This STrib article highlights the different approaches taken to creating jobs between the GOP and the DFL. The DFL approach requires a yearly injection of government stimulus funding. The GOP approach is a more entrepreneur-based approach. Gov. Dayton will apparently fight for the antiquated, ineffective DFL way:

Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislators appear headed for yet another showdown: Whether to run up $1 billion in state borrowing to build everything from civic centers to campgrounds as a way to create jobs in a sputtering economy.

Sen. Dave Senjem and freshman Rep. Kurt Bills offer a differing approach:

Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, who heads the Senate’s capital investment panel, said he has no immediate plans to even convene the committee.

“The idea of doing bonding to create jobs is not our way of thinking,” Senjem said.

Rep. Kurt Bills, one of the Republican newcomers who has brought a noticeably different philosophy to the Capitol, said yearly state bonding bills reach “a law of diminishing returns” that crowds out private investment. A high school economics teacher from Rosemount who now sits on the influential House Capital Investment Committee, Bills acknowledges that “I am a big, I have to say, anti-debt guy.”

Based on the poor job creation and return on investment numbers we’ve seen the past 5 years, I’d say that Rep. Bills’ argument for the the law of diminishing returns is reality, not theory.

Why Gov. Dayton would fight to borrow money to create a tiny trickle of jobs when streamlining the permitting process and eliminating job-killing litigation opportunities for MCEA and other environmental extremists would provide a gusher of new jobs without government interference or taxpayer resources doesn’t make sense.

While Gov. Dayton is pushing for the DFL’s annual stimulus bill, freshmen legislators like Rep. Dan Fabian and Sen. John Pederson are pushing for streamlining the permitting process with Rep. Fabian chief authoring HF1 and Sen. Pederson co-sponsoring SF1, the Senate’s companion bill to HF1.

Unlike Gov. Dayton’s bill, Pederson’s and Fabian’s bill will create an a business-friendly environment that encourages increased entrepreneurial activity.

This isn’t a difficult choice.

Supporting a bill that brings a gusher of jobs makes infinitely more sense than supporting a bill that creates a trickle of jobs while burdening future generations with unnecessary debts shouldn’t be a difficult decision.

Unfortunately, we’re saddled with a governor who thinks it’s the most difficult decision imaginable. Still, I’m optimistic because the GOP legislature will prevent most of Gov. Dayton’s crazy ideas from becoming law.

Another reason that I’m optimistic is because Rep. King Banaian will play an influential role as my legislator. Here’s an example of his economic thinking:

St. Cloud’s newly elected Republican state Rep. King Banaian said he is not closing the door to a state borrowing proposal, but has his own idea of what might be included: Money for a science building at St. Cloud State University, where Banaian teaches. “I think it meets the criteria I have in mind,” he said.

But Banaian said the state’s deficit remains the top task. “If the bonding bill’s going to get in the way of us doing our job with the budget, I’d rather not do any bonding,” he said.

Funding a project like I-SILF is a legitimate bonding project. It will create great learning opportunities that will translate into high-tech jobs for the state.

The DFL often speaks about the bonding bill as a “jobs bill” while touting only the construction jobs it creates. King’s criteria is different in that it also asks the question: what will we have once the construction ends? Will it be another special interest shrine (my terminology) or will we have something that strengthens Minnesota’s infrastructure and economy?

The DFL has stifled Minnesota’s economy for a couple decades. They’ve relied too often on bonding bills. They’ve tried raising taxes too often. They’ve added too many job-killing regulations.

Thankfully, the GOP legislature is quickly streamlining the permitting process, keeping spending at sane levels and eliminating the need to raise taxes. By doing these things, they’re eliminating Minnesota’s structural deficit, too.

It’s about time.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Creating Jobs vs. Building a Dynamic Economy”

Leave a Reply