This afternoon we hear from a Senate staffer that an initial nonpartisan legislative estimate is setting the number at $4.9 billion. (The source stresses that the estimate is preliminary and may change.)
The major components break down this way: a structural deficit carried forward that amounts to $3.1 billion by fiscal year 2012; a $1.7 billion school cost shift repayment; and about $100 million in deferred obligations from the current biennium.
That’s right, the next biennium’s budget deficit is going to be nearly as large as this one’s. That’s why accounting shifts aren’t a solution — because we still have to make those payments. Paying back the school payment shift will be more than one-third of the deficit Pawlenty is leaving us.
For yet another two years, we will have to deal with the recurring effects of a structural budget deficit. We need to address the structural deficit once and for all and balance our budget. The recipe, once again, is simple:
- Cut spending
- Raise revenues
- Stop all budget gimmicks
I choose option #1
Speaking of school funding - are you following the debate between MN2020 and Shot in the Dark? I found it extremely interesting that MPR had a liberal Harvard professor on the radio the other day talking about what a great success charter schools are and here in Minnesota the progressive think tank is doing everything possible to advocate shutting more of them down in order to protect the education monopoly.
I’d like to see all three in harmony for a state government that works as hard as its’ citizens. And cut the stupid one way or the highway Republican pap.
Amen to that.
Anon,
That’s fine, cut $1.7B from school funding then, see how that’s received by a public looking for a public education system that delivers quality education to ALL communities not just Eden Prairie and other highly affluent ex-urbs with high property tax values and revenues.
What I find truly amazing is that the folks on the right REALLY do think that you can just cut and cut and cut and have no impact.
Amen to that as well.
You can’t just cut and cut. As Jeff correctly points out, you must:
Cut spending
Raise revenues
Stop all budget gimmicks
When are we going to muster the courage to RAISE REVENUE?
Tpaw’s own people have just said his cuts will cost at least several thousand jobs. These people will lose everything so that each of us does not have to sacrifice a little more. I am sick of the mantra that Minnesotan’s cannot afford more. Can those thousands of people afford to lose their jobs anymore? TPaw has been the worst jobs governor in history of the state. He is anti job and the facts prove it.
Democrats: let’s be careful. There’s a lot of people I am talking to who really don’t care about the reductions Pawlenty has made. Yes, if you are a government employee, you might be concerned. It seems that many (too many) people are just indifferent or say the government must “live within its means” which Pawlenty and Seifert have cleverly gotten pushed into the brains of a lot of middle class and independent voters. How do we reverse this? I give them credit for being on message and sticking with it. Pawlenty will hand this baton to Seifert now and we don’t really have a good solution or message other than raising taxes.
Over and over statistics have shown the rate of growth in MN spending over the past 20 years has far exceeded the rate of inflation.
How about a compromise?
The legislature agrees to hold all spending for the next 5+? years at the rate of CPI and in exchange all increases needed from the revenue side to match that spending come from broad income tax increases?
But those aren’t “the rules” NO TAXES! NO TAXES! (holds breath, then unallots)
What statistics are you referring to, specifically?
Anon,
I’d go for that comprimise on two conditions:
First, it needs to meet the spending level of say 1999, rather than 2009.
Second, Tim Pawlenty acknowledges that he allowed inflation induced increases in tax revenues (which were, in effect, increases) to ‘balance’ his budget - as a gimmick - while he held spending flat, not allowing for increases due to CPI. In short, he played both sides of the coin, holding spending flat, no increase in spending in real dolalrs, while actually taking MORE in taxes in real dollars.
Also, while you are right that OVERALL spending has increased more than CPI, partially that is in relation to entitlement requirements and partially because construction costs (road construction) increases FAR faster than CPI over that period as have required educational expenses for ADA - consequently your point is essentially a non-sequitor - CPI doesn’t have any way to account for those expenses.
The increase in total spending isn’t the only or best way to measure growth in govt. From Growth and Justice:
….For example, in 2000 Minnesota’s annual general fund budget was approximately $12 billion and by the end of 2007 it had increased by 40 percent to 17 billion. But is that really the best way to measure growth in government?
Others suggest that we should look at the overall price of government. By that they mean that we should view how much our government spends as a percentage of our total income. The argument here is that sure, government expenditures rise, but so do our personal wages and incomes. So the real concern should be whether government expenditures grow faster than our personal incomes. Using this measure a much different story emerges. According to the Minnesota Department of Finance, in 2000 the cost of all state and local governments combined was equal to 16.2 percent of our collective personal income; and in 2007 that percentage was 16.1 percent. Well that certainly doesn’t suggest any unbridled growth.
http://www.growthandjustice.org/Is_government_growing_out_of_control.html