For years, Minnesotans have taken pride in living in a state where government is good. We historically have invested in high-performing schools, safe communities, reliable infrastructure, and a social safety net.

But even in a high-caring and high‑capacity state like ours, the math is getting harder to ignore. Local governments are straining to keep up with basic services. Many school districts are in a financial crisis. And the state, after several years of surplus, is now projected to face a budget deficit in the next biennium.

None of this means government is failing. It might mean government is doing too much.

Over time, the public sector has taken on more and more responsibilities—some essential, some helpful, and some at the urging of constituents or community organizations. The result is a kind of mission creep that makes government more expensive. When budgets tighten, that creep becomes impossible to sustain.

Corporations—whether they are classified as for-profit or nonprofit—understand this dynamic instinctively. Every organization, whether it employs 10 people or 10,000, has to distinguish between what is mission‑critical and what is nice to have. Leaders make those decisions daily: What must we do to keep the doors open? What should we do to stay competitive? What could we do if resources allow? And what should we stop doing altogether?

Government needs a similar discipline—not because it should run like a business, but because it should run with the same clarity of purpose.

Imagine a series of concentric circles. At the center are the true must‑dos of government: public safety, fire protection, roads and bridges, clean water, elections administration, courts. These are the functions that only government can perform, and that we rely on it to perform well. No company, nonprofit, or philanthropic initiative can replace them, nor should we want them to.

The next circle includes things that government is well‑positioned to do, but that aren’t basic government responsibilities. Economic development, for example, is unquestionably valuable—but it is not the same as maintaining a functioning 911 system. Local grants to charitable nonprofits can be meaningful, but they don’t fall within core government services. Many of these activities could be funded through philanthropy, business partnerships, or community initiatives rather than property taxes or general fund dollars.

In Minnesota, which sometimes feels like the nonprofit capital of the world, many organizations already exist and are doing this kind of work.

The outer circle includes programs and activities that may be worthwhile but fall outside the essential role of government. When budgets are flush, these efforts can flourish. When budgets tighten, they need to be reconsidered.

Minnesota is entering a moment when reconsideration is not optional.

This is where the business community can play a constructive role—not by taking over government functions, and not by advocating for specific policy outcomes, but by modeling the kind of strategic discipline that governments may need to adopt. Businesses excel at prioritization. They know how to evaluate return on investment, how to sunset programs that no longer serve their purpose, and how to focus resources where they matter most.

They also understand something that often gets lost in public debate: saying no to a customer or a constituent is not a failure. It is a form of stewardship.

If Minnesota’s governments—state, county, city, school district—are going to navigate the next few years without eroding the services residents depend on, they will need to pivot back to basics. That means protecting the core, trimming the middle, and pausing the outer ring. It means being honest about what government must do, what it can do, and what it should stop doing so it can afford the essentials.

And it means inviting partners—especially businesses and nonprofits—to help fill the gaps that don’t belong in the center circle. Minnesota’s employer community has a long history of stepping up when the moment requires it. This is one of those moments.

Government cannot do everything. It shouldn’t try. But with clearer priorities and stronger cross‑sector collaboration, it can do the things that matter most—and do them well.