http://www.ginabauman.com/blog
With under three weeks to go until the election I think it’s time to start pointing out specific areas where my opponent and I have significantly different ideas and why I believe my ideas are more in line with the needs of the voters of District 50. There is definitely no shortage of topics to examine.
A good place to start is on the topic of cutting the state budget. I believe that the root cause of our economic problems is that government spends far too much. If we cut spending we can lower taxes, which will leave more wealth and capital in the private sector to fuel an economic recovery.
The first thing to come to grips with is that the budget is nothing more than a plan (or maybe actually a wish list) for what lawmakers want to spend. A budget "shortfall" is not a negative account balance as a lot of liberal rhetoric strongly implies, but rather the difference between how much money the state anticipates taking in from taxpayers and how much lawmakers want to spend. It’s really pretty simple - if the state spends no more than the considerable amount it takes in, the shortfall goes away.
My opponent has stated several times that a significant portion of our projected budget shortfall cannot be overcome by budget cuts. In other words, she is not willing to pare back her spending wish list as long as she can tap the taxpayers to give more. The stock mantra she works into every forum she has spoken at is nothing short of laughable and is pretty much the same as this statement from the Issues page of her campaign site:
We could shut down all of state government: let all the prisoners out of prisons, stop inspecting restaurants, fire all forensic scientists plus all fire and health inspectors, eliminate environmental protection and conservation activities, stop collecting taxes (which would put us further in debt), stop funding all bus service and other transit, close down all of the drivers' license and testing stations, end upkeep and public use of all state parks and trails, stop testing and trying to improve drinking water, river and lake quality, end all occupational licensing, reviewal and training activities, stop auditing city and state agencies, end all renters and homeowners credit, fire all state troopers and eliminate all the other things state government does and still not have enough money to balance the budget. That's because the overwhelming majority of our budget goes to education, health care for seniors and others, and local government aid to help keep down property taxes in property-poor cities. Those whose total solution is to just cut state government are wrong.As those of us who have observed her during this campaign have come to expect, she once again found a way to work it into her pitch at the recent LWV forum. The shallowness of thought here was mildly amusing at first, but it’s really starting to wear thin and is an insult to the intelligence of the people of District 50. There are various budget figures making the rounds but, in general, the projected shortfall is projected to be about $6 - 7 billion of about a $37 - 38 billion budget. Can any thinking person believe that the total amount budgeted for all the items in the above laundry list adds up to less than the even the most pessimistic shortfall projection? Do the math...my opponent obviously didn’t.
This isn’t rocket science. The state allocates nearly 70% of the budget to HHS (Health and Human Services) and Education. It appears that my opponent is trying to make the case that the only portion of the budget that can be scrutinized for cuts is the 30% or so that makes up the non-HHS/Education part of the budget. This assertion makes about as much sense as looking in the kitchen for a coin that was dropped in the basement because the lighting is better in the kitchen. Since the majority of the money is being spent in HHS/Education it stands to reason that this is also where some of cuts will need to come from. There cannot be "sacred cows" any more.
A major logical fallacy in the argument for excluding HHS/Education from cuts is the implication that such spending is virtually free from waste and cannot be reduced without catastrophic consequences. Does anyone with any real life experience actually believe this? Is every bit of administrative activity that occurs within the walls of the opulent structures that house the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services waste free and absolutely essential to the education of our children and the well-being of our citizens?
It's pretty obvious that the goal of my opponent's argument is to provide political cover for her party's desire to raise taxes, which she and the other big spending liberals euphemistically refer to as "increasing revenues". They attempt to soften this patently socialist idea a bit by assuring us that that process will be "fair and equitable" and based on the "ability to pay". Isn't it convenient that the same people who advocate raising your taxes are also the ones who will determine what's "fair and equitable" and whether of not you have the ability to pay. It pretty much comes down to using the money of those who work for it to buy the votes of those who don't.
Since when did government bureaucrats become endowed with the insight and wisdom to determine how much individual citizens need for their uniquely individual situations? Guess what? If you work harder than your neighbors and put away more money, you have the ability to pay more. Are you willing to work harder to qualify to pay more taxes? My opponent seems to think so.
I, of course, do not advocate cutting legitimate and essential government spending, but there is so much wasteful and pork barrel spending than can and should be cut. The state takes in over $30 billion each year, which is more than many states of similar size spend and manage to make ends meet. If we don’t spend any more than what we take in, the budget will balance or actually show a surplus, as it did before the DFL came into power in 2006.
