Less Government? We Tried That. It's Not Working.

The Star Tribune's front-page story today finds that "less government'' is the overwhelming consensus "vision'' for Republican gubernatorial candidates. Peggy Lee and most Minnesotans want to know: Is that all there is?   

Leaving aside that this mantra sounds more like hard-right, activist-energizing radio talk than inclusive vision casting — and has to be extremely disappointing to hundreds of thousands of moderate and progressive Republican voters — we need some context here.   

The Price of Government, an official state Minnesota Management and Budget measure, shows that we DO have less government over the last decade, ever since the no-new-taxes religion, like some southern invasive species, got a hold on the North Star State. (See page 13 of the PowerPoint presented at the capitol last week by State Economist Tom Stinson and State Demographer Tom Gillaspy).

The bar graphs clearly show that our governments are using about two percentage points less (15.5 percent in 2008 compared to about 17.5 percent through the 1990s) of our personal income share than those governments were spending when the economy was actually doing better. Huge income tax cuts in 1999 and 2000 left us with chronic  budget crises, and the promised payoff in sustained, tide-rising economic growth didn't materialize, either.  

Wealth concentration at the top got worse, bridge and road conditions deteriorated, public school course offerings were cut, and thousands of working low-income folks lost their health care. And our economy is slumping and beginning to underperform the national average on some key indicators.  

We surely could use some more judicious restructuring and redesign of how we do our government work. But the basic things government provides are essential for our shared prosperity and quality of life.  

NOTE: The Price of Government measure is one of the most comprehensive of all the measures we have to describe the size and role of government. It counts state and local government revenues as a percentage of total income and therefore accounts for inflation, population growth and economic growth. It was instituted at the behest and with the approval of business groups in the late 1980s.

— Dane Smith

Comments

[Gary Gross]

Dane, Whine all you want about whether our chare of income is less than it was a few years ago. It's immaterial. People are worried that it's a bigger share than they're willing to pay for what they're getting.

People have tired of the DFL's constant hat-in-hand routine. We aren't seeing better schools; instead we're seeing businesses & seniors flee Minnesota at an increasing rate.

When people hear about $60K being spent on 50" flat-screen TVs for sex offenders, people question whether there's a spending & oversight problem or whether there's a tax problem. (See this link for more on that: http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=6028)

These are difficult times. People are DEMANDING that their money be spent wisely first before the DFL comes asking for more money.

That's the only question that's relevant.

[Charlie Quimby]

Gary, In the great scheme of things, flat screen TVs are a minor budget item, regardless of who is looking at them.

But assuming you raise this as a symptom of a greater problem, please consider who runs the department that put them there. It wasn't hat-in-hand DFLers, so be sure the right people hear your DEMAND.

[Troy]

Charlie,
Commissioners provide leadership and are responsible for what happens in their respective departments, but to say they "run the department" is more than a little off the mark.

[Charlie Quimby]

Troy,
You're right. I should have said, look at who leads the department if you're complaining about larger issues than a small budget line item.

Either way, legislators have less influence over departmental decisions.