April 23-25, 2018
Apr 23 03:54 The DFL's transportation misdirection Apr 23 04:11 What about ACT scores? Apr 23 16:53 St. Cloud's low-income housing Apr 23 17:12 Rand Paul voting yes on Pompeo Apr 24 03:47 Pawlenty's primary advantage Apr 24 05:20 Wolgamott's platitudes Apr 25 01:55 Protecting us from the ESA Apr 25 09:16 Censorship, Elizabeth Warren edition
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
The DFL's transportation misdirection
The DFL has a warped, misguided policy towards 'transportation'. Notice that I didn't say roads and bridges. When Republicans talk about this, we talk about roads and bridges. When the DFL talks about the issue, they talk about transportation because they lump in transit, especially light rail boondoggles.
This article whines about the Republicans' proposed constitutional amendment that would permanently dedicate sales taxes on car leases, car rentals and vehicle repairs to building and maintaining roads and bridges. Here's how AFSCME whines about it:
Senate File 3837 proposes a constitutional amendment to permanently dedicate certain general fund revenues toward the state's transportation fund without replacing them with additional revenues. This reduces the amount available to fund other areas of the budget. Transportation is largely funded through dedicated sources, such as the gas tax. As a result, transportation has not traditionally competed with investments like schools, nursing homes, and broadband for the same funding.
As a public employee union, AFSCME is biased towards putting as much money into the general fund. That's where their bread is buttered. It isn't that they're worried about fixing roads and bridges. They're worried about keeping the general fund as fat as possible. Period.
Speaking of funding state transportation needs, this bill would do little to actually fill the need for better transportation funding. In 2012, the Transportation Finance Advisory Committee determined that Minnesota needs $21 billion over 20 years just to maintain the current status of the state's transportation system. This proposal doesn't do that, nor does it get us close to funding a world class transportation and transit system needed for a strong economic future.
Frankly, I don't care about Minnesota's transportation needs. I care about fixing and maintaining Minnesota's roads and bridges. Further, if we're going to spend money on transit, it should be spent on flexible modes of transportation. That means eliminating funding for light rail.
Notice how the unions insist that transit is needed to fund "a world class transportation and transit system", which is "needed for a strong economic future." What a pile of BS. There's no proof that that's true.
Senate File 3837 locks down today's budget choices and limits our ability to address tomorrow's needs. By putting this language into our state's constitution, it will tie future policymakers' hands when they need to adapt to new funding priorities and needs.
The entire idea behind locking down politicians' choices is to guarantee funding that will fix and maintain Minnesota's roads and bridges so politicians can't strip money for frivolous things. Why wouldn't I want to guarantee that our highest priorities get dedicated funding?
[Video no longer available]
Rest assured that big government types will fight this constitutional amendment tooth and nail. They prefer government to be big, bloated and utterly inefficient. They also prefer targeted tax increases. If you don't believe me, check out Sen. Steve Murphy from 2007 :
The proposed 10-cent-a-gallon gasoline-tax increase moving through the Minnesota Legislature could end up being higher than that, maybe more than twice as high. Tucked away in a big transportation funding bill being fast-tracked to a Senate floor vote today are future increases in Minnesota's gas tax that could push it from 20 cents a gallon to more than 40 cents over 10 years, higher than any state's current bite at the pump.
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."
Back then, the DFL promised that this tax increase would provide the funding we needed for transportation. They either lied or were wrong. Either way, it's clear that the DFL shouldn't be trusted.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2018 3:54 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Apr-18 03:08 PM
I don't like this new amendment because it will give the DFL ammo to say that roads and bridges has a dedicated source of funding so there's no need to give them any more.
Let's just repeal the previous transportation amendment that wastes huge piles of money on antiquated trains and spend it on roads and bridges.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-18 04:45 PM
First, I want this amendment approved because it's needed. That tops all other considerations by miles. Further, the gas tax can't be used for transit. That's why the DFL created other taxes. Third, the DFL is already making things up to fight this. I want this fight to tell Minnesotans that the DFL can't be trusted with governing Minnesota.
If you want to be a pansy & not pick that fight, that's your decision. I don't want to sit back & do nothing because that means automatically losing. No thanks.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Apr-18 04:51 PM
Dedicated funds into the coffer yielded the IRRRB. Money in should go to general funds, all of it, and then priorities in spending should come from general funds.
That goes for duck stamps too. Having all those dedicated money things distorts the market, which I am told you Republicans love. The market, not distorting it; I think.
I even feel that way about Unemployment Insurance, but there a federal mandate intervenes. It's all as green as the rest of it; and make the buggers do all their spending in the open sunshine.
What about ACT scores?
What About ACT Scores?
by Silence Dogood
While many people will argue that the RATE MY PROFESSORS website has some shortcomings, one will have a little more difficulty arguing with the Minnesota Office of Higher Education.
If you go to the link
https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/dPg.cfm?pageID=792
you will find the MN Office of Higher Education's information about ACT scores.
One of the first figures that caught my eye was a plot of the composite ACT scores for Minnesota compared with the rest of the nation.
The scoring advantage Minnesota had in the past dropped to only a difference of 0.2 in 2016 and the difference increased slightly to 0.5 in 2017. Based on these results, Minnesota might have some difficulty continuing to sell itself as the 'brainpower state' and contrary to Garrison Keillor's assertion - everybody isn't above average!
A second figure that stands out is the ACT scores of First-time Degree-seeking Students Admitted to Minnesota 4-Year Colleges, 2016-2017.
Looking at the data, students self-select the schools that they wish to send their ACT scores. This can be interpreted as a measure of the academic reputation of a school.
The first column indicates the Number of students submitting ACT scores to a particular public 4-year institution. From this data, it is clear to see that the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities is the big winner with more than twice the number of students submitting their scores than any other public university. From there, Minnesota State University - Mankato is second with 2,274, University of Minnesota - Duluth is third with 2,110, followed by Saint Cloud State University in fourth with 1,587. From the data, 687 more students in Minnesota chose to send their ACT scores to Minnesota State University - Mankato than Saint Cloud State University! In fact, Saint Cloud State University only had 32 students report their ACT scores than Winona State University.
The second column of data in the table indicates the Percent of students submitting ACT scores to a particular public 4-year institution. To make it easier to understand the data, I have created a table listing the percent by rank order rather than alphabetically with ties broken by the university with the larger number of students.
In the table, the universities in the Minnesota State system are in bold because the comparison within the Minnesota State system is important to those universities. Clearly, Southwest Minnesota State University brings up the rear at 82%. However, Saint Cloud State University, coming in second from the bottom, at 88% should be a shocker! Winona State University and Bemidji State University lead the Minnesota State system universities with 98% and 97%, respectively. Minnesota State University - Mankato, which has been Saint Cloud State's traditional rival, comes in at 93% which is 5% higher. Even Minnesota State University - Moorhead beats Saint Cloud State University 91% to 88%! At some point, when there has been so much 'smoke' at Saint Cloud State University, it is hard to believe that the Fire Department has not been called!
Considering that Saint Cloud State University 'invested' nearly half a million dollars back in 2011 in rebranding: 'Think, Do, Make a Difference', the results show that Saint Cloud State University did not get its money's worth!
The last data to consider is the third column in the table showing the 25th Percentile score of the ACT composite. Essentially, this indicates that 25% of all applicants have ACT composite scores lower than this score. Again, to make it easier to understand the data, I have created a table listing the percent by rank order rather than alphabetically with ties broken by the university with the larger number of students.
Again, the Universities within the Minnesota State System are shown in bold. Clearly, the universities within the University of Minnesota System attract higher quality students than the Minnesota State System. However, within the Minnesota State System, Saint Cloud State attracts the least qualified students (in a tie with the smallest university within the Minnesota State System).
In the past, numerous arguments have been given for Saint Cloud State University's decline from being the 'flagship' school within the system to second or third place [It is interesting to note that Winona State University had more new entering freshmen last fall than Saint Cloud State University]. Demographics, the recession, the improving economy, 'right sizing', the list goes on. The only thing that has not happened is that no one has been held accountable for the 30% decline in enrollment, multimillion dollar deficits year after year and morale, which can only be described as being in the toilet (indicated in the Great Place to Work survey in 2013).
With ongoing searches for a new President and Chief Financial Officer, it is a wonder if qualified candidates will apply (or stay) if they know of Saint Cloud State University's downward trajectory. More importantly, one wonders if anyone will ever be held accountable at SCSU.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2018 1:43 PM
No comments.
St. Cloud's low-income housing
No Room in St. Cloud for low income Households
By John W. Palmer, Ph.D.
Based on the recently released 2017 annual report ( http://stcloudhra.com/ Annual%20Report%202017.pdf ) from the St. Cloud HRA low income households compete for a very small number of low income housing rentals.
The rental housing owned by the St. Cloud HRA consists of four funding areas. The four areas are Public Housing, Section 8 New Construction, Affordable and Tax Credit. The overall vacancy rate for 2017 was 2.14%. In 2016 the vacancy rate was 2.13%.
The waiting list for Housing Choice Voucher program is currently closed. The approximate wait time is seven years. The next applicants who will be contacted for available vouchers applied to the waiting list in January 2010. There are approximately 511 households on the waiting list.
With low turnover and low vacancy rates, why would our community bring new low income residents to the area? It certainly is not welcoming to bring low income residents into a housing market that is not meeting existing demand. With 4,000+ applicants turned away from various public housing programs, these applicants are forced to resort to the type (exceeding occupancy limits) of housing search many college students use. Many of the former college student housing in St. Cloud is in disrepair and may no longer be registered as rental property and thus avoiding zoning requirements.
How is it welcoming to bring low income people like resettled refugees to our community when it is a given that large numbers of them will ?nd themselves living in substandard house?
Posted Monday, April 23, 2018 4:53 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 24-Apr-18 04:59 PM
Maybe St. Cloud States declining enrollment will help these low income people find better housing.
Rand Paul voting yes on Pompeo
Minutes ago, Rand Paul announced that he's voting yes to confirm Mike Pompeo as President Trump's next Secretary of State.
Several Monday conversations with President Donald Trump, a meeting with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, and reassurances about Afghanistan led Sen. Rand Paul to announce Monday evening that he would vote to support Pompeo as the next Secretary of State. Paul recounted his decision process on Twitter as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared to vote on the Pompeo confirmation. The senator spoke with President Trump several times during the day and met with Pompeo.
'After calling continuously for weeks for Director Pompeo to support President Trump's belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that it is time to leave Afghanistan, today I received confirmation the Director Pompeo agrees with @realDonaldTrump,' wrote Paul.
That's just part of the breaking news today:
Three Democrat senators declared their intention to break ranks with other Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, ahead of the vote. Red state Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), and Joe Donnelly (IN) each face November re-election fights in states that went for Trump in 2016.
It isn't coincidental that they're all red state Democrats in for the fight of their political lives. This means all of the Democrats voting against confirming Director Pompeo are exposed as putting their membership in #Resistance ahead of being patriots.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2018 5:12 PM
No comments.
Pawlenty's primary advantage
Ed Morrissey's post illustrates the strength of Tim Pawlenty's position, both going into the August primary and potentially the general election. First, Ed cites this article :
"The 1,300 delegates, or so, that you need to get endorsed may already be pledged to other candidates," Pawlenty said on WCCO Sunday Morning. "If that is the case, the cake may already be baked, but either way our campaign is not stopping with the endorsing convention. You get on the ballot in Minnesota by running and winning a primary, and that is what we intend to do."
Ed then highlights the DFL's difficulties:
Walz has other worries than just fundraising. It's taken him more than a year to get to $1.6 million, which means that Pawlenty may soon surpass him. Meanwhile, his nearest two Democratic opponents (Erin Murphy and Rebecca Otto) have raised almost a million dollars between them. Furthermore, the fight in the DFL has burned through much of that fundraising; Walz has spent just over a million dollars from his coffers, while Murphy and Otto have run through most of their funds (Murphy appears to be $30,000 or so in the hole). Otto, whose campaign will challenge Walz from his left, also pledges to run in the primary, which will force Walz to either move in a more progressive direction or lose ground in the Twin Cities.
Ed's observations are certainly accurate but they don't tell the entire story. It's my contention that Tim Walz sold his soul while pandering to the anti-gun left. I think that Rep. Walz did that because he needs to win tons of votes in the Twin Cities.
I don't think Rep. Walz will like that trade-off. First, I don't think that Walz will be that competitive against Otto in the Twin Cities. Next, by pandering to the anti-gun left, Rep. Walz likely undercut his support in rural Minnesota and Southern Minnesota. If I'm right, that foolish pandering has left Walz as a candidate without a sturdy base of support.
Outstate Minnesotans won't like Walz's pandering. It isn't likely that they'll appreciate his flip-flop on the Second Amendment, either, though the pandering is the bigger sticking point.
The other problem facing whoever the DFL candidate is in the general election is that they're all virtual unknowns. That means the DFL's candidate will need to spend tons of cash. Apparently, they're already doing that:
Meanwhile, how much of Pawlenty's funds have gotten spent? Er : $40,000 as of last Tuesday, a mere 4% of his revenue, which means that Pawlenty already has an advantage of nearly $400,000 over Walz. Compare that burn rate to Johnson (~50%), Walz (62%), Otto (74%), and Murphy (105%), and it's not looking bad for Pawlenty in either the primary or general election.
With or without a DFL primary, the DFL candidate faces a steep uphill fight to raise enough money to compete. While Pawlenty an Johnson duke it out in the GOP primary, the DFL candidate will need to spend tons of money just to gain name recognition. Considering the amount of money that the DFL candidates have spent, they'll need to raise literally millions of dollars for the general election.
Whether you agree or disagree with Tim Pawlenty, he's a good debater:
[Video no longer available]
Here's something worth thinking about. Pawlenty is prepared to defend his record and tout his accomplishments. The DFL candidate, whoever it is, won't have many accomplishments to highlight. Jeff Johnson is kinda stuck in the same situation as Walz. The activists know him but he isn't well-known beyond that. His fundraising hasn't inspired much confidence either.
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2018 3:47 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 24-Apr-18 11:25 AM
Money, money, money may make the world go round but should it be the primary talking point for political discussion? Electing a leader without a serious discussion of how and what they will be doing if elected is like planning a trip without knowing where your going. When you do not know where your going all roads lead there.
Finally, a big or the biggest pot of money does not mean electoral victory. We need not look farther than the recent Presidential election outcome to see money, money, money does not assure electoral victory.
Wolgamott's platitudes
Last night, Melissa Hortman retweeted something titled a "comprehensive list of DFL candidates running for the House of Representatives." One of the candidates listed in the link is Dan Wolgamott. It's difficult to picture him as a serious candidate, mostly because he's run for 3 different legislative seats in the last 3 election cycles. If Mr. Wolgamott keeps up this pace, he'll make Tarryl Clark look like homebody. This year, Wolgamott is running for Jim Knoblach's seat in HD-14B. In 2016, Wolgamott ran for the SD-14 senate seat. In 2014, Wolgamott ran for Tama Theis's seat in HD-14A. But I digress.
Mr. Wolgamott's campaign website is nothing but mush. Wolgamott's priorities page is entirely devoid of substance. What it's missing in substance, though, it more than makes up for in platitudes and feel-goodisms. For instance, on the subject of higher education, Wolgamott wants to "lower tuition and administrative costs, fully support our state colleges and universities and allow students to refinance school loans."
St. Cloud State is located entirely in HD-14B. Its enrollment has been declining since 2011. Retrenchment (a fancy term for firing faculty and administration) looks likely in FY2019. Rather than fixing the SCSU crisis, Mr. Wolgamott offers platitudes but no specifics? Where's Mr. Wolgamott's solutions to the district's biggest problem?
On the subject of "Jobs and Economic Development", Mr. Wolgamott "supports job training and placement programs, expanding start-up business grants, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship" while streamlining the "permitting process."
Again, businesses are leaving St. Cloud (Electrolux) for other states or they're going bankrupt (Herbergers). People are leaving St. Cloud proper. Despite these things, the best Mr. Wolgamott can do is offer generic-sounding platitudes without offering specific solutions. On Mr. Wolgamott's priorities page , he asks this rhetorical question:
Who cares if something is a Republican idea, a Democrat idea or an Independent idea?
Based on this picture, I'd bet that it matters to Mr. Wolgamott:
Mr. Wolgamott insists that he'll bring people together. That might be true. It might not. There's no question whether Jim Knoblach will bring people together. He's already done that. Do voters want a wannabe career politician who spews platitudes? Or do St. Cloud voters want an experienced policy maker?
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2018 5:20 AM
No comments.
Protecting us from the ESA
The Trump administration is considering a rule change to something called "the blanket rule." According to the article, it's "probably an esoteric issue to most Americans, but to landowners and businesses, primarily in the Western U.S., the 'blanket' extension of ESA protections to 'threatened' species has punished them for decades. A 'take' of a protected species can bring massive civil and criminal penalties. 'Private property owners' incentives are key because most endangered species depend on private land for most of their habitat,' Wood said. 'This reform will improve those incentives and make it easier for states, property owners, and environmentalists to work together on innovative conservation plans.' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service extended 'take' protections to species listed as 'threatened' under the ESA, despite Congress wanting federal agents to regulate 'threatened' species different from those classified as 'endangered.'"
When the ESA was enacted, Congress's intent was to protect endangered species, which is defined as "any species in danger of extinction." Meanwhile, threatened species are defined as "on the brink of becoming endangered."
Its provisions give the Interior Department the power to determine what species are endangered and then to list them publicly. It makes it illegal to capture, kill, transport, sell, buy, possess, import or export any of the listed plants or animals. There is a separate category for "threatened" species, those organisms that are on the brink of becoming endangered. They are equally protected, except that scientists may take specimens when necessary for vital research.
In the United States the Office of Endangered Species currently lists 51 plants and 143 animals as endangered and 7 plants and 38 animals as threatened. To prevent the import or trade of endangered species native to foreign countries, the office lists 402 foreign animals as endangered and 16 animals and a plant as threatened.
The goal of the ESA is to properly manage plant and animal species so they're no longer endangered or threatened.
[Video no longer available]
Here in Minnesota, the ESA was critical in turning around the timber wolf population. At one point (the late 1960s and early 1970s), only a few families of timber wolves existed in Minnesota. After proper management, the timber wolf population, through cautious management, was rejuvenated to the point where there were open hunting seasons on the great grey wolf. That's a legitimate success story. That should be the goal of management policies for all endangered or threatened species.
Instead, the ESA has been used as a weapon against developers. It's time to de-weaponized the ESA and return sanity to development projects. That will be a difficult task. Environmental activist organizations like the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and others have used the ESA to throttle projects. They won't give up without a lengthy court fight.
Rejecting the blanket rule won't fix the law but it's a positive first step.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:55 AM
No comments.
Censorship, Elizabeth Warren edition
The city of Cambridge, MA, has a fight on its hands, thanks to their attempt to silence one of Elizabeth Warren's opponents. Shiva Ayyadurai is suing the city because "Ayyadurai called the city's order to remove the signs 'a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren.'"
The lawsuit comes after Cambridge's building inspector said there were a 'series of anonymous complaints' about the signs. Branden Vigneault, the inspector, said the signs were posted without permits and violated a zoning ordinance. Ayyadurai faces $300 for each day the signs don't come down as well as potential legal action. But Ayyadurai said the signs are not going anywhere and tried to make it a matter of free speech.
First and foremost, the fines are likely unenforceable because they violate the First Amendment. Cities, counties and townships have been attempting to silence political speech through ordinances like this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled these impediments unconstitutional because they're thinly-veiled attempts at censorship.
What touched off this firestorm is this advertising:
Elizabeth Warren frequently complains about how life is rigged against the common man. How isn't this rigging the system against her opponent? Then again, doesn't Warren really mean that life isn't rigged enough to her preference?
This is an attempt at censorship to save Sen. Warren some embarrassment for making dishonest statements. Pocahontas shouldn't be protected against prior foolish decisions.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:16 AM
No comments.
