7/31/2003
State Representative Al Juhnke
281 State Office Building
100 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-6206
For more information contact: Tom Smalec (651-296-5524)
NEWS COLUMN
Where the Real Differences Lie Between DFL, GOP
The Republican leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives - Speaker Steve Sviggum - descended to an unfortunate level of raw partisanship with a column to newspapers that attempts to portray DFLers as opponents of welfare reform. It's sad that Rep. Sviggum is making a political football out of an issue where people's lives are in the balance.
Nonetheless, it is useful for Minnesotans to see a clear, honest description of the differences between the DFL and GOP on the issues that face our state and its direction in the 21st Century.
For the record, DFL majorities in the House and Senate helped design and pass the most sweeping overhaul of Minnesota's welfare system in the past decade: the Minnesota Family Investment Program. MFIP was developed in cooperation with Gov. Arne Carlson - a Republican - and aimed at getting people out of poverty permanently. MFIP has been a fantastic success and was widely studied and copied by other states. Until the Bush recession eliminated 50,000 jobs in Minnesota, our welfare rolls and costs were plummeting. In the past, Democrats - myself included - supported reforms like the five-year limit on benefits. Yet we voted against this year's welfare changes because they betrayed the promises that were made with MFIP.
In January, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said all Minnesotans would be called on to share the burden of covering the $4.2 billion budget deficit. In the end, some people are bearing heavy burdens and some got away scot-free.
Rep. Sviggum's concern about people getting a free ride seems limited to those who are poor. He is proud of 'welfare reforms' that take $125 a month away from families with a disabled child. He is proud of 'budget cuts' that are literally taking food out of the mouths of needy seniors. Yet he staunchly defends 'tax reforms' that delivered $22,000 of income tax cuts and rebates to households with incomes over $650,000 a year since 1999. Why does he consider it admirable to take a little monthly cash away from a family with a disabled child, but terrible to ask a tiny minority of the wealthiest in this state to give back a little piece of the tax cuts that helped create our deficit?
Had it fallen to the DFL to solve this budget deficit, we would never have done it like the Republicans did, and so you see there is a distinct difference in philosophies.
Democrats would not have cut funding to Meals on Wheels for seniors or slapped nursing home patients with additional fees and costs like the Republicans did.
Democrats would not have cut funding to ethanol and the other successful rural development programs, threatening thousands of real jobs in exchange for pie-in-the-sky 'tax-free zones' and more corporate welfare, as the Republicans did.
Democrats would not have cut aid to cities and counties, forcing them to raise their property taxes, as the Republicans did.
Most critically, Democrats would not have put the future of our state at risk by slashing $180 million from local schools and letting college tuition rise by double-digit percentages again - as the Republicans did.
Why can't the Speaker defend the cuts to ethanol, seniors programs or education - which are his party's doing - instead of raising a false issue on welfare reform? It's because the Republicans can't come clean about their agenda of defending personal and corporate greed.
The huge budget shortfall gave us an opportunity to change the direction of government. Republicans chose one direction; Democrats would have chosen another. We lost that opportunity because partisanship and greed prevailed over balance and reason.
*******
Rep. Al Juhnke, of Willmar, is an assistant House DFL Caucus leader and the Lead Democrat on the House of Representatives' Agriculture & Rural Development Finance Committee.
