Posted: 11/30/09 01:54
by Dave Mindeman
MPR has an interesting take on the GOP governor candidates budget proposals. And as usual, its long on promises and short on specifics.
Let's take a look at each of the 4 major candidates left:
Tom Emmer: Ever the budget cutting optimist, Emmer begins:
"The sky's the limit," said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano. "We have got a government that is duplicating its efforts all over place."
Duplication, yes, but $6 billion in deficits worth?
He has suggested slashing public relations positions in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, merging the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services, and sitting down with public employees to determine which services are being done twice.
I'm sure MPCA has millions of dollars in public relations expenses. Come on, Emmer. And really, merging Health with Human Services? You may be able to get a few employees to add to their workload, eliminating a few positions, but big cuts? Not a chance.
And then he uses Colorado as his example? They got saddled with a Pawlenty buget amendment clone and have been suffering ever since. The voters voted themselves a reprieve from that disaster.
Pat Anderson: Anderson actually comes up with a few practical ideas. Expanding the sales tax to clothing and services has some revenue raising potential, although it should be modified somewhat to make allowances for the poor and lower middle class.
She would also provide health care vouchers for low income Minnesotans to buy health insurance in the private market rather than get their insurance through a subsidized system.
I'm not sure what that would save. Minnesota farms out a lot of its health care by directly paying premiums to Medica and Healthpartners already.....and even with subsidies, the poor will have trouble finding insurance in the private market. A lot of the people on state programs are already uninsurable and have pre-existing conditions.
But she has another decent idea:
She wants to eliminate the corporate income tax, but end all business tax breaks like the Research & Development credit and Gov. Tim Pawlenty's JOBZ initiative.
Huh....guess she's not expecting a Pawlenty endorsement.
Marty Seifert: Marty goes back to tried and true Marty....
Seifert said he would veto bills that contain what he calls waste. He would also eliminate departments and create a two year limit on new programs to ensure the legislation is meeting expectations. Seifert also said he would cut social service programs like welfare and subsidized health insurance.
You know, just once, somebody needs to define waste. If there is so much of it, why didn't Marty propose its elimination over the course of the last few disastrous budget cycles?
And a moratorium on new programs is fine, but how does that solve our problem NOW? And when you are going to eliminate departments, let's just say what they are, OK?
But Marty continues his war on the poor. Welfare is always the Seifert solution....even though it's actual impact is less than 4% of the entire Minnesota budget. You can eliminate all of it and we would still be in deficit.
David Hann: Hann gives us even less when it comes to specifics:
"If you look at where we spend the most money--which is the education areas and health and human services--that's where the money is," he said. "That's where we have to get structural reform."
No kidding, Sen. Hann? That's where the money is and that is where budget cuts deliver the most pain. I think Pawlenty has already beaten you to the punch on that one. If $1.6 billion form education and eliminating GAMC isn't enough, then Sen. Hann had better continue to be as vague as possible.
It gets pretty ridiculous when Gov. Pawlenty is the one who makes the most sense on the subject....
"I would hope that as the campaign matures and the agendas and the platforms of the candidates become more specific, that they not just say they can do more but show us specifically what they would do," Pawlenty said.
Oddly enough, I think that pretty much sums it all up.
A clarifying note -- Pat Anderson is not supporting the expansion of the sales tax as a means of generating more revenue for the state. She supports expanding the sales tax only in conjunction with elimination of the corporate income tax, significant reduction in personal income taxes and reductions in corporate welfare, measures that would reduce the overall tax burden on all Minnesotans.
The reasons these two initiatives must be pursued in tandem is based in sound economic principle, not ideology. Reducing the corporate tax, which is simply a cost of doing business passed down to consumers, is necessary to reduce the overall hidden tax burden on Minnesotans. Raising taxes is a job-killer, and jobs must be the #1 priority of the next governor.
And yes -- any proposal to expand the sales tax would have an allowance of some type exempting ALL taxpayers from sales tax on annual purchases of "essentials."