SENATE DISTRICT 42
REPUBLICANS BLOG
REPRESENTING EDEN PRAIRIE AND SOUTHERN MINNETONKA

'Socialism' should be added to DFL's name
By Brad Kustermann, St. Cloud

About a year ago, I read a letter that stated how the DFL Party should add an "S" to its acronym. The "S" stood for socialism.

After the bills that have been proposed and passed this legislative session, that letter couldn't be more accurate.

First, the definition of socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the redistribution of wealth and/or government ownership of the means of production, but let's not get bogged down in definitions.

Socialism means taking from the people who have something, what the DFL calls wealth, and giving it to people who they think need it, likely voters.

One could call it "Robin Hood" politics, but to most, it's called stealing.

That brings me to our DFL(S)-dominated Legislature. This year the DFL(S) has executed an all-out assault on taxpayers, and we're not just talking about creating a fourth income tax bracket to pay down property taxes, either.

Between the House and Senate, the DFL(S) has proposed to raise taxes on:

» Gasoline, E85, wheelage, triple the tax on cars and hearses.

» 50 percent fee increase for homeowners when they file any papers related to the purchase, transfer, mortgaging, sale or other transfer of property.

» Higher taxes on local deeds.

» 10 percent tax on birthday and anniversary gifts, cell phones, landline phones, video and electronic equipment, wine, hard cider, beer, food and clothes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, people!

So while you are contacting your legislator to create a fourth income tax bracket on the so-called rich for property tax relief, remember the DFL(S) has their hands in your pockets, too!

Much of the debate about taxes in Minnesota these days revolves around how the rich do not pay their fair share. The most commonly cited statistic is that the middle class pays a higher share of their income in taxes than the rich, and that sounds unfair.

The statistic comes from a report done biannually by the Minnesota Department of Revenue called the Tax Incidence Study. The latest report, using 2004 data, shows that the median taxpaying family in Minnesota paid an effective state and local tax rate of more than 12 percent, but the top 10 percent of the income distribution paid 10.9 percent.

Tax study

Most readers of the study have focused on the residential property tax as the biggest culprit in this unfair tax situation. As a result, the Legislature now proposes to raise the personal income tax on the very top of taxpayers to pay for property tax relief.

Some media reports and the DFL call this a "tax swap," but whose taxes are being swapped?

The tax-incidence study assumes businesses move capital around in response to tax rates; if business taxes are raised in Minnesota, some of those taxes are shifted onto consumers in higher prices, some onto workers in lower wages, and some disappear as corporations move to other states. That shifting is what leads to the result that higher-income families pay less of the taxes.

Shifting taxes

Yet the study assumes that when someone's individual income taxes increase, no shifting happens. More than 100,000 firms, however, form themselves as S-corporations, up from 48,000 in 1994, during which time the number of C-corporations stayed flat at fewer than 55,000.

The S-corporation is a form of business operation in which the owner receives his income, and pays taxes, through the personal income tax. C-corporations pay the corporate franchise tax.

It is curious, then, that we assume one kind of corporation can shift taxes but the other cannot. And this ignores the sole proprietorships and partnerships that also receive income and pay income taxes at the individual rate. Such families and businesses are mobile.

According to a State Demographic Data Center study, 23.2 percent of families with heads of household from ages 35 to 54 that left Minnesota from 1995-2000 had household income of more than $100.000. The median income for people that age who moved into the state was $2,000 less. Thus Minnesota lost income, production and tax base due to migration when the top individual income tax rate held at 7.85 percent.

Not a good idea

What will happen if we raise the rate to 9 percent? And who bears the burden of the individual income tax increase?

The Tax Incidence Study says the "incidence of a particular Minnesota tax on business depends on how Minnesota's tax rate compares to those of other states." The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce reports that from 1998-99 Minnesota lost $170 million of income to migration to Florida, Arizona, South Dakota, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada.

No doubt warm weather for retirees played some role, but three states ( Florida, South Dakota and Nevada) have no state individual income tax, and two others, Colorado and Arizona, have rates far below current Minnesota rates. An increase could accelerate the outflow of higher-income earning families. So some will leave. Others will raise prices and lower wages, even if the study assumes they don't.

From where will Minnesotans get their property tax relief? From the people who get the lower wages, the higher prices, and the entrepreneurs we do not drive out of the state. If there are any.

-------------------------
King Banaian is the blogger who writes SCSU Scholars, formerly a group blog but now a solo operation. Aside from blogging, he is a Professor of Economics, as well as Chairman of that department at Saint Cloud State University. He writes often on issues of money and central banking, and was an advisor to the Ukrainian central bank in 1996. His 1986 dissertation was on political business cycles. He is also an author and his latest book is due out in May 2008.

Read discussion of this column here.

The Inside Story on DFL Legislators’ Appetite for Taxes
By Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

On Nov. 2, 2006, just before the election, Gary Eichten of Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midday” program hosted a roundtable discussion with legislative leaders. Margaret Anderson Kelliher, now speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was among the four. Eichten went around the table with a question: “Other than a possible gas tax increase, do you see any need to raise taxes in the next couple of years?” Kelliher’s answer? A decisive “no.”

Today, Kelliher has settled into her leadership role, and the DFL has proposed a jaw-dropping $5 billion in tax increases, according to House Republican caucus calculations. The Senate has passed an almost $1 billion income tax increase, proposing the nation’s highest tax rate on top earners, and the House’s increase is not far behind. Both chambers have approved a gas tax increase of 50 percent and a metrowide sales tax increase.

Next time around, Minnesota voters will know what Kelliher’s assurances mean.

But aren’t the bulk of new taxes only on the super-rich? Not the gas tax or the sales tax, or increases in business taxes that get passed on to consumers and employees.

And if you look beyond the tax increases that have passed to those being proposed by one DFLer or another — well, you’d probably rather not.

“The Democrats are proposing increases on everything that lives, moves and dies,” marvels Rep. Steve Sviggum.”

Take the proposed increase of 360 percent in beer taxes. “That’s the stuff I drink,” says Sviggum, who farms near Kenyon. The Chardonnay crowd gets soaked, too, with a 350 percent boost on wine.

Anyone in your family have a cell phone, or three? A DFL bill would raise the maximum tax — er, “fee” — on telecommunications devices by 46 percent.

Last time I checked, folks in subsidized housing had to turn on the lights like everyone else. They may want to shut a few off, with a proposed 25-cent tax on every incandescent light bulb.

How about your wheels? DFLers propose tripling the registration tax on cars (your used Ford Taurus as well as new BMWs), raising the cost of license tabs and allowing counties to charge a wheelage tax.

Then there’s the proposal to allow cities and counties to impose a transportation-impact fee on building permits. When you dine at the Applebee’s that just went up around the corner, you’ll pay for it.

The list goes on: A proposed tax increase on gifts (maybe next year, Grandma), cosmetic surgery, even gravel.

The DFL won’t even let you die in peace. When you keel over in shock at all of the above, a bill would triple the tax on your hearse.

What happened between Kelliher’s pre-election “no” to new taxes, and today? DFLers are now insisting that new taxes are essential to fund the state’s basic needs.

But that’s balderdash. Minnesota’s budget for this biennium is $31.5 billion. Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s budget proposal would spend $34.6 billion in 2008-09. That’s an almost 10 percent increase in available funds, without raising taxes.

“Most reasonable people say you ought to be able to live with that,” says Sviggum.

But the DFLers are driven by a voracious pent-up demand, after eight years out of power in the House and 17 years since the last DFL governor.

They also face the politician’s perennial problem of overpromising to special constituencies. Even as Kelliher was dispelling concern about new taxes on “Midday,” DFLers were making lavish promises to every spending interest in the state –for universal health care, all-day kindergarten, greatly expanded K-12 spending, environmental improvements and local government aid.

Now they’ve got to make good on those promises. Or do they?

DFLers know they can party like there’s no tomorrow, because there’s at least one grown-up in the neighborhood. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has assured Minnesotans that his veto pen is ready. When our legislators clear their bleary heads in June, they’ll have a ready-made excuse for special interest groups: “I wanted to give you the moon, but that tightwad in the governor’s mansion wouldn’t let me.”

Senate bills will harm, not help small businesses
By Teresa Bohnen, President St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce

I am writing on behalf of the St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce board of directors to voice our disappointment and frustration with the Senate tax bills that were passed Friday and Saturday — SF 1024 and SF 1611.

Every business owner in the St. Cloud area will feel the impact of these bills. With no alternative, the additional costs to businesses will certainly be passed on to consumers as price increases and inflation. The overall impact will be a declining state economy we cannot afford.

We are concerned about the impact of a statewide business property tax increase of $222 million in fiscal 2008-09 that grows to $476 million in fiscal 2010-11.

In our presession meetings with legislators, we stressed the importance of protecting the property tax reform that chambers of commerce achieved for our members in 1998.

Minnesota businesses already have three times the property tax burden of homeowners and pay among the highest property taxes in the country.

The Senate is also supporting the highest personal income tax bracket in the country at 9.7 percent.

Our Chamber views this as a tax on our small business owners, partnerships and sole proprietors who run their business income through their personal taxes.

The long-term impact of such a tax increase is to run small businesses out of Minnesota, just as retirees with accumulated assets have been run out before them.

Small businesses are the life-blood of our Chamber of Commerce and our community.

This $1.5 billion tax increase sends an alarming message of disregard for the future of our state's economy and the businesses, small and large, rural and metro, that provide jobs to Minnesota citizens.

DFLers, what's with all these tax increases?
By Gary Gross, St. Cloud

A lot has changed since I attended a town hall meeting hosted by Sen. Tarryl Clark and Reps. Larry Haws and Steve Gottwalt in January.

After the meeting, Clark stopped to visit and I asked her why the first six bills introduced in the Senate each included tax increases. At that time, Clark said the Senate would only focus on two tax bills, including one that would cut property taxes.

Last week we learned that a bill submitted by Sen. Steve Murphy was "being fast-tracked" to the Senate floor and that it included an assortment of tax increases, including a gas-tax increase that would more than double the gas tax during the next decade.

To his credit, Murphy said, "I'm not trying to fool anybody. There's a lot of taxes in this bill." If that isn't enough to get your blood boiling, then consider that Sen. Sandy Pappas thinks a 9.5 percent increase in the higher education budget — a $296 million increase — is "starving higher education." What's worse is that she's predicting that tuitions will increase despite this increase.

What makes her comments disgusting is several colleges are charging in-state tuition to students who don't live in reciprocity states. Minnesota's taxpayers are subsidizing those special tuition rates.

The other bad news is that they're using this subsidy to attract more students, then telling the Legislature that they need more money to reduce class sizes. In other words, the DFL is intent on increasing taxes while increasing college tuitions while we're subsidizing students from anywhere in the world.

I don't think that's a good deal for Minnesota's taxpayers.

Voters should take note of DFL's taxing leadership
By Leo Pusateri, St. Cloud

The arrogance of the Minnesota DFL knows no bounds. First, they voted themselves a per diem allowance increase that would give them more untaxable money to eat in one day than an average person spends on groceries for a week, and went on to attempt to punish those who voted against the extravagance.

Then, after our being overtaxed to the tune of more than $2 billion, they now have the nerve to want to confiscate even more money from us in the form of wheelage tax increases, extra taxes on cosmetic surgery, and even an increase on already confiscatory income tax rates.

The DFL's blatant arrogance and reckless stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer dollars has even led DFL Rep. Cy Thao (DFL 65-A) to reportedly proclaim to Steve Gottwalt, "When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money."

It is my fervent hope that such blatant levels of arrogance by the DFL will be long remembered when voters return to the polls in coming elections.

Budget Surplus
By Brian Lundquist, former Chanhassen City Councilmember

As our legislative session kicks into high gear, there is lots of "talk" about all the issues and even some action -- but I wonder "Are we talking about the right stuff?"

We got some great news early in the year about a projected $2 billion surplus in the state coffers. Happy days are here again! The interesting thing is how quickly everyone lined up to get a piece of it and in addition to that how many tax increase bills are still being proposed. Here are some interesting statistics:

The Tax Foundation lists Minnesota's total tax burden at fifth largest in the country at 33.6 percent.

Our tax freedom day is May 3rd. That means 33.6 cents of every dollar the average Minnesotan earns goes to pay some sort of tax and it takes your salary from January 1 to May 3 -- 100 percent of it -- to pay your tax bill for the year.

The Minnesota State Department of Finance shows that the biennial General Fund budget has increased over 50 percent since 1998. If it were $50, that wouldn't be a big deal, but it's gone from $21 billion to $32.5 billion in just eight years with only one of those cycles at less than double digit percentage increases.

CareerInfonet shows the three largest employers in Minnesota are the federal government, state of Minnesota, and the University of Minnesota. The smallest of them is the University at 25,000 employees. Thank goodness for 3M, the largest non-government employer in Minnesota with less than half of the third place winner at 12,200 employees. No wonder it takes until May 3 to pay that bill!

Of the top 25 largest employers in Minnesota, 14 are hospitals, clinics, or other healthcare related businesses. Gotta love those state and federal health care mandates. Just in case you were wondering, the total tax bill doesn't include health care premiums and related expenses -- those are extra.

Those statistics and a good bit of research in my profession lead me to propose that Minnesota is an expensive state to live, work, and play in. Don't get me wrong -- I love it here and chose to move back in 2000 after seven years away. That said, everything has its limits and we often don't see them until it's too late.

So my question to my fellow residents and honorable legislators is why aren't we giving the surplus back to the taxpayers? When Exxon Mobile reports record earnings, people get up in arms and want to throw a "windfall profits tax" on them. Ladies and gentlemen, your state government has taken $2 billion dollars more of your money in the form of income taxes than it needs to operate and instead of giving it back they are lining up to spend it and nonchalantly authoring bills to extract more of your income. A 50 percent increase in eight years and the fifth highest burden in the country at 33.6 percent isn't enough?

What would happen to a business if they announced that they had overcharged their customers by $2 billion over a two-year period, they knew it was coming, and then proceeded to take more?

Instead, the topics that dominate the media are smoking bans on private property and the strictest renewable energy in the country -- things that government should not be involved in to begin with.

There are a few legislators willing to fight for the taxpayers but they are seriously outnumbered -- they need some help. Let your legislators and the governor know you want them to talk about the right stuff -- your money. Give back the surplus in the form of income tax relief. Don't let them mask it in some form of property tax "relief". That's not where the money came from. Those are your income tax dollars -- ask them to give it back, in income tax relief. It's your money and your choice.
------------------------------------
Lundquist is a Chanhassen resident and former member of the Chanhassen City Council

Senators punished for saying no? Gag me!
By Randy Krebs, Opinion editor

Since becoming Opinion Page editor about seven years ago, every legislative session I've followed has had at least one (but usually many more) "gag me" moments.

Thanks to the Senate and especially Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, that streak remains alive.

My first "gag me" moment of the 2007 session came this week in following how senators handled their absurd effort to increase their pay without increasing their salary. In case you missed it, the full Senate voted Wednesday to approve raising their daily expense allowance from $66 to $96.

That means during this 140-day session they now can collect up to $13,440 for daily expenses. And they aren't even required to provide receipts!

Now, you might think that's what tripped my Gag-o-meter. Not really. You see, back in January, after the Senate Rules Committee approved this plan, I helped craft a Times Our View noting the ridiculousness of the matter. That editorial appeased my personal beliefs and kept me from gagging.

But Wednesday's full Senate vote was more than I could take.

How come?

Because the proposal that was presented required senators who voted against the raise to fill out paperwork to get their expenses covered at less than the $96-a-day rate.

In other words, if you voted against the raise you were literally being punished financially for having a different opinion.

Gag me!

Sen. Tom Neuville of Northfield, obviously more of a diplomat than myself, called such a requirement "disrespectful." I call it stupid, asinine, immature. Wait, where's my thesaurus?

Come on! What kind of message are Senate leaders sending by allowing legislation that literally comes with a price if you oppose it? Can you truly get any further away from "free and open" debate in the Legislature than this?

DFL Majority Leader Pogemiller defined the strategy as "You can't vote 'no' and take the dough."

Well, if he wants to live on that philosophy, then I would expect him to require senators who vote against a road project not be allowed to drive on that road when it's done. In fact, I will be expecting the Senate very soon to provide financial details on the "costs" and "benefits" of all votes.

If anything, the proposal should have been structured the opposite way. Senators who voted for the $30-a-day raise should be required to go through more paperwork to get that $96.

At least then they would have to actually work a little for the extra money.

OUR VIEW: State senators wrong to take pay raise
By Darrell Ehrlick, editor, on behalf of the Winona Daily News editorial board

The Minnesota Senate lost a fair amount of credibility this week, and it's sad to say that our own senators, Sharon Erickson Ropes and Steve Murphy, went along with their colleagues to undermine that credibility.

On Wednesday, most of the Senate members voted themselves a pay raise. They wouldn't call it that. It was simply an increase to the per diems, the amount of money that taxpayers give to pay for meals and other incidental costs while the Legislature is in session. But, it means more money in their pocket and more out of ours.

Public service must not mean taking a vow of poverty. Then again, being a public servant means putting the interests of the citizens ahead of your own. And, that's clearly where the Senate blew it.

Ropes told the Winona Daily News that previous legislators have passed the buck, and it finally stopped this session. More important, Ropes touted the increase as a win for government transparency, when normally a pay hike like this would just get passed in a Senate subcommittee.

“Here, we put it to a floor vote,” Ropes said. “We can agree that it's good to have transparency.”

It's good that we can see it, but we don't necessarily like what we're seeing.

Before deciding important budget issues, before talking about public education spending, before addressing health care, senators made sure they got theirs. They didn't put themselves at the back of the line, they put themselves ahead by taking more money.

And that seems somehow particularly disingenuous after all of this election talk of reform, ethics and responsibility. In a word, change. On Wednesday, the Senate sent a dangerous message when it engaged in politics as usual.

Ropes voted for the increase, from $69 per day to $96. A check of her claims reveals that she has taken the full amount, too.

Ropes would do well to remember her predecessor, Bob Kierlin, even if they served different political parties. He always kept fiscal responsibility in mind, understanding the old saw about watching the dimes and nickels “knowing that the dollars will take care of themselves.”

Ropes countered that voters need to make sure the pay is at least enough to make sure it doesn't keep out good candidates who cannot afford to take a pay hit just to serve the voters. And, she's also said she will not take per diem expenses on days she is not working, like Sunday.

“People need to know they are getting their money's worth out of me. (Thursday) I put in a 14½-hour day,” Ropes said.

And, for a senator who touts his “everyman” appeal, Murphy isn't getting paid like the average citizen.

The pay increase means a boost of $30 per day. This is a 45 percent increase in just the per diems. Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller told the St. Paul Pioneer Press the increase was designed to cover inflationary costs since the last time the allowance was raised eight years ago.

Well, Larry, the cost of food hasn't risen that much in eight years.

Back at home, we wonder how many average citizens spend $96 a day for food? That translates to nearly $2,900 a month on food -- more than many pay for a mortgage. There's something galling about a Senate that often resorts to a well-worn refrain of living within budgetary means and then proceeds to take personal perks that most senators could not otherwise afford.

Keep in mind the per diem allowance is in addition to a salary, housing allowances and mileage. It is money grab of the worst kind -- one that will cost taxpayers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Next time you visit with your senator, whoever that may be, ask how far that money could have gone for health care reform, or hiring teachers or fixing roads.

Toeing the party line doesn't cut it either. There are some issues worth breaking ranks with a party over -- and good financial stewardship should be one of those issues high on Ropes' and Murphy's list.

We are disappointed that as Murphy sits on the transportation committee, speaking about the paucity of funds, he has taken thousands away from those projects and given it to himself.

We are disappointed that Ropes decided to put her needs in front of those of her constituents. On the campaign trail, she often told of learning the ropes when she was a school board member -- she worked in the lunchroom, watched children on the playground and knew the state of health care from her time as a nurse. Hopefully, she hasn't too quickly forgotten that those people who left a lasting impression on her are the same ones who could never afford $96 per day on food, yet are the same ones footing the bill.
----------------------------
By Darrell Ehrlick, editor, on behalf of the Winona Daily News editorial board, which also includes publisher Rusty Cunningham, Jerome Christenson, online editor and photo editor James A. Bowey.

DFLers in the State Legislature are Spendaholics
By: Gary Gross, St. Cloud

Since the Minnesota Legislature reconvened three weeks ago, Democrats have proposed raising six forms of taxes:

» Raising the state gas tax by a dime a gallon.

» Raising license tab fees on newly purchased vehicles.

» Allowing counties to charge up to $20 annually for every car.

» Raising the sales tax by three-eighths of a cent.

» Raising the cigarette tax $1 to $1.20 per pack.

» Increasing property taxes by allowing school districts to levy local property owners for the full cost of running ice arenas, instead of the current limit of 90 percent of the cost.

Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL- St. Cloud and the assistant Senate majority leader, characterized the tax increases this way: "What we're putting forth in these first six bills, and others to follow, is a set of policy initiatives that aim to put Minnesota on a stable, sustainable long-term path for growth."

In other words, they're spending the state's $2.3 billion surplus while raising these taxes already and admitting that they're planning on spending a lot more money in the future.

Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague and assistant House minority leader, has proposed this series of tax cuts:

» Cut income taxes by a half percent on the lowest tier.

» Provide tax deductions to ethanol producers.

» Adjust the deduction for classroom expenses for inflation.

» Extend the overall deductions for another year to match the bill passed by Congress.

» Provide tax deductions to small businesses statewide.

Democrats blocked debate of her tax bill because voting against tax cuts would threaten the political careers of the large freshman class of House Democrats.

Rep. Steve. Gottwalt had this to say: "With a state budget surplus conservatively estimated at $2.3 billion, we have to ask, 'Isn't that enough?' Yet the proposals we're seeing would spend far beyond even the $2.3 billion surplus! That's enough."

Except if you're a spendaholic.

Minnesota Senate DFLers should quit raising taxes
By Brad Kustermann St. Cloud

Whatever happened to government living within its means? Minnesota Senate DFL and Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, who is the Senate DFL spokeswoman, proposed tax increases on gasoline and cigarettes, as well as raising senators’ per diem, which would allow them to draw $13,440 this year, while at the same time proposing property tax relief.

Watch out, Minnesotans, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Tax increases on gasoline and cigarettes are regressive taxes that hurt the low and middle classes.

Let me get this straight: Now that gas prices are finally less than $2 a gallon, we need a gas tax.

A gasoline tax would stifle small businesses such as trucking, delivery, construction, farming, etc. High gas prices cut into their profits, which could be used to expand their enterprise and create jobs, which by the way is the best welfare program.

This was proved just last summer when gasoline was $3.15 a gallon and construction companies were gasping for financial air. Democrats want to add another 10 cents per gallon to the already highly volatile commodity.

As for lowering property taxes, it does not matter because they are lowering one tax and increasing others that everyone pays in some shape or form. It ends up being a zero sum gain. Why does the DFL think they need to raise our taxes?

The state has a $2.3 billion surplus. In February, the state's next budget forecast comes out and the surplus could be even larger.

The fact is the DFL and Clark act like a bunch of drunken sailors with a weekend pass. And when a state requires a balanced budget, raising taxes is the only way they can keep big-government interest groups happy.

Lawmakers increase their per diem rates
Critics call move a 'backdoor' pay increase
By Brian Bakst, Associated Press

Expense checks for state legislators are on the way up after bipartisan votes Wednesday to raise daily allowances and lodging reimbursements, regarded by some as a pay increase in disguise.

The maximum daily allowances for meals and incidental costs for state senators jumped from $66 to $96, a 45 percent increase. In the House, the rate climbed to $77. Both chambers also sweetened housing reimbursement programs for members who have to uproot themselves during the session.

"We're all entitled to a little cost-of-living allowance now and again," said Rep. Ron Erhardt, R-Edina.

The cost to taxpayers depends on how many legislators collect checks and how many choose to take less than the maximum. Lawmakers can take per diem payments seven days a week while the Legislature is in session, which is expected to be 140 days in 2007. They don't have to produce receipts.

If all 201 members took the full amount “an unlikely scenario” the added cost of per diems alone would approach $500,000 for the 2007 session.

The Senate last adjusted its expense rate in 2001; the House made its most recent change two years ago.

Republican legislators sponsored the increases in both chambers, and Democrats made sure they went through.

The changes were made by both chambers' rules committees, composed of senior members, and require no additional approval. The Senate's increase came on a voice vote with no audible opposition. Four Republicans came up on the short end of a 22-4 vote in the House committee.

The Minnesota Constitution says pay raises can't take effect until after the election, when they are passed into law. But that provision traditionally has been applied to general salaries and not expense allowances.

Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, argued the boost stretches the constitutional bar. “I don't believe we should be backdooring” a pay increase, he said. “If $77 a day is what's needed for food,” Buesgens added, “that's some awful rich eating.”

For individual senators, the change means a possible $4,200 more this year for meal expenses. For House members, the extra allowance adds up to $1,540 more in 2007.

Sen. Dick Day, R-Owatonna, said he's uneasy with the height of the new expense ceiling.

“It is steep, there's no doubt about that -- awfully steep,” said Day, who doesn't sit on the rules committee and didn't vote on the increase. “I never ran for office thinking I was going to get a raise. I knew what the wages were. We all did.”

Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said he doesn't consider the bump to be a backdoor pay increase.

“It's reasonable to expect that members be reimbursed for reasonable expenses,” he said.

Standard House and Senate salaries have been stuck at $31,140 since 1999, although leaders get an extra stipend.

Pogemiller and House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, said lawmakers should consider raising legislative and executive branch pay to make public service more attractive.

“We don't want a Legislature of only those who can afford to be legislators,” Sertich said.

Only two senators -- John Marty of Roseville and Dick Cohen of St. Paul, both Democrats -- had previously informed Senate budget officers they would take less than the maximum in per diem expenses. Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, refuses a per diem for weekends and holidays.

In the House, about three dozen members took less than the maximum during the 2006 session, said Paul Schweizer, the House controller.

The housing checks go to members whose homes are at least 50 miles from the Capitol. They can rent apartments and receive reimbursements for their actual costs. The new monthly maximum is $1,200, an amount paid out year-round.

Twenty-eight of 67 senators collect the allowance, and 11 senators had rents that exceeded the old $900 maximum, Senate officials said.

The House had been at $1,200, but the committee cleared the way for its members to collect the housing money for the full year instead of the six-month window previously in place. That change would cost the state an extra $410,000 a year if the 57 House members now receiving rent reimbursement were to seek the full reimbursement.