Minneapolis Plays Politics With Core Services

Fightin Words ^ | February 18, 2010 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

Employees of the City of Minneapolis were advised Tuesday of the “extremely damaging” effect Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposal to solve a $1.2-billion budget deficit could have on “core services.” Pawlenty’s plan would “take another $29 million out of Minneapolis’ 2010 budget,” an e-mail from Mayor R.T. Rybak and City Council President Barbara Johnson stated. On top of $21 million in previous aid cuts, the governor’s proposal would “represent a 56% cut in the Local Government Aid that Minneapolis was supposed to receive from the State in 2010.”

The text of the e-mail seems intent to incite the passions of city employees, and direct those passions toward St. Paul. This came as members of the public employee union AFSCME, a member organization of the AFL-CIO, gathered at the capitol to rally for a budget which “promotes job growth and preserves funds for local governments and state welfare programs.” Pressure is on state legislators to reject the governor’s proposal and keep cities and counties on the dole.

Earlier this month, Minnesota gubernatorial candidates gathered at the first bipartisan debate of the season. Local government aid was the subject of a heated exchange between Rybak and GOP rival Tom Emmer. (Note: this writer has served as a volunteer for Emmer for Governor.) Emmer cited the City of Minneapolis, and thus Rybak, as an example of government setting skewed priorities. The city laid off police officers while giving itself a raise, Emmer said. Rybak blamed Emmer and the state legislature for cutting local government aid and endangering essential services.

Rybak has stated the governor’s plan will cause Minnesotans to “pay more property taxes – while having to drive over unrepaired roads and bridges and having fewer police and firefighters to rely on.” Interestingly, as the top recipient of local government aid in the state, Minneapolis has spent $500,000 on 10 artistically designed water fountains. Minneapolis spent $200,000 on an ad campaign to promote the drinking of tap water. These are projects paid for by the city’s taxpayers while essential services, like police, fire, and maintenance of roads and bridges, is left dependent upon state aid.

It is true reductions in state aid would require increased local taxes to retain current services. It is also true this shift of financial obligation from micro-managers in St. Paul to seats of local government would enable voters to set local priorities. Citizens would only have “to drive over unrepaired roads and bridges [while] having fewer police and firefighters to rely on” if they choose local fiscal policy which produced those results.

[freedumb2003]

As with all the states, “services” is a code word for “welfare payments.”

In California, they are talking about cutting programs to provide in-home nursing to some people. Since when is it the charge of a state to provide in-home nurses? In days gone by that was done by family.

The number of “services” paid for by states is unbelievable — and the protests by the “gimme gimme gimme others’ tax dollars” is equally so.

[HospiceNurse]

I just wish he was a pretty girl with no governmental responsibilities so I could support him for president.

[G Larry]

Here’s what Tim and all conservative leaders need to do in these cases:

Show the list of PORK items in the budget to the voting public and declare, “THIS is what needs to be cut! NOT the essential services that these big government liberals ARE BLACKMAILING you with!”

[dawn53]

Living in a community with many elderly (Florida), let me just say this about in-home nursing care. If chronically ill older folks don’t receive some in-home care, they will end up in a nursing home (which is paid for, at present by Medicaid, i.e. the state.) An in-home nurse visit once a week is MUCH cheaper than a nursing home.

[freedumb2003]

>>Living in a community with many elderly (Florida), let me just say this about in-home nursing care. If chronically ill older folks don’t receive some in-home care, they will end up in a nursing home (which is paid for, at present by Medicaid, i.e. the state.) An in-home nurse visit once a week is MUCH cheaper than a nursing home.<<

I am sure you are correct, but the issue is why is the state subsidizing it at all? The state should provide safety services, infrastructure support and a regulatory environment and not much more. It should not be a source of welfare (particularly long-term welfare). A safety net I understand. A permanent crutch? I think not.

My sister worker as an interpreter on a California-sponsored site that performs voice services for the deaf. It is $65 A MINUTE — of my money. She has told me many of the calls are bratty teen kids (usually girls) calling home late at night to yell at their Moms, via the interpreter.

Every single person who gets state-sponsored services of any kind makes the same argument you have — that it is more expensive to not provide the service than to do so. Today they trotted out a blind 13-year old to scold his state (or city or county) government for chopping transportation services to the handicapped. Hey kid, have your mom or dad drive you for God’s sake. When I was your age I walked. Blind people can do that, I know.

Bottom Line: There ain’t no damn money. All States step back and drop their expensive welfare programs that serve no good except for allowing lawmakers to say “I did something Good today — yay me!” — on MY dime.