August 30-31, 2010
Aug 30 12:57 Mark Dayton's Double Standards Aug 30 10:36 Journalistic Malpractice, Part I Aug 30 18:51 Tarryl's Tall Tales Aug 31 10:45 Now He Cares?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Mark Dayton's Double Standards
During this morning's press conference, Sen. Dayton was asked why his lawyers removed public documents. He acted as if they'd been magically lifted from the public's view. He hinted that he didn't have anything to do with those records not being part of the public record.
When MDE's Luke Hellier asked Sen. Dayton if he'd instruct his attorneys to return the documents to the public record, Sen. Dayton replied that he didn't think that that's what people are interested in this election cycle.
With all due respect, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether Sen. Dayton is fine with hiding things from his past. If he is, then that's something that Minnesotans should know prior to Election Day.
Sen. Dayton, what are you hiding? Are you covering up things from your admitted history of depression and alcoholism? It's impossible for Minnesotans to know since Sen. Dayton is being secretive. It isn't that the documents are sealed. They were taken by Dayton's lawyers.
When Luke asked another question, Sen. Dayton replied this way:
"Minnesotans are disgusted with negative campaign tactics. I trust they want to take the high road."If we had a real media, they'd ask Sen. Dayton why his family is running one dishonest ad after another about Tom Emmer. If we had a real media, they'd be asking why his allegedly detailed budget numbers add up to a big deficit. A real media would be asking whether Sen. Dayton would raise taxes on the middle class to cover the shortfall.
Sen. Dayton is counting on the media's malpractice and double standards to keep letting him get away with saying that he abhors "negative campaign tactics" while his family uses dishonest "negative campaign tactics."
It's time that somebody told the truth about Sen. Dayton. Sen. Dayton doesn't hate "negative campaign tactics" if they're used against his opponent. Sen. Dayton's detailed budget numbers add up to a whopping multi-billion dollar deficit. Sen. Dayton would raise taxes on middle class families and on the rich to pay for reckless spending habits. Sen. Dayton is counting on the media's malpractice to hide this information from Minnesotans.
When Sen. Dayton comes clean about his attorney removing unsealed documents from the public record, when Sen. Dayton tells the SEIU, EdMinn and his family to stop lying about Tom Emmer, when Sen. Dayton stops omitting the part that he'll need to raise taxes on the middle class, then he'll have earned the public's trust.
At this point, he isn't even close to earning our trust. At this point, Sen. Dayton shouldn't be trusted on anything he says other than his plan to increase spending.
It's worth noting that the Agenda Media shouldn't be trusted in their 'reporting' of the Dayton campaign. (It's difficult to trust in something that only marginally exists, isn't it?)
Posted Monday, August 30, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Aug-10 06:19 AM
The question is whether Dayton can be trusted to do a better job for Minnesota than Emmer or Horner.
Why go so far afield?
Have you little or nothing to say positive about Emmer?
I am that way, but I am not GOP.
You have criticized Dayton as Senator, a station Emmer could only speculate about.
Emmer is a uber-conservative small town lawyer. What's he done? What accomplishment record has he?
Yes his seven kids seem okay in a commercial but, so what?
Comment 2 by Doug Benson at 31-Aug-10 12:50 PM
Luke Hellier has corrected his post to reflect that the affidavits were removed from the court file by the attorney for Dayton's wife, not by Mark Dayton or the attorney for Dayton. That seems to me to make it more likely that the affidavits raised issues personally sensitive to Dayton's wife rather than to Dayton.
Journalistic Malpractice, Part I
This weekend, I've written about deconstructing Lori Sturdevant's column and Esme Murphy's interviewing Tarryl Clark . What I haven't written about yet was Rachel Stassen Berger's tweet in which she said this:
There's anti-Dayton lit at the GOP fair booth but no pro-emmer lit.She later updated that with this tweet:
In the strongest possible terms the GOP insists there was always pro-Emmer lit at their fair booth.I'm incredibly disappointed in the media to varying degrees. In the case of Rachel Stassen-Berger, I'll probably be a bit more lenient than I'll be with Lori Sturdevant and Esme Murphy, if for no other reason than she posted a tweet saying that the GOP insists that "there was always pro-Emmer lit at their fair booth."
I believe the pro-Emmer lit was there from the start because Eric Radtke told me that "he GOP booth is all about Emmer. The buttons are Emmer the balloons are Emmer, and yes there is Emmer lit. Put it there myself." Knowing Eric, I'll trust him.
I won't be as lenient with Lori Sturdevant because didn't take into account a number of different things that should've been taken into account. Let's start with what she said in column:
In three early morning debates in as many bleary-eyed days, Emmer denied that there's a red-ink tsunami ahead in the state's 2012-13 budget.Shortly thereafter, she made this comment:
In fact, the three-term state rep from Delano asserted, the state is going to have $2 billion more to spend in the next two-year budget period than it's spending in the current one. That's a 7 percent increase, he allowed, and that ought to be sufficient for any sensible Minnesotan.
Emmer's numbers aren't wrong. They're just misleadingly incomplete.Nowhere in her article does Ms. Sturdevant say what I've said: that Mark Dayton's numbers don't add up to a balanced budget. In fact, they fall far short. More on that later.
I spoke with a man who I consider to be a budget expert last night by the name of Jim Knoblach. Jim had a $4.2 billion deficit dumped in his lap shortly after Tim Pawlenty was first elected governor.
I specifically asked Jim whether cleaning up the permitting process could create jobs and whether those jobs would change the revenue projections. I specifically talked about the mining jobs that will eventually be created when Polymet gets its permits.
Jim said that streamlining Minnesota's permitting process would help create jobs. In Polymet's instance, that's supposed to be north of 2,000 highpaying jobs in an area with high unemployment.
Not so coincidentally, streamlining the permitting process is high on Tom Emmer's priority list. Wouldn't it have been informative if Ms. Sturdevant had mentioned that in her article? It isn't like this is treated like top secret information.
By including that information in her article, though, Sturdevant would've admitted that Tom Emmer a) has a positive agenda that will put people back to work, b) has a plan to get Minnesota's economy going and c) thinks it's important to make Minnesota more business friendly. That certainly wouldn't fit into Ms. Sturdevant's storyline.
Admitting that Mark Dayton's numbers don't add up to a balanced budget doesn't fit into Ms. Sturdevant's storyline, either. Sen. Dayton says that he'll get $4,000,000,000 in additional revenue with his tax-the-rich plan. The Minnesota Department of Revenue says that that figure is more likely to be $3,300,000,000 to $3,600,000,000.
It's important to note that the Minnesota Department of Revenue uses static scoring, meaning they don't take into account the unintended consequences that happen when policies shift. For instance, they don't take into account the fact that businesses will leave Minnesota for states with friendlier business climates. Suffice it to say that it isn't likely that Sen. Dayton's numbers will come close to being right, perhaps to the tune of $1,000,000,000.
During a debate on Almanac, Rep. Emmer talked about streamlining permitting. When Sen. Dayton said that he wouldn't have a problem with streamlining the permitting process, Rep. Emmer noted that Sen. Dayton had never written or co-sponsored a bill streamlining any part of government.
This leads to Sen. Dayton's supposed detailed budget plan, all 2 and a half pages of it. There's nothing in Sen. Dayton's supposed detailed budget plan that talks about regulatory reform. in fact, there's nothing in Sen. Dayton's supposed detailed budget plan that even talks about reform.
It's disturbing that Ms. Sturdevant didn't mention Sen. Dayton's inconsistencies. If Dayton's revenue projections are off that much, what will he cut? Or whose taxes will he raise? It's much more likely that Sen. Dayton will raise taxes on suburbanites making $75,000 than he's likely to cut spending.
Here's reality: Dayton can't cut spending much because he has too many DFL special interest allies to pay off.
It isn't a secret that Lori Sturdevant is a DFL partisan. It hasn't been a secret for years. Now it's getting dangerous, though, because the numbers matter, the policies matter. If you won't challenge the DFL candidates, then you're just part of the problem.
Minnesota can't afford more of this journalistic malpractice.
Posted Monday, August 30, 2010 10:42 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 31-Aug-10 08:58 AM
I can't help but wonder when Tom Emmer, during one of these back-and-forths, simply sighs and asks "why can't we just do the right thing because it's the right thing, rather than getting wrapped up in politics and budgets?" "Delaying business permits doesn't help anybody, and streamlining the process is the right thing to do. Period. If that helps create jobs faster, which it does, that's the right thing as well. If that reduces the cost of government, which it does, that's the right thing, too. Let's do the right things right."
Tarryl's Tall Tales
It'd be nice if the supposedly MSM dug into this but, since they won't, I'll highlight the 'errors' in Tarryl's latest ad. Here's one of Tarryl's claims:
In the legislature, she fought for middle class families, and when the state faced a record budget deficit, she put taxpayers first by voluntarily cutting her compensation and pay.Tarryl put her compensation first in 2007:
As vice-chair of the Senate Rules and Administration committee, Clark voted to raise per diem allowances from $66 to $96, and monthly housing allowance from $900 to $1,200.That information isn't something that the Bachmann campaign made up. It's information from a St. Cloud Times article written by that noted right wing ideologue Larry Schumacher. In fact, that isn't the extent of Tarryl's flippant behavior on keeping costs down. Here's what Leo wrote about Tarryl about raising per diem:
"Don't worry. There has never been anyone who hadn't been re-elected because they raised their (own) pay. The voters won't remember ."Does that sound like someone who's vigilant about keeping government costs down? Forgive me if I find Tarryl's claims about being fiscally responsible a little less than credible.
It goes further than that. The DFL Senate didn't want to put that to a vote of the full Senate, preferring to deal with it in the Rules Committee instead. Without Ray Vandeveer's persistance, the per diem increase wouldn't have gotten a vote of the full Senate. The DFL leadership, including Tarryl, prefered secrecy to transparency. That speaks volumes about Tarryl. It says that she wanted to raise her pay without there being a vote of the full Minnesota Senate.
It isn't unreasonable to think that, especially on this, Tarryl puts a high priority on transparency. If she's that committed to standing up for middle class families, shouldn't she insist on a full vote of the Senate? If she's that committed to standing up for middle class families, shouldn't she have voted against a 50 percent per diem raise. (It isn't like $66/day isn't substantial.)
I wrote in this post about all the regressive taxes Tarryl voted to increase. I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how voting for regressive tax increases while the economy is slowing is fighting for middle class families.
I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how increasing spending by 17 percent in 2007 is fighting for middle class families. I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how raising taxes, both progressive and regressive, by more than $5 billion when Minnesota had a $2,163,000,000 surplus is fighting for middle class families.
I suspect that Tarryl won't explain those things because raising taxes when you have a surplus isn't how you fight for middle class families. Spending the surplus instead of cutting taxes isn't the way to fight for middle class families, either.
Tarryl's actions don't match the words in her commercials. Tarryl is the legislator who told Tom Hauser that she didn't think she could find more than $500,000,000 of savings in the Minnesota budget in January, 2009 and she's the candidate that touts the fact that she voted for a 10 percent spending cut in May, 2010.
That says it all, doesn't it?
Posted Monday, August 30, 2010 6:51 PM
No comments.
Now He Cares?
After not caring about the Polymet permitting process for years, Jim Oberstar finally cares . Sort of:
It's been in the works for more than four years, but when the environmental review came out last fall, the federal government blasted the report as inadequate.It's been 4 years since the permitting and inspection process started. Finally, it's got the attention of Rep. Oberstar? Why didn't he take interest before this? There's a simple answer for why it's finally got his attention: Tom Emmer has made this a focal point of the campaign and Sen. Dayton is looking like he doesn't care about job creation.
Oberstar says he wants a thorough review, but it shouldn't take so long.
"The red tape, the slowdown, the lack of full attention by federal and state permitting agencies has dragged this process out much too long," said Oberstar.
Oberstar said the No. 1 issue people talk about in northeastern Minnesota is jobs. And the Polymet mine promises 400 jobs.
"I've heard some concerns, 'Be careful about our environment. We love this land, we don't want our waters to be adversely affected.' And I've assured people that corners will not be cut, there will be no exceptions made, but we have to do this in an expeditious manner," he said.
Enter Rep. Oberstar to cut the red tape. Enter Rep. Oberstar so jobs can be created. What a great guy Rep. Oberstar is. For that matter, what a great guy Sen. Dayton is.
There's just one problem with this picture. If Rep. Emmer hadn't brought it up, and if the issue hadn't gained traction, it's likely that this project still wouldn't be getting attention. Let's remember that Sen. Dayton wasn't worried about streamlining the permitting process during the final DFL debate before the primary.
As for Rep. Oberstar, why didn't he take an interest in the process long before this? Polymet's been run through the ringer for 5 years. Suddenly, he cares? Why didn't he care before the MNGOP candidate brought it up at a debate? Why didn't he care prior to Tom Emmer making this a major political issue?
Mining is the bread and butter of the Iron Range economy. Creating hundreds of jobs should've been Rep. Oberstar's first priority. Iron Rangers now know that it wasn't Oberstar's top priority.
Chip Cravaack is the MNGOP-endorsed candidate for MN-08. Unlike 'Lord Oberstar', Cravaack will represent the district. That's because he's actually listening to the people of the Eighth District. Had Rep. Oberstar listened to his constituents, he would've taken an interest in Polymet sooner.
Instead, he jumped into action when his political ally, Sen. Dayton, got into political hot water. That's just what I'd expect from the guy whose highest priority many years is getting bike paths built with highway Trust Fund money.
Sen. Dayton and Rep. Oberstar won't represent Minnesota because they're too busy catering to their political allies in the environmental movement.
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:45 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Sep-10 06:17 AM
Emmer seems happy to pose a few jobs in mining and in mining construction, for a decade or three, against inadequate environmental safeguards where the earth can be scarred for centuries.
Mines traditionally, to maximize the return, bail out and move out and do so via a subsidiary that's an empty shell even renting plant and equipment from elsewhere so that cleanup is left to government unless there's an escrow demanded up front and policed to remain adequate for ultimate ending and environmentally safe decomissioning.
What's Emmer's and the GOP position on adequate escrow?
That's the key. If you permit the mining you do not socialize the environmental threats and degradation. You keep all costs with the benefits, i.e., the mining company has to be held to escrow so that costs at the end do not end up socialized while the fat cats have departed with all the money the metals earned on the market.
Socializing environmental costs has been a past harm and worry. History teaches that you have to step hard on these people to assure responsibility and to never let up too much on keeping the foot on the throat of the bad guys.
