Minnesota Senate Democrats propose budget cuts amid bleak financial outlook
Majority Leader Erin Murphy. DFL-St. Paul, and DFL caucus members outline their focus and work ahead for the 2025 session at a press conference February 10, 2025. Photo by A.J. Olmscheid/ Senate Media Services.
Minnesota Senate Democrats released two-year budget targets Friday that would enact nearly $2.5 billion in cuts over the next four years as the state faces a multi-billion dollar deficit unless lawmakers take action.
The Senate Democratic caucus' targets say they would leave $2.4 billion on the bottom line over the next two years, and would avert a deficit in the following two-year cycle.
But there's a major caveat: They don't account for inflation, which is expected to drive up costs by around $1.1 billion in the upcoming budget, although some economists expect even faster inflation given the Trump administration's tariffs.
That means cuts will be more widespread and deeper than reflected in the targets, as agencies will face rising costs without money appropriated to cover them. State workers — whose compensation typically comprises the bulk of many agency budgets — are sure to demand pay raises that keep up with inflation, for instance.
Budget targets are guidelines for legislative committees that determine how much money each committee has to spend or needs to cut for the 2026-2027 budget. Targets are subject to change, and often do, as lawmakers create their biennial budget in the remaining weeks of session. The Legislature must pass a budget by June 30, though the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn May 19.
Minnesota's increasing costs are outpacing revenues and could cause a projected $6 billion budget deficit in fiscal years 2028-2029.
Senate Democrats want to avoid the deficit by forcing agencies to eat the cost of inflation. That could lead to staff reductions, program cuts and other cost-saving measures.
The Senate Democrats' budget targets cut spending on health and human services, environment, energy and transportation, while cutting education in the second biennium.
Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said in an interview that the budget targets are based on the latest forecast and don't take into account cuts at the federal level. Murphy said the state's $3.2 billion in budget reserves will help Minnesotans fare whatever future federal cuts, freezes and uncertainties affect Minnesota.
'We've kept the budget reserve … intact so that we have some cushion and the ability to manage at least some of what we might get from the trifecta in Washington, D.C., that seems hell bent on making deep cuts that could hurt families, schools, communities and our health care system,' Murphy said.
Murphy didn't offer specifics about how lawmakers will achieve the cuts included in the budget targets.
The Senate Taxes Committee, according to the targets, has a target cutting $365 million from their budget, i.e., by either raising taxes or cutting tax subsidies or Local Government Aid, which is in the Taxes Committee's purview.
Gov. Tim Walz has proposed lowering the state's sales tax from 6.875% to 6.8% — saving Minnesotans 75 cents for every $1,000 they spend on taxable goods.
Walz has also proposed taxing professional services that are currently exempt from sales tax, including legal, banking, brokerage and accounting services. Combined, the sales tax changes would generate around $185 million over the next two years.
Murphy would not say whether Walz's sales tax proposals would be included in the Senate Taxes Committee's budget target.
The biggest increases in the Senate DFL's targets include $100 million for the Higher Education Committee and $106 million for the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.
Murphy said that in higher education, lawmakers will earmark some funds to the Minnesota State Grant program — i.e., college financial aid — which is facing a $211 million budget shortfall.
For the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, much of the money will go toward the courts and Department of Corrections, Murphy said.
The Minnesota House, which is tied 67-67 between Republicans and Democrats, will present joint budget targets early next week, a House DFL spokesperson said.
Republicans and Democrats had a long running debate about how to treat inflation in state budgets. For many years, Democrats sought to include inflation in the state's projected costs as a more accurate depiction of the budget outlook.
Inflation is reflected in the rising cost of everything from construction to gasoline to fleet vehicles — and especially in areas where the government spends the most: health care and education, and especially wages. By not including inflationary costs, Democrats argued, the budget forecasts were giving the public a deceptive picture of the government's ability to provide services.
So, in 2023, Democrats passed a bill to require inflation to be included in both sides of the ledger in the budget forecasts of Minnesota Management and Budget, which is the state's budget agency.
'If we want to create an honest and responsible budget for Minnesota, we need an honest picture of our state's finances,' said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, in 2023. 'Just like a weather forecast, we want a budget forecast that has the most accurate information available to us, which will allow us as policymakers to make the most informed decisions possible with our budget. No business would make budget decisions based on budget projections that factor in inflation on the revenue side of their business, but not the expenditure side. Neither should state government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
32 minutes ago
Support for solar energy, offshore wind falls among Democrats and independents: poll
Americans' support for green energy tax credits and renewable energies like wind and solar power has decreased in recent years, according to a new poll, driven by a softening in support from Democrats and independents. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that U.S. adults' support for tax credits for electric vehicles and solar panels has weakened, as well as their enthusiasm for offshore wind farm expansion. While Democrats remain the strongest supporters of these initiatives, the poll reveals signs of growing cynicism within their ranks. The poll results coincide with sweeping changes President Donald Trump's Republican administration is making to regulations related to energy and climate change, including slashing the federal workforce in these departments. And although Democrats and independents have weakened their support for some green energy initiatives, there has not been an increase in support for Trump's energy policies. The poll found only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults — including only 1 in 10 Democrats and about 2 in 10 independents, along with three-quarters of Republicans — approve of the way Trump is handling climate change, which largely tracks with his overall approval rating. About 6 in 10 Democrats, 58%, favor tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle, down from about 7 in 10 in 2022. Among independents, support declined from 49% in 2022 to 28%. Only one-quarter of Republicans supported this policy in 2022, and that hasn't changed measurably. 'As far as the pollution goes ... the vehicles nowadays put out very little emissions to the air,' said JD Johnson, a 62-year-old Democrat from Meadowview, Virginia, who somewhat opposes tax credits to purchase an electric vehicle. That's partly because he sees the electric vehicle manufacturing process as energy intensive and believes gasoline-powered vehicles have made improvements with the pollutants they emit. The decline in favoring solar panel tax credits was across the board rather than being concentrated among Democrats. 'For solar panels, in all honesty, I don't think they're that efficient yet,' said Glenn Savage, 78, a left-leaning independent from Rock Hill, South Carolina. 'I'd rather see them pour money into research and try to get the solar panels more efficient before they start giving tax breaks to the public. I may be wrong on that, but that's just my thought.' Scientists say transitioning to renewable energies and ditching fossil fuels that release planet-warming emissions are essential to protect the planet. Billions of dollars in project grants for clean technologies awarded during President Joe Biden's Democratic administration have been canceled by the Trump administration, and the offshore wind sector has been stunted by Trump's executive order that paused approvals, permits and loans for wind energy projects. Fewer than half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say that offshore wind farms should be expanded in the U.S., down from 59% in 2022. About half favor expanding solar panel farms, while about two-thirds were in support in 2022. When people are concerned about the economy and their personal finances, environmental issues are sometimes prioritized less, said Talbot Andrews, an assistant professor in the department of government at Cornell University who was not involved in the poll. 'I think it makes people anxious to think about increased taxes or increased spending on environmental issues when the cost of eggs are going through the roof,' Andrews said. Trump has championed the expansion of offshore oil drilling, as well as domestic coal production. Despite a decline in support for expanded renewable energies, the new poll shows that only about one-third of U.S. adults think offshore drilling for oil and natural gas should be expanded in the U.S., and only about one-quarter say this about coal mining. In both cases, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to support expanding these energy sources. Trump has sought to open up national monuments for oil drilling, but more U.S. adults oppose than support auctioning off more public space for oil drilling. Only about one-quarter of U.S. adults favor this, while 4 in 10 are opposed. Republicans are much more likely than independents or Democrats to be in support. The Energy Star program that certifies appliances, such as dishwashers and refrigerators, as energy efficient recently appeared in headlines when the EPA made plans to scrap the program. The blue and white logo is well recognized, and experts say the program has long had bipartisan support until recently. The poll found three-quarters of Democrats support providing consumer rebates for efficient home appliances, compared with 6 in 10 Republicans. Patrick Buck, 54, from Chicago, describes himself as a liberal Republican and is a fan of the consumer rebates for energy-efficient appliances. 'It seems to work in terms of transforming what people have in their houses, because a lot of people have a lot of old appliances and just can't afford new ones,' he said. The poll found only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults are 'extremely' or 'very' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of their drinking water, the air they breathe and the meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables they buy in grocery stores. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults are 'somewhat' confident in the federal government's ability to ensure the safety of each of these, and about 4 in 10 are 'not very' or 'not at all' confident. The Trump administration has announced plans to roll back rules and policies related to limiting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, such as rules that limit pollution from power plants and blocking California's efforts to phase out cars that run on gas. The federal government has also cut staff at the Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency tasked with protecting public health and ensuring food supply safety. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
33 minutes ago
What to know about debate over protesters and ICE agents wearing masks amid immigration crackdowns
CHICAGO -- President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for mask-wearing at protests to be banned and for protesters whose faces are covered to be arrested, with the most recent push following demonstrations in Los Angeles over immigration raids. Legal experts told The Associated Press there are a variety of reasons people may want to cover their faces while protesting, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas. With legislative action happening across the U.S., they say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Protesters, meanwhile, have voiced anger over footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents covering their faces at immigration raids and masked officers at the Los Angeles protests, calling it a double standard. Here are some things to know about the debate over face masks: At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings in some way, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, according to the center. Many of these laws date back to the 1940s and '50s when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and the Republican president's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters, sometimes inconsistently. Trump's calls to arrest protesters for wearing masks came as federal agents were seen donning masks while conducting raids in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. Democratic lawmakers in California have introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks amid concerns that ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct during high-profile immigration raids. The issue also came up at a congressional hearing on June 12, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Republican federal officials have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable." Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the right to free speech includes the right to speak out anonymously. But he said how it should apply to protesters wearing masks remains 'an unresolved First Amendment question.' For Stone, that raises a key question: Why should protesters and ICE agents be subject to different rules? 'The government doesn't want them to be targeted because they engaged in their responsibilities as ICE agents,' Stone said. 'But that's the same thing as the argument as to why you want demonstrators to wear masks. They want to wear masks so they can do their 'jobs' of engaging in free speech properly. The same rationale for the officers wearing masks should apply to the protesters.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP attempt to authorize states to conduct immigration enforcement
The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several more provisions in the Republican megabill to enact President Trump's agenda, including language authorizing states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which traditionally have been duties of the federal government. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough also ruled against language in the bill that would increase the Federal Employees Retirement Systems (FERS) contribution rate for new civil servants if they do not agree to give up civil-service protections to become at-will employees. Additionally, the parliamentarian advised against a section of the bill that would allow the executive branch to reorganize federal government agencies — or eliminate whole agencies — without congressional oversight. The parliamentarian ruled these provisions violate the Byrd Rule and are not eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the procedural fast track known as budget reconciliation. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, hailed the parliamentarian's rulings. 'There is no better way to define this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill than families lose, and billionaires win. Democrats are on the side of families and workers and are scrutinizing this bill piece by piece to ensure Republicans can't use the reconciliation process to force their anti-worker policies on the American people,' Merkley said in a statement. 'The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced,' he said. The parliamentarian additionally rejected a provision granting authority to agencies to unilaterally rescind funds appropriated by Congress by establishing an incentive program for federal employees to identify 'unnecessary expenditures' and transfer savings back to the Treasury Department. And she ruled against language in the bill mandating the sale of all U.S. Postal Service electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
