Political overhaul is the answer

-- Philip Fuehrer

The debate rages over whether a “no new taxes” pledge is workable. Governor Pawlenty says that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Legislators from the other side of the aisle would like to explore raising additional revenue to pay for society’s needs.

At first glance, the Republicans seem to have good argument. Over the last 20 years, state government spending has increased, on average, at a rate exceeding 5.5 percent each and every year. Today, our state’s tax collections are the equivalent of almost $3000 for every Minnesotan, regardless of age or needs. Annually we spend over $4600 per person. Still, some believe that’s not enough. So what is the answer?

We need an overhaul. You change your car’s oil every three months and get a tune up every 50,000 miles. Eventually, though, your attempts at maintenance fail and you need a new engine. We have reached that point politically.

Budget cycle after budget cycle we merely tweak programs and expenses—add a little bit here, adjust a smidgen there, and replace this program piece with an improved version. Over time, costs and programs begin to mount, and the bang for our buck is lost.

Minnesota state government is now organized into over 100 agencies, boards and commissions. We use more than 130 separate major funds to pay for it all. The syndrome of over-organization occurs at all levels of government, state and national. President Bush recently proposed eliminating or reducing 154 federal programs that are failures, redundant or grossly inefficient.

This badly needed overhaul should take the shape of a “tax convention”—where society comes together to talk about revenue. The time has come to wipe the slate clean. We need to rebuild our engine. We need to start from scratch and debate and decide exactly what our tax and revenue system should look like. Who should pay? What is a fair burden for people to carry? For corporations? Should the system be flat? Progressive? User-fee based? Should it include sales tax? Sin tax? Once the debate is complete, we would have an agreed-upon revenue figure with which to work. Would we collect more than $3000 per person and prove that the budget shortfall is not a “spending problem”?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that each generation should have its own revolution. After more than a century of tinkering around the edges of the state’s finances, it’s time for a budget revolution. The real question is bigger than whether a “no new taxes” pledge is the right thing or not. It’s time to ask what our entire revenue system should look like.

Philip Fuehrer has been active in third-party politics since 1996. He can be reached for comment at Philip.Fuehrer@metrostate.edu.

The Metropolitan Home || Calendar || Masthead || Contact
Metropolitan State University Homepage

All material © Metropolitan 2004, except as noted. All rights reserved.

Viewpoint:

is the price of Pawlenty’s ‘no new taxes’ promise too high for students to bear?