March 14-20, 2016
Mar 14 10:01 Pollak violates Breitbart's principles Mar 14 10:53 Daudt's debt vs. Thissen's cover-up Mar 15 08:09 What should conservatives do? Mar 16 01:48 Minnesota Chamber's transportation plan Mar 20 06:26 Is the IRRRB unconstitutional? Mar 20 07:24 The IRRRB vs. accountability Mar 20 16:19 Daudt TKOs Thissen Mar 20 20:43 IRRRB undermines Range economy
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pollak violates Breitbart's principles
These days, the people still left at Breitbart, and that number is shrinking , aren't living up to Andrew Breitbart's high standards . Their latest shenanigans aren't likely to salvage their reputation, either.
Breitbart apparently published, then deleted, this article with the hope of humiliating Ben Shapiro. Joel Pollak has admitted that he wrote the article under the pseudonym used by Shapiro's father. Unfortunately, Mr. Pollak just couldn't be honest, saying that "the article was written in jest."
Apparently, Mr. Pollak doesn't use a dictionary. The definition of jest is "a piece of good-natured ridicule." What Mr. Pollak said doesn't fit that description. Pollak wrote "Former Breitbart News editor-at-large Ben Shapiro announced Sunday evening via left-wing Buzzfeed that he is abandoning Andrew Breitbart's lifelong best friend, widow, hand-picked management team and friends in pursuit of an elusive contributorship at the Fox News Channel. It was business as usual for the ambitious conservative gadfly, who is known to live on the edge, courting and then leaving a series of companies over the past several years."
That doesn't sound like "good-natured" ridiculing. Later, Pollak wrote this:
The article was written by me as part of an effort to make light of a significant company event, and was published as a result of a misunderstanding without going through the normal editorial channels. I apologize to Michelle Fields, my friend Ben Shapiro, and to everyone concerned.
Here's the opening of Pollak's article:
Former Breitbart News editor-at-large Ben Shapiro announced Sunday evening via left-wing Buzzfeed that he is abandoning Andrew Breitbart's lifelong best friend, widow, hand-picked management team and friends in pursuit of an elusive contributorship at the Fox News Channel.
Friends of Hamas could not be found for comment.
Shapiro, a Harvard lawyer and member of the State Bar of California, apparently violated virtually every clause in his employment contract during an appearance on The Kelly File last Thursday evening.
Based on Shapiro's standing up for Fields, I'd argue that it's Breitbart News that's abandoning Andrew Breitbart's principles. The bigger the bully, the more fiercely Andrew fought. He loved kicking bullies' backsides. That's who Andrew was. He didn't hesitate in fighting the left or, for that matter, Republicans.
I had the privilege of attending his keynote speech at the 2011 RightOnline conference in Minneapolis. Andrew brought the house down when he said that "anyone that can't defend the concepts of freedom and liberty sucks ":
To Andrew's staunchest supporters, the current mismanagement team at Breitbart are a disgrace to Andrew's principles. They, not Ben Shapiro, Michelle Fields and Dana Loesch, should be the ones leaving.
Posted Monday, March 14, 2016 10:01 AM
No comments.
Daudt's debt vs. Thissen's cover-up
It isn't surprising that the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is raising a stink about Kurt Daudt's paying off debt that he incurred when he was unemployed a few years back. ABM and the DFL don't have a positive agenda to run on so going negative is their natural default. When it comes to making things up, ABM is a pro's pro. Their webpage dedicated to Speaker Daudt says "When politicians and lobbyists make deals, Minnesotans deserve to know the details."
There's no proof that Speaker Daudt made a special deal. ABM doesn't care about that. They're experts in whisper campaigns. They'd be well-advised to shut up. If they don't, some of their dirty laundry will get exposed. In 2012, DFL Rep. Kerry Gauthier was arrested by the Duluth Police Department for having sex with a 17-year-old boy at the Thompson Hill Rest Stop at the south end of Duluth. That arrest was made on July 22, 2012. Rep. Thissen didn't say anything about this disgusting incident until August 20, 2012. Even then, Thissen's statement was mild, saying "I am deeply disappointed with Rep. Kerry Gauthier's conduct. The conduct was wrong and ... I believe he should withdraw from the race for re-election."
Why did Rep. Thissen wait a month before addressing Rep. Gauthier's disgusting behavior? For that matter, DFL Chairman Ken Martin sat silent, too. When he finally spoke up, here's the timid statement he made:
His actions are inexcusable. The people of Duluth deserve a representative who will stand up for their interests, without the sort of distractions that Rep. Gauthier has caused through exceedingly poor judgment.
When a 60-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old at a public rest stop, that isn't displaying "exceedingly poor judgment." That's disgusting behavior.
Mssrs. Martin and Thissen didn't answer the big questions. For instance, why didn't they speak out sooner about Gauthier's disgusting behavior? Next, why were their statements so timid? Where's their moral outrage over Gauthier's disgusting behavior?
Finally, shouldn't Martin and Thissen have spoken out immediately out of a sense of responsibility to Minnesotans? Some things go far beyond politics. Gauthier's arrest is one of those things. That Martin and Thissen sat silent for a month indicates that they're ok with Gauthier's behavior, at least until the story was about to break.
Posted Monday, March 14, 2016 10:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Mar-16 03:20 PM
What would be a positive outcome on Daudt's part would be a willingness, based on personal experience, to work with DFL legislators to curb the extreme and shameful credit card debt rates that are allowed as an exemption to the usury law of Minnesota.
It could be a Constitutional Amendment proposal for the November ballot. Who'd be against it besides Pawlenty and his Banking Roundtable?
What should conservatives do?
It's time for someone to propose some potential solutions for the GOP if Trump is the nominee. The first step has already been taken with the start of the #NeverTrump movement. When the #NeverTrump movement started, people across the nation started pledging that they'd never support Trump. Thus far, the highest profile person to sign onto the #NeverTrump movement is the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, which I wrote about here.
While promising to not vote for that narcissist is the right first step, it's just the first step in saving the GOP. The next necessary step is to abandon formerly conservative websites who've drank too much of Mr. Trump's disgusting Kool-Aid. Websites like Fox News, Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit should be boycotted because they sold out to DJT for ratings.
Websites that've stayed faithful to conservative principles should be promoted. That includes National Review, HotAir and Powerlineblog. It includes The Resurgent and RedState, too.
In 2008 and 2012, NRO endorsed John McCain and Mitt Romney respectively. It wasn't their finest moment. This year, NRO redeemed itself by publishing Against Trump at a time when erstwhile conservatives were pandering to Trump. That took courage. NRO should be rewarded for that.
This article what's already happening:
The ad running in N.H., titled 'Delay' ties Ayotte's completely reasonable stance that the Senate should not take up any Supreme Court nomination by President Obama for the remainder of his lame duck term, to Trump. Ayotte didn't endorse Trump; she didn't endorse anyone in the presidential primary. That's a smart move, given that she needs to be re-elected.
It doesn't matter though: Democrats are going to paint every single senator and representative with a big fat brush loaded with Trump's orange complexion. They're all for Trump because Trump leads the GOP race. Even if Trump doesn't win the nomination, his stain will be used to take down Republican candidates in down ballot elections.
What needs to happen if, God forbid, Trump wins the nomination is for the RNC to spend its money on Senate races rather than on Trump. The truth is that Trump is toast. I wrote about that in this article . Trump's favorable-unfavorable rating with Hispanics is terrible. His favorable-unfavorable rating with women is only slightly better. If you look up the name Trump in the dictionary, you'll see a picture of George McGovern.
The point is that Republicans shouldn't bother mounting a defense of Trump. He isn't worth it. If Trumpians leave the party, that's fine. Save the Senate majority even if it means putting up with Mitch McConnell. This isn't unprecedented. Haley Barbour deployed this strategy in 1996. It was worth it.
The RNC should encourage House and Senate Republicans to recruit solid TEA Party conservatives who think that the Constitution isn't a living, breathing document, who think that tax simplification and regulatory relief is what's needed to jump-start the US economy and who think that the best place to put power is back in the states, local communities and with families.
In short, it's time for conservatives to start rebuilding the conservative movement by teaching people the virtues of conservatism. That means thinking things through. That means criticizing principles that don't make people more prosperous, more free or more safe.
Trump isn't teaching conservatism. He's teaching people that it's ok to rely on him.
Posted Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Mar-16 10:04 AM
Ides of March. When Caesar was stabbed per Shakespeare.
And a post about standing ready, behind Trump, for what is felt needed. Primaries looming as if a Rubicon is near to being crossed.
Interesting. A near ending paragraph:
"In short, it's time for conservatives to start rebuilding the conservative movement by teaching people the virtues of conservatism. That means thinking things through. That means criticizing principles that don't make people more prosperous, more free or more safe."
In that paragraph, "people" is a generic word; declining to expand on classes within the grouping. The immediately preceding paragraph hints that the animals on Animal Farm may be inequal; and in the book, who headed things? Who is most threatened by trumpery?
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Mar-16 10:23 AM
Seriously and aside from Shakespeare, Gary, are you anticipating the Cruz-Bachmann people will stay home if Trump is the nominee? That GOTV has to start now against that, from a GOP perspective?
Do you believe the Trump support vote will not vote straight GOP ticket in November, or is it more a concern that some past-reliable bloc participation may weaken?
That seems to be what, indirectly, your post says.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Mar-16 12:40 PM
It's saying the opposite. It means deploying resources to help down-ticket R's rather than wasting it on Trump.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 15-Mar-16 10:31 AM
I point out once more that every election requires a binary choice, the Republican or Democrat. Not voting for the Republican is equivalent to voting for the Democrat in that there is one additional vote difference. I hope Trump is not the nominee, because he will be savaged by the Democrats just as they will do with EVERY Republican up and down the ticket. Trump just makes it easier for them, because they won't have to make @#$%^ up.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Mar-16 12:39 PM
Jerry, your thinking is definitely flawed. Hillary is crazy liberal. Trump is slightly more rational liberal but still crazy liberal. In terms of judges, the differences are microscopic. On national security, it's impossible to tell because Trump shifts from sounding like the most ferocious hawk to a timid pacifist almost daily.
In 1996, Democrats deployed the plan you described. Haley Barbour used the money to save Senate seats rather than spend on Bob Dole. Thanks to that plan, Republicans maintained their Senate majority. That's what I'm fighting for. If GOP senators run against Trump, Trump flames out, which he'll do anyway, but these senators might be saved. Salvage what we can. Trump's a loser. Treat him like the pariah that he is. After the election, then rub his nose in the fact that he's the ultimate loser.
Comment 4 by JerryE9 at 16-Mar-16 09:46 AM
I still say that not voting for the lesser of two evils allows the greater evil to win. Speculation about down-ticket effects or even overall electability are certainly valid considerations, but best considered BEFORE the nomination is final.
I'm not saying you should actively support Trump as the nominee, and it may be more important to hold the Senate, but actively working against Trump is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, IMHO. And hasn't our problem as Republicans ALWAYS been that we refuse to defend our own, even when they're right? We cave instantly and repeatedly to media pressure and Democrat tale-telling, and isn't that what got us Trump in the first place?
Comment 5 by eric z at 16-Mar-16 11:12 AM
Jerry, Gary - How do you tell lesser evil? Trump is a wild card, an unknown, Clinton will do what the Saudi Kingdom wants, and WILL be responsible for passage of TPP.
Clinton owes Wall Street. Who does Trump owe?
As a Bernie supporter worried over income inequality, the guess is neither Trump nor Clinton truly care a whit for the 99%, but Trump appears to owe fewer political debts.
The Trump - Univision settlement terms are non-public, so "appears" is probably the proper word.
Yet, I say, "appears" guardedly. Last, over this and the two previous elections, didn't the Republicans largely abandon the top race and concentrate down-ticket? So, Jerry, Gary, is Gary suggesting anything new? Gary cites 1996, but why not look more recently. Romney and more so McCain, especially after his VP pick, were doomed. Romney closed the coffin lid per that 47% video.
People know an insult when one is shown them.
My big worry now; Cruz.
Comment 6 by JerryE9 at 18-Mar-16 09:31 AM
Yes, Cruz is a big worry for some, on both sides, because he seems like a guy that will do what he says he will do, and without exceeding his authority as a certain sitting President so frequently does. Some of Trump's appeal is as an authoritarian that's just going to smashmouth his way to his goals, whatever they may be.
Minnesota Chamber's transportation plan
According to this article , the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce intends to throw its weight around on putting a transportation bill together. The good news for the DFL is that the Chamber wants some spending on transit. The bad news for the DFL is that the Chamber doesn't want a tax increase for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges.
Harry Melander, the president of the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council, recently said "When the labor groups and the Chamber get together, it's usually when stuff gets done. If it doesn't, then I think we have a much bigger problem with the people up at the Capitol." Meanwhile, the Chamber isn't pushing for a gas tax increase like they did in 2008, the last time the gas tax was increased.
The Chamber can supply a little political cover for a middle class tax increase in some years. This year, that's a (pardon the pun) a bridge too far. Further, the DFL majority in the Senate isn't likely to pass a middle class tax increase if they aren't convinced that House Republicans will join them in voting for the tax increase.
Republicans have been steadfast in their opposition to raising taxes to support new transit projects. Charley Weaver of the Minnesota Business Partnership probably is serious about pushing transit but it's still possible that he's bluffing. When Weaver said "We wanted to be crystal clear that this is a priority for us. This isn't an afterthought. This isn't, 'Gee, if you get around to it.'", it's possible that they aren't willing to expend much political capital pushing transit as part of a transportation bill.
If Weaver insists, however, on pushing transit, he should expect tons of pushback from citizens. There isn't a great groundswell of support for transit. There is a significant groundswell of support for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. If Weaver pushes too hard for transit, he'll lose the entire package.
Posted Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:48 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 16-Mar-16 10:10 AM
Why on earth would the Chamber want to spend another dime on transit (when they say transit, they mean trains) when we have blown billions of dollars on two LRT systems and a heavy rail system that move very few people in comparison to the amount of people our road system moves? Just imagine the roads and bridges that could have been built/repaired with $2.5 billion dollars.
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Mar-16 11:18 AM
Transit is by far cheaper than a comprehensive road upgrade. That, Chad, is the likely Chamber viewpoint.
$2.5 billion on roads would be a bandaid. MnDOT did one, ONE only, interchange upgrade on HWY 10 in Anoka County (Ramsey) and the cost, one project, was staggering.
Without revenue, debt financing is the only option; so either tax now or tax later.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 17-Mar-16 02:47 PM
Do the math again. For the cost of an LRT line, MN could add two lanes each way to every freeway in the metro.
For the cost of Central Corridor, a fleet of hybrid busses could run up and down that line every 4 minutes for 700 years! You could GIVE every rider a new car and put gas in it, for the life of the car.
People make their transportation decisions intelligently. Politicians do not.
Comment 4 by eric z at 17-Mar-16 06:54 PM
Jerry, is that the Daudt-Hann plan then, and if so how will it be financed? Do those two think that boldly?
Or have they no plan?
Comment 5 by JerryE9 at 18-Mar-16 09:27 AM
Roads and bridges repairs and upgrades can be adequately financed with existing revenues, especially if these wasteful choo-choo projects are curbed. There is no plan to add two lanes each way because it is unnecessary, just like the choo-choos.
Comment 6 by Chad Q at 18-Mar-16 09:56 PM
The un-weave the weave, 35E MnPass construction, and Crosstown projects together cost less than the Central corridor LRT. More people, goods, and services are moved on those roads than the LRT can ever hope to move.
What is the liberal plan for funding roads and bridges other than another regressive tax on working families, especially when the state is already over taxed people to the tune of $2 billion over the last 2 years?
Repeal the transit amendment and take VEHICLE taxes and use them strictly for roads and bridges, just like the gas tax. Raise fares on transit riders and make them pay for their mode of transportation instead of making drivers pay for it. And last but not least, shut down the North Star rail service, sell the trains for what you can get for them, and never, ever spend another dollar on antiquated modes of transportation, i.e. trains.
Comment 7 by JerryE9 at 19-Mar-16 04:17 PM
Thanks, Chad, but I wonder why transit fares won't increase to pay for the service? Is it because, for every fare paid by the rider, the taxpayers pick up $7?! And North Star is worse? What would happen to ridership if it weren't massively subsidized?
Is the IRRRB unconstitutional?
One of the eye-popping things in the OLA's report on the IRRRB, aka the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, is that "State statutes on IRRRB's governance structure are vulnerable to a constitutional challenge."
Before answering that question, let's gather some history of the IRRRB. According to the OLA's report, the IRRRB "is a state agency that has focused on economic development of the Iron Range in northeast Minnesota since 1941." Further, the OLA's report states that the " term 'IRRRB' refers to both the agency and the board overseeing it." The next part starts explaining why the IRRRB likely is unconstitutional. The OLA's report states that the "IRRRB is an agency in the executive branch led by a commissioner appointed by the governor. Yet, state law requires members of the agency's board to be legislators and grants the board substantial power over the agency's spending decisions."
The OLA's report then states that "This arrangement is vulnerable to a challenge under the Minnesota Constitution's separation of powers clause and its prohibition against legislators holding another public office. We base our conclusion on our review of the plain language of the Minnesota Constitution, historical context from the state constitutional conventions, and opinions from the Minnesota Supreme Court and Attorney General."
The fact that the OLA's conclusion is based on Minnesota's constitution, the Minnesota Supreme Court precedents and Minnesota's Attorney General means this isn't a partisan shot at the IRRRB. I might dismiss the conclusion if Republicans brought the subject up. Jim Nobles , who has been serving Minnesota as the Legislative Auditor since 1983, is considered one of the few nonpartisan people in government.
Not surprisingly, that's just part of the IRRRB's problems. Check back later today for more of the IRRRB's troubles.
Posted Sunday, March 20, 2016 6:34 AM
No comments.
The IRRRB vs. accountability
One of the things I learned from reading the OLA's report is that it isn't big into accountability.
For instance, the Key Facts and Findings section of the OLA's report says that "State law requires loan and grant agreements over $150,000 to contain measureable and specific objectives, including numbers of jobs to be created. In addition, economic development literature establishes the importance of specifying detailed objectives in loan contracts. Companies for 10 of 16 loans we reviewed forecast job growth in their loan applications, but their loan contracts did not require job creation."
That's just the start of it. The OLA's report says that they "reviewed 15 loans with contracts or applications containing job-creation objectives. Only 2 of the 15 showed job growth aligned with objectives. Seven loan recipients had not met their objectives. For six loans, it is still too early to tell whether they will meet their job-creation objectives."
That's just part of it. The OLA's report says that "From 2006 to 2014, Giants Ridge operating losses increased by more than 500 percent. IRRRB has subsidized operating losses with an average $1.9 million yearly." As shocking as that is for most taxpayers, this is probably more shocking:
IRRRB has not set sufficient targets to measure how well Giants Ridge meets its stated goals.
Apparently, the IRRRB Board , which consists of 9 legislators representing the Iron Range, doesn't put a high priority on holding companies that apply for IRRRB loans. I knew that the IRRRB didn't believe in holding companies accountable because I wrote about it here and here.
If a bank operated like this, they'd be bankrupt within a month. Here's the report if you'd like to read the report. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Sally Jo Sorensen created this online document:
Posted Sunday, March 20, 2016 7:24 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Mar-16 08:28 AM
Why do we need accountability? We got us millions of dollars of "surplus" money to spend and that kind of money don't just give itself away. Sarcasm off.
Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Mar-16 09:25 AM
Gary, you appear to believe Trump is bad for the GOP.
Gary, Bakk is bad for the DFL.
When/if purged by colleagues from DFL Senate leadership, sooner is better than later, yesterday better than tomorrow. But, Daudt and Dayton play ball with him, so . . .
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 20-Mar-16 03:55 PM
Point well taken, Eric. Bakk is part of the problem but he's got plenty of help from the Iron Range delegation, almost all of whom are DFL legislators.
Putting practical projects behind pet projects that require ribbon-cutting ceremonies makes for nice mailers come re-election time but it isn't good public policy.
Daudt TKOs Thissen
Before the start of session, Speaker Daudt and Rep. Thissen got into some verbal fisticuffs at a media gathering. The topic was supposed to talk about expectations for the legislative session that's currently under way.
Suffice it to say that Rep. Thissen walked right into Speaker Daudt's trap on the Senate Office Building. If you watch the video , starting 34:11 into the video, what you'll see is Rep. Thissen nodding in agreement when Speaker Daudt said that the Senate Office Building was controversial.
What you'll also notice is that Rep. Thissen's accusations were challenged by Speaker Daudt. What you won't see, though, is Rep. Thissen providing proof that his accusations had happened. Based on what's in this video, it looks like the DFL's strategy this session will be to make accusations that aren't true. The other part of this strategy apparently is to hope nobody challenges the DFL's accusations. The bad news for the DFL is that Speaker Daudt is setting the tone by challenging the DFL's accusations.
Here's a partial transcript of their jousting:
REP. THISSEN: Tons of controversial things were thrown into big bills that nobody knew what was in them.
SPEAKER DAUDT: Like what?
REP. THISSEN: The point is, what we're hearing on the private prison
SPEAKER DAUDT: Like what? What was so controversial? The Senate Office Building?
REP. THISSEN: That wasn't last year.
SPEAKER DAUDT: No, that was the year before. That's controversial. We didn't throw big, controversial things in at the end of session.
REP. THISSEN: You threw all kinds of controversial things in at the end of session.
That wasn't the only time Speaker Daudt challenged DFL politicians. Here's the partial transcript of Speaker Daudt vs. Gov. Dayton on universal Pre-K:
SPEAKER DAUDT: Governor, the reason to oppose it is because it doesn't show that it closes the achievement gap.
GOV. DAYTON: Yes, it does.
SPEAKER DAUDT: No, it doesn't.
GOV. DAYTON: Yes, it does.
Art Rolnick is a policy fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He's a longtime advocate for early childhood learning. On this issue, though, Rolnick sides with Speaker Daudt :
'It's not cost effective,' Rolnick said. 'There's a much better way of doing this.' Rolnick prefers an existing scholarship program that pays for needy children to attend Head Start, a child care facility or a public school program that meets quality standards. He said Dayton's plan is misguided because it would subsidize early education for all kids rather than target low-income children who need early education the most and are the least likely to have access to it.
If given the choice between trusting Gov. Dayton or Dr. Rolnick on early childhood education, I'd pick Dr. Rolnick every time.
It's clear that Speaker Daudt is taking a much more assertive role in crafting the GOP's legislative agenda. He clearly isn't intimidated by the DFL's noise machine, aka ABM. He isn't worried about matching wits with Gov. Dayton or Rep. Thissen, either.
Posted Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:19 PM
No comments.
IRRRB undermines Range economy
One thing that the IRRRB isn't is accountable to taxpayers. Early in the OLA's report on the IRRRB is a section titled "Key Facts and Findings." One of the first findings would be laughed at if practiced by the private sector. The third finding in the report said the "IRRRB did not adequately specify objectives - such as job growth - in many loan contracts we reviewed, and it collected insufficient evidence on how well loans met their objectives. Whether IRRRB provided loans to certain applicants that may not have needed them was unclear."
Theoretically, the IRRRB is supposed to help strengthen and diversify the Iron Range's economy. In reality, it's operated more like a poorly run bank. What bank would loan a company money, then not follow up on whether the IRRRB loan helped the company expand?
The fourth finding states "IRRRB does not require most companies to report the number of jobs they create using IRRRB subsidies. For companies that do provide job data, IRRRB relies solely on their self-reported data."
That's the picture of sloppiness. The first thought that pops into my mind is this: why is the IRRRB willing to trust the company's data without verifying the accuracy of the information? In the 1980s, President Reagan frequently used when negotiating with President Gorbachev. President Reagan's saying was "Trust but verify."
Apparently, the IRRRB believes in trust but don't verify. This statement from IRRRB legislators is a CYA document:
"We will review the OLA's findings and hope the IRRRB, and if necessary, the legislature can take action on the recommendations to ensure that the IRRRB is operating at the highest standards we expect of all our state agencies," said Iron Range Legislators in a joint statement.
This is proof that the Iron Range's legislators are totally out of touch with reality. No thinking person thinks that state agencies perform at a high standard. This statement is stunning:
"The success stories of the IRRRB are not necessarily the focus of today's report, but as the OLA staff noted in today's hearing, successes do exist, and in our opinion are the result of the IRRRB staff's thoughtful work."
I don't doubt that some "successes do exist." It's that I doubt that they're the rule, not the exception. More importantly, I doubt that they've diversified and strengthened the Iron Range's economy. That's the only metric that matters. Based on the Census Report's statistics on median household income, the IRRRB has failed. For instance, the MHI in Hibbing, MN is $38,1112 and the poverty rate is 20.6%. That's compared with an MHI of $60,828 statewide and a statewide poverty rate of 11.5%. That's relatively respectable compared with Virginia, MN , where the MHI is $33,143 and the poverty rate is 26.5%.
That politicians would think that that's acceptable after 75 years of the IRRRB attempting to diversify and strengthen the Iron Range's economic is appalling. The IRRRB has failed. They deserve getting terminated.
Originally posted Sunday, March 20, 2016, revised 21-Mar 2:03 AM
No comments.
