Where Did the $18.3 Billion Surplus Go?
Many have asked: Where did the $18.3 billion surplus go? Here are several examples that help tell the story.
• $750 million for a new State Office Building in St. Paul for legislators who are in session only part of the year.
• $195 million for a train to Duluth.
• $400 million for free meals for all K–12 students.
• $135 million for summer unemployment benefits for school employees, creating ongoing costs that fall to local districts and property taxpayers.
• $600 million to launch the Paid Family Leave program, including hiring hundreds of new state employees with significant ongoing salary costs.
• $300 million in nonprofit grants through the jobs bill, with later efforts needed to improve accountability.
• $120 million to create a new Department of Cannabis, which has already faced rollout challenges.
• Refund checks that were discussed at $2,000 per person instead came in around $250– $260 for most Minnesotans.
Beyond these examples, additional spending expanded government programs such as free college tuition for certain income levels, expanded healthcare programs, and the creation of new state agencies costing tens of millions more.
At the same time, government grew by roughly 40 percent, alongside $10 billion in new taxes and fees. Most Minnesotans did not see their household income grow at that same pace.
The impact of these decisions is becoming clearer. Many of the new programs and policies come with ongoing costs or unfunded mandates. When the state does not fully fund these requirements, cities, counties, and school districts are left with two choices: raise taxes or cut services. In many cases, they cannot reduce services due to state requirements, leaving taxpayers to absorb the difference.
This is especially important when looking at property taxes. If fewer businesses open—or existing businesses close—a larger share of the tax burden shifts to homeowners. Businesses typically pay higher property tax rates, so when they are not growing, families, seniors, and individuals feel the impact more directly.
Minnesotans work hard for their paychecks. Many are balancing rising costs for housing, groceries, energy, and healthcare. Government should reflect that reality by prioritizing responsible budgeting and sustainable spending.
A strong, growing economy depends on a balanced approach— one that supports essential services while also encouraging business growth and protecting taxpayers from excessive increases.
The question is not whether government should invest in priorities. It is whether those investments are made in a way that is accountable, sustainable, and aligned with what Minnesotans expect.
You decide if this was the best use of your tax dollars.
In Service,
Rep. Natalie Zeleznikar
State Representative (3B)
