April 1-7, 2013
Apr 01 03:10 Dayton's stumbles Apr 01 11:16 Are background checks for guns legal? Apr 02 04:05 Business leaders don't give Dayton pass on taxes Apr 02 09:30 Another Dayton mistake that won't disappear Apr 02 10:49 Another giant leap for students Apr 04 04:29 DFL legislature bails out political allies, throws taxpayers under bus Apr 05 01:18 Gov. Dayton, business community at odds on tax increases Apr 06 09:38 Will DFL politicians vote against accountability? Apr 07 12:14 The DFL's anti-reform, anti-accountability agenda
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dayton's stumbles
The cruelest April Fools joke Minnesotans have experienced is the disastrous month Gov. Dayton just finished. It's a month marked by incompetence (see e-tab revenue projections ), overreaching (see Gov. Dayton's 'tax reform proposal') and outright foolishness (see his taxing kids who babysit, mow lawns and shovel snow .)
The reality is that Gov. Dayton has shown a hostility towards businesses that create jobs and thrive on competition. Meanwhile he's shown an affinity towards unions that insist on protecting their clients while rejecting competition and reform. If the major media outlets actually investigated organizations like Conservation Minnesota, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership and the Minnesota Center on Environmental Activism, they'd find a DFL ally that's killing Minnesota's economy. They'd find the network that's preventing Iron Range families from making a great living.
What that means politically for Gov. Dayton is that he'll face some strong headwinds in running for re-election. He's had to rewrite his budget in both 2011 and 2013. He'll still have ABM running another unprecedented smear campaign. This time, though, the Minnesota Jobs Coalition will be pushing back. In fact, tthe Minnesota Jobs Coalition plans on hitting back hard.
That's important because Gov. Dayton benefited from ABM not getting challenged by business organizations in terms of media ABM's lies were disgusting. ABM's lines didn't have anything to do with reality. In short, they demagogued every issue imaginable without pushback.
That won't happen this cycle.
The MNGOP candidate will be well-funded this time. Ditto with the Minnesota Jobs Coalition. The worst news for Gov. Dayton is that he'll have a record of needlessly shutting down state government, raising taxes on Minnesotans of all income levels while attempting to unionize small businesses and limit law abiding citizens' right to protect their families.
Finally, he'll have the problem of dealing with a gubernatorial candidate named Dayton. His open hostility towards people who work hard and create jobs will hurt him. His thoughtlessness in putting his tax increases together show he doesn't think things through. Finally, his reliance on the Minnesota Gambling Board's projections for e-tab revenues show he's utterly gullible or willfully blind when he wants something like the Vikings stadium bad enough.
That isn't what a statesman does. That's what foolish people do. Stupidity is what gets people in trouble. Pride is what keeps them there. At this point, it's pretty clear, Gov. Dayton has an overabundance of foolishness at a time when Minnesotans need wisdom from their leaders.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Minnesota Vikings Stadium , Electronic Pull Tabs , Revenue Forecast , State Government Shutdown , ABM , Smear Campaign , MCEA , MEP , Tax Increases , Sales Tax , Tax The Rich , DFL , Small Businesses , Minnesota Jobs Coalition , Free Market Capitalism , MNGOP , Election 2014
Posted Monday, April 1, 2013 3:10 AM
No comments.
Are background checks for guns legal?
When Rep. Paymar and Rep. Hausman introduced their gun grab legislation, they thought they'd get sweeping (that's code for unconstitutional) legislation signed into law by a smiling Gov. Dayton. Then reality set in. Rural DFL legislators started saying no in droves. Pretty soon, the discussion shifted to closing the mythical 'gun show loophole'. Then it shifted to background checks.
The problem with background checks is that they aren't that straightforward. That's best illustrated in this exchange between Chris Wallace and Gabby Giffords' husband:
WALLACE: Captain Kelly, what do you think that showed?
KELLY: Well, you know, we went in there, my executive director and ours, the executive of our organization, and in five minutes and 36 seconds is the time it took to fill out one piece of paper. You only have to fill out one side and for it to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and get an answer. Five minutes and 36 seconds.
So, what it shows you is that it is not the burden that the NRA leadership says, what a background check is. I mean, it's a simple, common sense thing we can do to make sure the criminals and the mentally ill can't have access to firearms.
WALLACE: Well, let's talk about that, because in Gabby's tragic case, the shooter, Jared Loughner, had been suspended from college because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and to others. He went to a gun store, he got a gun, passed a background check. And, yet he was able then of course to go out and shoot Gabby and 18 other people.
And, the NRA says the problem, the problem with the background check is that, the kind of mental health information, for instance in Loughner's case, doesn't get passed on, so it doesn't get to be part of the background check.
Noel Sheppard's commentary is noteworthy:
Not surprisingly, much of the media are ignorant of something called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which established very strict security guidelines concerning the dissemination of individual health records.
Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights announced that it will soon publish a request for information on barriers related to HIPAA that could prevent states from making certain information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
In other words, HIPAA's security provisions make background checks ineffective. The background check legislation would make legislators think that they've done something without doing anything meaningful.
That's typical surely-we-must-do-something legislation. In the activists' minds, it isn't whether the legislation solves a problem. It's important because it shows 'we cared enough to do something'. It's time politicians figured it out that people want solutions. People aren't interested in busywork legislation that doesn't make their lives better.
It's understandable that Capt. Kelly is a gun control activist. His wife was nearly killed by a gun-wielding violent man. That said, we shouldn't pass legislation based solely on a person's emotional experiences. Legislation should be written after going through a thoughtful analysis of what will improve public safety within the limits of the Constitution.
Whether it's federal gun control legislation that Capt. Kelly prefers or whether it's legislation crafted by Reps. Paymar and Housman, gun control is a tricky issue complicated by HIPAA and the Bill of Rights.
Tags: Gun Control , Background Checks , Gabby Giffords , Jared Loughner , Mark Kelly , Michael Paymar , Alice Hausman , DFL , Second Amendment , HIPAA , Privacy
Posted Monday, April 1, 2013 11:16 AM
No comments.
Business leaders don't give Dayton pass on taxes
The first thing that's obvious in this article is that Gov. Dayton's staff knows Gov. Dayton made a PR mistake when he repeatedely and foolishly antagonized the business community. That's what this is about:
At a St. Paul Chamber of Commerce meeting last week, Mayor Chris Coleman playfully noted the tension between Gov. Mark Dayton and business leaders as he introduced Tina Smith, the governor's chief of staff.
"For those of you that brought rotten or rotting tomatoes to throw at the governor," Coleman said, "don't throw them at Tina!"
Smith defended Dayton's budget, including his call for a new income tax on the top 2 percent of earners. She also thanked the businesspeople for their contributions to the state.
"We may not always agree, but the governor respects deeply your perspective," she said. Smith's cordial tone is one that some business leaders say the governor needs to take.
Ms. Smith isn't telling the truth. Gov. Dayton insulted Teresa Bohnen and Mike Helgeson at Gov. Dayton's recent townhall meeting in St. Cloud. He essentially told Ms. Bohnen that she didn't know what she was talking about when she said she'd talked with several local companies that will expand outside Minnesota if Gov. Dayton's proposed income tax increase becomes law.
I watched last week's townhall on St. Cloud's local access channel. The first half-dozen questions/statements of support praised Gov. Dayton for his raising spending and/or increasing taxes. None of the questions/statements praised businesses for providing jobs or for how their taxes made public schools or public safety possible. The DFL plants in the room essentially took businesses for granted. Gov. Dayton did, too.
"Basically, we felt we were being scolded, we as business owners, and the chamber was being scolded for not agreeing with him," said Paul Huot of St. Paul-based Huot Manufacturing.
"There were eight of us sitting at our table, and three of them were ready to get up and walk out," said Huot, who was in the audience.
Olson said Huot and the people at his table were not alone. "It was, 'You don't know what you're talking about; you don't have the facts,'" Olson said of the governor's speech. "People were embarrassed for him and they were furious."
While Ms. Smith did her best to limit the damage Gov. Dayton caused himself with his anti-business rhetoric, it was far too little, far too late. The business community knows Gov. Dayton is taking them for granted. He sees business as a funding mechanism for intrusive government, not as the providers of prosperity.
If Gov. Dayton's attitude towards businesses doesn't change quickly and dramatically, he should expect significantly more push-back against his legislative agenda and during his re-election campaign from the business community.
In an interview about Dayton's relationship with the business community, Smith, his chief of staff, said the governor is trying to work with businesses directly rather than cater to groups like the chamber. "I think the governor is interested in making good public policy that moves Minnesota forward," she said. "I don't think he is too worried about what the business advocacy organizations are thinking or feeling."
That's spin. It's impossible to make "good public policy" without including business's pro-growth ideas. Cherrypicking allies might work. Ignoring entire segments of the economy won't work. That's picking winners and losers, something the DFL frequently does. That doesn't work. (Just ask President Obama if fighting for Solyndra while attempting to cripple the fossil fuel industry has worked.)
What Ms. Smith said is pretty revealing. She's actually suggested that Gov. Dayton isn't interested in all businesses, just those companies that agree with him. That certainly isn't the way to build a strong economy.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tina Smith , Chris Coleman , Tax Increases , Income Tax , President Obama , Solyndra , DFL , Minnesota Chamber of Commerce , David Olson , Small Businesses
Posted Tuesday, April 2, 2013 4:05 AM
No comments.
Another Dayton mistake that won't disappear
Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson's op-ed points the finger at Gov. Dayton's (lack of) leadership, highlighting Gov. Dayton's mistake-filled push for a Vikings stadium. Commissioner Johnson's criticism is harsh but justified. First, Commissioner Johnson lets Gov. Dayton hang himself with his own words:
If you had followed the stadium debate in the media and had listened to Gov. Mark Dayton standing next to NFL dignitaries extolling 'Purple Prosperity,' you might have thought the stadium legislation was all about cutting the best deal for the people of Minnesota. Again, you'd be wrong, but let's allow the governor to explain it to you:
'Unless somebody can prove conclusively otherwise, I would say everybody, the Gambling Control Board, the Department of Revenue, the Legislature, Republicans and Democrats, and my administration, everybody acted in good faith, and has applied their best judgment to a totally unprecedented situation,' Dayton told the Star Tribune.
'The Legislature, if they misunderstood the situation, they have no one to blame but themselves. And I have no one to blame but myself,' he added.
It's true that some GOP legislators voted for the Vikings stadium bill. They've had to reconcile their votes with their constituents. Some didn't win re-election as a result of that vote. With the exception of Julie Rosen and Morrie Lanning, though, these legislators didn't push for the Vikings stadium. They didn't put the funding mechanism together. The legislator that put that mess together, Sen. Bakk, and the 'leader' that pushed the deal, Gov. Dayton, are the people who have the most responsibility for this disaster.
Gov. Dayton's recklessness extends into pushing this deal without verifying the trustworthiness of the funding mechanism. That's downright irresponsible.
Commissioner Johnson doesn't stop there, though:
"You have to turn to somebody who has some knowledge and expertise,' Dayton said. 'I don't know what caused it to go awry,' he added. 'I know we're going to work to correct it.'
'We're going to work to correct it.'
How often do we hear that phrase echoed by a government official after government has embarked on some 'good faith' experiment into 'uncharted territory' with taxpayer money?
'We're going to work to correct it.'
And who's going to do all that working and correcting? Dayton and his administration, the ones who gave us the Vikings stadium mess in the first place.
What could possibly go wrong?
This isn't a good faith mistake. It's a decision *made to give Gov. Dayton a high profile political victory heading into his re-election campaign. That failed miserably. Unfortunately, Gov. Dayton isn't satisfied with just pushing through a disastrous Vikings stadium bill. He's now moved onto bigger, more destructive things:
The governor who engineered the Vikings stadium deal has now turned his attention to engineering a state-run health insurance exchange that will dramatically change the way Minnesotans purchase health care.
The governor who didn't know the stadium legislation allowed the Vikings to charge seat licensing fees to cover a portion of the team's contribution is crafting an exchange that will detail the mandatory benefits of insurance policies allowed in it.
The governor who accepted revenue estimates on electronic pulltabs that ended up being embarrassingly wrong is now estimating the cost of a state-run health exchange.
The governor who relied on gambling interests to advise him on gambling expansion is now relying on federal bureaucrats to advise him on government health care expansion.
What could possibly go wrong?
Just about everything might go wrong. The ACA is a disastrous piece of legislation. The Health Insurance Exchange, aka the HIX, is one of the things in the ACA that makes it a disaster. The ACA is administered by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a woman who doesn't have a clue about how insurance was designed to work :
This is why you should always have liability insurance, but should think twice about collision damage coverage. It's why high deductibles are a good idea; for small expenses, it's better to self insure. And it's why "catastrophic" health plans, which only cover the sort of extremely expensive events that most people would have difficulty financing, are a much better deal than the soup-to-nuts plans that most people get through their employers. Those plans are expensive, both because they're paying for a higher percentage of your expenses, and because they drive up utilization, which means that they drive up next year's premiums even more. Imagine what your car insurance would cost if it covered gasoline, routine maintenance, and those little air freshener trees you hang from the rearview mirror. Then stop asking why health insurance costs so much.
Minnesota's HIX will require tons of different coverages, with each driving up the cost of the average health insurance policy. It's already predictable what will happen when insurance premiums rise. Gov. Dayton will tell Minnesotans that it was a good faith mistake.
This time, though, Republicans didn't vote for the HIX. This time, Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk, Speaker Thissen and the DFL own the coming HIX disaster lock, stock and barrel.
The point is that Minnesotans can't afford more of Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's good faith mistakes. Their "good faith mistakes" are putting Minnesotans into a terrible bind financially.
Next election, Minnesotans should vote for people who get things right the first time rather than voting for people who will "work to correct" a litany of "good faith mistakes."
Tags: Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , Minnesota Vikings Stadium , Electronic Pulltabs , State Gambling Board , Gambling Expansion , Health Insurance Exchange , Kathleen Sebelius , HHS Secretary , PPACA , DFL , Jeff Johnson , Hennepin County Commissioner , RNC , Election 2014
Posted Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:30 AM
No comments.
Another giant leap for students
When the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the school voucher program signed by then-Gov. Mitch Daniels was constitutional , it marked another victory in the school choice movement. The implications of their ruling is sure to be felt for generations:
A limited choice program is not the same thing as a healthy, responsive educational market. 'A rule-laden, risk-averse sector,' argues Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, 'dominated by entrenched bureaucracies, industrial-style collective-bargaining agreements and hoary colleges of education will not casually remake itself just because students have the right to switch schools.'
But even restricted choice programs have shown promising results, not revolutionary, but promising. Last year, a group of nine educational researchers summarized the evidence: 'Among voucher programs, random-assignment studies generally find modest improvements in reading or math scores, or both. Achievement gains are typically small in each year, but cumulative over time. Graduation rates have been studied less often, but the available evidence indicates a substantial positive impact. : Other research questions regarding voucher program participants have included student safety, parent satisfaction, racial integration, services for students with disabilities, and outcomes related to civic participation and values. Results from these studies are consistently positive.'
Unions are fighting a losing fight. It isn't a matter of whether they'll lose this fight over accountability and competition. It's just a matter of when they'll lose the final battle in this fight. The results aren't stunning if viewed from a single snapshot in history. However, they're quite dramatic if viewed through a series of snapshots over a period of 5 years.
The beauty of the voucher movement going into the future is that it doesn't require the elimination of public education. For instance, suburban, exurban and rural schools often perform well. Where the performance is solid, there's no need to scrap what's working.
This paragraph explains why this fight will eventually be won by parents and studentss, not the unions, politicians and bureaucrats:
Yet it is probably not the moral arguments that will prevail. The opponents of educational choice are attempting to defend the monopoly of the neighborhood school in a nation where most monopolies and oligopolies (see the phone company, the post office or newspapers) have come under pressure. Parents, including suburban parents, increasingly expect educational options such as charters, home schooling, magnet programs and career academies. Customized, online learning will accelerate the trend.
It's a matter of when, not if. Competition will improve product quality while driving down costs. That's what happens whenever competition is the rule, not the exception. Politically speaking, there's great incentive for Republicans to jump onto this movement. It's a way for them to prove to minority communities that they want to help these communities achieve American prosperity.
Once the gates to prosperity open to these communities, the paradigm shifts. That's when a lasting victory will have happened.
Tags: School Choice , Mitch Daniels , Indiana Supreme Court , SCOTUS , Bobby Jindal , Competition , Accountability , Magnet Schools , Charter Schools , Free Markets , Milton Friedman , Conservatism , Unions , Bureaucrats , Democrats
Posted Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:49 AM
No comments.
DFL legislature bails out political allies, throws taxpayers under bus
DFL legislators voted to bail out the pension funds for Duluth and St. Paul school teachers:
Commission chair Sen. Sandra Pappas, DFL-Minneapolis, noted that the statewide TRA would require Duluth and St. Paul plans to be fully funded before any merger. "This is a kind of shared-pain approach," Pappas said of the St. Paul proposal. "If we're thinking merger is down the road, bringing benefits in line with TRA and putting some cash into the fund is probably a good move."
That's BS. The DFL's bill isn't tough love. It's caving. In 2010, the Duluth pension plan agreed that they wouldn't get a COLA until their pensions were at least 80% funded. This bill gives Duluth pensioners a 1% annual COLA even though their fund is only 63% funded. In short, the DFL legislature's definition of tough love is to bail out the Duluth pension fund, then throw in an annual COLA as a bonus.
The fact that the Duluth pension fund is only 63% funded is disgusting. The payouts promised must've really been steep. It's a given that their pensions funds took a hit during the Great Recession. Everyone's did. Duluth is the only Minnesota pension fund I've heard of that's that badly underfunded.
If this continues, Duluth will be the new Stockton, Calif. In fact, the corruption and financial mismanagement in Duluth is bad enough that they probably could declare bankruptcy.
The worst part about the vote on this bill is that it was rushed through so that they could attend the annual Ranger Party at a famous watering hole near the Capitol. The Ranger Party is considered a can't miss mixer where "the drinks and other people's money flows freely."
Unfortunately for the taxpayers, these DFL legislators are more committed to raising cash for their next campaign than they're worried about being the taxpayers' watchdog.
Posted Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:29 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Apr-13 07:43 AM
So when my 401k takes a huge hit during the next stock market bubble pop and I don't have enough to retire on, can I go to the legislature to have them fund my 401k back to where it was before the pop? Yeah, didn't think so, so why are union pensions any more special than my retirement?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Apr-13 09:18 AM
They're more important to the DFL because of their massive GOTV & fundraising capabilities.
Gov. Dayton, business community at odds on tax increases
When Gov. Dayton visited St. Cloud on Tuesday, March 26, he said some things that are getting challenged. Jason Bernick, a board member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement challenging some of Gov. Dayton's statements. Here's part of Mr. Bernick's statement:
After Teresa Bohnen pointed out concern by the business community on the impact of Governor Dayton's 4th tier income tax on S-Corps I felt his response was disrespectful. He implied that businesses are "OK" with disparities in tax rates of businesses compared to middle income earners. He called the Minnesota Chamber destructive. Then he implied that Teresa and other businesses were unrealistic about the facts.
I don't mind having debate on what the facts are but I'd like to understand the source of the Governor's facts as they are in conflict with the MN House research department, I have attached a 2011 document on S-Corps. He stated that only 6% of businesses in Minnesota are S-Corps, when the research states 16.5% (96,000) businesses file under S-Corp. If he in fact "cares about all businesses in Minnesota" then he must realize that his proposal will affect 96,000 businesses and their ability to maintain current employment levels (Jobs). Even if the Governor's 6% figure is correct, the higher rate won't impact the "wealthy" Minnesotans that currently are getting loopholes in order to pay the lower rate.
That's the diplomatic, polite way of putting things. I won't be that diplomatic. First, Gov. Dayton's statement wasn't accurate. Gov. Dayton said 6% of Minnesota's businesses are S-Corps. In fact, 16.5% of Minnesota's businesses are S-Corps. That's especially important considering the fact that S-Corps get taxed as though they were either single people or as married couples filing jointly.
Those businesses would potentially be subject to Gov. Dayton's proposed income tax increase on "the wealthy." A healthy percentage of these taxpayers would consider themselves blue collar workers. They're people who own a retail outlet or a construction company. They might do landscaping or commercial lawn mowing.
They're the types of people who work all day at their day job, then come home at night to do their books and get their equipment ready for the next day's assignments.
These entrepreneurs frequently work 6 days a week, often working 50-60 hours a week. They're the people that Bill Clinton once described as people "who work hard and play by the rules."
That's rather stunning. The people that Bill Clinton described as working hard and playing by the rules are the people Gov. Dayton and President Obama think aren't paying their fair share.
That isn't Bernick's only disagreement with Gov. Dayton. Here's another point of contention:
As to the Governor's implication that business owners are "OK" with paying lower rates than the middle class, I find that offensive. It must be some sort of loophole that's creating that environment and creating a new top rate won't fix loopholes. It will only make it harder for small businesses to survive or maintain a Minnesota presence. For the record, I'm not "OK" with the wealthy paying a lower rate than the middle class. We already have progressive rate scale in Minnesota and, at the federal level, this progressive scale is extremely burdensome for small businesses.
That's extremely disrespectful. Though Mr. Bernick will be more respectful, I won't hesitate in arguing that Gov. Dayton's language was provocative, misleading and unfitting for a man who's supposed to represent all Minnesotans.
Gov. Dayton's incendiary language won't help create a better Minnesota. They're creating a more divisive political climate in Minnesota, which certainly isn't productive. That point isn't lost on Mr. Bernick:
I've often heard Governor Dayton say that "you're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts." I have a great deal of respect for Governor Dayton as he has always been a good listener who has maintained a respectful discussion. However, since the beginning of this session, I have noticed this quality has been degrading and becoming disrespectful in Governor Dayton.
Gov. Dayton has the votes to pass his tax increase proposals. The question he should ask himself is whether it's counterproductive to raise taxes. With the economy just starting to recover, his tax increases will cause businesses to postpone hiring or move to another state.
If Gov. Dayton's proposed tax increases hurts Minnesota's economy, he and the DFL will own that failure. Politically speaking, he'll be the one who'll take the biggest hit. That's because Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature will own Minnesota's economy at that point. They won't be able to blame anyone for their policies.
Tags: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce , Small Businesses , S-Corps , Taxes , Entrepreneurship , Capitalism , Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Income Tax , House of Representatives , DFL , Election 2014
Posted Friday, April 5, 2013 1:18 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Apr-13 08:43 AM
What did we expect from a guy who has never held a private sector job and has his money in an income tax free state?
As for Dayton being a good listener, is he listening or just drifting off in a day dream? I would bet the latter happens more than the former.
Will DFL politicians vote against accountability?
It isn't shocking to think that DFL politicians love overbloated government. Annually, they reflexively propose raising taxes. They love spending the taxpayers' money on their political allies, too. Protecting union employees is one of their specialties. Two years ago, Gov. Dayton and the DFL threw a collective hissy fit when Keith Downey introduced his 15 by 2015 legislation. From that point forward, every union official seemingly started their sentences with "the Republicans' war on working families."
The first bill King Banaian submitted as a legislator was a bill that created the Sunset Advisory Commission. A miracle happened when Phyllis Kahn announced her support for King's bill. After ending the government shutdown he created, Gov. Dayton signed King's bill into law.
With the DFL back controlling the legislature and with Gov. Dayton still in office, they're thinking about eliminating the Sunset Advisory Commission :
A budget bill in the Democratic-led House would get rid of the Minnesota Sunset Advisory Commission. The panel was created two years ago when Republicans were in charge. They touted it as a way to weed out government offices some people deem ineffective.
The commission met about a dozen times over the last couple of years and didn't recommend cutting any government entities altogether. It did press for further reviews of some boards, including one that regulates combative sports like boxing and mixed martial arts.
The push to eliminate the Sunset Advisory Commission is in a broad budget bill that funds core government agencies.
It isn't irony. It's predictable. The DFL legislature, both Sen. Bakk and then-Minority Leader Thissen, used their picks to load up the panel with politicians like Matt Entenza. In short, their picks were people who wanted to undermine the law rather than work in good faith on protecting Minnesota's taxpayers.
Here's language from King's bill :
Sunset Commission. Provides that the Sunset Commission consists of 12 members appointed as follows:
(1) four senators appointed according to the rules of the senate, with no more than three senators from the majority caucus;
(2) four members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker, with no more than three of the house members from the majority caucus;
(3) four members appointed by the governor.
All members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. With respect to governor appointees, provides two-year terms expiring in January of each odd-numbered year. Provides term limits for service on the commission.
Staff. Requires the Legislative Coordinating Commission to provide staff and administrative services for the commission.
Rules. Authorizes the commission to adopt rules to carry out this chapter.
Agency report to commission. Provides that before September 1 of the odd-numbered year in which a state agency is subject to sunset review, the agency commissioner shall report specified information to the commission. The September 1 deadline does not apply in 2011.
Commission duties. Requires that before January 1 of the year in which a state agency is subject to sunset review, the commission must review the agency based on criteria specified in section 3D.10.
Public hearings. Requires that before February 1 of the year an agency is subject to sunset review, the commission must conduct public hearings regarding the agency, including the criteria specified in section 3D.10.
Commission report. Requires that by February 1 of each even-numbered year, the commission shall report on agencies subject to review, including findings on criteria specified in section 3D.10.
Criteria for review. Specifies criteria for the commission to consider in determining whether a public need exists for the continuation of a state agency or for performance of the agency's functions.
Recommendations. Requires the commission's report to make recommendations on the abolition, continuation, or reorganization of agencies, on the need for performance of the functions of the agency; on consolidation, transfer, or reorganization of programs within agencies not under review when programs duplicate functions of agencies under review; and for improvement of operations.
Requires the commission to submit draft legislation to carry out its recommendations, including legislation necessary to continue the existence of agencies that would otherwise sunset, if the commission recommends continuation of an agency.
Simply put, the bill requires the Commission to review whether the agency is performing an essential function, whether it's doing what it was originally created to do or whether it's 'evolved' into just another bloated part of state government.
The DFL's disgust with governmental accountability is showing its ugly face. Taxpayers should be outraged that the DFL is thinking about eliminating a tool that's designed to increase governmental accountability. If the DFL eliminates this commission, Republicans should make this one of their campaign themes in 2014. Hold every DFL legislator's feet to the fire for voting against governmental accountability and thriftiness.
If they're eliminating sensible laws like this, then they're undoubtedly voting for creating more unaccountable agencies, boards, commissions and panels.
Tags: King Banaian , Sunset Advisory Commission , Accountability , Keith Downey , Reforms , MNGOP , Tom Bakk , Paul Thissen , Matt Entenza , Sabotage , Unions , Pork , Special Interests , DFL , Election 2014
Posted Saturday, April 6, 2013 9:38 AM
No comments.
The DFL's anti-reform, anti-accountability agenda
Each week, different proof appears that the DFL is intent on eliminating the GOP's reforms. Months ago, I wrote about the DFL's attack on teacher accountability , aka HF0171. HF0171 would repeal the basic skills test for teachers that Gov. Dayton signed last year. This week, I wrote about the DFL's attempt to eliminate the Sunset Advisory Commission .
If the DFL would put forward a good faith effort on reforming government, the Commission would be a great tool for increasing government accountability. In some instances, the Commission would force agencies to justify their existence. In other cases, it would force the agency to justify their staffing and funding levels.
First, why won't the DFL explain who wrote the bill that would eliminate the basic skills test for teachers? Requiring teachers and applicants to pass such a test isn't revolutionary. It's sensible. Why, then, did the DFL write legislation that would eliminate that requirement? They aren't doing it "for the children" because they're the first people it'd shortchange. Their parents and other taxpayers are the next people this legislation would shortchange.
It isn't a stretch to think that EdMinn wrote this legislation because it's their job to protect union members. If EdMinn wrote that legislation, why isn't Rep. Ward representing his constituents, not EdMinn? Perhaps Rep. Ward thinks that EdMinn is his constituent and that he doesn't have to represent the people living in his district.
Second, why is the DFL insisting on eliminating a great tool for increasing government accountability and transparency? Without the Sunset Commission, government oversight doesn't exist. As recently as last year, the DFL threw a hissy fit when Republicans sought to make government more efficient. They accused the GOP of "waging war against working families." Eliot Seide held a press availability in which he got exceptionally agitated.
He talked about how Republicans hated "working families" because they questioned whether state agencies, commissions, councils and panels had outlived their usefulness or had expanded themselves beyond their original charter. The Commission's purpose was to examine these entities, then tell the legislature whether they were still doing what they were created to do and whether that mission was still important.
We know that the DFL doesn't believe in oversight because they rejected that notion in 2007. That's when they insisted that spending should be adjusted for inflation. In the DFL's thinking, once an appropriation is made, it should increase by the rate of inflation in the future.
Another GOP reform required the Minnesota Department of Revenue to factor federal taxes into their annual tax incidence report. Minnesota is one of a tiny handful of states that didn't do that. Gov. Dayton signed that legislation into law. Now he's signed it out of existence after the DFL legislature voted to repeal that requirement.
This year's report had been prepared but it hadn't been released. That report included federal taxes. The DFL moved quickly, eliminating the federal taxes requirement. The new tax incidence report doesn't include federal taxes. First, the new report doesn't give an accurate picture of Minnesota's taxes. Second, it means that all the time that went into preparing the first report was for nothing.
Is that the type of government efficiency Minnesotans deserve? I'd argue it isn't. I'd argue that that's the type of waste that must be eliminated.
While we're on the subject of taxes, let's talk about the fact that the DFL isn't committed to a progressive tax system. I'll stipulate that they're great advocates of progressive taxation during campaigns. That's as far as it goes, though. Then-Candidate Dayton argued passionately for a more progressive taxation system during his campaign. In 2010, he criticized Tom Horner for supporting increases to the alcohol and cigarette taxes :
you're in favor of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, another regressive tax. So the difference between us is I want to raise taxes on the rich, and you want to raise taxes on sportsmen and women and and middle income working families.
This year, Gov. Dayton's objections to increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes disappeared, most likely because he needs the revenues to increase the size and intrusiveness of state government.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tax Incidence Report , Minnesota Department of Revenue , Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Liquor Tax , Tom Horner , K-12 Education , John Ward , Education Minnesota , DFL , Sunset Advisory Commission , King Banaian , Keith Downey , Pat Garofalo , Accountability , Reforms , MNGOP
Posted Sunday, April 7, 2013 12:14 PM
No comments.
