[Update 3/21] On Friday, Ford Peterson provided the document Scott Newman referenced in his answer; one update that reference this material does not appear to have been posted and has been deleted by my software. I apologize to readers for that unintended delay [end update].
I'll be looking later this week at Scott Newman's legislative and campaign record, but thought it might be worthwhile to check out some of the statements he made on the road to his endorsement by Republican delegates on Saturday.
One of the most readily accessible sources for statements for all four candidates who sought the Republican endorsement is a series of questions posed by conservative activist and GOP delegate Ford Peterson at MNPatriots.
Here's a sample of Newman's stands:
Do you support the elimination of the “Prevailing Wage” rules designed
to inflate the cost of payroll on state projects?
Newman:
Yes. Prevailing wage rules hold costs artificially high on state
contracts. They are based on a theory that because someone in a
different geographical location has a higher wage therefore that wage is
due on all government projects. This is something you would not see in
the private sector because it is not based on sound business principles.
In the past I routinely voted against minimum wage bills for the same
reason.
Thus Newman not only opposes prevailing wages for taxpayer funded projects, but opposes the minimum wage as well. For a much different take on prevailing wages, check out the links at the Minnesota Building and Trades Council.
And then there's Newman's really curious statement about Minnesota's spending on education and welfare, that comes in answer to a question about government spending and employment:
5) Are you prepared to support methods of reducing the overhead at the state level by
eliminating services and the jobs related to these services? An
effective cost-cutting approach entails the elimination of tens of
thousands of state jobs. Are you prepared to lead that charge in an
environment where the media and liberals in general are calling for the state to greatly
expand its payroll?
Newman:
Without equivocation, Yes and this question really gets to the heart of
our spending problem. MN is the number one employer in this state
involving thousands of government employees working for various
agencies. As an attorney I have been involved in many cases of the
government versus individuals and private businesses. I have been
witness to the adverse effect of rules and regulation on our citizens
and their ability to succeed in business. First we cut off the revenue
because no bureaucracy can survive without taxpayer funding. I believe
with the current budget problems, we have the best opportunity in a
generation to do just that. Second, we systematically begin a program to
repeal the thousands of pages of rules state agencies and departments
thrive under. I have attached a budget handout to illustrate this
problem. Note, in total dollars we spend more on welfare than we do on
educating our kids. Built into that welfare budget are the salaries for
the thousands social service employees throughout the state. Rhetorical
question: Who’s on welfare? [emphasis added]
The sentence in bold was especially interesting to me and I wish that Peterson had posted Newman's handout, because I can't find any source online that says that says Minnesota now spends more on "welfare" than on education, even when "welfare" is generously defined.
According to the Minnesota Management and Budget Office, an agency which is part of the Pawlenty administration, 29.3% of the state's budget for 2010-11 goes to health and human services, while 37.1% goes to K-12 education and 9.1% goes to higher education.
[Update: The editor at MNPatriots contacted Scott Newman about his source, and kindly sent along his answer. The document is here: State Expenditures –
All Operating Funds for the 2008-2009 Biennum. The document is available in a longer list found at Money Matters. Reports for State Expenditures--All Operating Funds were published and are available online in 2000 (FY00-01), 2003(FY04-05), 2005(FY06-07), and 2008(FY08-09). The final available online report is the one Newman gave to Peterson.
Apparently, the shift in total spending more from all operating funds on education to spending more on health and human serivces occurred between the 2000-2001 Biennum* ( 2000, page 6) and the 2004-2005 Biennum (2003, page 4). I'll investigate what caused this change.
For more on the data, see below the fold* [end update]
A trifling goes to agriculture and vets' services, the latter of which
might be considered "welfare."
I'm not being snide about the last point, and it's not my own. MPR published an AP report last fall, Minnesota among leaders in welfare spending:
Welfare spending in Minnesota is among the
highest in the nation, according to new census figures, and it's
been growing steadily for more than 10 years due to the rising cost
of providing health care for the needy.
Nearly 23 percent of all state and
local government spending in
Minnesota during fiscal 2007 went toward services that fall under
the Census Bureau's broad definition of welfare, according to the
2007 Census of Government Finances. Among states, that ranked
behind only Maine at 24.3 percent and Rhode Island at 23.7 percent. . . .
. . .The bureau's definition of public
welfare includes direct
payments to people and payments to groups that serve the poor, but
it also includes expensive health care programs, including Medicaid and
medical assistance.
The bureau counts as welfare state
payments for the Medicaid
program, prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D program and
many other health care programs for the poor. Public nursing homes,
veterans homes and other institutions for the needy also are
included. . . .
Perhaps Mr. Newman will post his handout on his campaign web site so we can all figure out why he has come up with such a different set of figures than the Pawlenty administration or the census estimate.
The MN Patriots' site contains a couple more gems, which I'll look at in future posts.
*See below the fold for more information about significance of the federal funds and Minnesota state general fund.
Recent Comments