Media Panel Week 1 - D.J. Tice, St. Paul Pioneer Press

(Coordinator’s Note: D.J. Tice, who wrote the following e-debate critique, is a columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press.)

The era of big government is not quite over in Minnesota, to judge from the positions of these gubernatorial candidates. With the exception of Mr. Borrell, none of the candidates seem to place restraint in state spending high on their agendas. Nearly all promote large new spending plans.

On education, there is evidently not a bold proponent of reform in this field. Support for charter schools is widespread but lukewarm; support for vouchers nonexistant. Little is said about site-based management, performance pay, reconstitution of failing schools, or other strategies to increase accountability. Here and there concerns are voiced about flabby standards—Mondale is especially forthright here. Quist’s concerns about the new graduation standards seem somewhat overwrought, but at least demonstrate that he is paying attention to educational events.

Meanwhile, more spending on education has abundant support, with only Freeman willing to put a price tag on his proposals -- $200 million per year. Among the DFL candidates in particular there are strong indications that the pressure will be relieved on schools and teachers, whose efforts will evidently henceforth be admired and rewarded regardless of the results for students. Mr. Humphrey is emphatic that private businesses must not be allowed to profit off our young people. We’ll leave that, it seems, to experts in the educational establishment.

The candidates’ economic proposals are frequently a restatement of their commitment to education and transportation, and the only thing wrong with that is the mediocre quality of their proposals on education and transportation. Mondale’s emphasis on the importance of U of M research is one of the more serious long-term economic issues cited.

Among the DFlers, "living wage" legislation is obviously going to be a campaign theme. This is a curious proposal from people who proclaim concern for the low-wage Minnesotans. A living wage law, which would forbid governments from subsidizing businesses that pay low wages, would, in practice, simply mean that governments could not help create jobs for low-skill persons. Maybe that’s good economic policy, but it’s no gift to the poor. This is pure political posturing, although probably quite effective in those terms.

Notably absent from most discussions—Benson and Borrell excepted— are issues of primary concern to the business community, like property tax reform, tort reform, and controls on taxes and regulations. An anti-subsidy mood seems to prevail, which is likely a good thing. But one doesn’t get the sense that business and its troubles play a prominent role in these candidates’ concept of the economy.

Among most of the DFlers, economic policy seems primarily to mean anti-poverty policy.

On transportation, everybody wants to spend money, which is surely needed. But the widespread, uncritical zeal for light rail, a crushingly expensive option, suggests that many candidates have not studied this issue carefully. Great credit is due to Marty and Dayton for understanding that an improved bus system may make far more sense for the Twin Cities.

My criticisms notwithstanding, these candidates deserve praise for discussing issues in this thorough and civil fashion. Still, one hopes to see more spirited debate—of a kind only Dayton seems to be displaying so far—as the year progresses. Thanks for asking me to participate.

D.J. Tice,

St. Paul Pioneer Press columnist