. talking points in other places and on their own nickel? Thanks!

Submitted by myles spicer on May 28, 2010 - 8:58am.

I guess I am really fed up with these wingnuts demanding smaller government. Pawlenty has already decimated most programs in the state; and folks like Hellier offer little specificity in what else they would cut.

In a fine op-ed in today's Strib, Mayor Coleman points out that the "limited government people (like Hellier, Pawlenty and Louisiana Governor Jindahl demand smaller government ---UNTIL they need government to get them out of a crisis. Then they demand MORE government, and want it fast!

Submitted by David Mindeman on May 28, 2010 - 10:10am.

Can't even begin to post one small comment about such an incredible amount of distortion... read mnpact for counter-argument: http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2320

Submitted by James Hamilton on May 28, 2010 - 11:41am.

In another post today, Gov. Pawlenty is quoted at length on the subject of government and its uses (or, more likely, lack thereof). Mr. Hellier apparently agrees with him.

A major complaint is that every dollar spent by government could have been better spent privately. The never-acknowledged fact, however, is that some things won't be done if not by government, because there's no profit to be made.

Education is perhaps the most obviuous area. Yes, there are private schools. Some with the greatest name recognition, however, won't even consider admission of a child with learning disabilities. (Ask me what the *** representative said to my wife and I when we asked about possible accommodations.) Religious schools, while they often accept students of other faiths, nonetheless provide a religious environment based on the sponsoring faith. And, while the public schools spend less per student than un-subsidized private schools, they pay teachers better.

While there may be government services that could be provided by private companies, there are few if any that wouldn't require public payment for those services.

Mr. Pawlenty's had his shot at leading change. Yet, most if not all that I've seen in that regard has been to push the costs off on local government and school boards.

One last thought, on 'Obamacare': in recent months, I've had the opportunity to read issues of Yank, an Army Air Corps publication, printed in the spring of '45, as the war wound down and Americans prepared to return from Europe. I was deeply affected by letters from those men, commenting on what they hoped to see happen in our country upon their return. The issues they raised are still with us today. Universal health care was among them. As we enter the Memorial Day weekend, I can only wonder how many of those critical of 'Obamacare' and 'the threat of socialized medicine' would be prepared to call these men socialists.

Submitted by Jim Roth on May 28, 2010 - 12:01pm.

I'm pretty tired of these lame old excuses myself. Some of these people are still mourning (although not admitting that even their idol Reagan) didn't shrink government to smaller than a bathtub. As far as I've seen over my lifetime, with limited exceptions, tax breaks go into the pockets of the wealthy and their trust fund heirs (not back into the economy as they love to boast). Luxuries and much worse habits are the major outcomes of these tax policies.

Submitted by Andrew Kearney on May 28, 2010 - 1:44pm.

Well, I own a small business and am at the top 2% of income. I would like to pay more in state taxes which are very reasonable. What I am upset with is the federal tax rate and the 600 billion per year in military spending. I can't believe how much energy people spend squawking about whether the top rate in MN is going to be 7 or 9 percent. It's peanuts compared to the 30-35% in federal taxes.

Submitted by myles spicer on May 28, 2010 - 3:19pm.

Couple other thoughts on this piece.

On the state level, there are certain activities that are MANDATED by the state constitution to be done by government

Some others, while the responsibility of government (roads, bridges etc for example) actually provide the private sector with valuable jobs.

Meanwhile on the national level, the military takes about 30% of the budget; then add in Social Security and Medicare -- two programs which the conservatives may dislike, but are here to stay -- and you have about 70% of the national budget. The right can start slicing what is left, but in reality,there is not much to cut, and many of the programs they dislike are crucial, and they would not touch them anyway (like the border patrol, homeland security stc). What we have here is a lot more heat than light.