Questions for candidates in Minnesota's 2018 campaign

I don't yet know who will be on the gubernatorial campaign stump come fall. But after the crash-and-burn exercise in futility at the State Capitol in the last three months, I know what the stumpers ought to discuss.

Candidates, you are hereby requested to commence your dissertations on the following subjects at next weekend's state party conventions — DFLers in Rochester, Republicans in Duluth. Those confabs are expected to narrow the respective fields, but — particularly in the GOP case — not set them. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty's plan to skip the Republican endorsing convention tells me Minnesota is in for a hot-and-sticky campaign summer, followed by heavy weather through Nov. 6.

Here are some of the questions I hope candidates answer:

Minnesota's major political parties have shared control of state government for 26 of the last 28 years. That should have been long enough for bipartisan habits to form. Instead, the habit that's been acquired is gridlock.

This year's sorry result sets a new low. The Republican-controlled Legislature crammed the bulk of its work for the year into two bills, a 1,000-page mega-omnibus spending bill and a tax bill with a little education sweetener attached. Both were sent to DFL Gov. Mark Dayton despite his well-telegraphed objections, in an apparent effort to compel him to swallow the provisions he didn't like. Both were vetoed last week.

Some observers say it will take more than good intentions to break this pattern. A different lawmaking calendar, more use of bipartisan citizen commissions to craft legislation, dropping party designation, giving redistricting power to an independent judicial panel, a refusal to sign "garbage bills" (Dayton showed how it's done last week) and ranked-choice voting are among the oft-mentioned ideas for diminishing dysfunction. What are yours?

Dayton's veto makes tax conformity Job One for the next governor and Legislature. The more ambitious the new governor's plan is, the more time it's likely to require for legislative action. That means more risk that Minnesotans could experience a complicated and costly tax filing season in 2019.

Some candidates in past elections have gone so far as to promise favoritism for one region at the other's expense. If your party's candidates or their interest-group allies play that card, how will you respond?

Dayton's call to extend the life of a circa-1992 tax on health care services past its scheduled December 2019 sunset wasn't just rejected by Republicans. It was ridiculed as a tax increase on the poor and sick and a breach of the DFL governor's campaign promises. Dayton backed off but warned that without the so-called "provider tax," the future of MinnesotaCare and other health programs is in doubt.

He's right. The provider tax is forecast to raise nearly $700 million in the year ending June 30, 2019. That's a lot to lose in a part of the state budget that's already under stress, for three reasons: Minnesota's elderly and disabled population is growing. The workforce that cares for frail people is drifting away to higher-paying jobs. And the dependability of the federal matching funds that keep programs like MinnesotaCare and Medicaid alive is also uncertain. Trump administration cuts last year are already forecast to cost the state's health programs $681 million through 2021, according to the state Department of Human Services.

So: Keep the provider tax and expect to be pilloried? Or end it — and then what?

A demographic dip in Minnesota's working-age population driven by baby boomer retirements is being felt right now in much of the state. It's so bad that — remarkably — an inability to hire enough workers has overtaken high taxes as the loudest business climate complaint.

Minnesota needs a multipart strategy to get through the next decade without losing major employers to less-labor-challenged places. It should be a plan to both attract newcomers and make the most of the working-age population that's already here. What's your plan?

The bonding bill awaiting action on Dayton's desk is no small achievement in a year that yielded little else. But it only begins to respond to a worsening problem: Minnesota is loaded with 20th-century public infrastructure that's showing its age. And it did nothing about a problem the next governor will face immediately: Metro Transit's forecast budget for 2019 and beyond has a $100-million hole that needs filling to keep the transit users and the metro economy moving.

The Wall Street bond house Standard & Poor's issued a warning to U.S. states last week that might have been aimed at Minnesota. "Significant underspending in maintenance can reduce asset life and increase capital costs, pressuring a government's future financial flexibility. Failure to maintain and invest in infrastructure could also lead to slower economic growth or public safety lapses," S&P said. It added ominously: "This will be an area of increasing focus in our analysis" of state creditworthiness.

The old highway funding workhorse — the gas tax — is losing its strength. Legislators balk at general obligation bonding bills bigger than $1 billion. Using cash for capital investments only works in flush times, and isn't fair to other state priorities. What's the next governor to do?

We'd like your questions, too.