So when the Times asks my District 14A Rep. Dan Severson what his top priorities are for the current legislative session, how does he respond?

In a Sunday Times news report, he said we need to politicize the judiciary more by letting judges campaign freely, and then allow their impeachment when we don’t like how they judge.

Oh, and we need to curb the obvious epidemic of voter fraud (who knew?) by requiring state-issued picture IDs at the polls.

This is like Custer fretting at the Little Big Horn that he lost his comb in all the ruckus. Or the Titanic captain, as the last lifeboat is lowered, worrying whether there is enough caviar for the rest of the voyage.

I beseech Severson to instead focus his attention on solutions for the actual (as opposed to the imaginary) problems facing our state and his constituents.

People’s lives are being devastated daily by this economic crisis.

He is in a position of leadership. Please lead.

In electing DFLer Jacobs, voters certainly will get a less-polished, more progressive legislator. Yet they also are more likely to have a voice in St. Paul who will listen to all sides and then act in a way that best serves most District 14A constituents.

There is a page on Dan’s stand on education, on taxes and support of business.

"If global warming is going on, how much AFFECT do we as humans have on it? An even larger question is: Is Carbon dioxide a major contributor OF climate change?"

1.15 (b) A dissolution of a marriage shall be granted by a county or district court when
1.16 the court finds that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage relationship,
1.17 except that if the parties have a minor child, a dissolution may only be granted:
1.18 (1) following a period of dissolution prevention as described in section 518.061 and
1.19 after completion of counseling to explore the possibility of preserving the marriage. The
1.20 parties must seek counseling from an individual licensed by the Board of Marriage and
1.21 Family Therapy or by a member of the clergy

I believe in a strong education system. I also believe in accountability in education funding and local control through parental involvement.

1. Do you support a strong PUBLIC education system and reject the mission of Edwatch to establish a NONPUBLIC education system?

2. What assessments do you believe provide the best accountability for any given school? Please describe those assessments in detail.

3. Describe the best pedagogical methods one can use to achieve success.

4. What role should educators play in the education of our children? Should they be creators of educational policy and standards or merely facilitators of the parent's wishes? If they are to be facilitators, how would you solve the problem of having conflicting parental wishes?

I believe the number one issue in Minnesota public education is the funding of our schools. In 2001, Mn lawmakers adopted a plan to fund K-12 where the quality of education would no longer be determined by the wealth of the school district. The state has not kept it's promise. Under Pawlenty, and my opponent Dan Severson, state aide for schools has dropped, forcing school districts to depend on voter approved property tax increases to pay for education. Under the "no new tax" pledge, the local school districts have had to shoulder the burden of raising our property taxes to pay for educating our children. In effect, schools districts have become the "taxman." I believe that the state should fund education in a way that the quality of education would not be determined by the wealth of the school district.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is another problem. It seems that students are learning more about taking tests than actually learning. This program increases costs and decreases the time that teachers are actually educating students. I would push for the elimination of this program entirely.

The Governors Teacher Quality Compensation Program pours money into a few districts in an effort to change how teachers are paid from years of experience and education levels to pay for the quality of their work. In theory this sounds great but in practice this is very complex. Many school districts have been denied the opportunity to get this money while other districts have sought ways to get the money and get around the compensation issues by paying teachers for extra in-service.

The legislature should set standards and goals and then get out of the way and let the teachers teach. Mandates stress the finances of school districts, create paperwork for teachers and administrators, and take away from the quality of education. As a legislator I would try to eliminate mandates and let the school districts make the decisions on how to reach the set standards and goals.

Parents play a key role in education. They need to be involved in the schools in the decision making of local policies. Parents need to work with their children early on to influence a life of reading and learning at home, not just at school. Parents need to be partners with the school in the education process.

Special education puts a big drain on the finances of the school districts. The federal government needs to pay its share of the special education mandates.

Severson defends link to spoof video on campaign site

By Lawrence Schumacher • lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com • June 20, 2008

A link on Rep. Dan Severson's campaign Web site directs visitors to a video of a fake car commercial in which a terrorist tries to blow up a cafe, but is foiled by the car's solid construction.

Listed on the "Family & Fun" page of the Sauk Rapids Republican's www.danseverson.com site since his 2006 race, the link says "Click here to view a funny movie clip." It recently drew the attention of liberal St. Cloud blogger Eric Austin.

"I was looking through his site for information about his beliefs and issue positions," said Austin, who posted an entry about his discovery earlier this week on his blog, Liberal in the Land of Conservative.

The video shows a Middle Eastern-appearing man wearing a bomb vest blowing himself up inside his car. Austin said he finds it offensive because it "makes light of a mode of death that has killed a number of our soldiers" and because of its "racially insensitive undercurrents."

Severson, for his part, called the video a "spoof" that "makes fun of extremists." He said he not only stands by it, but plans to add more links, pictures and videos to his campaign site that "say something about who Dan Severson is."

"It's an antiterrorism message, and I find it strange that some people would get upset by that," the former Navy aviator said. "It's a clear statement that terrorism has horrific implications, and I stand opposed to terrorism."

In the video, the car unbelievably contains the explosion without even damaging its windows. The message at the end says that the vehicle is "Small but tough."

Severson's opponent, Rice DFLer Rob Jacobs, said he's not overly concerned by the clip, but doesn't think it's funny and wouldn't have put it on his campaign site, http://jacobsforhouse.homestead.com.

"I think they should present who you are, what you believe in and what you want to do for your district," Jacobs said of campaign Web sites.

"And I don't think at this level, we have much impact on what's going on in Iraq or the Middle East, so I don't see the point."

Austin acknowledges Severson's right to claim the video as a spoof and satire, but alluded to criticism of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken on similar grounds.

"(I)n a campaign season where the Republican Party is getting bent out of shape about every spoof and satirical comment of particular candidates, it seems somewhat hypocritical for Severson to use the exact same defense and believe that others aren't going to call him on it," he said.

Severson said he hasn't updated his Web site for the 2008 election, but plans to add more links and content soon.

"I've got some other things I want to put on, some fun videos to paint a picture of my campaign," he said.

The spot was sent to the London office of DDB Worldwide, a Volkswagen roster agency, by two people known as Lee and Dan. "We had no part in disseminating it," said Annouchka Behrmann, public relations director at DDB London, part of the DDB Worldwide division of the Omnicom Group. "We think it's absolutely disgusting."

Bring your boy against Rep. Severson in a debate. I can't wait for that impending disaster from your man crush.

Now I will go shame myself for commenting on your blog and giving you the impression that anybody cares what you write.

Dear Representative Severson,

I am a blogger in the St. Cloud area and I recently received this comment on my blog regarding a post I wrote about your opponent, Rob Jacobs.

"Bring your boy against Rep. Severson in a debate. I can't wait for that impending disaster from your man crush.

Now I will go shame myself for commenting on your blog and giving you the impression that anybody cares what you write."

This message originated from a http://webmail.house.mn email address (IP Address 209.98.145.174). I am wondering if you could comment on why someone using a Minnesota House of Representatives email address would feel the need to accuse someone of being gay as if that is something to be ashamed of rather than argue the substance of the issue at hand. It is rather disheartening to believe that people are using government resources to go after citizens of this state. I await your response.

Thank You

Political Muse

Your turn: Under Severson, wealthy don’t pay a fair share

By Rob Jacobs
Candidate, House 14A

On April 30, House 14A Rep. Dan Severson wrote about what he called a “steady stream of substantial tax increases” enacted by the legislative majority.

The only example he gave was the transportation bill. He pointed out that he believes it is better to fund transportation on the state’s credit card rather than the “pay as you go” system that was passed this winter.

My campaign is focusing on a vision of a fair distribution of the tax burden for all Minnesotans. Most people I have spoken with agree that Severson has failed to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.

We have seen a very unfair shifting of the tax burden. The things we value most — education, health care, transportation and public safety — have all been shifted to our local property taxes. This shift has occurred under Severson’s watch and he has consistently supported this regressive method of taxation, all the while telling us there are “no new taxes.”

He has supported an increase in fees that will cost Minnesotans an additional $530 million this year.

The Minnesota Department of Revenue recently released its annual incidence study, which shows how much individuals and families are paying in state and local taxes.

This study proves that there has been a steady shifting of Minnesota’s tax burden onto lower- and middle-income Minnesotans and away from the wealthiest Minnesotans.

Most of that shift has been caused by property tax increases. Since 2002, when Severson was first elected, there has been a $1.6 billion increase to individual property taxes. That is an 81.7 percent increase on Minnesota homeowners in the six years that Severson has been in office.

While the tax burden has shifted to the lower- and middle class, the wealthiest Minnesotans have enjoyed a tax break.

The wealthiest Minnesotans, many making more than $1 million per year, pay a smaller percentage of income taxes than people making less. If these folks paid the same as the rest of us, not more, just the same, Minnesota would take in close to $500 million annually. That represents almost half of our current budget shortfall!

The legislative majority that Severson criticizes made at least four attempts to fix this tax disparity in 2007, but he voted against every one of their tax fairness initiatives.

These attempts would have provided significant and permanent property tax relief for homeowners, farmers and small-business owners, and increased Local Government Aid.

Those bills either died in committee or were vetoed by the governor even though they would have increased income taxes on only 1 percent of Minnesota filers.

Eighty-one percent of the additional revenue would have come from taxpayers making more than $1 million per year.

“The voters who elected me need to know I have their backs,” Severson says.

If you are fortunate enough to be making over $1 million per year, he does “have your back.”

The rest of us need to watch our backs and quit being fooled by the “no new taxes” plan. This plan has shifted the tax burden, through increased property taxes and fees, to those who can least afford to pay.

Our current Representative seems more interested in supporting the ideology of his party than supporting the state funding of our schools, promoting good paying jobs, or fair taxation. During his time in office our property taxes have increased a whopping 82%. The people of District 14A deserve a change in representation. It is time to move in a new direction!

This is Rob Jacobs uncut response to Severson's letter to the editor of Monday, April 07, 2008, submitted it to the St. Cloud Times as a letter to the editor. The letter was edited for length and published by the Times on April 14, 2008.


My name is Rob Jacobs and I am The DFL endorsed candidate for house district 14A. I need to respond to a letter to the editor in the St. Cloud Times on April 7, 2008, written by our current representative, Dan Severson. His letter, accusing the DFL Majority of not being fiscally responsible was pure political rhetoric, partisan, and even included nonsensical fear mongering: “Now our bond rating....could be compromised,” he wrote.

At issue was the bonding bill that was presented to Gov. Pawlenty. Severson was well aware of the fact that the governor has the ability to line item veto items from the bill to reduce the total bonding level it to whatever dollar amount he so chooses. There was never a threat of this bill affecting the state’s bond rating yet Severson chose to be an alarmist rather than being honest with his constituency.

Severson stated in his letter, “A statesman looks to the next generation; a politician looks to the next election.”

Such rhetoric coming from a politician that has consistently supported bonding for roads over his entire six years in the legislature, rather than the pay as you go system that was recently enacted. (Severson was very outspoken against the transportation bill) Bonding for roads is foolish, irresponsible and reckless and hardly the work of a statesman, here is why: Bonding for roads is basically a 20 year loan. In Minnesota’s climate, roads only last 10-15 years. The roads will need to be replaced before they are paid for, putting a huge financial burden on future generations. It would be like taking a 20 year loan on a car that will only last 10 years. That is what Severson has supported time and time again.

Severson has been a staunch supporter of the shifting of the tax burden to our property taxes by underfunding our cities and townships (LGA) and reducing funding for our schools, all the while chanting the “no new tax” mantra that we now know was a sham. Hardly the work of a “statesman.”

I believe a statesman is someone who will work in a bipartisan manner to get things accomplished for the people he or she represents. Severson has become one of the most partisan politicians in the entire legislature, more content on representing his party’s ideology than the needs of the people of District 14A. It is this type of extremist representation that has prompted me to challenge Mr. Severson in the November election. I look forward to debating these and other issues with him as the campaign unfolds.

Rob Jacobs, DFL endorsed candidate for the MN House of Representatives, District 14A