July 13-17, 2011
Jul 13 01:58 Dayton needs to enlist citizens to end shutdown? Really? Jul 13 14:44 About Artificial Budgets, Arbitrary Decisions & Real Temper Jul 14 05:34 Compromising With Bakk, Dayton? It Ain't Happening Jul 14 13:16 Is Our Long National Embarassment Really Over? Maybe Jul 15 16:57 Shutdown Winners & Losers Jul 16 10:41 President Obama's spending hurting taxpayers Jul 16 19:09 Are Dayton's Commissioners Sabotaging Budget Deal? Jul 17 08:14 Sen. Bakk, Rep. Thissen: Obstructionists, Defenders of the Status Quo
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Shutdown Winners & Losers
The Winners:
Minnesotans in general, Minnesota businesses, Steve Gottwalt, Amy Koch, Kurt Zellers, Dave Thompson, King Banaian, Keith Downey, GOP freshmen
The Losers:
Mark Dayton, AFSCME, MAPE, AFL-CIO, Paul Thissen, Tom Bakk, Ryan Winkler, State Parks, Contractors
Minnesotans escaped without a major tax increase, initially aimed at "the rich who weren't paying their fair share", then aimed at cigarette smokers of all income levels. They're also getting some nice reforms that will help in future budget negotiations.
Minnesota businesses still pay too high an income tax but at least it isn't getting worse. With this settled for at least another 2 years, businesses can breath a sigh of relief.
Steve Gottwalt and Dave Thompson emerged as the next generation of GOP leaders thanks to Sen. Thompson's stout-hearted defense of conservative principles and Rep. Gottwalt's seizing the moment to push Gov. Dayton into settling the shutdown. These gentlemen deserve high praise for being great spokesters/legislators for conservative principles.
King Banaian and Keith Downey are winners because they stood their ground on important reforms to state government's makeup and King's priority-based budgeting reform of the budgeting process. These gentlemen have proposed legislation that would change how government operates and how it spends money. These aren't tiny considerations.
Speaker Zellers and Leader Koch deserve credit for keep the troops unified. It wasn't difficult picturing scenarios where moderates could abandon the GOP on this or that vote. That they didn't is a testimony to their whip operations and their leadership.
GOP freshmen were clear winners. Without their principled steadfastness, I'm certain that this outcome wouldn't have happened. Despite Sen. Bakk's criticism of GOP freshmen, they were certainly one of the driving forces behind holding things together at a time when things could've fallen apart.
The biggest loser was Gov. Dayton. He lost on his signature issue. Initially, Gov. Dayton wanted to raise taxes on the rich. After getting defeated on that, he tried settling for shaking down whoever he could shake down. Both attempts were defeated.
While I can't say Republicans came out smelling like a rose, I won't hesitate in saying that Gov. Dayton got alot less of what he wanted than the GOP got of what they wanted.
Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk, the House and Senate Minority leaders, definitely lost. It isn't coincidence that the two offers where Gov. Dayton dropped his demands for tax increases happened when Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk weren't in the room. They were the real villains behind the shutdown. Had this duo not been part of the negotiations, there wouldn't have been a shutdown. This agreement says that their agenda was thoroughly rejected.
Rep. Ryan Winkler definitely lost, too. When he predicted that Republicans would cave , he stiffened Republicans' resolve. From that point forward, there wasn't even a slight possibility of the Republicans accepting a tax increase. From a GOP standpoint, we should thank him for his being a loose cannon and for uniting the GOP legislature.
Public employee unions took the biggest hit of this standoff. They were on the defensive much of the time. When they tried going on the offensive, their ideas were rejected. When they tried ambushing King Banaian and John Pederson on the SCSU campus, they couldn't even fill the theater a fifth of the way full.
Unfortunately, the losers weren't limited to politicians who tried ignoring the will of the people. Unfortunately, this unnecessary shutdown hurt state parks, tourists, bars and building contractors. Each suffered from the shutdown, with the construction industry and state parks being particularly hard hit through no fault of their own.
I can't repeat this often enough or emphasize it vigorously enough. This shutdown wouldn't have happened if Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk hadn't put taxes back into Gov. Dayton's final pre-shutdown proposal. If they hadn't interfered, construction projects wouldn't have lost a month of construction time, state parks would've stayed open and 22,000 state employees wouldn't have gotten furloughed.
Gov. Dayton isn't guiltless. Anything but. Gov. Dayton could've instantly rejected Sen. Bakk's and Rep. Thissen's tax increase demands. That would've stopped the shutdown before it started.
When the dust settles, both parties' activists will be upset. Some might be downright dispirited. That's understandable. Both had won a generational victory, the DFL by electing their first governor since 1986, the GOP by winning the Senate for the first time ever.
The difference going forward is which party has the more appealing policies. At this point, that's the Minnesota GOP. I've only touched on a few of the reforms that Republicans passed and that Gov. Dayton vetoed. If they do a good job highlighting those reforms this summer and, if necessary, during next year's campaign, I'm confident that people will keep the gavels in their hands.
Posted Friday, July 15, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 15-Jul-11 11:11 PM
Someone noted that not only did our relatively inexperienced troops and leadership prevail, they faced a much tougher DFL / Media onslaught. While their hard work and courage were a big part of this, this also reflects the quality of the message. No mushy Carlsonism, health impact fee Pawlentyism, they turned the most honest, realistic budget in decades.
Meanwhile, the DFL had to defend the bloated bureaucracy they had built over the decades, with moderate GOP help here and there. That not having a pointless $30 certificate to sell beer could empty shelves at gunpoint could not be explained. Lori S. didn't even try.
Honesty was the indeed the best policy, and it took down a well-funded veteran blue state political-media machine. The final bill will be more money, less reform, but given history and the odds, this is one of the worst DFL defeats ever. Worse, even they can't get rid of Dayton until 2014. Speaking of which, is it possible we're looking at the State's first female Governor - Amy Koch?
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 15-Jul-11 11:14 PM
Well, it could be Yvonne Prettner Solon...
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-11 11:31 PM
Actually, Rex, there's good news on the reform front. According to tonight's Almanac, a number of reforms are very much on the table. I'd be surprised if a number of them didn't make it into the final package.
It's fair to say that few conservatives like thinking about spending $35,000,000,000 this biennium. That said, if we get, say, King's priority-based budgeting bill or his Sunset Commission implemented, that'll change Minnesota's budgets for years to come.
I've heard rumors that Steve Gottwalt's health care bill is getting consideration, too. (I'm proud of my legislators.)
As for Sen. Koch, I'm thinking that there's lots of options available to her. CD-6 apparently has an opening. Governor is certainly an attractive option for Sen. Koch.
Then again, I wouldn't rule out Marty running again, Paul Kohls running again & quite possibly Laura Brod running.
Whatever the case, our gubernatorial bench isn't thin.
Comment 4 by Rich Noe at 15-Jul-11 11:52 PM
I think there is a substantial danger of the Republicans losing their majority over this deal. Democrats, after all, will vote almost any incumbent (or yellow dog) back into office no matter how he or she votes.
The conservative activists and independents might just lose heart and feel betrayed. In the wonderful Minnesota tradition of passive-aggressive "action" they might just sit out the next election feeling like "it doesn't matter". Or they might vote third-party, spur on primaries, or otherwise express their anger and frustration.
I think my most excellent Senator (Dave Thompson) said it best during his radio days: "We're all populists now."
Much of it depends on the details of the final package!
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-11 12:07 AM
Rich, then it's your responsibility, & everyone's responsibility, to not live up to the title of being the Stupid Party. Sitting on our hands bought us 4 yrs. of Speaker Pelosi & 4 yrs. of Barack Obama. If people want to kill this nation, (No, I'm not being melodramatic about that) just vote third party or sit this out to 'teach them a lesson.'
Conservatives did that in 2006 & 2008. How are those decisions working out for Minnesota & the United States?
It's important that we emphasize the fact that Republicans got alot of reforms passed that would've changed things if we'd controlled the Governor's Mansion. We don't, which means we finish with this product. Be of good cheer, though, because a number of important reforms likely will get into the final budget bill, reforms that'll save state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in health insurance costs, reforms that'll change budgeting forever.
I know that isn't glamorous but it'll make a substantial difference if we don't blow it by 'teaching them a lesson'.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 16-Jul-11 08:06 AM
I'm not as concerned about borrowing and spending another $2 billion that we don't have. I am very concerned that this is another bong hit of one-time money that nonetheless sets the baseline for the next budget. If the DFL retakes the legislature the massive tax hikes to pay for that are a certainty with Gov. Dayton still office. If they do not, the pressure on Republicans to raise taxes will be intense.
I still say the only solution at this point, after the special session convenes, is to pass the lights on Bill at last year's budget of $30 billion(so the government can go back to work and so he can't shut down again), and then start "reworking" the budget bills from there. "Gov., we promised to eliminate the policy issues and respect your priorities. We just have to go through every bill and make certain we have done that."
Comment 6 by eric z at 16-Jul-11 09:38 AM
Gary, I believe in your above comment you use the word "reform" loosely. In a partisan way.
The reform of fairly taxing the rich has to wait, because of imediments from the right flank.
I suppose one person's "reform" is another's dismal disaster.
The DFL problem with taxing the rich fairly is they have not gotten it done.
The GOP problem with taxing the rich fairly is that the DFL has not gotten it done, and the GOP is why.
Next election cycle the issue will reemerge, or do you, Gary and readers, think differently?
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-11 11:29 AM
Eric, the next 2 election cycles won't be good for the DFL. Taxing the rich isn't what animates most people. It animates those who rely on government for their paychecks but few others. In shoring up the DFL's base, they're chasing away independents. That isn't a bright election strategy.
Dayton didn't win because of policy. He won because his first ex-wife & the public employee unions paid for the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota history. If you level out the advertising playing field, Dayton would've lost by 5-7 points.
The legislature is the best barometer. They're the people who win by connecting with people in one-on-one situations. They're the people who have to answer questions to the voters' satisfaction.
Comment 7 by eric z at 16-Jul-11 09:41 AM
The one name missing from winners and losers is "Wilf."
Did that New Jersey family lose for the time being before the shutdown?
In calling a special session limited by agreement to the budget and not ancillary issues, the Wilfs are ancillary.
Or will the GOP have a surprise there? Or with Racino?
Comment 8 by Chad Quigley at 16-Jul-11 09:51 AM
So nothing is finalized yet the GOP pundits are touting this as a win? How does spending an additional $5 billion count as a win when the GOP ran on $30 or $31 billion? Is it just because they are going to do it with the help of smoke and mirrors and not raising taxes is what makes it a win?
You keep saying "if" the policy changes are accepted but what "if" they are not accepted? Dayton is going to get a bunch of the spending he wanted and the GOP might get some reforms if they are lucky. Will the GOP walk out on the deal or will they sign it to be nice and say to the public "we'll get them next time"?
I respectfully disagree that it is our responsibilty not to vote third party, stupid party or whatever party you want to call it. It is the GOP's responsibility to put up actual conservative candidates that will stand up for conservative principles so we can vote for them, not just candidates that have the R behind their name and we are told to vote because of that R. Voting for the R just so they can vote like a D doesn't do us any good.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-11 11:02 AM
Chad, the GOP didn't run on spending $31 billion. They said that they wouldn't raise taxes & that they wouldn't spend more than what was in the state's checkbook. On that, I'll admit that they didn't do a great job.
That said, the odds of them putting important reforms in place is pretty decent. The thought that Republicans would get everything they wanted in a divided government is just plain foolish. Should they have gotten more? Definitely. Does this budget represent a GOP victory? No. Does it represent a major defeat for Gov. Dayton? Definitely.
If you want to vote third party, you'll betray the movement that's started. Most importantly, you'll give the DFL total control of Minnesota so they can destroy Minnesota's economy. Do you really want that? Yeah. That's teaching em a lesson. A lesson that we'll pay the price for for a generation. Keep fighting. Don't take the short view.
PS- there's a huge difference between the GOP & the DFL. Dayton, coupled with a DFL legislature, would've a)passed every social experiment bunch of crap imaginable, b) raised taxes to 13.95% & spent that $39 billion.
Wake up & pay attention.
Comment 9 by eric z at 16-Jul-11 12:00 PM
What will the next two election cycles hinge upon? The energizing of the embryos? Is that the GOP's primal offering?
Contrary to family liberty, against the real and legitimate and not made-up family values of a thinking family making decisions?
A narrow-minded Putsch of intrusiveness into the affairs of others who are only wanting the liberty of being left to make up their own minds?
More Kiffmeyerian busy-bodyism? Enough to choke a horse?
I think tax the rich is on sounder grounding than being a choice-hater, a liberty-hater.
Some may disagree ...
Dayton needs to enlist citizens to end shutdown? Really?
If ever there was an editorial that doesn't get it, it's this editorial . Here's what I'm talking about:
The governor needs a new strategy, one built on his belief that Minnesota needs a strong human-capital foundation to thrive in the future. He needs to help Minnesotans understand that if the state cuts its human-capital spending unwisely, the state's future prospects will be diminished.
He should ask for Minnesotans' help in wooing Republican legislative support for that vision.
There's a major flaw with this editorial's thinking. It's that they assume "the people" support Gov. Dayton's budget. Until this post , we thought that union support for Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's budget was solid. Until last Thursday's AFSCME Ambush , the media pretty much accepted as fact that the unions were fired up and supporting Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's agenda.
Now, it's proper to question whether the unions unconditionally support Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's agenda. It's acceptable to question whether the non-unionized public supports Gov. Dayton's agenda.
If the public isn't supporting Gov. Dayton's agenda, it's impossible to enlist their support for Gov. Dayton's agenda.
A gubernatorial bully pulpit equips Dayton to drive home the human side of the budget story.
He can help Minnesotans understand that enacting the GOP budget he vetoed would mean denying personal care attendants to the disabled, affordable health insurance to the working poor, and rides to work to transit-dependent employees. It would slash mental health and chemical dependency programs and sorely squeeze higher education.
With every part of the population hurting, there just isn't alot of sympathy for "the working poor" and others who are genuinely affected by the shutdown. It isn't that the public doesn't care about the less fortunate. It's that Gov. Dayton, the DFL and the media (PTR) keep trying to guilt people into spending money it doesn't want to spend.
Though they don't have the particulars, people start with the belief that higher ed is a positive thing but that it's probably got too much bloat to it. It's difficult to win over people when they're skeptical or downright suspicious.
Each day more Minnesotans are asking what they can do to help make state government fully functional again. As he tours the state this week, Dayton should give them a clear answer.
That isn't what Minnesotans are thinking. They're worried about how they'll make their next house payment or how they'll save enough for their kids' college education. They're worried that they won't have a job a month from now or that they'll have to pay more for their health insurance premiums.
Only pinheaded, inside-the-bubble bureaucrats think about "what they can do to help make state fully functional again."
The biggest thing that can help Gov. Dayton is for him to start paying attention to Minnesotans. According to the latest KSTP-SurveyUSA poll, 8% of Minnesotans wanted spending increased, 27% wanted it frozen and 60% want the budget cut.
With support for increasing spending being that tiny, there's no reason for Republicans to compromise. If Gov. Dayton is that intent on raising taxes and spending like maniacs, fine. Let DFL legislators pay the price in 2012. Between the dismal economic news that's emerging every day and the DFL's insistence on ignoring Minnesota's wishes and redistricting strengthening swing districts currently held by Republicans, the DFL better do alot of praying that they can recruit quality candidates.
If they don't, Gov. Dayton won't have much company in St. Paul in 2013.
Posted Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:58 AM
No comments.
About Artificial Budgets, Arbitrary Decisions & Real Temper
Yesterday's St. Cloud event told me several things quite clearly, starting with the fact that Gov. Dayton's post-February forecast is an artificial budget, that his insistence on an "agreement on a global budget" before letting budget bills get passed is a totally arbitrary decision and that his temper is totally real.
First, Gov. Dayton's budget cuts don't exist. This morning on Hot Talk With The Ox, King Banaian said that Gov. Dayton's claims that he's proposing $2,000,000,000 in spending cuts is a mirage (my words, not King's), not reality. King said that Gov. Dayton has identified $400,000,000 in spending cuts, leaving Gov. Dayton $1,600,000,000 short of the $2,000,000,000 in cuts.
Next, he's failed to tell the legislature how he'd spend the money from his changing tax increase plans. One day, the rich "aren't paying their fare share", the next he's proposing the most regressive tax in Minnesota. It isn't about tax fairness. It's about revenues to grow government. It's that simple.
Secondly, his decision to not sign any budget bills until Republicans cave into his demands on a major tax increase is completely arbitrary. There's no justification for it if doing what's right for Minnesota is your first priority.
People are hurting as a result of Gov. Dayton's unwillingness to listen to Minnesota's voters. That's definitive proof that Gov. Dayton's loyalty is to his special interest allies, not with Minnesotans. Shame on him for that.
Thirdly, Gov. Dayton's temper is real. I wrote here about Gov. Dayton's temper:
After the meeting, Rep. Kiffmeyer and Rep. Franson spoke to Gov. Dayton about the level of spending. Specifically, they told him that, according to the latest KSTP-SurveyUSA poll, Minnesota isn't with his spending increases. A bystander named Patty Wilcheck noticed a dramatic change in Gov. Dayton's demeanor, saying that "Gov. Dayton dug in his heels" and that "his whole demeanor changed", adding that "he looked like an angry parent scolding his children."
Prior to that exchange, Ms. Wilcheck said that Gov. Dayton was polite and cordial.
Saying that Gov. Dayton's behavior is erratic doesn't do it justice. Based on Ms. Wilcheck's report, I'd argue that his temperament is mercurial, that he's prone to quick, unpredictable mood swings and that he doesn't like getting confronted.
I don't know that Gov. Dayton's reaction to confrontation would've been different had this been the middle of the session. It's quite possible that his reaction isn't about pressure but about his dislike of confrontation.
Either way, Gov. Dayton doesn't have the temperament of a competent governor. Gov. Dayton's ill-fitting temperament, coupled with his belief that he can get away with proposing an artificial budget, says that this shutdown could last awhile.
What's shameful is that he's rejected a budget that most Minnesotans accept. It's only the media that doesn't like the Republicans' budget. They speak for about 25-30% of Minnesota and shrinking daily.
Thankfully, the Republican leadership has figured that out. They aren't caving to Gov. Dayton on this, especially knowing that the majority of Minnesotans are with them on this.
Posted Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:44 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Jul-11 11:27 PM
Gary:
Imagine how he might react if a real reporter asked him didn't you promise not to shutdown the state if you didn't get your tax increase.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Stonewall Jackson at 14-Jul-11 07:41 AM
Dayton is an alke. Not a past alke, but a current one. That's why his termperament flips on a dime.
Comment 3 by eric z at 14-Jul-11 07:46 AM
I'd react that way to Kiffmeyer. She's creepy. And she surely did bury that bank in Otsego, not that she ran it into the ground with pray-together lending policy, but she acquiesced and was the mortician.
Comment 4 by Mark at 14-Jul-11 08:37 AM
Eric Z: way to segue to a totally unrelated and irrelevant point combined with an ad hominem attack. Impressive.
Compromising With Bakk, Dayton? It Ain't Happening
A day after Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch outlined the GOP legislative accomplishments during the 2011 session, Senate Minority Leader Bakk wrote a factually-challenged temper tantrum . It didn't take long for Sen. Bakk to start misleading readers:
How can we ever hope to end our state's costly and painful government shutdown if only one side of the negotiating table is willing to compromise?
That was the question I was left asking myself after reading the recent commentary pieces from Republican Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch and House Majority Leader Matt Dean.
In those pieces, Sen. Koch and Rep. Dean repeated a familiar Republican mantra: the only way we can end this government shutdown is if Gov. Mark Dayton submits to the all-cuts budget approach favored by Republicans.
First, the fact that Sen. Bakk continues to mischaracterize the GOP budget as an "all-cuts budget" is shamefully dishonest. Sen. Bakk wants us to think that the biggest budget in state history was created by cutting spending, then cutting spending some more.
Next, it's disgraceful and dishonest for Sen. Bakk to ignore the steady stream of reforms passed by the GOP legislature. From Dan Fabian's permitting reform to alternative teacher licensure to King Banaian's priority-based budgeting reform to the establishment of a Sunset Commission to Keith Downey's long overdue government staffing reform, the GOP legislature dealt with key reforms that will make Minnesota more business friendly while making state government more responsive to their customers.
Just last week, he even offered to take any income tax increase of the table, offering instead a $1-a-pack tax, er, fee, increase on cigarettes to help spur negotiations and end the shutdown.
I thought Gov. Dayton's goal was to make the rich pay their fare share. Wasn't the state's tax code unfair for middle class families and the working poor. This cigarette tax increase hits the working poor and the unemployed the hardest.
I'd argue with Sen. Bakk that Gov. Dayton's cigarette tax increase proposal is a step in the wrong direction. I'd further argue that it's quite revealing in that it says Gov. Dayton's highest priority is to continue spending at unsustainable rates.
Agreeing to keep spending increases on autopilot is what Minnesotans throughout the state voted against last fall. If Republicans voted for increasing spending recklessly, they'd be betraying the will of Minnesota voters. No thanks with that.
This paragraph is based more on Sen. Bakk's dishonesty than on anything else:
Among other items, Republicans are demanding cuts to public school funding to pay for private school vouchers, taking away collective bargaining rights from state workers, and even criminalizing life-saving stem cell research at the University of Minnesota and Mayo Clinic.
Demanding? Seriously? If Sen. Bakk expects Minnesotans to believe that BS, then he apparently thinks that Minnesotans aren't too bright. Mentioned might be the more accurate verb in that situation. For Sen. Bakk, though, characterizing Republican proposals in low-key, accurate terms isn't what's needed to scare people.
At this point, that's all the DFL has. That and their incessant whining about the need to compromise. Compromise isn't what's needed. Getting it right is. Getting it right means that the budget agreed upon balances the budget while including enough pro-growth provisions to make Minnesota a more business-friendly state.
You can't find those things in Gov. Dayton's budget, partially because it's difficult finding Gov. Dayton's budget, at least one with details.
The two Senate leaders' op-eds are radically different. Sen. Koch's op-ed is filled with the GOP legislature's achievements. Sen. Bakk's op-ed is filled with mischarcterization after mischaracterization.
If Sen. Bakk insists on mischaracterizing Republicans' proposals, then it's time to eliminate him from the negotiations. He's the problem, not the solution.
The governor and Democrats believe we need to cut spending and make major reforms as we cope with the largest budget deficit in state history. But we firmly believe the Republican's all-cuts budget goes too far and does too much damage to our state.
That's pure BS. The DFL voted against every major reform Republicans put on the table. En masse. The DFL voted against reducing the size of spending increases. Why should we think that they'll vote for spending cuts?
Sen. Bakk might get DFL activists to believe that schtick but it isn't something that most people will buy into. More importantly, more Minnesotans are on the Republicans' side than are on the DFL's side.
It's time for the DFL to start siding with Main Street Minnesotans rather than siding with their GOTV/campaign contribution special interest allies. If the DFL stays wedded to their special interest allies' wishes, this shutdown will be a long one.
Posted Thursday, July 14, 2011 5:34 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 14-Jul-11 06:33 AM
"If Sen. Bakk expects Minnesotans to believe that BS, then he apparently thinks that Minnesotans aren't too bright."
Unfortunately, in November 2010, 43.5 percent of the Minnesota electorate showed it had the intellectual capacity of a claw hammer.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 14-Jul-11 07:06 AM
Gary:
The first comment that Bakk made is right. The problem which Bakk doesn't want to admit in the comment is that Governor Dayton hasn't compromised yet. When is Governor Dayton finally going to compromise?
Walter Hanson
Comment 3 by eric z at 14-Jul-11 07:43 AM
The Republicans are pushing an artificial budget.
Comment 4 by Alan at 14-Jul-11 09:43 AM
As usual, the DFL doesn't want to seriously talk and follow through with reform and wasteful government spending. So Gov. Dayton's solution is to "tax the rich" to create more revenue? What exactly does Gov. Dayton want to spend this so called additional revenue on or is this a big secret and when will it be enough? As Rep. Banaian said, wealthy business owners have the option of getting paid on a different schedule and they can also relocate their business to tax friendly states like Texas and Florida. I would add that wealthy entrepreneurs have the option of changing their residence to their second home in other states. Looks like it is now polictically correct to demonize hard working wealthy business owners. Of course, Gov. Dayton is still in denial.
Comment 5 by Alan at 14-Jul-11 09:51 AM
Where is Gov. Dayton's priorities? He is the only one who can call a special session. Apparently, he thinks it is more important to have a government shutdown than to keep government running to serve the people. Minnesota's nurses and doctors need to be licensed by the state of Minnesota in order to practice medicine. During a shutdown, these licenses cannot been issued or renewed unless it goes through the special master in Ramsey County and gets approved by a judge. In the meantime, health care organizations cannot hire new doctors or nurses who need their license issued or renewed. Does Gov. Dayton think it is OK to endanger the health and well-being of Minnesotans?
Comment 6 by Wolverine at 14-Jul-11 10:08 AM
The GOP is pushing an artificial budget? Really, where is your proof Eric? Maybe, just maybe if Gov. Dayton or possibly even the DFL would provide a budget that doesn't change as the wind blows or is just balanced, there could be constructive conversations. The GOP increased its original budget to "compromise" with projected revenues while the DFL and Dayton are stuck on stupid and refuse to budge all because they want to tax those evil rich. The state does not have a revenue problem, it has a envy and spending problem.
How is increasing the budget by $3 billion an all cuts budget? How do you reduce spending when you increase the budget? Again, the DFL is stuck on stupid.
Comment 7 by Topdog at 14-Jul-11 11:47 AM
Your assertion that "Agreeing to keep spending increases on autopilot is what Minnesotans throughout the state voted against last fall" is false. Over 55% of Minnesotans voted for gubanatorial candidates who advocated some sort of tax increase as part of the budget-balencing solution. You and all the other right wing shills conveniently ignore that fact.
Comment 8 by Heather at 14-Jul-11 03:37 PM
What was the shutdown good for if he wants to accept an offer he has rejected before. Wasn't it a waste of taxpayers' money?
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-11 03:59 PM
Heather, the answer is yes. The shutdown was counterproductive for the DFL, both policywise & PR-wise.
Is Our Long National Embarassment Really Over? Maybe
The media is saying that Gov. Dayton's latest offer sheet means that the shutdown is over. I'm not that certain. First, here's Gov. Dayton's offer:
Thus, in my continuing effort to reach agreement with you on a budget for this biennium and get Minnesota working again, I will reluctantly agree to, though I do not agree with, your signed offer sheet, dated 6/30/2011 (attached).
Gov. Dayton includes 3 conditions for his signing the GOP bill. Here they are:
First, I will rely on your public statements after the shutdown began that you have removed all of the policy issues contained on your list from our remaining negotiations and from legislative action this year...
Second, that you drop your arbitrary, 15% across-the-board reduction to the number of employees in all agencies, regardless of their funding source...
Third, that after all of the budget issues have been resolved in a special session, you support and pass a bonding bill of not less than $500,000,000 to put people back to work throughout Minnesota.
I don't have a problem with the removal of the so-called social issues from the budget bill. There's plenty of time to debate those issues. I'm ok with removing Keith Downey's 15 by 15 reform with one condition: that Rep. King Banaian's HF2 priority-based budget reform legislation, including his Sunset Commission provision, be part of the final package.
I'm ok with that because King's bill does essentially what Rep. Downey's bill does but does so with a department-by-department, agency-by-agency, one-piece-at-a-time approach. My bottom line is this: State government has been antiquated for a decade, if not longer. It needs to be dragged into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming if need be.
Whether we reduce the size of the workforce through Rep. Downey's legislation, which I think is great reform legislation, or whether we do it with King's legislation isn't my primary worry. How we achieve fundamental structural government reform isn't as important as that we achieve fundamental structural government reform.
If Gov. Dayton refuses to accept Rep. Downey's legislation and Rep. Banaian's legislation, then I've got serious reservations about Gov. Dayton's proposal.
If Gov. Dayton says no to those serious reforms, then we should make the case to Minnesotans. As a messaging person, it's exceptionally easy to argue that government should have to justify every penny of their budget every other biennium. It's exceptionally easy saying that we should take an annual review of agencies, commissions and departments to see if they're still needed.
I predict that, were those provisions polled by KSTP-SurveyUSA, aka SUSA, they'd get numbers similar to the polling on photo ID. That means these provisions would be supported by 70+ percent of Minnesotans, if not more.
As for the bonding bill, I'd be ok with it depending on what they want to spend money on. If it's spending money on the Sheet Music Library, I'm opposed. If it's building the ISILF Building on the SCSU campus, I'm fine with that. In and of itself, bonding isn't bad policy. It's what we get for our money that's important.
Initially, I'm inclined to say that we should accept the proposal. It's far from perfect but I'm ok with it if we get King's budgeting and government reforms included in the final package.
I say that because King's reforms have the ability to transform Minnesota's budgeting process while cleaning out the cronyism and corruption from state government.
If Gov. Dayton isn't willing to accept those reforms as part of the final package, then I've got problems with the package.
Hopefully, Gov. Dayton will accept those terms. If that happens, the GOP legislature will have accomplished alot this session, including some fundamental reforms that are badly overdue.
Posted Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Jul-11 03:47 PM
The problem I have with it is that he wants another $700M of K-12 funding shifted, and another $700M borrowed from "tobacco money" which is a vanishing commodity. If he wanted the state to borrow to repay the K-12 shift, that would make sense, but what he wants to do here is spend another $1.5B that isn't in the checkbook. That to me is the deal-breaker. The other is dropping "ALL policy issues." WHY? The legislature was elected to set policy, and including them in the budget (especially when they have a budgetary component) makes perfect sense as well as good politics. You know that passing them by themselves would get an instant veto.
My preference is for the GOP to note that Dayton still wants it ALL his way, and he is willing to put us all through h*!! to get it. It's a messaging problem that way, but the other way it's an obvious CAVE.
Comment 2 by Wolverine at 14-Jul-11 04:33 PM
I say tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine if he's going to continue to lie and say the majority of the people see things his way on the budget. I'd also tell him the sign the voter ID bill if he wants all the other policy issues taken off the board.
I'm sure there will be other demands in the coming days if he holds true to form.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-11 04:46 PM
No thanks, Wolve. We're getting alot. thinking that we'll get everything is foolish, as is the idea that we want Dayton signing Photo ID legislation. I want that on the ballot in 2012. I'd love pushing DFL candidate after DFL candidate on whether they support election integrity. They can't say they support Photo ID because it's a matter of DFL religion.
If they oppose Photo ID, they're on the 20% side of an 80%-20% issue. I want that issue alive & well in the 2012 campaign.
It's easy to have a visceral reaction to this stuff. The thing is that conservatives should be better than that. We should be smart strategically. We should look for political advantages while passing legislation that makes life better for Minnesotans.
Comment 3 by Chad Quigley at 14-Jul-11 06:47 PM
Gary-
Yeah, I'd say we are getting a lot, $3 billion in increased government! Oh, you have to add the $700 mil in borrowed money from future tobacco funds and the minimum $500 million in long term debt through a bond bill to add to the $34 bil. I'd say we got ripped off if this passes. He still gets $1.2-4 billion in increased spending and we are left holding the bag. We have enough government and the GOP will be giving him more if they agree to this. The GOP should have held firm at $31 billion and let Dayton shut it down from there. This isn't a game like chess, this is real life and unless someone act says no, we've lost the game.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-11 07:50 PM
Chad, I won't argue with you that the legislature should've held firm to the $31 Billion but that bell couldn't get unrung once it'd been proposed. That said, I'm told that we're likely getting some reforms that will change our budgeting system & the way government operates.
Comment 4 by Joe Sayers at 14-Jul-11 08:12 PM
The only reason Dayton has had this press conf is to try and wiggle out of his mess by seeming to agree with the republican terms and pretending to compromise- but expecting compromise from the other side as well. Very Minnesota nice of him.
There is no intent to settle the impass, only to try and pin it on the other side. If the republicans accept, they give a slush fund to the dems, drop their social agenda without a later veto proof margin, and give up cutting the size of state government.
The media will continue to support Dayton. The republicans need to get the message out through the blogs as to what is really happening here. AM radio and the internet will get this message out. Write the papers. It is smoke without the mirrors. Don't bite or expect that this opportunity to pressure for changes will come again soon. Settling here could make Dayton look good.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-11 11:40 PM
Joe, Don't make political analysis your job anytime soon because you aren't good at it. Plesae understand that I'm not saying that this is a fantastic deal. That opportunity was lost when they started at $34 billion. That said, we weren't going to get Gov. Dayton to sign Rep. Keith Downey's 15 By 15 bill because he'd be dead politically. The unions would've been furious with him.
Setting aside the cloning bill was the right thing to do because we would've gotten utterly clobberred had we stayed with that. Remember that politicians don't have unlimited political capital. They'd better use it wisely.
As I wrote elsewhere, the media & the unions didn't save Gov. DAyton & the DFL this time. That's because a) they weren't on the right side of the issue & b) Republicans showed a spine all the way through.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 15-Jul-11 12:14 AM
Gary:
I think the point you just made about the media and union being unable to save the DFL is the big thing. If this was going to be the hardest and worst punch we can ever expect where was it? In 2012 the Republicans in Minnesota have nothing to fear as long as they stay on principal.
And the unions should be scared. Not only are they losing dues paying members as all levels of government tighten their payrolls they're telling their members that the Democrats are great. Really they know for a fact that Dayton could've made this deal on July first, but didn't. Even if it results in a shift of lets say .5% of vote that can be big since that is enough to have let Emmer win in 2010 and Coleman to win in 2008.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Zippit at 15-Jul-11 02:15 AM
Congratulations Gary for getting a favorable mention and link from powerlineblog.com. Keep up the good work!
And...down with Dayton! Down with Obama! Long live liberty and America's exceptionalism!
Comment 7 by Sinner at 15-Jul-11 04:06 AM
The only problem with the 15 by 15 legislation is that it is too little too late
The government shutdown has been GREAT for Minnesota - a better way to stop government I can't imagine!
Frankly if the government stays shut til 2012 - or til doomsday - that's far better than have a functioning government lead by a Democrat!
Comment 8 by Joe Sayers at 15-Jul-11 06:29 AM
No offense taken Gary. I have a daytime job. It has nothing to do with politics.
I understand the "game". The problem is, it's not a game and nothing is solved with this deal. It's like cancer. If we do not eradicate the disease but only negotiate with it, it will eventually kill us.
I've watched the cultural drift left for 35 years as an adult. We still spend more, accept more debt and avoid a real reversal of the drift. We just drift a little slower until conservatives fall out of favor.
Joe
Comment 9 by Bob J. at 15-Jul-11 07:01 AM
Good analysis, Gary.
I will say this, though: I am sick and tired of reading the Minneapolis paper's insistence that the school funding delay was a Republican idea when it was not. Amy Koch has said it was part of Dayton's 6/30 proposal. The press will then use this falsehood to promote their tired old "Republicans don't care about our kids" line.
As for your points, unfortunately politics is the art of the compromise. This deal isn't perfect but on balance, Dayton loses the highest profile card in his hand, at least for now.
My only caution is to avoid the sort of talk and philosophy that is pervading the national budget discussion. In general, I do not favor the idea of 'saving issues for the next election' when it's better for everyone to implement them now. We aren't playing gotcha games any more. We are playing for keeps. So, Dayton losing his master card is less an issue to keep alive for 2012 as a necessary consequence of this debate that we needed to have for the good of Minnesota.
Give me a representative who understands that getting the job done is more important than keeping the job at the next election. Then we'll fix this state in a way that will last.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-11 07:28 AM
Welcome Powerline readers. Check out my columns at Examiner.com on the shutdown, the DFL's tactics & the AFSCME Atwood Ambush.
Comment 10 by J. Ewing at 15-Jul-11 07:49 AM
It's terrible to say, but this IS all a "game" to some people. Politics is a blood sport with casualties and calamities enough for the most decadent of Romans. That said, the GOP needs to treat it more like a game and less like the serious business that it is if they expect to win. I thus suggest: The GOP should "tentatively accept" Dayton's offer and ask for the special session. First item of business is a "lights on bill" at the PREVIOUS year's rate of about $31Billion. That ends the shutdown and Dayton's leverage. If he vetoes THAT bill he owns the shutdown for sure. If he signs it, then the GOP can start compromising with the Governor on more spending (but not taxes, he gave that up). Who knows, they might end up with $34B.
Comment 11 by R. Summari at 15-Jul-11 08:28 AM
I noticed the Minnesota budget approved by your legislature is $30.1 billion dollars for the 2010-2011 biennium. Your governor says this isn't enough. In comparison, the Nebraska biennium is $6.9 billion.
Now I realize that Nebraska has a smaller population (1.8 million vs. 5.1 million: a ratio of 1:2.8), and that the liberal elites of Minnesota think everywhere else is populated with lower-quality-of-life hayseeds (the bad part of "Minnesota nice"). Still, why is there so much spending in the Great North?
By Nebraska standards (I've lived both places and though NE was the better), Minnesota should spend only 19.3 billion per biennium - about a third less than approved by the Minnesota legislature. And, your Governor and Legislature wants still more? What give?
Comment 12 by Gabe at 15-Jul-11 09:24 PM
Reforming the system for the future is far more important than this year's budget. If the GOP is really going to hold firm to reform then the increased government spending this year can be cut back with spending reforms in the future.
President Obama's spending hurting taxpayers
If anyone is taking President Obama's yapping about being the adult in the room during this debt ceiling debate, they must've been comatose the first 30 months of President Obama's administration. Either that or they drank multiple double shots of Obama's Kool-Aid. The opening paragraph from this article would be laughable if they weren't so ridiculous:
President Obama on Friday reiterated his desire to reach a grand bargain that would deal with the nation's long-term debt problems even as leaders in Washington take action to avoid a financial default by the government.
President Obama has been on the longest, most reckless, spending spree in U.S. history. By the end of this fiscal year, his third in office, he will have added nearly $5,000,000,000,000 to the national debt. He will own, by staggering margins, the 3 biggest deficits in U.S. history.
What's worst is that he had a chance to establish credibility on the matter this past February. Instead, he proposed a budget that, if passed as is, would add trillions more to the debt in the next decade. Had he offered a serious budget, he might've had a tiny scintilla of credibility on the subject.
Instead, he proposed an unserious budget that's become a laughingstock.
Asked whether he continues to have hope for a broader deal that could raise the debt ceiling and deal meaningfully with the nation's burgeoning debt, Mr. Obama smiled broadly.
'I always have hope. Don't you remember my campaign?' he said. 'Even after two-and-a-half years, I continue to have hope.'
It seems cruel that President Obama still has hope when his policies have robbed the American people of their hope. President Obama's policies have added trilions to the national debt, led to increased unemployment, led to long times on unemployment and caused people to quit looking for work.
As a result, people are increasingly tuning him out. Noise comes out of his mouth but nobody cares what he's saying anymore.
A year from this November, the American people will restore hope by running President Obama out of office. The election is shaping up to be another old-fashioned butt-kicking for President Obama and his Democratic Party.
That's because President Obama's spending, coupled with his hyper-overregulation of every industry, his one-size-fits-all health care law and his bailouts, have turned people off to such an extent that he's run off independents in droves.
Liberals will cry when he's run out of office but independents and conservatives won't. They'll likely join with me in saying "Good riddance!"
Posted Saturday, July 16, 2011 10:41 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Jul-11 11:52 AM
I agree. Get out of Afghanistan.
Get out of Iraq.
Let Europe bomb Lybia.
Fix the homefront. Constrain the banking cartel, and their choking off credit.
So, Gary, you support Ron Paul and want the senseless spending ended?
You should have said so during the eight years of Bush-Cheney, or were waste and humongo debt levels okay then?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 16-Jul-11 12:14 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget somebody went out and put out that plan already. It doesn't do drastic surgery to entitlements so people who are currently on them or about to use won't be harm. It heads the deficit to zero (maybe not as much as we like). It closes some of those tax loopholes that Obama want closed.
Yet Obama went and trashed the Ryan plan without putting anything up.
I don't know if you saw Frank Luntz's focus group last night, but if that is a true cross section of America and they focused group Obama they will be furious with him. A few who said that they voted for him won't vote for him again.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Joseph at 16-Jul-11 02:22 PM
eric z:
Gary does not approve of Ron Paul since he does not want to kill all Muslims.
I agree that ending all of the unnecessary wars and bring our troops home would go a long way to fixing the nations debt issues.
Though the "banking cartel" is not choking off credit, it is the Fed that is loaning banks money for essentially free and then paying interest on that money if it is kept at the Fed.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-11 02:54 PM
Joseph, Don't speak for me. Where did you get the notion that I wanted to "kill all Muslims"? Shame on you for attempting to spread that misinformation.
Comment 4 by Joseph at 16-Jul-11 03:26 PM
Gary:
I would get that notion for your article Trump's Out http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=10482, in the comments section.
Specifically:
"If they killed U.S. citizens, that's an act of war & that must be punished."
"When was the last time a country that got attacked limited their declaration of war to only those who attacked them?"
While you didn't specifically say that you wanted to kill all Muslims, you did not have a problem with killing many thousands of them for the acts of a few, or for the lies told get the US into Iraq. You did not mention any reservations for the thousands of innocent people killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-11 04:25 PM
Thanks for admitting your stretching the truth. Thanks, too, for essentially admitting that you think only a few Muslims in that part of the world wanted to kill Americans on 9/11 or played a part in protecting al-Qa'ida's bases in Afghanistan. According to this article, the Taliban controlled 95% of Afghanistan in October, 2001.
It's true I didn't "mention any reservations for the thousands of innocent people killed in Afghanistan or Iraq" because that's what regrettably happens during war. I'd recommend you read this article to add to your perspective. Here's a key part of the article:
The first order of business was to attend Church. It was here where my morals were raked over the coals and I was first forced to examine them in the harsh light of reality.
Following a beautiful `Peace` to welcome the Peace Activists in which even the children participated, we moved to the next room to have a simple meal.
Sitting next to me was an older man who carefully began to sound me out. Apparently feeling the freedom to talk in the midst of the mingling crowd he suddenly turned to me and said `There is something you should know.` `What` I asked surprised at the sudden comment.
`We didn't want to be here tonight`. he continued. `When the Priest asked us to gather for a Peace Service we said we didn't want to come`. He said.
`What do you mean` I inquired, confused. `We didn't want to come because we don't want peace` he replied.
`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued.What Rep. Paul hasn't figured out is that terrorists like bin Laden or Saddam Hussein oppress the people to the point that they cry out for liberation. I could say that you think that liberty is only a priority if it's liberty for Americans but I won't resort to the same tactics that you've used.
FYI- The next time you make baseless accusations, your comment will be deleted.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 16-Jul-11 06:30 PM
But seriously, folks...
I still have my hope. It is a hope that Obama is retired and exiled to Venezuela. It is a hope that the new Republican president has 60 Republican votes in the U.S. Senate and at least as many as it does now in the U.S. House. Is the hope that this new president enacts a bold agenda to reverse all the damage Obama has done and have this country makes sense again.
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 18-Jul-11 11:40 AM
Of course, the best way to end wars is to make efforts to win them and not use our troops as nation-builders. Soldiers are trained to break things. Unfortunately, no modern politician seems to understand that basic truth.
Meanwhile, to the point of the article; Obama is a nation-destroyer. Unfortunately, it's this one. His two-faced approach to budget talks is embarrassing but sadly, not surprising. He's being a typical liberal, hoping that he can get re-elected by convincing enough people that he really is the fiscal conservative he claimed to be in 2008. Conservatives saw right through him then, and more people each day are seeing through him in 2011.
Are Dayton's Commissioners Sabotaging Budget Deal?
This afternoon, I heard the disturbing word that a couple of Gov. Dayton's commissioners didn't get the memo that Gov. Dayton isn't opposed to all reforms and policies. He's just opposed to policies like banning cloning and Photo ID.
What I'm told is that a couple of Dayton's commissioners are insisting on keeping in place the policies from the previous administration. Based on comments made by Gov. Dayton, Speaker Zellers and Leader Koch on Almanac last night, a number of reforms are very much up for consideration.
If Gov. Dayton's commissioners reject reforms like King Banaian's Sunset Commission and priority-based budgeting, then this deal should collapse. Furthermore, they should expect to be blamed for the deal collapsing.
Perhaps it's that they simply didn't get clear instructions. Perhaps it's because they're getting their instructions from Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen, the men who caused the shutdown. Perhaps they're just being obstinant.
Whatever is causing Gov. Dayton's commissioners to reject the GOP's reforms, it must stop ASAP. PERIOD. Which reforms make it into the final bill is negotiable. Whether GOP reforms make it into the final bill is settled.
I'd further add that DFL legislators better vote for these reforms. In report after report, article after article, the word is that DFL votes will be hard to come by. They've got the authority to do that.
Should they opt to vote against King Banaian's priority-based budgeting bill or his Sunset Commission bill, they'd better expect to run face-first into advertising telling voters that they voted against making agencies justify their spending once every 4 years. They'd better expect to run face-first into advertising saying that they voted for maintaining the status quo structure of government.
Like I said, that's their right but they'd be foolish exercising that right that way right after the electorate rejected status quo government. I'll just add that this isn't a passing fancy with conservatives and TEA Party activists. This is a hill worth fighting on.
I would've said fighting and dying on but I'm confident that I've got more than enough support statewide to avoid fighting and dying on this important hill.
The American Experiment put this list of reforms together that should be considered:
Education Finance (HF934)
- Early Graduation Achievement Scholarship Program (Art. 1, Sec. 6)
- District and Charter School and School District Grading System and School Recognition Program (Art. 2, Sec. 5)
- Teacher Evaluations (Art. 2, Sec. 20)
- Enrollment Options for Students at Low-Performing Public Schools (Public school transfer option only as private tuition option is almost certainly controversial) (Art. 2, Sec. 33)
- Literacy Incentive Aid (Art. 2, Sec. 51)
- Implementing a Performance-Based Evaluation System for Principals (Art. 2, Sec. 56)
- Report; Recommendations for Increasing Schools' Financial Flexibility (Art. 2, Sec. 58)
Education Policy (HF1381) School Districts' Joint Operation and Innovative Delivery of Education (Art. 2, Sec. 47)
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Finance (HF1010) Evaluation of State and Local Water-Related Programs, Policies, and Permits (Art. 4, Sec. 50)
Higher Education (HF1101) Payments for Meeting Three of Five Performance Goals (Art. 1, Sec. 4, Subd. 3)
HHS Finance (SF760)
- Electronic Benefit Transfer Card (Art. 1, Sec. 10
- Community Health Center Grants (Art. 2, Secs. 21 and 24)
- Evaluation of HHS Regulatory Responsibilities (Art. 2, Sec. 29)
- Long-Term Care Contribution from Community Spouse (Art. 3, Sec. 7)
Medicaid Payment Reform:
- Payment for In-Reach Community-Based Service Coordination [ER User Care Coordination] (Art. 5, Sec. 37)
- Health Care Home Coordination with Social Services for High Need Patients (Art. 5, Sec 46
- Hospitalization rates and Subsequent Hospitalizations Included as Managed Care Performance Targets (Art. 5, Sec 47)
- Automatic Enrollment in Managed Care for Persons with Disabilities w/ Opt Out (Art. 5, Sec 49)
- Managed Care Provider Payment Withhold (Art. 5, Sec. 50)
Minnesota CHOICE Medicaid Waiver
- Reimplementation of funding for Coordinated Care Delivery Systems, assuming adequate funding/federal match (Art. 5, Secs. 57,58, 59)
- Healthy Minnesota Contribution Program (Art. 5, Sec. 66)
- Plan to Coordinate Care for Children with High-Cost Mental Health Conditions (Art. 5, Sec. 77)
Studies on More Cost-Effective Treatment for Medicaid:
- Specialized Maintenance Therapy (Art. 5, Sec. 79)
- Benefit Set Options (Art. 5, Sec. 80)
- Reducing Hospitalization Rates (Art. 5, Sec. 81)
- Medicaid Fraud Prevention and Detection (Art. 5, Sec. 82)
- Wound Care Treatment (Art. 5, Sec. 83)
My Life, My Choices (Art. 6, Secs. 1 and 43)
Simplification of Eligibility and Enrollment Process (Art. 5, Sec. 18)
Jobs and Economic Development Finance (SF887) Monitoring Pass-Through Grant Recipients (Art. 2, Sec. 2) State Government Operations (SF1047)
- Sunset Advisory Commission to review state agencies and advisory committees (Art. 3 Sec. 2)
- State employee competition for state business (Art. 3, Sec 26)
- State Agency Value Initiative Program (Art. 3, Sec. 27)
- Require performance measurement to be 'outcome-based and objective' (Art 3, Sec 29)
- Zero-based/outcome-based budgeting (Art. 3, Sec. 32)
- Employee gainsharing system (Art. 3, Sec. 35)
- MN Pay for Performance Act/Human Capital Performance Bonds Pilot Project (Art. 3, Sec. 36)
- Public employee-based pay based on performance appraisal (Art. 3, Sec. 47)
- State Building Efficiency (Art. 3, Sec. 61)
- Fleet Management Improvements (Art. 3, Sec. 62)
- State Employee Efficient Use of Health Care Incentive (Art. 3, Sec. 64)
- Tax fraud Prevention and Detection (Art. 3, Sec 67)
- Strategic Sourcing Request for Proposals (Art. 3, Sec. 68)
- Consolidation of Information Technology Services (Art. 4)
- Minnesota Accountable Government Innovation and Collaboration Act (HF1579)
I know that a number of these reforms are dead in the water while there's a DFL governor in office. Still, alot of these reforms are so common sense that they shouldn't be viewed as partisan issues. For instance, what justification can be made for not making state agencies justify every penny that they're spending? If that issue got polled by KSTP-SurveyUSA, I'd bet it'd get supported by 75+ percent of the people. If they polled the Sunset Commission reform after explaining what it was, I'd bet that 75% of people would support it, too. It's just too logical not to be included in the final bill. It's time that Gov. Dayton's commissioners and DFL legislators, especially Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen, got the memo that their attempts to sabotage the deal won't be taken lightly. There's a reason why Gov. Dayton cancelled the last part of his trip and agreed to the GOP's budget. Gov. Dayton agreed to the GOP budget because it's much more popular than is getting reported. If the DFL wants to head into an election year on the wrong side of alot of important reforms, that's their choice. It just isn't a bright choice.
Posted Saturday, July 16, 2011 7:09 PM
No comments.
Sen. Bakk, Rep. Thissen: Obstructionists, Defenders of the Status Quo
This past session has exposed Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen for who they really are: defenders of a failed status quo. They've opposed almost every thoughtful reform the Republicans have offered. They've refused to offer constructive ideas of their own.
Sen. Bakk once went as far as saying that he "wouldn't know why" the DFL would make a budget proposal of their own. (Because it would show you aren't being obstructionists, Sen. Bakk.) The DFL legislature, both in the House and Senate, refused to create redistricting maps. Instead, they offered to have hearings around the state this summer in the hopes of "putting together a bill that Gov. Dayton can sign."
In short, the DFL did their best to defend the failed status quo. Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen refused to participate in solving Minnesota's biggest problems. They didn't offer reforms, which indicates that they think the structure of state government doesn't need fixing. Shame on Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen for ignoring the realities that state government needs to be fixed.
The DFL's strategy appears to have included lots of obstructing, defending a failed status quo government and ignoring the reality that the antiquated policies of a generation ago need updating.
The DFL's spinners are saying Republicans will face an angry electorate in 2012. That's spin. Anyone thinking that 2012's winning message will be 'I defended the status quo and I voted for raising taxes' is kidding themselves.
I'm not sure Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen aren't attempting to sabotage the negotiations . I'm certain that this dynamic duo isn't lifting a finger to support Gov. Dayton :
MANKATO - Republican legislative leaders can't count on much Democratic help in getting a budget deal passed through the House and Senate next week, including from Mankato DFL lawmakers.
Sen. Kathy Sheran and Rep. Kathy Brynaert didn't make definitive statements that they would oppose the budget deal worked out between Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch.
But both Mankato Democrats said the deal's primary provisions, delaying $700 million more in payments to K-12 schools and borrowing $700 million to be repaid with future payments from tobacco companies, were among the worst options available for closing the $5 billion budget shortfall.
I'd be surprised if Sen. Bakk lifted a finger to help pass this budget. That's their prerogative but it's foolish because people want spending cut or frozen.
There's stuff in this bill that neither side will like. Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that a number of reforms, including education reforms, budget reforms and government reforms, will be popular with the people.
If the education, budgeting, policy and government reforms aren't included in the final package, the GOP should walk away. These reforms are musts. Without them, all Republicans can point to is not raising taxes. That's a dealbreaker.
The DFL's policies aren't popular. That's why Gov. Dayton cut his statewide tour short. He found out that his allies and commissioners had sugarcoated reality. If Sen. Sheran and Rep. Brynaert think voting against those reforms won't have consequences, they'll quickly find out that they're mistaken.
If Sen. Bakk, Rep. Thissen and the DFL want to run on the message of raising taxes, double-digit spending increases and defending the status quo next year, good luck with that messaging.
If the DFL can't point to more than that, they'd better issue their candidates and legislators flack jackets because their message won't be well received.
Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen can take that to the bank.
Posted Sunday, July 17, 2011 8:14 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 17-Jul-11 08:43 AM
Dayton wants no policy changes. To him, a policy change is anything that spends less money, particularly in Minneapolis or St. Paul, or reduces headcount, particularly union headcount.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Jul-11 12:03 PM
That isn't what he said on Almanac Friday night. Nonetheless, Republicans should tell him the reforms are in or they walk away from the deal. The reforms go in before the deal goes down.
Comment 2 by eric z at 18-Jul-11 07:28 AM
Again, comment at 12:03 pm uses the term "reform" in a partisan sense. Subjectively, not objectively. 99 reasons can be strung in a line, but each is an argument that merely restates a premise. What the GOP majority is up to, the present GOP mind set's reflection, is of uncertain merit, and it is wholly subjective whether to call it reform - even stunning reform - or to call and view it as simpleminded muddleheaded meandering down a narrow bad path. Calling it a clash of positions is fair. Saying one is better than the other is debate grounded upon premises that are far from universal agreement. I think the GOP legislators each has local pet projects, as Jungbauer with his City of Ramsey advocacy while the Landform firm draws consultancy money from City of Ramsey. The rubber meets the road as it always has. Ayn Rand took social security payments. That's a fact.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jul-11 08:15 AM
What the GOP majority is up to, the present GOP mind set's reflection, is of uncertain merit...Telling gov't agencies that they can't have multiple deputy commissioners per department & mega-multiple assistant commissioners is certainly meritorious. Eliminating legislative liaisons, aka taxpayer-funded lobbyists, is certainly meritorious.
Take off the partisan blinders, employ some common sense & figure out that it's important to not waste tons of money on government workers who contribute nothing to the operation of state government.
