It is always easy, and most often politically motivated, to criticize isolated votes legislators have taken over the course of a session. In fact, almost any vote can be made to appear something other than what it really was. Instead of accepting this criticism on face value, I encourage people to consider the entire picture, including the circumstances leading up to the vote, as well as the other choices that could have been made.

This past legislative session was historically one of the most difficult our state has faced. With a $6.4 billion deficit, we knew serious budget cuts would have to be made. Many options were considered by all sides. In the end, however, Republicans and Democrats agreed that to fill this budget hole with cuts alone would have caused too much long-term damage to the things we value about our state, such as education, health care and jobs. Simply put, we needed to find a reasonable balance of cuts and additional revenue. The choices weren’t easy, but they were necessary. I would like to tell you about some of them.

As we put together the House budget, we asked ourselves these three questions: what isn’t working, what can’t we afford, and what isn’t fair? In the end, we cut even more than the governor, and paid for the things Minnesotans value with a pay-as-you-go funding plan that did not push our debt onto future generations. The governor’s plan was to borrow $1 billion to fill a 2-year budget hole, and pay it back over 20 years with as much as $800 million in added interest. Not a single state economist who was asked agreed this was a fiscally sound idea, and when put to a vote on the House floor, this “borrow and spend” idea only gained the support of two Republicans.

As a recent article in this paper said, our plan would have asked married couples making $300 thousand a year to pay an additional $109 a year. One of the alternatives, included in the governor’s unallotments, is to reduce the renters’ credit — resulting in a $126 tax increase for the 1,600 renters in Freeborn County — of whom 43 percent are the elderly and disabled! When given the choice between raising taxes by a small amount on our highest earners, or raising them even more on the elderly and disabled, I believe most citizens would cast the same vote I did. The fact that not a single Republican in the House agreed should concern us all.

With regard to the mortgage interest deduction, what I voted for was a new mortgage interest credit that would have benefited more people. What most people don’t understand about the current deduction is that the more money you make, the bigger your deduction – even if the interest you pay is exactly the same as someone who earns less than you. The entire tax bill I supported was designed to eliminate some credits disproportionally geared to the highest earners, and bring in new credits aimed at those with more modest means. Our state can no longer afford to subsidize million dollar mortgages, but we recognize that middle-income earners could still use a break.

I voted to protect property owners from more tax increases by keeping Local Government Aid and County Aid intact. Under the governor’s unallotment, this aid will be cut dramatically — leaving local governments with little choice but to once again consider property tax increases.

I also voted to protect hospitals and nursing homes from deep cuts, and extended health insurance to over 20 thousand more Minnesota children. The governor’s unallotment, supported by every Republican in the House, eliminates health care for over 30 thousand of the poorest and sickest among us — including many veterans, the mentally ill, and surprisingly, a large number of widows who need this health care coverage until they become eligible for Medicare.

In light of our rising unemployment rate, I worked hard to protect jobs. State economist Tom Stinson recently revealed that as a result of the Governor’s cuts, somewhere between 3,300 and 4,700 public and private jobs will be eliminated. This includes at least 600 jobs in schools, 1,970 from local government, over 1,600 state jobs and another 500 private jobs. This is nearly five times more jobs lost than under the plan I supported. Again, I believe I made the right choice.

Since I was first elected, I have consistently put the needs of our district first. I understand the value of JOBZ to our area, and I have been a strong advocate to not only keep it, but to expand the program. Many times, my support for JOBZ has prompted me to vote across party lines. I also secured enough funding to finally finish the critical Edgewater Park project, got the formula for distribution of wind energy production revenues changed, keeping more of these revenues local, and carried a bill to legalize video pull-tabs for organizations that offer charitable gambling. I did this in recognition of the dollars we are losing to Iowa since the Diamond Jo Casino opened. I will continue to be a strong advocate for our district.

I would encourage anyone who has a question about any of the votes I have taken to contact me personally. As you can see, the truth of the matter is quite often very different than how it can be portrayed. It is an honor to represent you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Robin Brown, DFL-Moscow Township, is the state representative for District 27A.