MCC: How will the battle over the $345 million budget deficit filter down to other spending issues during the 2008 session?

Prichard: Our state constitution requires a balanced budget. Unlike the federal government we can’t deficit spend. If there is no tax increase there won’t be additional money to spend on education, early childhood, health care and other social programs. So if Gov. Tim Pawlenty and House Republicans stand firm, there will be no tax increases and hence no big spending increases.

MCC: Could a deficit be a good thing for people concerned about state government overspending on education, early childhood education or health care?

Prichard: Frankly, it forces the government to reexamine its priorities and cut back.

In a $30 billion plus budget there is certainly wasteful or nonessential areas that can be cut back. It’s just like the family or a personal budget. There is always discretionary spending that can be cut back when one’s income drops for whatever reason.

I believe our state government is too big as it is. Much of what government does should be done differently or by the private sector. Because of the politics of government spending, rarely are programs cut back, even if they aren’t successful, because special interest groups become very attached to them and fight to keep them in place.

MCC: Is the MFC anticipating another push for domestic partner benefits in the 2008 session?

Prichard: I wouldn’t be surprised. They’ll try to pass something to get their foot in the door. It should be harder for them to pass this year because all the essential budget bills passed last year, so Pawlenty can simply … veto any bills which do come to his desk containing domestic partner benefits.

Frankly, because it’s an election year, there is no incentive on the part of the House and Senate DFL majorities to push radical social legislation. They don’t want to appear [to be] pushing homosexual marriage type bills.

MCC: Why would you suggest the DFL might be “reticent to push an aggressive social agenda” this session?

Prichard: The bottom line is they want to stay in power past the 2008 election. If they push radical social issues, that will put them outside the mainstream and put some of their caucus members in conservative districts at risk.

MCC: What efforts are you anticipating in the area of comprehensive sex education for public schools?

Prichard: They’ll attempt to mandate it statewide once again. Again, this is radical stuff—mandating condom and contraceptive education for every Minnesota public school grades 7 through 12. It will invariably mean promoting acceptance of homosexual sex and alternative sexual lifestyles like cross dressing and sex changes. When parents hear about this they are rightfully outraged.

MCC: How will the MFC work to combat these efforts?

Prichard: We’ll make sure the public is fully aware of what’s going on through hearings, press conferences, statewide alerts and very public floor debates. We’ll also include votes on these issues in the nonpartisan voter’s guides we disseminate statewide for the fall elections.

MCC: Why do you expect an effort to legalize “surrogacy agreements” and why does the MFC oppose this concept?

Prichard: Because for a handful of attorneys and groups it’s a way to make money. And some people genuinely, though misguidedly, believe it’s a good thing. Some couples can’t conceive and desperately want a child of their own so they’re willing to pay a woman to carry a baby to term and turn it over to them for money. In my view that’s baby selling.

There’s also money to be made from buying and selling women’s eggs so they’d like to see a market for those eggs. It really opens up the brave new world of “designer babies.”

Or there are homosexual persons who want a child so they’re willing to pay someone to create a baby for them. Children really become commodities in these agreements—bought and sold. Some children are created from anonymous sperm donors so they have no idea who their actual father is. We’re messing with God’s design for children and families and that never works out.

MCC: What others issues should our readers be on the lookout for during the session?

Prichard: I anticipate another effort to pass smoked marijuana for medical purposes. It passed the Senate but not the House in 2007.

I believe the key proponents view medical marijuana as the camel’s nose under the tent for purposes of pushing for general legalization. That would be a disaster.