State Representative
Mark Buesgens

On Thursday, January 28, Gov. Ventura unveiled a budget proposal that was encouraging for Minnesota's public schools, yet disappointing for taxpayers and farmers. Like many of my colleagues, I was pleased with portions of the proposal and differed in my opinion on other parts. However, regardless of our differences, I feel that we have a new governor that we will be able to work with and improve this great state.

I'm glad to see that Gov. Ventura dedicates almost half of all the new spending in his recently released budget to K-12 education. The general education formula will increase by $258 million and $150 million will be used to reduce class sizes in grades K-3. The House position and the Governor are very close. Education is a top priority, and that's reflected in the Governor's budget.

As spending is concerned, I was pleased to see that the ceiling had been lowered. Governor Ventura's plan proposes a 9.8% increase over the next two years, which is a step in the right direction, compared to the 17% jump last time. Furthermore, it holds the growth in state spending below the projected growth in personal income. In other words, Minnesotans would have to pay proportionally less for state services in the next two years than they did in the last two.

There has been a seismic change in political opinion over the past year about the state's repeated surpluses. Whenever you say "surplus," the debate is no longer between tax cuts and "targeted investments," it's about what kind of tax cuts and how much and how soon. This is at the heart of the Governor's budget. It's a debate that you, the taxpayer, win every time.

Thus, tax cuts are central to Gov. Ventura's budget and his plan for the state's estimated $3.3 billion surplus. The House, the Senate and Gov. Ventura have, in principle, agreed to a $1 billion-plus rebate (income or sales). I prefer an income tax rebate, since most of the surplus was created by income taxpayers. More important, I think the rebate should be bigger and in your pocket sooner.

Ventura's plan contains only a modest reduction in the lower income tax bracket coupled with the elimination of the marriage penalty and a reduction in motor vehicle registration taxes. House Republicans have also endorsed eliminating the marriage penalty, but I still am concerned that cutting only the lower rate by two-tenths of one percent will not change Minnesota's status as the 2nd highest taxed state in the nation. The election of 1998 sent a signal that Minnesotans are ready for a large permanent income tax cut and House Republicans are prepared to deliver on our campaign promises.

The House and the Governor also agree on the need for permanent income tax reductions. The Governor wants to dedicate just slightly more than $1 billion of the surplus to permanently reduce the bottom tax rate and to expand the first-tier tax bracket so more income is taxed at the lowest rate. But with the size of the surplus, we should be able to deliver larger permanent tax reductions.

The Governor also appears to be ignoring one of the most important segments of our state's economy during a period of tough economic times for farmers. Republicans will not only direct almost $80 million of rebate money to farmers, we will also make a larger commitment to their long term stability. The Governor's budget doesn't include nearly enough property tax relief for farmers harmed by last year's commodity crisis and many in rural Minnesota are concerned about his call for a study to eliminate Local Government Aid (LGA).

I am pleased to see that Gov. Ventura has taken steps to control spending and is taking a serious look at improving our public educational system, but I am confident that my colleagues in the Minnesota House of Representatives will take a much closer look at the tax burden that each and every one of us deal with. Gov. Ventura says he believes in limiting the role of government and allowing people to be self-sufficient, calling for government to step in only when people need assistance. These are sound principles. Perhaps they can best be accomplished by returning people's hard-earned money to their pockets, where they best know how to spend it.