Gov. Pawlenty and DFL legislative leaders have tried their best in recent days to put a shiny gloss on the latest budget deal, designed to eliminate a $3 billion deficit in the current biennium.

But Minnesotans should look past the lipstick and see the budget deal for the oinker that it is. While it may have ended the legislative session and essentially balanced the state’s books, the budget agreement accomplishes that mostly by kicking all the state’s fiscal problems down the road to the next governor and the next Legislature.

The agreement signed by the governor last week “solves” the state’s budget mess primarily through the issuance of IOUs, otherwise known as accounting shifts. The state’s schools took the biggest hit, having received nearly $1.9 billion in IOUs that no one in St. Paul believes will be repaid anytime soon. Gov. Pawlenty tried to include a law that would require repayment of the funding, but DFLers wisely balked at that suggestion when the governor refused to establish a funding mechanism to pay for it.

It was vintage Pawlenty, who has been masterful at shifting responsibility in order to further his own political objectives. While both sides must accept some of the blame for failing to make hard choices this year, Gov. Pawlenty’s eight-year refusal to compromise on any new state-generated revenue, has left the Legislature in a weak position in a time of budget crisis. Without new revenue, cuts are essentially the only thing on the table, and from Pawlenty’s point of view, that has been by design.

There is little doubt that Pawlenty has been successful in forcing his vision of government on Minnesotans, but it isn’t at all clear that the state is better off for it, or that our state will continue to maintain its high quality of life in the long term if voters don’t opt for a change in direction.

When pressed this past week to name a state that was closest to his vision of what Minnesota should be, Pawlenty cited North and South Dakota, mostly for their low taxes. Of course, North Dakotans can enjoy low taxes because the state is in the midst of an energy boom. And South Dakotans enjoy low taxes because their state makes little investment in its people, and that fact shows on a wide range of social indicators. While it’s true that South Dakota has seen the lowest state unemployment rate in the country in recent years— due largely to the financial services industry in Sioux Falls— it also ranks dead last in average pay, according to U.S. census data. That’s not a model Minnesotans should want to emulate.

Minnesota, which ranks among the top 15 states for average wages, has done well by investing in its people, and that means quality education, quality health care, and quality infrastructure. Under Gov. Pawlenty, our schools have faced real cuts, hospitals and nursing homes are struggling, and more Minnesotans have lost insurance. At the same time, the state has had to turn away billions of dollars in federal transportation funding because Pawlenty refuses to provide the state revenues to match it.

Turning Minnesota into South Dakota may be Pawlenty’s vision, but Minnesotans should know from history that failing to invest in a better future means that a better future never arrives.

Gov. Pawlenty’s simple-minded fixation on taxes represents a narrow and shortsighted vision that hasn’t served the state well. Even when it comes to business climate, most businesses weigh a number of factors in any decision on where to start, relocate, or expand. Minnesota has long done well by taking a broader view of competitiveness, that focused on overall quality of life.

While Minnesota needs an efficient and accountable public sector, it also needs an effective public sector, be it our schools, our city and county government, or state government. We’re not going to buy that on the cheap.

We need a balanced approach to solving the state’s budget problems. That’s the conclusion of our state economist, and it’s the view of a bipartisan commission on the budget as well virtually every past governor, from both sides of the political aisle.

The question Minnesotans will need to ask themselves this fall is whether they are interested in doubling down on the Pawlenty vision of a low tax, low service, low wage Minnesota, or whether they prefer a middle ground that allows the state to restore funding to schools and local governments, restores a fair and progressive tax structure, and enhances the quality of life for all Minnesotans.

The choices could not be more stark.