A provocative conversation on Minnesota’s future is being led by astute observers of the state’s politics, policies and prospects. At the heart of the discussion is this question: Do today’s Minnesotans still enjoy the miracle that Time Magazine in 1973 famously defined as “the good life” or is the state sinking in the quicksand of its own myths?
David Schultz, Hamline University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, started a provocative four-article (so far) debate in the Minnesota Star Tribune. Minnesota is a victim of self-delusion, writes Schultz, a state “living comfortably inside a story of its own making: clean government, civic virtue, shared purpose. It is a story repeated so often it has hardened into doctrine. And doctrines, like myths, have a way of obscuring the truth” (“Minnesota and the comfort of its own myth,” May 10).
Hold on, responds Dane Smith, a longtime political and government reporter, in an article a week later. “Statistics consistently show that ours is a relatively better place for people in the vast middle-income ranks and for those on the lower end of a growing inequality and affordability crisis. In other words, for most of us,” he wrote in a Minnesota Star Tribune commentary. (“It’s not really a myth — Minnesota is an exceptional state,” May 16).
By the end of May, two other thoughtful voices added to an increasingly robust discussion. Gary Cunningham, a former county administrator, health executive and now a senior adviser at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy at the New School for Social Research, underscored the state’s racial and geographic disparities (“Beyond Lake Wobegon and the Minnesota myth,” May 24). The wealthy gain a larger share of the state’s prosperity, “leaving less behind for the people doing the actual work of the state,” writes Cunningham.
John Phelan, an economist at the conservative Center of the American Experiment (“It’s not just MAGA who’s worried about Minnesota’s trajectory,” May 24), posits that higher government spending and taxes are taking their toll, chasing the well-to-do out of state and depressing income for those who remain. “Between 2019 and 2024, median household income…fell, in Minnesota, in real terms, by 6.4%, a worse performance than in 44 states. Again, we might still rank high, but look where we’re headed,” warns Phelan.
Taken together, these and other equally-thoughtful articles in the Minneapolis Times and elsewhere are less point-counterpoint than they are commentaries that say “yes, but…” Minnesota is a state with a quality-of-life as good as multiple national rankings and data show, but also suffering from blindness to problems and trends that threaten a prosperous future.
There are some challenges Minnesota alone can’t fix. Farming, mining and manufacturing – mainstays of the state’s rural economy – have been severely damaged by the inept economic and trade policies of the Trump Administration. The state can only do so much to counter the harm inflicted by federal policies.
Other problems, though, are of our own making. Rampant fraud and the policies and practices that opened the floodgates to theft top the list of the most obvious. Criminals stole tax dollars and too many public officials ignored multiple red flags.
Still, even while acknowledging the severity of the fraud crisis, context matters. Most state programs are efficient and secure. For example, in January, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services found that Minnesota’s Medicaid program has an improper payment rate of about 2.1%, one-third the national average. The rate of improper payments doesn’t measure fraud, but it does reflect the care the state takes with public dollars.
Minnesota’s fraud crisis existing in a state with generally well-run programs is an important juxtaposition that lends itself to understanding whether Minnesota is more miracle or myth. Exploring what has worked in Minnesota and the strengths of key public investments over the years can lead to acknowledging the myths and creating effective solutions.
Health policy is a case in point. In the 1970s, more than three decades before Obamacare, Minnesota was an innovator in making affordable health insurance available to those with pre-existing health conditions. Twenty years later, the state addressed another failure of the health system – the lack of affordable coverage for the working poor, those who earned too much to be eligible for public programs but were in jobs that didn’t provide health benefits. MinnesotaCare filled that gap.
The policies, the first signed into law by a Democratic governor, the second by a Republican, shared important traits. They were targeted, they required financial buy-in from beneficiaries but had enough public subsidies to assure broad access and they delivered services effectively and cost-efficiently, often through the private sector.
They also delivered enormous benefits for the entire state. They created broad access to health care, supporting a healthy workforce and producing one of the nation’s highest rates of labor force participation. And when people are working and are productive, quality of life is enhanced. Families buy homes, the entertainment and hospitality sectors flourish because consumers have discretionary income, schools are stronger because local referenda are approved and on and on.
Today, though, Minnesota has too many public support programs that are well-intentioned but have lost their focus. Eligibility for many programs now includes people earning up to 200% or more of the federal poverty level. For some services, higher income limits might be warranted but only when reasons are valid, explicit and measured against meaningful metrics. In other words, programs should be designed with the same criteria that made Minnesota’s health policies for the working poor and those with pre-existing health conditions effective. Loosening or expanding the criteria should demand a high bar of justification.
The state also must look beyond eligibility to how services are delivered. The state cannot afford to remain captive to systems and procedures designed for another time. For example, Minnesota is one of the few states to deliver many of its social service benefits through counties. Decentralization is expensive and it makes oversight of programs more difficult.
Massachusetts and Minnesota are the top two states in public welfare spending when adjusted for the size of the population served. Yet, according to the highly-regarded Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, Massachusetts, with its more centralized approach, employs nearly 5,000 fewer full-time equivalent employees to deliver its programs. Minnesota taxpayers spent nearly $26 million more than Massachusetts in payroll costs in 2024 for its county-based systems. Those costs are reflected in property taxes, already rising at rates many homeowners cannot afford.
On these and other issues, Minnesota needs a debate among candidates that builds on the thoughtful groundwork laid by pundits. Commentators elevate problems; candidates should coalesce support for specific solutions. The future of Minnesota is too vulnerable and too valuable for candidates to coast on their popularity or to hide behind attack ads.
At their best – and it has been a long time since a “best” political season – campaigns educate, inspire and create broad mandates for action.
Minnesota remains a great place to live. It also faces serious challenges. In a year in which voters will elect a new governor and all 201 legislators, candidates need to trust voters enough to engage them in serious discussions around the question posed by analysts: Will Minnesota continue to be a quality-of-life miracle or will we succumb to the myths that feed our smugness but erode our future?
