Governor Pawlenty released his proposal for a balanced budgetearlier today. He encouragedMinnesotans to begin "looking forward, not back, and setting priorities thatwill deliver a better future." That's very good advice when you're setting priorities on spending otherpeoples money – money that's in short supply in many households these days.

Lawmakers are currently staring down a $5 billion budgethole. An easier way to look atthis is to say that the 2009 – 2010 budget deficit is roughly $1,000 perMinnesotan. That super-sizeddeficit is going to require many creative solutions. Before they ask my household to hand over an additional$2,000 in taxes this year, I'd like lawmakers to take a look at some of theproposals set forth by Governor Pawlenty and justify why we need these programsfrom the past. And let'sstart that conversation by looking at Local Government Aid (LGA) – one of manyout-dated programs facing major adjustments in the governor's proposal.

LGA is a program where Minnesota tax dollars are collectedby the state and redistributed to 763 cities. According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, only 91cities receive no LGA.

Proponents of LGA justify their city welfare benefit byarguing that these state aid payments help communities with limited meansprovide basic services. Furthermore, communities that benefit from LGA payments maintain thatthis state aid helps them keep property taxes low so that homeowners of limitedmeans aren't socked with their true property tax burden.

The reality of LGA, however, is quite different.

LGA benefits to smaller Minnesota cities are distributed basedupon an antiquated formula that, no kidding, is based upon factors including "populationdecline, age of housing stock, household size and number of vehicularaccidents". I've yet to meet a legislatorat the Capitol who can fully explain how or why this formula is justified inthe modern era. In fact, I've yetto meet a legislator who can adequately explain the formula at all. This is especiallytroubling considering how property taxes continue to rise in most communities. Inaddition, there is little or no oversight as to how cities use their LGA funds.Many communities spend a sizable portion of their state aid not on basic cityservices such as police, fire and water but instead subsidize questionableexpenditures like municipal water parks, liquor stores, and Wi-Fi networks– allservices best provided by businesses easily found in the Yellow Pages.

Before the 763 LGA-dependent mayors descend upon St. Paulwith hat in hand, taxpayers deserve greater accountability as to how they havebeen spending your tax dollars. Better yet – why not abolish Local Government Aid and the costly statemandates that accompany this local government welfare. That would allow each community to taxand spend according to their true needs and priorities rather than this antiquatedformula that was devised by a legislature from a different era.