“Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals
have an intimate connection.”

- Thomas Jefferson

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, The Hon. Eric Magnuson, is unhappy that the man who appointed him to office, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, has asked him to cut his budget by five percent. To do so, the judge and the StarTribune allege, "could leave our courts in chaos." Apparently the Chief Justice sees that the only way he can accommodate such a draconian request in a state facing a $6 billion budget deficit, is by

shutting down conciliation court, cutting hours and suspending prosecution of 21 types of cases, including property damage, harassment, probate, and more than 1 million traffic and parking cases a year.

That last step could interrupt a $200 million flow to local governments.

It appears that a $103 million budget, and a system that brings in $200 million in fines and court fees to the State, can't absorb a five percent cut without dramatically reducing services in the most painful and attention-getting manner. Similarly, school districts always threaten to cut the most visible programs (or withdraw services, such as busing, that will create the biggest headaches for parents) if they don't get everything they feel they are entitled to, and St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman threatens to take cops and firefighters off the street to balance his budget while while preserving redundant and less visible departments.

Very well. Since the Chief Justice favors the rule of law, let's present the case and all the evidence. Where does the present budget go, and just how efficiently? The judiciary is a public service, fully-funded by public dollars, so show the public line-by-line where the money goes and why, and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then let a jury of the citizens of this state decide.

Furthermore, if the judge wants to try the case in the media, then the Star Tribune ought to at least make an effort to find some opposing witnesses or at least make an attempt to cross-examine the testimony. Calling only DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and DFL rep Michael Paymar to the stand suggests an agenda rather than a search for truth.

Here's a fact: the State of Minnesota has a humongous deficit. Cuts are going to have to be made. If the Judiciary is spared, the burden must pass to another branch of government. Will we next week see the trash collectors saying they'll only be able to collect every other week, or the dog-catchers saying they'll no longer be able to afford to round up rabid dogs?

In my private-sector job, our business was recently forced to reduce expenses by nearly as many dollars as Magnuson has been asked to cut, on a budget only a fifth the size of the judge's. Our mandate, however, was to make the cuts as invisible as possible to customers and to not reduce service to the consumers who are our lifeblood. Ironically, our "public servants" always seem to resort to doing just the opposite for their "customers".

"A million trillion here, a million trillion there; pretty soon you’re talking about real money."
— Everett Dirksen

$2 TRILLION?
White House's $2.5 trillion plan draws criticism over lack of details.

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON, New York Times

WASHINGTON - The White House plan to rescue the nation's financial system, announced Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is far bigger than anyone predicted and envisions a far greater government role in markets and banks than at any time since the 1930s.

Administration officials committed to flood the financial system with as much as $2.5 trillion -- $350 billion of that coming from the bailout fund and the rest from private investors and the Federal Reserve, making use of its ability to print money.
...
But the initial assessment from the markets, lawmakers and economists was brutally negative, in large part because they expected more details.

Basic questions about how the various parts of the program would work -- especially those involving the unsellable mortgages that banks are holding and preventing home foreclosures -- were left for another day. Some Wall Street experts criticized the plan for relying too heavily on the same vague solutions proposed by the Bush administration.

The stock market, propped up for weeks on the expectation that Washington would finally deliver a comprehensive rescue plan, dipped almost as soon as Geithner began speaking in the morning.

Megan McArdle writing in The Atlantic...

It seems to me that the burden of proof ought naturally to be on the stimulus proponents to satisfy the public that their highly theoretical models are basically sound, especially for the parts of the bill that aren't tax cuts or transfer payments. Let's recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)--the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

Proponents say that that's because there wasn't enough stimulus, which is possibly true, but not really satisfying, because first, how do we know this package is enough, and second, that leaves us with a belief in the virtues of stimulus that is essentially non-falsifiable. We might as well move macroeconomic policy to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.