Little Ms. Dynamite

It's amazing to see petite Brenda Lee belt out those torch songs of hers.  That's why they call her Little Miss Dynamite.  As I watched former DFL State Rep. Matt Entenza tower to no avail over former GOP State Rep. Laura Brod during the Face Off segment on KSTP-TV's At Issue with Tom Hauser, I think a similar metaphor applies.

Entenza was beaten before he started, first having to explain away Governor Dayton's 2010 campaign promise not to shut down the State government.  He couldn't of course, giving a non-responsive answer starting with Dayton's other promise to raise taxes and ending with "Republicans will not compromise."  Laura Brod responded (all quotes edited for clarity):

Unfortunately, Governor Dayton seems to be living in the past where raising taxes was the answer to everything.  Even Andrew Cuomo, the liberal Governor of New York understands that you cannot do that anymore.  You’ve got to start cutting spending.   As the Republicans try to right this ship and make sure that we’re not making false promises to the people, they’re standing up for those campaign promises that they made, that the people expect.

Matt Entenza trotted out his talking points.

The reality is the budget is actually not going to go up very much under anyone’s proposal. We’ve got more people in Minnesota.  The reason why the budget goes up is because you’ve got more kids in school and you’ve got more disabled people who need help.  It’s not that Mark Dayton wants to increase spending a lot. It’s that there are needs that we have to set in our budget.

If we’re going to shrink the pie, the Republicans have to recognize it means 150,000 people without any health care, and families going bankrupt. It means disabled families all of sudden wondering if their kids will have to be institutionalized when they become adults.

Almost every point is false.  Even the point about more people in Minnesota is misleading because 1.5% more people shouldn't mean a 22% spending increase as Dayton first proposed.  Brod had enough, and broke in before he used up the remaining time.

This is simply not true.  It’s a matter of priorities.  If those are the priorities of the State, we ought to fund those priorities of the State and you can do that within the budget framework that the Republicans have set out.  If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority and unfortunately that’s Mark Dayton’s approach.

After a meaningless anecdotal rebuttal, Entenza tried again.

We’ve had the debate on priorities.  Both sides need to compromise.  Republicans have to recognize that their refusal to compromise will position them in a very bad electoral shape and the State will wind up in bad shape.

It's possible the Republicans will suffer some losses in 2012 if they hold firm.  But if they do buckle, the losses will be major and linger for years.  And it won't help Minnesota, as Laura Brod countered.

Compromise is not about giving away the future for the people of the State.  Compromise is about doing things the right way.  The Republicans are saying to Mark Dayton and the Democrats we cannot increase spending at the rate you want because you can’t tax enough to keep up with that rate of spending.   And you can’t continue to make promises which can’t be kept.  That’s not fair to the people of Minnesota and it won’t help move our economy forward.

Host Tom Hauser asked both their prediction on a State government shutdown, starting with Entenza.

In other states we are seeing Republicans compromise.  In 2005, Tim Pawlenty was willing to raise the tobacco tax.  We raised some revenue.  We did some major cuts. Until Republicans are willing to compromise at all, there is no need for a Special Session and that’s why we’ll probably have a government shutdown.

We are seeing Democrats compromise more in other states.  Brod got the last word.

As soon as talking points and reality meet we’ll be able to get something done.  I do think there is a way out of this situation without a government shutdown.  I think it’s incumbent on Governor Dayton to realize that the efforts of the past don’t work in the future.

After a beating like this, next time Mr. Entenza will be singing "Break It to Me Gently ..."

 

 

Comments

[Hiram]

"Almost every point is false. Even the point about more people in Minnesota is misleading because 1.5% more people shouldn't mean a 22% spending increase as Dayton first proposed."

The 22% number is what you get when you don't include the federal stimulus money the state spent. Whatever you think of the policy, the fact is the state did spend it.

The federal stimulus money allowed us to put off cuts, that draconian reduction in the budget of 22%. But that was one time money and it's gone now, so the question is back on the table. Do we cut spending 22%, less the amount of additional revenue we have seen because the state has gotten a little bigger?

[Hiram]

"It’s a matter of priorities."

You notice, Laura talks about priorities but she doesn't tell us what they are. What are they? Nursing homes in outstate areas where she live? Schools in New Prague, to which Republicans want to shift dollars from urban and suburban school districts?

[Give2Attain]

I keep looking at page 4, towards the bottom, and I still do not see the cuts to Expenditures... And it looks like even the Republicans are will to spend more than shown here !!! Yet we keep calling them cuts...

http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/report-cons/feb11-2.pdf

[Speed Gibson]

Brod's point was that the DFL has no priorities at all - they want it all, raising taxes if necessary. And $39B/$32B = +22% in my calculator.

[Speed Gibson]

And I suppose you'll say that Entenza meant 150,000 will lose "current health insurance" not "all health care"? But that doesn't sound scary enough, the truth won't do!

[Hiram]

Laura wants to make this a discussion about semantics, about what we mean when we use words like "spending" and "cuts". Her argument rests on the theory that the federal stimulus dollars the state spent to avoid cuts weren't really spent, and the cuts were implemented. But of course, they weren't implemented then and the effect of what she wants to do means they would be implemented now. The results are the real changes that affect people's lives, the things Laura is trying to avoid talking about when she tries to divert the discussion to semantics, and the priorities she likes to talk about in theory, but not about the choices she doesn't want to make in fact.

Government is about choices. One choice we are faced with now, is where should we place the burden of the economic slowdown. On those who are least able bear it, the poor and the middle class the very people who have been hurt most by the recession? Or those who are better off, the ones who have been hurt least by the recession, and who incidentally benefited most from many of the Bush era policies that got us into this mess in the first place?

[The Big Stink]

Hiram: You almost sounded lucid for a moment. It's true, the Bush bailouts started this horrendous mess, but it has been the combined efforts of the Left to make certain he receives all blame for their continued acceleration of the bailout mentality. It's a win/win for them. They get all the federal goodies and the expansion of government (debt) and Bush gets the blame.

[Speed Gibson]

The public sector has largely been spared this recession, just like all the other downturns. And you would stick it to the private sector again? MnSCU is way too big. Public sector pensions are obsolete and unsustainable. Public sector retirement at 55 and gold plate health insurance have to go. Paying teachers more for mere longevity and unrelated/unproductive degrees has to stop. Paying "professional" people $20/hour to sort books at the library? Put some kids to work. And how many billions for Light Rail?

WE - HAVE - A - SPENDING - PROBLEM !!!!

[Hiram]

"It's true, the Bush bailouts started this horrendous mess, but it has been the combined efforts of the Left to make certain he receives all blame for their continued acceleration of the bailout mentality."

The bailouts which were indeed Bush's policy have done rather well, and they aren't what's driving the deficit now.

There is an op-ed piece in the Star Tribune today:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/122751424.html

which I think contains some fascinating insights into why we are in a recession, and why it's so difficult to climb out of it.

[Hiram]

"And you would stick it to the private sector again?'\

I would look to that portion of the private sector that hasn't been unduly affected by the down turn, and which benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts which are driving the deficit, that is high income earners.

Has your income gone up 6%? I assure you theirs has, indeed much more than 6%.

[Hiram]

WE - HAVE - A - SPENDING - PROBLEM !!!!

Indeed we have and it's out of control. We are getting older, we are having children, we have stagnating incomes and many of us are losing our jobs. All of those things are expensive, and all of those things involve increases in government expenditures. And the GOP budget makes none of those problems go away.

[Hiram]

By the way, it's my understanding that the way Republicans get the 22% increase number is by comparing Dayton's initial budget proposal of 37 billion with the Republican number of 30.2 billion, the amount of state revenue for the current biennium, but 3.8 billion dollars less than the state actually spent, the difference being made up by federal stimulus money and various accounting shenanigans.

Although the 30.2 billion number was tossed about within the Republican caucus and has been used by the GOP for talking point purposes, the bills that they actually passed put the budget at 34 billion. Dayton has dropped from his 37 billion figure to about 35.8 billion so the difference in raw numbers is about 1.8 billion now.

[Hiram]

Do we have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

The question itself oversimplifies the issue, assuming as it does, that those are the only two kinds of finance problems you can have, and that the answer has to be one or the other. In any event, the structure of that question will elicit only a superficial response. The problem isn't so much the deficit as it is what drives the deficit. The problems, of which the deficit is the result include a decline in economic activity, and a growth in what the government pays for, education and health care. We will never get the numbers right, unless we find an effective way to address those underlying issues.

[Hiram]

I have been thinking about that 39 to 32 spread. The 39 billion figure includes an immediate payoff of the 1.8 billion dollar education shift. Since no one thought an immediate payoff would happen, it was very easy for Dayton to take it off the original number and come down to 37 billion where he was for most of the session. How you get the 32 billion number is a little more complicated. State revenue in the current biennium was 30.2 billion but that number is of historical interest only. The state revenue number for the next biennium is 34 billion, and to get to 30.2 billion in revenue, you would have to cut tax rates. To get 32 billion, I guess you would have to cut rates to get a two billion dollar reduction, and designate 1.8 billion dollars of revenue to pay back the shift.

When Gov. Dayton was referring to extremism in the Republican caucus, what he was referring to was an effort to hold government spending at 30.2 billion. Assuming we aren't paying off the shift, it takes 37 billion dollars to keep government services roughly where they are today. The "extremist" view would have cut that by 23%. Rumor has it that the fight was fierce over this issue in the GOP caucuses explaining much of the delay we saw in bringing the Republican budget bills to the floor. It's my assumption that the extremists gave in on the issue in exchange for an ironclad promise to hold revenues at 34 billion dollars. The Republican leadership is now, in effect, asserting that the governor should be bound by the agreements they reached with their caucus dissidents, something the governor rejects.

[Laurie]

Some budget charts and graphs from the state senate to go with Hiram's explanations:

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/fiscalpol/reports/2011/Overall_FinanceCmte_BudgetOverview.pdf

page 8 shows how the general fund increase over last biennium is 8.1% (not 22%.) That is about 4% a year to account for inflation and increasing population. It actually makes sense to me now.

[The Big Stink]

Laurie: My property tax valuation just took a big hit, due to declining values. There are two houses on my block vacant. Explain to me how much more money the tax assessor is going to make on my block in order to fund growth in excess of the GDP? If the the General Fund increase is 4% a year, does that mean our future expenditures will be 4% a year? The numbers only work if you believe govt will contain itself. History ought to tell you it cannot and will not.

[Hiram]

"If the the General Fund increase is 4% a year, does that mean our future expenditures will be 4% a year?"

While the numbers are related to each, they are not independent variables, you can't expect government expenditures to rise at the same rate. Many of the same forces driving up revenue, are also driving up expenditures.

[Laurie]

about growth in excess of GDP, as a graph in my previous link shows, this is not happening at state or local levels of govt (p.18) The trend line is mainly flat (even a slight decrease in spending as compared to the 90's.)

The rochester paper does the best job explaining the budget numbers/impasses that I have seen:

".....Yet, when some Republicans talk about the size of Dayton's proposed budget increase, they use $30.2 billion as the baseline of "current state spending," and compare it to Dayton's outdated $37 billion proposal.

By doing so, the GOP can claim that Dayton seeks a 22 percent spending increase. That's the figure that was cited by Rep. Mike Benson during Thursday's Eggs and Issues meeting. Nelson reported the same figure on her handout.

But if we compare what Minnesota actually spent in the past two years to the latest offer that Dayton has put on the table, spending would increase by 3.7 percent. Or, put another way, the annual increase would be less than 2 percent

If we can’t agree on how to do the math, we’re going to have a hard time reaching a deal."

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1456320

Is a 1.9% difference in spending worth shutting down the governtment? Maybe, for those about to lose access to a full range of health care or for universities about to face drastic cuts.

[Hiram]

The problem here is that we get diverted from what these financial and tax issues mean in human terms to quibbling about various semantic issues, resulting in the usual eyes glazing over effect. In political message terms, it's the box Republicans are trying to push us into.

On my side of things, the message that it is important to stick to is that Republican proposals mean property tax increases, cuts in education funding, the taking away of medical care from our vulnerable, and a good segment of our not so vulnerable citizens, and the loss of employment at a time when unemployment is the greatest problem our economy faces.

[Speed Gibson]

"Drastic cuts" to universities? The concern should be on "drastic cuts" to students if any. What we've seen is a steady rise in tuition good years and bad, partly to fund over-expansion. We have a glut of post-secondary education facilities competing fiercely for students, many of whom shouldn't really go given the worthless degree programs they get talked into. I say again, cut MnSCU/UofM budget in half.

[The Big Stink]

I asked a brilliant young student how her studies at the University of Minnesota were going and if she had decided on a major.

"Sociology," she replied.

I looked at her parents - both educators in the public school system - and shook my head. I smiled and instructed her when she gets her degree, there's one thing she'll have to commit to memory:

"What's that?"

"Would you like fries with that, sir?"

I laughed. Her parents gave me a cursory smile. Hey, if they want to spend $30K per year to get their daughter a meaningless degree, I figure they ought to hear from someone who has a worthless degree from a state university.

[anonymous]

I'll bet the brilliant student and her parents thought you were *hilarious* Stink. (eyeroll).

Curious--what have been your kids' majors?

Also, Reagan was a sociology major.

--Annie