| For Immediate Release | February 24, 1999 |
One word that has been getting a lot of attention during tax discussions here at the state capitol is the word "super-majority." The super-majority concept, when dealing with the state legislature, is simply this. Under usual circumstances, a bill can be passed into law with a 50% + 1 vote majority. If a super-majority requirement is in effect, a bill would need a 3/5 majority, or 60% of the legislative vote, to become law.
Currently, the House is considering House File 5, a Taxpayers Protection Amendment to the Constitution. Here's how it would work. With the passage of this bill in both the House and Senate, and approval of the voters in the general election of the year 2000, Minnesota will join 14 other states in offering this constitutional protection to all of us taxpayers. This amendment covers any increase in the general rate or tax base for any income tax, any sales tax, any increase in state- determined property tax rates or levies and any other new statewide tax. This amendment does not prohibit tax increases, but requires a strong consensus, and likely a bipartisan majority to enact such tax increases. Why is this Taxpayers Protection Amendment so important? Well, there are many reasons, but a few clearly stand out.
First, the super-majority concept goes a long way toward ensuring that taxes won't be increased when there isn't strong support to do so. In the past, we have instances where a tax increase vote wins by the narrowest of margins. This shouldn't be the case when taxpayers such as you and I are going to bear the brunt of that increased burden; it simply isn't fair. Tax increases should only come about under dire circumstances and with strong, and perhaps, overwhelming support. Taxpayers need protection from the occasional whims of irresponsible legislators and legislation. Don't mess with our taxes unless you have a lot of support, and can prove a critical need.
Second, and along those same lines, a super-majority would mean that a tax increase would have to have bipartisan support. The days of partisan politics and one party ruling the roost are over, as evidenced by the changes brought about by last November's election. Tax increases, if at all necessary, should have bipartisan support. If they do get that bipartisan support, then chances are that said tax increase would also have the support of the people. Good government is about the will of the people, and the super-majority significantly and positively affects Minnesota's ability to provide good government.
Third, as has been clearly stated before, Minnesota's overall tax burden is the second worst in the nation. It is imperative that we find a way to stop, or, at the very least, slow the torrent of money being over-collected from the hard-working women and men of our state. Yes, Minnesota is a great place to live, with quality basic services, beautiful parks and good roads. However, we can still have all those things, continue to increase the quality of them, and still reduce the amount of money that the bureaucrats in St. Paul take from the people who earn it. The people who earn the money are much better qualified to decide what they want to spend it on than government is. That is one of the simple truths of government and taxation that is rarely said. Less taxes, more options for families it's a formula that works.
Fourth, Minnesota is clearly behind the times as far as taxation law is concerned. As stated earlier, 14 other states have this amendment in place. The first such law was adopted by Arkansas in 1934; that's over sixty years ago. South Dakota, our neighbor to the west, has this constitutional protection. The list of states that show more concern for their taxpayers than we do is long...Washington, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, to name a few. Of the 14 states that already have such a law, 8 require even stronger majorities than our proposed 3/5. The Taxpayers Protection Amendment isn't out of line with what other states are doing, in fact, it is high time we learned from what works, and works exceedingly well, for other states.
Finally, The Taxpayers Protection Amendment is a major part of the House assault on taxes, the process that will bring our taxes into line. This is a three-pronged attack. First, we rebate over- collected taxes, as evidenced by passage of the House income tax rebate bill. Second, we enact permanent tax rate reductions, which will occur in the next few months as we consider various ways of reducing tax rates. And, finally, we finish revolutionizing the taxation system by requiring a super-majority vote to increase taxes, so they don't creep back up after we cut them. That is our plan at the House, a plan that we are very committed to.
Minnesotans sent a clear signal in November that they are unhappy, very unhappy, with the tax burden imposed by the state. They have every right to be displeased. Officials from all three parties at the Capitol are responding by pledging to cut taxes. I and my colleagues at the House are willing to take that a step further. We are willing to give you the opportunity to protect yourselves from future tax increases. The Taxpayers Protection Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is necessary, it benefits all of us, at it is long, long overdue.
- 30 -