What state government services do you consider essential?

In response to your 1st paragraph, TARP was announced in October 2008 – prior to Obama’s election. http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/tarpinfo.htm

I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion you did in Paragraph 2.

Paragraph 3: I’m not sure where you got your information that connects US dollars to oil drilling permits in Brazil. It does seem, however, that you’re forgetting to factor in the repercussions to drilling permits that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon debacle. Permitting for Gulf drilling is only now resuming.

The context of your 4th paragraph appears to ignore the Bush administration’s 8 years of decision-making on the deficit – which relied on trickle-down economics and unsustainable credit risks to create economic progress.

I don’t really understand what you’re driving at in your 5th paragraph – it just sounds like sound bite reiteration to me.

In the end, it needs to be remembered that the causes for our mess are numerous, and no one or two things are going to get us out of it. And blaming everything on spending is only a good idea when you ignore what the alternatives are. Here, the alternatives include failing to provide our vets with health care, fix roads, helping people search for work, keeping roofs over people’s heads and halfway nutritious food in their stomachs, getting ready for winter storms (it may be 90+ today, but we still need to do that), keeping our food supply safe… I could go on and on.

I kind of agree with Ryan in a way: folks don’t know what they’ve got until it’s gone. And it’s pretty sad for me to say that, as I am a State employee with kids who’s currently looking for bargains on mac n’ cheese and peanut butter. For the sake of my mortgage payment, I sure hope it doesn’t come to that. But, well, we state employees don’t contribute much to the economy or tax base (yes, we also pay taxes!).

So, as for what should be deemed “essential”: well, after a month or so, most government jobs will seem pretty gosh-darned essential.

Raul sounds like he’s repeating talking points because that’s what he IS doing. Nothing he said is relevant to the question presented. It has nothing to do with MN’s budget problem. He tried to derail a legitimate, rational conversation by posting nonsense from a propaganda machine. Now that his disinformation has been exposed for the factually incorrect mess that it is, let’s ignore the troll and get back to the real discussion at hand: what state government services do you consider essential?

Services to people who are vulnerable because of physical or mental disabilities are essential. If these persons live in state care facilities, the cost of running those facilities is essential, including paying the state employees who run them. If the state has a contract to pay for their care in a private or non-profit facility. the state needs to continue paying those contractors. If the state is paying personal care attendants to keep these people in their own homes, whether the attendants are from private firms, non-profit organizations, or the persons’ own families, the state needs to continue paying those contracts.

My criterium for essential during a shutdown is whether someone will definitely suffer bodily harm by not providing the service. Not whether bad things might happen. Not whether there might be economic harm. So, state-run hospitals, yes. State Patrol – no – there would still be County Sheriffs, City Police, etc. Unemployment insurance – no. Driver’s licenses – no. Parks – no. Tax collection – no. Payments to health care providers and nursing homes – probably if the alternative is kicking patients/residents out. Road construction – no. Prisons – probably if they can’t find county or city facilities to take the murderers and rapists – there would be bodily harm otherwise. Education – no. Pollution control – no. Health department – no. Business licenses – no. Rest areas – no.

Cal, I ridiculed Raul, because what he wrote was ridiculous. You want a serious comment? Here’s one. (Not exactly an answer to “Today’s Question,” but in response to your comment.)

The thesis that raising taxes on “job creators” will hurt the economy is misleading. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were supposed to spur the economy. It worked, sort of. As measured by GDP, the economy did indeed grow, but economists were puzzled at the results, because it turned out to be a “jobless recovery”– something they hadn’t seen before. The extension of the Bush tax cuts over Democratic objections seems to have had a similar result. Though the economy is growing, albeit slowly, the rate of job creation is much slower than the growth of the economy. Why is that? Why aren’t those “job creators” using their tax breaks to create jobs? It’s because “job creators” is a misnomer. The folks with money to hire workers don’t care about workers. They just care about money. When the higher tax rates were in force, we effectively had a tax on the failure to create jobs, since payroll is a business expense. If we want the economy to produce more jobs, we need to go back to those higher tax rates on the hoarders who amass wealth for themselves without regard for the common good.

Steve,

First of all, to stay on topic, I forgot about the Met Council, our non-representative ever growing example of waste. Then cut all the light rail nonsense that will be a financial black hole forever. Cut them both forever.

There was an excellent editorial in the Strib (think it was last Sat, can’t find the link). It talked about the uncertainty that a small to mid size employer deals with. What will it cost to hire another employee, what with a new costly regulation every day? That’s a huge reason why there is no hiring. Government has many ways to hinder growth.

Employers hire to make money and the employees make money too. Somehow you believe this is evil, but as an employee, I benefit and so do you. Unlike the public sector, private sector employment produces wealth. It funds research to provide the products that you and I consume to improve our lives. It allows us to buy what we want. It pays the taxes. Sadly, so much of what government does penalizes more of the populace than it benefits. Get out of my way and let me enjoy my life.

The notion that we should raise taxes on those evil employers so we will increase private sector employment is quite fanciful. We had 5% unemployment under Bush after suffering through 911. And no, I didn’t like Bush either.

I am not sure why you call yourself a cynic. It’s just the same stuff that is in the mainstream media pushes about how business is evil, those that achieve are greedy and that government is the only thing that is good and compassionate.

Perhaps you should change your moniker to Steve the Bitter.

Anything that ones life and home would be put at risk:

* Minnesota Care, obviously. Those on it are the neediest of the needy. (To even qualify you have to be so under water is not fair. And worse, the aid rarely really covers anything. Doubt me? Try and apply for it….)

* Unemployment. Nuf said.

* Police

* Fire

* State’s Dislocated Worker programs. If we are going to get out of a recession, you need to have employees in these programs to get jobs that even exist or stand a chance at a job if theirs no longer exists…

* Court systems, as if it was not bad enough.

* Phone banks to the Leadership so we can call and complain…..

Cal, I don’t need to be lectured on economic theory. I understand about how employers and employees both gain (theoretically) from the arrangement. What I’m cynical about is the entire premise that what’s “good for the economy” is good, period. If the GDP is growing like a weed, but all that growth goes into the pockets of small minority while the vast majority see little or no improvement in their standard of living (as happened under GWB), how is that better than a GDP that grows more slowly but spreads the benefits over most or all of the population? What is the economy for anyway?

(I’m equally cynical about socialist ideology, but since there’s no danger of that gaining any traction these days, you won’t often hear me rant about that.)

I’m not bitter. I’m sad that our government is run by whatever faction is best able to get the most folks to swallow their ideological bullshit.

I think that ALL state government should be shut down. The legislators and governor would then solve the problem immediately, because there would be rioting in the streets and government buildings burning. It would show everyone how important government is and hopefully put a lid on government and teacher bashing.