Legislative Update (4-10-15)

I was honored to attend the State of the State Address last night with my colleagues and fellow Minnesotans, including former Vice President Walter Mondale.

 

While the crux of the speech was the same message the Governor began session with, that is, to spend more, I was a bit surprised at a few of his other highlights. He began by saying that everything was a priority, but singled out a handful of things such as E-12 and transportation funding (no surprise there). He also included what I considered a couple of surprise comments about the need for increases to the Judicial Branch (which would include a 5% pay increase for judges) and his 50-foot buffer proposal.

 

I will say that ideologically there is some common ground between the GOP House and Governor Dayton in that we all believe it is very important to invest in education. However, we have a constitutional duty to fund and support K-12, not "E" or higher education. Those are great areas, but I believe we need to focus on K-12.

 

Regarding transportation, it seems that all parties agree that we need to invest more. However, Governor Dayton's transportation plan includes a 6.5% sales tax on gasoline while our plan invests $7 billion over the next decade without raising taxes. I am hopeful we will be able to reach consensus on a plan for transportation that does not include a gas tax increase.

 

Regarding Judicial pay increases, I am disappointed that this issue was featured at all in the Governor's state of the state address when there are so many other pressing issues facing the state, like sex trafficking. Right now district circuit court judges make $138,000 per year and are requesting a 5% increase - amounting to approximately a $14,000 raise over the next two years. Part of the argument is that Minnesota ranks 31st in the nation for judicial salaries, however, a 5% increase is simply too high - I am not aware of any private industry able to offer folks that kind of increase.

 

Finally, on the 50-foot buffer proposal. It was surprising to find this among his top priorities as he has faced a lot of push back from farmers and farm groups in recent weeks. My concern with the buffer zone proposal is that it proposes a strict and costly approach to a problem that is actually quite nuanced. There are too many unanswered questions about this new proposal that need to be addressed, including the mandatory taking of productive farm land, the one-size-fits-all buffer requirement, questionable habitat improvement, and enforcement.