Minnesota State Senator Tom Neuville

Serving District 25 Counties of Rice, Le Sueur, Sibley and Scott

May 25th, 2007

Iraq War: Defending our Troops

The National Republican Committee has put together a 4 minute video which quotes many prominant Democrats about need to remove Saddam Hussein. It’s interesting to see how different their statements are today, compared to the past.

You can view the video by Linking Here

The video speaks for itself. As we approach Memorial Day this weekend, I hope that people take the time to thank our Veterans for their sacrifice and service. We take freedom for granted in this country. But, Freedom is not free. We have it- because others defend it!

May 22nd, 2007

Legislative Wrap-Up: We’ll have to Wait and See

The 2007 Legislative Session finished at 12 midnight on May 21. It was a flurry to finish voting on the Tax and transportation bills in the House of Representatives.

The Governor and Legislative leaders were not able to reach final agreement on the tax and budget bills. An over-ride attempt on the tax-laden transportation bill failed by about 5 votes. However, from comments that I have heard today, it appears that no special legislative session will be needed. This could be dicey. The Governor has major objections about one or two provisions in the Tax bill. But, he can’t get rid of them with a line item veto. If he vetoes the entire bill, cities would lose Local Government Aid increases which are in this bill. (For Northfield it would mean a loss of about $350,000).

The Governor will use the line item veto liberally (no pun intended :) .

Most of the other bills will be fine until next February when we convene again. The K-12 Education bill was not to my liking, and I voted against it. The bill increased statewide funding by $791 million, which is a 7% increase. However, the general ed formula increases only 2% the first year and 1% the second year. For Northfield, It’s about $550 per student over 2 years. By contrast, Minneapolis get about $1300 per student increase. Most of this is caused by special education formulas. The disparity between the school districts I represent and Minneapolis got larger with this bill, and I don’t think it’s fair. More money should have been put on the general formula, or in equalization aid.

There won’t be an income tax or gas tax increase. The metro sales tax for transit didn’t pass either.

I’ll prepare a more detailed summary of the Session and post it next week, after I recover from the long hours and catch up on my “other job” in the Northfield law office.

It was a productive session overall. I rate it as a 7 out of 10 as a first impression. Of course, we still have to study what was in all of the budget and tax bills that we passed yesterday.

May 22nd, 2007

Global Warming: Finding the Truth (Post 19)

Many of you know that I have posted 18 previous articles about Global Warming. It’s a topic that is very important, and one that I find interesting.

Many people have written to me, most of whom cannot understand why I remain a “skeptic” that man is causing global warming. Below is a typical email that people send to me. This email doubted the authenticity of the Oregon Petition, Linked Here, which was signed by 17,000 scientists, climatologists, or others with scientific backgrounds, all opposing the Kyoto protocol and arguments which claim that man is causing global warming.
I sent the constituent’s email to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine for comment. Also attached below is the reply by Dr. Arthur Robinson. These writings are typical of the debate surrounding Global Warming.

It’s hard to get to the truth if people don’t want to discuss the science of global warming.

Email from Constituent

*From:* Confidential
> *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2007 6:30 PM
> *To:* Tom Neuville
> *Subject:* One more and I’ll stop
>
> Wow, 17000 signatures! Where to start? Well I guess I’ll start with
> the letter A.
> I googled the first 10: A couple of doctors, a pathologist (I think I
> had the right guy), a petroleum engineer, an electrical engineer, an
> ornithologist, and four people who could not be found on the www.
>
> Where did these folks come from? Well, it seems that about a decade
> ago, Dr. Seitz looked up from the home school materials business he
> was running out of his pole shed out in Oregon and commenced a direct
> mail campaign to oppose the Kyoto treaty. Sign the petition, assign
> yourself the some letters of the alphabet, and congratulations, you
> are a “highly qualified scientist”!
>
> That you can somehow declare that process to be even comparable to the
> IPCC process, version 4.0 (yes, Senator they keep doing research) is
> why you are so easily dismissed.
>
> Yes, I know of your background. You must be dismayed that your former
> institutions have been hijacked by the left wing conspiracy. Michigan
> Tech operates a cutting edge center that studies climate change with
> an emphasis on human impact on CO2 levels and forest ecosystems
> (funded in part by the DOE–can you believe they waste our tax dollars
> on this commie nonsense?). http://niccr.mtu.edu or
> http://ecosystem.mtu.edu
>
> 3M’s even worse, they’re frittering away shareholder value on reducing
> greenhouse emissions.
>
>
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/global/sustainability/s/performa
nce-indicators/environment/reducing-greenhouse-gases/ions.
>
>
> We’re not getting anywhere here. You can have the last word, I will
> read it but likely not respond. I don’t think I’ll be visiting your
> blog again for awhile. Email me when you have something serious to say.

Reply Email from Dr. Arthur Robinson (Permission to Post was given)

—–Original Message—–
From: Arthur Robinson [mailto:art@oism.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:36 PM
To: tom neuville
Subject: Re: FW: One more and I’ll stop

Dr. Seitz is a very famous physicist. He has served as president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, president of the American Physical Society, and president of The Rockefeller University.

The other five people who have directed the petition project are also highly respected and qualified scientists. Two are Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicists who specialize in climate science, two have Caltech degrees in physical chemistry, and one is America’s leading expert on carbon dioxide fertilization of plants. All are actively working, PhD physical scientists.

The person you are corresponding with is obviously an enviro liar. This is the difficulty of opposing these people. They simply make up any lie they wish - and smear anyone who opposes them.

As far as the petition is concerned, signatures were accepted if the individual had a university degree in physical science. Anyone with that much education is easily qualified to evaluate this subject. The signers all have this qualification. (One falsified signature was sent in by Ozone Action aka Green Peace USA - and was removed when found.) A large percentage are PhDs - the most advanced degree of each is listed on the oism.org/pproject web site. About 500 of the signers are actively professionally involved in various aspects of climate science.

The petition was based upon a comprehensive review article fully referenced to the peer reviewed literature. This is available at oism.org/pproject.

I notice from your correspondence with this person that there is no discussion of science. The enviros like it this way. The actual science defeats them.

One example. Try it out on your correspondent.

J. Oerlemans, Science 308, pp 675-677 (2005) published an account of the lengths of 169 of the Earth’s glaciers as a function of time - all large glaciers for which he could obtain long term records. Oerlman’s data show that glacier length maximized at the depths of the Little Ice Age - at about the time of the U.S. Revolutionary War. (George Washington was unlucky in that his winter at Valley Forge was spent during the coldest period on the Earth in 1,500 years. Average Earth temperature during the past 3,000 years has fluctuated in about an 8 degree Fahrenheit range.)

The two relevant figures from Oerlman’s article are attached

.Figure 5 Figure_6.jpg

As the Earth recovered from this unusually cold period, the lengths of the glaciers decreased. Half of the glacier shortening to date occurred before the first car rolled off of the Henry Ford assembly line, and three-fourths of the shortening occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide significantly increased. Since then, the rate of shortening has not increased - in fact, it has moderated somewhat.

The temperature curve derived from the glacier data shows some fine structure - which correlates perfectly with fluctuations in solar activity.

This study - recently peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal
- definitively shows that human-produced carbon dioxide is not responsible for melting the glaciers or for the rise in temperature that caused the melting. The cause is the natural recovery of Earth temperature from the Little Ice Age. Today, Earth temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years and far below the temperatures that occurred earlier - for example during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago - much warmer than today and having no climatological difficulties or environmental disasters.

There is a wealth of other data from other sources and studies that correlates perfectly with the glacier data and shows that natural causes, mostly fluctuations in solar activity, are responsible for the current warming; that current temperatures are not unusual; that warm Earth temperatures are associated with milder weather - not harsher weather; that ocean level rises during warm periods are very slight (current measurements show an increase of 3mm per year, which is one foot per century - with the warming likely to reverse within a couple of more centuries); and that the only significant effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is increased rate of plant growth, which leads to more plants and animals and more diversity in the biosphere - both positive environmental effects.

Usually these people will not confront the facts. If this guy tries to discuss the Oerlman’s article, please send me a copy of his effort. I would be interested in the response.

You are welcome, of course, to send him a copy of this email if you wish.

Best Regards,

Art Robinson

May 16th, 2007

State Budget: Another Mess at the End

I am writing this post at about 5 pm.(from the Senate floor) during debate on the Omnibus Education (K-12) Budget Bill. This major bill, which comprises about 43% of the state general fund budget, was passed out of Rules committee late last night (without paper copies even available to committee members or the public). The bill was given it 2nd reading at about 7 am. this morning, and now we are debating final passage.

Our staff and members of the Education committee have not had time to even study everything which is in the bill. Apparently, there were secret meetings between House and Senate DFL’ers over the past week. A conference committee which had been appointed earlier has not met for about 2 weeks because the Senate leadership failed to set budget targets for the education bill.

Earlier today, we passed other budget bills (Higher Education, Jobs and Economic Development, State Departments, and Health and Human Services Budget bills) which were passed in the same manner by the DFL Rules committee last night. We are also going to vote on a new Omnibus Tax bill later today that was moved to the Senate floor in the same manner.

The Governor and Legislative leaders have not agreed on Budget targets, and this has caused the DFL majority in the Senate to create new budget bills (out of unrelated House files), which they intend to send to the Governor in a “truth or dare” scenario. If the Governor vetoes these bills, as he did the first set of budget bills, we will have yet another special session.

The Governor has been very public about his position that a 10% increase in the biennial budget is a large enough, and that he won’t support any tax increase to fund state spending. It’s disappointing that legislative leaders have not engaged in negotiations with the Governor sooner. Even if we can reach a compromise on budget targets now (only 5 days left in the session), the process has been closed off to the public and minority members. The House of Representatives will not even have the chance to offer amendments to any of these bills.

I’m not surprised. Senate Republicans have been asking Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller when he was going to disclose budget targets. Senate rules provide that targets should be made public at the end of April. It was never done.

Much of what is happening is “inside baseball”. It’s procedural stuff, which is hard to explain to the general public. But the failure to maintain a fair process reduces trust levels among legislators, and causes an awful lot of frustration.

May 15th, 2007

End of Session Survey

I’ve created a short survey relating to issues which are in dispute this legislative session.

Please take just a minute to respond. Here is the link.

May 11th, 2007

Global Warming: Questioning the IPCC (Post 18)

A constituent from Belle Plaine lead me to a 2005 letter from  hurricane expert, Christopher Landsea, who had been a contributor to the 2nd and 3rd Assessment of the IPCC panel on Global Warming. Dr. Landsea was also asked to participate in the 4th Assessment by the IPCC, only to discover that the lead scientist held a press conference asserting that the increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic was caused by Global Warming.

Dr. Landsea knew that this assertion was false. So he wrote an open letter resigning from further participation with the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). He concluded that the scientific process was politicized and conclusions predetermined.

A copy of Landsea’s letter is Linked Here.

The letter concluded with the following quote from Dr. Landsea:

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Other Articles about Landsea’s resignation from the IPCC and his work, are found Here, Here, and Here.

Many people claim that there is scientific “consensus” about Global Warming. However, some scientists not only disagree with the alleged scientific findings, but also question the integrity of the IPCC itself.

May 10th, 2007

Why I opposed Medical Marijuana

A bill to legalize marijuana for medical purposes has now been around the Legislature for the past three years. This year, the State Senate approved the bill.

I voted against the bill, even though I have sympathy and compassion for many individuals who believe that smoking marijuana helps alleviate their pain. I want my constituents to understand why this bill is bad policy, even if it would help some people.

The bill, as finally passed by the State Senate, would be a law enforcement nightmare.

First, marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 controlled substance (most regulated) under federal law. Legalizing marijuana under state law would not make it legal under federal law. The federal government could legally bust and prosecute anyone who grew or possessed marijuana – even if it were legal under state law.

Second, doctors cannot legally prescribe marijuana, nor can pharmacists dispense it. Therefore, the bill had to establish an informal distribution system. Doctors would “recommend” marijuana. Registered “non-profit organizations” could grow up to 12 marijuana plants per “qualifying patient.” Primary “care givers” would be allowed to sell and deliver marijuana to five patients, and make money on the transaction. “Qualifying patients” could obtain a registration card if a doctor recommended marijuana for “intractable pain.”

Basically, anyone could create a registered organization or become a primary care giver. There are no limits to the number of organizations that could legally grow marijuana. Therefore, literally thousands of non-profit corporations could be established throughout the state to grow marijuana.

Third, registered organizations, which grow marijuana, could be located anywhere as long as they were 500 feet away from a church or school. Main street store fronts could be established to recruit “qualified patients” to sell marijuana to. This sends a confusing and mixed message to our teenagers.

Fifth, there is no quality control required for medical marijuana. Some marijuana might contain 5% of active ingredients (THC); other marijuana could contain 15% of active ingredients. How would doctors be able to properly “recommend” marijuana for their patients when the dosage is unknown?

Fifth, organizations and patients having registration cards would be entitled to confidentiality and immunity from arrest or criminal prosecution. Police could not search the growers or users of medical marijuana without reasonable notice. Again, this makes law enforcement nearly impossible.

Sixth, senior citizens or vulnerable adults with cancer or other intractable pain would become ripe-targets, when others seek to steal their medical marijuana.

Seventh, in other states that have approved medical marijuana, the demand greatly exceeded the expectation. For example, in the State of Oregon, estimates were that 500 persons would ask for medical marijuana cards. Within a few years, over 14, 000 individuals were registered. I believe that the same number of people would register in Minnesota. Police argue that this proves that people can get marijuana for non-medical use too  easily.

Finally, marijuana remains a gateway drug to other drugs. The ready-accessibility of medical marijuana would send a message that marijuana is also appropriate to use recreationally, and would lead to greater use of other illegal drugs.

Perhaps, someday the federal government will change its laws and allow doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense. Advocates for medicinal marijuana should lobby Congress to change federal law first.Then states could better regulate and dispense marijuana thru pharmacists.  Until then, adopting a medical marijuana law is a prescription for confusion and greater drug use in Minnesota.

May 8th, 2007

Governor Vetoes: Keeping His Word on the Budget.

The Legislature has passed all of its budget bills except for Transportation, K-12 Education and the Tax Bill.

In effect, we have been spending money from the State’s check book, without knowing how much money was in the bank. Several of the Budget bills have been signed by Governor Pawlenty including:

1. Agriculture and Veteran Affairs (with several line item vetoes)
2. Public Safety, Corrections and Courts
3. Environment and Natural Resources (with several line item vetoes)

These bills generally spent less than the Governor’s recommended budget level.

The Governor has vetoed other major spending bills, mostly because the bills spent more than the state’s projected revenues, or because they included policy provisions which the Governor considered to be “Poison Pills”.

Sometimes it’s helpful to read the Veto messages issued by the Governor. The messages explain why the Governor vetoed such major bills. I’ve attached the veto messages next to the Budget Bills which the Governor has already vetoed. The higher education funding bill will most likely be vetoed later this week as well.

Here are the bills that Governor Pawlenty has vetoed:

1. State Agency Funding Bill Veto message linked here. (May 7, 2007)

2. Bonding Bill Veto message linked here. (May 1, 2007)

3. Jobs and Economic Development Veto message linked here. (May 7, 2007)

4. Health and Human Services Veto message linked here. (May 8, 2007)

5. Higher Education     Veto message linked here.   (May 9th, 2007)
The Governor told the Legislature what he would sign and what he would veto. Now he is keeping his word. Significantly, these bills spent much of the State’s surplus. In my opinion, the Senate and House majorities are trying to keep the K-12 Education bill until the end in order to justify the tax increases they want for Education. I think we should have decided what’s in the bank before we began spending from the checkbook. I will vote to uphold the Governor’s vetoes.

May 6th, 2007

Global Warming: The Faithful Heretic of Wisconsin (Post 17)

I read an interesting article about the University of Wisconsin’s “father of climatology”, Reid Bryson. It was published in the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News and is Linked Here.

The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions

Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.

How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Renaissance Man, Marathon Man

When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.

“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”

This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”

The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.

Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”

“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”

Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.

With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”

Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.

“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.

“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman

May 5th, 2007

State Budget: We’ll have to do it again!

On Friday, the State Senate passed Conference Committee reports on several Budget Bills, including:

1. Environment and Natural Resources Budget Bill;

2. Economic Development Budget Bill;

3. State Government Budget Bill (which includes funding for the legislature, governor’s office, Dept. of Revenue, Employee Relations, Finance, Administration, and others;

4. Public Safety and Judiciary Budget Bill (this is the conference committee that I sat on which funded Courts, Public Safety, Corrections, Human Rights, Police Officers Board, Fire Marshall office, and others);

The Governor also signed the Agriculture and Veteran Affairs Budget bill on Friday, and will sign the Public Safety,Courts and Environment Budget Bills early next week. However, the Governor will most likely veto the Economic Development and State Government Bills. These bills included too many “poison pills” including:

a. A definition of “significant relationship” for purposes of state government domestic partner health insurance benefits;

b. Elimination of most of the Governor’s deputy and assistant commissioners;

c. Creation of a statutory “continuing resolution” appropriation authority which would continue funding state government when the legislature didn’t pass a budget on time;

d. Creation of a State “Poet Laureate” , which the Governor finds unnecessary;

e. Too much spending on the wrong projects in the Economic Development bill;

f. Banking too much savings on a Department of Revenue enforcement program, which is designed to collect unpaid income and sales taxes;

We also had a lengthy debate in the Senate about Budget targets. Pursuant to a Joint Resolution between the Senate and House, we should have set our Budget and Tax “Targets” by April 27th. A budget “target” is an agreed amount or cap for spending on each of the designated budgets. Generally, the legislature and governor stipulate on the budget  “target”  before the conference committees finalize their work.

But, the targets are not yet announced for the Higher Education, K-12 Education and Tax Bills. This makes it harder to know whether all of the other bills are properly funded, since we don’t know what amount the DFL controlled legislature wants the final state budget to be.

Most likely, this is an effort to link Education spending with an income tax increase. The DFL will suggest that anyone who opposes the tax increase, is not supporting necessary increases in education spending. This strategy is laying the groundwork for yet another special session, since the DFL knows that Governor Pawlenty will not sign a bill with an income tax increase. Legislative Republicans will uphold his veto.

The finish line for the legislative session is in sight. The question is, will there be overtime again?