Thus the debate going on in St. Paul regarding LGA funding is not the typical bipartisan bantering. The cuts proposed by the governor are sharp, indeed, for all rural communities.

Gov. Pawlenty has said the 5 percent LGA cut he has in his budget for 2009 should be easily workable for most communities. But the governor does not mention that cities took a 4 percent cut in 2008 that was sliced from their second LGA check of the year in December — money that also factors into 2009 because there was absolutely nothing officials could have done to repair that damage in 2008 when the news arrived just before Christmas. The governor also goes further in his proposed LGA cuts for 2010 — 10.5 percent.

The internal budget gymnastics that most city councils in the state are doing to prepare for LGA cuts is a good thing. Economies will be found that would not have been realized otherwise.

But there seems to be a sense coming from the governor’s office that cities and counties have been stacking up unneeded reserves that can now be easily tapped. But isn’t it just good public policy to make sure a local government is not operating with a near flat line budget? We would certainly think so.

Just as individuals are closely examining their personal budgets in these challenging economic times, officials on all levels need to do the same. And the state budget deficit of $4.6 billion has the governor and lawmakers doing that in St. Paul and mayors and councilors doing so in city halls across the state.

But while doing that, why is LGA being set up by the governor’s administration as a big part of the state’s economic problems? It’s not. It’s what provides critical services for all Minnesotans.

Cut any fat, yes. Trim in these tough times down to the bone, yes. But don’t belittle many of the services provided for people of rural Minnesota by local government workers in rural Minnesota.