Unkindest cut may come back to haunt
Will voters notice the veto of health care for the poor? They will if Thissen has his way.
Apparently the Right doesn't understand facts.
@chablis28: Not only does the government (both state and federal) tax everyone and has that right under the Constitution, but the actual … read more party responsible for the current budget deficit is the Republican party. Democrats didn't get the state into this mess; it was the Republicans and Tim Pawlenty, who cut taxes for their wealthy friends, while spending more money than the incoming revenue allowed. Tax revenue is what allows the state to pay for the education of your children, as well as fund the construction and maintenance of our roads and bridges, along with many other necessary things. If you and your ilk believe that everything is about you, and it's beneath you to consider others less fortunate who need help, then you certainly won't mind when the day comes that you need help and get nothing.
*****************No one who watched the failed veto override attempt last Sunday in the Minnesota House will soon forget Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of funding for health care for the poorest of the poor.
Memorable moments were many in the eerily hushed chamber that day. There was the choked voice of ordinarily stoic Rep. Lyndon Carlson, as he spoke of friends who died too soon because they lacked health insurance. There was Rep. Jeremy Kalin's warm regard for the man he unseated, Rep. Pete Nelson, R-Lindstrom, whose life was saved after a butcher shop accident by Regions Hospital -- an institution set to lose $46 million in fiscal 2011 because of the veto.
There was the silent witness in the gallery of three jobless men whose treatment for multiple mental and physical disorders depends upon the vetoed program. With it, the men said, they have hope of recovering and working again. One dreams of joining the Navy. Without it? They sadly shrugged.
And there was the GOP response: Charity isn't government's role. (Was that an echo from the 19th century?) People who make bad choices should feel the consequences. (If the mentally ill don't get medicine, who bears those consequences?) The program wouldn't be in jeopardy if DFLers had spent less elsewhere. (Then why didn't the governor veto those lower priorities instead?)
The debate was riveting -- for the few Minnesotans who caught it on a lovely springtime Sunday afternoon.
But to those who weren't listening that day, the May 14 veto of General Assistance Medical Care likely came across as something about a troubled car finance company with a similar acronym. GAMC pays for no-frills health care for about 34,000 people per year whose annual incomes fall below $7,800. More than 70 percent of them are either mentally ill, chemically dependent or both.
Many, before Minnesota went out of the state hospital business, would have resided in such places. Many are just as invisible today as if they did.
Sunday's outcome foreshadowed the session's finale: a party-line vote; override fails; Pawlenty wins. By the morning after adjournment for the year, Pawlenty's health care veto was already melding into the end-of-session blur. It didn't come up at a gubernatorial press conference.
But later that day, I spoke with someone determined to keep that veto in public view. Rep. Paul Thissen, a leader in the Legislature's health policy brain trust, is running for Pawlenty's job.
Thissen is far from a household name, so permit an introduction: He's 42, a Bloomington native, four-term legislator from south Minneapolis, and a Harvard and University of Chicago-educated attorney (he used to play pick-up hoops with a skinny new U of C professor named Obama). He's a smart, serious, un-flashy fellow.
It's too early to assess where he stands in the big DFL gubernatorial wannabe pack. But this much is clear: When the candidates at forums are asked to contrast themselves with the incumbent, Thissen will take aim at Pawlenty's veto. Here's a sample:
"That veto was absolutely wrong, for two reasons," Thissen said. "We are breaking a promise that we've had in Minnesota for generations, that we are going to take care of those least able to take care of themselves.
"The other thing is, it's a clear example of short-term thinking. It's thinking we can solve problems by not paying for them, or just moving them off of government's books. That's just not true.
"What the governor is doing with GAMC in marquee style puts up the fundamental debate we've been having for the past decade. We've had this notion put before us that we can keep the Minnesota we've always known without paying for it. That's tied to a notion that we're all on our own, and should be able to take care of ourselves.
"The pendulum is swinging back to the idea that we do owe obligations to each other. That is what the next election is going to be about."
Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She is at lsturdevant@startribune.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment