It was nearly midnight at the Capitol late Saturday night when Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, laid out with notable clarity the case for including a tax increase on upper-income Minnesotans in this year's budget solution. Here's some of what she said to the Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy:

"This idea that tax increases are so evil, and cuts are not – I reject that. Cuts hurt people very personally, very seriously, very deeply, and actually very, very unfairly. That's what's so bad about cuts.

"You can raise revenue from a society in a fair way, or not. In a tax code, you can build some progressivity and fairness into a bad situation. "The fourth tier income tax increase (a new upper-income tax bracket, vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty on May 9) -- I want people to be really clear what that was. That affected 2.3 percent of Minnesota filers -- 2.3 percent of Minnesota filers, and 67 percent of that 2.3 percent earn over $1 million (per year). "If you're that person who used to earn $1 million, and you're the job creator, and now you don't have that money anymore because you've had capital gains losses or your company isn't doing as well, you're not paying the income tax. You're not up there. "Why a mix of taxes and (spending) cuts? Because, unlike with taxes, it's pretty darned hard to cut the rich. Cuts fall overwhelmingly on the poorest Minnesotans. It's almost impossible for that to not be so. Why is that? Because in the finance bills – and Republicans and Democrats have done this together -- we means-test programs. We don't give free college to millionaires. We don't give free health care to millionaires. We don't give property tax refunds to millionaires. We don't give renters' credit to millionaires. We don't do all these government services for the rich, other than in general ways that we all benefit from, like roads and street lights. Whenever we can means test, we do. "So when you are going through a cutting exercise, you cannot avoid disproportionately hurting those who are doing the poorest in society. Cuts are regressive. They just are. "We have a state tax system where the combined state and local tax burden continues to fall disproportionately on those who are the poorest in Minnesota, and those who are in the most affluent situations pay less as a percentage of their income than everyone else. Whether we have a deficit or a surplus, that's indefensible. "An appropriations bond alternative (to increased taxes, as advocated by Pawlenty) does not address that. It just imbeds the unfairness of the tax-and-spend equation combo of the Minnesota budget. It just says, we're OK that this continues to be a situation where those at the top levels of income in Minnesota pay less than everyone else. "I personally have to say, this deficit is an opportunity to fix that. We are wasting this deficit if we're not going to tackle some of these fairness issues. If we're just going to say, we can't have big thoughts because we're tired. We all have to be small thinkers because it's hard. So we can't take on any sacred cows. We'll just keep the current system in place and not change anything. I think that's a cop-out."