January 17-19, 2014
Jan 17 03:41 President Potter's dorm dilemma Jan 17 07:05 Feinstein: Hillary not at fault for Benghazi Jan 18 02:35 DFL distancing themselves from tax increases Jan 18 08:24 Gov. Dayton's MNsure's worries continue Jan 18 23:13 More MNsure casualties Jan 19 09:56 Formerly reputable journalist turns political hack Jan 19 13:34 DFL divisions displayed? Jan 19 22:33 DFL divisions widening?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
President Potter's dorm dilemma
A Quick Fix for Empty Dorms!
by Silence Dogood
At the Budget Advisory Committee meeting on October 30, 2013, Dan Pederson, Director of Residential Life, announced that in the fall of 2009, prior to the opening of Coborn's Plaza apartments, occupancy in the on-campus dormitories was at 96%. This is an impressive figure!
The capacities for each of the dormitories on campus are listed on the Residential Life website:
Lawrence 100
Mitchell 460
Sherburne 550
Shoemaker 500
Benton 280
Stateview 96
Case-Hill 326
Stearns 400
Holes 400
Total 3,112
Using the figure of 96% occupancy, in Fall'09 there were 2,987 students in university housing.
For Fall of 2013, Dan Pederson stated the occupancy had fallen to 78%. Undergraduate enrollment in Fall'09 was 15,780. By Fall '13, undergraduate enrollment had decreased to 14,641, resulting in 1,139 fewer undergraduates on campus. Even if the same percentage of undergraduate students wanted to live in the dorms, there would be quite a few more empty rooms because there were 7.22% fewer undergraduate students on campus. Occupancy had to drop even further because, in fall of 2010, the Coborn's Plaza apartments opened, adding capacity for an additional 453 students. With Coborn's Plaza apartments coming on line, the dorm capacity increased from 3,112 to 3,565 students. It is quite understandable that the occupancy rate would fall as enrollment dropped and additional capacity was added.
In Fall'09 all of the dorms were available for occupancy, which is what makes the 96% figure so impressive. This fall, Shoemaker Hall East and West are undergoing renovations so they are unavailable for occupancy. That removes dorm space for approximately 350 students. This leaves a dorm capacity for approximately 3,215 students. If there is a 78% occupancy rate, it means there are 2,508 students in university-managed housing. From Fall'09 to Fall'13 there were 479 fewer students living in the dorms and managed property (Coborn's Plaza apartments).
When the renovations are completed for Shoemaker Hall for the fall of 2014, there will be room for additional students in SCSU's dorms. For discussion sake, let's assume that the renovations reduce the capacity of Shoemaker Hall and that the new capacity in Shoemaker Hall East and West is 225 students. This would bring the capacity for the dorms and managed space up to 3,440 students. Unless significantly more students request to live in the dorms next year, the added capacity for Shoemaker Hall will decrease the occupancy rate. For the moment, let's make an optimistic assumption that the same demand for SCSU housing next year results in the same number of students living in dorms and managed space next year as this year. Under this scenario, with 2,503 students filling 3,440 spaces, the occupancy rate is projected to be 72.8%. Clearly, unless a miracle happens, there will be unused dorm capacity for about 937 students, which is more than two completely empty Coborn's Plaza apartments.
Dorms typically make money for a university. Having 27% of available dorm space unoccupied is a significant loss of revenue (money isn't coming in). The empty space in Coborn's Plaza is an unrecovered fixed expense (money has to be paid out for each empty room). Combined with the loss of tuition revenue from declining enrollments, reduced budgets from MnSCU along with the fixed cost of the Coborn's Plaza lease, the newly added bonding costs for ISELF, the Brooks Center, and recent dorm renovations, SCSU's operating budget will be severely stressed. It's hard to believe the FY15 budget at SCSU can be balanced without major expenditure reductions and at a university that means reducing the number of people.
When faced with serious problems, thinking "outside the box" can be helpful. So what's the solution? Here's are an idea. Require all scholarship student athletes to live in the dorms by making their scholarships only good for room and board instead of tuition. This won't bring in a single new dollar more of revenue to the university but it would sure make the dorm occupancy rates look good again. And what's more important than looking good?
Originally posted Friday, January 17, 2014, revised 07-Jul 1:31 AM
Comment 1 by Wonderer at 17-Jan-14 09:44 AM
Guess EP3 shouldn't have fired Dr. Saffari, who clearly knew what he was doing, with a well-functioning team and rising enrollments as strong evidence of a successful plan being implemented. There has been chaos in enrollment management ever since with repeated re-assignments, several title changes, and now the 2nd person in three years hired in to direct the office. This most important area of support for the university has been rudderless because the "captain" fired the "navigator" who had established a productive heading.
Feinstein: Hillary not at fault for Benghazi
On Thursday, Sen. Feinstein tried selling the spin that Hillary wasn't responsible for not preventing the Benghazi terrorist attack:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted that the bipartisan report released this week on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya did not mention Clinton even once.
'I regret that the 'Additional Views' of the report adopted solely by six members of the Republican minority unfairly criticizes Secretary Clinton,' Feinstein said in a statement. 'I want the record to be clear: I condemn any effort to use this report for political purposes.
Nothing in the bipartisan report, Feinstein said, assigned any blame for the attacks to Clinton, who was secretary of State at the time.
'Ultimately: the final responsibility for security at diplomatic facilities lies with the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,' said the "Additional Views" approved only by Republicans. 'We believe there should be a full examination of her role in these events, including on the night of the attacks.'
Technically, Sen. Feinstein is right. There's nothing in the report that blames Hillary for not taking actions that might've prevented the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2012. There should be plenty in the report criticizing Hillary for not acting on urgent requests from Christopher Stevens, the assassinated US ambassador to Libya. As usual, the All-Star Panel didn't pull punches:
Andrew Napolitano nailed it when he said that "This report raises more questions than it answers." He later opined that "the people who were responsible for this were the ones who did the investigating." Charles Krauthammer ridiculed Sen. Feinstein, saying "the weakness of the Senate report is that it blames buildings. It blames the State Department. It blames the CIA. It blames the military, these bureaucracies. In the end, it doesn't blame anybody. No human is held accountable."
Let's turn this around on Sen. Feinstein. Let's use her logic against her. If Hillary wasn't responsible for protecting Christopher Stevens, then Rumsfeld wasn't responsible for Abu Ghraib and President Bush wasn't responsible for waterboarding KSM.
Using Sen. Feinstein's logic, Langley (the building) caused KSM's waterboarding and the Pentagon (the building itself) was responsible for Abu Ghraib.
This paragraph is exceptionally telling:
'Our responsibility throughout this review was to focus on the intelligence,' Feinstein said. 'The report finds the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on terrorist activity in Eastern Libya and given known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission.'
That's a different way of saying that their committee would do a rehash of the Accountability Review Board's report. In the real world, where people attempt to connect the terrorists' dots, people would ask a) who's responsible for embassy and consulate security, b) what procedures were in place to make sure urgent requests got the Secretary of State's attention, c) why military assets weren't pre-positioned and placed on alert to respond to crises and d) why President Obama and Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found during the terrorist attacks.
Sen. Feinstein accused Republicans of using the report to hurt Hillary Clinton politically. The reality is that Hillary Clinton's decisions hurt Hillary politically. I'd further argue that political figures should take a political hit for making terrible decisions that got American patriots needlessly murdered.
Returning to reality, let's admit that Hillary a) ran in 2008 on the claim that she was the only candidate prepared to properly handle a 3:00 am phone call, b) didn't take action to prevent the needless assassinations of American patriots and c) took the Secretary of State's job to check off the 'national security box' for when she runs for president in 2016.
Finally, let's admit that, based on what she's done, Hillary was a mediocre Secretary of State.
Posted Friday, January 17, 2014 7:05 AM
No comments.
DFL distancing themselves from tax increases
Next November, DFL legislators will likely pay a steep price at the voting booth for voting for the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history. They know the B2B sales taxes are wildly unpopular so they're attempting to distance themselves from the tax increases they voted for.
They're hoping that by submitting repeal bills, they'll be able to distance themselves from their previous votes for the Tax Bill. I don't think it'll work because it feels too much like John Kerry's I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it statement. Here's a list of bills submitted by DFL legislators that would repeal the tax increases they voted for:
According to the House Journal's record of the vote , only Reps. Selcer and Halverson voted against the Omnibus Tax Bill, aka HF677. It's noteworthy that none of the IRRRB representatives are listed as co-sponsors of any of the repeal legislation. I wish I could say I'm shocked but I'm not. The DFL legislators representing the IRRRB districts think Minnesotans aren't taxed enough.
The DFL passed the biggest tax increase in state history. House Republicans didn't vote for the bill, meaning that the DFL owns the wreckage it'll cause. Their voting to repeal the B2B sales taxes won't hide the fact that they raised taxes first, then reacted when they saw the people's outrage.
That's only part of the House DFL's problem. Another significant part of the House DFL's problem is that Sen. Bakk isn't likely to consider repealing those taxes. Sen. Bakk is a socialist through and through, indoctrinated to believe in the collective, not the individual.
The Senate isn't up for re-election this year so he's likely thinking that people will forget the tax increases. As businesses like DigiKey, Polaris and Red Wing Shoes start leaving the state, Minnesota's projected deficits will increase. Then there's the 'MNsure Deficit'.
House DFL legislators have ample reason to worry about re-election. They passed tons of objectionable legislation that hurts Minnesota's economy. Couple these unpopular tax increases with passing MNsure and you potentially have a toxic situation for the DFL to run in.
Posted Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:35 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Jan-14 08:19 AM
Unfortunately DFL senators are immune from punishment at the polls until 2016. I'm sure they believe this will all blow over if they just spend a little MORE.
Gov. Dayton's MNsure's worries continue
I wish I could say that this news is surprising but I can't honestly say that. Gov. Dayton's attempt to distance himself from the health insurance exchange he lobbied for just aren't working. Here's the latest disgusting news about MNsure:
Wait times at the MNsure call center again exceeded one hour Wednesday as the deadline passed for people seeking commercial coverage that starts Feb. 1.
The deadline was something of an afterthought compared with the intense focus on Dec. 31 as a deadline for people seeking health insurance that started with the new year.
As of 4 p.m. Wednesday, there were about 2,400 calls and an average wait of 67 minutes, said Jenni Bowring-McDonough, a MNsure spokeswoman.
I wrote here that MNsure's legacy was "Paul Bunyan ads and Mickey Mouse service." Nothing's happened that would make me rethink that opinion. Unfortunately, that isn't the only MNsure bad news:
For weeks, MNsure users have been frustrated by lengthy call center waits and problems with the health exchange website.
That includes Joe Kessler, 36, of Walker, who said Wednesday that long wait-times have compounded his frustration over not being able to pay his premium online despite numerous efforts.
Kessler and his wife tried to get coverage finalized before Dec. 31, when they were told they would have insurance through the state's MinnesotaCare program, he said in an interview. But a subsequent notice said the family would not qualify for the program, Kessler said, so they selected a commercial insurance plan that would start Feb. 1.
It isn't a stretch to think that Minnesotans would be better off with the system that was in place prior to ACA implementation. That system featured people getting reliable quotes, paying their premiums all while knowing that their personal data was secure. That's anything but certain with MNsure.
It's an indictment of Gov. Dayton's governance. Ideologically, he loved the idea of government telling people what they had to buy. Logistically, he didn't think through whether the government was capable of handling the things that businesses do without thinking.
Things shouldn't be this difficult. Writing a program that helps people find out whether they're eligible for subsidies shouldn't much time to code. Likewise, it shouldn't be difficult to write a program that gives families an accurate insurance quote. That's the type of stuff people should learn in a community education class. People getting paid millions of dollars certainly should've gotten that written months ago.
Unfortunately, those aren't the only troubles MNsure is having. Here's another MNsure crisis :
Brittany Olson runs Olson Insurance in North Branch. She tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS she received her certification through MNsure to offer policies from the network to her clients. But, when she sold a Preferred One policy, Olson says Preferred One told her they would not pay her a commission because she "did not fit their criteria." Olson says other agents have told her similar stories.
Olson says the most frustrating part of the issue is, she says, MNsure has not told the certified agents they need a contract with the participating insurance companies in MNsure to get paid the commissions.
Olson says it is not on the MNsure web site and, she says, none of the MNsure staff members have ever told her she needed a separate contract with the HMOs to be eligible for payment.
At this point, questioning whether MNsure will ever operate smoothly is totally justifiable. Hearing MNsure say 'Trust us' doesn't offer Minnesota families any relief whatsoever. They rightfully expect a smooth-running operation.
That isn't what they're getting.
Posted Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:24 AM
No comments.
More MNsure casualties
If this LTE doesn't make you see red, then you're a heartless leftist ideologue that cares more about ideology than people. Here's what's got me seeing red:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton's MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father's employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent's consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.
The family and the employer were paying their own way for a good insurance policy that covered all members of the family. Today they are hostage to three different insurance policies. The husband and wife's deductibles have doubled. The cost of the two adult policies is about equal to the old policy that covered the entire family. Their family dentist does not accept Medicaid, so they are also out dentist shopping for the children. President Obama, Gov. Dayton and the DFL majority in St. Paul decided they knew better what this family needed.
This proud, responsible, self-reliant family has always paid their own way. Their children are now on government insurance that was intended for those individuals that could not afford health insurance. The parents now have two different insurance policies to deal with, plus the Medicaid policies for their children. In addition to hurting this family's self-esteem by having others pay for their children's health insurance, the adults' deductibles and co-pay for prescription drugs have sky rocketed, seriously damaging their overall financial well-being. To add insult to injury, Obama and Dayton have the audacity to count this family as one of the uninsured Minnesota families they have provided health insurance for.
I wrote this post to highlight how the Democrats' chanting points included the fairy tale that the new policies people were getting forced into were vastly superior to the policies they had. I'd triple-dog dare Rep. Pallone to tell that to this family. If he tried peddling that BS to them, it's quite possible that Rep. Pallone would wind up with a punctured backside, compliments of this family.
In fact, I'd argue that the only way a family would get shoved into their current policies is if government regulations shoved these policies down the family's throats. What family would have 3 different insurance policies if they had the option of putting the entire family on a single policy, especially if their first policy came with lower deductibles?
The simple truth is that families would choose the policy that a) kept the entire family on a single policy and b) had significantly lower deductibles if they had that option. In fact, if that was a poll question, I'd bet that 95% of the people polled would opt for the single policy with low deductibles.
Thanks to Gov. Dayton and the DFL ideologues in the legislature, families didn't have that option. That's terrible. Simply put, that situation shouldn't happen. Period. If not for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and MNsure, this family wouldn't have gotten shoved into that inferior health insurance policy.
There's no escaping the fact that Sen. Franken, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature own this mess. Their talk about caring about families is schtick. If they cared about families, they wouldn't shove families into this situation. Sen. Franken started the ball rolling by voting for the ACA. Gov. Dayton lobbied for the health insurance exchange, aka the HIX. Without the HIX, this family wouldn't be in that difficult position. Rep. Joe Atkins and Sen. Tony Lourey wrote the legislation that created the exchange. Then the DFL voted en masse for the exchange.
By contrast, Republicans didn't vote for the ACA. They didn't vote to create the exchange. They don't share the blame for this disaster. The DFL owns this disaster lock, stock and barrel. That's the inescapable truth. Next November, the DFL will feel the voters' wrath for creating this disaster.
Posted Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:13 PM
No comments.
Formerly reputable journalist turns political hack
David Ignatius's latest article is one of the most blatantly partisan and intellectually dishonest articles I've read about Benghazi. Here's one of Mr. Ignatius's most ridiculous claims:
Driving the Republican jihad was a claim, first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to "stand down," perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a cover-up.
What's wrong with that paragraph is that the charge wasn't refuted. It was substantiated by Gregory Hicks' testimony:
Here's the transcript of the relevant portion of Mr. Hicks' testimony:
REP. CHAFFETZ: How did the personnel react to being told to stand down?
MR. HICKS: They were furious. I can only say...well, I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson, who said "This is the first time in my career where a diplomat had more balls than someone in the military.
First, let's question Mr. Ignatius's methodology. Why would people think that the CIA would know about AFRICOM's decision? AFRICOM is part of the military, not part of the CIA. Second, Ignatius' article totally ignores Mr. Hicks' testimony. Is Mr. Ignatius willing to call Mr. Hick and Lt. Col. Gibson liars or just mistaken?
If I'm given the option of trusting someone on the ground in Libya who talked with Ambassador Stevens or trusting Media Matters, that isn't a difficult decision. Media Matters are paid liars. That's what they do. Unfortunately, that isn't the only questionable statement from Mr. Ignatius' article:
The Obama administration's supposed cover-up on Benghazi became a crusade for leading Republicans. A low point came when Issa's Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a report last September questioning "the independence and integrity of the review" by the Mullen-Pickering group. These were extraordinary charges to make against a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former ambassador to six countries -- especially since Issa didn't present any conclusive evidence to back up his allegations.
The ARB report wasn't an investigation. It didn't talk to any State Department personnel on the ground that night in Benghazi. They didn't talk with Greg Hicks. They didn't talk with Hillary Clinton or or Leon Panetta. The report's chief conclusion was that there was a system failure or, as Charles Krauthammer put it, the State Department building failed Christopher Stevens that night.
That isn't an investigative report. That's a whitewashing. Why didn't the ARB affix blame on Mr. Panetta for not pre-positioning military forces to respond to hot spots in northern Africa? Why didn't the ARB affix blame on Mrs. Clinton for going AWOL while the terrorist attack was raging? Had the ARB done either of those things, it would've been a credible report. Had they done both of those things, it would've rocked Washington.
Therein lies the problem. Pickering is a diplomat trained in downplaying things. The last thing a diplomat wants to do is ruffle people's feathers. The ARB report was predictably flawed before it started. What was needed was someone who didn't mind ruffling feathers, someone who wouldn't hesitate in asking tough questions and including tough criticism of leaders when they didn't act to rescue the American patriots who were needlessly assassinated that night in Benghazi.
Finally, there's this BS:
Perhaps the silliest aspect of the Benghazi affair was the focus on the errant "talking points" prepared for Congress, which cited incorrect intelligence about "spontaneous demonstrations" in Benghazi that wasn't corrected by the CIA until a week after the points were delivered on Sunday talk shows by Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador. Rice is still under a cloud because she repeated the CIA's "points" prepared at Congress' insistence.
Calling them CIA talking points is wrong. The original document drafted by the CIA was accurate. It wasn't until Victoria Nuland got involved that the document changed dramatically :
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it 'could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned '
It's clear that Nuland's first concern was political. She wasn't worried about the accuracy of the CIA's initial document.
Greg Hicks' testimony dalt with a) things Amb. Stevens told him directly before being assassinated and b) things Lt. Col. Gibson told him directly. Ms. Nuland's part in the administration's cover-up dealt with 'sanitizing' Gen. Petraeus' document outlining what happened that night in Benghazi. That's quite a stark contrast.
That's why I'll passionately argue that Mr. Ignatius' article isn't a serious refutation of what happened in Benghaz. The first hint that this was a hit piece came early when Ignatius talked about the "Republicans' jihad". That alone speaks volumes about Ignatius' motivation.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:56 AM
No comments.
DFL divisions displayed?
Based on what's in this editorial and what's in this editorial , the DFL's divisions might soon be front and center. Let's start with the 'PolyMet' editorial:
While Duluth and other media speculated that opponents and supporters were evenly split at the five-hour public hearing that included a two-hour open house session and a three-hour comment period, the numbers just don't add up that way.
They reported that attendance was 1,300 to 1,500. But of that number, a caravan of seven buses and a passenger van journeyed from the Range with at least 500 supporters and another 100 or more arrived in advance by cars.
Simply put, there are lots of Iron Rangers who badly want PolyMet to happen. They might not have sophisticated presentations but what they lack in sophistication, they more than make up for in passion and verifiable information.
The unified message of business and labor all across the Iron Range to Duluth and the Twin Cities delivered in a fact-based and civil manner was outstanding.
That paragraph indicates that Iron Rangers are tired of being told by elitist metro Democrats, aka Metrocrats, that they don't have the right to earn a living. This has the potential of turning the relatively conservative, pro-Second Amendment, Range Democrats against the anti-mining Metrocrats. This indicates the hostility isn't that far below the proverbial surface:
Yes, some opponents and preservation groups will continue their misinformation campaigns which are part of an excessive rhetoric fear campaign of damage to the environment.
The facts, however, will win out in the EIS and then permitting processes. And the preservationist fear mongers do not hold those cards.
The "preservationist fear mongers" that the editorial cites have this in common: they're almost exclusively elitist Metrocrats. That's a stark contrast with the blue collar Iron Rangers who supported Gov. Dayton in 2010. The 'Lt. Gov. editorial' offers a different perspective of the same potential problem:
The list of four is heavily female-metrocentric-weighted. The governor's chief of staff, Tina Smith, state Sen. Katie Sieben and Kelliher, all of the Twin Cities area, are strongly suggested.
The other person that's supposedly on Gov. Dayton's short list is IRRRB Commissioner Tony Sertich. I haven't confirmed whether Sertich is actually on Gov. Dayton's short of if he's more of a 'wishful thinking' candidate. Still, the risks are high for Gov. Dayton. If he picks a Metrocrat, he risks alienating Iron Rangers. If Gov. Dayton picks Sertich, he's essentially snubbing the check-writing, anti-mining Metrocrats from the Twin Cities.
The other name I've heard floated is former Sen. Tarryl Clark, aka Taxin' Tarryl Clark. With Gov. Dayton's tax increases likely to be a major campaign issue, Taxin' Tarryl would just add fuel to that fire. That's before talking about her responsibilities with the Blue-Green Alliance. 'Carpetbagger' Tarryl didn't win many friends when she ran for the Eighth District endorsement. DFL activists rejected her, in part because she was a carpetbagger, partially because she's as anti-mining as the Metrocrats on that short list.
The simple truth is that Gov. Dayton will have to choose. Either Gov. Dayton sides with the elitist Metrocrats and alienates Iron Range Democrats or he sides with the more conservative Iron Democrats and alienates elitist, anti-mining Metrocrats.
There's an old, ancient really, joke about giving a chameleon a nervous breakdown. The way to give a chameleon a nervous breakdown is to put it against a plaid background. In this situation, I'd argue that Gov. Dayton is the chameleon and the DFL is the plaid background.
Good luck with that.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2014 1:34 PM
No comments.
DFL divisions widening?
This LTE isn't what the Metro DFL wants to hear. In fact, it's an in-your-face ultimatum to the DFL:
For instance, although mining is the lifeblood of our region and provides benefit for the entire state, those in high office in St. Paul have been almost silent in support of this important industry that provides thousands of jobs on the Iron Range.
So when these DFL candidates come north, seeking our votes and making promises they do not intend to keep, let's carefully assess whether or not they truly support our concerns and intend to effectively address our issues.
It is no longer enough for them simply to carry the label DFL to win our votes. We Iron Rangers must hold their feet to the fire and demand their support for issues important to the Iron Range in return.
TRANSLATION for DFL: Put up or shut up. Here's what Marlene Pospeck wrote prior to that ultimatum:
It will soon be time for DFL candidates for statewide office to trek to the Iron Range seeking our support. They do this because they know how strongly Iron Range voters turn out on Election Day. Many candidates have been successful in their quest for higher office chiefly because we Iron Rangers have supported them.
It can't be enough, however, for these candidates to simply be DFL to garner our support. When asking for our support, these St. Paul candidates have an obligation to offer the Iron Range their support in return but this hasn't necessarily always been the case. They tend to rely on our votes and then promptly forget about doing what's good for our region.
This is a variation of what I call Tom Daschle Disease. Prior to his defeat in 2004, Tom Daschle would act like George Bush's best friend while visiting South Dakota. The minute he picked up his luggage at the DC airport, he'd instantly turned into the far left's darling. In 2004, he got exposed. Then he got defeated. That time is coming for the DFL, too.
Metrocrat elitists consistently repeat the mantra that they support "working families." That usually happens right before they file another lawsuit preventing PolyMet from becoming a reality.
Pospeck isn't just any DFLer. She's the former mayor of Hoyt Lakes. She speaks for lots of Rangers. Patterns are patterns until they aren't anymore. Range Republicans are making a spirited push to win over 'Mining Democrats':
The 8th Congressional District Republican Committee has given full backing to copper nickel/precious metals mining projects on the Range.
The GOP committee's strong support for nonferrous mining was announced just prior to today's public hearing on PolyMet Mining Co.'s NorthMet project's draft Environmental Impact Statement. And it closely followed a resolution passed by a St. Louis County DFL unit that opposes nonferrous mining, which is in conflict with views of Iron Range DFL legislators.
'It's a shame that the DFL Committee in northeast Minnesota is publicly opposing new copper/nickel mining jobs and projects seeking permits in the state. We've met as an 8th Congressional District GOP board and announce our strong, unapologetic support for copper/nickel mining and the jobs it promises to create,' said Ted Lovdahl, chairman of 8th District Republicans.
'We want to assure the hard-working people across Minnesota that the GOP is with them, and if they aren't yet with us, they have a home in the Republican Party.'
It isn't known how long the DFL's tired mantra of supporting "working families" will be effective. How many times will miners buy that schtick, then watch the Metrocrats get their way? The Metrocrats don't have a history of being pro-mining. That's big because Rangers are suffering bigtime . The median household income for Minnesota from 2008-2012 is $59,126, compared with $46,231 for St. Louis County for the same period. There's an income gap of 22% between Minnesota's statewide median household income and the median household income for St. Louis County. That's the direct result of the Metrocrats' anti-mining policies. Even retired Rep. Tommie Rukavina is upset with the DFL's anti-mining policies. Here's what he told me right before he retired:
I'm perplexed. I sent an email to the three who voted no, I'm awaiting a reply. Frankly, if Gov Dayton is pissed off at the DNR (hell, Ranger's have been pissed off at them forever), he should fire some top dogs over there. But don't take it out on the good people of the Range who have been mining for 130 years and playing by the rules that some folks now want to change.
Perplexed and pissed off would better describe my reaction. But hey, I'm a has been but I have been wondering why I'm the only member of the Range delegation who seems concerned about this. Perhaps it's because I'm the only member of the Range delegation who represents the real Iron Range and has never represented any other constituents in my 26 year tenure.
Finally, it isn't possible to argue that elitist Metrocrats like mining. They like getting miners' votes but they don't care about mining. If they didn't need miners' votes to win elections, there's a 100% chance elitist Metrocrats would throw miners under their political bus.
Posted Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:33 PM
No comments.
