As Minnesotans brace for the human pain and suffering caused by one of the more serious private-sector failures in memory, it makes no sense to knock the stuffing out of our public sector as well.

It's our public institutions and investments -- schools and colleges, transportation systems, public health protections, and human service and social supports for families -- that provide not only emergency assistance and a safety net, but also the long-term investments we need to achieve a more evenly shared prosperity.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed budget compounds private-sector job loss with public-sector cuts. And once again, as in 2003, it imposes disproportionate budget-balancing pain on those least able to afford more hardship. The proposal is not without redeeming value. Some cuts need to be made to balance a $5 billion projected shortfall over the next two years. And it was reassuring to hear Pawlenty say in his budget message that our governments do have a valid role as strategic investors in our future.

But in many respects this budget is both cruel and unusual punishment. It's cruel in that it disproportionately demands sacrifice from those in the middle- and lower-income ranges, those least able to cope with the steepest recession in decades. And it's unusual in that many governors in other states are at least leaving the possibility of revenue and tax increases on the table.

Three particularly damaging elements in the proposal stand out. The proposal would deprive an estimated 113,000 hardworking Minnesotans the modest subsidies they depend on for health care, which is otherwise unaffordable or not provided by their private-sector employers, many of whom are now further reducing health benefits. The proposal also reduces state spending on higher education by 10 percent, making it harder for Minnesotans to access the education and training they need to succeed in this economy, and putting direct pressure on tuition. The proposal once again cuts local governments, which are strained to the limits already to provide basic services -- from police and fire protection to parks and environmental safeguards -- and a quality of life in our neighborhoods that Minnesotans prize.

Previous governors always used a combination of budget cuts, accounting shifts, spending of reserves and tax increases to get through budget crises. The Invest in Minnesota Campaign, composed of members and leaders of our state's religious, labor and nonprofit communities, believes that we also will need to raise revenue fairly to avoid these damaging cuts to the public investments that can ensure that all Minnesotans have the opportunity to succeed.

A range of feasible revenue-raising options exists, and policymakers should ensure that, as a whole, their revenue package makes the tax system more fair. We could consider options such as modernizing our sales tax. But such options usually expect low- and middle-income Minnesotans to pay a larger share of their incomes and must be combined with other tax changes to ensure greater fairness overall.

The best way to raise tax revenues fairly is through the income tax. For example, one possibility would be a return to the more reasonable tax rates on top incomes that existed before the huge permanent tax cuts passed in 1999 and 2000.

Between 1997 and 2001, more than half of the $13 billion in surplus dollars that Minnesota enjoyed was spent on permanent tax cuts (including income, property and auto tab taxes) and rebates. Since then our tax system has become more regressive and unfair than it already was. Currently, those making $355,000 a year or more pay about 9.5 percent of their income in taxes, while other Minnesotans pay 11.7 percent. Minnesota currently forgoes about a billion dollars a year, just in income taxes, as a result of the cuts in 1999 and 2000.

The state cannot sustain the tax cuts made during those flush years. Many of our conscientious top-income individuals have said that they can afford to pay more to invest in our human capital and physical infrastructure. Economists also agree that it's wise policy.

Among them are Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. He recently wrote that "tax increases would not in general be more harmful to the economy than spending reductions ... if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run."

Minnesota's state economist, Tom Stinson, talks frequently these days about how investments in public education, as well as private-sector investment in research and innovation, have made a big difference in our economic performance over many decades.

Taxes are the dues that people pay in a democracy to build a civilized society. They support services, structures and programs that protect and benefit Minnesotans. The antitax orthodoxy that has prevailed at the federal and state level for more than a decade has not delivered the goods that were promised, and it's time to get reasonable about modest increases on those who can most afford it.

Nan Madden is the director of the Minnesota Budget Project, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. Dane Smith is president of the St. Paul-based think tank Growth & Justice.