That’s what Tim Pawlenty is being told by state economist Tom Stinson, according to an article in the Star Tribune on Friday. The article explains (I’m most definitely paraphrasing here) that Stinson has been pushing a very reasonable forecast of our state’s future, and Pawlenty has been steadily growing more irritated at having to pay attention to Stinson. Here’s Stinson’s message:
Minnesota faces a never-before-seen “structural budget deficit” that reaches far into the future, Stinson warns — a phenomenon wrought by an aging workforce and slowing revenue growth that will hamper the state’s ability to provide the services taxpayers have come to expect. There are no short-term answers, he said, and no single approach, such as tax increases or spending cuts, will by itself solve the problem.
Personally, I can’t believe there are folks out there who don’t believe this is true. Our state has run a deficit throughout the majority of Pawlenty’s term, and things are just getting worse. The cost of services is increasing, tax revenues are declining, and over the next couple of decades a disproportionate number of Minnesotans will be retiring — and in the process, paying much less in taxes and consuming much more in services.
Pawlenty, though, does seem to disagree. He says things will be fine — or at least, they’ll be fine for long enough for him to get out of Dodge:
“This notion that there’s some cataclysmic, insurmountable crisis looming four years from now is speculative at best,” said Pawlenty, responding to a DFL-led budget summit two months ago that featured Stinson. “It’s not unmanageable.”
When pressed later on whether he publicly disagreed with the state economist, Pawlenty sidestepped the question. “We’re not talking about Stinson,” interrupted Brian McClung, Pawlenty’s spokesman. Despite several requests, Pawlenty’s office has not said whether it has economic experts who differ with Stinson’s long-term view of Minnesota’s economy.
“Not unmanageable?” Then why hasn’t he “managed it?”
I understand that it’s inconvenient to be told that the future does not look rosy. When you’ve been pushing the view that cutting taxes and spending will solve all of our problems, it’s unsettling to hear both liberal and conservative economists agree that Minnesota is going to need both tax increases and spending cuts to remain solvent in the long run. I don’t like hearing that we’ll need big spending cuts, just as Pawlenty doesn’t like hearing we’ll needs tax increases.
But Pawlenty is the Governor, for cryin’ out loud. Instead of dismissing Stinson’s forecasts because they don’t conveniently match his biases, shouldn’t the Governor be attempting to deal with the problem to put us on the road to a sustainable budget? Isn’t that his job — to keep Minnesota functioning well into the future?
It looks like the job is going to be left to the next Governor. My worry is that our next Governor won’t handle it either, and we’ll spend the next two decades dealing with every single deficit like it’s a surprise.
About Governor Pawlenty wanting to leave before it gets really ugly, may I be the first to say:
Duuuuuuhhhhhhh.
Thank you, Tom Stinson, for actually making sense and being honest. T-Paw and the GOP has been realigning funds like a magic trick, and the Democrats fail to make the structural case on revenues, but rather use the "we just need more money" argument (augmented by a heart-wrenching anecdote if they can find it).
An aging workforce is a tangible reason why our tax structure of the past may not work in the future. They guy who currently works at a plant and pays taxes will not only not pay taxes in a few years, but he'll be on the receiving end of many benefits. And guess what — social security and medicare were setup in a way so they are unable to fund his needs. I realize I'm mixing state and federal obligations here.
We need to govern differently, more efficiently, and may even need more money to provide the same or an economized service to our people. Now, how do we do that while still making this an inviting place to be a wageearner or business owner? That is the hard part.
The problem is thinking that tweaking spending cuts and tax increases addresses the necessary "structural reform" our tax system requires. The so-called "balanced approach" is simply more of the same and doesn't address the fundamental problems. The operative word is "structural." that means changes in the way we address the problem, not a continuation of "tax the rich/no new taxes" debate, which has taken on the characteristics of Dante's 4th Circle of Hell.
We need structural tax reform — moving away from taxes on productivity like high margin personal income tax and corporate income taxes, which are job-killers in an economy of mobile capital and labor, to a tax system based on low-rate but broad-based consumption taxes (sales taxes) which impose far less deadweight loss on society than taxes on productivity. We need to end the debate over whether or not Minnesota's tax system is regressive or progressive and evaluate the system, as DantheMan suggests on its economic efficiency, which benefits all by lowering the overall tax burden.
We also need to reform the role of government and restructure so that government has funding to perform its constitutional obligations, but does not expand its scope byond its constitutional functions. That means getting government out of those areas where it doesn't have constitutional obligations and that exceed its constitutional authority. That means increasing funding in some areas like the judicial system while cutting entire programs that expand the scope of government. It means creating genuine safety nets for the truly vulnerable, but not expanding those safety nets into middle-class entitlements.
Tweaking the system isn't going to work. More government intervention is not going to work. It's way past time to return the future of Minnesota to Minnesotans.
"We also need to reform the role of government and restructure so that government has funding to perform its constitutional obligations, but does not expand its scope byond its constitutional functions. "
I'm happy to report that I do not share the "sere interpretation" of constitutional obligations espoused by Libertarians, who read the Constitution as literally as fundamentalists read the Bible (and are therefore wrong in their interpretations for basically the same reasons). Therefore, I disagree with the idea that a government charged to "provide for the general welfare" has expanded beyond its constitutional bounds.
Bendover, you emit huge clouds of gas without saying anything. How is that even possible?
1.) Dante's 4th Circle of Hell has to include reading Bendover's past columns.
2.) We need structural tax reform. What insight. What analysis. What an absolute command of the obvious. No shit, Sherlock. We need to tax the wealthy elite to the same point where they are paying for all the state resources that they are using. We need to tax corporations to the same level as the resources that they are using.
3.) Of course Bendover wants to end the whole regressive/progressive tax debate. Bendover isn't bending over to tie his shoes. He's compliantly and enthusiastically offering his freshly laundered and minty fresh arse to the advocates of the most regressive tax system possible.
4.) role of government and restructure so that government has funding to perform its constitutional obligations,
Please be specific. I hear gas leaking from someplace but can't define where. Could it be you don't want to be specific? Could it be you can't be specific? Could it be Bendover is a Liberaterian tool and can't actually match up reality with his mutant Jeffersonian/Reagan hybred Frankenstein nightmare.
5.) It's way past time to return the future of Minnesota to Minnesotans. What the hell does that mean? I mean besides absolutely nothing. Bendover is offering nothing here. More right wing pablum. More libertarian nonsence.