Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


‘Spendy Wendy’ and the 1970 gubernatorial election

Today, in 2010, a DFL gubernatorial candidate is proposing an increase in state taxes. Mark Dayton may be hoping for his own “Minnesota Miracle” when he faces his Republican and Independent Party challengers Tom Emmer and Tom Horner in next week’s off-year election.

But how did the governorship of Wendell Anderson, whose first term led to the so-called Minnesota Miracle, come about?

While his critics dubbed Anderson “Spendy Wendy,” the derisive moniker did little to impede his early ’70s political career. In 1970 the Minnesota DFL chose Anderson, then a St. Paul state senator, as its candidate for governor. The athletically handsome 37-year-old, a former U.S. Olympic hockey star, was an appealing figure to the DFL, which had come through a bruising internal battle two years earlier.

In 1968, the party had come close to breaking apart when insurgents, who supported Eugene McCarthy and his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, fought with the party’s established leaders who were backing Lyndon Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

Then, in 1970, Humphrey was back in Minnesota after his earlier presidential loss to Richard Nixon. Now, seeking to fill the Senate seat vacated by McCarthy, the former vice president would share the DFL election ballot with Anderson. In November, Humphrey faced Republican Rep. Clark MacGregor, while Anderson squared off against Attorney General Doug Head.

Citizens League injects a new issue
During the months leading up to the Nov. 3 election, a new issue was injected into the gubernatorial campaign that would have important ramifications for the state’s future fiscal structure. In September, the Minneapolis-based Citizens League, a local “good government” think tank, issued a study entitled “New formulas for Revenue Sharing in Minnesota.” The 67-page report was filled with arcane minutia about the complex interactions of Minnesota’s state and local taxing systems.

Elect Wendell Anderson poster
Minnesota Historical Society

Midway through its report, the League floated a proposal to alter the balance between state and local financing for public education by shifting more of the cost of education away from the local property tax to a statewide funding source. Such a shift might not necessarily raise the overall state-local tax burden in Minnesota, the League maintained, but it would help eliminate the disparities in education funding between those local school districts that were property rich and others that were property poor.

The League shied away from the question of whether overall support for education should increase in Minnesota, leaving that issue to be resolved in the state’s political arena. But very soon, the government reform group found that its proposal had, in fact, become enmeshed in state politics.

Anderson calls for school funding shift
In an Oct. 1 debate between Anderson and Head, which was sponsored by the Citizens League, the DFL gubernatorial candidate called for a full shift in the cost of public education away from the local property tax to a statewide funding source. Anderson indicated that the statewide source would include a state property tax. But he also hinted that he would support an income tax increase for upper-bracket Minnesotans, noting that the current tax structure remained progressive only for incomes up to $20,000, where the tax rate topped out at 12 percent. Every one point percentage increase in taxes for incomes over $20,000 would yield an additional $4 million in state revenues, Anderson maintained.

In his analysis of Oct. 1 debate, Minneapolis Star reporter Ted Smebakken, who would later head the Citizens League, wrote that Anderson was “buying” the League’s proposal to equalize educational funding throughout the state.

Almost immediately, Head went on the attack, claiming that Anderson’s proposal would transform a locally controlled school system into one in which the state Legislature would become a “super school board.” Later Head would call his opponent’s plan “a radical proposal” to change the method for financing public education in Minnesota. Republican Attorney General Candidate Robert Forsythe was even more outspoken. Anderson had just hung “a massive bag of cement” around the neck of the Minnesota taxpayer, Forsythe declared.

Anderson fought off these attacks and went on to defeat Head handily in the Nov. 3 election, winning 54 percent of the vote.

The follow-through proposal
Two month later, Minnesota’s newly elected governor followed through on his proposal to overhaul the state’s public education financing system. While his state budget plan did not call for a full state takeover of education funding, it did propose an increase in the state’s share of school aid from 43 percent to 70 percent of the total by the end of the 1971-72 biennium.

Anderson maintained that this shift would reduce local property taxes in 96 percent of the state’s 434 school districts and help equalize per-pupil spending between the rich and poor districts. But this shift would come at a cost of over $750 million, which represented a 37 percent increase in the state budget. The newly elected governor proposed to fund this spending increase with a whole array of new taxes on incomes, inheritances, cigarettes and liquor.

Wendell Anderson Time magazine cover
Minnesota Historical Society

Eventually, Anderson was able to persuade a reluctant Legislature to approve much of his school financing plan. As finally adopted, the plan raised the state share of education funding to 65 percent of the total cost and established a new formula for allocating supplemental state aid based on the number of low-income students in the individual school districts.

Revenue package of $580 million
This school finance overhaul was funded with a revenue package totaling $580 million. It included a 22 percent increase in state income taxes, a 5 cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 25 percent increase in the liquor and beer tax, and a boost in the state sales tax from 3 percent to 4 percent.

Despite claims by his opponents that Anderson’s tax increase would provoke a backlash from Minnesota voters, the DFL governor would go on to swamp his next Republican opponent by winning 63 percent of the vote when he ran for re-election in 1974. The previous year, his profile had been enhanced when he appeared on the cover of Time magazine wearing a flannel shirt and holding up a large northern pike.

Later Anderson would face a backlash from the voters when he arranged to have himself appointed to the U.S. Senate vacated by Walter Mondale. But during those earlier years, Anderson was known as the governor who helped bring about the “Minnesota Miracle” when this state found a new way to pay for the cost of public education.

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Joanne Kube-Harderwijk on 10/27/2010 - 02:30 pm.

    The next question is, Just what did this ‘massive’ tax increase (see current republican claims of what the DFL will do) did to jobs in Minnesota? Was it a ‘job killer’? Did small businesses go belly up in droves? Or did it lead to an economic expansion?

    Can someone who really can research this, answer it?

  2. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 10/27/2010 - 02:43 pm.

    I haven’t researched the answer, but I have strong suspicions that the evidence will show that employment, especially well-paying jobs with benefits increased after “Spendy Wendy’s” tax increases.

    What the people of Minnesota need to recognize is that there is a basic lie built into our Republican friends’ constantly claiming we must chase a “better business climate.”

    That lie is the assumption we’ve all been led to make that a “better business climate” is a better jobs climate. After eight years of King Timmy, we should all be recognizing that the opposite is true…

    A “better business climate” means that the fabulously wealthy rake in massively more money, pay massively less in taxes (both income and property) than they would otherwise have paid, and the likelihood of finding a well-paying job with adequate benefits is considerably reduced for the average citizen.

    It’s time to go BACK to the days of “Spendy Wendy” when the rich did quite well for themselves, thank you very much, but the rest of us did far better than we’re doing now.

  3. Submitted by Steve Elkins on 10/27/2010 - 03:18 pm.

    The painfull truth is that since we started slashing the income tax in 1999, Minnesota’s job growth has stagnated. Tim “The Job Slayer” Pawlenty is going to leave office as the first Minnesota governor in modern history to create no net increase in jobs during his tenure. When Pawlenty took office in 2003 2,750,000 Minnesotans had jobs. Today, 2,750,000 Minnesotans have jobs. No New Taxes has meant no new jobs.

  4. Submitted by Aaron Tovo on 10/27/2010 - 05:38 pm.

    I’m struck by how Pawlenty’s policies have been almost an exact reversal of Anderson’s. By cutting budgets at the state level he forced local governments to raise property taxes. Of course, they do so to varying degrees and have widely varying tax bases so the net result is to increase local disparities in education funding and other basic government services.

  5. Submitted by Tom Miller on 10/27/2010 - 10:06 pm.

    The proximate cause of the Minnesota Miracle was a property tax rebellion. This was even more important to the miracle than Gov. Anderson’s proposal to shift education funding to the state. The shift proposal was actually part of a way to accomplish the reduction in burdensome property taxes. Wendell Anderson also accomplished the miracle while working with a conservative legislature.

Leave a Reply