Well, to avoid writing more than two posts per day, I'll respond in digest form. Note: THE SACRIFICE OF BREVITY CAN BE LAID AT THE ALTAR OF FOLLOWING THE RULE OF NO MORE THAN TWO POSTS PER DAY (grin)
1. re Council passes budget 11-2
Steve Sumner writes:
> In response to Rick's post...
>
> Just sticking more money into the city and the school boards isn't going
> to
> address the needs that are there. We need real reform that focuses on the
> real problems and produce real solutions. Keep in mind that there are
> some
> problems that government can't fix, and no amount of money will ever be
> able
> to have any lasting impact.
No offense, Steve, but this is the same kind of non-specific "sounds good" rhetoric that the Taxpayers League spouts as well. When pressed for specific areas on needed reform, the League just backpedals and points to percentage growth in spending, etc.
The point I made - to which you've not really responded - is that the Governor and MN legislature balanced their budget in large part by cutting back on aid to local governments but really did not lower the state-mandated levels of services.
> As far as unfunded mandates go..... I am a local level control type, and
> don't like them. I think they need to be looked at on a case by case
> basis
> to decide what should be done about them.
Swell, we're in agreement. So do you think the Governor and legislature (which you lauded in the first post) will show the leadership to do this? So far, your cries for leadership seem to be limited to the City of Mpls ... and you've held the Governor and legislature up as models for the City politicos to emulate.
Frankly, I'd rather that the Mpls council _not_ follow Pawlenty's "leadership" model ... they'd probably call for the death penalty the next time there's an emotionally charged situation or some other attention-grabbing stunt.
2. re: Praising R.T. (unfunded mandates)
Ronald Leurquin writes:
> In case anyone had gotten this far I have a question about the wonderful
> thing we like to call "unfunded mandates". I am not very aware so I will
> ask this question. Why the hell does Minneapolis (or any other city for
> that matter) do what the county, state, or feds tell them they have to
> unless the money comes from the SOB that mandated it? I have the same
> question regarding County and State government. If the feds want it they
> should pay for it, if the state wants it Tim should pay for it, if the
> County wants it then they should pay for it. I realize this would happen
> with my dollars regardless of what level it happened in, but it would be a
> fairer system if the rule makers had to figure out how to pay for
> implimentation of the rules they pass.
There may be a case where Hennepin County has passed along a mandate to the City of Mpls (off-hand I'm not aware of any) ... but there's more and better examples at the state and federal levels. The reason why Mpls (and other cities) do so is that the legislature passes (and the Governor signs) laws that require cities to perform certain tasks. Where there's some substantial cost involved, there is typically some funding that accompanies the mandate. The funding may even be initially adequate.
But over time any dedicated funding either gets rolled into a larger pot and the legislature then pats the heads of the local levels of government and says "don't worry, it's all taken care of and in this larger fund." And, over time, the mechanisms for distributing the funds change and/or the size of the funds is reduced -- voila underfunded mandates.
3. re Unfunded Mandates
Keith Nybakke writes:
> We have had candidates run for office using a pledge of "no new
> taxes" as their campaign cornerstone. What if a group of candidates
> were to run for office using a pledge of "no unfunded mandates" as a
> campaign cornerstone?
>
> It seems to me that there is a certain logic and symmetry in this.
>
> If nothing else, it would make for some interesting debates.
Great idea on paper ... not sure how it would translate in real life.
Ironically, my state senator is a former City Council member who, when serving on the council, railed against unfunded mandates. She embraced (heavens, I think she may have even committed a first-degree sexual assault) the "no-new taxes" pledge. And hasn't done a thing (that I can find at least) to peel back any mandates on local units of government.
"No new taxes" appeals to the electorate 'cause it's easy to understand and has direct impact. "No unfunded mandates" tends to make peoples' eyes glass over 'cause it's a policy wonk's delight and not particularly easy to understand or directly felt.
4. re Hennepin County
David Brauer writes:
> It's important to pay attention to the Mayor and Council, but Hennepin
> County is where the social service action - read $$$ - is.
>
/snip/
> If Minneapolitans advocating more financial/program support for the poor
> and
> homeless really want to make a difference, they should work on Stenglein
> (or, if you can wait until he's up for election in 2006, work for an
> opponent).
>
> I should add Stenglein is an affable guy, a sincere "fiscal conservative"
> who has done a lot of work on the African-American Men's project. Still, a
> lot of this comes down to money - and if you want more of it spent on your
> Minneapolis-centered societal concerns, there should be more attention
> paid
> to Stenglein on this list, and elsewhere.
Since at least 1971 (when I moved to the Twin Cities and started working for Hennepin County) folks have talked about the County level of government as "silent and invisible" -- nothing's changed (except that I stopped working there -- grin).
David is absolutely right that funding for social services and homeless services -- as well as administration of welfare funds, etc -- is largely focused on the county level. The only real exception I can think of is a smattering of Correctional programs that are funded at the state level. (And those would be programs that lie outside Community Corrections programs ... CC programs are also administered by the County IIRC)
Essentially the Feds pass along monies (and mandates) to the states and Minnesota traditionally delegates the actual delivery of welfare, medical and social programming to Counties, not cities. Unlike other states, Minnesota has not moved to a "County Executive" system so there's not an elected figurehead at the county level (who can name the current board chair except a few wonks on this group and in politics/service delivery??)
Rick Mons
Shoreview
