Iron Range division on Legacy Amendment (and my thoughts)

Minnesotans are starting to see a fairly intense effort to pass the Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which would create a set fund from state revenue for environmental and arts initiatives. In this story, the Mesabi Daily News profiles former State Sen. Bob Lessard, who first pioneered the idea, while explaining what the amendment would do.

As this other MDN story from Sunday shows, Range lawmakers are split on this one. On one side you’ve got the support of Rep. Tony Sertich, one of the initiatives authors. I can also add from personal knowledge that the west Range lawmakers (Solberg, Anzelc, etc.) are also supportive of the amendment. On the other side you’ve got State Sen. Tom Bakk, chair of the tax committee, and Rep. Tom Rukavina opposing the initiative, not because of what it funds but because of the dangerous nature of creating funding structures in the state constitution.

Here’s Tony Sertich:

“I understand those arguments,” he said when told of Rukavina’s concerns. I, too, have never been a fan of constitutional amendments for state spending. But sometimes the world isn’t black and white. I think it’s important that people have their say,” he said. “I hope people look at both sides of the issue and make a judgment and also realize that if they don’t vote on the issue it will be considered a no vote.”

Sertich said he believes it’s important for future generations that it passes.

“I want my kids and grandkids to have the same opportunities I’ve had to enjoy the outdoors,” he said.

Here’s Tom Bakk:

“We don’t know what the public’s priorities will be from year to year. The Legislature needs to have control over money to respond to those priorities,” he said.

The chairman of the Senate Tax Committee said that in 1995 there wasn’t even a legislative committee that dealt with early childhood education.

“But since then studies have been done and everyone agrees it makes a big difference for kids in their early development years. Now it’s a funding priority,” he said.

Bakk said it’s the responsibility of legislators to set spending priorities.

“We need to be accountable. We need to suck it up and vote.”

My gut tells me that these constitutional amendments to fund specific things are a recipe for a future artificial budget crisis. I’m about to type something really unusual: I agree with Tom Bakk. (OMG!) However, while the folks in my house are planning to vote no, I expect this thing will pass in a walk. All you have to do to pass one of these is describe it in vaguely appealing terms. Next up: Minnesota Loves America Amendment, to prevent home school children from seeing contradictory things in the media.

Seriously, this could get out of hand very quickly.

Comments

  1. The worst thing is this is a regressive tax. The last thing the middle class needs right now is another tax increase. Pawlenty has already increased the tax burden on us enough. (Fee structure, mandates without funding, etc.)

    Voting for this amendment is hypocritical for anyone who favors a progressive tax policy.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.