Well here we go down that slippery slope, the first of probably many Constitutional Amendments to raise taxes. Minnesota families, taxpayers and voters should settle this issue now and vote NO!
The public in 1991 was sold on a temporary .5% local ‘optional’ sales tax but would lose their local aid if they did not impose and then in 1994 it was made statewide to help raise revenue when the economy was in a slump before. Do you think the tax and spend happy politicians in St. Paul could muster the fortitude to roll that back when the state was awash in money. No! It just kept spending, and spending, and spending. Of the states that impose a sales tax we are already one of the highest. Only California 7.25%, and Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Tennessee at 7% are higher than Minnesota. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html California is really at 6.25% as their figure includes a 1.0% statewide local sales tax that is included in that figure. But this does not tell the whole story because states like Tennessee only have income tax on dividends and interest income and has two sales tax holidays a year, Mississippi has half the income tax rates of Minnesota, and New Jersey state government received zero income from property taxes. Source: http://www.taxadmin.org
Remember a short time ago when politicians convinced you to legalize the lottery in Minnesota. See Article XI, Section 14 of the Minnesota Constitution. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article11.htm It promised dedicated funding for the environment, education and other fuzzy little things to get you to vote for it. That little amendment duped the taxpayers into believing we were doing something good but in reality we created a little cash cow for projects many of which h ave little benefit to sportsman, the outdoors or benefit our environment and is decided in anything less than a dog and pony money pit in the form of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.
Next up was the MVST Constitutional Amendment debacle. This was another amendment that duped the taxpayers which was written with language with the full intent of pulling in funding for transit. Think I am wrong! Look at the language that was proposed and passed. It stated that revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes? See Minnesota Constitution Article XIV, Section 13: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article14.htm That means the Legislature could dedicate 0 dollars, yes 0 dollars, to roads and requires a minimum for transit. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/ibmvst06.pdf
Simply put - funding mechanisms or funding mandates DO NOT BELONG IN THE CONSTITUTION. There is a difference between the statutes and constitution, or at least there should be. The Constitution is intended to be a nearly-permanent document. Errors in drafting are virtually impossible to fix in the constitution and the ability to fix unintended consequences is almost impossible. This could ruin Colorado’s public education for decades. We should not be micromanaging from the Constitution.
We elect legislators to make funding decisions, if they can not do so we should elect somebody who can make a decision in St. Paul. Embedding dedicated funding in the constitution — no matter what the initial reasons — invites more of the same. How about an amendment setting aside .065% for public safety? Cops and courts and jails and probation officers and public defenders are important, aren’t they? Or how about constitutionally dedicating funds to health care for all Minnesotans? It’s pretty hard to enjoy the outdoors or the arts when your sick or dying, right? Oh those are probably coming in the form of other constitutional amendments this one is just to get the flavor of voters feelings. I don’t know about you but I have a bad sour taste in my mouth. Not to mention the Legislature is also entertaining another .5% sales tax increase to pay for transit. This will make Minnesota’s sale tax if this and the Constitutional Amendment passes the highest sales tax rate in the nation.
I say - leave the constitution alone!!!! Our legislators should be capable of making these decisions (which they have shown they can not) and have to face the voters to justify those decisions, which feels like democracy to me, more democratic than making the constitution into a Christmas or Lobbyist Wish list.
Now all these environmental and sportsman’s groups along with the arts, television and others standing in line to get handouts of new money will be lining up to tell you about this is about leaving a legacy for our children, how this will end funding problems, how this is right for Minnesota. I have hunted, fished, and been and outdoorsman for 25 years in Minnesota and I am not going to be fooled by this rhetoric. We spend hundreds of millions in these areas now – we do not need additional funding! What we need in St. Paul are elected officials who have the guts to prioritize spending. If environment is a priority which I suspect most would say it is then you should have the courage to take on other bottomless pits in the $37 Billion state budget to find additional dollars. Here is a novel idea, why don’t you propose to eliminate the so called temporary .5% sales tax increase first and then come ask me for a 3/8 of 1% tax increase!
We pay enough in taxes in Minnesota. It is time that we demand the Legislature set priorities and spend within their means. We do not need new funding streams, more spending programs, more things to hand a legacy hat on. Let’s get spending under control, a real sense of priorities implemented and government programs that do not work eliminated. Vote no on the Constitutional Amendment to increase and dedicate the sales tax increase!
David Anderson is Minnesota editor, gopusa.com
