Scott Jensen’s Unanswered $15,000,000,000 Question

Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen proposes to eliminate the state income tax.  At first blush, that might sound good to inflation-weary taxpayers. But to balance the state budget, such a change would necessitate $15 billion per year in service cuts and/or increases in other types of more regressive taxes.

Quite irresponsibly, Jensen won’t say what services he would cut, or what taxes he would increase, to balance the state budget.  But make no mistake, serious pain would result.  Jensen’s plan would necessitate massive cuts in education and/or health care, and/or a huge increase in property taxes, or other types of taxes that are more regressive than the state income tax. 

Shifting from the progressive state income tax to the regressive property tax is popular among the wealthiest Minnesotans, because that change would greatly benefit them. The progressive state income tax requires that the wealthiest Minnesotans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than is paid by the poorest Minnesotans.  On the other hand, regressive property, sales, and/or excise taxes put more of a burden on lower-income Minnesotans compared to the wealthiest Minnesotans.

Wealthy doctors like Jensen, multi-millionaire professional athletes like his running mate Matt Birk, and the most financially privileged Minnesotans who disproportionately fund Republican candidates don’t want to pay their fair share in taxes.  This is a political payoff to them.

Jensen’s proposal not only is a grossly inequitable giveaway to the wealthiest Minnesotans, it’s also dishonest.  Jensen only discloses the benefits – no more income tax bill! – without disclosing the costs – crippling school cutbacks, slashed health care services for vulnerable Minnesotans, and/or crushing property tax increases. All of those costs are enormously unpopular with Minnesotans, so Scott Jensen simply refuses to answer that critical $15,000,000,0000 question.

Jensen isn’t explaining the downside of eliminating the state income tax, but reporters should be doing that. Unfortunately, it’s barely happening.  Compared to heavy front page reporting on Walz’s actions related to a nonprofit fraud prosecution and the debate over the number of debates, this hugely consequential policy proposal has received relatively scant coverage.

One exception is the Minnesota Reformer. Though the Reformer has relatively light readership, it has done thoughtful and constructive reporting, such as this

“Minnesota has a steeply progressive individual income tax, meaning households with higher incomes have a higher tax rate as a share of their income compared to lower income households. Eliminating individual income taxes would disproportionately burden low-income Minnesotans while giving huge tax cuts to the state’s wealthiest.

‘Progressive income taxes are integral to having budgets that can meet the needs of all citizens, and they’re also really important in ensuring racial and socioeconomic equity,’ said Neva Buktus, state policy analyst for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ‘Eliminating the personal income tax would completely throw that out the window.’

Each year, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy creates a ranking of state tax systems and how they foster income inequality.

The six least equitable in the U.S. are among the nine states with no individual income taxes. Minnesota’s progressive personal income tax makes it one of the least regressive in the country — 47th out of 50. That means our lowest income earners get a better deal than nearly every other American when it comes to state and local taxes. 

‘If you’re going to eliminate the income tax, there’s no way to spin it. It disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Minnesotans by a long shot,’ Buktus said.”

At other major news outlets, my best guess is that reporters are shrugging off the issue relative to other issues because they believe that elimination of the state income tax could never pass the Legislature.   

It’s not reporters’ jobs to gauge likelihood of passage.  After all, no one knows what the future makeup of the Legislature might be if voters sweep Republicans into office, as historical trends portend.  Instead, reporters are supposed to explain the candidates’ major policy proposals and analyze the consequences so voters can make fully informed decisions.

That’s just not happening as much as it should. Whatever the thinking in Twin Cities newsrooms about Jensen’s most radical and reckless policy proposal, their silence on the topic has been deafening. 

Beyond Ability to Pay, Stadium Authority Needs To Assure Monitoring, Disclosure and Accountability

vikings_stadiumAfter weeks of delay, Minnesota Vikings owner Zygmunt “Zygi” Wilf is finally sharing more financial information to prove he has sufficient financing to pay his share of the new Vikings stadium.  Or, more precisely, Mr. Wilf is proving that he has enough money available, minus whatever he has to pay in a pending fraud and racketeering judgment against him, plus a boat load of financial help from the National Football League, a forthcoming corporate naming rights deal, and Vikings fans’ personal seat license fees.

That’s progress.  Proving ability to pay is a necessary condition of moving forward with the stadium.  But while it’s necessary, it’s far from sufficient. Minnesota taxpayers also need assurances that the pledges Wilf makes in the stadium agreement are kept.

Not “One Single Financial Statement That Is True”

If you think that’s too paranoid, populist or punitive, remember what New Jersey Judge Superior Court Judge Deanne Wilson said just a few days ago about Wilf’s behavior in another business partnership (from MPR):

“The bad faith and evil motive were demonstrated in the testimony of Zygi Wilf himself,” Superior Court Judge Deanne Wilson said, adding the Wilfs hadn’t fulfilled the “barest minimum” of their pledges as partners in the deal. “I do not believe I have seen one single financial statement that is true and accurate.”

Officially, she ruled that Zygi Wilf, his brother Mark and cousin Leonard committed fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and violated New Jersey’s civil racketeering law.”

“I do not believe I have seen one single financial statement that is true and accurate.”  Gulp.  Judge Wilson’s statement should be disconcerting to anyone thinking about entering into a business partnership with the Wilfs, including the Minnesota taxpayers about to sign onto a half billion dollar partnership with them.

 Ability To Pay Not The Only Safeguard Needed

The Stadium Authority’s oversight must go beyond ability to pay.  It must also look into the veracity of other claims the Vikings owners have made so far, and, just as importantly, set up a tight system for monitoring whether the Wilfs are being honest throughout the life of the contract.

Financial oversight is certainly not my field, but maybe “keeping them honest” means regular audits, with large penalties for financial statement shenanigans.  Maybe it means requiring holding large amounts of the Wilf’s money in escrow until major partnership obligations are fulfilled.   It surely means plenty of public disclosure of all of any accountability-related reports.

 Rush to the Ribbon Cutting

Negotiating such accountability measures may take time, and consequently delay the project.  Though the delay has been caused by the Wilf’s own stonewalling, it would be unfortunate if the Vikings had to play some extra games in the University of Minnesota stadium, and if the delay drove up the cost of the project.  But a delay would not be as unfortunate as  the taxpayers getting stiffed because the stadium authority was in too big of a rush to hold a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The Wilfs and the NFL won’t like the idea of being subject to penalties for bad partnership behavior.  They will send spokesman Lester Bagley out to express outrage and hurt feelings.  This from the folks who are freshly convicted of fraud and racketeering.  This from the  folks who regularly penalize their employees for the high crime of having fun with end zone dances.

Minnesota taxpayers should no longer care about Zygi and Lester’s hurt feelings or delayed ribbon cuttings.   In the wake of Judge Wilson’s startling findings about the Wilf’s past partnership chicanery, “Wilf has the cash” is no longer a good enough assurance for Minnesota taxpayers.  Taxpayers need the Stadium Authority to take their time, and assure taxpayers that “Wilf has the cash, and he’s being regularly monitored and held publicly accountable.”

Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota‘s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Zygigate Headlines I Hope To Read

WilfMinnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has announced that he refuses to negotiate with stadium officials until they finish looking into his finances.  In the Star Tribune coverage of this development, Team Wilf strikes a rather bratty tone:

The Minnesota Vikings said Friday there is “no point” in negotiating the user and development agreements for a new stadium while the state agency responsible for it is conducting an investigation of the team’s owners.

“Until the authority has the confidence in our organization there’s no point in moving forward with negotiations,” said Lester Bagley, the Vikings’ vice president of public affairs and stadium development.

In an interview with Politics in Minnesota’s Weekly Report, Chair of Metropolitan Sports Facility Authority (MFSA) Michelle Kelm-Helgen sounded baffled by the Vikings ownership’s snit:

In news accounts, they said we were not good partners at this point. Here’s what I would like to say: They’ve been very clear that they will not talk about these agreements anymore until the due diligence is done. I try to interpret what they mean by that, and I’m not sure I fully understand it. Does the fact that we’re doing this due diligence make us bad partners? We need to reassure the people of Minnesota before the agreement is signed and the bonds are sold that there are no further problems or liabilities out there. If that makes us bad partners, I don’t understand that.

Again, all of this comes a few days after Wilf was found guilty of reneging on a multi-million dollar business partnership deal.  Wilf justified these illegal actions by saying he felt another Wilf family member gave the partner too good of a deal, so Zygi took it upon himself to unilaterally right the perceived wrong in a manner that apparently was outside of, let’s just say, generally accepted accounting practices.  The judge in the case said Wilf had an “evil” motive.

At the very moment this judgement came down, Minnesota taxpayers were about to go into a $975 million business partnership with the Wilfs, with taxpayers paying around half of the cost.  And Team Wilf acts as if the Governor and his appointees have no right to ask questions on taxpayers’ behalf?

Just from a pure entertainment standpoint, the headline of news coverage of this latest melodrama could become interesting:

Perp Pride: Convicted Vikings Owner Claims Victimhood?

Lone Wilf Howls From Negotiation Sidelines

 Limber Wilf:  Owner Who Defrauded Partner Calls State A Bad Partner

Zygi A Victim, Or Wilf In Sheep’s Clothing?

Dayton:  No More Wilf Guarding The Chicken Coop

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post also appeared in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.