By Rep. Tom Hackbarth
The Office of Minnesota Management and Budget recently released a new state economic forecast. It shows a $1.2 billion surplus for fiscal year 2014-15 and a $2.6 billion surplus for 2016-17.
This continues a trend of positive reports and Minnesota’s economy has not faced a shortfall projection since February of 2011. That was the year we had to erase a $5 billion shortfall while setting up a new budget. We accomplished that, enacted fiscally responsible improvements and have enjoyed an improving bottom line ever since.
The big question now is how we respond to this surplus. I believe the budget surplus belongs to Minnesotans – not to government. We announced a "Give it Back" Act as a package that would put those dollars back in the hands of the hardworking citizens who were overtaxed in the first place.
To that point, our taxes and fees were increased by around $2.5 billion last year. That is twice the amount of our surplus and it means government took $1.2 billion more than it needed under the current budget. A surplus beats a shortfall, but we should not be doing cartwheels over the fact Minnesotans overpaid to that degree.
We have been discussing proposals to eliminate some of the tax increases enacted last year. Three of them – on equipment repair, warehousing and telecommunications – are gaining bipartisan support for elimination.
The topic of a new $90 million Senate complex, including an office building and adjacent parking ramp, also is causing conversation throughout the state. A commitment to build this facility passed into law by unconventional means, tucked into the omnibus tax bill last year late in the process without receiving a single hearing in the House.
This lack of transparency has rightly upset some people. Blueprints also have struck a nerve with citizens by including extras such as a reflecting pool and workout facility. Another source of irritation is plans for the building include only enough office space to house 44 of the 67 Senators. I oppose constructing this building at all, but it seems extra wasteful to build a new complex for the Senate that does not even include enough room to house them all.
An interesting aspect of this Senate facility is that it passed the House, but has been placed on the back burner in the Senate. A lot of twists and turns can take place between now when the session is set to finish in late May but, as of deadline time for this column, it appeared this project was being held back for use as a negotiating chip toward the end.
This project could come into play during discussion of a bonding bill which, coincidentally, is where the Senate building should by all rights have been considered in the first place. The problem for those who wanted the Senate building to be approved is that it was unlikely to gain support from a super-majority as necessary for passage in a bonding bill. Supporters avoided that by placing a commitment to build in the tax bill, which required a simple majority to pass.
-30-