April 7, 2008
Apr 07 01:41 Dueling Op-eds Apr 07 09:19 Today's Must Reading: Rep. Severson Editorial Apr 07 10:16 Maliki to al-Sadr: Disband Mehdi Militia or Else Apr 07 11:44 Pawlenty to End Guessing Game This Afternoon Apr 07 15:05 Gov. Pawlenty's Veto Pen Needs a Refill After This Apr 07 16:32 Statewide Reaction To Today's Veto Apr 07 17:42 Rep. Gottwalt Reacts to Bonding Bill Provisions
Dueling Op-eds
Earlier today, I read dueling op-eds in the Rochester Post-Bulletin concerning the pending Clean Car legislation. The choice before us is whether we adopt the Federal EPA's standards or California's standards. Sen. Marty, Sen. Ropes, Rep. Hortman & Rep. Aaron Peterson spend most of their time defending their legislation. Here's their most indefensible statement:
FACT: More than 75 percent of Minnesotans favor the legislation.With all due respect to this group, the polling says that 75 percent of Minnesotans want "new cars and trucks registered in the state to meet lower emission standards." That isn't the same as them supporting this legislation. It's intellectually dishonest for them to say that. The best we can verifiably say is that this poll doesn't slam the door shut on this legislation. Such intellectual dishonesty should raise red flags to serious factcheckers.
In addition to loving our trucks and cars, Minnesotans also value our lakes, rivers and streams; our forests and natural areas; wildlife habitat and clean air; and way of life.
In a statewide poll conducted by the Minnesota Environmental Partnership in fall 2007, more than 75 percent of voters supported legislation requiring new cars and trucks registered in the state to meet lower emission standards.
The only way that we can know if "more than 75 percent of Minnesotans favor the legislation" is if the poll were to lay out California's regulations, then compare California's regulations with the EPA's regulations, then ask the poll's respondents which set of regulations they prefer.
Another troubling aspect of this legislation is the premise that CARB is built on. Here's a key part of that foundation:
Greenhouse Effect -The natural "greenhouse effect" allows the earth to remain warm and sustain life. Greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, like a blanket, and help determine our climate. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is being drastically altered by human activity .Notice the certainty in that final statement. The best we can say about that is that we aren't certain of that. We can say that the Earth's climate is changing but it's far from certain that greenhouse gas levels are "drastically altered by human activity."
Keep in mind that California's regulations are based, at least in part, on that premise being settled fact.
The thought that our emissions regulations would be regulated by California environmentalists is a scary thought. The op-ed submitted by Scott Lambert, Rick Ryan and Roger Moore highlights some troubling things, such as this:
The environmental community has a firm grip on CARB, and while Minnesotans affected by regulatory whims in California vainly look to their ballots, they will find no California representatives to seek relief from. That's just the way environmentalists want it. Regulation without representation. They know what's best for us.This type of top-down model of government goes against every libertarian instinct known to man. It also goes against market principles.
The top-down management model doesn't fit into today's world because there are more people using the internet to gather information, which they then use to make more informed decisions more consistently.
I can't stress that point vigorously enough because it's the best path to good governance.
History shows that Minnesotans want to be good environmental stewards. It's also true that we prefer having an influence on the regulations that we're subject to. If we adopt California's emission standards, we will have ceded the last bit of influence we have on the regulatory process.
The good news is that, if we don't pass this legislation, then the federal EPA regulations will be what we're governed by.
That's a better option because Minnesota legislators would then be able to influence the EPA's regulations with legislation. While that isn't as appealing as Minnesotans setting the regulations directly, it's a superior model than giving CARB total control of our environmental regulations.
Here's another graph that is troubling:
There are only two air quality standards available to Americans: the EPA standards which we all default into, or the California standards which were designed in the 1970s to deal with California's smog problems. Eleven other states with similar serious smog issues have adopted these standards.Why do we need to adopt such drastic measures? We certainly aren't facing the environmental problems that California faced in the 1970's. This type of 'the sky is falling' model of governance is heavy-handed and foolish. It's quite possibly dangerous, too.
What Marty, Peterson, Ropes and Hortman want is to adopt regulations meant to clean up the environmental disaster of 1970's Californian. We don't have the environmental troubles in 21st century Minnesota that 1970's California had.
The next logical question that must be answered is simple: Why do Sen. Marty, Rep. Peterson, Sen. Ropes and Rep. Hortman offer this legislation? I suspect that it's because they don't trust citizens to govern themselves. I suspect that they prefer letting unaccountable bodies make important decisions for us because it takes accountability and control out of our hands.
That type of governance should be utterly discredited and totally discarded. Washington regulations are bad enough. California regulations are worse. Simply put, if someone wants to regulate us, then we should have a say in the decisionmaking process.
That's unacceptable.
Originally posted Monday, April 7, 2008, revised 16-Apr 10:46 AM
No comments.
Today's Must Reading: Rep. Severson Editorial
Check out Rep. Severson's editorial in the St. Cloud Times. Here's a little glimpse of Rep. Severson's editorial:
Not even the looming prospect of a billion-dollar budget deficit has persuaded members of the Legislature's majority to act fiscally responsible.As I noted here , the DFL showed a total disregard for fiscal responsibility. They had the opportunity to act responsibly but they didn't. Here's what tells me that the DFL won't act responsibly in the future:
Now our bond rating, which affects our ability to let bonds for everything from local sewers to schools, could be compromised. Responsible legislation called for honoring the state's prescribed bonding limit; instead, the House passed a bill that is $100 million more than we can afford. Gorilla cages and other pet projects form a pile of wants atop a bill of needs.
In light of the state's budget forecast earlier this session, which predicted a $935 million deficit this year, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, acting on the recommendation of the state's economist Tom Stinson, said that he would not sign a bonding bill that was larger than $825 million. Langseth, it was repeated on both floors, would not come down below $925 million in general obligation bonds, even though Hausman and many of her DFLer cohorts were willing to go lower.Tom Stinson is an economist with impeccable credentials. Gov. Pawlenty asked the legislature to stay within the 3 percent guidelines because that's what Mr. Stinson recommended. Keith Langseth refused to stay within that limit, likely for purely political reasons. That's why it's time to ask whether Sen. Langseth was instructed by Larry Pogemiller and Tarryl Clark to maintain spending at that high level or if they simply passively permitted Sen. Langseth to dictate the terms of the 'compromise.' Either way, it's an irresponsible abdication of responsibility on their part.
It's becoming painfully obvious that Minesota's short- and long-term prosperity is at risk with the DFL acting this irresponsibly.
Posted Monday, April 7, 2008 9:19 AM
Comment 1 by Alec at 07-Apr-08 10:06 AM
Off topic....
"I don't recall Republicans being allowed into DFL conventions to record their every word."
DFL meetings are open to the public and transparent, which is the trademark of Democracy.
What exactly are you afraid of people hearing Gary?
Maliki to al-Sadr: Disband Mehdi Militia or Else
Nouri al-Maliki couldn't have expressed it more clearly. While Muqtada al-Sadr is calling for a ceasefire, al-Maliki is demanding that Sadr's militia disband . Here's what the UPI is reporting:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday that Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr must disband his Mehdi Army.While the formerly mainstream media talks about Basra in terms of a pivotal uprising that we were in danger of losing, verifiable reports from Basra told a totally different story. Maliki's demands are further proof that Sadr's forces are staggering and in trouble. Like Jack Kelly wrote yesterday , people with the upper hand in a fight don't call for ceasefires:
In an exclusive interview with CNN, the Iraqi official demanded that the radical Shiite leader immediately disband his forces, which recently clashed with the Iraqi military.
The Iraqi prime minister applauded his country's military forces for their efforts in those violent clashes and denied reports that neighboring Iran helped bring about a cease-fire.
CNN reported Maliki has the backing of top Iraqi political leaders to bar all followers of Sadr from engaging in the Iraqi political process if the dismantling of the cleric's militia does not begin.
The cease fire "is seen as a serious blow" to Mr. Maliki, because "he had vowed that he would see the Basra campaign through to a military victory," wrote Erica Goode and James Glanz of the New York Times Monday.I'll add this caveat to Mr. Kelly's statment: It isn't commonplace to have someone who's taking a beating to demand anything of the guy doing the beating.
But Nibras Kazimi, an Iraqi who is a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute, says his sources in Iraq tell him "the Mahdi army is losing very badly."
So who's right? It is rare in the annals of war for the side which is winning to seek a cease fire. And though Mr. al Sadr has said he wants one, Mr. Maliki hasn't said he'll grant one. "Security operations in Basra will continue," he said Monday.
There's only one conclusion a thinking person can draw from this information: that things are going badly for Sadr's militia and their Iranian suppliers. Here's what Bill Roggio was reporting:
"They were running short of ammunition, food and water," a U.S. military officer told Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal. "In short, (the Mahdi army) had no ability to sustain the effort."Don't expect al-Maliki to pull back now. He knows that American and coalition support would evaporate if he did.
It isn't foolish to think that this information will have political repercussions this week when Gen. Petraeus testifies. I'll guarantee that this won't be a pleasant week for Democrats.
Posted Monday, April 7, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment 1 by Alec at 07-Apr-08 04:36 PM
Malaki has picked up the Bush trick of just extending a deadline when you fail at something. How many "just wait another six months" type statements have we heard from the Bushies.
You don't keep extending the deadline for disbanding if you are in a position of power.
This is at least the 5th "last warning" Malaki has given Sadr, just like we have been through about 8 "we just need 6 months to turn the corner" time periods from Bush.
Yeah, they sound authoritative!
Pawlenty to End Guessing Game This Afternoon
This afternooon, Gov. Pawlenty will anounce whether he's vetoing the entire Capital Investment bill or if he'll pare it down with his line-item veto authority. Here's what the Strib is reporting:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has scheduled a news conference for 2:30 p.m. today and is expected to reveal how he'll deal with a $925 million bonding bill that has passed both houses of the Legislature.Actually, Gov. Pawlenty didn't say that "the bill needs to closer to $825 million"; he said that it couldn't exceed $825 million. If Gov. Pawlenty vetoes the entire bill, it will be sustained by House Republicans.
Pawlenty has said that the size of the bill is too high. He can veto the bill entirely, use his line-item veto power to remove certain projects or sign it into law.
Pawlenty has said it needs to be closer to $825 million. The dispute focuses on whether the $925 million in long-term borrowing would violate a state guideline that limits general obligation bonds to 3 percent of the state's general fund.
One rumor making the rounds is that Gov. Pawlenty might use his line-item veto authority to trim it well below the $825 million mark. Either way, it'll be another defeat for the DFL.
We'll know soon enough.
Posted Monday, April 7, 2008 11:44 AM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty's Veto Pen Needs a Refill After This
According to MPR's article , it's obvious that Gov. Pawlenty's Taxpayers Protection Pen needs a refill. That's because he chopped Keith Langseth's $925 million bonding bill down to $717 million. Rumor has it that Sen. Langseth's backside is covered with treadmarks.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has signed a borrow-to-build plan after cutting out projects to reduce the price tag.
Pawlenty decided Monday to use his line-item veto authority rather than taking down an entire $925 million bonding bill. He's letting $717 million worth of projects stand.
The Republican governor had said he wouldn't accept a bill that adds more than $825 million to the state's general debt load.
The total value of all of the construction projects could be higher because federal or local dollars are often required to match state contributions.
The bill pays for renovations and new construction at colleges, prisons, wastewater treatment facilities, regional civic centers and the like.
I'd heard from a Capitol insider earlier today that Gov. Pawlenty wouldn't veto the entire bill. This insider said that it was "quite possible" that Gov. Pawlenty could trim the bill well below the $825 million limit he placed on the legislature. This insider also told me that Alice Hausman was prepared to meet Gov. Pawlenty's $825 million limit but wasn't able to get that past Keith Langseth.
This is a stunning defeat for the DFL, especially for Keith Langseth. He played chicken with a powerful governor. I'll put my money on the powerful governor in that situation every time.
Check back later for the list of specific projects that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed.
UPDATE: Here's the list of specifics :
- $70 million for the Central Corridor light rail line between Minneapolis and St. Paul
- $11 million for the St. Paul's Como Zoo.
- $5 million for St. Paul's Asian Pacific Cultural Center.
- Two University of Minnesota projects, $24 million for a new Bell Museum of Natural History and $2 million for classroom renovations in Crookston, Duluth, Morris and the Twin Cities
- $16 million for the Red Lake school district
- $46.7 million work of MnSCU project, including $13 million for North Hennepin Technical College's Center for Business and Technology and $11 million to Lake Superior Community and Technical College's health and science center.
- $7.7 million worth of amateur sports center projects, including money for the National Sports Center in Blaine, the National Volleyball Center in Rochester and the Northwest regional Sports Center in Moorhead.
- $2 million each for St. Paul's Union Depot, $2 million to replace the Cedar Avenue bridge and $2 million for the National Great River Park along the Mississippi River in St. Paul.
- $4 million in planning money for a high-speed rail line between St. Paul and Chicago and other projects.
Originally posted Monday, April 7, 2008, revised 16-Apr 5:22 PM
No comments.
Statewide Reaction To Today's Veto
Here's what the Pi-Press is reporting :
Specifically, he cut out:Here's what the Crookston Daily Times is reporting :
"It makes no sense," said Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, after a Pioneer Press reporter told her of the veto. After conferring with a county lobbyist, she continued: "It was his proposal to begin with. We did everything he asked for. We reached consensus. So he vetos himself?"
- $70 million for the Central Corridor light rail line between Minneapolis and St. Paul.
- $11 million for St. Paul's Como Zoo.
- $5 million for St. Paul's Asian Pacific Cultural Center.
- Two University of Minnesota projects, $24 million for a new Bell Museum of Natural History and $2 million for classroom renovations in Crookston, Duluth, Morris and the Twin Cities.
- $7.7 million worth of amateur sports center projects, including money for the National Sports Center in Blaine, the National Volleyball Center in Rochester and the Northwest regional Sports Center in Moorhead.
- $2 million each for St. Paul's Union Depot, $2 million to replace the Cedar Avenue bridge and $2 million for the National Great River Park along the Mississippi River in St. Paul.
- $4 million in planning money for a high-speed rail line between St. Paul and Chicago and other projects.
- $16 million for the Red Lake school district.
- $46.7 million work of MnSCU project, including $13 million for North Hennepin Technical College's Center for Business and Technology and $11 million to Lake Superior Community and Technical College's health and science center.
- The biggest single veto was for the Central Corridor line, which caused some jaws to drop in the second floor of the Ramsey County Courthouse and St. Paul City Hall as news of the veto spread.
Pawlenty said the rail line will "rise or fall" based on the Legislature's fiscal discipline going forward.
"We are pulling it into the maintenance shed for further inspection," Pawlenty said.
Although his vetoes seemed to hit the St. Paul area particularly hard, Pawlenty said he had no personal agenda in choosing the projects to veto. The vetoes, he said, were based on merit or lack thereof.
Asked to confirm that the $10 million in state bonding for Crookston's arena relocation had survived his 52 line-item vetoes that trimmed the bill from $925 million to $716 million, Pawlenty said the $10 million is in the bill.This was the fiscally responsible thing to do. Had Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the bill in its entirety, Larry Pogemiller hinted on MPR that they might not work on another bonding bill. Clearly, that wouldn't have been a good outcome.
"In Crookston, they have a flood issue, and the arena is very, very close to the river, so this arena relocation is part of their flood mitigation plan," he said. "On that basis we allowed that one to go forward."
The city had asked for $12.89 million as part of a $14.46 million package to build a three-sheet ice arena complex with some multi-use capabilities, likely near the high school. But when it became clear that Crookston was either going to get $10 million or possibly nothing at all this year, city officials expressed satisfaction over the $10 million allocation.
Likewise, if he'd left the bill at $925 million, bond rating houses might've lowered our rating, leaving Minnesota's taxpayers needlessly paying higher interest rates on their bonds.
UPDATE: Here's what Larry Schumacher is reporting in the St. Cloud Times:
Every St. Cloud area project that made a final state construction borrowing bill survived Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto pen today.His sentence that "the fiscal responsibility job falls to me" is certain to make tonight's evening news reports.
Pawlenty vetoed $208 million in line items from the $925 million bonding bill lawmakers sent him last week, choosing not to reject the entire bill.
"A lot of these projects are good projects, but you can't pay for them all in one year," Pawlenty said at a news conference announcing his decision. "It seems the fiscal responsibility job falls to me."
Gone from the bill was $70 million for the Central Corridor light rail project to connect Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Those two DFL stronghold cities seemed to suffer the heaviest losses from the bill, which canceled out money for St. Paul's Como Zoo, a Minneapolis Orchestra Hall redesign, a St. Paul Asian Pacific Cultural Center and other items.
But money for St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud Technical College, the St. Cloud Civic Center, Central Minnesota parks and trails and the National Hockey Center expansion survived.
"These projects are very important to the future of St. Cloud State and Bemidji State," Pawlenty said of his decision to allow hockey-related stadium improvements in both survive.
Posted Monday, April 7, 2008 4:40 PM
No comments.
Rep. Gottwalt Reacts to Bonding Bill Provisions
Here's Rep. Steve Gottwalt's reaction to the bonding bill & to Gov. Pawlenty's line item vetoes:
Dear Neighbor:This is a very good outcome for St. Cloud. We essentially got everything on our final list. Rep. Gottwalt is also right in saying that Gov. Pawlenty wasn't left with much of a choice after the DFL ignored his limits.
I want to send you this quick update to let you know how the Bonding Bill turned out for our area.
Over the weekend, I spoke directly with Governor Pawlenty and his staff. They sought direction on our local requests, and I encouraged the Governor to support them. Today we learned the results. The Governor line-item vetoed quite a few items in the bill to bring it well within the state's bonding limit.
But the St. Cloud area did very well. The bill Governor Pawlenty signed includes the requests for the Rocori Trail, St. Cloud Civic Center, the National Hockey Center, St. Cloud State University's requests, and the St. Cloud Technical College. Considering there were more than $5 billion in total requests, our area did extremely well.
Governor Pawlenty pointed out that, since the legislative leadership could not or would not bring the bill within the state's spending guidelines (which have been followed by every legislature and governor since Rudy Perpich), he had to bring it in line. He did so by line item vetoing $208 million worth of projects, bringing the bonding bill down to $716 million -- well below the limit of $825 million. This is good news for our area. I am grateful to the Governor for his support of our area, and his fiscal responsibility.
This will be a busy week, and I'll provide further updates as the week goes on. Please keep in touch, and continue to let me know how I can help.
Sincerely in service,
State Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 15A
231 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Here's some important paragraphs from Gov. Pawlenty's veto letter to Speaker Kelliher:
I am very disappointed that the legislature ignored an understanding between my office and legislative leadership and my repeated warnings to abide by the state's longstanding debt limit. It is irresponsible to exceed the "credit card limit" that has been maintained by governors and legislators of both parties for 30 years. Doing so could jeopardize our state's strong credit rating and low interest rates.Here's another key graph:
In addition, this bill reflects misplaced priorities. As just one example, it is inconceivable that legislators would fund a brass band lending library and yet not fund a much needed new nursing home at the Minnesota Veterans Home.Finally, there's this paragraph:
Reducing the bill to this level reflects my commitment to fiscal discipline and an attempt to prioritize important state projects.Gov. Pawlenty has wielded his line-item veto pen in an attempt to bring fiscal sanity to a dysfunctional process. He is to be applauded for his protecting Minnesota's taxpayer's wallets while maintaining a commitment to funding important, and worthwhile, projects.
Politics is a zero-sum game. For that reason, Gov. Pawlenty has won the week for the GOP and for Minnesota's taxpayers because he wouldn't let the DFL get away with their fiscal irresponsibility. As a result, this has to spotlight that the DFL isn't a fiscally responsible party.
Originally posted Monday, April 7, 2008, revised 08-Apr 8:16 AM
No comments.
