Dear Neighbor,
On Monday, we begin the final regular season of the 92nd Minnesota Legislature. Per the Minnesota Constitution, we must adjourn this session no later than May 23.
We have a lot of work ahead to right size our state’s tax system that is projected to collect $7.75 billion more than the legislature has authorized the governor to spend.
During even-numbered years, the legislature’s focus is on policy items and capital investments. The 2-year state budget is passed during the odd numbered years, with only minor changes made to the authorized budget during the even years.
This year is going to look a lot more like a budget year. The governor recently released his proposed supplement budget. Normally. a supplement budget request would involve making minor midcourse corrections to the state’s current $52 billion-dollar authorized budget.
A quick look at the governor’s supplemental budget request is eye popping.
He proposes to spend $7.58 billion of the $7.75 billion projected surplus almost entirely on expanding existing programs and creating new permanent programs. He is seeking to grow the current budget from about $52 billion to almost $60 billion.
The governor’s approach squeezes out almost any opportunity to reduce the huge tax bite Minnesota already imposes on our citizens. It also sets the state’s next two-year budget to start out with about a $60 billion base.
During the first year of the governor’s term, he clamored for huge tax hikes. We stopped those tax hikes and passed a budget with only modest increases in spending. However, the governor and his spend easy allies were able to stymie any substantial reduction in the huge tax load Minnesotans are laboring under.
We have a lot of important policy issues to deal with this session, however you can expect a lot of discussion on how the projected surplus should be used.
Do we finally take this opportunity to downsize the tax burden on Minnesotans?
Or, do we accept the governor’s plan to spend almost all the surplus on expanded and new permanent government program spending?
My approach is to downsize the tax burden and not simply expand permanent spending to match the current projected surplus. There is room to make some limited common-sense adjustments to the current state budget, but let’s fix the tax over-collection problem first.
Please let me know your thoughts on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Dale