Minnesota Needs More Collaboration, Less Compromise

An evenly-divided legislature is an opportunity for bold reform if legislators show courage

(NOTE: The following article was written by Tom Horner and published by the Minnesota StarTribune Jan. 2.)

Lawmakers returning to St. Paul for the start of a new legislative session have the opportunity to make historic and needed reforms. To do so, they need to recognize the false promise of bipartisan compromise. What’s needed at the Capitol in 2025 is less compromise and more collaboration.

Where the goal of compromise is to calm the political waters making sure no one is too upset, collaboration makes waves with big solutions. Compromise is a recipe for maintaining the status quo. And the status quo is sinking Minnesota.

Certainly, the state still has many assets and a strong foundation. It also faces stagnant economic growth, academic outcomes that are pushing the once-vaunted public schools into also-run status in rankings with the other states, seemingly uncontrolled fraud in state programs and a population that is aging and not growing.

Minnesota today needs new ideas and bold reforms, the kind of initiatives that in the 1960s, ‘70s, ‘80s and early 1990s made the state the envy of the nation. Those outcomes aren’t reached through compromise, a process that by definition, produces solutions that are the least objectionable to the most people on both sides of an issue.

Compromise inherently is transactional. At its core are trade-offs. You do something for me and I will do something for you. When it’s all said and done, a legislative session defined by compromise will have a little something to sate the political appetites of lawmakers and their constituencies, but not much that will address the long-term challenges the state faces.

Look at what collaboration could accomplish this session. Pre-K-12 education is a good example. This most vital of public services is in crisis. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves, student test results in many districts are dismal and districts across the state are facing the kind of budget deficits that threaten fundamental values and functions of public education.

Leave it to Democrats and they will put more money into the existing system. Republicans will seek ways to promote more public funding of private schools. Both approaches ignore the reality that Minnesota schools are stuck with a half-century old funding formula that no longer works. When school enrollments are growing, a formula that in 2025 will give schools about $7,300 per pupil works pretty well. Add one child to a classroom, and costs don’t increase by $7,300. Today, enrollment in most schools is declining, yet costs aren’t reduced by $7,300 for every lost student. Meanwhile, districts today face costs that were unimaginable a half century ago when a new film strip projector was cutting edge technology.

Minnesota today needs collaborative education reform that puts academic achievement first. Collaboration could produce a new funding formula that doesn’t penalize districts with declining enrollments, examines whether a system of 330 independent school districts is the most effective, recognizes that attracting and retaining the best teachers will require higher salaries, supports and rewards student achievement and on and on.

Or consider the state’s tax system. Minnesota’s lowest marginal individual income tax rate is higher than the highest rate in nearly half the states. And even that isn’t producing enough revenue to keep up with spending. Minnesota faces a state budget deficit of $5 billion or more in the 2028-29 budget year and revenue crises in the state’s cities, counties and school districts. Property taxes are soaring and the combined state and local sales tax in many communities tops 8% and even 9% in some cities.

Democrats, predictably, argue that high taxes are the price the state pays for its quality of life. Republicans argue enough is too much; it’s well past time for tax reductions.

The real challenges get masked by this ideological posturing. The state should be taxing consumption not work, investments and savings. Yes, that means cutting income taxes and relying more on sales taxes. When done thoughtfully (instead of today’s haphazard approach of layering local sales taxes onto the state’s levy), a combined system of sales and income taxes can be fair, progressive and far more transparent. It also can be more of a lure to those thinking of moving to Minnesota and those people Minnesota would do well to keep. Consumption taxes also create incentives for job creation, expansion of existing businesses and business start-ups.

Tax reform should go hand-in-hand with responsible spending in which outcomes are measured by metrics that matter. Instead, Minnesota too often sees spending continue unabated because accountability is meaningless.

Last session, the state created a universal free school breakfast and lunch program. The underlying argument is that a well-nourished student performs better, and there are volumes of credible evidence supporting that outcome. Almost immediately, the program’s costs were 20% higher than projected. When the Department of Education issued its first-year evaluation of the initiative, it touted two findings: the program saved participating families an average of $1,000 per year and more meals than expected were served. That’s great, but neither is relevant to the most important intended purpose of the program: improving academic outcomes. If putting an extra grand in the pockets of families of school-age children was the goal, there are cheaper ways to accomplish that mission. And even McDonald’s decades ago stopped promoting the number of burgers served as a measure of success.

What will it take for legislators to move from compromise to collaboration?

First, it will take legislators from both sides of the aisle to put Minnesota ahead of politics and partisan loyalty. Collaboration requires some Democrats and Republicans to break from the give-and-take compromises negotiated by party leaders, to take the best ideas of conservatives and liberals and to build new approaches that are respectful of the values of different ideologies but not bound by the often stifling dogma of the major parties. In other words, collaboration requires more independence, less groupthink.

Second, reformers need to agree on the problem they are trying to solve. That’s easier said than done. Take health reform. Democrats tend to define the problem as one of access, Republicans see the challenges as cost and personal responsibility. Yes, those issues overlap, but when the two parties home in only on what they see as the obstacle to a better health system, comprehensive reform is ignored. Collaborators listen carefully to different voices, respectfully acknowledge the priorities of others and make a commitment to find better answers by taking the best from every offering. Compromise finds the mushy middle. Collaboration finds bold solutions.

Third, in today’s political environment, collaboration requires encouragement and a recognition that there are more than two sides to complicated issues. That starts with the news media. Look at recent StarTribune opinion articles. A Republican argues for no new taxes, a Democrat comes back with a pitch for more spending. Back and forth, with no mention that maybe, just maybe, a new approach to both taxes and spending is needed.

Collaborating on big ideas isn’t easy. Constituents, party leaders and the media put pressure on legislators to compromise, to accept a little of this and to give up a little of that so they can reach politically-satisfying agreements. More is needed today. If Minnesota is to have the same bright future lawmakers of an earlier generation created for those of us living in the state today, legislators coming to St. Paul in 2025 should put less faith in compromise and make this a session of collaborating on bold reform.