March 25-28, 2014
Mar 25 03:58 Ortman supported Cap & Trade Mar 25 05:20 SC Times gives Potter kid glove treatment, Part I Mar 25 05:53 SC Times gives Potter kid glove treatment, Part II Mar 25 07:53 MNsure success: Then vs. Now Mar 26 12:03 MNsure crisis by the numbers Mar 27 05:05 GPTW Trust Index Survey questions Mar 28 09:09 DFL vs. the First Amendment Mar 28 10:03 Questioning Palin's ill-advised endorsement
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ortman supported Cap & Trade
In 2007, Julianne Ortman voted for the Next Generation Energy Act , aka the NGEA. The vote was 59-5. Here's one of the requirements of the NGEA:
The plan must determine the feasibility, assess the costs and benefits, and recommend how the state could adopt a regulatory system that imposes a cap on the aggregate air pollutant emissions of a group of sources, requires those subject to the cap to own an allowance for each ton of the air pollutant emitted, and allows for market-based trading of those allowances. The evaluation must contain an analysis of the state implementing a cap and trade system alone, in coordination with other states, and as a requirement of federal law applying to all states. The plan must recommend the parameters of a cap and trade system that includes a cap that would prevent significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions above current levels with a schedule for lowering the cap periodically to achieve the goals in subdivision 1 and interim goals recommended under paragraph (a).
This sentence jumps off the page:
The plan must recommend the parameters of a cap and trade system that includes a cap that would prevent significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions above current levels.
I'll stipulate that this vote was taken long before then-Sen. Obama made his infamous comments about his Cap & Trade bill :
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Still, policymakers knew that Cap & Trade would significantly increase the price of electricity. Sen. Ortman voted for a bill that a) imposes a cap on greenhouse gases and b) increased the cost of generating electricity. How is that the right thing to do? At the time, did Sen. Ortman think this bill would make life better for the average Minnesotan?
The NGEA didn't just raise the price of electricity. It created a significant burden for energy transmission companies:
The plan must include recommendations for improvements in the emissions inventory and recommend whether the state should require greenhouse gas emissions reporting from specific sources and, if so, which sources should be required to report.
In other words, the NGEA increased compliance costs for power plants. That necessarily drives up the price of electricity. Unfortunately, there's still more to this horrific bill:
The state must, to the extent possible, with other states in the Midwest region, develop and implement a regional approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities in the region, including consulting on a regional cap and trade system.
NGEA also created new responsibilities for state government. It's a public employee union's dream come true because it requires people to monitor regional greenhouse gas emissions.
According to FactCheck.org, the NGEA requires Minnesota to reduce GHGs , aka Greenhouse Gases, by 80% :
But the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 didn't "only" take "steps on renewable energy," as Pawlenty said. It established strict statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015 and 80 percent below those levels by 2050.
The fact that Sen. Ortman voted with the overwhelming majority in support of the BGEA isn't comforting. Minnesota doesn't need a politician that goes with the flow. Minnesotans need a leader who does the right thing.
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:58 AM
No comments.
SC Times gives Potter kid glove treatment, Part I
For the umpteenth time, the St. Cloud Times treated disastrous news for President Potter like it was a minor bump in the road . Most importantly, the article showed how lazy Times reporter Dave Unze is:
The survey was offered to all 1,582 university employees and generated a response from 40 percent of them. The university released the answers to two questions that were asked of those employees: What makes St. Cloud State a great place to work, and what would make the school a better place to work?
That's pathetic 'reporting'. Why didn't Unze ask for the other questions in the survey? This is the type of 'journalism' I'd expect from TMZ. Jon Stewart asks harder hitting questions than this. But I digress.
The survey's findings are devastating to President Potter. Just look at this graphic:
Here's what I wrote when I got the full results of the GPTWI survey :
When asked if 'management's words match its actions', only 24% of respondents said yes. When asked if 'management is competent', only 32% said yes. When asked if 'management makes sound financial decisions', only 28% said they did.
Instead of digging into the meat of the survey, the Times picked out two softball questions that doesn't get to the heart of the survey. That isn't reporting. That's insulting to the point that I should question whether President Potter is paying the Times to be his off-campus PR firm.
The graphic titled the numbers tell the story raises some important questions about President Potter's competency and trustworthiness. In addition to the questions in the above paragraph, there are other damning questions. Here are some examples:
- Only 20% of survey respondents agreed with this statement: Management shares information openly and transparently.
- Only 29% of survey respondents agreed with this statement: Management is approachable.
- Only 26% of survey respondents agreed with this statement: Management delivers on its promises.
- Only 25% of survey respondents agreed with this statement: Management has a clear view.
The Times is cheating its readers by not asking hard-hitting questions. Apparently, the Times' goal is to take whatever information President Potter gives them, then turns it into a story that praises President Potter.
President Potter's decisions have taken St. Cloud State from being the flagship university in the MnSCU to being a distant 2nd place and fading fast. The only thing more disgusting than SCSU's decline during President Potter's watch is how the St. Cloud Times has refused to challenge President Potter's spin.
The damning information is there for those willing to look for it. It's apparent that Dave Unze isn't willing to look for that type of information. It's apparent that the Times management isn't interested in holding Mr. Unze accountable for not digging into the story the way a real reporter would do.
This paragraph is insulting:
'As in any complex organization, there are folks that think that St. Cloud State is a great place to work. There is strong agreement among them about why they think that's true,' Potter said.
When only a third of SCSU employees think management is competent, that's a sign that there aren't many folks who think SCSU is a great place to work." When a fourth of SCSU's employees think that management's words match its actions, it's impossible to think that SCSU employees trust President Potter and his senior management team. In the private sector, those survey results would get the CEO terminated immediately.
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:20 AM
No comments.
SC Times gives Potter kid glove treatment, Part II
It was impossible to do a proper critique of the Times article in a single post so here's Part II. First, let's start with more Potter spin:
Potter said he was proud of the university community for the way it responded to the questions, and he noted that St. Cloud State was one of only a few higher education institutions to participate in this type of survey.
'It's a risky thing to do. We knew that we would get some hard messages back,' he said. 'We knew that we would not be near the top, that we have a long way to go. But (we) felt it was absolutely essential to take the step and move our culture forward.'
Fortunately for President Potter, the Times buried those hard messages from employees under a pile of manure. When the vast majority of employees think that the boss is incompetent and untrustworthy, those aren't the ingredients for a great place to work. As damning as those things are, this might be the worst criticism of the Potter administration:
The survey was the idea of Holly Schoenherr, the university's human resources director. Shortly after she started two years ago, she began to hear about employees who felt they were being bullied in the workplace and about concerns regarding civil discourse.
I've spoken with several SCSU professors. They won't go on the record for fear of retribution from President Potter, corrupt members of the faculty or both. The pervasive atmosphere amongst faculty is that retribution is considered a management tool by the administration and their apologists.
What's puzzling is that Mr. Unze didn't ask Ms. Schoenherr whether the survey showed if the bullying had persisted. Also, why didn't Mr. Unze ask whether the discourse had improved from being hostile? These are questions that should've been asked. These are questions that the public has a right to know.
As amateurish as the Times' reporting is, that isn't the focus of this post. What's important is that this post highlight President Potter's management (mismanagement?) style, the on-campus bullying and whether steps have been taken to improve on-campus morale.
Based on the information contained in this post, I'd argue that nothing concrete has changed:
The statistics speak for themselves. People don't trust President Potter because his actions don't match his words, because "management isn't approachable" and because they think he's incompetent.
There's no reason to think President Potter will change. Absent him changing dramatically, the problems at SCSU will persist. No amount of spin from the administration and the St. Cloud Times will change that fact.
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:53 AM
No comments.
MNsure success: Then vs. Now
This statement from MNsure makes it sound like MNsure will meet its goals:
MNsure 96% to Goal with 10 Days Remaining in Open Enrollment
More than 130,000 enrolled, only 5,000 sign-ups remain to meet 135,000 goal
Reading those headlines, you'd think that MNsure was staging a comeback for the ages. It isn't:
To date, MNsure has enrolled 35,610 in a Qualified Health Plan, 26,297 in MinnesotaCare and 69,570 in Medical Assistance.
If you're asking where that 135,000 figure comes from, you're on the right track. If you look at pg. 7 of HF5's fiscal note , you'll find that the medium projections 217,000 enrollments while the high end projection is for 270,000 enrollments. The lowest projection called for 164,000 enrollments in qualified health plans.
Compare that with MNsure's announcement from last Friday. That statement admits that "MNsure has enrolled 35,610 in a Qualified Health Plan." MNsure just admitted that they're 21.7% of the way to accomplishing their low-end goal. They're only 16.4% of the way to the mid-point goal. What's worst is that they're only 13.2% of the way to hitting their high-end goal.
Based on what the DFL sold the public when they passed the HIX bill, MNsure is dramatically underperforming. Despite all of MNsure's happy talk, the reality is that the 135,000 figure is what they adjusted after seeing MNsure repeatedly crash during October and November.
What's more is that the number of people enrolled in QHPs is only about a third of the people who've enrolled in various programs. Here's the easiest way of thinking about this. Two-thirds of the people signing up via MNsure don't pay into the system.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Yesterday, I wrote this article about another way MNsure is failing:
Estimates are that 40 percent of enrollees need to be in that demographic to provide baseline ACA funding. As of Wednesday, only about 20,400 (16 percent) were ages 26-34, well short of the ideal goal of 54,000.
Here's the easiest way of explaining the importance of this statistic. Yesterday, I called into Ox in the Afternoon to talk with King Banaian about this. King was sitting in for Ox yesterday. King said that he'd recently seen a report that said this adverse selection would trigger a 55% increase in premiums for next year. King said he thought the report was from the CBO but he wasn't 100% of that.
Simply put, if young healthies don't enroll in sufficient enough numbers, the insurance companies won't collect the revenues needed to pay the increased claims from older, less healthy people. That, in turn, will either drive insurance companies out of business or it'll cause them to dramatically increase premiums.
Everything in the reported data says MNsure isn't a success. Everything points to it being a failure that people aren't buying into. Of course, that isn't something that the DFL will admit but that's their political problem. When those higher premiums hit next fall, the DFL will have their hands full politically.
Most importantly, more people will be hurt by MNsure/Obamacare than will be helped by it. Spending more than $150,000,000 on something that hurts more people than it helps is depressing.
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:53 AM
No comments.
MNsure crisis by the numbers
If this video doesn't frighten policymakers, then they're comatose:
Here's the heart of Jay Koll's article on the MNsure crisis:
Lawmakers who supported passage of MNsure legislation indicated, at the time, that private health insurance plans would be the key to making MNsure self-sustaining.
MNsure issued a news release touting enrollment numbers. It says MNsure has nearly reached its goal of 135,000 people enrolled for 2014, needing only 5,000 more people to sign up to reach that goal. But lawmakers who supported MNsure told taxpayers private health care plans were the key to sustaining MNsure financially.
KSTP looked at those two important categories and found troubling numbers. For individuals, MNsure has an open enrollment goal of 69,904 but so far only has 35,610. For small businesses, MNsure wants 8,925 people signed up by March 31 but right now only has 790 people enrolled.
Simply put, MNsure is just barely 50% of the way to their individual market goal. They're less than 10% of the way towards their small businesses goal. Earlier this week, I wrote this article highlighting MNsure's failure with young invincibles. Here's the key statistic from that article:
Estimates are that 40 percent of enrollees need to be in that demographic to provide baseline ACA funding. As of Wednesday, only about 20,400 (16 percent) were ages 26-34, well short of the ideal goal of 54,000.
Let's summarize the MNsure disaster. Enrollments in qualified health plans, aka QHPs, are falling far short of expectations. Enrollments for small businesses are falling incredibly short of expectations (less than 10% of expectations.) The young invincibles, ages 26-34, are staying away in disturbing numbers.
Recently, the DFL has criticized Republicans for highlighting MNsure's shortcomings, saying that Republicans haven't offered a solution. That's a hollow criticism because Democrats haven't admitted that the ACA is failing this miserably. Thus far, their statements have focused on the functionality of the website. The Democrats' statements haven't focused on the enrollment facts, which are falling far short of the Democrats' readjusted (downward) goals.
This isn't complicated. It's obvious that families don't like the product that's being offered. The quickest solution is to offer families products that they like. That's impossible because the ACA, aka Obamacare, dictates what's in the QHP's policies.
First, government shouldn't tell people that they have to buy something they don't want. It's one thing to require car insurance because that protects other motorists. Health insurance protects families. Period. Second, government shouldn't tell families what coverages they have to have in their health insurance policies.
Based on all the information that's out there, it's pretty clear that families are saying no to Obamacare/MNsure. They're saying no because, in their estimation, the product they're getting isn't worth the price they'd pay. Until Democrats fix that part of the equation, the numbers will continue to tank.
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:03 PM
No comments.
GPTW Trust Index Survey questions
Dave Unze's article about the Great Place to Work Trust Index Survey included this interesting paragraph:
The survey was offered to all 1,582 university employees and generated a response from 40 percent of them. The university released the answers to two questions that were asked of those employees: What makes St. Cloud State a great place to work, and what would make the school a better place to work?
The administration needs to tell us why they're hiding the Trust Index Survey results on a password-protected webpage that only people with a St. Cloud State account can access. Why wasn't the entire survey released to the public? Why were only two open-ended questions released?
The St. Cloud Times needs to answer the legitimate question of why they didn't demand that SCSU release everything from the survey, including the PowerPoint presentation. That PowerPoint presentation includes the results from some questions that I'm sure President Potter and his senior administration would rather see buried in the deep blue sea.
I'm certain President Potter would rather people not see this graphic:
Why would President Potter want people to see that only 20% of his employees think that "Management shares information openly and transparently"? President Potter certainly wouldn't want the community to know that only 26% of his employees think that "Management delivers on its promises" and that only 24% of his employees think "Management's actions match its words."
It isn't difficult to understand why President Potter doesn't want the community to know that 28% of his employees think that "Management makes sound financial decisions" and that only 32% of employees think he's competent. A university president doesn't want it getting out that the vast majority of his employees think he's incompetent and makes foolish financial decisions.
The past couple of weeks, the editorial page of the St. Cloud Times criticized a local school board and a city council for not being transparent. They're right in calling for greater transparency from the school board and the city council. What's puzzling is why the Times didn't demand that same type of transparency from President Potter. Shouldn't St. Cloud State be held to the same level of scrutiny as the Sartell-St. Stephen school board and the Cold Spring City Council?
Don't St. Cloud residents deserve the same level of information-sharing that Sartell residents deserve.
If the Times won't demand it, I will. President Potter, make all of the information from the GPTW Trust Index Survey available to the public. The Survey was paid for with taxpayers money. Public employees participated by filling out the Survey. Therefore, all information, including the PowerPoint presentation, should be public property. Period.
That level of secretiveness shouldn't be tolerated from university presidents. The only thing worse is a media outlet that won't push public officials for public information. Not pushing public officials for public information lets the University escape scrutiny and accountability.
The Times needs to ask itself an important question, namely, do they value accountability more than access to President Potter? If they prioritize accountability, then they'll have to push President Potter.
President Potter needs to ask himself a question, too. Is being popular more important than doing the right thing? Based on this survey, his employees think President Potter puts a higher priority on staying popular in the community than he puts on doing the right thing.
Posted Thursday, March 27, 2014 5:05 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 27-Mar-14 08:58 AM
Could someone not file a Data production request from St Cloud State so that there is zero (mis)interpretation as to the results that they actually have?
Are they not a public entity?
Are they not REQUIRED transparency?
Is the public being well served by this?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Mar-14 10:01 AM
Jarrett, yes people could file a Data Practices Act Request with SCSU for this type of information. Since the information isn't of a sensitive personnel issue like a discipline notice or a termination, this information should be public. In an ideal world, we shouldn't have to request that information but this isn't an ideal world.
Comment 2 by wonderer at 27-Mar-14 10:01 AM
Well said. This survey provides objective data to support allegations of discord and bad decision-making that have, up to this point, been dismissed as simply complaining by a small number of individuals. Far be that from the case. Now those who have been attempting to let the public what is actually going on (plunging enrollments, closing of viable academic programs, questionable expenditures, lack of transparency by the president's office, selectivity in reporting information) are vindicated. Finally, too, somebody at the St Cloud Times has had the guts to say things publicly - isn't it amazing that it is a citizen writer and not a Times staff member who has revealed the implications of the data to the public? Mr. Unze's article reported on the study but in the blandest manner possible; still, we can hope that now there will be some genuine investigative reporting? The problems at SCSU are community problems because of the wide economic and social impacts.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-14 09:20 AM
At this point, W, there's little hope that the Times will actually start doing investigative reporting because that'd harm their access to President Potter, the sacred cow that must be protected at all costs.
The Times didn't report the important facts. I reported those facts in spite of the Times' attempts to hide this information from the community.
If you want extensive coverage of what matters to St. Cloud, the St. Cloud Times isn't the place to look for it.
Dropping a few coins in the tip jar, aka the Donate button, in the upper right corner of this page would help keep my reporting going.
Comment 4 by Crimson Trace at 28-Mar-14 01:24 PM
Not only is there a lack of serious investigative journalism covered by the Times, it is incredible that our political leaders are silent. Clearly, SCSU employees are getting shorted by this type of corrupt leadership. How about the students at SCSU? Do the political leaders, chancellor, and trustees actually believe our students are getting the very best education that money can buy? How do you build a multi million dollar science building that sits empty? The Coborn's apartments is another big money loser. Enrollments are dropping quickly. Potter yelling at students and employees. The Great Place to Work Results were atrocious. Employee morale is very low. Is this the new expectation for SCSU? Apparently so...Potter got a huge bonus! When are people going to wake up? If it wasn't for Gary's investigative reporting, a lot of this horse manure would have been swept under the carpet.
DFL vs. the First Amendment
The DFL must see the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, as utterly annoying. What other reason would the DFL have for pushing that's already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? This language from HF1944 looks familiar:
Subdivision 1. Electioneering communication. (a) "Electioneering communication" means a communication distributed by television, radio, satellite, or cable broadcasting system; by means of printed material, signs, or billboards; or through the use of telephone communications that:
(1) refers to a clearly identified candidate;
(2) is made within:
(i) 30 days before a primary election or special primary election for the office sought by the candidate; or (ii) 60 days before a general election or special election for the office sought by the candidate; (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate; and (4) is made without the express or implied consent, authorization, or cooperation of, and not in concert with or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or a candidate's principal campaign committee or agent.
(b) If an electioneering communication clearly directs recipients to another communication, including a Web site, on-demand or streaming video, or similar communications, the electioneering communication consists of both the original electioneering communication and the communication to which recipients are directed and the cost of both must be included when determining if disclosure is required under this section.
McCain-Feingold, aka the BCRA, prohibited certain types of speech 30 days before a primary election and/or 60 days before the general election. Here's the relevant part of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling :
The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder's interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time.
Here's another important part of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. the FEC:
Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy - it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people - political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction 'furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.'
Despite that clear ruling, the DFL insists on pushing a bill that includes provisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional. It isn't just that they've ruled these provisions unconstitutional, either. It's that they said future legislation had to pass strict scrutiny, which is described like this:
subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction 'furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.'
The DFL knows that this is an extra-high hurdle that they likely can't overcome. What's disturbing is that the DFL isn't hesitating in writing legislation that violates people's rights to participate in the political process.
This is the definition of shameful, too:
Question: Why do Democrats hate certain types of political speech?
Posted Friday, March 28, 2014 9:09 AM
No comments.
Questioning Palin's ill-advised endorsement
It's often a big deal when Sarah Palin endorses a candidate. Much pomp and circumstance accompanies Ms. Palin's endorsements. It's perfectly within Ms. Palin's First Amendment rights to endorse the candidates she chooses. I'd just respect Ms. Palin's endorsements if she'd do her homework, which she didn't do with her latest endorsement :
A 12-year state senator, Ortman is challenging Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota. Palin contrasted her qualifications with those of the incumbent, whom she labeled a "clown." (Franken had a successful career as a comedian before entering politics.)
Ortman 'is a conservative champion. : She is running a grassroots campaign against a well-funded favorite of the Washington GOP establishment whose policy record is a blank slate,' Palin said in her endorsement.
Is a politician who won't repeal Obamacare , who's proposed raising taxes and who's voted for Cap and Trade "a conservative champion" just because Sarah Palin says so?
By contrast, the candidate that Ms. Palin criticized as being a "favorite of the Washington GOP establishment", Mike McFadden, favors repealing Obamacare, reducing regulations, simplifying our tax code and limiting government spending .
The reality is that Mike McFadden has laid out a legislative agenda that's conservative. Altogether too often, Julianne Ortman has voted against common sense conservative principles because she's been a go-along-to-get-along legislator for nearly 12 years.
The proof is clear. Contrary to Ms. Palin's endorsing statement, Julianne Ortman isn't "a conservative champion." She's the type of politician that Ms. Palin has railed against in the past.
That's why Ms. Palin's endorsement rings hollow. That's why I'm questioning Ms. Palin's endorsement. If she doesn't want her credibility questioned, she needs to prove that she consistently stands for conservative principles.
This time, Ms. Palin didn't stand for conservative principles.
Originally posted Friday, March 28, 2014, revised 21-May 7:55 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 28-Mar-14 01:18 PM
The last time Sarah Palin interfered with the Minnesota endorsement process, Vin Weber was lurking in the shadows.
