January 14-16, 2011
Jan 14 04:33 CD-8: What a Turnover Jan 14 05:17 Escape to Wisconsin Jan 14 06:04 Interstate Competition Jan 14 14:08 Environmental Extremists Want to Kill PolyMet Jan 16 01:34 Another Day, Another Lawsuit Filed by MCEA, Allies Jan 16 12:32 Bigham's Big Bamboozle Jan 16 15:51 Are Deficits Pawlenty's Legacy?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
CD-8: What a Turnover
If someone had told me a year ago that Jim Oberstar would be defeated by someone who'd never run for office before, I would've bet the proverbial house on that opportunity. If that same someone said that Jim Oberstar would be defeated by someone who'd never run for office before, Tony Sertich would take a position with the IRRB in a Dayton administration, I would've laughed my head off while betting the proverbial ranch against that.
If that same someone had said that those things would happen and that a Republican had a shot at flipping Rep. Sertich's seat...well, it's safe to say I wouldn't have believed a word that someone had said.
Yet here we are on January 14, 2011 and that's precisely where we're at.
First, I smile just thinking about Chip Cravaack's amazing victory. Chip didn't listen to the conventional wisdom. That's why he won. He went into places that were thought to be Oberstar's strongholds, the places where he ran up the margin of victory.
I had a hunch in late August that something might be happening in CD-8. By Oct. 14, I was the only pundit predicting Chip's victory. Chip ran an amazing campaign, which is why he deserved the victory.
Almost immediately after Election Day 2010, the DCCC announced that they'd be targeting Chip in 2012. Thanks to Rep. Sertich declaring that he won't run against Chip, I'd argue that the DCCC has its work cut out for itself if they hope to flip Rep. Oberstar's seat back into their control.
The same scenario might be playing out in Rep. Sertich's state legislative district. Paul Jacobson still has a strong organization after running last fall against Rep. Sertich. While I'm not predicting Jacobson's victory, I've seen too much this year to say it can't happen.
After all, this is the year when what can't happen has happened again and again.
It'll be fun watching this special election shape up, with the primary being on Feb. 1 and the special election happening just 2 weeks later.
Who would've thunk it that CD-8 would be the place where the highest profile races happened? I wouldn't have been on that.
Posted Friday, January 14, 2011 4:33 AM
No comments.
Escape to Wisconsin
Kim Strassel's WSJ column paints the picture between Republican reformers and Democrats favoring the status quo. It isn't a pretty picture:
Illinois this week earned the honor of becoming the first state in 2011 to sock it to taxpayers, passing a tax hike the size of Lake Michigan. Citizens cried out, legislators deflected, but the most interesting response came from neighboring Wisconsin, where newly elected GOP Gov. Scott Walker had three words for Illinois businesses: "Escape to Wisconsin."
Across the country, dozens of new governors are taking office, fine-tuning state-of-the-state addresses, polishing budgets. With each event we are seeing a growing national divide.
On one side are wide swathes of the country that this past midterm elected reformers intent on slashing spending and reviving growth. On the other are the holdout pockets - Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut - drifting further into the abyss of tax and spend. The chasm has huge implications, not just for local and regional politics but for Washington.
Mr. Walker is painting that gulf as big as the Grand Canyon, this week blitzing the Chicago media markets to let suffering Illinois businesses know that while their governor, Pat Quinn, levies a 50% increase in corporate income taxes, Wisconsin is working to enact the total elimination of corporate income taxes for two years for firms that migrate. The "Escape to Wisconsin" line comes from an old tourism campaign, but Mr. Walker thinks it sums up the business choice perfectly. "We're going to send out that line to every employer in the state of Illinois," he tells me.
Here in Minnesota, DFL Gov. Mark Dayton is touting a budget message that "the rich" aren't "paying their fair share", including a top marginal tax rate of 11 percent. Gov. Dayton's tax rate increases are DBA-- Dead Before Arriving.
Had the Minnesota House and Senate stayed in DFL hands, Gov. Walker would be getting bombarded...from Illinois AND Minnesota. The exodus from those states would have businesses fleeing Minnesota like MCEA was selling toxic waste door-to-door.
Seriously, the picture Ms. Strassel paints is stark and accurate. The states that think they can raise taxes by whatever amount they need to pay for their reckless spending, states like Illinois, California and New York, are suffering and getting worse. It's a case where those states will get much worse before they get better.
Illinois' loss will be Wisconsin's and Indiana's gains. Within two years, Illinois' will have a bigger deficit than they have now and the tax increase will have fallen far short of its projected revenue increase.
If that sounds bleak for Democrats, it gets much worse:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's first order of business will be to end the 22% surcharge on his state's job-killing business tax, also making a contrast with Illinois's corporate hike. Mr. Walker is also flacking his reforms, including a reduction in capital gains tax, in nearby Minnesota, where new Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton recently lectured his own state Chamber of Commerce that its members are undertaxed.
Nevada's Brian Sandoval has vowed to kill the tax hikes passed by Democrats in 2009. This sounds good to California businesses, whose own new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, has announced plans for a five-year extension of his state's 2009 "temporary" tax increases. In Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, you name it, new Republican governors have made top priorities of cutting or eliminating state corporate income taxes. The midterms handed many of these reformers enough allies in their state legislatures to pull some, or all, of this off.
The reformers will have businesses gravitating towards them like they have the only clean water and clean air left in the nation. Old fogies like Mark Dayton and Jerry Brown will attempt to impose higher tax rates.
Here in Minnesota, our GOP legislature will prevent the unthinkable from happening. Californians won't be that fortunate. They'll be leaving the formerly Golden State. By the time Minnesota summer rolls around, the only businesses making money in California will be moving companies.
Unfortunately for Illinois, they'll pretty much be in the same leaking boat.
It's sad, really, that old fogies who should've retired decades ago still haven't learned basic economics. Fortunately for Minnesota, we just elected a professional economist to the legislature. I just hope Gov. Dayton takes good notes. He's got alot to learn. (Perhaps King will give Brown, Cuomo, Dayton and Quinn a group rate discount. Their states can't afford full prices right now.)
Posted Friday, January 14, 2011 5:17 AM
No comments.
Interstate Competition
I can't pass up writing more about Kim Strassel's column because it's a great lesson in the effects of interstate competition. Here's the perfect example of how interstate competition on tax rates changes businesses' behavior:
Indiana GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has spent six years taking competitive advantage of dysfunctional neighbors, jokes that living next to Illinois is like "living next to the Simpsons." He attests to the benefits, noting that Illinois-based Caterpillar recently chose to direct a major investment to build locomotives to Muncie, Ind. And while he recognizes he's now got some competition, he sees the combined force of reformers in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio creating a "divide that could operate long-term in the Midwest's favor."
Gov. Dayton insists in living in the past, harkening back to the supposed glory days of the Perpich administration when life was rosy. It's time for Gov. Dayton to admit that those days are gone because other states have caught up with Minnesota's education system and surpassed us in terms of business taxes, regulatory burdens and limited government.
Simply put, businesses are leaving Minnesota because the contrast is stark.
Look at what major manufacturers like Caterpillar are doing. They aren't sticking around. They're heading for greener pastures where the governors aren't whining about "the rich aren't paying their fair share."
These manufacturers are finding states whose governors worry about building a real economy. They're avoiding states whose governors whine about businesses paying their fair share of taxes so they don't have to stop their spending sprees.
States like Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan will have the strongest economies within the next 4 years. Don't bet that that won't be scrutinized by voters in 2012 and the next midterm. When these states' economies flourish, rest assured that governors sitting in the status quo states will find themselves sitting on some hot seats.
Mr. Walker sees reform affecting more than state or regional unemployment rates. He rewinds to the late 1980s and 1990s, when Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Michigan Gov. John Engler led the way nationally on welfare and tort reform. He sees an opportunity for today's governors to be "even more aggressive" - this time on public-employee pensions, budget reform and Medicaid - and to turn these into national debates in Washington.
And he sees all this playing large in 2012. When President Obama runs for re-election, he will do so in the face of "governors who are new, and who are being bold and aggressive in swing states about our reforms." The voters will get to see that distinction, and if Mr. Obama "puts his head in the sand, and keeps on the same path, he's in trouble," says Mr. Walker.
Governors like Walker, Daniels, Kasich and Christie will be seen as leading their states to flourishing or, at minimum, improving economies. Don't bet that that won't be contrasted against President Obama's big-spending federal failures. It certainly will be contrasted and notice.
Rest assured, it won't benefit President Obama.
Posted Friday, January 14, 2011 6:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 15-Jan-11 08:05 AM
We should compete with North Dakota for their oil.
After all, the Canadians are after our copper.
Or am I misunderstanding "competition?"
Is it beyond lowest-common-denominator in licking the boots of big business?
In that sense, should Minnesota build Zygi a stadium with public money, while there are unsettled deficits looming and all, AND should taxpayers do it without any referendum?
I say, let LA, Omaha, whoever compete to lavish citizen money on Zygi and his millionaire warriors.
Is there any thinking out of Wright County about how it would be good or bad for the rest of Minnesota if the guy from New Jersey land dealings has his way with us?
My bottom line, if an honestly worded and honestly presented referendum is put to voters; and approved, then give Zygi his due.
Short of a referendum approving it, I am against it. It's a big enough issue to be put to referendum.
In that sense, what about a referendum on PolyMet?
It makes sense to me, for each.
Environmental Extremists Want to Kill PolyMet
The upshot of this article is that 'conservation groups' (that's code for environmental extremists) are doing everything they can to kill the PolyMet mining project. This time, they're attempting to kill it by suing the state over a proposed loan by the IRRB:
Five conservation groups today filed a lawsuit against Minnesota's Iron Range Resources Board, challenging a $4 million loan to a company that is pursuing a large open-pit sulfide mine but has yet to get environmental approvals. The loan to PolyMet Mining Company was approved at the Board's Dec. 16 meeting, and would be used by PolyMet to purchase lands required for a proposed land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service.
The proposed sulfide mine, which would destroy hundreds of acres of high-quality wetlands, violate water-quality standards, and eliminate two square miles of critical habitat for lynx and wolves, is currently in the environmental review process along with the related land exchange. Today's suit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Save Lake Superior Association, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Indigenous Environmental Network.
'Minnesota law prohibits state agencies from providing any approvals, permits or loans for proposed projects that are still going through the environmental review process,' said Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. 'As we warned Iron Range Resources ahead of time, this loan violates state law.'
The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act requires agencies to prepare an environmental analysis for projects that may result in significant environmental impacts. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is currently working with federal agencies to prepare a supplemental environmental analysis for the proposed PolyMet mine project after the initial draft received critical reviews from other agencies, tribal scientists and the public.
Listen to how these extremists state opinion as fact:
The proposed sulfide mine, which would destroy hundreds of acres of high-quality wetlands, violate water-quality standards, and eliminate two square miles of critical habitat for lynx and wolves, is currently in the environmental review process along with the related land exchange. Today's suit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Save Lake Superior Association, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Indigenous Environmental Network.
Why should "critical habitat for lynx and wolves" be a higher priority than creating jobs for people? This is the same logic used to shut down the main water supply to California's Central Valley. There they're protecting the Delta Smelt. they're protecting the smelt but unemployment rates have skyrocketed in some communities to 35 percent and more.
I have a deep appreciation for lynx and wolves but if it's a fight between whether they have an additional two square miles of critical habitat or 400 people have high-paying jobs, critical habitat loses.
Here's what the Center for Biological Diversity's website says is their mission :
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature, to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
We want those who come after us to inherit a world where the wild is still alive.
Talk about environmental gobbledeygook. What do they mean when they say "diversity has intrinsic value"? Further, should diversity be the highest priority? In CBD's mind, do they think that the loss of biological diversity "impoverishes society" more than keeping the people of the Iron Range unemployed?
This line is aggravating:
We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
TRANSLATION: We do so through non-peer-reviewed studies we've done, through attrition litigation and through giving this information to our willing accomplices in the media.
It's disturbing that CBD's focus is on "protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive", without regard to the impact their actions have on the economic health of people living in areas they've targeted. Shame on them.
Another party in the lawsuits is the Indigenous Environmental Network. Here's their mission statement :
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
IEN accomplishes this by maintaining an informational clearinghouse, organizing campaigns, direct actions and public awareness, building the capacity of community and tribes to address EJ issues, development of initiatives to impact policy, and building alliances among Indigenous communities, tribes, inter-tribal and Indigenous organizations, people-of-color/ethnic organizations, faith-based and women groups, youth, labor, environmental organizations and others. IEN convenes local, regional and national meetings on environmental and economic justice issues, and provides support, resources and referral to Indigenous communities and youth throughout primarily North America, and in recent years, globally.
In other words, environmental extremists are utilizing tribal and indigenous people in an attempt to, at minimum, delay the construction of the PolyMet mine and, if possible, kill the PolyMet mining project.
IEN talks about economic justice. Here's the definition for economic justice :
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living , enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.
"Institutions determine how each person earns a living." That's chilling. Whatever happened to the founding principle that people have the liberty to determine their own future?
I'm not calling for deregulation of entire industries. I'm calling for sensible levels of regulations that balance the need for job creation and protecting the environment, with a slightly higher priority put on job creation than on protecting exotic plants and animals.
Predictably, MCEA is involved in this lawsuit, too. Considering their lengthy history of court defeats, this lawsuit shouldn't be seen as much about protecting the enviroment as it is about their putting a high priority on killing jobs in northern Minnesota while protecting green economy projects.
Posted Friday, January 14, 2011 2:08 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 15-Jan-11 07:57 AM
I don't understand how PolyMet is such a hot-button issue with Wright County Republicans?
Is there money to follow?
Has the GOP victory in MN 8 been purchased, so that now all the rest of the in-state GOP have to deliver the goods?
Why do it at all? What's the benefit to Minnesota, at large?
Then, with the world needing more copper, why do it WITHOUT safeguards such as a big, big, sufficiently big escrow pot of money up front; to assure these GOP-loved folks are not just rape and run, redux?
That's the BIG QUESTION, isn't it?
Comment 2 by Betty L. O\'Dair at 16-Jan-11 08:20 PM
These are all a bunch of communists wanting to control the people. This comes from the White House down to us, but in diffrent agency names. What is happening in America is a crime, and it all started when Obama said there would be Change, and yes, in the 2 years he has been president America has been going down hill.
Another Day, Another Lawsuit Filed by MCEA, Allies
I've written frequently about the MCEA's anti-jobs agenda and about Paul Aasen, the organization's former leader. I've also writte about how it's disappointing that Aasen is now Gov. Dayton's appointee to be the MPCA commissioner.
MCEA is a prominent part of a network of environmental extremists whose goal is to control people's lives. Through their lawsuits, MCEA has ruined Minnesota's economy, especially the Iron Range's economy. Aasen's leadership of the organization implies that he supports MCEA's agenda.
Thanks to MCEA's lawsuits, hundreds of 1- and 2-year long construction jobs have been delayed on the Iron Range. That's before talking about the permanent jobs that would've been created by the completion of the PolyMet mining project.
Before we move along, the increased mining activity in Minnesota's Arrowhead region wouldn't have been the only growth spurt in the Arrowhead. The mining would've required a substantial increase in shipping industry employment. That growth would've gotten Minnesota's economy humming.
Those employment increases would've brought in enough revenue to balance Minnesota's budget and improve the lives of Iron Range families.
It's wrong to think that the MCEA's lawsuits are just about economics. It isn't. These organizations strongly believe in economic justice. This is the definition of economic justice that I found:
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.
First, I'm opposed to any principle that tells me an outsider gets to determine for me how I earn a living. The Founding Fathers fought against that type of central planning. Their vision was to liberate, not control Americans' lives.
It's time we told these organizations, which only represent a tiny sliver of Minnesotans, that they don't have veto authority on our economic livelihoods. They don't get to tell us what we can or can't do.
Friday's lawsuit against the IRRB won't enforce important environmental laws. The MCEA isn't about clean environment. The lawsuit is about slowing down, and hopefully killing PolyMet.It's Let's remember that Aasen's former agency specialized in killing jobs while overexaggerating the potential environmental damage.
I can't emphasize enough that MCEA didn't stop Big Stone II because they won a major legal ruling. They stopped that project because they told the investors that Cap and Tax would bankrupt the project.
There's no question that Mr. Aasen will still be the same job-killing radical as MPCA commissioner that he was as interim chief of MCEA. He is who he is. Thinking that he'll change into a moderate is wishful thinking.
I know that whoever Dayton picks to be his MPCA commissioner will be someone I'll have disagreements with. Further, I know elections have consequences. Still, state senators have the responsibility of advise and consent. If they see that Aasen will be too destructive to Minnesota's economy, then it's their obligation to vote to not confirm him.
If Minnesota wants a business-friendly climate where the administration doesn't pick winners and losers, we need a more sensible person as the
MPCA commissioner. Aasen will be a roadblock to the GOP's permitting and regulatory reforms. That's the best way to keep Minnesota's economy from being the best it can be.
Posted Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:34 AM
No comments.
Bigham's Big Bamboozle
Friday night, former state Rep. Karla Bigham was part of Almanac's political roundtable with Denise Cardinal representing the DFL and Jen DeJournett and Gregg Peppin representing the MNGOP. Suffice it to say that this wasn't Bigham's shining moment.
First, she never got beyond the DFL's talking points. There didn't appear to be any original thought involved in her answers. The other thing that made this a less-than-stellar performance was her consistent insistence that Gov. Pawlenty drove up property taxes by not raising income taxes.
This must be a great gig for DFL mayors. They get to spend foolishly, then have pundits like Rep. Bigham blame their misspending on Republicans. It's better than no-fault insurance. R.T. Rybak and especially Chris Coleman spend money they don't have on things they don't need.
They don't have to set spending priorities or say no, either, because the Karla Bighams of the world will blame Gov. Pawlenty for the spending mess in St. Paul and Minneapolis.
We know that setting spending priorities isn't something the DFL is accustomed to :
Let's start with some of the most memorable quotes from the Forum. The first memorable quote was from 'Grandpa Larry' Haws. Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say 'Maybe we do need to prioritize.'
That doesn't sound like someone who's accustomed to setting priorities, does it? In fact, that sounds like someone who thinks of setting priorities as a foreign concept.
Local property taxes are determined by how big the city's wish list is and how much of that wish list is included in the budget. By saying that their messes are Gov. Pawlenty's fault is exempting mayors, city councils and county commissioners from responsibility for their decisions.
Let's phrase this differently. If R.T. Rybak or Chris Coleman and that city's city council decide to spend money, what authority does Minnesota's governor have in preventing the spending of that money on that item? The only role Minnesota's governor has in that city's budget is whether he vetoes legislation that will subsidize that city's spending decisions.
Either way, the mayor and city council are responsible for their spending decisions. They can choose to not spend the money, spend money on something but not as much as that department had hoped for or they can vote to spend money on a project but only after they reform how that agency or department delivers that service.
Denise Cardinal stuck to the DFL script, too, though she didn't say anything as outlandish and provably false as Rep. Bigham said. If Bigham and Cardinal are the best spokespeople for the DFL, they've got some difficulties with independents.
Jen DeJournett and Gregg Peppin did a solid job of explaining the GOP agenda. When talking about the high priority bills that were introduced this week, DeJournett and Peppin did a nice job of explaining how that legislation would make Minnesota more business friendly.
Posted Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:32 PM
No comments.
Are Deficits Pawlenty's Legacy?
Lately, DFL pundits and legislators have whined about Gov. Pawlenty's 'legacy of deficits', citing the fact that he arrived to "a $4.3 billion deficit and leaving with a $6.2 billion deficit." Those figures are accurate but do they tell the real story? I'd argue they don't.
Is Gov. Pawlenty responsible for the clueless reign of Jesse Ventura? No intellectually honest person would say that the $4.3 billion deficit is Gov. Pawlenty's fault.
I'd also argue that he isn't responsible for the current $6.2 billion deficit, or, at minimum, his fault is minimal. Let's remember that there was a $2.163 billion surplus when Speaker Kelliher took the Speaker's gavel. They instantly spent the entire surplus, including one-time money, much of it on their special interest allies.
In fact, if we're talking legacies, let's talk about the DFL majorities' legacy of spending one-time money again and again. Let's talk about their refusal to enact any serious reforms in their 4 years of supermajority reign.
That's what I'd characterize as a legacy of shame.
More than once, I've charcterized the DFL supermajority as the obstructionist majority, citing Linda Berglin's refusal to consider any health care reforms. To be fair, though, Sen. Berglin wasn't the only chair who refused to give reforms a hearing.
In other words, Gov. Pawlenty got rid of the deficit that was dropped in his lap in 2003 and did his best goaltender impression while the DFL spent irresponsibly while they had supermajorities the last 4 years.
Let's also not blame the economy on Gov. Pawlenty either. Certainly, the mortgage meltdown that took the U.S. economy down isn't Gov. Pawlenty's fault.
In other words, 6 of the 8 years of the Pawlenty administration he was either cleaning up the mess another administration dumped in his lap or dealing with DFL supermajorities intent on spending irresponsibly.
How different would Gov. Pawlenty's legacy be if he'd had solid GOP majorities during his administration?
Posted Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:51 PM
No comments.
