The Minnesota State Legislature has a bit over a week left and we still have a deficit looming. Currently the deficit for Minnesota sits at $536 million. Governor Pawlenty has proposed his cuts that range from a reduction in local government assistance and cuts to health and welfare programs. Programs spared under Gov. Pawlenty's plan include the military, public safety and K-12 schools. What are your thoughts on how Minnesota should balance the budget? Do sacred cows exist? Or are all programs open to cuts?
In an effort of fair disclosure I will start. My hope is that others will post their ideas before we debate mine or those that will follow. To me nothing is sacred. Granted we need to ensure public safety and ensure our infrastructure is intact. While time is not a luxury at this point some moves will have to be done in haste even though more time is required. To start, I'd get my staff looking for duplication in programs and budget items for elimination. K-12 would be slashed along with local government assistance. Now the cuts to both programs would be carefully plotted out. Localities that do not require the need for LSA funds to keep operating will be trimmed. K-12 will be trimmed based on enrollment to start with. The trouble is that I do not have exact numbers so I am unsure how close I am getting.
Another item I'd look at is pulling back the Minnesota National Guard from deployment in an effort to flex State Rights. Bringing our men and women home will serve multiple purposes. It will save money on our budget, remove Minnesotans from a needless war and force Congress to declare war from now on before they can pull the Minnesota National Guard. These changes should get us close.
Wow, just WOW!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see that while my parents were expected to pay for your quality education, you are unwilling to return that favor to their grandchild. But we'll leave that alone.
Now, you understand that the National Guard is a NATIONAL unit, not a state unit right? They are organized by states but they are not states militias. They are part of the US Army and Air force and are considered a reserve contingent thereof. Also, per the National Defense Act of 1916, they are paid for from the federal defense budget when activated to full duty for national defense. The state only pays for deployments when they occur within state boundaries for natural disasters or other crisis. Based upon that, there's no savings to be had based upon your argument.
Now, what would I do?
I'd review the tax code and close loop holes for both business and citizens to cut fraud. I'd remove tax breaks that were granted to businesses without guarantees in return (ala. Northwest Airlines). I'd review welfare spending and make cuts where possible and change how schools are allocated their funding (base it on performance, not per child) and I'd break the teachers unions and make schools operate like a business with pay based upon performance and under-performers fired for incompetence.
I'd cut subsidies to farms with an average revenue more than $1million and force cleanup costs of farm waste upon the polluters instead of the communities.
I'd encourage the state to subsidize industries such as renewable resources to remove our dependence on foreign oil. The fed might not do it, but we as a state can push in that direction.
I'd invest in infrastructure (highways and rail) and rebuild our crumbling transportation and power grids. That would create jobs, incent businesses to move here with better infrastructure support and increase efficiencies within the system which would reduce costs.
That's about it for starters. Our crime rate is pretty good so police aren't needing funding at this time and while tax cuts are what I'd look for long term, the realities of our current budget preclude that as a possibility.
I know it's off subject, but Chris, what are your thoughts on this? It would seem that the "federalist" republicans are against states rights when it doesn't fill their friends bank accounts.
ReplyDeleteAs Governor I'd fight to have the right to enforce laws in our state that are good for our state. Especially in areas such as this, where predatory practices undermine the larger economy.
"In another departure from the pending Democratic bill, the Republican plan would continue the practice of having federal laws override state laws. Under the Democratic proposal, states would be allowed to write and enforce tougher laws, a provision opposed by the financial industry."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100506/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul;_ylt=Au.0pcNS9Lhpjr7hb5Yp5riyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtaDlwMDBkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNTA2L3VzX2ZpbmFuY2lhbF9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDY29uc3VtZXJydWxl
Sorry, this is a pretty big problem: "The trouble is that I do not have exact numbers so I am unsure how close I am getting."
ReplyDeleteWithout numbers, it's a pretty worthless excersie.
Shutdown any state parks that don't bring in more money through camping fees than they cost to operate and shutdown any public highway restrooms. It might not be much but it gets us closer. Right? Maybe?
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that state K-12 funding is already based on a per pupil equation.
"I'm pretty sure that state K-12 funding is already based on a per pupil equation."
ReplyDeleteThis is correct.
Kevin, I think we need to fight for State Rights anytime that it is infringed upon.
ReplyDeleteKevin, what about field preemption making the state laws invalid?
ReplyDelete"Kevin, I think we need to fight for State Rights anytime that it is infringed upon."
ReplyDeleteWhat does the national guard have to do with states rights? Your beginning to make me wonder about what exactly you consider "states rights".
National defense is a federal power, not state. And the National guard is a reserve contingent of the National defense structure.
So how are you defending states rights here?
And as to the concept of field preemption, Chris, the constitution reads as follows:
"Article VI This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
Therefore, as the supremacy clause states and as has been clearly decided by the supreme court as recently as 2008, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is trumped by said federal law.
That's the constitution, so again, I'm confused as to how you think states rights are being infringed.
I get the feeling you think that the USA was created as some sort of union of 13 nations that had a loose "federation" government for joint national defense. That's not the case. While the federal gov at the time was intended to be small, it still had final authority to decide certain matters.
Again, while you may not like parts of the constitution, it is the law of the land. You have the right to attempt to repeal sections you dislike if you so choose. But to continually assert states rights where none existed seems contradictory to the position of someone who has repeatedly asserted that he is a staunch supporter of the constitution.
So you leave me quite perplexed as to what your true stance is.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI understand the Supremacy Clause and its purpose. The trouble, when talking about State Rights, is not with the Supremacy Clause rather with the interpretation of what laws Congress can and cannot pass. My view of the National Guard is more militia in nature; yet if the program is set up and established by the Federal Government as part of Foreign defense then I concede it falls under the Supremacy Clause.
After Chief Justice John Marshall, and others, concluded in McCullough v. Maryland that "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution implied that Congress had the power to charter a national bank and States did not have the ability to tax said national banks. Article 1, Section 8 states specific powers that Congress may enact laws and the rest are reserved to the States. Armed with the decision from McCullough v. Maryland, Congress slowly eroded State Rights under the guise of "necessary and proper" clause thus Implied Powers Clause.
I posed this question, which takes a bit off topic, on my orginal post on McCollough v. Maryland: Does the Implied Powers Clause make recent legislation, i.e. Patriot Act, TARP, and Health Care Reform, Constitutional or does it display that Marshall's decision and establishment of Implied Powers Clause in itself is unconstitutional?
I understand your view of the National guard, however it's incorrect as it seems you are realizing. While the guard may have originated as a "militia" based unit, the Civil war changed that and created the realization that if these units were to operate as part of a national defense strategy then they must be nationally organized to have consistent training, equipment, etc. As an example, during the civil war, 2 militia's serving together might have used different ammunition because they had different gun manufacturers. This is a logistical nightmare for the commanding officer trying to keep them supplied. These types of things drove the change.
ReplyDeleteAs to your other point, implied power is not the same as field preemption just so we're clear. You asked about field preemption. To be honest, I've never liked the concept of congress having implied intents within their laws that would supercede state laws, which is what the concept of field preemption addresses. If they intended something, they should spell it out. But the courts have deemed otherwise and since I'm no legal scholar, I'm in no position to argue with those who are.
I'm not sure what implied power has to do with the patriot act. That act addresses national defense which is clearly a federal power mandated by the constitution. Now the fact that the law breaches several aspects of the constitution such as unlawful search, etc is another matter and one I take issue with. But since national defense is not a state "right" there is no implied power issue here. The power resides with the Fed.
As to TARP, I'm not sure how that is an infringement of states rights. It's definitely an affront to the concept of free markets but just because capitalism is challenged doesn't mean that states rights are.
Healthcare reform is probably the most direct challenge I've seen in some time to states rights. The mandate is a direct challenge to the states authority around commerce within it's own borders. However, until the supreme court rules (and they will) I will withhold judgement. I'm not an expert and while I see some issues with it - my opinion is not the same as fact.
As to whether something is unconstitutional or not - that's up to the supreme court and congress to determine. I think implied power is dangerous because it is implied and therefore not explicit which leaves it open to interpretation and abuse. But is it unconstitutional - perhaps, perhaps not. It will take the supreme court to overturn that I suspect.
But you can't exactly complain about that fact when we've got a bench with a very conservative core and a majority of conservative votes on the court. If it's going to rule in your favor, now would be the time. So stressing over it before it happens seems like a wasted exercise.
"Granted we need to ensure public safety and ensure our infrastructure is intact" Does this mean you wouldn't cut public safety?
ReplyDeleteAnon...I do my best to leave public safety and infrastructure budgets alone.
ReplyDeleteI think that maybe exemplifies my problem with this exercise. You are willing to toss out cuts and changes without knowing the financial impact or the operational impact on those being cut. Who’s to say there isn’t as much waste in public safety and infrastructure as there is elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteIt seems silly to me for us to toss around what to cut without knowing how these areas operate and what cuts have happened in the past, what impact on performance those cuts have had, and what impact they will have going forward.
The infrastructure especially gets me. You rail against the stimulus packages and a lot of that spending went to improve and develop our infrastructure. Now we need to avoid those cuts. Whatever, I guess until we can’t put actually dollar amounts instead of hoping we are close, it’s not worth it.
Anon..It is easy to rail against something and it is another thing to over solutions. Yes, you are correct there may be some overlap in infrastructure but the overlap is more involved in the duplication of efforts by the agencies and not the projects themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe exercise is not silly as it makes us think and make hard choices. Yes, every choice will have an impact. The stimulus package was not a job creator nor was it extremely helpful to improving our economy. Proof of that is the 9.9% unemployment and that number does not include those you are given up looking for work.
I see that you are unable to offer up ideas which is unfortunate because my hope with this blog is for all of us to come together and discuss what the best solutions may be.
I can offer up all sorts of ideas, but without numbers, it does no good. Let's cut all per diem benefits for legislatures. Let's cut all state salaries by 10%. Let's dump the state patrol and let local police handle everything. Let's privatize education. Let's tax fastfood and clothing. Without numbers, it's meaningless.
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't make us think about the choices when we don't have any idea of the impact. It's easy to toss around cuts when you don't know what is being harmed.
And 9.9% isn't proof. It's part of the conversation. What would unemployment be without that spending? How much sooner would unemployment have hit 9.9 without the spending?