Ten years ago, Tim Pawlenty, then majority leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives, recommended that President Clinton follow the lead of the Minnesota Legislature and enact "a large permanent income tax cut." Minnesota could serve as a tax-cut model for the nation. As a result of the Legislature's actions earlier that year the rate of state spending would be slowed, and funding for "important government services," he assured us, would be maintained.

In the op-ed piece published Aug. 6, 1999 (St. Paul Pioneer Press, "If Taxes Are Cut, Will Nation Bleed?  No: Revenue Will Even Be Stimulated"), the future governor dismissed concerns expressed before the tax cut was passed. He labeled as "scare tactics" assertions that the tax cuts would lead to future "slash and burn" spending reductions in popular government programs. Those who objected to generous cuts to high-income taxpayers were accused of stale, class warfare.  Additional tax cuts, he predicted, would be enacted in the next Legislative session, and "critical programs such as education and health care" would be protected.

Today, well into the governor's second term, it's apparent that neither education nor health care programs have been or are being protected. While we don't know at this writing what programs will be slashed by the governor, it is likely that there will be more than a few. Class warfare is waged, not against the wealthy, but against those with limited incomes. When he proposed borrowing a billion dollars for operating expenses, the governor in effect acknowledged that the state cannot function within the tax rates legislated those many years ago. It's clear that the state will have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. 

Minnesota has fallen in several economic rankings
In the same op-ed piece, Pawlenty also predicted that tax cuts would lead to business growth and create more jobs. More tax revenues would follow. This supply-side view, held by almost no economists, remains a core conviction of the Right. We have not, however, seen the result he predicted in Minnesota.  Instead, by a number of economic measures, our state has fallen in ranking compared to other states.  For example, in the four or five years after 2002 (and before the current recession), our employment growth fell from 27th to 44th in the nation. Minnesota's per capita personal income fell from 8th to 13th among the states.  Over the same period our state GDP has grown more slowly than the national GDP by several percent.

Of course, President Clinton did not take Pawlenty's advice. President Bush did. In spite of his tax cuts, economic growth during his presidency was lower than that of his predecessor. He inherited a surplus and bequeathed a substantial deficit to us.

We would have been better served by the ideas of another kind of Republican such as Gov. C. Elmer Anderson, who observed in 2004, "We were a high-tax state when I was governor, and we still are, but since that time we went from below-average incomes to above-average incomes and from an out-migration state to an in-migration state. The facts don't support the contention that the best government is the cheapest government."

Elaine J Handelman is the author of "Cracks in the Foundation — Refuting the Conservative Case for Low Taxes and Small Government," 2004.