Armchair state spending: How would you use Minnesota's new budget?

i am appaled that any one of the elected officials can even talk about a surplus when that surplus has been built on others suffering...the cuts to health care to name one area that has been used to make them look good...

Kimberly K, I take it you would restore the funds to health care? How would you do so? Would you focus on a particular area of health care or...?

I would hope this might mean officials go forward with their discussion of providing universal health care for the state's youth. I also have concerns about education - K-12 and higher education - money could start to get put back into those systems rather than continually taking it out. I know also recall the governor depleted the Tobacco Education fund - perhaps some of that money could be put back for good use.

I wouldn't go spending just yet, because the state surplus is not structural.

On closer inspection the $2.17 billion quickly becomes about $900 million of almost exclusively one time money, which is great, but not enough to either declare a spending spree or offer rebates.

First, the state calculates inflationary growth on the income side of the ledger and not the spending side (except for some parts of the human services budget where the feds demand actuarially sound accounting practices). If you adjust for a modest 2% inflationary growth, that takes ~$1.1 billion off the table.

The remainder is a combination of spending less that projected, an increase in corporate tax collections fueled by record-setting corporate profits and $737 million left on the table at the end of the 2006 legislative session.

$900 or so million in one time money is still alot of money, but it's about 1/8 of one percent of the bienniel budget--and it's only one time--not unlike a holiday bonus from an employer. Any major new spending will require finding new revenue to sustain it -- which always takes the fun out of a capitol spending spree.

John - Could the $900 million just be parsed out between a few different already present budgets? I don't imagine it could be diluted too much before it wouldn't have much of an impact, but an extra $450 million put towards x and y (whatever those would be) could definitely be helpful. As opposed to increasing budgets on a permanent basis.

Cuts in programs or not getting an annual increase over last year?

Are we talking new programs which will give us an obligation to fund in future budgets or giving current programs some additional funds?

If we have all this money, there is no need to raise taxes. Right?

Is it virtuous to be compassionate with someone else's money?

If we start a bunch of new programs won't we just have trouble paying for them in future years?

Should we try to get as many people as possible addicted to a government program?

We've spent more money every year, so we really have'nt ever spended less.

What responsibility do we have for our future generations who have to pay for the growth of government?

If we have so much excess money doesn't that mean that we are taxing too much?

I understand the need to know where my tax money is going. I find it personally disturbing to think of how my taxes pay our legislators to debate and legislate a women's right to control her own body, or to keep law abiding, stable, responsible, citizens from marrying. I also believe that corporate welfare is socially destructive, especially when that money is taken away from programs that actually help families get on their feet.

Raising or cutting taxes is a simplistic and divisive subject that does not touch upon the true issues. When fiscal conservatives want to stir up the waters and whip their base into a frothing frenzy, "tax and spend liberals" is the tired old phrase they regurgitate. If moderates and liberals truly want to take that weapon away from the conservatives, they need to make government spending transparent at every level and take away the legislator's ability to hide increases or cuts with creative accounting and the shell games they currently employ. If moderates and liberals cannot show that the taxes we are already paying are being spent responsibly, it makes it that much more difficult to talk people into funding new programs.

It is easy and probably quite cathartic to repeat "cut taxes" without having any reasonable or realistic alternative to the current situation, especially when you know that 90% of those reading your post have no better access to information than you do. If it is common knowledge that certain taxes pay for specific services, for example, cigarette taxes going to health care and cancer prevention programs. If state and federal budgets showed exactly which tax money goes to which programs, it would allow for much more meaningful, logical, and productive conversations about taxes.

Until then saying you want to raise taxes or cut taxes doesn't really mean anything.