Posted: 07/17/10 21:34
by Dave Mindeman
When we talk about the economy the obvious issue is how to create more jobs. That's what is needed and every policy discussion needs to work toward that end. Last year, at the Federal level, President Obama outlined his stimulus package that had jobs at the heart of his intended purpose, but he didn't get any GOP support. None... as they criticized its size and scope.
But Obama also received some criticism from an unexpected source. Paul Krugman, Nobel economist and liberal thinker, said that Obama's plan was doomed to fail. His criticism? Not big enough and too many tax cuts.
Yes, that's right....TOO MANY TAX CUTS.
I bring this up because Margaret Anderson Kelliher is proposing an economic leveraging proposal which is bold and sorely needed.
A $2 billion bonding proposal may seem like government spending run amuck (and you can pretty much rest assured that the GOP will characterize it that way), but really it is the absolute right plan at the right time.
The caveat that I would be concerned about is that this proposal has to absolutely fund large scale infrastructure and capital projects. We have to skip the local, small scale ideas that can help target local economies but won't build up the state economic numbers on the whole.
MAK's idea is simple. Borrow the money and crank up the economic engine that moves our own state stimulus package...sans tax cuts, thank you. And as the major infrastructure repair moves along, the infusion of jobs and money will stimulate economic activity that can, in return, pay the money back and stabilize economic activity.
There is some key general components developing for Minnesota Democratic policy that could move us forward:
1) Opt in to the early Fed Health Plan which will fund and fix several state health programs. (all DFL candidates agree).
2) A Minnesota branded stimulus package as MAK suggests. (How will Dayton and Entenza react?)
3) A tax fairness policy that will bring in some needed revenue from our wealthier citizens. We can argue about what income threshold that should encompass, but I also think the tax increase should have a sunset provision (make it temporary) so that we can phase it out as our economic situation improves. (All three have indicated some change here, but there are differences on amounts).
4) Make certain that education funding and shifts are repaid and guaranteed. (I think they are all in agreement here as well).
5) Property tax relief coupled with home purchase incentives and mortgage help or restructuring. (Still waiting for specific proposals on this.)
At some point, when warranted, we should also add some middle class tax cuts, but not before we are ready this time.
Of late, Kelliher is the one who has become the idea person in the Democratic field. It would be good to hear how the others will respond to this particular proposal as well.
We are beginning to get somewhere.
