RESPONSE - Carlson
Arne Carlson (carlsona@Free-Net.Mpls-StPaul.MN.US)
Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:19:37 -0500 (CDT)
QUESTION #3 - October 28, 1994:
Today, Minnesotans feel government is less relevant to their lives and are
having a hard time seeing how the benefits associated with government are
worth the costs. As the chief executive of Minnesota's state government,
how will you demonstrate the importance of state government to the citizens
of Minnesota. In other words, where are the costs resulting in clear
societal gains? Suggested issues you might address include information
infrastructure, public education, health care, etc.
Governor Carlson's response to the third question.
When Minnesotans discuss government, their first concern is the amount of
money that comes out of their pocket to pay for services. I believe the
price of government must not increase further; in fact I would like to see
the cost go down. In order for this to happen state spending must not grow
faster then the growth of personal income. This was not the case in the
late 1980's when state spending grew at a rate of eight percent and
personal income grew by 6.9 percent. Since 1991, we have reversed this
trend - personal income has grown an average of 5.6 percent compared to 5
percent government spending growth.
I have been very clear and consistent on the need to hold the line on
spending. I have vetoed over $500 million in new taxes, and signed a
tax-cut bill that reduced taxes by $57 million this year and $128 million
next year. I was able to sign that bill because the state is in good
financial shape. After inheriting a $2 billion deficit in 1991, we were
able to put a stop to run-away government spending and today we enjoy a
$623 million surplus.
In addition to the cuts contained in the 1994 tax bill, we also included a
requirement that the governor propose and the legislature adopt a target
percentage that state and local revenues comprise of personal income in the
next two bienniums. This publicizes the "Price of government" for the
taxpayers, and provides them with one more effective tool to use in
evaluating the cost of government. The process for setting this figure for
the 1995 session is one that wil be done jointly by the Commissioner of
Revenue, the Governor, and legislative leadership
Minnesota is renowned for its superior quality of life, partially enhanced
by our government services. However, we need to maximize efficiency and
streamline management to deliver service needed at the lowest possible
costs. We must evaluate current services and make sure that those which are
not proving beneficial or are inefficient are reduced or cut, and that
those programs that do work are better funded.
The state has an important role to play in maintaining a modern highway
system, providing top-rate public education, and working towards the goal
of market driven reforms of the health care system. These are some of the
areas where government can and should do its best work. But if we are
going to increase state money being pumped into any of these areas we must
demand quality results. If we can increase the quality of government by
demanding efficiency and results, we can hopefully regain the trust and
respect of the citizen of Minnesota.
Changing government to fit the needs of the people does not seem to be
a goal of my opponent. He has pledged to increase the cost of government
by raising taxes and increasing the size of government. Sen. Marty does
not seem to understand history. No nation has ever taxed itself into
prosperity. We need to encourage investment and achievement, not penalize
success and hard work.
My question for Senator Marty is about making tough choices to curb the
cost of government. If faced with a budget deficit, similar to the $2
billion problem Minnesota faced in the early 1990's, would you have the
courage to cut government programs to balance the budget? Would you be
able to stand up to the government unions and tell them you are freezing
wages for one year?