Minnesota already operates a relatively lean state government. When compared with other states and number of employees per capita, Minnesota ranks 15th-lowest — meaning our state manages a lean workforce per the number of people served.
The timing of Mark Haveman's May 3 commentary "The value of Minnesota government: Cost is one issue; quality, quite another") was quite interesting. If one were a cynic, one might think he was trying to divert attention from the Minnesota House and Senate leaders who are trying to fleece Minnesota workers and their families so their wealthy friends and corporations can have huge tax breaks.
If budgets proposed by our Minnesota House and Senate leaders become law, thousands of vulnerable seniors and persons with disabilities living in nursing homes and home health care settings won't get the quality care they need or deserve. Funding will be cut for hospitals and clinics serving low-income residents. These so-called leaders also want to make draconian cuts to education: Our kids won't have access to high-quality elementary and secondary schools or pre-K programs; and the cuts to higher education will make it difficult for Minnesotans to attend local colleges and universities, particularly in Greater Minnesota. Roads and bridges across the state are crumbling, but our GOP leaders apparently don't care about safety, or about how Minnesota workers and students get to their jobs and schools because of inadequate transit funding. Budget cuts to the Department of Corrections could mean safety risks to both citizens and correctional workers.
Perhaps Mr. Haveman should concentrate more on how much Minnesotans value the services provided by their government as well as the state employees providing them.
Chet Jorgenson, Shoreview
The writer is president of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.
• • •
I was stunned to hear recently that legislators have slipped in language that would eliminate the Office on the Economic Status of Women. This one-person nonpartisan office has provided useful information to the Legislature and the public for over 40 years. It issues reports, holds listening sessions around the state, and in many ways represents the interests of over half the population in Minnesota.
Eliminating the office on women was never introduced as legislation and was never the subject of public hearings. It is part of a large omnibus bill that funds state government, and only appeared in a Republican "strike everything" amendment in the closing days of the session. When objections were made about not funding the one staff person, wording about providing support to an advisory committee was made. What? An advisory committee to a nonexistent office?