Comments on: A Taxpayers’ Bill of Goods http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3432 Minnesota 2020's Official Blog Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:11:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jeff Van Wychen http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3432&cpage=1#comment-5302 Jeff Van Wychen Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:46:25 +0000 http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3432#comment-5302 Mr. Bauhof: The $7 billion general fund growth from FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13 is not a true apples to apples comparison, because much of the federal recovery dollars received by state show up in the form of reduced general fund spending, thereby artificially deflating actual general fund spending in FY 2010-11 and creating the illusion of large spending growth from FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13. In constant dollars, per capita state general fund spending for the FY 2012-13 biennium is projected to be less than it was a decade earlier in FY 2002-03. Your analogy to the family budget doesn’t work in this situation. My family’s spending decisions will be based on what we make this year, not on what we made two years ago. It is asinine to impose a restriction on state government that no family would tolerate. The constitutional amendment would guarantee that all deficits in the current biennium would have to be resolved entirely through spending cuts with no revenue increases, even if this approach has no support among the public. If you feel that your position is strong, you should be able to win the debate through the democratic process, rather than through a constitutional amendment that would permanently skew the state budget process in favor of an anti-government minority. What you say in irony, I say with conviction: the proposed amendment is indeed “preposterous” and “radical.” Incidentally, in the future please refrain from replying to multiple blog posts with the identical response. Mr. Bauhof:
The $7 billion general fund growth from FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13 is not a true apples to apples comparison, because much of the federal recovery dollars received by state show up in the form of reduced general fund spending, thereby artificially deflating actual general fund spending in FY 2010-11 and creating the illusion of large spending growth from FY 2010-11 to FY 2012-13. In constant dollars, per capita state general fund spending for the FY 2012-13 biennium is projected to be less than it was a decade earlier in FY 2002-03.

Your analogy to the family budget doesn’t work in this situation. My family’s spending decisions will be based on what we make this year, not on what we made two years ago. It is asinine to impose a restriction on state government that no family would tolerate.

The constitutional amendment would guarantee that all deficits in the current biennium would have to be resolved entirely through spending cuts with no revenue increases, even if this approach has no support among the public. If you feel that your position is strong, you should be able to win the debate through the democratic process, rather than through a constitutional amendment that would permanently skew the state budget process in favor of an anti-government minority.

What you say in irony, I say with conviction: the proposed amendment is indeed “preposterous” and “radical.” Incidentally, in the future please refrain from replying to multiple blog posts with the identical response.

]]> By: Bernie Bauhof http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3432&cpage=1#comment-5298 Bernie Bauhof Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:44:55 +0000 http://www.mn2020hindsight.org/?p=3432#comment-5298 The latest "preposterous" proposal from the Governor proposes that a constitutional amendment be put to the people in November that would simply limit spending to what the state takes in tax revenue. In other words, the state would look at the taxes collected in the previous biennium and limit expenditures to that amount. So, if a budget period brought in $31 billion in tax revenue, the state couldn't spend more than $31 billion in the next biennium. What a radical idea! The reason the state staggers from budget "crisis" to budget "crisis" is because it bases its future budgets on what it thinks it will spend instead of basing it on what it receives. The state is projected to spend about $31 billion from the general fund in fiscal year 2010-2011. In 2012-2013, the projected spending figure is $38 billion, a $7 billion increase. Why the additional $7billion? Because the budget planners think this is what the state will want to spend. No consideration is given to what we actually have to spend. Does any business or any family budget this way? If your family has an annual income of $75,000 do you base your budget on $100,000? If your business has annual sales of $5 million do you build a business plan based on sales of $8 million? Government has it backwards. Time for government to budget based on what’s in the checkbook. I say we put it to a vote, let the people decide for once, not the pundits, what is best. The latest “preposterous” proposal from the Governor proposes that a constitutional amendment be put to the people in November that would simply limit spending to what the state takes in tax revenue. In other words, the state would look at the taxes collected in the previous biennium and limit expenditures to that amount. So, if a budget period brought in $31 billion in tax revenue, the state couldn’t spend more than $31 billion in the next biennium. What a radical idea! The reason the state staggers from budget “crisis” to budget “crisis” is because it bases its future budgets on what it thinks it will spend instead of basing it on what it receives.

The state is projected to spend about $31 billion from the general fund in fiscal year 2010-2011. In 2012-2013, the projected spending figure is $38 billion, a $7 billion increase. Why the additional $7billion? Because the budget planners think this is what the state will want to spend. No consideration is given to what we actually have to spend. Does any business or any family budget this way? If your family has an annual income of $75,000 do you base your budget on $100,000? If your business has annual sales of $5 million do you build a business plan based on sales of $8 million? Government has it backwards. Time for government to budget based on what’s in the checkbook. I say we put it to a vote, let the people decide for once, not the pundits, what is best.

]]>