Nearly 85,000 working Minnesotans would lose their health care, while cities, counties, colleges and universities would see funding cuts in the first proposal in a generation to make year-to-year reductions in the state's budget.
The spartan 2010-11 budget proposed Tuesday by Gov. Tim Pawlenty would erase a $4.8 billion projected deficit and cut business taxes, but at a heavy cost to some Minnesotans.
To stanch the flow of red ink, Pawlenty would slash projected spending by $2.4 billion, employ nearly $1.3 billion in accounting shifts and, in an unexpected move, sell bonds that wring a one-time cash infusion from the state's yearly tobacco settlement funds.
The bonds, if they could be sold in today's flat-lined market, would bring in nearly $1 billion in revenue to help patch the state through what's expected to be a rough couple of years.
"This is a set of circumstances that I think is going to linger," Pawlenty said during his official budget release. But, he said, the state must do more than balance the bottom line in hard times. "This debate is not about where Minnesota is currently. It's about where Minnesota is headed."
To that end, Pawlenty said he will insist on halving the state's business taxes -- a move that will cost state coffers $287 million in the short run but which Pawlenty said will spark job growth.
Pawlenty is also counting on at least $920 million in federal stimulus funds to help the state out of its deficit hole. The figure is actually expected to be much higher -- about $3 billion or more -- but Pawlenty pointed out that fully half that money may go to "shovel-ready" projects that will benefit the state's economy, but not its budget. Whatever additional money comes in, he said, could serve as a cushion against the deeper declines expected in coming months.
The proposed budget is 2.2 percent smaller than the budget for the current biennium. The last time the state faced an actual year-to-year reduction in the budget -- as opposed to a reduction from projected levels -- was 1986, amid a recession that hit Minnesota's economy hard. The 2.2 percent reduction is more than the 1.5 percent reduction of 1986, but nowhere near as steep as the 17 percent year-to-year hit in 1983.