"A state's bond rating on Wall Street is about money and more. It's an objective expert assessment of a state's economic and fiscal health. It reflects the competence of a state's government. A bond rating is a bragging point when it's high, and a reason for real concern when it falls."

So said this page on July 29, 1997, as it applauded then-Gov. Arne Carlson, a Republican, and the then-DFL-controlled Legislature for regaining a top rating after 15 years in Wall Street's woodshed. The message bears repeating now that Minnesota has again fallen from the ranks of states deemed most fiscally sound. (Eight others still get top marks; see box, right.)

The general obligation bond downgrade issued Friday by Standard and Poor's -- paralleling previous downgrades by Moody's and Fitch -- will burden Minnesota taxpayers with higher borrowing costs. It will add to the price paid for improvements in public buildings and infrastructure by both state and local governments, likely for years to come. States typically don't rebound quickly from Wall Street's scorn.

How much the reduced rating will add to the price of bridges, water-treatment plants, college classrooms and more is hard to gauge. Interest rates fluctuate with the market. Today, investor demand for government bonds is high, which means that the near-term impact of the bond rating change is likely to be relatively small.

But as we said in 1997, bond ratings are about more than money. They are a report card on a state's financial decisionmaking. Friday's downgrade says that, in a nutshell, Wall Street no longer trusts Minnesota governors and legislators to do the right thing.

Standard & Poor's said Friday that using nonrecurring measures -- payment delays to schools, a bond issue secured by future revenues and the tapping of reserves -- to balance the 2012-13 budget weakened Minnesota's capacity to cope with future problems. Also cited was the "limited consensus on policy choices" at the Capitol, and the prospect that partisan gridlock will continue.

DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative leaders predictably blamed each other last week for the rating downgrade. Each side said that its preferred budget would have provided enough long-term stability to pass muster on Wall Street. The Republicans sought to cut spending $1.4 billion more than Dayton wanted; Dayton proposed to pay for that spending with higher taxes on top earners.

Each side's claims about the bond houses is likely accurate. Wall Street rewards sustainably balanced budgets, and isn't fussy about whether a state achieves that balance with low taxes and meager government services, or high taxes and robust services.

But about that, Minnesotans through the years have shown a clear preference. They've opted for high-quality education, infrastructure and social services, understanding that those services pay a long-term economic dividend.

Republicans tacitly acknowledged that leaning when they offered to agree to the spending that Dayton sought, provided it wasn't paid for with higher taxes. After two weeks of government shutdown, Dayton reluctantly concurred. Together, they opted for borrow-and-spend budgeting, perhaps thinking that it brought them some degree of political comfort.

But it's now clear that borrow-and-spend doesn't sell on Wall Street -- and knowing that should discomfit Minnesota voters.