The lexicon of the late 1990s did not contain the word “scarcity.” Yet the 2003 legislative session will be a monument to the word.
Minnesota is not only broke, it’s deep in debt. Even after the relatively small 2003 deficit is balanced — an exercise the Legislature struggles with and one that presages enormous future struggles — the state still faces the chasm of the $4.1 billion projected deficit for 2004-05.
The simple answers and accounting shifts of last session have been exhausted. Although fingerpointing at the Capitol has been minimal, the fact remains Minnesota was caught flatfooted by the recession, burst of the stockmarket bubble, and rising healthcare costs.
The day of reckoning has come.
Whatever the ultimate answer, the budget solution must include deep structural or permanent government cuts. Whether this means cutting local government aid, state worker lay-offs, the abolishment of state agencies, the outcome will be painful and the legacy regrettable.
Still, lawmakers must stiffen their backbones and make the tough decisions. Indecision and political expediency contributed to the current budget crisis but can no longer be tolerated.
The guiding principle of the upcoming months needs to be fairness.
The Capitol will be awash with special interest groups and lobbyists all echoing the message of fairness. The recent success of farmers seeking to restore ethanol subsidy cuts shows how effective filling the corridors with shuffling feet can be.
Yet lawmakers should realize that special interest groups are, after all, special interests. These groups do not necessarily reflect a greater good but a narrow one. As is often the case, it’s the voiceless that forms the majority of the population. Lawmakers are well advised to remember that truest voice of Minnesota is often silence.
Though often silent, the people are watching.
How best to deal with the deficit?
Perhaps the best approach is to have a hierarchy of response. Recently, Sen. Bob Kierlin, R-Winona, detailed his personal approach to dealing with the deficit. Kierlin — an acknowledged financial expert — places cutting government spending as the first logical step.
Logical, but easier said than done. Human services and education makes up the bulk of the general fund budget. Even so, cutting government is unavoidable. And fitting. And a place to start.
It’s politically unlikely that slashing government alone will suffice. Under Kierlin’s protocol, lawmakers should then look next at raising user fees — license, permits, others. (Gov. Pawlenty refuses to view the gas tax as a user fee, though the argument can be made).
Lastly, Kierlin mentions taxes. He’s unwilling, he said, to increase a tax that he wouldn’t pay — raising the cigarette tax, for instance. Rather, he suggests a sales tax on new clothing as one possible revenue source should events demand it.
But the debate at the Legislature is nowhere near the latter step of the hierarchy. In fact, the debate on cutting government is just beginning.
But there needs to be a Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 to the budget debate. A true solution will likely be a blend of options.
Denying this is denying the core function of legislative process: compromise. -- Editor’s note: This editorial was a product of the ECM Editorial Board.
