PoliGraph: Honour claim about gov’t spending correct

[image]

Last week, the five Republican candidates competing to unseat Gov. Mark Dayton gathered for a joint press conference to criticize a proposed office building for the state’s senators.

The group was unified in its belief that the project spells wasteful government spending. To underscore his opposition to the building, candidate Scott Honour pointed out that government is spending more on its citizens than ever before.

"Our government spends two-and-half-times as much per citizen today as it did 30 years ago."​

Create a More Connected Minnesota

MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.

Honour’s claim is correct, but only by one measure.

The Evidence

Honour is comparing inflation adjusted spending figures from 1980 and 2010 that come from the Census. He’s also only comparing direct state spending, which excludes money that’s exchanged between governmental entities.

Adjusted for inflation, Honour’s statement is correct. In 1980, the state spent about $2,060 per capita. In 2010, it spent $5,181 per capita – about 2.5 times more.

But the numbers are different if you compare more recent spending figures, overall state general fund spending or expenditures by biennium.

Case in point: In 1983 – exactly 30 years ago - there were about 4 million people living in Minnesota. That year, the state spent about $3.7 billion out of its general fund, according to Minnesota Management and Budget. That comes out to about $925 per capita, or about $2,163 when adjusted for inflation.

In 2013, there were about 5.3 million people living in Minnesota and the state spent about $18.8 billion out of its general fund that year, which comes out to $3,547 per capita – 1.6 times more.

The Verdict

Generally speaking, it’s true that the state spends more per person than it did three decades ago.

Using a particular set of data points and spending figures, Honour’s claim is correct.

But other sources of information, such as general fund spending from Minnesota Management and Budget, produce entirely different results.

That said, Honour’s methodology is not unreasonable. His claim earns an accurate.