For more information contact: Ted Modrich 651-296-5809

HOUSE BRIEFS

END OF SESSION UPDATE

Dear Neighbors,

Per the constitution, we adjourned on Monday but serious work remains to be done. The Governor will at some point call a Special Session to resolve the state budget. That is our main responsibility. While we knew it would be difficult to resolve, it is very disappointing to me that the Republican majority in the legislature wouldn’t step up and negotiate in good faith with our Democratic governor. The voters chose divided government, but I believe they never wanted to see gridlock. The Governor has offered to cut his revenue increase on the wealthy in half and greatly increase the cuts he would support. His efforts in reaching out for a compromise have been met with no offers from the other side. That rigidity is irresponsible and, if continued, threatens to create an avoidable government shutdown in July.

Higher Income Taxes on the Wealthiest vs. Higher Property Taxes on All

Governor Dayton has proposed a balanced approach to the state budget: a combination of deep cuts, government reforms and new revenues raised from the wealthiest 2% of Minnesotans. The Republican majority has proposed all cuts with no new state revenue raising. But the result of their proposals (according to non-partisan research based analysis) is that property taxes will rise significantly for everyone including businesses.
I support the Governor’s approach because of its fairness – currently most Minnesotans pay between 11 and 12% of their income in state and local taxes while the top 5% pay only about 9%. That isn’t fair. I also believe income tax increases are a better approach when one out of seven Minnesota households has lost a job in the last year. When unemployed, your income and income taxes go down but the property tax bill remains the same whether or not you can afford it.

Key Differences in Values and Priorities

Key differences in values also show in what is cut and how. For example, in school aids and local government aids, the central cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth have their state funding decimated and those funds are then redistributed to other parts of the state. The state usually sends funds to our local government partners based on objective measures of need that combine into complex formulas. To ignore research based need indicators and instead allocate funds based on excluding the largest cities is unfair and political. All students and all citizens, whether they live in a small city, a suburb or a big city deserve to have access to a similar quality education and have their city and county receive aids based on their needs and their tax base as compared to all others. This not only divides our state into warring camps of geography, it makes a terrible precedent for rewarding or punishing communities based on what political party happens to be in power. If that continued, there would be no stability or ability for our local governments to plan.

Without additional state revenues, the larger Republican cuts are devastating to core services. A 19% cut to the U of M takes them back to 1998 funding levels while they’re serving many more students. The State College and University system would be cut 14%. Our most vulnerable: people with serious disabilities, mental health challenges, and frail, low income seniors would have their support services slashed and the waiting lists for service would stretch years longer. About 140,000 low income persons whose employers don’t offer insurance or who are too sick or disabled to work fulltime would lose access to the health care coverage they now receive. Our metro bus system would lose 85% of its state funding – the major fare increases and service cuts could be devastating to the 20% of Northeast households that don’t own even one car. Environmental protection, pollution cleanup, state efforts to combat fraud, and programs designed to help people secure jobs and grow our economy would also be cut drastically. At the same time, the Republican budget proposes tax breaks for some.

Summaries of Key Areas of Disagreement Available

Almost all areas of the budget will be cut – the disagreement is the level and targeting of those cuts. If you’d like to know more about the key areas of disagreement, the non-partisan tables that we work off are available on the House website but they often are 20 pages of single spaced decision items and hard to understand. An easier to understand summary of the key differences is in the feedback that is included in the Governor’s veto messages on each topic area. They can be found at: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=102-11292

Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

I voted against this but it passed. Now all citizens can vote in 2012 on whether marriage should be limited in our constitution to one man and one woman. (That is the current law.) Our constitution should be about how our government is to work and the checks and balances that guide it, not a random collection of policy positions, many of which may not stand the test of time. It should safeguard the rights of all, not limit them for some.
I received a huge amount of constituent input on this topic, overwhelmingly in opposition to this amendment. I am so lucky to represent an open and supportive community whose viewpoints largely mirror my own. I support equal treatment of all willing to assume responsibility for the long term care and support of another, a circumstance we should celebrate. I recognize religions differ on this topic, that’s why honoring religious freedom is so important as a bedrock part of our constitution.

Local Issues

Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) – I am a co-author of a bill that would assure each neighborhood gets its promised full allocation and that the program meets the housing goals outlined in law. While sent to the full House and Senate, it didn’t get voted on. It is my hope that this can yet be resolved.

Plymouth Bridge – I am the chief author of a bill for state bond funds to help repair the bridge. The Republicans only support bonding for flood response. I suspect that the final result will be some level of additional bonding this year. With interest rates and construction prices at historic lows, we should take advantage of this unique market to do critically needed projects and support putting construction workers back on the job.

Legacy Funding – Many in our arts community, our schools and local residents have had increased opportunities based on these funds dedicated to clean water, habitat improvement, and arts, arts education and access, and preserving our history and culture. The bill did not pass primarily due to a provision that would exempt the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Board from many open meeting requirements. I and many others could not support an appointed advisory group being able to make backroom deals instead of having open meetings to decide on funding recommendations on almost $100 million. As I said on the floor, we hold public hearings on bills proposing to spend as little as $50,000. This small group, which judges projects from all parts of the state, should have to do the same. There were also issues about how the funds mostly benefit greater Minnesota and the allocation of $2.8 million to the Dept. of Agriculture for County Fairs for arts education and for county fair facilities that are not related to the arts.

The public should speak up now

As I’ve shared, there are very key differences in the budget proposals. Your input and that of your family and friends can make a difference in how this is resolved. Contacting legislators and the governor with your opinions and your desire to see this resolved can be helpful. I appreciate the thoughtful advice and feedback I receive. We need to resolve our differences and get to a balanced budget that all can agree to. Compromise is a necessary part of governing.

Warm regards,
Diane