Much of Minnesota's fiscal focus the past few weeks has been on state government and how it will resolve its potential $5.2 billion budget shortfall by the end of 2010.

Minnesotans have heard from Gov. Tim Pawlenty, his DFL critics and counterparts and even their local elected officials as they brace for impacts from the state's solutions.

Amid all that, though, it's easy to forget about the people who will ultimately pay those bills and feel the reduction in both levels of service — everyday Minnesotans.

We point this out today because in case you haven't noticed, there are some ominous anecdotal signs about how broad and deep the struggle is for these folks — folks who, let's face it, are our family, friends and neighbors.

Look no further than a news report Monday in the St. Paul Pioneer Press about Twin Cities pawnshops. Their business is booming. Revenues are up anywhere from 4 percent to 45 percent.

The ominous part from a "how bad is it" basis?

Much of that increase comes from items pawned by middle- and upper-income residents. According to the report, higher-end items commonly seen now include all-terrain vehicles, boats, one piece of jewelry valued at $100,000 and even a Picasso painting.

Not to be overlooked, too, is that the shops are flooded with construction equipment and power tools — obviously due in part to contractors who likely could not make ends meet. If they've had to pawn their tools, how bad off are the people they hired to operate them?

So while 2009 may be looking like a great year for the pawn industry, it also speaks volumes about how broad and deep budget struggles are across Minnesota households.

Of course, pawnshops are not the only places where such signs appear. For every statistical report about climbing unemployment rates and home foreclosures there are front-line reports from work force centers and financial counselors about increasing demand, much of it from people who've never had to tap those services.

And now, amid those reports, elected officials at all levels are about to engage in discussion and debate about proposals aimed at saving public money and/or collection and spending more of it. Those discussions will not be easy.

As an example, consider the governor's proposal to tighten rules on government-subsidized health coverage. Yes, his plan ultimately saves public money. That's good. But it does so by cutting coverage for almost 90,000 Minnesotans, the bulk of whom get this government help because they already struggle paycheck to paycheck. How can that not be bad?

Clearly, there is no perfect nor easy answer to such a dilemma. Yet as lawmakers seek the best solution, they must remember there are 90,000 stories behind those 90,000 faces. And who knows how many of them have already been to the pawnshop?