I recently spent five days at the Carver County Fair, and had a chance to meet and talk with many people. One of the issues of concern with several was government assistance to people unwilling to work. I do not want to get into a debate over the percentage receiving government assistance that are trying to get a free ride. I would concede that some people are trying to get by without working, but personally I believe that is a small minority. I also believe that we should be careful not punish those who need and will benefit from assistance because of those looking to cheat.

This year we had the opportunity to attend a performance of Oliver by the Chaska Valley Family Theatre. You may wonder why I am changing the subject, but actually I am not. In mid 19th century England this musical represents how the poor were dealt with. I know many of us are unhappy with government assistance today, but I do not think that we should go back to an era when being poor was considered a crime. It was horrible treatment for people, and it also hurt the society as a whole by promoting crime and disease. In addition the nation lost the potential contributions of those whose only crime was being poor. In Britain in that era it was felt only those of the upper class added value to the society, but in the US we have always believed that all have potential.

I wish I had a miracle cure for poverty, and a way to rid us of the need for government assistance. I do believe it is critical to support families with children, and break the chains of Generational Poverty. The best way to do that is training and education, not only for the children but for the parents as well. Yes, we also have to create a tradition of work with the result of a better life ahead. At the same time we need to be careful and gradually reduce aid with higher earnings so that we do not create disincentives for better jobs. One of the goals of this assistance is to eliminate the need for assistance in the future.

Although, I feel our priority should be families, and a goal to wean most from assistance, there is a segment of the population that will always be dependent on government assistance either because of illness, disabilities, or chemical dependency. I believe that we need to develop a plan to help these groups as well especially those that might be veterans. For some it may be just to provide a secure stable environment while for others it may be providing an environment that will lead to fully utilizing their abilities.


I know many people believe that government assistance for the poor is just a bottomless pit that holds people and families forever. The reality is a little different. The War on Poverty dating back to the Johnson presidency helped reduce black poverty from 40% to about 31% from 1966 to 1969 and to about 23% into the term of George W Bush. Poverty among non-Hispanic whites dropped from 14.7% to 6.1% by 2006. The economist Martin Anderson who became a leading adviser for the Reagan Administration said in 1978 “The dismal failure’ of welfare is a myth” (From the Land of Promise by Michael Lind).

We are making progress in the war against poverty, but we may never wipe it out completely. It is important to understand that poverty is not only a burden on those caught in its grips, but it also affects us all. How many poor kids with talents that our country needs are lost because of the chains of poverty. Are we losing the next Teddy Roosevelt, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Jonas Salk because they are growing up in poverty, and receiving an inadequate education and poor medical care.

 
 
We just marked the fifth anniversary of the collapse of the 35W bridge over the Mississippi River. This disaster resulted in 13 deaths and 145 injured. Along with the human tragedy there was also economic damage. Those that normally traveled this bridge now had to find new routes. Commute times increased, trucking costs increased, and MNDOT and the metro area governments all had additional costs. Think of a business that was considering Minnesota as a future site. How many decided not to locate in Minnesota because of this disaster?

I called this a disaster, but it is also a failure of government to do its job. Our expectations in this country are that we can depend on our infrastructure. We realize that in the many parts of the world that is not true, but in America and Minnesota we have higher expectations. I know blame for this bridge failure has been put on under-sized gusset plates, but most of us with engineering experience know that a failure like this has more than one cause. I think most of us would rather believe as we cross a bridge that our lives depend on more than how well the gusset plates were designed. Remember that this bridge had been built and designed by the lowest bidder. Did we get what we paid for?

Besides the gusset plates this bridge was reaching the end of its life, but it was felt that we could get a few more years out of it and not have to raise “taxes.” We hired a firm to study the bridge, and they recommended two plans to ensure continued safe use. One plan would cost several hundred thousand, and one that would cost about 2 million. MNDOT decided on the lower cost plan for budgetary reasons. Our Lieutenant Governor was appointed to head MNDOT to save a salary, but she had no engineering training or experience. Her experience was in keeping transportation spending down as a member of the legislature. Finally a contractor doing road surfacing on the bridge was allowed to overload the bridge with equipment and supplies. I suppose no one checked if the loading would impact bridge integrity because of cost. This was a failure not of one piece, one person, one party, or one governor. This was a failure of our government and us to make sure this bridge and our infrastructure is capable of doing its job.

For years prior to the 35w failure I was aware of numerous news reports on the poor state of our bridges in Minnesota, and the country. I am sure many of you remember the same reports, and we did not do anything about it we left it to our legislators and governors take care of it. Unfortunately they were more worried about “taxes” than our “safety.” After the collapse there was a flurry of activity to repair our bridges, but now five years later the Star Tribune reported there are still 1100 bridges in Minnesota and almost 70,000 nationwide that are “structurally deficient.” Minnesota actually has done better than most states because we increased our gas tax; however our current state senator voted against both the tax increase and the veto override. I am sure she, as a party leader, also helped drive those Republican legislators who voted for the veto override out of the party.

It is up to us if we want infrastructure that we can depend on. It is popular today to attack government as the problem, but read the Preamble to the US Constitution it starts with “We the People” not the government. The power of the United States is that “We the People” are the government, but that means “we” are also responsible when government fails to do its job.


 
 
Our current State Senator says in her campaign literature “We prioritized funding for education allowing for more opportunities for successful students.” Sounds great but the truth is that per student funding, if adjusted for inflation, has decreased by almost $1300 during her tenure. In addition the State has borrowed from the schools to fund the continued tax breaks for the rich. This puts additional strain on K-12 since the districts have to borrow and pay interest on the money they should have received from the state. This does not sound like giving priority to education to me.

It is not only K-12 that has seen cuts. The University of Minnesota and the MNSCU system have also had funding reduced. Tuitions are up and students are leaving school with record debt. The reduced education funding not only affects our young people, but it impacts all of us. One of the reasons for Minnesota’ s past economic success is a well-educated work force.  

The results of the funding cuts are a slow decline in Minnesota education, which will make us less competitive. In 2006 a State comparison of K-12 Schools by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ranked Minnesota 2nd just behind Massachusetts. In 2011 the ALEC ranked Minnesota 18th while Massachusetts still ranked #1. ALEC for those who believe I am using biased data according to Wikipedia is a 501(c)(3) organization “composed of conservative legislators, businesses and foundations.” We are headed to a future where Minnesota will not be able to compete based on a quality workforce and will have to depend on low wages. Is this the future you want to see for our state and for our children?