Liberal in the Land of Conservative

According to Gross, we need to send a message to Washington that old-style politics must end. They are patronizing and condescending, he said, and it is wrong to think the average citizen cannot understand what transpires in Washington.

Pusateri agrees. “The direction of this country since January of 2009 has been a veritable sprint toward ever-encroaching governmental influence and control over many aspects of our lives, and an accompanying erosion of individual choice and liberties. I have spoken with Republicans, Independents and even some Democrats who are alarmed not only at the size and scope of the growth of government, but also its breathtaking rate of growth.”

Saturday, the Central Minnesota Conservative Coalition sponsored a TEA Party rally at Lake George in downtown St. Cloud. The 1,000+ people that attended participated in a freedom celebration. [Emphasis Mine]

By now, most people have seen the video of Speaker Pelosi tearing up about the violence that visited San Francisco 30 years ago, then expressing her worries that TEA Partygoers would resort to violence.

This year, Steve Gottwalt crafted legislation that would’ve reformed health care throughout the state. Had the DFL been serious about improving Minnesota’s business climate, they would’ve passed the tax cuts and the health care reform bills passed.

Saying that Republicans haven’t proposed health care solutions is either ignorance-driven or it’s plain dishonest. I’ve written more than a few times about Steve Gottwalt’s Healthy Minnesota Plan legislation.

The assumption that this bill is cost-neutral on an accrual (service year) basis is a default position which we take because this proposal constitutes a completely new method of purchasing, for which DHS has no relevant experience. The effects of private market rates, including private market inflation, and of underwriting, and the extent of expected MCHA losses are all areas of great uncertainty. The specification of the benefit set required by the bill is very general, which adds to the uncertainty about the expected fiscal result, because it is not possible to evaluate how attractive the new product may be to potential applicants compared to the existing product. Thus our assumption of cost-neutrality should not be interpreted as the result of analysis, but as a statement of our inability to advise the Legislature whether this bill should be expected to cost money or to save money, or to what extent. A 30% to 40% variance from cost-neutrality -- in either direction -- should be considered entirely possible. It is assumed that the systems work required for this proposal will allow implementation to begin January 1, 2011. [Emphasis Mine]

It’s patently false to say that Gov. Pawlenty’s statement was the end of negotiating because negotiations took place throughout the weekend. Just because Tarryl didn’t like what she heard during those negotiations doesn’t mean that the negotiations didn’t happen. Rejecting his counter proposals isn’t proof that negotiations ended during Gov. Pawlenty’s press conference.

It’s obvious that the DFL leadership didn’t expect Gov. Pawlenty to be the adult who would do what Minnesota’s Constitution mandates. The DFL leadership didn’t expect Gov. Pawlenty to tell them that he was tired of the stunts that they were playing.

Tarryl says that unallotment “is meant to be a scalpel” that shouldn’t be used except in the final year of the biennium. The statute doesn’t have language in it that would indicate that. Quite the contrary:

Subd. 4.Reduction.(a) If the commissioner determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the Legislative Advisory Commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.

I’m pretty certain that there isn’t anything in the unallotment provision that says it’s only supposed to be used at the end of the biennium. I’m pretty certain that the part that says it can be used if “the commissioner determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated.” It further states that the commmissioner can’t use this authority unless he’s received the governor’s approval or until he’s consulted with the Legislative Advisory Commission.

Here’s another bit of Tarryl’s spin that needs debunking:

And make no mistake the Governor’s cuts will cost us jobs across the state, jobs in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and colleges. Police and fire will be reduced and libraries and parks will not be spared. And in the end the cuts alone won’t be enough. This year for the first time Minnesotans will pay more in property taxes than income taxes. That is a direct result of this Governor’s policies and the Governor’s unilateral cuts will only make it worse.

Any city council or mayor that cuts public safety first shouldn’t hold their jobs beyond the next election. In fact, council members or mayors that start by cutting public safety budgets should be forced to resign ASAP because they’ve proven that they can’t make thoughtful decisions.

Instead of laying people off, perhaps these employees would be willing to accept a plan where they’re furloughed for a short period of time like 1 or 2 weeks. There are probably other ways of keeping these people employed. It’s time that the DFL thinks that a cut of any sort automatically leads to their preconceived notions.

In what may need to be a regular column titled “Gross Inaccuracies” in this or another publication, my favorite conservative foil and the mouthpiece of the Republican Party in St. Cloud, Gary Gross, provided a rather fact-challenged Your Turn on the recent legislative session. (“DFL leadership clearly to blame for the poor legislative session,” May 31.)

For the sake of rebuttal let us use his handy dandy format:

1. Given that Gross would like to use stamp allowances to balance a $6.4 billion deficit, I would direct his attention to Senate Resolution 66 authored by Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller. The resolution cut the maximum stamp allowance for senators in half for the next two years. It passed and is expected to save about $50,000 in the next two years. Gross touted a figure of $350,000 yet the entire Senate stamp budget for the previous two years was $125,000.

2. The Per Diem Boogeyman rears its ugly head in the Gross reinterpretation of the data without so much as a mention of the fact that legislators are free to forego these payments. One might assume from his writing that it is only the DFL who takes these payments. If the Republican Party was so committed to this line of budget balancing, one wonders why they didn’t unilaterally give back their portion.

In reality, 24 percent of DFL senators (including Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark) and 19 percent of Republican senators voluntarily reduce their per diem payments.

3. At the start of session the Senate took the following steps to cut $1.5 million from their budget: banned out of state travel, held open 24 positions, ended job promotions and froze wages. At the end of session the Senate passed and the governor signed a bill that includes additional cuts for the next two years.

Minnesota did not have a $2.2 billion surplus. It was an illusion created by the governor by counting one-time money as ongoing and by ignoring inflation. After 16 months we continue to play these budgetary games rather than fix the structural imbalance of our state budget.

This governor realizes that to cut our way out of this problem is a road he cannot travel without serious political consequences, so watch as he shifts as much of the problems into the future as he can.

I would have much preferred more aggressive negotiations from both sides of the aisle and have expressed as much in different venues but what is clear is that Gross and his Republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge that after the first veto of a tax bill that was much lower than originally proposed this governor decided to take his ball and go home.

Thus, a second tax bill was produced that accepted the governor’s shifts in education funding as a show of compromise and in hopes it would bring some returned compromise from the governor. Obviously, that did not happen.

Rather than deride the listening sessions held by legislators across the state, Gross and his Republican friends in state government would have done well to actually listen, as they would have heard of the shared sacrifice that Minnesotans were willing to make to finally fix our state budget.

Instead, the sacrifice will be shouldered by the middle and lower income brackets as state obligations are pushed off to property taxpayers and the next generation.

3. Under Speaker Margaret Kelliher’s leadership, the House collected $181,120 in out-of-session, tax-free per diem. Under DFL Leader Larry Pogemiller’s leadership, senators collected $143,500 in out-of-session, tax-free per diem.

1. While it’s technically true that the DFL-dominated Legislature sent Gov. Tim Pawlenty a balanced budget, it’s only because the DFL reconvened the conference committee on taxes at 10:30 on the last night. During that meeting, the DFL did a total rewrite, which was debated less than 15 minutes in the House and Senate combined.

No reform, misplaced priorities and tax increases. Even now, there is time to work out other solutions, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s invitation to the Democrats is open, as it was from the start of the session.

If the Democrats could interrupt their Tour of Blame long enough to really work with the governor, we might all appreciate the results. If they cannot or will not, rest assured, Pawlenty will balance the budget without more state spending and tax increases.

In the budget-setting toolbox, unallotment is the sledgehammer. It just pounds dents in one part of the state’s budget. It does not give a governor the ability to enact policy or to make changes that might result in increased quality, efficiency or service to taxpayers. Using unallotment as a main budget setting tool is a bad idea, and little more than bad results can be expected.

The state’s budget desperately needs an overhaul, but the mechanic who took over the job is flailing a hammer. That will not bode well for Minnesota’s taxpayers.

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.

A loyal reader to LFR just emailed me about this morning’s meeting of the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce executives group meeting. This friend of LFR told me that Tarryl Clark made this startling announcement:

“I will not raise taxes” in terms of the looming state budget deficit.

This person attended the meeting so it’s firsthand, reliable information.

This administration wants an ownership society. When you get laid off, you’re on your own. Can’t get unemployment? You’re on your own. Please.

This guy’s an idiot. Either that or he thinks we’re idiots. I don’t know which is worse.

Frankly, this was another all-style, no substance performance. Sen. Obama is the quintessential empty suit. Michael Steele is right- He’s all platitude and no attitude.

Word before the speech was that this would be a workmanlike speech. It wasn’t. It was just about platitudes.

So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am president.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Sen. McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise.

"The more that Barack Obama talks about energy policy, the more he sounds like a John Kerry flip-flopper."

"Let’s face facts. People know that politicians change their minds all the time. That’s factored into their opinions of politicians. That means, they’ll likely appreciate it when politicians flip-flop into the right policy."

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage, I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,”

Either way, one thing should be clear. This November, it’s time that voters told the DFL that they reject their unsustainable spending habits and their outrageous tax increases.

I just called Bob Olson’s office to find out what they specifically thought scape-goated “an entire class of people.” Christopher Truscott said that bringing up the English only drivers license test was playing politics. I reminded him that that isn’t the same as scape-goating. Here’s the definition for scape-goat:

a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

If Olson’s campaign thinks that that’s a politically motivated statement, then that’s what they should say. For them to say that she tried scape-goating people with that statement is over the top. Mr. Truscott said that there was a hint of politicking to the statement, which I rebutted by saying that it’s a political issue that couldn’t be extricated from a political context.

Frankly, this statement was all about tying Rep. Bachmann with Mr. O’Reilly on immigration. It’s obvious that Olson’s campaign wants to cast Mr. O’Reilly as a big, bad boogeyman & Rep. Bachmann as his lackey.

The sad part is that a vast majority of people agree with Mr. O’Reilly’s & Rep. Bachmann’s position on immigration.

DFL Misreading the Voters

Tarryl Clark uses this press release to essentially place all the blame on Minnesota’s weakening economy on Gov. Pawlenty’s shoulders. The sad truth is that the DFL should accept responsibility for attempting to ruin Minneosta’s economy by proposing crippling tax increases to pay for their unsustainable spending increases. Here’s one paragraph that got a chuckle out of me:

“Minnesota’s economy continues to struggle, but the governor refuses to do his part to lend a hand,” said Senate Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. “Each month, Minnesotans are seeing more and more job opportunities disappear. It is imperative that we do whatever we can to jumpstart our state’s economy.”

I emailed Tarryl a couple weeks ago with the suggestion that the DFL work with Gov. Pawlenty to cut taxes next session. I still haven’t gotten a reply from her on that, nor do I expect one considering the subject matter. The DFL hates GOP-proposed tax cuts almost as much as Superman hates Kryptonite or vampires hate wooden stakes.

I’d just like to second Gov. Pawlenty’s quote about maintaining Minnesota’s prosperity:

“What my DFL friends don’t understand is you can’t government your way to prosperity. You have to have a real economy,” he said. “So their answer is ‘We’d have a better economy if the governor would spend more government money on projects and raise taxes’?”

Please tell me how this Transportation Bill will create a net a 60,000 job increase. How will it accomplish that when people will be leaving the state in droves? The message from the school levy elections wasn’t nuanced. It was quite clear. It said that voters were tired of the annual tax increases & that they weren’t going to take it anymore. They were tired of being treated like the DFL’s ATM machines.

The DFL is free to ignore that message but they do so at their own peril. The DFL is attempting to ignore the message that Rockville citizens are sending, too. That’ll lead to their demise:

Last session’s tax bill would’ve created the highest marginal tax rates for small businesses in the nation. It would’ve driven up state commercial property taxes, too. There isn’t any doubt that those tax increases would’ve driven small businesses out of the state, too. Despite all that, Tarryl wants us to believe that the DFL tax increases will create prosperity? I won’t buy into that.

When Bill Clinton increased taxes in 1993, the economy was growing. Increasing taxes when the economy is weakening isn’t smart policy. Increasing taxes at that time will hasten, deepen & lengthen the coming recession.

During W’s first term, Democrats complained about the middle class squeeze. If they were to pass, the DFL’s tax increases on small businesses would be the ultimate middle class squeeze because it’d drive up unemployment. If you want to see what massive tax increases does for an economy, just look at Michigan’s. The only thing preventing Michigan from sliding into a deeper recession is the new $600 million business tax cut to draw new businesses to the state.