On May 7, the Minnesota Senate passed its Human Services budget proposal. I opposed this bill, which I should be clear is not yet law. The House still needs to pass its version, and then the two chambers will work out a final agreement. That said, you need to know what’s in it because the impacts would be serious for our communities.
The most concerning aspect of the Senate’s bill is that it would make major cuts to long-term care and nursing homes while preserving funding for taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented individuals. In my view, these priorities are backward. We should protect our most vulnerable and put Minnesota citizens first.
Here’s a quick look at what else is in the Senate Democrats’ Human Services proposal:
- Cuts more than $1 billion from long-term care and disability services over the next four years
- Fails to address fraud, despite repeated warnings from the Office of the Legislative Auditor and even U.S. Attorney Andy Luger, who said “Minnesota has a fraud problem”
- Preserves taxpayer-funded MinnesotaCare benefits for over 17,000 undocumented individuals, while cutting care for seniors and people with disabilities
- Causes property taxes hikes by shifting nearly $200 million in new costs onto counties
- Adds new regulations for nursing homes, even as it cuts their budgets
What does that mean for us locally? If this bill becomes law, nursing homes in our area could lose $3.6 million in funding over the next four years:
- Trinity Care Center (Farmington): $844,689
- Mala Strana Rehabilitation Center (New Prague): $848,975
- Three Links Care Center (Northfield): $723,906
- Augustana Health Care Center of Hastings: $704,270
- Benedictine Living Regina Campus (Hastings): $490,437
We are only facing these cuts because Democrats were reckless over the last two years when they had one party control. They spent the entire $18 billion surplus, increased the government budget by 40%, raised taxes $10 billion, and now we are facing a $6 billion deficit that they want to balance on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.
Republicans did, however, manage to slightly improve the bill. We adopted an amendment during the floor debate that eliminated expensive cost-shifts onto local governments. Without our amendment, counties would have faced $192 million in new costs, which local officials warned could have led to property tax hikes of 5 to 10 percent across the state. Our amendment removed those cost shifts and redirected funding to better serve Minnesotans in need. That includes restoring rates for family foster care and facilities that serve disproportionately high-need populations.
While the amendment helped, the overall bill still pursues the wrong priorities for Minnesota. As budget negotiations move forward, I’ll keep pushing for a final agreement that protects the vulnerable, reins in reckless spending, and puts Minnesotans first.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.