Almanac: At the Capitol

The upcoming clash in May about spending is inevitable. Glance at the last two Sundays of the Star Tribune and you see a preview of the arguments.

But is there a way to avoid this deadlock by consciously preparing now for a "grand compromise": more money for the issues that matter most to Minnesotans — but only with meaningful reforms and innovations.

I've been criticized in the past for making "innovate-first-then 'invest'" arguments — and for skepticism about equating spending with "investing." But the status quo isn't sufficient on our most important policy items, and there simply isn't much evidence that spending more money — on its own — will have much of a difference in long-term outcomes. This is a fun discussion and it makes for great panel discussions and parlor games, but let's jump into specific opportunities — not philosophical arguments.

Let's talk about innovating and investing in transportation.

Transportation, more than perhaps any issue except health care, is viscerally experienced by Minnesotans. And, more than any other issue, the behavior of these citizens matters in changing outcomes (reducing congestion, increasing safety, etc.). Transportation concerns cut across geographic and party lines, even though it often pits Greater Minnesota against the Metro.

And it's hard to argue that we don't need to spend more money. I'm embarrassed by the quality of I-94 and I-35 every time I drive to Minneapolis or to Duluth. There is consensus that we need to spend significant sums of money improving the quality and capacity of roads in Minnesota, even with the passage of the referendum last fall.

But we also have a chance to actually reduce congestion through congestion pricing — becoming a leader in policy innovations again. The U.S. DOT is looking for an aggressive response to congestion through tolling, transit, telecommuting and technology.

Recent articles in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal highlight "congestion pricing" — what we are doing with the MNPASS lane on I-394 — and how this approach is actually reducing congestion, not just slowing its growth. And in every community where it’s been implemented, initial public hesitation and opposition dropped when they see the results and realize that they now have a choice available when they want to use it.

Tyler Duvall, the U.S. DOT's Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, was here two weeks ago at a summit on road pricing sponsored by the Citizens League, the Humphrey Institute and the Center for Transportation Studies. The U.S. DOT has at least $130 million in funding available for communities that are well-positioned to demonstrate how increased use of congestion pricing is part of an integrated transportation and transit plan to reduce congestion.

This is us!

We clearly need to find ways to pay (more) for road expansions in the metro area — but let's combine these efforts with a real innovation: mandatory use of congestion pricing when it's feasible. This is a very cost-effective approach that might free up resources for other transportation issues.

Let's put together an innovative partnership between the legislature and the Governor's office and DOT to support this. (Many legislative leaders are excited about the availability of these funds.)

Let's recognize the practical — not just the political — reasons to invest and to innovate on the issues that matter most to Minnesotans.

Real people with real problems come to the Capitol to talk to their legislators and testify at our committee hearings. How we treat them reflects on us, not only as legislators but as human beings.

So let’s not attack them when they give us their opinions, okay? When a woman tells us of her problems — whether they’re related to health care or high taxes or losing her house to foreclosure — let’s not argue with her. If you had her problems and weren’t being treated appropriately, you’d be here asking for help too!

If you feel a need to argue with someone, take on the professional testifiers — the lobbyists who are paid to talk with us. They know the process, they have lots of facts and figures at their fingertips, and they are worthy adversaries if you feel like picking a fight. They don’t have to screw up their courage, take half a day off from work, and lay open their personal lives, like average citizens do when they come to tell us what they think.

They also won’t go home and tell all their friends and neighbors about how poorly they were treated by a State Senator at a hearing in The People’s House. But the real people with real problems will!

By now, many Democrats and some Republicans have read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, in which he outlines the concept of framing — that is, defining the terms of an issue or debate in a way that, no matter what is actually said, listeners are struck at a subconscious level with the power of your position (more or less). Lakoff goes into great detail in explaining how strong framing helped the Republican Party return to Congressional power in the 1990s and thwart Democrats repeatedly until a perfect storm of political hubris, ineptitude, and a revitalized Democratic Party in 2006.

In recent days, Democrats at the national level have successfully reframed arguments, to the point where Republican Congressional leaders are worrying out loud to their colleagues about getting caught in the Democratic frame on President Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq.

At the local level, we still have some work to do. Recently on this site, House Majority Leader Tony Sertich wrote:

So far, we've passed $24 million in tax relief to middle income families, teachers, and military veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. We have also taken a leadership role in a Great Lakes Compact with our neighboring states, provinces and federal government. With passage of these bills, we had necessary public input about core Minnesota values.

Talking about core Minnesota values and associating those values with the DFL platform: good. Using the term "tax relief": bad. This is a Republican-framed term, and a very carefully assembled one. If taxes are a bane to life, liberty, and happiness, and are thus something from which the people need "relief," it will prove very difficult indeed to sustain the DFL platform which is doing so well in the Legislature. Playing into your opponent's frame will never end well.

Instead, why not talk about "strategic investments in the future"? "Make the tax structure (not burden, mind you) more fair for all Minnesotans"? These frames connect easily to the DFL platform of fair play, economic opportunity, fiscal common sense, and not leaving debt and other problems for future generations to solve. "Tax relief," "tax burden" ... these are the Republican and wrong way to think about tax issues. Taxes are not evil — they're an investment in our community, our state, our roads, our schools, and ultimately, in the future of our families. THAT's a winning frame.

Why is it that so many of us can't be happy unless something is going terribly wrong?

For example, a woman friend of mine for many years, (who could grace a magazine cover under the name "Has is all") regularly crashes in relationships with guys who are obvious jerks. My role in this friendship, after the invariable breakup, is to defend the male sex generally while we debate the topic: "Resolved: All men are selfish jerks." After a while, this usually results in my suggesting she pick a calmer, more reliable kind of guy as a boyfriend, and her responding, laughing, "but that would be SO DULL." Then, off she goes to crash and burn again.

So, too, it seems, goes the relationship with many Minnesotans and their legislature. Rather than be satisfied with something as dull and stable as our current batch of legislators seem determined to be, they seem to need flying dishes, public spats and chaos.

So far, we've had one of the dullest first months of session in recent memory. This isn't very hard to explain: a large, new majority (who now, perhaps, know where most of the bathrooms are in the Capitol), learning the ropes, as well as new committee chairs quietly meeting lobbyists and trying to figure out just which bills their committees need to be hearing.

In a relatively prosperous year, with no fiscal crises looming, this is exactly the kind of dull, scando-blando performance we should be hoping for from those folks.

Somebody needs to say: "Leave well enough alone."

But for those of us that really "love the game," that's no fun, of course. And, as my friend would be quick to point out, that's just the kind of safe, dull advice I can be counted on to give.

Republican advice, I'd say. But, oddly enough, it's my fellow Republicans who are, with the press, the biggest complainers right now about the lack of pace and excitement so far this session. It's like we can't stand a little peace and quiet and "need a rat" to feel like this really is politics, after all.

Don't worry. All the ingredients are in place for a major meltdown later in the session when the classic DFL appetite for revenue bumps up against suburban anti-tax sensibilities.

But, right now? I'd say, just be glad they don't snore.