GOP contenders share vision for 2010: less government

Republican gubernatorial candidates want to put the state on a diet -- and losing weight is never easy.

In the early GOP field for 2010, a common theme has emerged -- government should be smaller. Some candidates want to dramatically cut back on mandates and local funding, some would merge departments, reduce state workers and slash one out of every $5 the state is slated to spend. What they want, at bottom, is a government that not only does more with less, but which simply does less.

The candidates are ambitious in their pledges to shrink government -- "The sky's the limit," state Rep. Tom Emmer said at a recent forum -- but haven't yet worked out all the details.

The plans, still in their infancy, could run into political trouble, practical and legal problems and have even prompted disagreement among the Republican field. A smaller, leaner government -- long a mantra for Republicans -- could hold appeal in cost-conscious times but could alienate those who believe government must step in during economic low-points.

Back in 2001, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, kicked off his campaign by saying he would focus on "limiting government's role in people's lives."

Since then, spending actually has increased in each two-year budget until the current cycle. As a result of Pawlenty's unilateral budget slashing and an influx of federal aid, spending will drop by a little less than 8 percent in 2010-2011.

Pawlenty said recently he's had a "very good" track record on "keeping a lid on government."

Democrats, who control the Legislature, don't see that as a noble deed. They've accused Pawlenty of starving cities and health care and destroying the very things that they say made the state what it is. DFLers running to replace Pawlenty have said they're willing to raise taxes to pay for what they see as necessary.

Going further than Pawlenty

The Republican candidates say they would go further than Pawlenty in lowering taxes and limiting government.

"I say to the current governor, 'No more!'" candidate Phil Herwig says on his campaign literature. "He has not reduced spending or the size of government."

The GOP candidate list includes Emmer, Herwig, state Reps. Marty Seifert and Paul Kohls, state Sens. David Hann and Michael Jungbauer, former state commissioner Patricia Anderson, former state Rep. Bill Haas and frequent candidate Leslie Davis.

They're already doing their budget-cutting homework.

Anderson says she'll have a list of programs to be cut in a few weeks, while Emmer, R-Delano, has begun compiling a list of every job title in state government to look for cuts.

Emmer says he would consider merging the Human Services Department and its 6,600 employees with the Health Department, which has about 1,300 employees. Seifert, R-Marshall, says that makes sense to him.

But Anderson, who oversaw the recent merger and elimination of the Department of Employee Relations, says creating a mega-department wouldn't fly.

"We broke them up for a reason," she said.

Anderson said she'd look at wrapping some small departments into larger ones but added, "You are not going to solve your budget problem by merging these little departments together."

Seifert also suggested he'd look into combining Labor and Industry with Commerce and the Pollution Control Agency with Natural Resources.

But even if whole departments disappeared, the state's budget might not see dramatic shrinkage. Over the years, state departments and even constitutional offices have gone away but the state budget has still grown.

The vast majority of the state's budget is devoured by just two functions: K-12 education, which takes up about 40 percent, and human services, which spends about 30 percent. Republicans running for governor see changes in those areas as well.

They've talked about scaling back public health care programs, cutting more from welfare recipients and ending some health care programs for the poor.

Seifert said he'd reduce "abuse" of emergency rooms, look at means testing for more programs and use the veto as an "offensive tool" to achieve welfare reform and "major downsizing."

Anderson, who leans libertarian in her vision of government, wants to dramatically scale back the state's involvement in and oversight of education and pull out of the federal education accountability program. Without state and federal interference, she said, education funding could be cheaper and better.

But such a change could put Minnesota in a unique and legally tenuous position -- states generally do not give schools the control she envisions.

Anderson said she wants locals in charge even if they teach things with which she disagrees.

"If they want to fill social studies class with rhetoric from the left and call it 'Al Gore's School of Climate Warming' or whatever, then that's just fine," since locals would be in control and put up more of the cash, she said.

Ditch No Child Left Behind

She also wants to dump the federal No Child Left Behind education policy. That would cost the state -- if it doesn't abide by the federal rules it may lose about $230 million in education cash a year, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis.

Kohls wants to roll the clock back on state government, saying it should dole out no more than it did in the 2004-2005 budget. That would bring the budget to about $28 billion a year, about $3 billion less than it now spends and more than $10 billion less than it is projected to spend in 2012-2013.

If he won, Kohls said he would "probably not" sign a budget larger than $28 billion, and that would set off a major struggle at the Capitol. Earlier attempts to scale the budget back by far less recently led to special sessions, government shutdown, rallies and cries that Minnesota was undoing its compact with the people.

"There will be all kinds of people ... slinging all kinds of arrows at me," Kohls, R-Victoria, said. But, he said, that's OK.

"That's as big as the pie is," Kohls said.

rachel.stassen-berger @startribune.com • 651-292-0164