Category: DFL Gov 2010
Posted: 07/22/10 15:31
by Dave Mindeman
A couple of days ago, the three DFL candidates for Governor were on
together on MPR. The debate was classified as "lively", mostly because Dayton and Kelliher were pushing each other for political points. A number of issues were raised.
A major point of contention between Kelliher and Dayton has become the definition of "wealthy". Kelliher points to her program that raises taxes on those over $250,000, while Dayton's program needs to define it at $150,000. The argument is one of substance and will continue in the final weeks.
I guess it boils down to a couple of things. Kelliher contends that this would put Minnesota into the top tier of taxing states again. Something, she says, we need to avoid. Dayton's point is that if you move the cutoff to a higher level, you will not raise enough revenue to avoid additional painful cuts.
Both are valid points and I guess primary voters will need to decide which approach is better for the state.
Personally, I don't know which is best. Speaking to Dayton's point, a stable revenue stream is desirable. I have to admit that moving into the $150,000 range is not on my scale of wealthy, but that level can still afford a modest tax increase. Dayton says his numbers for balancing the budget without large scale cutting needs to move to that level. I can understand that. If a modest tax increase in that range can avoid more slash and burn tactics on health care for the poor or on education, then the reasoning makes sense.
Kelliher's issue about taxing at levels in Dayton's range is also valid. The perception of Minnesota being a high tax state (although evidence to that point is sketchy), will persist if taxation of people at $150,000 is a permanent solution. However, Kelliher's remedy is somewhat troubling as well. She seems to have latched onto this "fund shifting" addiction that Pawlenty has started and she suggests that we may need to do this until the economy improves. But, what if the economy continues in this lagging state for her entire term? Are we going to keep pushing revenue forward, indefinitely? Education support is tenuous -- they need to have stability.
Another item that popped up during the debate revolved around health care. Entenza, making a good point, said that if we are going to really balance the budget, we simply must deal with healthcare issues.
"To get the big savings, you have to go into the tough areas -- and that's health care and human services," said Entenza, "and I believe that's what we need to do." Entenza (and Kelliher gave a thumbs up on this as well - Dayton did not indicate any support for this) mentioned the Bush Foundation initiative on this topic. Ironically, Peter Hutchison, former Indpendent party gubernatorial candidate, is now the head of that foundation. He was
interviewed on MPR about this topic, by Cathy Wurzer, later in the week.
It wasn't completely clear what aspects of this report that Entenza and Kelliher would draw upon, but the two main focus points seem to be:
(1)
Ending the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance. Although that would certainly save tax credit expenses to the state, I'm not certain it would lead to an equivalent amount of tax revenue. Businesses would probably find a way to offset a lot of it. A more troubling aspect would be the disincentive to provide health insurance for employees. It would more than likely lead to increased health care costs to the employees or a loss of that benefit altogether.
(2)
Putting all public health insurance programs into a single health insurance pool. This is probably what Entenza and Kelliher were looking at because this would definitely save money to the state. It would also make for an easier transition to single payer -- which would save even more money, while moving us away from employer dependent health care.
These are part of reforms that would be difficult to happen in the current political environment. I can see Entenza latching onto this because it has cost savings while maintaining the current insurance industry environment. As to why Kelliher joined in with her support when she has committed the campaign to the Minnesota Health Plan, is unknown. She may look at this as part of the transition, although with Federal Healthcare due to implement in 2014, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. Especially when a complete single payer overhaul would be the progressive preference.
These 3 candidates will sharpen their differences over the next few weeks. The debates have been pointed but civil and engaging. This is good.....so far. I expect it to get tougher and that will also make it tougher for supporters to keep perspective.
Any one of these three candidates will make a great DFL governor. I hope that everyone can accept the August 10th result.
