Increased Spending = Large Spending Cuts?
Those familiar with budget battles in Washington know that whenever budget plans are revised such that proposed spending increases aren't as great as previously planned, that's called a "cut." The same logic applies at the state level.

In an analysis of the recently Minnesota budget for the next fiscal year, the St. Paul Pioneer Press warns that "Gov. Tim Pawlenty's no-new-taxes pledge may become a liability later." At issue is a feature of the Minnesota budget, longstanding, that effectively subsidizes city governments in the rural areas of the state with moneys taxed away from the Twin Cities metro area. According to a report from the State Auditor "646 small cities get an average of 40 percent of their revenue from other taxpayers," and for one city, the number is over 90 percent. Local government aid has been trimmed, and so some raise-the-tax-rates advocates (at the state level) complain that property taxes will soar at the local level, lest fire, police and other local services be cut.

Overall, the "liability" article cited above suggests calls the budget decisions enacted "the largest downsizing of state and local governments in Minnesota in more than two decades. As mentioned in yesterday's entry, it is true that state spending will actually be reduced--by less than one percent. But by the end of the two year cycle under which budgets are made, spending will have increased from the current biannium. So an increase is ... "the largest downsizing ... in ... decades." And you thought that tax
forms were confusing. (permalink)