The Face of Compromise

Many MANY people I talk to complain about the lack of willingness among politicians to compromise to reach solutions. In Minnesota, for example, we currently have shut down our state government because the Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton, hasn't reached agreement with the Republicans who took over control of the MN House and Senate in 2010.

Now, let's look at what compromise looks like...

Governor Dayton, in offering his initial budget, offered a budget of 36 Billion dollars for the two year period covering 2011 and 2012. To keep all current state programs fully funded, without adding one cent of new spending, would have required the spending $39 Billion. Consequently, Dayton's budget cut 3 Billion from baseline. However, tax receipts project to about 34 Billion and Minnesota, like most states, is constitutionally required to not run a deficit.

A further point to know, MN had a Republican Governor and Democratic state house prior to 2010, and had one for 8 years (Tim Pawlenty). During the Pawlenty period, no additional tax revenues were passed other than a "use fee" on cigarettes. No increase in income or sales taxes, nothing AND during 2000 and then again in 2003, taxes were in fact cut, under pressure from MN House minority leader (Tim Pawlenty) in 2000 and Governor Pawlenty in 2003. During his tenure, MN fell from the 8th highest average tax burden to 26th. MN's performance in national standard testing also fell, but that's another complaint, this is about taxes. Long and short, MN cut taxes or held them level for 8 years prior to the economic collapse of 2008-2009. Tax receipts fell in 2009 and 2010 due to loss of jobs and thus income. Pawlenty "balanced" the budget in 2009 by deferring paying large bills (to the tune of 2 Billion) for the NEXT Governor to solve (Dayton).

So, Mark Dayton proposed spending 3 Billion below holding level, he cut spending. But that wasn't enough for Republicans, who, like Pawlenty REFUSE under ANY circumstances, crumbling economies, depression/recession, for ANY reason to EVER raise revenues. Dayton then proposed cutting another 1.9 Billion, leaving the two sides 1.6 Billion apart. The Republican "compromise" was to pass "racino" bills to raise 200M. So the moved 10% as far as Dayton. Had they moved as far as Dayton, oh, by say passing a tax increase of 1.6 Billion, we would have no shut down. Now they've even pulled back from the 200 Million. In addition, to get the $200M they wanted an absolute ban on ANY funding of Planned Parenthood. In short, they tied passing a tax increase to banning any spending for family planning in any form.

Further, as someone noted, Tim Pawlenty only vetoed 2 bills in his first 8 months as Governor, while Dayton has vetoed 23. Dayton hasn't been more bellicose, less easy to get along with. No, the Democrats during Pawlenty's tenure rarely sent spending bills to his desk they knew were DOA. Republicans send bill after bill to Dayton's desk, bills to allow you to shoot someone who enters your tent while camping without beings sure they mean you harm, bills to ban all funding for any form of stem cell research (another "no compromise stance" on something ridiculous) but because they know the public doesn't oppose stem cell research they called it a ban on human "cloning" (something already totally illegal) as a means to disguise their conduct. They sent Dayton a bill to call for voter ID requirements when no meaningful fraud goes on in the state (47 total bad votes, 44 of which were by felons who didn't know they couldn't) and so on, bill after frivolous, time wasting bill, rather than doing the work they needed to do.

Instead, compromise to them means NEVER agreeing to increase revenue, meeting a governor not halfway, but 10% of the way he moved even after he already cut 3 Billion (or 8% from necessary outlays). It means putting no taxes on the rich ahead of anything, never compromising. After the 2010 election I said the first order of business, the ONLY thing Republicans nationally ACTUALLY cared about was extending the Bush tax cuts, specifically the inheritance tax, and.. that was exactly what they demanded from Obama first thing, before anything else happened, any cuts to spending, anything at all. You can be sure it will be the first requirement the next time they are set to expire. The supposed desire to limit spending in Minnesota the Republicans care about, they (clandestinely) put aside recently in one of the proposals, they were willing to SPEND more so long as the revenue came from pushing the funding for schools FURTHER out in the future (the 2B Pawlenty pushed out and is now due) or came from a smoking lawsuit award intended to be used to stop smoking. So they didn't care about spending, just taxes, always taxes, forever taxes, and not taxes on the middle class, they've not fixed the alternative minimum tax though Obama pledged to sign it, in Minnesota they didn't do anything to try to offset hikes in property taxes as revenues fell under Pawlenty. The ONLY tax they really oppose, the only thing they care about, and thus, the reason why they will NEVER compromise, is they will never allow taxes on the wealthy to go up.

So, when someone moans about a lack of civility, about a lack of compromise in Washington. Give them Minnesota as an example, where the Governor cut 1.9 Billion and the Republicans either would SPEND more if it could be effectively borrowed or would only agree to 200M more, 1/10th Dayton's part, and only IF it was tied to a ban on any stem cell research (which they relate to abortion funding) but dishonestly label as banning human cloning, a new tax base which will hit only the poor and middle class because the rich pretty damned infrequently visit casinos.

This country has a vast problem, but it isn't taxes, it isn't spending, it IS was and will be, a refusal to expect profits to equate to jobs or revenue.

As long as we are slaves to the rich, we will have shrinking wages, shrinking services and a shrinking chance of a good future for our children. The Republicans in Minnesota are owned, lock stock and barrel by the ultra-rich who are waging class warfare on the middle class, complaining about paying too much to union workers, complaining about paying too much to keep up services and infrastructure which are the bulwark on which their fortunes were built. The next time someone says spending is out of control, remind them that spending is barely 10% higher, at this time of great crisis, than during Reagan's Presidency (as a percent of GDP), that 8 of the top 13 highest deficit years have been under Republican Presidents, and the other 5, under Democrats occured either during a World War or during an eoncomic collapse. The ONLY consistent promise Republicans have kept over the past 30 years is not reducing spending or government (as if that's the cause of our trouble), but instead, much like the only promise made to native Americans which was kept (to take their lands), has been to cut taxes on the rich. If you do not live in the upper 1%, your taxes have "on book" remained flat, but your debt to your children has grown by many tens of thousands of dollars. ALL of it would have been avoided had we kept taxes at/near what they were in 1998 or better yet, 1981. There would be no debt, and we would be no worse off. Our national treasuries have been given to the rich to build factories in China, where taxes are generally higher. The difference in that isn't about revenue either, it's about the fact that without slashing taxes on the rich, they'd never have been given or had the incentives to move so many jobs overseas, nor would they have had the power to control our national debate so completely