June 6-8, 2016
Jun 06 04:22 Dan Sparks' bonding bill disaster Jun 06 07:07 Defining victory downward Jun 06 11:06 Thissen's big dollar tax mistake Jun 06 13:55 Hann puts Skoe on defensive Jun 07 05:39 Gov. Dayton's pocket veto a reality Jun 07 11:58 Defiant DFL defends Dayton Jun 08 03:01 Gov. Dayton's bargaining chip Jun 08 13:31 Pat Buchanan, Trump apologist Jun 08 17:24 Trump vs. the First Amendment
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Dan Sparks' bonding bill disaster
Heather Carlson is one of the better reporters at the state capitol. That's why I'm paying particular attention to this article about whether DFL Sen. Dan Sparks voted for the DFL amendment to the bonding bill. Sparks insisted that fellow Democrats "told him the light rail amendment was part of an end-of-session agreement between the Senate DFL and House Republicans."
After the session, Sen. Bakk and Speaker Daudt disagreed whether there was an agreement on SWLRT. According to Carlson's reporting, "GOP House Speaker Kurt Daudt denied there was such an agreement while Senate DFL Majority Leader Tom Bakk insisted there was a deal."
Let's be clear about something. There wasn't a deal on SWLRT. I don't doubt that Sen. Bakk wants to sell that but I've been in touch with lots of GOP legislators. They've all essentially told me that they'd rather get bit by a rattlesnake than vote for SWLRT funding. Since the bonding bill needs 81 votes to pass in the House, there's no way SWLRT funding was part of a deal. A bonding bill with SWLRT funding in it would require a minimum of 20 Republican votes in the House.
If Sen. Bakk wants us to believe that Speaker Daudt could find 20 GOP votes for SWLRT without first consulting his caucus, he'd better be the world's greatest salesman of all time. Frankly, I'm not buying Sen. Bakk's story.
Sparks said his concern with the light rail amendment was that it was being pushed forward by seven DFL senators who threatened not to vote for a public works bill, also known as a bonding bill, unless they got funding for the project. Those bills require a three-fifths majority to pass. "I just think when you start to get these groups of seven or eight members that can tie up a whole bonding bill, I think that's a really dangerous road to go down," Sparks said.
It takes 41 votes to pass a bonding bill in the Senate. There are 39 DFL senators. A little simple math shows that Sen. Bakk would need 9-10 GOP senators to pass a bonding bill that didn't include funding for SWLRT. Without hesitation, there's no question that John Pederson, Michelle Fischbach, Dave Senjem and Jim Abeler would vote for that bonding package. I'd bet that Julie Rosen, Julianne Ortman and Carrie Ruud would vote for that bonding bill, too. It isn't a stretch to think that Karin Housley and Jeremy Miller would vote for a bonding bill.
Posted Monday, June 6, 2016 4:22 AM
No comments.
Defining victory downward
This article shows that the Iron Range knows that the DFL isn't their friend. It doesn't mean that they're smart enough to vote for Republicans yet but that isn't surprising.
Iron Range DFL activists attending the DFL State Convention this weekend defeated Resolution 54, which said "Oppose sulfide ore mining, which is significantly different from taconite mining, poses unacceptable environmental risks, threatens multiple watersheds (Lake Superior, BWCA/VNP, Mississippi) and should not be allowed in the sulfur-bearing rock of Minnesota."
It's nice that Resolution was defeated but that isn't a victory. A victory would've included approval of permits for PolyMet. A victory would've included a resolution stating that the DFL wholeheartedly supports mining unconditionally. Neither of those things happened, which means defeating Resolution 54, though a good thing, wasn't a victory.
Kelsey Johnson, the president of the Iron Mining Association, tried putting the best spin on it, saying "Today's success was an important win and I'm glad that our legislators were able to remove this resolution. While it's unfortunate that we have to fight against global forces, it's more unfortunate to be fighting for our own livelihood in our own backyard."
The truth is that the metro DFL controls the DFL. That won't change anytime soon. In fact, that's likely never to change. The only way for the Iron Range to truly win is for them to switch to voting for Republicans. Republicans don't take their marching orders from Alida Messinger. They don't have to fight environmentalists like John Marty or gun grabbers like Ron Latz or looney tunes lefties like Sandy Pappas.
Unlike the DFL, Republicans actually want every region in the state to succeed. The DFL isn't interested in seeing mining succeed. This weekend's vote proves that. Republicans would love to see the Iron Range rebound to the prosperity it once took for granted.
A rejuvenation of the Iron Range is the true definition of victory. That will only happen when the Range starts voting for Republicans.
Posted Monday, June 6, 2016 7:07 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Jun-16 11:28 AM
The earth will never get mad.
It will get even.
Thissen's big dollar tax mistake
Rep. Thissen just posted this tweet in an attempt to criticize Republicans to distract attention away from Gov. Dayton vetoing a series of middle class tax cuts. In his tweet, he said "I bet those Republican House members wish they'd voted w/ us for 24 hrs. to review bills. That's how you avoid $100 million mistakes."
Rep. Thissen is a man living in a glass house who throws stones recklessly. In 2013, Rep. Thissen joined with Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton to pass a tax bill that raised taxes on farmers, warehouse operators and telecommunications equipment. In 2014, Rep. Thissen joined with Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton in admitting that Republicans were right in voting against those sales tax increases. They didn't admit it in a press release. They admitted it by repealing those sales taxes .
Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton reached agreement on these tax increases a week before the end of the 2013 session. They passed these sales tax increases the last day of the session, which meant the DFL had tons of time to read through the Tax Bill.
Those sales tax increases weren't the only mistakes made by Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton in that 2013 Tax Bill. That year, Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton and the DFL included $90,000,000 to build Bakk's Senate Palace. To be fair, though, Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton haven't admitted that was a mistake. Minnesotans admitted it, though, when they threw out Rep. Thissen as Speaker of the House. In 2014, it wasn't coincidence that the DFL returned to being the minority party in the House.
Between the sales tax increases that were later repealed and $90,000,000 spent on Bakk's Palace, it isn't a stretch to think that Rep. Thissen's mistakes added up to much more than $100,000,000. It's more likely that the DFL's mistakes made in 2013 and admitted in 2014 topped $300,000,000. Though I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me, the article I linked to earlier talks about "a $443 million tax reduction bill." Add $90,000,000 for the Senate Office Building to the $443,000,000 and you're easily over $500,000,000.
Rep. Thissen shouldn't shoot his mouth off about $100,000,000 mistakes after he joined Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton and the DFL majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate in making a series of far bigger mistakes in 2013 and 2014.
Posted Monday, June 6, 2016 11:06 AM
No comments.
Hann puts Skoe on defensive
David Hann's op-ed about DFL opposition to the bonding bill is hard-hitting and to the point. The opening paragraph to Sen. Hann's op-ed says "It's no secret why the bonding and transportation funding bills failed on the last day of the session: Senate Democrats, including Sen. Rod Skoe, tried to add a last minute amendment to pay for light rail transit in Minneapolis, breaking a deal made by legislative leaders. One of Rod Skoe's DFL colleagues confirmed this doomsday strategy in a Twitter message sent moments after the session collapsed saying 'No light rail funding, no bonding bill. When will the House figure this out?'"
Let's remember that SWLRT funding has been controversial for as long as I've been paying attention to the state legislature. It's a priority for transportation lobbyists but it isn't a high priority for anyone else.
Sen. Hann closed his op-ed strong, saying "Rod Skoe will have to answer for failing to pass a long-term transportation package in the face of a $900 million surplus. Skoe will also have to answer why he chose light rail transit in Minneapolis over these important transportation projects."
SWLRT isn't a priority. Fixing Highway 12 isn't a high priority either. Fixing Highway 12 is a super-high priority project. If Sen. Skoe wants to explain why he voted for funding SWLRT but didn't fight for important projects, I can't wait to hear his explanation. For some reason, I'm picturing Sen. Skoe doing lots of tap-dancing during his explanation.
Posted Monday, June 6, 2016 1:55 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Jun-16 11:26 AM
". . . breaking a deal made by legislative leaders."
Daudt and Bakk again joined in disenfranchisement mischief regarding other REAL DFL'ers?
What's the dude mean by "deal made by legislative leaders?"
Something he wanted with Bakk compliant? Complicit?
Gov. Dayton's pocket veto a reality
On Monday, I wrote this post to highlight Paul Thissen's hypocrisy on a tax bill that got
That's BS. Gov. Dayton signed a tax bill in 2013 that contained far more than $101,000,000 in errors. Then, there was a DFL governor and DFL majorities in the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate. That year's tax bill included $90,000,000 for Sen. Bakk's Senate Office Building. The DFL Tax Bill of 2013 applied, for the first time in Minnesota history, Minnesota's sales tax to farm equipment repair, telecommunications equipment and warehousing operations. Those taxes were passed over the strenuous objections of the business community. According to this article , "Dayton's plan would dramatically alter the state's revenue streams. Over time, the state's system has tilted toward the property tax, which supplies 40 percent of the state's revenue. Income taxes provide 33 percent and 27 percent come from sales taxes. The overhaul would ensure that each of the three sources provided roughly a third of state revenue."
If that's accurate, then one-third of the Dayton-DFL tax increase came from the sales tax increase. That year's tax increase was projected to be $2,250,000,000. When the DFL legislature went home after the 2013 session, they found out that the B2B sales tax increases were wildly unpopular. By August, the DFL had essentially admitted that those B2B sales tax increases were a mistake. The DFL didn't issue a statement admitting it in those words. Rather, they admitted it by initially considering the repeal of the B2B sales taxes during that summer's special session.
The repeal of those sales taxes didn't happen during that summer's special session. Instead, they were repealed in the regular 2014 session. Either way, the repeal of those sales taxes represented a mistake of over $350,000,000. Couple that with the $90,000,000 Senate Office Building and you're talking well north of this year's drafting error of $101,000,000.
It's worth noting that the DFL's tax mistake was a major policy mistake. They made a $400,000,000+ mistake by not understanding how counterproductive those tax increases were. In the case of the GOP Tax Bill's mistake, it was simply a drafting mistake, something that happens multiple times each year. It's an easy fix.
Gov. Dayton's threat is now a reality.
Gov. Dayton isn't being honest with Minnesotans. Here's what Gov. Dayton demanded during negotiations for a special session:
The demands essentially call for about $423 million in additional spending, on top of the $183 million in additional spending this session, on top of the additional spending added last year when the state crafted its new two-year budget.
That means Gov. Dayton vetoed a bill that would've a) helped students pay off their student loan debt, b) helped parents save money for their kids' college education and provided property tax relief to farmers and small businesses. Further, it's been confirmed that Speaker Daudt suggested a meeting between the governor, Senator Bakk and himself and that Gov. Dayton refused to meet.
Gov. Dayton ignored Minnesotans' needs. Gov. Dayton didn't pay attention to the "farmers, parents and veterans" that Republicans brought to St. Paul to lobby Dayton. Instead, Gov. Dayton vetoed a tax bill that would've helped these Minnesotans because Republicans didn't say yes to Gov. Dayton's spending demands. Gov. Dayton said no to providing tax relief to thousands of Minnesotans because Republicans didn't spend half of the surplus on Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's wish list.
Posted Tuesday, June 7, 2016 5:39 AM
No comments.
Defiant DFL defends Dayton
Let's be blunt about this. The DFL isn't sad that Gov. Dayton vetoed the Tax Bill. Instead, a defiant DFL defended Gov. Dayton . For instance, said Rep. Tina Liebling said "The tax bill was put together very hastily and brought to the floor very hastily and had very little debate. It's not too surprising to me that it had a $100 million error in it, and I think (the governor) was absolutely right to let it expire."
Rep. Liebling is defending the indefensible. Thanks to Gov. Dayton's stubbornness, small businesses ravaged by fire in Madelia, MN, won't get the property tax relief they were waiting on . Shop owner Ryan Visher explained why the Tax Bill Gov. Dayton vetoed was so important, saying "And so we looked to Sen. Rosen and to Rep. Cornish and Rep. Gunther and asked what can help us do this because no developer is going to come into our town to develop that area so it came up to us, all 4 of us land owners, to redevelop that, to use our insurance proceeds and make it whole. The problem, though, with that is that the insurance money will build the building but now we're gonna have a building that's going to be valued at 5 times, 6 times than what it was originally and we probably can't pay the taxes on that."
Visher then explained his disappointment:
We'd have a great building that isn't viable for us and so they came up with a plan to give us some tax relief and so both parties and both houses supported that and it got to the Governor's desk. And the Governor was down here and he said that he would help us and he hasn't yet and it's unfortunate that being in outstate Minnesota, we're being held hostage to some things that will only affect Metro.
Sen. Bakk said that setting up a special session should be easy. Sen. Hann's response was as firm as it was swift:
The part that sticks out comes when Sen. Hann says "We agree with Gov. Dayton on the tax relief bill, and we should pass the bipartisan compromise transportation and infrastructure bill that was agreed to on the last day of session. We are not going to rehash the entire session by repeating negotiations on half a billion dollars of new spending demands."
Gov. Dayton promised to help these shopkeepers in Madelia, MN. That's what Minnesotans of all political persuasions have done throughout the years. This time, Gov. Dayton reneged on his promise to help the Madelia shopkeepers when he vetoed the Tax Bill. That isn't a Minnesota tradition.
Gov. Dayton, prove that you just had a momentary lapse of judgment. Gov. Dayton, call a special session that passes the bonding bill before SWLRT funding was shoved down Minnesotans' throats. Call that special session so that Mr. Visher and the other shopkeepers can get their lives restored rather than be held hostage in the name of political gamesmanship.
Posted Tuesday, June 7, 2016 11:58 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's bargaining chip
The person that wrote this St. Cloud Times editorial didn't do their homework. If they'd done their research, they wouldn't have written "As stated in a plea last week to Dayton not to convene one, except for political gains for incumbents in both parties, there really is no compelling reason for a special session."
Had they read this article , they'd know that there's a compelling reason for a special session. Had the Times read that article, they would've learned that Gov. Dayton's veto of the tax bill will likely have a dramatic effect on the economy of Madelia, MN. Had Gov. Dayton paid attention to Speaker Daudt's press conference, he would've heard about the needs of shopkeepers like Ryan Visher in Madelia.
Visher and several other shopkeepers had their stores ravaged by fire. According to Visher, the insurance check will pay for the rebuilding of the buildings lost in the fire. That isn't the problem. Mr. Visher explained the problem:
The problem, though, with that is that the insurance money will build the building but now we're gonna have a building that's going to be valued at 5 times, 6 times than what it was originally and we probably can't pay the taxes on that. We'd have a great building that isn't viable for us and so they came up with a plan to give us some tax relief and so both parties and both houses supported that and it got to the Governor's desk. And the Governor was down here and he said that he would help us and he hasn't yet...
Whatever happened prior to Gov. Dayton's veto of the tax bill is irrelevant. Gov. Dayton could've signed the bill and called a special session immediately to fix the bill. Instead, Gov. Dayton used Mr. Visher as a bargaining chip. Gov. Dayton wanted to use these people's lives as leverage to win an additional $423,000,000 worth of spending on the DFL's special interest allies. That's after the legislature approved $183,000,000 in spending in this year's supplemental spending bill.
Gov. Dayton, Ryan Visher isn't a bargaining chip. He's a shopkeeper whose business was devastated by fire. He's planning on rebuilding his shop so he can earn a living while providing people with jobs. What Gov. Dayton is doing is totally un-Minnesotan. He should be ashamed of himself using hurting people for political purposes.
Posted Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:01 AM
No comments.
Pat Buchanan, Trump apologist
Pat Buchanan has been an isolationist for decades. He's a natural fit for Donald Trump. Buchanan's also a longtime political hack, which explains why he's turned into a Trump apologist. This column offers examples of Buchanan's limited intellect and his substantial dishonesty in the cause of Trump.
It's breathtakingly dishonest for Buchanan to say "Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge's bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent." Apparently, it hasn't dawned on Buchanan that Curiel's rulings are terrible because he's liberal, not Mexican.
Buchanan also asked "Before the lynching of the Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?" Specifically, Trump said "I have a judge that is a hater of Donald Trump. A hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel." During an interview this past weekend with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump said "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe."
Apparently, Mr. Buchanan is willing to ignore Trump's bigotry. It's clear that Trump's statements to Jake Tapper highlight (lowlight?) Trump's bigotry. This statement is breathtakingly stupid:
The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial. When a presidential candidate attacks a judge, he's attempting to tip the scales of justice. There's nothing fair about that. Buchanan should know better. I suspect he knows that. I also think that Buchanan knows that presidents and presidential candidates have to be careful in not doing anything to tip the scales of justice.
Pat Buchanan is a fossil from a bygone political era. He should leave the arena of ideas because he's a has been.
Posted Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:31 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 09-Jun-16 01:19 PM
How interesting that an old anti-Semite like Pat Buchanan should take such a shine to an old bigot like Donald Trump.
Trump vs. the First Amendment
Last night, Hugh Hewitt took the dramatic step of saying Republicans should adopt new rules and dump Donald Trump as their nominee . Hugh Hewitt has always been a 'company man' when it comes to presidential candidates. After Hewitt's statements last night, the Trump campaign didn't take long to express their disgust with Hewitt .
Late this afternoon, Dan Scavino Jr., one of Trump's hatchet men, took to Twitter to say "Assume hater Hugh Hewitt will not be attending the @GOP Convention. If he is - the RNC should BAN him from attending."
Scavino knows that Hewitt is a member of the media. He knows because Trump has appeared on Hewitt's show multiple times. This begs the question of why Scavino and Trump hate the First Amendment. Previous nominees have gotten hounded by the press. They dealt with it. Trump has abolished reporters from his events. He's protected Corey Lewandowski after Lewandowski attacked a female reporter. Now this. Why does Trump hate the First Amendment, which is the cornerstone of this republic?
Hewitt isn't the only one calling for dumping Trump :
"Since the Indiana primary when my candidate, Ted Cruz, dropped out, I've woken up every morning looking for reasons to support Donald Trump," Lonegan admitted. But "it's going in the other direction. What we've seen from Donald Trump -- we all agree it's racism, but worse than that, what you've seen is incredible poor judgment."
"Our delegates have an obligation come July to do what's right for the Republican Party, not just anoint Donald Trump," Lonegan said. When CNN's Kate Bolduan clarified by asking, "Are you calling for a revolt?" he responded, "I would love to see a revolt."
Trump is a Hillary landslide waiting to happen. Trump's shoot from the lip habit has turned large parts of the electorate off. (Think women and minorities.) Trump was too busy loving the sound of his voice to build a campaign organization. That means he'd lose any tight races to Hillary.
Here's the video of Lonegan on CNN:
Posted Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Jun-16 07:44 AM
Hewitt did his thing on MSNBC. Not welcome on FOX?
What do you make of that, Gary, readers?
Is Trump the candidate from FOX, the culmination of the direction that network has taken; and then, does this whole show indicate Hewitt is okay and fine with the Clintons again in the White House drivers seat?
Do any of you, Gary, readers, really feel a putsch by Ryan would work? Or be better down ticket than Trump?
A lot of that thinking ignores the question of whether Sanders supporters, tired of being the Dem toilet on what trickles down, might or might not vote down ticket but leave the top spot blank -- the rest of you decide that one. The Clintons' 1990's co-opting the traditional Republican agenda, kissing Wall Street, etc., does not sit well with the Sanders suggestions any more than it does with the Tea Party Angst, or the fundies, burning want (not a need) to deny others freedoms they don't like.
Likewise, a Ryan putsch might leave the Trumpsters unhappy enough to stay home.
Is the right's mood a "so what" that way as is the corporatist bloc of the Dems having a "so what" attitude toward the young and the true left?
And for all the apparent P.T. Barnum sucker born every minute character of "Trump University" why are Hewitt and his ilk NOT highly and vocally critical of that as a sign of moral bankruptcy on Trump's part; much as the left views Clintons' speech selling at obscene rates?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-16 08:55 AM
Contrary to popular belief, conservatives aren't enamored with Fox. I still have high regard for Bret Baier as anchor of Special Report. I think the world of Catherine Herridge, who I think is the best reporter in DC. I think that James Rosen is fantastic in whatever assignment they give him. Megyn Kelly is a good interviewer, too. After that, Fox News content is kinda pedestrian.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Jun-16 07:55 AM
With the first comment I'd only scan read your linked item, where you, unlike here, did note Hewitt had taken his screed to MSNBC. However, adding this comment is with a focus on your last paragraph in the linked item:
"With Democrats attempting to portray every Republican as Trump, it's time to cut their losses. It's better to lose this election with someone who doesn't offend sensible people than to give Democrats enough fodder to win elections for the next decade."
Trump, whatever his defects, is less an exitential threat to decency in politics in America than Paul Ryan.
Trump leaves behind an aura of sincere opinionated blowhard, clueless in many ways.
Paul Ryan leaves behind an oil slick. One of insincerity and mean spiritedness. He comes across as having the mental and moral integrity of a contract killer.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-16 08:52 AM
With all due respect, Eric, you're full of shit. Like President Obama, Trump doesn't give a shit about the Constitution or the rule of law. That's what it's like to be teetering on the brink of becoming a third world dictatorship. That's the next step to mob rule. Paul Ryan hasn't done anything close to that.
If you think that Trump is just a blowhard, you aren't paying attention. Seriously.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 09-Jun-16 09:11 AM
No question this election will be another and more extreme contest of two evils-- one lesser than the other. Unfortunately we seem to have a race to the bottom, with Hillary now ahead, after a speech yesterday promising the most insane and radical agenda imaginable. No doubt trying to co-opt Crazy Bernie's message.
Oh, and any hope that blind ideologue Democrats won't pull the lever for Hillary? Forget it. Too many Republicans have principles and won't vote for Trump, but there is no such principle among Democrats.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 09-Jun-16 01:16 PM
Here's the thing. Delegates wouldn't have to change the rules to dump the Orange Idiot. They're already allowed to vote their conscience by standing rule. If they don't, they're either gutless or they've gargled the Reince Preibus Kool-Aid.
'Of two evils, choose neither.' - Charles Spurgeon
