The U.S. Senate recount isn’t the only political confusion
brewing in Minnesota. A few local Democratic legislators are
making a fuss over too many dollars being spent on the
program for which they were intended.
In November, Minnesotans also voted for the Clean Water,
Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment
(otherwise known as the Clean Water Act).
The purpose of the amendment was to create another avenue of
funding to preserve Minnesota’s wildlife and lakes in additional
to its arts and cultural heritage. Unfortunately, the Amendment
increased the sales tax to provide $300 million in revenue for
the state.
Some Minnesotans opposed the Clean Water Act, namely because it
increased taxes, but also because the funds the state receives
from the Minnesota lottery — usually about $25 million per year
— are spent on the great outdoors as well.
The Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources
(LCCMR) has the task of making “funding recommendations to the
legislature for special environment and natural resource
projects” with that $25 million. The LCCMR is made up of
seventeen members — five state senators, five state
representatives, five citizens appointed by Governor Tim
Pawlenty, and a citizen appoint by each house of the legislature.
This past week, the Star Tribune
reported the LCCMR has been working all year reviewing
recommendations for spending and determining how to spend the
Lottery money. They came up with a recommended
package of 33 projects. When it came time to vote on their
package, they could not garner the twelve votes needed to
properly move it out of the committee and recommend it on to the
House. What caused the holdup? Three members were missing for
various reasons, which kept the package from passing (it did
receive eleven votes). That’s just one side of the coin.
The other more controversial side is that a Democrat, Rep. Jean
Wagenius, proposed an amendment that would move some of the money
allocated completely to wildlife ventures to create jobs related
to wildlife preservation and a solar energy project. This created
dissent among folks from both sides of the aisle.
According to the Star Tribune, one state senator, a
Democrat from a northern Minneapolis suburb said: “There has been
a growing chorus from LCCMR that it should no longer fund habitat
acquisitions because of the new dollars [from the amendment].”
What an unusual concept — especially from a Democrat from
Minnesota. In fact, it’s such a rarity, I asked a Republican
commissioner: Was a Democrat legislator actually trying to create
jobs with money that was supposed to benefit the environment?
He laughed and said even though the Commission “leans Democratic”
there was a conservative principle brewing in the midst. “I know
her and do believe that was her intent. Though some people in the
dark alleys of St. Paul may think she was trying to arrange money
for special interests. She was looking at all this money and
trying to think of a way for people to have jobs in the spring.”
Fellow members disagreed. Democrats thought they couldn’t spare
the $2.2 million in her Amendment to fund Minnesota Conservation
Corps, a nonprofit group that hires young people to work towards
wildlife preservation. Republicans thought her amendment was some
kind of trick to keep the package from passing without their
recommendation, thereby encouraging liberal legislators to change
the bill and pass it to their specs.
The Republican commissioner said the bill — which includes the
amendment about jobs — will be considered by the House and could
still pass. He supports the move, though he worries someone —
“from my side unfortunately, a real right-wing conservative” —
may try to send the bill back, citing its failure to pass with
the Commission’s recommendation, causing more delays.
If jobs are so important to local legislators, however, why were
Minnesotans given the opportunity to vote themselves a tax
increase and implement the Clean Water Act — especially if $25
million already goes towards similar projects? Rep. Wagenius
herself supported the Clean Water Act
calling the end of last year’s session “the most successful
legislative session for the state’s environment and natural
resources in recent history.”
Those eyeing Minnesota’s $4.8 billion deficit may feel
differently, wondering if the fight between environmentalists and
proponents of fiscal stimulus shows that state legislators are
incapable of setting any budget priorities at all.
