Here in Minnesota, a number of legislators are introducing or have introduced budgetary amendments that, if passed, will:
- (HF 1598) require a “super majority” or a 3/5 of a majority vote to pass a tax increase—instead of the current simple majority of 51%
- (HF 1661/ SF 1378) limit general fund spending in each biennium (every two years) to 98% of expected income for the state and
- (HF 1612/ SF 1364) limit all spending to the amount of all income (revenues) collected in the previous biennium.
People are still suffering the effects of the recession, and many are out of work or really scraping by right now, so saving on taxes sounds really good, doesn’t it? Especially since the state government shut down last summer all because they couldn’t agree to much of anything. Why should they have our hard-earned dollars to sit around and bicker?
Well, on the surface, that’s a pretty sound argument, but let us dig a little deeper and see what it really means for Minnesota’s future and how it can affect each of us as individuals.
The first point to make is that in summer of 2011, we witnessed a legislature so torn in half that getting anything passed seemed nearly impossible. As a result, the government shut down for two weeks. That happened with a simple 51% majority vote required to get something passed. Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be if a 60% majority vote were needed to pass a tax increase? What if the I-35W Bridge collapsed or North Minneapolis was ravaged by the tornado under such a law? How would our state be able to handle such an emergency when a speedy consensus to provide aid is so critical?
Another point of concern is that this type of legislative gridlock can lead policy makers to make back-room deals in order to meet their constituents’ needs. There is no transparency in that type of process, and it allows for more corruption and shady dealing.
Limiting the state budget from future growth means limited funding toward things that most people value, such as a vibrant education system, viable roads, workforce training, and public safety. It also doesn’t allow for long-term goal setting. This would tie the budget to yesterday’s issues, rather than the unimagined possibilities for tomorrow.
If these three amendments pass both houses of the Minnesota legislature, the plan is for them to be included on the 2012 election ballot for voters to choose. This way, the governor will not be able to veto them.
Passage of these bills are guaranteed to harm assistance for low income renters. Each year, we fight to preserve the renters credit, and keep funding alive for housing that lower income families can afford. If these are issues you care about, then these budget amendments should also matter a lot to you.
The Minnesota Budget Project has great information on these three amendments (that I raided for this blog) as does the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP has excellent information about how similar laws are harming other states .
If you would like to learn how to follow these bills, Speak for We has a great tutorial on how to use “MyBill” on the Minnesota Legislature’s website. Check these sites out and stay tuned to HOME Line’s site for ways you can help stop these and other harmful measures in Minnesota.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Nicely said!
We don’t need legislators to reduce the number of tools they have to fix an economy or help people in need during recessionary times. These potential amendments would make Minnesota less responsive to the needs of our state.