February 9-10, 2011
Feb 09 01:13 Anderson's Conflict of Interest? Feb 09 01:55 That Doesn't Sound Right Feb 09 03:27 Forget Reaganesque; He Isn't Even Clintonesque Feb 09 12:11 Dayton's Disastrous SOS Feb 09 14:48 SOS Recap Feb 10 19:49 Corruption In HD-5B Special Election? Feb 10 09:46 Dayton's Speech: It's About the Unions, Spending
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Anderson's Conflict of Interest?
Sen. Ellen Anderson is complaining because she didn't get re-appointed to the LCCMR by Senate Majority Leader Koch. She's making it sound like a great Greek tragedy:
'They obviously don't want to appoint me,' said Anderson, a longtime leader on environmental and clean-energy issues.
The truth is that it's pretty explicable :
Anderson and Knuth are sipping pina coladas and partying it up with climate change enthusiasts from around the world this week at the 'COP16? conference in Cancun, a continuation of climate change rhetoric from the United Nations Climate Change Conference of 2009 known as 'COP15?. The conference was opened with an appeal to a Mayan goddess. Power Line blog has provided some coverage of the fun in the sun being experienced in the name of climate research.
Knuth and Anderson are at the conference with a group of students from the U of M, sponsored by a program that lists Knuth as a staff member. Multiple sources also confirm Anderson works for the University as an instructor, including her own campaign website and Senate member page which mention her occupation as a 'College Instructor'.
As a member of the LCCMR, Sen. Anderson votes on the earmarks sent to the U of M that fund trips like COP16. If she wasn't employed by the U, it'd be ok for Sen. Anderson to vote to fund these trips.
Because she is employed by them, though, she shouldn't have a spot on the board because it's a conflict of interest.
The bigger question is whether Sen. Anderson got her job as a college instructor in exchange for her earmarking money to the U of M that funded her climate change excursions.
I don't know if that's why Sen. Anderson wasn't re-appointed to the LCCMR but that's justification enough for me.
To me, this also highlights another thing that's troubling. Why didn't Sen. Pogemiller see this potential conflict of interest? Even if it isn't a conflict of interest, it's at minimum a cozy situation where Sen. Anderson is voting on funding for her friends and colleagues.
DC's Democrats talk incessantly about crony capitalism. Shouldn't we call this cronyism, too???
Posted Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:13 AM
No comments.
That Doesn't Sound Right
Tuesday morning, the Senate Finance committee, chaired by Claire Robling, took up debate on SF42 , the bill to streamline Minnesota's permitting process. A loyal reader of this blog attended the hearing. This friend emailed me something that's quite interesting. Here's the key portion of the email:
SF 42 was passed with amendment out of Finance today and will now go to the Senate Floor. A fiscal note was also generated by MPCA, DNR and Judiciary. According to the fiscal note, DNR and Judiciary would save money, but MPCA would generate an additional $1.75 million in cost in the first fiscal year, predominately based on their calculation that it would spend more time and need more staff to give the rigor required in the bill. Not believed by many in the room.
The DNR has a substantial responsibility in the permitting process yet they said the legislation would save their department money. Minnesota's judicial system said that they'd save money, too. Not so with the MPCA. Their fiscal note said that 'streamlining' would cost them $1,750,000 in the first year.
What part of streamlining doesn't the PCA understand?
I contacted several LA's Tuesday afternoon. One LA told me that there was an audible gasp in the hearing room when the PCA's number was announced. I said that had I been a senator, I would've asked whether the people already in the PCA were working at 100 percent of capacity. I was told that that question got asked. I was told that the answer was substantially less than convincing.
Perhaps it's just me but I'm suspicious of the fact that MPCA is being run by Paul Aasen. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Aasen is trying to throw sand in the proverbial gearbox to prevent this legislation from becoming law.
If SF42/HF1 doesn't become law, the court system wouldn't change, which is precisely what the MCEA would prefer.
Unless the PCA has a substantially heavier workload than the DNR, there shouldn't be a justification for the additional FTE's. Unless someone breaks this down for me by going through the legislation and pointing out which provisions create the extra work, I'll stay skeptical.
Posted Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:55 AM
No comments.
Forget Reaganesque; He Isn't Even Clintonesque
Over the past week, liberals have sought to cast President Obama as Reaganesque. Saying that that's a stretch is understatement of the greatest order. President Obama isn't even Clintonesque.
Yesterday, I watched a clip of Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama. It was a carbon copy of his accomodating talk prior to the health care summit of a year ago. President Obama even repeated his line that he'd be "willing to listen to any Republican proposal that made sense."
During the Clinton years, conservatives learned that we should parse Clinton's words closely. Compared with President Obama, President Clinton was a rookie.
Where President Obama says that he'd be "willing to listen to any Republican proposal that made sense," President Clinton would've done differently. He would've actually heard Paul Ryan out, evaluated Ryan's policies, then likely said "I like a couple of your ideas. Let's see how we can put this together."
President Obama has a habit of sounding accomodative while fiercely sticking with his extremist ideology. Yes, he'll mix in a few modest provisions for effect but it's purely for effect. He's still a hardline ideologue.
President Clinton actually became a centrist. President Obama is only interested in sounding like a centrist until he's re-elected.
Hardline progressives are citing President Obama's optimism as another Reaganesque quality. Being cheerful while the economy is faltering isn't Reaganesque. It's just putting a cheerful face on while the Titanic is sinking.
Reagan was confident that his plan would work because he trusted in the American people. His trust paid off. His policies worked. It wasn't until after they started working that President Reagan became outwardly optimistic.
Clinton and Reagan had the ability to work with their opponents. That trait is noticeably missing from President Obama's characteristics.
The reality is that the talk about President Obama's Reaganesque qualities is just like the talk about his centrist qualities. It's spin aimed at changing his image in time for the 2012 campaign.
In his mind, President Obama still thinks that his failed policies are winning the day. That's because he's the biggest narcissist that's ever inhabited the White House.
That isn't a Reaganesque quality at all.
Posted Wednesday, February 9, 2011 3:27 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Feb-11 08:20 AM
You're right. It was often said (by John Kerry, among others) that Clinton was "a very good liar." Obama is not. I suppose he gets points for persistence, but falls far behind on credibility.
Corruption In HD-5B Special Election?
MNGOP Chairman Tony Sutton has called on Hibbing County Clerk Pat Garrity to recuse himself because of his open support for Carly Melin, the DFL-endorsed candidate for the seat formerly held by Tony Sertich:
St. Paul- Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton today called on Hibbing City Clerk Pat Garrity to recuse himself from his official duties in the February 15, 2011 House District 5B special election due to his political support for Democrat Carly Melin.
'Given Hibbing City Clerk Pat Garrity's vocal political support for Democrat Carly Melin, I believe it is only appropriate that he recuse himself from administering the February 15th special election. To avoid any appearance of impropriety and to ensure election integrity, it is essential that this Melin supporter step aside as city clerk for Tuesday's election in favor of a non-partisan city official. The voters of House District 5B deserve no less.'
Hibbing City Clerk Pat Garrity's Conflict Of Interest
'The Clerk's Office In City Hall Coordinates The Elections For All City, County, State And Federal Elections That Are Held In Hibbing.' (City of Hibbing Website, Accessed February 10, 2011)
Pat Garrity Is The Hibbing City Clerk And Is Openly Supporting Democrat Carly Melin In Tuesday's Special Election In House District 5B. 'It is important to have someone who understands how law affects our communities. : That is why I decided to join the Melin for Representative Campaign Committee. I have served Hibbing for 29 years as City Clerk and know she'd make a great contribution to our communities.' (Carly Melin for State Representative Website, Accessed February 10, 2011)
First things first. Carly voted in the August 10th DFL primary in St. Paul. How would Mr. Garrity know whether she'd "make a great contribution" to the district? Is that opinion solely based on the fact that she's got a D behind her name?
Mr. Garrity's enthusiastic endorsement of Melin calls into question whether he'd be an unbiased election official in this special election.
Still, that's only part of the story. A faithful reader of this blog attended the debate last night. This faithful reader called me and said that Aaron Brown of Minnesota Brown introduced the moderator of the event. This reader said that there were supposed to be 8 questions for the event.
At the end of the event, Brown was able to get a ninth question to the moderator. My contact didn't say that it was a softball but I suspect it was. Brown certainly wouldn't rush a difficult question to the moderator to make his candidate look bad.
This special election has all the feel of a fair fight as defined by Richard Daley machine politics rules.
We aren't sure that Melin is qualified as a resident . The city clerk, who supervises elections in Hibbing, has endorsed the DFL candidate even though she hasn't lived in Hibbing in years. Now we find out that the agreed-to format was altered by the event moderator.
Thank goodness there's no hint of corruption in this special election.
Posted Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment 1 by LSM at 10-Feb-11 10:27 PM
Pat Garrity has run shady campaigns for years in Hibbing. Keep him away from this election!
Comment 2 by Aaron Brown at 10-Feb-11 10:30 PM
Two issues here. 1) the party is trying to make anything stick here, but the accusations of corruption are ridiculous. Absolutely shameful. Pat Garrity is the most honest person in Iron Range politics. You're entitled to disagree with his politics, but not to make baseless accusations (and I don't just mean you Gary, but also Tony Sutton whose conduct here I call into serious question). Clerks have to oversee their own elections, never mind the partisan ones. If this standard were applied statewide there would be no way to conduct a partisan election. Pat Garrity is an honorable man.
2 - hey, a mention! Nice. We did add a question because candidates were running fast and we wanted it to go an hour. It was a real general question and there were no ulterior motives in asking it. Carly decided to go after Jacobson there and that was her business. I had no knowledge beforehand that she would do that. I was acting as student senate advisor there, not for my blog. The question was not designed to make ANY candidate "look bad" and I'd encourage you to check with Paul Jacobson to see if he feels we were unfair to him or anyone else. I spoke to him afterward and he was quite happy with the debate, and frankly he did just fine in my opinion. We can disagree and still be fair. The party's tack and your post here are not fair to a good man, Pat Garrity, and I feel I treat the opposition with fairness at my blog. It is a free country, as you know, but this nonsense can't go without a brushback.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-11 12:58 AM
Aaron, I'm basing my opinions on the word of a trustworthy person. This person doesn't have the same high opinion of Mr. Garrity as you have. No disrespect to you but I'll trust my contact's opinion. Also, it isn't like there isn't a history of election corruption in St. Louis County. I start with a spirit of distrust. If that offends you, that's your business. I can't control that. I'm only in control of my reaction.
Comment 3 by Aaron Brown at 11-Feb-11 08:39 AM
Gary - Over at my blog I talk about this some more. I don't doubt that your source has a problem with Garrity. You don't go as long in local politics as Garrity without making a few enemies. But there is a difference between disagreement/dislike and corruption. Your impression of "corruption" in St. Louis County is just that, an impression fed in many cases by fantasy and disappointment with the results from St. Louis County. I'm not saying that the county is perfect, that there haven't been minor issues common to any large county. I'm saying that the accusation of corruption is serious and I have yet to see evidence of systemic corruption. I break with my party when I see corruption and would do so again if I saw corruption here. It's just not there. If your source has more specific information I'd like to hear about it.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-11 12:55 PM
Like ballots suddenly reappearing weeks after the election should be accepted as normal??? Mr. Brown, you've got a relaxed definition of corruption.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 11-Feb-11 12:45 PM
Aaron:
Since you were asking the questions apparently did you ask where did the candidates vote in the November election. It seems since you have to be a resident of the district for six months where the candidates voted in November would've determined that.
A good and smart moderator would've asked that question? So what was the answer to that question.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton's Disastrous SOS
12:03 -- Dayton talking about gov't shutdown. Overheated rhetoric and then some.
12:05 -- Thanking Wendy Anderson, then talking about Minnesota having the most Fortune 500 companies per capita.
12:07 -- Now into the Blame Pawlenty section of the speech.
12:09 -- Now blaming Ventura's tax cuts for tuition increases & larger class sizes.
12:10 -- Deteriorating roads? Every Minnesotan wants "a better Minnesota."
12:11 -- We must invest in more jobs, better roads. Pure liberal boilerplate.
12:12 -- We must believe in one another. It begins with education.
12:16 -- A better Minnesota is recurring theme of speech. Dayton urges legislature to "follow my lead" in higher funding for K-12 and all day kindergarten. Then repeats line about his commitment to increasing funding "no exceptions, no excuses."
12:21 -- Transportation is a business climate issue? Who knew?
NOTE: Thus far, this is all about spending significantly more money, especially on transportation. He complains about deteriorating roads and bridges without talking about Steve Murphy's Transportation Bill, which levies huge taxes for transit.
12:29 -- Dayton says HCR "shouldn't be undone as a "political football" in "2012 Presidential Super Bowl." Gov. Dayton, that's up to the courts.
12:33 -- We need to treat state workers better. (They're being mistreated??? Who knew???)
12:34 -- References his EO on streamlining permitting, then pivots to talking about passing his bonding bill.
12:35 -- "I want businesses to feel welcome."
12:38 -- Dayton's father's favorite Bible verse is "To whom much is given, much will be expected."
12:40 -- Dayton closing by returning to the Blame Pawlenty chorus.
12:42 -- It's mercifully over.
Posted Wednesday, February 9, 2011 1:05 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Feb-11 03:04 PM
A speech by Dayton is called the "SOT'S" speech? Too funny. On a more serious note, how about this: We should demand an improvement in educational achievement every year: no exceptions, no excuses. Just spending more money makes it worse.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-11 04:05 PM
Personally, I prefer SOS because we'll need a rescue team if we follow Dayton's plan.
Comment 2 by Chad A Quigley at 09-Feb-11 05:05 PM
Too bad the Dayton family doesn't believe in bible verse themselves as they shelter a lot of their money in tax free states. What hypocrites.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-11 05:12 PM
they shelter a lot of their money in tax free states.SHHHH....It's our little secret...along with MOST MINNESOTANS!!!
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 09-Feb-11 05:53 PM
Gary:
I was sick and didn't listen to the SOS. When's he talking about investing in transportation haven't we already passed a gas tax increase, car registration tax increase, and promise to spend the motor vehicle excise tax on public transportation instead of general spending.
It seems like we have invested billions in transportation in the last couple of years. Shouldn't we answer why all the new money hasn't worked before we spend more? Or God forbid spend the same amount of money better?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-11 08:19 PM
Most of the taxes in the Transportation Bill go to transit. That segment of the speech was just a sob to the construction unions. Don't take it seriously.
PS- Gov. Dayton isn't being taken serious, especially on his bonding bill. It won't be long before he achieves laughingstock status on that.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 09-Feb-11 11:38 PM
I hear the "Ventura era tax cuts" blamed by both City and School officials. For that to be true the DFL would have had to not spend that "extra" money. With big spenders like Tarryl Clark around, forget that. We'd be in the same hole.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-11 02:34 AM
Using one-time money to artificially prop up ongoing budgets is how structural deficits are created. That's what the DFL has repeatedly done. We shouldn't be surprised.
SOS Recap
Looking back at my liveblogging notes, it's apparent that Gov. Dayton's agenda really does include spending up to (and possibly beyond) the $38.5 billion it would take for a $6.2 billion deficit.
Gov. Dayton's speech had more references to the past than any other state of the (fill in the blank) speech I've ever listened to. It also contained the most proposed spending increases of any SOS address I've ever listened to. BY ALOT.
Despite Minnesota facing a $6.2 billion deficit projection, Gov. Dayton said that we'll need to spend even more. If you eliminate the spending, the trashing of Gov. Pawlenty and the rousing standing ovation for the military family, the speech wouldn't have lasted more than 3-5 minutes.
Early in the speech, Gov. Dayton called for a pledge that the legislature not shut the government down. That's overheated talk of extraordinary proportions. There won't be a government shutdown unless Gov. Dayton insists on following through with his job-killing tax increases. PERIOD.
It's apparent that Gov. Dayton is getting pushed by education lobbyists. During the debates, Candidate Dayton promised to increase spending on education "no exceptions, no excuses." Then his tax-the-rich scheme was found to only generate $1.9 billion in additional revenue, not the predicted $4 billion.
Suddenly, there were exceptions. Today, that promise returned.
Rep. Winkler's post-SOS statement is, as expected, delusional. Here's its opening:
It was refreshing to hear Governor Dayton speak openly and honestly about the challenges we face. The simple choice before us is an all-cuts budget or a cuts plus revenue budget.
There wasn't any talk about cutting anything in Gov. Dayton's speech. Is Rep. Winkler from a distant galaxy where they can hear things that weren't said? Or is he just a typical DFL flak doing his best to spin today's disastrous speech? I suspect the latter.
Rep. Steve Gottwalt had a dramatically different take on Gov. Dayton's speech:
Liberals have to perpetuate the "magical misery tour" or they have no justification for raising taxes and growing government. He thanked government employees and applauded government "investments," but utterly failed to applaud or thank the struggling, hard working and extremely generous employers and job creators in Minnesota. Wow -- What a glaring omission!
It was stunning. To listen to Gov. Dayton, you'd think that Minnesota's checking account was overflowing with cash just begging to be spent. Meanwhile, the only mention of the private sector was to exhort them to invest more in Minnesota, to do exceedingly more than they're already doing.
Based on Gov. Dayton's speech today, it's apparent that he's clueless about balancing a budget. If he wasn't trashing the Pawlenty administration, he was advocating for sizeable spending increases or demanding that Minnesota's small businesses do more than they're already doing.
Here's Rep. Banaian's take on the SOS:
The SOTS talked about jobs and the economy. We agree with him on this, but his plan to invest requires somebody, somewhere, to not consume or invest. Gov. Dayton seems to think it should be free enterprise and the successful individual who must consume or invest less. He argued for letting Mark Dayton decide where to invest rather than Minnesota's businesses who are seeking new opportunities to expand in this nascent expansion. If they cannot, and if Governor Dayton chooses unwisely where the funds go, it would stall Minnesota's economy even more than Dayton said we had in the last decade.
I hope he will confirm his understanding of the job-killing properties of our permitting system by signing HF 1 when it reaches his desk. I thought that was the best part of his speech, along with his acknowledgment of Reps. Dan Fabian and Rod Hamilton.
Gov. Dayton hasn't proven that he knows how to run an industry but his speech is essentially asking the legislature to pass the budget so his administration can "invest" more on the public sector.
I thought we were already spending too much on government. I thought that we weren't creating a business climate in which Minnesota's job creators felt secure about investing more money in.
Apparently, Gov. Dayton's and Rep. Winkler's world is one in which government's demands are always justified but businesses' requests should be denied.
Thankfully, Main Street Minnesota picked a more sensible side last November. They're for fiscal restraint and setting intelligent priorities. They're opposed to government that wants more and spends more and delivers little.
Posted Wednesday, February 9, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 09-Feb-11 05:09 PM
The state only has the deficit if the legislature and governor spend the money it doesn't have. A lot of people in this state have had their incomes reduced so why should the governments budget be excluded from cuts?
Winkler's cuts consist of about $1 dolar and raise taxes by $6.2 billion and then some. Liberals are fools.
Dayton's Speech: It's About the Unions, Spending
Few things were settled during yesterday's SOS address. The two things that got settled were that Gov. Dayton isn't qualified for the job and that he's thoroughly committed to unions. In fact, if you read through Gov. Dayton's speech, it reads like one sop to the unions after another.
That isn't surprising considering how the unions supported his campaign and his ex-wife's shadow campaign.
Gov. Dayton's trips down Memory Lane, whether he was talking about Artco or his congratulating Wendy Anderson for "gracing the cover of Time Magazine", weren't about vision. They were about seeing yesterday, not tomorrow.
We're facing serious financial decisions yet we're dealing with a governor who's in over his head. If Gov. Dayton includes in his budget all the things that he listed off in his SOS speech, he won't come close to submitting a balanced budget.
There wasn't a fresh idea in the speech. If not for the applause for people in the gallery, that would've been the driest speech in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
For instance, there should've been applause from the DFL when Gov. Dayton announced his billion dollar bonding bill. Instead of hearing hearty applause from the DFL caucus, there was polite applause from a handful of DFL legislators.
Gov. Dayton's education initiative was mostly about spending more money. Education insiders were probably excited to hear the proposal. The accountants, though, had to wonder how he'd pay for his initiatives.
Gov. Dayton, in fact, still appears to have difficulty balancing budgets. He didn't put together a balanced budget during the campaign even though he tried 3 times.
I don't think Gov. Dayton is evil. I just think he's incompetent.
After reading the transcript of Gov. Dayton's speech , I noticed something that I didn't pick up on during the speech. Here's what I'm referring to:
On the night of 9/11, I stood with my fellow United States Senators and Representatives on the steps of our Capitol to assure our fellow citizens that our government had not shut down, would not shut down, could not be shut down .
I remember watching the press conference on the Capitol steps. It's one of the most stirring events I've ever watched. Tears welled up in my eyes when, spontaneously, these partisans broke out in singing God Bless America, which replaced the National Anthem at Yankee games for quite some time.
Eventually, that unity wore off and the partisan bickering restarted again. Just prior to the 2004 election, a senator didn't assure his fellow citizens "that our government had not been shut down, would not shut down [or] could not be shut down." That senator was Mark Dayton.
Isn't it odd that he's now using this rhetoric for his own political advantage. Here's what he said in the following paragraph:
It is absolutely unthinkable that we would even contemplate doing so here in Minnesota. So, I ask you, legislators; I invite you; I implore you, to join with me now, right here in our Capitol and pledge to the people of Minnesota that we will NOT shut down their government, our government, not next July 1st, not any July 1st, not any day ever.
Gov. Dayton, should we assume that when you say we won't shut down the government on any day, that you really mean not any day unless you hear about a fictional terrorist attack ?
Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) said yesterday that he was closing his Capitol Hill office because of security concerns in what appeared to be an atypical response to intelligence information that has been shared with senators about terrorist threats.
Senate leadership aides said they knew of no other senator who plans to follow Dayton's example. Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle scheduled a meeting today for senators' chiefs of staff to assure staffers that there are no new threats, according to the aides.
I'll try following Gov. Dayton's logic, which is risky. Here goes: it's ok to shut down the government over a possible terrorist attack that nobody else has heard of but it's wrong to shut down the government by living within the state's means.
Let's hope Gov. Dayton's logic is more solid than Sen. Dayton's logic.
Posted Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Feb-11 11:46 AM
If Mr. Dayton is that concerned about a government shutdown, he should announce right now that he will sign any budget bill the Republicans in the Legislature send to him. Problem solved.
