Paul voted against the GAMC cut/compromise bill today.  The full text of his speech on the floor of the Minnesota House is below:

View the video of Paul’s speech here.

By passing this bill, we are once again giving in to a Governor who holds good policy hostage like a playground bully.  This legislation will not work.  As legislators – for the good of Minnesota – we must stop giving in to the Governor.  And we should start today.

I deeply appreciate the hard work of my diligent colleagues who have labored in good faith to protect the poorest, most vulnerable Minnesotans and every one of us who rely on strong hospitals in emergencies and sickness.

I deeply respect and appreciate the work of advocates in the Save GAMC coalition who have worked so hard to be the voice for those who usually have no voice in this building.  Indeed, the only reason I considered voting for this bill is to honor the work of that coalition and thousands of Minnesotans across the state who recognized the immorality of the GAMC veto and took action.

Believe me, I know how hard that work has been.  After Governor Pawlenty vetoed GAMC for the first time last spring, several of us spent the summer traveling Minnesota listening to patients and GAMC recipients, hospitals and health care professionals about how we could make GAMC work for Minnesota.  We visited shelters and homeless camps along the river.  We learned that meaningful and lasting reform required a focus on not only the care delivered in the hospital and clinic, but also helping people stabilize their lives with housing support and chemical dependency treatment.  Regardless of what some may think, real reform does not come cheap.

The culmination of these conversations was a workable piece of legislation that spent less money but protected vulnerable Minnesotans and made sure that hospitals could care for all of their patients.  But the Governor threatened a veto and we blinked.

We reached another compromise – worse policy but workable — which passed this body with a resounding bipartisan vote of 125 to 9.  Yet, despite that overwhelming support both within and outside of the state capitol, Tim Pawlenty again vetoed our GAMC solution.

And on a party line vote, the House Republicans refused to override the veto – with 38 Republicans flip-flopping to back up the bully in the Governor’s office.

The Democrats — with big hearts, good intentions and desperate for a solution — returned to so-called “negotiations” with the Governor.

Now we are left with an unworkable bill.  We all know it.  It is underfunded — $80 million or more less than the Governor’s auto-enrollment proposal.  It is poorly designed.  It will mean job losses.  We’ve heard that from hospitals and other providers from all across the state.  We have heard that from advocates for the clients currently served under GAMC.

We should remember that the simply because the Governor defines reform in three words – “spend less money” –we don’t have to agree with him.  Starvation is not a path to meaningful and lasting reform.  That’s a lesson we all should have learned by now.

Members. there is a fine line between compromise and caving in.  We are not on the right side of that line this time.

Fortunately, we have another option before us.  The passage of federal health reform on Sunday changed the game.  It offered us a different way to serve the people now covered under GAMC.  The details and implications of that proposal need to be explored.  But the Governor’s rejection of that option out of hand with no real understanding of what it means is nearly incomprehensible.

Let’s do the right thing for Minnesotans this time and reject Governor Pawlenty’s bullying.  Let’s stand up for the people of Minnesota.  Let’s extend the current GAMC program for a few months – just as we are doing in this bill – and take a few weeks to figure out whether and how to maximize federal health care dollars for current GAMC recipients.  Let’s do it in consultation with the experts who actually deliver care and serve patients instead of behind closed doors.  And let’s actually enact a policy that works for Minnesota.

Why are we choosing an unworkable surrender when we should be choosing a sensible solution that protects vulnerable Minnesotans and all of us?

We seem to have forgotten that inside-the-Capitol logic is often illogical.   We have done better by vulnerable Minnesotans – our neighbors, friends, siblings, and children – in even the recent past.

Members – let’s not cave in to Governor Pawlenty’s threat to kick the poorest, most vulnerable Minnesotans to the side of the road if we do not do his bidding right now.  This bill is not “the best we can do.”  This proposal is not “better than nothing.”  This bill is not a step forward; it’s a step back.

I urge you to vote No.

For the past several years, many of us in this room have worked tirelessly to make sure that every Minnesota child can see a doctor or a nurse when he or she needs to.  In 2007, the Cover All Kids legislation passed overwhelmingly in the Minnesota House and formed a centerpiece for some of the most critical health care achievements of the Session.  We made important progress, covering nearly 40,000 more children and over 100,000 more adults.

Unfortunately, the work to cover all kids in Minnesota remains unfinished.

Today, there are 80,000 children in Minnesota who are living without health insurance and are just one health care crisis away from catastrophe.  That fact remains unacceptable in Minnesota, budget crisis or not.  I am standing here today because, even as legislators start putting on their green eye-shades and taking out their scalpels, we cannot lose sight of our larger moral and political obligation to do right by the next generation.

I will never forget the mother I met in Rochester who worked her way out of poverty, got her diploma and got a job that offered health benefits only to discover that single coverage was affordable but family coverage for her seven year old son was exorbitantly expensive.  I immediately thought of my own three children and having to make an economically unavoidable decision to leave my children uninsured.  Minnesota is better than leaving any family in that position.

Most certainly, the current economic crisis does nothing to diminish the need for quality, affordable health care for all the children in this state.  In fact, I would argue that the state’s current economic crisis is exactly the time when we need to act boldly.

Affordable, meaningful health care for all, starting with children, is a necessary part of an economic recovery, especially if we want that recovery to be sustainable and stable.

The Minnesota Health Security Act would offer immediate help to Minnesota families facing the threat of a foreclosure due to unpaid medical bills or who recently lost a job and are struggling to afford the costs of coverage.

Businesses, especially small businesses, in Minnesota would see immediate relief from rising health insurance costs and might be able to avoid layoffs or even raise wages.  This is exactly the kind of economic stimulus that our state needs at a time when we are facing historic and unprecedented unemployment.

Moreover, this is true reform.  The Minnesota Health Security Act will streamline all existing health care programs for children, taking multiple programs and turning them into one seamless system, a move that would considerably reduce the administrative duplication and redundancy at DHS.  Long term savings for the state would also result from increased use of preventive care and reduced hospital admissions.

We have made important progress on health care reform in the past two years and it is work that needs to continue.  But Minnesota needs more than technical changes in how our health care system works.  Minnesotans want a vision, a pathway to a health care system that works for them and that is there for them.  The Minnesota Health Security Act provides that vision and pathway.

I look forward to working with all of the people here today and people across this state on this critical next step.

I am very honored to be with you this afternoon to participate in the unveiling of the All Veterans Memorial.

Thank you to all of you who have played such a significant role in making the idea of this Memorial a reality.

There is no more fitting place for this Memorial to rise than in Richfield – a community built by veterans, a community marked for decades by the spirit of civic engagement lived out by those men and women.

But it is also important to remember that this is a Memorial to Veterans from across the State of Minnesota. Men and women from all corners of the state will be memorialized on the tablets here.

It is for that reason that I was proud to be part of an effort in the state legislature – with leadership from Sen Dan Larson and Rep Linda Slocum and Governor Pawlenty – to get the State of Minnesota to invest $100,000 in state resources to match the incredibly generous private support of countless individuals and groups like the IBEW.

There is another reason that it is right to invest our resources in a Memorial like this.

Most certainly we should and must honor past and current generations for their service to this country.  But in a larger sense, a Memorial like this – a beautiful piece of public art – is more about our investment in future generations, in the future of our state and our country.

I recall a conversation I had with Travis Grosche [the designer of the Memorial] about the project.  He said he was inspired to this great work by the stories and the character of Chuck Lindberg who raised the flag at Iwo Jima.  That is precisely the point.

My children are in the audience.  This Memorial is for them and for their children.  Once these festivities have died down, families will walk by this Memorial, spend a minute in contemplation and over time and repetition, the message will sink in.

We belong to something larger than ourselves, to a community and a country and that belonging is not just about identity and privilege but about responsibility and service.

And in that spirit, this Memorial should also serve to remind us all that we must work to make this country and community something worth serving; a community and country that continues to be worth believing in.

Thank you.

During his 1960 campaign, John Kennedy spoke here in Minnesota and he defined the challenge facing the country this way:

The reason Minnesota has suffered recent recessions is because the economy has not been moving.  Other countries have outproduced us economically, not because they have more capacity, but because they are using their capacity to the fullest.  We have not used our economic capacity or the capacity of our citizens in an imaginative way.  This country – and I would say this state – cannot possibly maintain itself unless it moves here at home, unless we maintain full employment and we meet our responsibilities to our own citizens.”

Kennedy was right.  The key to our success; the key to our prosperity is making sure we use all our resources and every Minnesotan to his or her fullest capacity.

Minnesotans want to work; they value labor and skill. My family has been in the state since the 1860s working as farmers and laborers and teachers and railroadmen.  Minnesotans are all about hard work.

We need to create a state where hard work and high skill can be put to good use.

And Kennedy was right about the path to that goal:

Imaginative leadership.  Leadership that is willing to do things in a new way and create new partnerships that benefit everyone.  Leadership that is willing to take risks in order to honor the basic values of hard work and good jobs.

We all know the economy is not strong.  We all know that too many of your members are sitting on the bench.  I’ve talked with many of them in all parts of the state.  And we know that the lack of work is not simply an immediate problem.  It is about the next generation as well.

If we are going to have an economy that works in the future, we need strong apprenticeship programs and the resources to support it.

We need to keep bringing the next generation of skilled workers along and to do that, those young people need to see opportunity.  I am afraid they do not see that now.

I was proud to have been one of two Minneapolis representatives to vote for the Twins stadium even though it was not popular because I knew it meant jobs and economic development.

But such projects do not only mean jobs.  They will be assets for our state over the long haul.  And that is the key.  We can create jobs and build our state at the same time.

We have tremendous challenges facing us in Minnesota.

All across the north side of Minneapolis and in many communities across the state, there are substandard houses.  Our state should be investing and getting people to work to transform those communities with high quality housing.  That’s good jobs and good for all of us.

All across this state, we are wasting energy and water because our buildings are built in the last century and are inefficient.  Our state should be investing and getting people to work to make those buildings efficient for the 21st century.  Good jobs and good for all of us.

Because at the end of the day, we are all in this together.  Minnesota does best when it expands the winner’s circle to more and more people.

We need to work together – government hand in hand with you – to come up with new and creative ways to use our productive capacity – the skills and hard work of our citizens – in ways that benefit the whole state.

And we need to work urgently.  I very much would like to continue a conversation and sit down with you and your leadership over the interim to discuss ways the state can help spur job growth and author those ideas next session.

We don’t have time to lose.

I know you understand that social compact.  I was pleased to learn about your water’s off and heat’s on programs.  Those efforts are precisely what makes Minnesota such a great place to live.

Thanks for your service to our state.

I look forward to continuing to work together in the future.

I firmly believe that how we handle the challenge of health care (along with the issue of energy and climate change) will be the defining domestic issue of our time.

Getting it right is an economic imperative and a political imperative.  But I am pleased at the context in which tonight’s discussion is taking place, because getting health care right is above all a moral imperative.

Just as past generations in this country have worked for and made progress toward economic security and racial equity and justice, in our time we must move forward toward health care for all.

We often frame that discussion as a matter of “universal coverage” and focus on the fact of how many among us remain uninsured.

And that is important; indeed, it could be a matter of life or death.  According to an analysis by Families USA, three working age Minnesotans die each week due to lack of health insurance.  This is a problem we have to solve.

But getting people covered, as hard as it is, is the easy fight.  The more difficult and more complex challenge we have is making sure people actually get health care that is high quality and affordable.

First, health insurance coverage is too costly and even then meaningless to those who have it; something I have heard from people across the state.

240,000 insured Minnesotans pay more than a quarter of their gross income on health care.  That is unacceptable.  And too many Minnesotans have health coverage that is meaningless in the sense that they pay premiums but their insurance company never actually makes a payment because the deductible and out-of-pocket costs are so high.

In addition, access to coverage is not the same thing as getting health care.  I am the Chief Author of the Cover all Kids legislation which would have provided free coverage to thousands of Minnesota kids.  One of the frustrating lessons about working on the bill was that thousands of Minnesota parents will not even take advantage of free health care for their children.  The point is we need to change the discussion of universal health care away from simply being about whether a person has coverage or does not have coverage.
Health care reform must be about the 93% of Minnesotans who have coverage as much as it is about the 7% who do not.

So it is without question that our response to the fact that we live in a society where large numbers of people cannot get high quality health care a moral issue.

It is critically important, however, that we keep our eye on that larger moral dimension of the issue – namely, that we make sure that people get access to meaningful, quality health care – and not get distracted by moral judgments about the proper path to arriving at that goal.

There are undoubtedly legitimate policy debates about what is the best way to proceed and we need to take them seriously.  But the reality is that there are no easy answers to our challenge and there are many effective paths that will move us in the direction of health care justice.

Our worst outcome will be if we spend too much time resisting the good in hopes of the perfect.

And with that thought, it seems to be a good time to transition to the current state of the discussion about health care in the legislature.

This is an exciting time for me and for the state.  It is one of those rare moments when we can seriously consider the many opportunities we have to move good public policy forward in the state, before other realities sink in.

Let me make sure to state as well that I and our DFL caucus – both leadership and members – takes the responsibility of governing very seriously.  We understand the need to move beyond political expedience to real results.

I will also say that we cannot achieve that without your input and the input of other Minnesotans from across the state.  We often discussed during the campaign the role of the legislature in engaging Minnesotans in real and productive conversations about our state and it people and its future.  Not everything will lead to new laws.  But it has been too long since we have had those broader conversations and the time is right to do so.

Our doors will be open to new ideas, to concerns and to constructive criticism.

Brief sense of how I view the upcoming sessions.  Start with two big picture items to give some context:

The agenda I expect to see will be an extension of the election.  We successfully ran on a platform of getting back to the basics.

I believe the lesson of the 2006 election is that Minnesotans are hungry for the legislature to focus on education, health care, energy and the environment, transportation.  I anticipate we will govern with such a focus.

The budget news was good – we do not face a deficit.  I hope that means we can move beyond a purely green-eyeshades approach to this budget session and look at the budgeting process as a way to prioritize and make strategic investments in the future.

But caution is also warranted.  When one time money is backed out and we start to account for inflation on the spending side, the surplus is not significant.

More specifically, growth in the Health and Human Services budget at double digit rates biennium to biennium is a serious, serious issue with no clear answers.  It will and must impact our decisionmaking this session.

So where does that leave health care next session?  I approach that issue from this perspective:

The role of government is to create the conditions and to provide tools to allow people to live as productively, independently and fully as possible. That core promise of opportunity is the essence of what this country is about and Minnesota historically has often led the way.  One aspect of that is to make sure there is a baseline of affordable and accessible health care.    We should continue in that tradition.

That means we need to work in partnership with families and individuals and I see my role as a legislator as a partner in that sense.

I know how hard so many Minnesota families work to make sure that the promise is fulfilled for themselves and their family members.  I have close friends with a family member who has a disability who have shared their struggles and challenges and joys.  As a lawyer, I have represented families trying to navigate the system to keep the promise of opportunity and independence real.  It is challenging at times and I hope that we as a legislature can do what we can to relieve whatever obstacles we can.

A couple of specifics:

First, we must continue to move, perhaps more aggressively, toward community-based and waivered services.

Second, I plan to focus time on improving coordination of services with variations on the medical home concept.

Third, I expect eligibility issues will receive attention, particularly some eligibility rules that seem arbitrary and unfair.  The Medical Assistance spenddown comes to mind.  In Minnesota, you should not have to live in poverty to receive health care assistance.

Fourth, at the same time we examine eligibility, we must be more demanding in cost containment.  That does not mean arbitrarily setting low reimbursement rates.  Rather, we need to take a serious look at addressing administrative and structural inefficiencies.  There is not a silver bullet, but we need to start.

Ultimately, we must have as our goal the fashioning of a comprehensive vision for the delivery and coordination of services to persons with disabilities.  We need to develop a longer term vision to fulfill the promise of opportunity and independence and dignity.

Again, thanks for the chance to speak.

And I cannot imagine there is a single person in the state who would disagree with the merits of that goal.  There are so many reasons to do so:

1.    Healthier kids and Healthier Families

There is no question that being able to see a doctor and visit a dentist when needed makes you healthier.  We could cite study after study that shows that – although we shouldn’t need to since it is just plain common sense. Preventive care, immunizations, well-child visits – these are the best tools we have in our effort to rein in escalating health care costs. Beyond the immediate benefits to kids, however, access to affordable quality health care makes for a healthier, happier family life.  Imagine the incredible stress fathers and mothers feel when forced to choose between taking their daughter to the doctor or buying their son medicine and paying the utility bills or going deeper into high-interest debt.  Yet that is the choice faced by thousands of families across Minnesota.  It should not and does not have to be that way.
2.    It is a matter of basic justice
One of my favorite parts of working for the Children’s Health Security Act has been the involvement of people of faith.  So many congregations are working on this issue because they understand that it is the right – the moral – thing to do. Because like so much else in our society, the odds of a child being without health insurance increases exponentially if the child is a person of color or comes from a poor family.
In Minnesota, only 3.5 percent of children are uninsured. Over nine percent of children of color are uninsured.  That is unacceptable. Even more telling:  the number of uninsured children in families with incomes exceeding $50,000 is one percent or less.  For families making less than $25,000, sixteen percent are uninsured.  And for families making up to $35,000, the number is still nearly 10%.  These are the families of pre-school teachers, nurses, firefighters, food service workers and farmers.  That is unacceptable.  Addressing those disparities is a moral imperative.
3.    Access to health care creates opportunity
A child who lacks access to quality health care, lacks access to opportunity.  We know that uninsured kids are 25% more likely to miss school and much less likely to participate in extracurricular and after-school programs. Undetected vision and hearing loss interfere with learning for too many children. But what do those statistics mean?

The Childrens Defense Fund uses a great illustration which compares what they call the cycle of dependency and the cycle of opportunity. The cycle of dependency starts with poor health and poor health care which leads to poor education and reduced skills which results in a lower paying job and fewer assets – which ultimately leads right back to poor health and poor health care and starts anew.
In contrast, the cycle of opportunity starts with a healthy birth and good health care.  Kids with access to doctors do better in school and have higher skills which means a good job and self-sufficiency – and good health care. The answer seems so obvious – acting as a community to make sure all children get the best start in life that they can means ensuring that every kid can see a doctor. Why isn’t this happening?  What are we up against?
1.    Our current private health care system
We have a health care system in this state and country that is an accident of history.  It makes little sense economically or socially to make health insurance contingent on where a person is employed.  Much of the complexity and unnecessary expense in health care results from that accident. And as health care costs escalate, businesses as large as General Motors down to the smallest shops are finding it competitively impossible to offer high quality insurance. But it makes even less sense for a child’s access to health care to depend upon whether and where his mom and dad work.  We know that continuity of care and building a relationship with a physician is essential to good outcomes.
2.    Our current state health care system
Minnesota has historically been and continues to be a leader in making sure people have access to doctors.  We continue to be the state with the lowest number of uninsured.  And we should be proud of that.
But even with our very good state-based health coverage, there are numerous obstacles that interfere with the best outcomes for out kids. Barriers to enrollment – whether it is the four months a person must wait before qualifying for MinnesotaCare or the complexity of determining a parent’s income or the difficulty of reaching out to immigrant groups and others to explain that help is available – all these stand in the way of a seamless system that works to cover all kids. Not to mention the tremendous expense connected to such complexity.
3.    It will cost too much
In tight budget times and times of escalating health care costs, the idea of taking a bold new step in the direction of expanded coverage is met with deep skepticism. The reality is that increasing health care costs are squeezing the resources of businesses and employees alike.  We need to think boldly.  It will cost so much more if we do not act now. There is so much we can do to eliminate adminstrative costs and paperwork and redirect those resources to healing kids – or better yet, helping them start and stay healthy.
It will cost so much more in more visits to the emergency room.
It will cost so much more in poor learning in school.
It will cost so much more in bankruptcy and lost productivity.

But even better, we can design a system that will actually cost less money overall.  But we need to think about the future instead of focusing only on today. The great news is that despite these obstacles and misunderstandings, the goal of health coverage for every child in Minnesota is achievable.A broad coalition of Minnesotans – nurses, doctors, religious congregations, labor unions  — with great leadership from Jim Koppel and the folks at the Childrens Defense Fund – have come up with a plan that will get us to our goal.

The Childrens Health Security Act is simple in concept:  we will create a pool of all children in Minnesota.  Creating such a pool will allow for greater flexibility and choice and it will reduce the administrative ineffeciencies found in the current health care system. You as practicing doctors will be able to treat every child who comes in the door without having to check for insurance (and if insured, determine what is covered and what is not.  You will not have to assess if an uninsured child qualifies for a state-sponsored health program.  You will not have to process interminable paperwork.  You can simply focus on treating the child.
The pool will be financed by the state.  But the private marketplace will continue to provide the services.  Competition will remain an important part of the system as the private sector will continue to compete on both quality and price for patients. The burden of dependant care insurance will be removed from the backs of small businesses and families alike.  We estimate that a family of four with employer insurance will save nearly $2,000 per year in out of pocket expenses for coverage of their two children.
Because coverage will no longer depend on the parents’ employment status, we can achieve greater continuity of care and better primary prevention and disease management – and ultimately healthier kids.
And we can do all this and save money – indeed hundreds of millions of dollars — to the entire system.
Minnesota has been a leader in the nation in valuing kids and families – in making sure our kids are insured.  But that is not an excuse for complacency.  With leadership comes responsibility.
I firmly believe that Minnesota can prove to the nation that every child – regardless of whether the parents have insurance at work, regardless of how much money their mom or dad make, regardless of the color of their skin – that every child can see a doctor and get needed medicine and get immunized and get preventative care whenever it is necessary.

Why do I think this?
Because of the vision and hard work of past generations we now live in one of the wealthiest and healthiest states in the union.  Because Minnesota has a tradition and rich history of providing health coverage to children.  Because the people of Minnesota are concerned about health coverage and understand that access to quality health care is essential if people are to have the opportunity to succeed. Indeed, the outpouring of citizen support during the last session for MinnesotaCare demonstrated once again the commitment and understanding of Minnesotans – and helped us to a great victory in rolling back cuts to health care.
Why do i believe we can accomplish this goal?  Because people like you are willing to come out, to speak out and to work hard on behalf of all of our kids.  Our goal of health care for all kids makes common sense, it is the right thing to do and it is achievable.

The promise of our country – that every person’s voice is important and worthy – is only achievable if people in fact do show up, stand up and speak out. Thanks for doing your part to bring reason, reality and honesty to the public discussion of HIV and AIDS.

There is much to be done. People need accurate information about sexually transmitted diseases. We must ensure all people have access to high quality health care. But I want to talk specifically today about the HIV prevention and health care access bill.

I am proud to be carrying this legislation in the House of Representatives and to play a small part in moving the discussion of effective HIV treatment forward. It is not everyday a person gets to work on such a smart and compassionate piece of legislation.

The idea of the bill is simple: to make investments that ensure that every person living with HIV or AIDS has access to the most effective and most current treatment available. We are living in a different era. People with HIV and AIDS are living longer. That happy fact should not be turned on its head and made a justification for refusing to make needed community investments to ensure all people have access to effective treatment.

Unfortunately, that is what is happening. The Department of Health has started to charge premiums and co-pays to people that can not afford them. As a result, many people living with HIV and AIDS simply cannot get the regular treatment they need to effectively fight the infection.

Why does that matter? It matters because failure to effectively treat HIV and AIDS will in the long run cost the state more money because it will lead to serious health complications. It matters because irregular treatment causes the disease to spread more easily and to mutate into more virulent strains. Effective treatment of HIV must be a true public health priority. And it matters above all, because we all have a moral obligation to attend to the life and health of all our fellow citizens. By passing the HIV prevention and health care access bill, Minnesota will make a clear and proper commitment to the health of all Minnesotans. We cannot afford to do otherwise.

We have all gathered here today to protest the rush to judgment on the closing of schools.  Many are parents who are seeing their children succeed in Minneapolis schools and are concerned about the effect of school closings on that success.  Others have no kids in school, but recognize the vital role schools play in sustaining neighborhoods.  I have also heard from dozens of realtors who know precisely how critical schools are to the vitality of communities.

We are filled with frustration and anger about these decisions.  But by your presence here today you demonstrate that the anger and frustration stand along side hope – hope for the future of our children and our city; hope that voices of citizens can make a difference.

That hope is also evident in the voices I have heard in community meetings and letters and e-mail.

What you are asking – we are asking – is that the school board preserve community schools from closure.

This request is not about process for process sake.  We all want the district to work in partnership with parents and community members not to avoid hard decisions that must be made, but to develop better, more creative solutions.  Some have already been offered; others are sure to come. For that we need some time.

I recognize that delay will cost money.  I am fearful that not delaying will come at a far greater cost to our neighborhoods and our school district. Let us remember how important it is that we direct our anger – and our hope – the correct targets.  The immediate focus is the school district and I absolutely believe the school board should stand up and say “No” to this rush to judgment.  The simple fact is too many questions remain unanswered and there has been too little public involvement.

But the school board is not the real enemy.  Those folks are grappling with severe financial pressures imposed from above by broken promises at the state level. It is important to be very clear about this and assign responsibility: Governor Pawlenty and the Republicans in the legislature cut funding to our schools – schools across the state – last year.  They will deny it, but it is absolutely true.

Real cuts to after-school and summer programs.

Real cuts to English language learner programs.

Real cuts to compensatory aid for children coming from poorer houses. Elimination by administrative memo of Minneapolis’ successful High Five program.

Ignore inflation as if increased costs of health care, utility bills, supplies do not exist.

At the same time, we are adding more and more responsibilities – including a slew of new tests.

It is wrong – and it will take an election to make it right. The impact is felt not only in Minneapolis, but across the state. Next rally should be in St. Paul at the Capitol.  But an election in November does not solve our immediate challenge.

Why do I believe slowing down the process is essential? The simple answer is that our schools belong to us – to our children and families, to our neighborhoods, to the residents of Minneapolis. You should be an integral part of forming a solution; not just reacting to a plan handed down. We need to bring a broader perspective to the discussion.  The school district is trying to address a financial crisis – nearly $100 million in cuts over the last few years.  It is understandable that the focus is on saving dollars away from the classroom. But for that reason, the school district may not be in the best position to assess the full impact of school closings on neighborhoods and the city. Community school serves as an anchor for the neighborhood; the catalyst around which communities thrive.  In that context, the potential short-term dollar savings to the school district may not outweigh the costs to the community and the loss of trust between parents and the district.

Allowing time for broader public input is central so the entire community can think more creatively about using our school spaces (and sharing their costs) in partnership with other governmental, community and non-profit organizations.

We need to see the current situation and the passion it has evoked as an opportunity – an opportunity to define what we value in Minnesota  and act upon it; an opportunity to participate more directly and proactively in decisions about our schools both locally and at the state and national level; an opportunity to hear new voices and to build new partnerships that will better support our kids.

With that opportunity comes a challenge.  For all the success we see with so many of our kids, others are falling behind.  My challenge for you is that you stay committed until this storm has passed. Thank you for your dedication to your children – our children, our schools and our city. Thank you for your faith that people acting together can make a difference.

The great budget battle of 2003 is over.  As the dust clears, it is plain that the battle was decided back on that same November 5 election day that brought us to the Capitol.  Certainly, we are not happy with the result.  Indeed, we are angered and saddened.

But we also recognize that political power in Minnesota currently lies in the hands of conservative Republicans who, in the service of a strict ideological agenda, are set on the dismantling of government services no matter the human or economic cost.  As that power is now being exercised with ferocious zeal, we raise our voices in dissent.

We fundamentally disagree with the course that Governor Pawlenty and the House Republicans have chosen for Minnesota.  Our disagreement arises from many sources.

Of course, we are disturbed by the Republicans disregard of basic Minnesota values of fairness, dignity and interest in the common good.  It should be news to no one that the budget cuts disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable among us – the disabled, the working poor, the elderly, battered women, the mentally ill and children.  Under the Republicans proposal, tens of thousands of Minnesotans would have lost health insurance.  To point this out is not class warfare or pandering to interest groups. It is simply stating the honest truth.

We are also disturbed by the Republican’s refusal to acknowledge that the budget deficit simply cannot be balanced without an increase in state revenues.  Under the Republican plan that is passing into law this week, local property taxes over the next two years are projected to increase hundreds of millions of dollars.  And the new fees in the budget approach a billion dollars.

The Republican’s budget solution is also fiscally irresponsible.  The Republicans are cutting early childhood education programs that recent studies have shown to return $12 to $16 for every dollar of public money invested.  The Republicans are cutting community-based mental health treatment that costs 1/10 of the alternative forms of treatment.  The Republicans refuse to adequately invest in the state’s transportation infrastructure, offering up a small fraction of what is needed to simply maintain our roads at current levels of congestion.

All of those reasons for our disagreement with the Republican plan for Minnesota are important.  But they are overshadowed by one other characteristic of the Republican’s work product this session that perhaps we are better able to see because we are new to the process.  The Republican budget solution is focused on short-term political expediency.  The Republicans do not offer a long-term vision for a healthy, prosperous Minnesota.

Our contrasting vision is not complex, but common sense.  We call for a renewed commitment to the common good:
1. Security for All Minnesotans:  One of government’s primary functions is protecting its citizens.  The State should not scale back its commitment to putting police officers and emergency responders on the street – and its investment in the technologies that support those officers the State.  At the same time, the State must continue to support real job and economic development programs and broad access to higher education in order to provide economic security to Minnesotans.  Finally, the State must take steps in conjunction with the private sector to restrain rapidly escalating health care costs and premiums.
2. Full and Fair Investment in Our Children:  If there is a silver bullet for the challenges we face, it is investment in high-quality education for all Minnesota students.  Education dollars should be spent early and decisively to attack known barriers to academic success like poverty and language.  We should more strongly support smaller schools both rural and metro.  We should encourage increased school accountability and the proliferation of educational alternatives within our public school systems to inspire innovation.  We must pursue new ways of attracting high quality teachers including performance incentives.   And we must invest real dollars in early-childhood health and education programs.
3. Honestly Confronting the Challenges of an Aging Population:  Addressing the needs of seniors is an urgent financial priority for the State.  Minnesota’s demographics are changing.  In the next thirty years, the number of Minnesota residents who are 65 years and older will double to 23% of the population.  Among other things, we must more aggressively direct public expenditures toward more choices for home and community-based long-term care services and encourage greater use of long-term care insurance.  The State’s housing and transportation policies must more thoughtfully account for the needs of an aging population.  And since the older members of our community offer vast reservoirs of experience and expertise, we should continue support volunteer programs that leverage those resources.
4. Embracing Emerging Technologies and Government Reform:  The future belongs to those willing to embrace change.  Minnesota is falling behind the curve.  This session, we have sponsored legislation that encouraged Minnesota-grown energy to meet our increasing needs, tax incentives to encourage a shift to a hydrogen-based economy and a major overhaul of the executive branch of State government that would have resulted in greater accountability and transparency and millions in savings.  The Republicans refused to accept any of these forward-looking proposals.
5. A Balanced, 21st Century Tax System:  Our tax system needs reform on two fronts.  First, we must make sure that we reward work instead of fortune, ensuring that everyone pays their fair share.  Unjustified tax loopholes should be closed.  Second, we must synchronize our tax system with the reality of the new economy where the service and technology sectors make up an increasingly large share.
6. Investment in Transportation:  Roads in Greater Minnesota are deteriorating at alarming rates, creating serious safety concerns.  Metro commuters lament the time spent away from family and friends as they sit on congested freeways – about 50 hours a year for the average commuter.  Businesses worry that choked freeways are squeezing profits.  Others express concern about the degradation of air quality associated with more and more cars idling in traffic.  We need a real commitment to improving roads and transit in this state.
The rhetoric during the session stated that tough financial times called for bold reform and action.  We have not seen action to match that rhetoric this year. This round of the battle is over and the past won.  But we will carry on the fight with the confidence that, in the end, the future will prevail.