Tom Horner: In a state budget stalemate, let's ask the right questions

The DFL and Republican parties, along with affiliated interest groups, are using the budget gridlock to further polarize Minnesotans.

Voters are being flooded with pleas to "ask your elected official why government can't live within its means" or "why the state's top 2 percent of earners shouldn't pay more taxes."

Citizens asking questions of legislators and Gov. Mark Dayton could help break the gridlock. But inquiries that reinforce the narrow choices defined by politicians won't help. Instead, ask elected leaders what they really have in mind for our state's future.

Three questions could go a long way to moving Minnesota forward.

First, ask legislators and the governor how their proposed solutions for this year's budget would affect the state's future financial stability. Minnesota has a $5 billion deficit this year because past leaders kicked the problem down the road.

They are at it again. Whether Dayton or the GOP Legislature prevails in the current stalemate, two years from now Minnesota will have another huge deficit.

The results of this path are predictable. Republicans returning to the budget task in 2013 will demand deeper cuts in health, education and other core services.

The answer is to find the best middle ground for the current crisis, then agree that next year's legislative session will be focused on bold new proposals to reform how the state spends and taxes.

Great ideas abound, both inside and outside of government. It's not a challenge of innovation but of leadership.

Urge Dayton, Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, as part of this year's budget compromise, to appoint a high-level, nonpartisan group of Minnesotans to identify the best of the good ideas, and then lead the charge in building broad public support to make the 2012 legislative session historic.

Second, ask elected leaders this question: What are the outcomes you will use to measure the success or failure of your proposals?

Measurements speak to priorities, defining what is important for government to do. They move the debate to what we get for our tax dollars, not just how much we are taxed.

Health programs are a good example. Republicans say the cost of these programs is unsustainable and measure success by state government's bottom line. Democrats believe the right measure is access and claim that tens of thousands will lose coverage if GOP plans prevail.

The truth is that both sets of talking points could be right -- and it wouldn't matter. Pretending that low-income people can use a poorly funded voucher to buy insurance in the marketplace is short-sighted, just like ignoring that the cost public health programs is unsustainable.

The outcomes that truly matter are measures like the overall improvement in the health of people, the real cost of delivering care, transparency about who is paying the bill and more efficient use of health services.

In other words, reform isn't just about reducing how much the state spends on health, or just about keeping low-income people enrolled in public programs.

In health and other areas, the Legislature and Dayton continue to debate whether the status quo should be larger or smaller. That's the wrong frame, because in so many critical programs, the status quo is outdated and fundamentally flawed.

Finally, ask policymakers the most important question: Why will people want to live in the Minnesota you are creating?

Will their proposals attract the entrepreneurs who value an educated work force and a creative class of productive citizens? Will people looking for life's amenities -- outdoor recreation, a healthy environment, world-class arts and major league sports -- find what they are seeking in their Minnesota?

Will businesses have the resources to invest in new jobs in Minnesota under their tax-and-spend plan? Will we lead the nation in defining what it means to be a people who are respectful of others, even if other states have gone in a different direction? Will we have a state that reaches out with a helping hand to people at times in their lives when they are vulnerable?

Ultimately, the questions that matter aren't about "government living within its means" or "taxing the rich." In the end, the question is what kind of a state do you and I want to live in?