We want budget solutions to distribute sacrifices evenly and fairly. We can’t balance the entire budget on the backs of the poor. At the same time, we shouldn’t force the wealthy to pay for everything either, even if they have a greater capacity to do so. Fairness demands shared sacrifice, in which cuts to the social safety net are reduced by increased taxes. No single segment of our society should have to pay for returning our state to fiscal solvency.
So how about Pawlenty’s plan? Well, at least it’s relatively egalitarian in passing most of the harm to our children. Otherwise, it would be targeted at the poor and middle class. Health and Human Services cuts take up 4 pages of Pawlenty’s 7 page plan. Cuts to local government aid will continue to drive up property taxes, and it seems Pawlenty was actually trying to focus the burden on the poor by slashing the renter’s property-tax refund by $51 million. Why not reduce the property tax refund for the wealthiest, as well as the poorest?
Pawlenty’s cuts are full of gems like this one that showcase his compassion:
Effective Nov 1, 2009 and through June 30, 2011, eliminate grants to counties for low-income and disabled individuals or families to provide basic need items for emergency situations, most often related to housing or utilities. [Ed: Pawlenty says the cut is “mitigated” by federal stimulus money. Does that mean it’s replaced by federal money? That’s not what “mitigated” means to me.]
I understand the need to make cuts to health and human services. I can even understand that, in a state with a strong social safety net, the poor are going to have to participate in the sacrifices. What I can’t understand is why Pawlenty goes to such a great length to make sure sacrifices are not shared by all segments of our society. Are the wealthy so fragile that they will all flee the state if we ask them to contribute to restoring our fiscal solvency? I just don’t believe that.
Instead of putting all the blame for balancing the budget on Pawlenty, why don’t you look to the your own DFL legislature. You work so hard to elect these people. Have they served you well this session? They could not or would not prioritize spending. The DFL runs both houses of the legislature and could have crafted spending bills that made the same amount of cuts Pawlenty is now forced to make with their own priorities in mind. But, the DFL doesn’t know how to prioritize. Everything and every special interest is important. Until you hold them accountable, this will continue. It is the Democratic and liberal voter who is to blame not Pawlenty.
The DFL PASSED a balanced budget, responsibly.
The DFL passed a budget that they were fully aware would not be signed by the governor. They made a decision to send an unacceptable budget bill to him, knowing that this would likely result in an unallotment process.
It is like with my kids, when I tell them “if you turn the TV to a show that I don’t approve of, I will turn the TV off.” I repeat it a couple times, and they nod their heads that they understand. Then I walk back into the room 5 minutes later, they are watching a show that they aren’t supposed to. The TV goes off. They complain.
They knew.
Except that your kids are not constitutionally required to watch TV (are they? I mean no criticism if they are), and your kids are not a co-equal branch of your household. Letting the Governor dictate the terms of the budget in advance of its passage is tantamount to a unitary executive, if not actually a dictatorship.
Yes, we must blame the source of our problems - the voter! Those insidious creatures, voting for the candidate of their choice, who then passes laws reflecting those that elected them! If only we just calmly listened to Governor Pawlenty, he would save us liberal voters from the hassle and hardships of… voting! It’s all clear now! How much better it is to have all aspects of policy in the control of one man who, due to never having gotten more than 50% of the vote, is insulated from these ‘voters’ and their strange ideas…
Isn’t using federal money to “mitigate” state budget cuts a misuse of stimulus finds? Whatever the merits of the simulus package, it certainly was never intended to save the political bacon of Governors and state legislators.
Governor Schwarzenegger seems to recognize this, as does the White House: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17calif.html?_r=1&ref=us
Pawlenty fully participated in a process that brought us to this place. He did in fact sign bills that created a budget deficit, and vetoed any that supplemented revenue to cover such a deficit. He cannot simply say that the legislature failed him. The DFL legislators were elected based on their platforms, and have every right to craft legislation in their best judgment.
I agree with shared sacrifice. Everyone should have to pay 10% of their income to the state government.
EVERY. PERSON. No deductions, no credits, no nothing.
Then we’ll have fair taxation, and no one can complain about who is being saddled with the burden of government.
That is just plain absurd. Ten percent of all income is not an equal sacrifice across the board. It is numerically equal, but it defies reality to say that a ten percent tax on someone earning $30,000 per year is an “equal sacrifice” to a ten percent tax on someone earning $3,000,000.
You’re right. The person who made $3,000,000 has contributed, under my tax plan, $300,000 to the operation of state government. The person who made $30,000 has contributed $3,000. That is an equally proportionate sacrifice, but the person making $3,000,000 has made a greater financial contribution to the well-being to the state.
One of the byproducts of higher taxation is losing those high-earning folks who “pay the bills.” Ever wonder why most of the military, as well as most pro athletes, live in Florida?
Taxes can be raised and I accept that that will happen. However, when only one group is constantly targeted with THE STATE INCOME TAX (I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE INCOME TAX), eventually that group says enough and goes somewhere where they are not constantly pilloried.
And Lojasmo - if you want equal burdens, shared responsibilities, proportional taxation is the fair way forward. Again, I enjoy the personal attack.
Flat taxers are worse at math than libertardians.
I challenge the right-wingers on this blog quit dodging and respond directly to the point raised many times in the past few postings: That the sacrifice fell on the backs of the poor and middle class, and not the upper class.
Did you hear Hanson on Midday? When he was droning on about shared sacrifice, Eichten asked him in what way the wealthy were sharing the sacrifice.
It was telling, listening to Hanson hem and haw and say that they might get their taxes raised (along with everyone else, again - no special sacrifice for the wealthy) due to LGA cuts.
It’s nice when they’re forced to confront their BS about a balanced budget.
@ DtM
“It is like with my kids, when I tell them “if you turn the TV to a show that I don’t approve of, I will turn the TV off.” I repeat it a couple times, and they nod their heads that they understand. Then I walk back into the room 5 minutes later, they are watching a show that they aren’t supposed to. The TV goes off. They complain.”
You win the ‘worst analogy on the internet’ award.
“I challenge the right-wingers on this blog quit dodging and respond directly to the point raised many times in the past few postings: That the sacrifice fell on the backs of the poor and middle class, and not the upper class.”
Pete - that is a fair question. I’m not sure if I’m one of those “right wingers”, but if being anywhere right of center qualifies then I guess I am. I’ll try to respond. I’m not responding for the right, just for me.
We’re in a recession, and incomes for our residents are either down or less certain than they were in the past and will be in the future. That is where 100% of the revenue side of the equation comes from — our people. It is highly likely that the % of one’s income going to things like mortgage and gas has increased, but we’ll still have people kick in the same rate of tax that they have for years. No breaks there, and there really can’t be. For those who really got hit hard on the income side, they may actually see a drop in their tax bracket so they’ll get some relief, such as the guy going from middle-to-low income due to unemployment. Those relatively few who will make as much this year as they did last year will likely end up funding a larger chunk of government. All in a year when nobody’s income is a certain as it was last year.
On the expense side, we’ll all sacrifice. If we are one of the 55% of Minnesotans who lives in a city that receives LGA, our city will probably have to ask us for high fees on voluntary services and some services may have to be economized. As an insured patient going to the hospital, I may see my portion of the bill increase as more cost is shifted to me (remember, private health insurance plans are the only ones who actually cover the cost of care provided at a hospital — Medicare and Medicaid never have).
Full outreach to youth in a couple of the reduced programs may have to be picked up through private donations. If I’m fortunate enough to have any excess in 2009, I’ll be one of those donors.
We will all sacrifice in some way. We’re not sacrificing because the state budget situation sucked. We’re sacrificing because the economy got rocked. That is bigger than government, and the collective sacrifice is bigger than some budget bill.
Lots of mights, maybes, probablys, etc. but that doesn’t translate into definite, measurable sacrifices, DtM.
Were there any unallotments that directly, specifically were aimed at the rich? No. Period. Therein lies the double-standard.
I’m guessing that at least some would throw me into the class of high income earners (or “parasites”, and someone here likes to say). Let’s see, from the largest to the smallest:
$1.77 billion in K-12 deferrals. I’m counting on Minnesota public schools to help provide an education for my own three children. This affects me.
$236 million in human services spending. This one is clearly targeted at the healthcare industry and at lower income earners.
$200 million in local aid. The city I live in relies heavily on local aid. This will no doubt affect me.
$100 million in aid to counties. Will also affect me, as I live in a county that is an aid recipient.
$100 million in higher ed appropriations. This will create pay cuts or freezes for professionals, no doubt. Average professor salary at the U? $117K, and that was salary only back in 2006. That will affect higher earners. As I’m saving for my kids college, I have an inkling that cuts like this will raise the bar for receiving financial aid. I can expect to pay the rack rate when I send my kids to the U. Yes, affects me.
Of the top $2.4 billion in reallotments, over $2.1 billion of them affect me as a high income earner.
“If I’m fortunate enough to have any excess in 2009, I’ll be one of those donors.”
That’s admirable, but not the same. Unfortunately, those the budget axe is falling on don’t get to decide to pay more “if they have any excess.”
Perhaps there is more that can be influenced through their own actions than you give them credit for.