Nonsolutions
7 March 2003 14:04![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
It became evident last year that the state would be running a deficit if nothing was done.
So now governor Pawlenty, who ran with a no tax increase promise, must deal with the current problem. Since it's his first year in office, he has to take into account the next few years as well. He has proposed a budget that balances, and might even have a (very) small surplus. It's not perfect, but it will do what it is supposed to do: not raise taxes and not run a deficit.
Since there are no tax increases, it means cuts in some things, cuts of some things, and not-as-big-as-hoped increases in still other things. Actual state spending will be up from last year, but the increase won't be as large as it was the last several several years.
Naturally everyone who is in any way not getting as much as they were planning on is howling about how unfair and mean-spirited this is and how Minnesota will turn into a "cold Mississippi" with poor services. This though the budget deficit would have been about $4 billion - and Wisconsin, with a similar population, geography, and industry spends about $4 billion less on its budget and is hardly a "cold Mississippi."[1] Pawlenty's budget has per capita spending not much different from Iowa, Illinois, or Wisconsin.
Yet the criticism seems endless. One thing is missing, though. There is a glaring omission. None of the critics has produced a state budget of their own. There has been no counter-proposal. And where is the DFL? Not showing an alternate budget around. Instead, they seem to just say how mean and horrible Pawlenty is - for having the audacity to keep his campaign promise.
Pawlenty's critics would like to be taken seriously, but have all failed to do the one thing that would make that possible: suggest a real, workable alternative to the Pawlenty proposal.
Pawlenty may not be Ventura, but he'll do.
[1] Pawlenty responded to the "cold Mississippi" line by noting that and quipping that there should be no problem with being a "cold Wisconsin."
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2003 09:42 (UTC)