EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116 
Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail

March 16, 2001
Print Version

Minnesota’s “New (State-Planned) Economy”
By Michael J. Chapman

The Commissioner of Minnesota’s Department of Trade and Economic Development, Jerry Carlson, recently wrote a commentary entitled, "New Economy most likely here to stay," (Feb. 1^st; Eden Prairie News). His subject was the "New Economy," and the Governor’s "Big Plan," neither of which include "freedom," so it was no surprise that Carlson never mentioned the "free" market economy.

The Commissioner could have simply said the Governor’s Big Plan is to replace our free-market economy with a "New" state-planned economy.

But the phrase "state-planned economy" doesn’t sell very well to a free people, so instead the Commissioner wrote about forming a "collaborative leadership model that breaks down silos and validates the integral role of our partners in achieving a common goal." Let me translate: The "silos" to be broken down are private businesses making their own decisions, and educational institutions teaching their own curriculum. The "collaborative leadership" is government in partnership with business and educational institutions to plan our futures for us.

As Carlson justifies it, "None of us – not government, not educational institutions, and not the business community – can lay legitimate claim to the one true vision or one correct approach. ...no one of us is as important as all of us."

In other words, individualism is subservient to collectivism, and so a new governance structure is needed. What Minnesotans aren’t being told is that the new government partnership model follows a federal template defined by three separate federal acts brought into the state via contracts signed by the last two governors.

First, the "Goals 2000" act built a partnership between government and education, and gave us the Profile of Learning (outcome-based education). The "School-to-Work" act built the education/business partnership and restructured the purpose of education to "job training." Finally, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) adds the government/business partnership and institutes the state-planned economy - managed through the "workforce center system." The three-way "collaborative" partnership between government, education, and business is now complete in Minnesota. But beware of the 800 pound government gorilla! It will take charge of any "partnership!"

For example: The system is governed by a bureaucratic body called The Governor’s Workforce Development Council (GWDC). Members claim to "represent" business, education, labor, and other special interest groups, but in reality, they are all "appointed" by the state and therefore accountable to the state. Also, the real power is held by a smaller group within the GWDC known as "the mini-cabinet." Jerry Carlson forgot to mention that he is a member of this "central committee," which is made up of the heads of four lead state agencies.

The private sector’s role in this partnership is simply to feed the gorilla. Carlson explains: "government can’t act alone...we need input from the private sector.... We have in the governor’s Big Plan a long-range vision for accomplishing our goals..." I guess some partners are more equal than other partners.

To explain government’s goals, Carlson refers to "Minnesota: World Competitor," part of the Governor’s Big Plan. That document was authored by the mini-cabinet and contains a list of recommendations for the state to "consider." As luck would have it, the recommendations are identical to the provisions contained within the Federal Workforce Investment Act template. Furthermore, on June 23, 2000, Governor Ventura signed the contract with the federal government promising to implement the plan! (See their document) The legislature is merely being asked to rubber-stamp what is already done. Call it "outcome-based government!"

Here are a few of the "recommendations" the Commissioner forgot to mention. You decide if they represent "freedom," or a "state-planned" economy!

"The mini-cabinet recommends...

• "Modifying the Profiles of Learning as needed to encourage taking of technical courses by high school students."

• "Directing [the Workforce Development Fund] strategically toward educating, training and counseling our workforce in a way that is most beneficial to the state."

• "Establishing an Emerging Worker Program that would emphasize 11^th and 12^th graders interested in pursuing post-secondary options in technical curricula. This program would be administered by local WorkForce Centers under the auspices of local Workforce Councils and through the use of Individual Training Accounts."

• "Aligning tuition levels to correspond with demand for training in priority industries and occupations."

Where does the information come from to determine demand in "priority industries and occupations"? Government! According to "strategy #2, - State government must constantly monitor occupation and industry trends and remain flexible to respond to them." Apparently, free-market forces are no longer good enough for the "New Economy." Now we need government forecasting and planning!

How will government "respond" to its forecasted "priority industries and occupations?" For one, the plan includes having colleges and universities "cap enrollment in programs for which there is a low demand for employees relative to supply."

In other words, it doesn’t matter what you want to be when you grow up. The state may have determined its human-resource supply is sufficient to meet its needs in that area! At one time, students were free to choose a major based on personal interest alone. That’s called "freedom."

According to Carlson, this "seamless tapestry" is necessary to "provide leadership to ensure our state’s continued economic success." So here’s the $100 question: What’s wrong with the system that gave us "economic success" in the first place? Where is the evidence that this "New Economy" needs state economic planning? Searching for answers within Carlson’s commentary, led only to more questions.

For example, Carlson writes that "there is no consensus about what the problem is – or even that there really is a problem;" yet he ends with, "let us forge ahead and finish the job that we all agree is of vital importance." Well which is it: "no consensus" or "we all agree"?

And about this elusive "New Economy," Carlson writes, "we cannot mark its origins or chart its course – or even define precisely what it is," and yet he tells us that "it is here to stay!" How can we tell that its here, let alone "here to stay," if we cannot define what it is?

Welcome to the twilight zone of government planning! But don’t worry; the Commissioner assures us that "Every state in the nation is engaging in this same kind of dialogue;" and in Minnesota, "the state’s brightest government, education, and business leaders" worked on the plan. (Never mind that they cannot agree on the problem.)

I cannot think of a better way to respond than to close with a brief quotation from Thomas Sowell’s, Vision of the Anointed:

"When 'the brightest and the best' take over making decisions for other people, usually through the power of government, those decisions are likely to be based on less knowledge, experience and understanding than when ordinary people make their own individual decisions for themselves. The anointed may know more than the average person, but far less than all the ordinary people put together."

Thanks anyway Commissioner, but I’ll take my chances with freedom!

Michael J. Chapman, is a resident of Eden Prairie, founder of American Heritage Research, member of Parent’s Seeking Educational Excellence, and serves on the Board of Advisors at SW Christian High School in Chaska.

EdAction - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931 - edaction@lakes.com - (c) EdAction - All rights reserved.