Yesterday, Pawlenty announced that he will unilaterally slash health and human services and aid to local governments. The unprecedented cuts are necessary because Pawlenty already vetoed revenue sources that would allow us to compromise between revenue increases and spending cuts. Once again, Pawlenty has shown himself willing to put the approval of his conservative base above the good of our State.
For most people, the way forward in a crisis would be clear: Find a compromise that spreads the pain evenly. Minnesotans overwhelmingly agree with that sentiment, based on the results of a recent SurveyUSA/KSTP poll:
Should the Minnesota budget be balanced primarily through budget cuts? Tax increases? A combination of budget cuts and tax increases? Or a combination of budget cuts and state gambling revenue?
Budget cuts 18%
Tax increases 7%
Cuts/increase combo 30%
Cuts/gambling increase combo 40%
Not sure 4%
The Governor vetoed a one-billion dollar tax increase bill that would have created a new tax bracket for the wealthy, increased the tax on beer, wine and liquor and put a tax surcharge on some credit card company profits. Should the legislature vote in favor of overriding the governor’s veto?
Yes 48%
No 44%
Not sure 8%
It’s not just Pawlenty’s tactics voters disapprove of. They also disapprove of his decision to focus the brunt of the pain on the poor in Minnesota.
When it comes to spending, what should be the top priority for the legislature and Governor? Education? The environment and natural resources? Health and Human services? Public Safety? Or something else?
Education 33%
Environment 13%
Health and human services 33%
Public safety 8%
Other 8%
Not sure 5%
Voters’ support of health and human services is not simply the result of Minnesota’s liberal leanings, by the way. In fact, self-identified conservatives put health and human services at the top of their list, with 36% listing it as a top priority.
Overall, the message from Minnesotans is clear: They want policymakers to find a compromise, not dump the weight of billions of dollars in cuts on the poor. Unfortunately, Pawlenty has never been interested in compromise — it’s always been his way or the highway. Clearly, he has bigger concerns than the well-being of our state.
Yes, and than Pawlenty will do his usual magic of saying its all about keeping taxes low, and telling suburbanites how his health and human services cuts are just making the DFL stop wasting money in the Twin Cities (the ‘burbanites will read between the lines and hear that dog-whistle). Our communications in the face of him will be… our usual incoherence (remember the ‘07 session?). Following this, a three (or more) sided primary will allow us to negative each other into the dirt whilst he is thoroughly nice, inoffensive, and Minnesotan. He’ll come out of this just fine.
Perhaps this “message from Minnesotans” (or, as most folks call them, polls results) is a few months late for “policymakers” to get the message. Where was the whine-fest when legislators were wasting the session away, protecting puppies from cocoa bean mulch? And now it’s all the Governors fault? It’s all a suburban conspiracy, I’m sure.
A poll that showed that Minnesotans want someone else to pay for their services. That would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. How about a tax study that looks at returns on State tax dollars spent. We could look at it a number of ways. First, look at it by income bracket: State services spent on the poor, middle and upper income brackets per tax dollar collected. I am guessing that the ‘return on investment’ is pretty sweet for the low and middle income brackets…. not so much for the schmuks getting bent over in the upper income groups. Make that data part of the moronic ‘tax incidence’ study. Second, look at return on dollars spent in education. How much have scores improved per additional dollar spent…. but we already know the answer to that too, don’t we? Very poor return on investment - but a great return if you happen to be a tenured teacher busy collecting your ‘lane and step’ increases, COLA increase, and de minimus health care copays. And that’s what this is really about — public unions not wanting to take a hit by shrinking both their compensation and numbers.