[speedgibson] Speed Gibson: Structural Sacred Cows 1

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Speed Gibson:
Structural Sacred Cows 1
http://speedgibson.powerblogs.com/posts/1235862252.shtml


   You sometimes here budget deficits or a portion of them described as
   "structural" in nature. This is to say that the current laws bring in
   too little revenue and/or spend too much money. In Minnesota where
   revenues triple every 20 years, it's safe to say we have a spending
   problem.
   Local attorney Gregg J. Cavanagh had his guest commentary published
   recently in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: [1]How to make state budget
   easy to balance. In it, Cavanagh claims that "balancing the state
   budget would be easy -- if our leaders were willing to kill a few
   sacred cows." He lists nine of them, and it's a great list, worthy of
   several posts, to wit:
    1. Cut the size of the Legislature.
       "Minnesota has far more legislators per capita than even a
       geographically and economically complex state like California.
       Maintaining this large a Legislature is expensive. Even more
       expensive is the unnecessary legislation the senators and
       representatives must generate to demonstrate they are 'doing
       something.' The Legislature should be reduced in size, and
       legislators' compensation and per diem should be reduced to a
       level appropriate for a part-time Legislature."
    2. Eliminate the education monopoly.
    3. Turn off the welfare magnet.
    4. Place a moratorium on light-rail projects.
    5. Reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax.
    6. Outsource whenever possible.
    7. Repeal the prevailing wage law.
    8. Ban project labor agreements.
    9. Stop trying to run everything.

   ***
   I'm afraid that the position of Legislator will never be considered
   part time again. They might get shamed into shaving their excessive
   per diems a little, but they're not going to cut their own pay or
   benefits. And you're certainly not going to get them to reduce their
   numbers for fear they're one of the "reducees." Not unless...
   Many disagree with me, but I'd like to see a unicameral Legislature.
   The two house concept was a grand political compromise needed to adopt
   the U.S. Constitution, not any model of good government; quite the
   opposite. There's no accountability if you can blame the other chamber
   or the conference committee conveniently stacked by the leadership. A
   lot of busy work is created in coordinating the operation of those two
   chambers. And if two are better than one, why aren't three better than
   two?
   What's the right number? If the Senate can claim to do full justice to
   all the legislation it handles, clearly 67 is adequate, especially if
   the above coordination and busy work is eliminated. So close the
   House, use the existing district boundaries, just shift the terms to
   elect half the body every two years.
   Who survives among the three current office holders in each district?
   I'd say whoever has been there the longest. Senator wins the ties with
   the House, otherwise that district is in the first group of elections.
   What's the right pay? This is the key. As part of the Constitutional
   Amendment that would obviously be required, set it high enough to get
   that Amendment through the current bodies. Include money for lavish
   expansion and remodel of their offices. Install a Zagat-rated
   cafeteria and Olympic-class workout facilities, including a pool.
   Provide Superintendent-level retirement and severance packages.
   In other words, spend whatever it takes. Buy those votes! It will
   still be chump change as part of our $25+ billion annual state
   spending. If it makes it impossible for the remaining Legislators to
   generate all the extra nonsense they pass each year, it's almost
   certain to be a net plus.

References

   1. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/40252027.html?elr=KArksUUUU