Despite the fact that Minnesota spends $1.5 billion each biennium paying off our debts on previously approved capital investment projects, the Star Tribune Editorial Board recently stated that lawmakers should exceed "the outdated $1 billion bonding bill ceiling" this year ("Don't delay needed transportation funds," April 17).

It appears that the Editorial Board believes, like Gov. Mark Dayton and others, that borrowing at least $1 billion every other year should be the rule at the State Capitol and not the exception.

It's worth reminding folks that bonding is not free. It comes at a significant cost to Minnesota's taxpayers, and over the past few years, their financial burden has grown at astronomical rates.

In 2010, debt-service payments from Minnesota's general fund totaled $450 million. Today, we are spending $750 million every year to chip away at our bonding debt. This growth places it among the fastest-growing categories in the general fund. This means the focus of previous legislatures has been to borrow first and not worry about the future fiscal consequences.

This year, Dayton has proposed a $1.4 billion capital investment bill, and the Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) office is on record as saying we could borrow more than $3 billion. Based on this, it's clear that the bonding guidelines we have in place are flawed, if not ineffective, as the temptation to borrow more than we should continues to grow each year.

This is why we support a bipartisan bill that would limit how much money from the general fund could be used to pay for capital investment borrowing.

Setting a debt-service cap at 3.5 percent of projected revenue would end the current unsustainable rate of growth in debt service and potentially would improve the state's credit rating. In short, it would protect the taxpayers by forcing future legislatures to keep borrowing in check.

Just because MMB says lawmakers can borrow more doesn't mean we should, and the governor's $1.4 billion bonding proposal only exacerbates the problem. Minnesota simply cannot afford these continued, massive increases in debt payments. At some point, we need to ask ourselves when our borrowing level is unsustainable and overburdening our state's taxpayers. We feel that day has arrived.

To be clear, we both strongly favor a reasonable bonding bill this session. There are significant needs across Minnesota, especially when it comes to rehabilitating and preserving assets already owned by the state. But first we should settle spending in our transportation and tax-relief proposals, then turn to borrowing.

While the Editorial Board appears to favor a capital investment proposal based on how much Minnesota could borrow, we are focusing on an amount at which we should prudently borrow. We need to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and we will continue our push for fiscal responsibility while continuing to meet Minnesota's construction needs.

Paul Torkelson, R-Hanska, is the chairman of the Minnesota House Capital Investment Committee. Bob Vogel, R-Elko New Market, is chief author of the debt-service cap legislation in the Minnesota House.