When it comes to how to manage a social unit such as a 'State' of a country, there is that most fundamental problem of..'budget'.

The Government must know:

-Revenues.
-Expenditures.

Political pressure always arises to influence those 2 factors.

The Socialist inclined will always emphasise 'human services/health/education. etc. The problem is, they tend to idealize how much needs to be spent..and seldom refer to how much is available.

When the Revnues don't match the expenditures, they have a standard solution:

*Raise Taxes*. (income redistribution)

The Capitalist approach is: *cut spending* (fiscal responsibility)

Governor Tim Pawlanty (Republican/Capitalist) of Minnesota was faced with a deficit of: $1.2 Billion in Feb 2010, there was also a remaining deficit of $2.7Billion from 2009

The Governor’s budget plan includes:
• $250 million in reductions to state government aids to local units of government
• $347 million in reductions to state health and human services programs
• $387 million extension of enhanced federal Medicaid funding for states
• $47 million in reductions to state higher education institutions
• $181 million in reductions to state agencies and other programs $1.2 billion total

For more information, including his job creation initiatives refer here:
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/mediacenter/pressreleases/PROD009860.html

Now..the Questions for discussion.

1/"Should he have just raised taxes to pay for the deficit?" (tax the rich)

2/ "if he had taxed 'the rich'....what might result in terms of job growth and employment vision by those 'rich ?

3/ "If a state cannot afford the luxury of certain social programs, should it spend on them anyway?"

Here is the result for Maryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/29/taxing_the_rich_107350.html

You should send those links to Brumby Al, seems he doesn't get it!
He's going to win again you know? Watch our stamp duties and taxes go even higher when he and his green mates get back in!

I'm rather hoping some of our progressive friends will seek to show us where the 'Capitalist' approach is flawed and the Socialist (Tax those rich bastards) approach is right.

I also hope they will stick to the case study and suggest alternative approaches to the problem of fiscal ruination other than 'taxing the rich'.

I have invented a new saying :) (I think it's original but can't be sure)

"Socialists thrive on Capitalist money until it runs out, then everyone is equally poor" (C)AGIR

I have a feeling the only thing which will happen is mockery, ad hominem or (due to the lack of any substantial counter argument) *silence*

Of course if I blamed some Muslims for the crisis :) they would be all over me

Trouble is Al you think anything slightly left of the Tea Party is socialist.

It is not only the rich who are taxed. Do you have any concerns over how a rich person may come into their fortunes. Was it through hard work and long hours? Did it come via exploitation of labour ie. sweat shops? Was any anti-competitive behaviour involved such as price fixing?

You make a mistake in targeting positive collective programs like health etc when the real problems with revenue is waste and in governments becoming too involved in policy and funding of programs that are not solely of the collective interest and serve a greater electoral agenda. This is true of both sides of politics.

So it is WASTE we should be calling to account not social programs that benefit everyone rich or poor that allow access to services that might not be available except for an elite group under a strong RW agenda.

When the likes of Al start calling for cutbacks to defense and security spending, by far the most wasteful and unproductive expenditure we have, then I will start to listen to their calls to cut back social services.

When the wealthy stop avoiding the pittance they (and the rest of us) are currently required to pay then I will listen to their bleating about how they pay too much tax.

You get what you pay for. Less tax = less services, more poverty, more crime, more cost which equals either more cuts<go back to step 2>or increase tax. Which brings us full circle and back to Al and his call for less tax. Its just a pointless, endless merry go round.

The only answer is to ignore the whining and just get on with it. Tax their ill gotten gains and to hell with them. They should think themselves lucky the real militant socialists arent after them to take it all not just a percentage.

Pelly asks:

Do you have any concerns over how a rich person may come into their fortunes. Was it through hard work and long hours? Did it come via exploitation of labour ie. sweat shops? Was any anti-competitive behaviour involved such as price fixing?

Yes I absolutely DO!

and those things are the worst aspects of unregulated capitalist exploitation. The solution of course is.. REGULATE those things.

On the other hand.. look at the man who started with $3000 and one employee who started 'PAYCHEX'..now a billionaire, employing some many thousands of people.
http://www.paychex.com/

Capitalism (free market) is not the problem WE are the problem, and those awful things you mentioned can be dealt with by law, not by Marxism :)