|
|
|
With the state legislative session now in full swing, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities is concerned that a proposal for a constitutional amendment requiring a three-fifths supermajority vote in both the House and Senate to pass tax increases could make it past the discussion stage and onto the November ballot without the general public even knowing much about it.
"The big focus at the capitol is a Vikings stadium; that's what everyone is hearing about," Tim Flaherty of the CGMC said during a visit to Crookston last week. "But we're concerned that with all the attention on other issues, proposals like this will be quietly and swiftly run through the legislature and passed before people really get to weigh in on it."
Both the House and Senate have versions of a supermajority amendment proposal up for discussion this session that would require at least a 60 percent vote in each body of the legislature, as opposed to a simple majority, to pass a tax increase. The Republican-sponsored bills will be discussed this session, as per agreement to end last summer's government shutdown.
Simply put, requiring a supermajority vote for tax increases would limit the taxing authority of lawmakers. This is far from a simple issue, though.
"No one wants to see taxes increase, but unfortunately, it is a necessary part of life," said Flaherty.
The CGMC thinks the supermajority proposal is a bad idea all around, he added, and cites a number of reasons after researching the issue:
• The legislative process would be crippled by allowing a minority of representatives to dominate and forcing the majority to pass budget and revenue decisions on to voters through more complicated constitutional amendments.
"Legislators need do the job we elected them to do and not pass it back on to the voters," said Flaherty. "That's how the process works; if people don't like the job they're doing, they vote them out of office. Voters should not be required to pass the laws themselves. That's just plain inefficient."
• As its population base is more concentrated, amendments that benefit the metro area would be more likely to pass. Greater Minnesota would miss out on even more funding opportunities and the metro-rural gap would become even wider.
• Local governments would be forced to bear the brunt of the shortfall in tax revenue, with more fees tacked on to everything from marriage licenses to speeding tickets and property taxes rising. One of the CGMC's key issues is holding the line on property taxes.
With the state legislative session now in full swing, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities is concerned that a proposal for a constitutional amendment requiring a three-fifths supermajority vote in both the House and Senate to pass tax increases could make it past the discussion stage and onto the November ballot without the general public even knowing much about it.
"The big focus at the capitol is a Vikings stadium; that's what everyone is hearing about," Tim Flaherty of the CGMC said during a visit to Crookston last week. "But we're concerned that with all the attention on other issues, proposals like this will be quietly and swiftly run through the legislature and passed before people really get to weigh in on it."
Both the House and Senate have versions of a supermajority amendment proposal up for discussion this session that would require at least a 60 percent vote in each body of the legislature, as opposed to a simple majority, to pass a tax increase. The Republican-sponsored bills will be discussed this session, as per agreement to end last summer's government shutdown.
Simply put, requiring a supermajority vote for tax increases would limit the taxing authority of lawmakers. This is far from a simple issue, though.
"No one wants to see taxes increase, but unfortunately, it is a necessary part of life," said Flaherty.
The CGMC thinks the supermajority proposal is a bad idea all around, he added, and cites a number of reasons after researching the issue:
• The legislative process would be crippled by allowing a minority of representatives to dominate and forcing the majority to pass budget and revenue decisions on to voters through more complicated constitutional amendments.
"Legislators need do the job we elected them to do and not pass it back on to the voters," said Flaherty. "That's how the process works; if people don't like the job they're doing, they vote them out of office. Voters should not be required to pass the laws themselves. That's just plain inefficient."
• As its population base is more concentrated, amendments that benefit the metro area would be more likely to pass. Greater Minnesota would miss out on even more funding opportunities and the metro-rural gap would become even wider.
• Local governments would be forced to bear the brunt of the shortfall in tax revenue, with more fees tacked on to everything from marriage licenses to speeding tickets and property taxes rising. One of the CGMC's key issues is holding the line on property taxes.
• The partisan spectrum could become even more divided, with a conservative hold permanently put in place on budget issues, even with more moderate to liberal lawmakers in the majority.
"The state constitution requires a three-fifths vote to pass borrowing bills, but that's different," Flaherty explained. "Those have a sunset. They're paid off after so many years. With this, it's forever. Do we really want to tie our hands forever?"
Flaherty often referred to California as an example of supermajority requirements gone wild. In any given election, numerous propositions are on that state's ballot, and it has suffered many financial crises as a result of policies similar to what is proposed in Minnesota. Moody's has also downgraded debt ratings for states with similar amendments, which results in higher interest payments on the states' part.
Ironically, to get on the ballot, only a simple majority of lawmakers in each chamber need to approve the constitutional amendment and to become a part of the constitution, a majority of voters must pass it.
Several organizations, including the non-partisan Minnesota Taxpayers Association, have come out against the proposal, said Flaherty. And while it is sponsored by Republicans, the proposal has plenty of opposition from lawmakers within the party, especially those representing Greater Minnesota. The Democrats are strongly opposed to it.
"All we need is six Republican legislators to vote against it to defeat the proposal," he said. "And we might just have that, but we are still urging people to contact their representatives and senators to let them know that this proposal is a very bad idea. It would be better to stop this before it even makes it to the ballot. Otherwise, you're looking at a lot of money to be spent on both sides of the issue."
