What the Minnesota state shutdown is all about

People from across the country are hearing about the Minnesota state government shutdown. They know what's happening, and they may have heard that it's the Republican legislature vs. Democratic governor Mark Dayton impasse over the budget. The neutral media, such as Minnesota Public Radio and most of the state's major newspapers, have tried to reflect a "he said, she said" form of impartiality — an example of the unfailing creed of "Minnesota nice". The truth, however, is something different.

As a state-legislator-who-shall-not-be-named, a Democrat who respects the views of members of both parties, has told me, it has a lot to do with the last election. First of all, he says, there are reasonable people in both parties. He gets along and can communicate with the senior members of the Republican Party, noting that they are reasonable, hard-working legislators.

One of the problems, he notes, is that the new legislators, the first-termers elected in 2010, are absolutely committed to the new conservative agenda of absolutely no tax increases at the state level coupled with social agenda items such as prohibiting abortion, banning stem-cell research and limiting collective bargaining rights of public employees.

The impasse that has led to the shutdown is this: While the governor has compromised and the senior Republican leadership is willing to compromise, the Republican newbies in the legislature are firm on many of their new conservative agenda commitments, the most important of which is their "no new taxes" pledge.

This leaves the more experienced and moderate Republicans in an awkward position: Do they compromise with the governor and risk a defection from their own Republican ranks, or do they represent a united Republican front, defending issues that they may not necessarily agree with, and try to win the battle for the media and the hearts and minds of Minnesota voters?

Let's keep in mind that Minnesota has a rich tradition of highly regarded moderate Republican leaders, including former governors Arne Carlson and Elmer Anderson, and former senator Dave Durenberger.

At this point the chief sticking point seems to be whether the Republicans will allow any tax increase at all. As the state-legislator-who-shall-not-be-named has written to his constituents:

Because I was at the Capitol day and night, I know about the budget negotiations this week. Here are some things many Minnesotans may not know.

1. In the last 24 hours of negotiations, the GOP demanded that social policy and partisan map-making be included. 

I was taken aback when, late Wednesday night, I learned that the GOP leadership said that it wanted (a) a stem-cell research ban that Mayo and the University of Minnesota opposed; (b) two abortion-related bills; (c) a collective-bargaining limit that had not even reached the House floor during the session; (d) the political redistricting map that it drew, which would give it a partisan advantage for the next 10 years; and (e) other controversial bills. 

These are not budget items. They are important to many people, but making these demands to put policy and partisan maps into the budget undermined the negotiations at a crucial juncture. 

2. On Thursday morning, Governor Dayton and the DFL responded to the GOP policy demand by offering to reduce the income tax increase to millionaires only — those who earned a million dollars in a year after all of their business and personal deductions. 

3. Next, Governor Dayton *did* offer a compromise that had no income tax increase. Nobody would have paid a penny more in income tax. 

4. The GOP responded to the Governor's no-income tax-increase offer by again demanding that the policy issues be included. 

When the GOP claims that bills were close to agreement, it's not accurate. It may be that the dollars were close on a few bills — but far apart on education, higher education, health and human services, transportation, and other budget areas. The GOP leadership effort to insert the policy and partisan demands seemed to reporters and others as an attempt to 'blow up' the negotiations. The press has a copy of these demands.

The bottom line is that the senior leadership of the Minnesota Republican Party has been coerced by the party's newly elected members to draw a line in the sand, which, ironically, runs totally opposite to the concept of "Minnesota nice."

"Minnesota nice" means taking care of those less fortunate. It means providing a livable wage. It means making education affordable for all Minnesotans. It means providing health care and living support for those who are elderly, incapacitated or out of work. It means protecting children and struggling families. It means supporting Minnesota businesses with the infrastructure they need to excel in a competitive marketplace.

The final sticking point of the negotiations on the Minnesota state budget is whether to raise taxes at all. The governor simply wants to bring into place a more egalitarian tax system — let's call it "tax equalization". Right now in Minnesota the well-off pay fewer taxes as a percent of their income than everyone else, as represented by the chart and table above. Is that fair? And is preserving that inequality worth shutting down the state government and incurring all the costs and challenges the shutdown entails?

That is the fundamental question confronting the citizens and elected officials of Minnesota today.