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.

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.

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.

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.

Duuuuuuhhhhhhh.