Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Capitol View®
Catharine Richert

PoliGraph: Honour claim about gov’t spending correct

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

[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."​

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.