For more information contact: Austin Bleess 651-296-5529
By Joyce Peppin
State Representative
Assistant Minority Whip
Setting a state budget in the legislature has followed a relatively consistent path over the years. The Governor forwards a proposal in January and the legislature follows with its own version of this document sometime in March. Then, while the Governor waits, the legislature takes another 30-45 days refining and amending its proposal until a final product is completed in early May.
The problem with this approach is that it does not provide the public, state legislators or the Governor enough time to study and compromise on a final budget before the mid-May constitutionally-mandated adjournment of the legislature.
Earlier this year, because of the magnitude of our budget shortfall, I suggested a different pattern. Instead of waiting until late March, I felt the DFL House and Senate majorities should have begun to assemble a budget in January using the principle of zero-based budgeting. In this way, every spending program and revenue source would have been identified and debated and a determination made if it should be maintained, modified or eliminated.
Make no mistake. This is an intensive and laborious budgeting process that would have taken many hours of study. But in the end, zero-based budgeting would have yielded a stronger product at an earlier date and potentially reduced the points of conflict and debate. My suggestion was not adopted.
As we near the end of March the DFL House and Senate have finally put forward an outline of their budget proposals for the upcoming biennium. Both plans provide great detail where they wish to spend taxpayer dollars, but neither plan states with any detail from where the increased revenue and taxes necessary to fund state government will come. In contrast, the Governor put forward his proposal in January, and revised it after the updated budget forecast came out and the amount of federal stimulus dollars was known.
No single plan is perfect. There is no silver bullet when it comes to passing a $32+ billion budget. But there are some good pieces from each plan we need to carefully consider. There are also some components from the DFL outline that should not be considered at all.
The as yet unidentified DFL efforts to raise certain taxes are of concern to me. Minnesota families are struggling to make ends meet. Unemployment rates have topped 8% across the state. Adding to the tax burden through higher income taxes, extensions of the sales tax to clothing and certain internet purchases or increasing taxes on our small business job providers will only lengthen the recession and further hurt working families. We simply cannot afford to make it tougher to create the jobs necessary to grow our economy.
Part of any budget plan must include reductions in the non-essential areas of government and the elimination of duplicative or unnecessary programs. This also means separating wants from needs and tightening our belts in the face of reduced state revenues. It won’t be easy, and advocates for increased spending must simply understand they must do more with less, just like families throughout the northwest suburbs are doing on a daily basis. My priority will continue to be to put the family budget ahead of the government budget.
.
As we move forward crafting a two-year state budget over the next few weeks I welcome your comments, input and suggestions. The road ahead is uncertain, but I’m hopeful we will produce a successful budget solution that is good for our state.
-- 30 --