May 11-12, 2011
May 11 01:40 Is Tom Rukavina PolyMet's Best Friend? May 11 09:10 Can Democrats Retake the House? May 11 10:20 Nothing's too Good for the Commissioners May 11 12:19 Steny vs. the White House May 11 18:29 BREAKING NEWS: CD-8 GOP Seeks Pat Anderson's Removal May 12 08:21 The End of Western Civilization As We Know It? May 12 09:41 Gov. Dayton Can't Veto Photo ID After This May 12 10:12 Pork Kills May 12 17:50 St. Cloud Times Adds to the Anti-Photo ID Drumbeat
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Is Tom Rukavina PolyMet's Best Friend?
I never thought I'd read an article that portrays Tom Ruckavina as a pawn of the evil mining industry and an enemy of Native Americans AND the pristine Arrowhead wilderness. Still, that's what this article does:
The Republicans, who took over both houses of the Legislature in the 2010 elections, are leading the charge to put slot machines in every bar, restaurant and Porta-Potty across the North Star State. DFLers, notably Sen. Tom Bakk, from Cook, and Rep. Tom Rukavina, from Virginia, are pushing the effort to loosen environmental regulations on behalf of the foreign-owned copper-nickel mining firms exploring in northeastern Minnesota.
In my August 2010 column, I wrote about the companies lining up to tear up the north woods in the pursuit of sulfide mining. This type of mining would be new to Minnesota; but it has a terrible track record of polluting surface waters with toxic metals across the western U.S.
That Tom Rukavina is accused of wanting to destroy pristine northern wilderness isn't absurd. It's beyond that. Still, Rukavina isn't the type to suffer fools lightly:
I asked Rukavina where he got the new 50 milligrams number, and he claimed that "nobody knows when that number [10 milligrams] was put in rule." And he said that Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) officials have testified that they never have enforced the sulfate level regulation.
"Every sewer plant in the state is breaking that law in wild rice areas, and you can't apply it just because some people hate copper nickel mining," responded Rep. Rukavina, who also said that the sulfate rule would hinder iron ore mining, an industry that has contributed to building Minnesota over 125 years.
Again, where did Rukavina get the 50 milligrams per liter standard specified in his legislation? "I came up with a number as an interim number that seemed reasonable to me, based on [the PCA] using 40: at the Clay Boswell [power plant]."
Regarding the application of the 10 milligrams per liter rule to the sulfide mining projects up north, Rukavina wondered aloud "if there are people in the PCA, embedded in their bureaucracy, that don't want to see copper-nickel mining."
So, changing the water protection standard to 50 milligrams of sulfate per liter seemed reasonable? "To me," Rukavina replied, with a chuckle.
There are a couple of things that I'm curious about, starting with why the MPCA settled on the 10 milligrams per liter rule. Are there peer-reviewed studies showing that wild rice yields drop precipitously if the water contains more than 10 milligrams of sulfate per liter? Is there verifiable proof that wild rice thrives in lakes or rivers containing more than 50 milligrams of sulfate per liter?
I don't have the answer to either question but I'm questioning whether the legitimacy of the 10 milligram number because a) I haven't seen any studies that address the subject and b) I don't trust numbers recited by militant environmentalist organizations.
I'm old enough to remember the dire predictions about the Alaskan pipeline, how it would ruin the migration route of the Barrows caribou herd, how calving would suffer and "for what? A few years of oil?" The pipeline didn't disrupt the migrations of the Barrows Caribou. Calving didn't skip a beat. Thirty-three years later, they're still pumping huge amounts of oil through that pipeline.
In the 1960's, the doom-and-gloom prediction, something that everyone knew was inevitable, was the Earth's ability to feed the world's population. According to 'the experts', that breaking point would be reached before the end of Nixon's first term.
It appears as though we avoided that date with Armageddon, too. Who would've thought it possible? BONUS QUESTION: Might it be because groups of capitalists put their capital at risk to find a miracle cure through technology breakthroughs? If they're the heroes with that issue, it wouldn't be the first time that capitalists paid their fair share in ways other than taxes to fund government.
The point is that I won't buy into the environmentalists' yperventillations without seeing a peer-reviewed study based on objective data. I won't buy any emotional pitch from these environmentalists.
As for Rukavina's question of whether there aren't "people in the PCA, embedded in their bureaucracy, that don't want to see copper-nickel mining," the answer is yes. Those people undoubtedly exist within the MPCA. Those numbers will only grow with Paul Aasen as MPCA's commissioner.
Towards the end of the brief spirited interview, Rukavina ramped up the rhetoric about the effort to enforce the sulfate level standard for copper-nickel projects: "This is nothing but a kick in the ass, and you can quote me on that, from bureaucrats who don't like mining, and obviously you don't either." Then he called me a "bigot", apparently because I raised the issue that foreign mining companies are poised to ravage Minnesota's north woods.
That's a rather revealing quote. Why did this post's author make special note of "foreign mining companies" that want to "ravage Minnesota's north woods"? Are they more evil than mining companies owned by Minnesotans? Is there a history of "foreign mining companies" ignoring this state's environmental laws?
Is it possible that this really isn't about natural resources, that it's about controlling people's lives? I suspect that that's the real story that isn't getting told.
Let's be clear about something. If there are peer-reviewed articles based on studies that employ double-blind studies, where different groups of people deal with the different phases of the study, that show these sulfate levels to be a tipping point for the environment, then I'll support those studies.
Without that type of objectivity, I'll fight the militant environmentalists to the bitter end.
That isn't news. What's news is that it appears as though I'd have Tom Rukavina as a partner in that fight. Who knew?
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:40 AM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 11-May-11 03:08 PM
I won't even accept "peer" reviewed studies unless I know who the peers are. Global warming comes to mind. VERIFY!!!!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-11 04:55 PM
I agree with that.
Can Democrats Retake the House?
That's the question asked in this article . The simple answer to that isn't no. It's HELL NO!!! Still, it's fun to look at the arguments currently being made.
In 2010, Republicans vaulted with historic gains on a promise to impose fiscal discipline. So far, their 2012 budget blueprint doesn't appear to include the kind of austerity most voters had in mind. Acrimonious town halls during last month's spring recess displayed constituents' unease over Representative Paul Ryan's budget. And while Republicans insisted that the raucous crowds were ginned up by Democratic activists, a Quinnipiac poll released last week, which found that 60% of voters opposed changes to Medicare, was the latest to underscore the political perils brought on by Ryan's plan.
'From a political standpoint, Medicare reform is very dangerous territory,' election handicapper Charlie Cook wrote last month. 'House Republicans are not just pushing the envelope, they are soaking it with lighter fluid and waving a match at it.' A May 10 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 50% of registered voters favored Democrats in a generic Congressional ballot, compared to 46% who said they planned to vote for a Republican.
The CNN poll result is only achieved because they sampled adults, not likely voters. That screen is all-important on the generic ballot question.
It's also important to note that, while the Ryan plan isn't doing well right now, the Democrats have a much more difficult task of defending Washington status quo policies, explaining their insistence on continuing the failed policies of the Obama administration and the disastrous Pelosi regime.
Based on this statement, I'd say that the DCCC's messaging stinks:
'Republicans voting to end Medicare is a defining issue of this Congress, and the American people are already rejecting it at town-hall meetings across the country,' says Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). 'As House Republicans choose taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil and tax breaks for the ultra-rich instead of Medicare for seniors, then seniors and middle-class families are going to choose Democrats in the next election.'
The DCCC recently launched an ad campaign, which ranges from radio spots to robocalls, against 50 Republicans it considers vulnerable, decrying their vote for the Ryan budget. Though relatively few dollars have been directed to the effort, the 'Drive to 25' campaign marks the start of a sustained push to pillory Republicans for kowtowing to corporate interests instead of safeguarding seniors from rising health care costs.
If that's the Democrats' messaging, then Democrats are in trouble. That's the Democrats' typical over-the-top hyperbole that didn't work in 2010. The American people hear that rhetoric and instantly tune it out.
I pray that the Democrats use this approach because the Democrats need to persuade people if they have any hopes of rebuilding their party. Those aren't words that persuade.
It's worth noting that the Democrats' targeting might be foolish at this point. Until Democrats know the impact redistricting has on the supposedly vulnerable 50 legislators, it's quite possible that they're wasting money on races that might turn out to be unwinnable.
A great example of that is Chip Cravaack. Chip defeated Jim Oberstar in MN-8. The day after Chip's win, the DCCC essentially put a bounty on Chip's head to the point that Ryan Winkler toyed with the idea of becoming a carpetbagger attempting to win that seat back for the DFL. It got so bad that Tarryl Clark bought a condominium in Duluth so she could run against Chip.
Then the redistricting map came out. Chip's new district makes him all but bulletproof. Tarryl doesn't stand much of a chance of winning Chip's seat. All that targeting was wasted.
Let's remember, too, that Republicans flipped 19 legislative chambers and gained a net 680 legislative seats. Here's what Dick Morris said about redistricting back in December:
As a result of the massive Republican victories last month, Republicans in state houses all over America have the happy duty of redrawing Congressional district lines in time for the 2012 elections based on the 2010 census. In almost half the cases, they will be able to do so without the advice or input of the newly impotent Democratic legislative minorities in their states.
In other words, if Republicans don't do something totally stupid, the district map will look dramatically different. That being said, the Republicans' weakness is communications, though they're significantly stronger at it than Democrats:
Paul Lindsay, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), says the notion that Democrats will gain at the polls is premature. 'Democrats are spiking the football on their own 5-yard line,' Lindsay said in an e-mail. 'The reality is that voters have no interest in rewarding House Democrats who continue to defend the Washington status quo and serve as blank checks for more spending and job-crushing policies at the expense of middle-class families.'
Mr. Lindsay's e-mail isn't terrible by any stretch, though I'd change it to read like this:
"After ignoring November's election results, Democrats are overconfident. They're ignoring the message sent by the American people, the message that reckless spending must stop, the message that federal power grabs into health care and the environment and bailouts must end, the message that the status quo is toxic.
Republicans are leading with common sense reform ideas that they campaigned on. Republicans will keep their promise with the American people of getting federal spending under control. Republicans will listen to the people before charting their agenda."
For Democrats, this spring's glimmers of hope could easily dissolve in the gloom of high unemployment, a still sluggish economy and soaring gas prices. And the recent series of wave elections don't necessarily suggest another is in the offing. Twenty-five seats is a sizable advantage, and Republicans will enjoy the benefits of incumbency even if their large class of freshmen has struggled to fill their campaign coffers. After notching sweeping gains in statehouses across the country, the GOP also has the upper hand in redistricting, which is taking place in the wake of the decennial U.S. Census.
'Even if President Obama's approval rating begins to rebound and voters begin to see signs in their own lives that the economy is improving, Democrats will still be confronted with the absence of presidential coattails, the Republican advantage in redistricting and battleground districts that tilt toward Republicans,' Glen Bolger and Jim Hobart of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm, argued recently in a piece that 'guarantees' the GOP will maintain control of the lower chamber.
There's no guarantee that President Obama will get more popular between now and November, 2012. It's much more likely that President Obama will get shipwrecked by high gas prices, high inflation and 9% unemployment. Those same things will work against Congressional Democrats in 2012.
Democrats voted for the vast majority of President Obama's radical agenda. Why should we think that President Obama will suffer a political hit but the House Democrats that voted for his agenda will be held harmless? Better yet, why should we think that House Democrats would be treated better than President Obama in 2012?
Talk about Democrats retaking the House in 2012 isn't serious. It's happy talk designed at attracting enough campaign contributions that will be used to keep losses at a minimum.
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:10 AM
No comments.
Nothing's too Good for the Commissioners
In the eyes of the DFL, when it comes to the deputy commissioners, nothing's too good for them. Nothing is a higher priority than protecting the deputy commissioners :
Add specific language in The Ominous [sic] Bill UES1047-2 on both sides (House and Senate) on page R19 when addressing any overall general cuts and on pages R20 and R21 at the opening of both Military and Veterans Affairs budgets.
To read:
"In respect to the fact we are a nation at war at the Departments of Military and Veterans Affairs are paramount in those operations providing manpower, support programs and services, the following special consideration is hereby adopted for the Biennium ending 2013: The Department of Military Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs are to be held harmless to any budget cuts in salary, staff, FTE, personnel, equipment, programs and or services including any reductions of deputy commissioners, or the combining of commissioners of these two agencies."
I'm betting that 80+ percent of Minnesotans would agree maintaining National Guard readiness and helping veterans get the treatments they need should be a high priority, one of the highest priorities in the budgeting process.
I'm further betting that people won't support the part of this proposed legislative language that states that funding to pay for deputy commissioners in the Department of Veteran Affairs and deputy commissioners in the Department of Military Affairs shouldn't be cut. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that there's little support for maintaining the status quo staffing with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Military Affairs.
Frankly, when the average Minnesotan thinks of the veterans, I'm betting that they worry that veterans get the treatment they need for injuries sustained on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm betting that they aren't worried whether bureaucrats' jobs are "held harmless" or whether the departments are combined for efficiency sake.
When I read this proposed legislative language, these questions popped into my mind:
Q1: Doesn't that language codify into law the status quo staffing of these agencies?
Q2: Does this language do anything to improve the National Guard's readiness, assist veterans in obtaining federal benefits or help veterans get the treatment they need?
Q3: Doesn't this language prevent the legislature from combining these agencies even if it's been determined to improve services?
Q2 is the highest priority in the sense that National Guard rediness should be maintained and that veterans get the treatment they need.
Still, it isn't unimportant that the legislature have the flexibility to combine departments if that will save Minnesota's taxpayers without compromising National Guard readiness or veterans' health care treatment.
Holding department budgets harmless doesn't mean status quo staffing should be held harmless. That's where this legislative language falls far short of acceptance.
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:20 AM
No comments.
Steny vs. the White House
President Obama's speculated regulation of free speech is meeting with strong opposition...from House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. In this article , Hoyer is quoted as saying:
It's not a requirement now. I don't think it ought to be a requirement. So I'm not in agreement with the administration on that issue.
Let's add a little context to this discussion. President Obama is allegedly planning on issuing an executive order that would force businesses hoping to do business with the federal government to disclose their political contributions:
Drafted April 13, Obama's proposal would require anyone submitting bids for government work to disclose two years' worth of political contributions and expenditures. The order would apply if the total exceeded $5,000 to a given recipient during a given year.
The total would include donations that officers, directors, affiliates and subsidiaries made to federal candidates and parties. But most important, it would cover donations to third-party entities that make independent political expenditures. Those donations are not disclosed currently.
Here's what Hoyer told the Hill :
'The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor's application and bid and capabilities,' Hoyer told reporters at the Capitol. 'There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.'
Hoyer is totally right that submitting a list of political contributions made by a company as the price of doing business with the federal government has the potential to taint the bidding process. When bids are awarded on the merits, the appearance of political impropriety disappears instantly.
If the Obama administration 'succeeds' in implementing the DISCLOSE Act via executive branch fiat, it will give its political opponents a huge weapon to beat them up with. They'll justifiably say that the Obama administration's actions are ham-handed and unprecedented in a negative way.
That narrative will reinforce the first impression that this administration created when they protected PEUs while shutting down small businesses like local car dealerships.
With the economy already serving as a millstone around this administration's neck and with Obamacare likely to be declared unconstitutional right before the national conventions, the last thing this administration needs is another political millstone tied around its neck.
That this administratin is still intent on imposing this EO is testament to the nature of this political beast.
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:19 PM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: CD-8 GOP Seeks Pat Anderson's Removal
LFR has gotten the following letter expressing the CD-8 GOP's disgust with Pat Anderson's lobbying for expanded gambling:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Minnesota State GOP Executive Committee
525 Park St # 250
Saint Paul, MN 55103-2145
Committee members:
Since being elected National Committeewoman on April 16th, Pat Anderson has publicly obfuscated the intent of the Minnesota GOP platform regarding the expansion of gambling.
Ms. Anderson has undertaken the advancement of expanded gambling in contravention of the pertinent and unambiguous platform provision, to wit: 'We seek to eliminate all state-sponsored gambling and oppose any expansion of gambling in Minnesota.'
Ms. Anderson, through her actions, has caused unacceptable and irretrievable harm to this Congressional District organization in the form of negative publicity.
The consequences of Ms. Anderson's actions were surely known to her or should have been known to a prudent person. This lack of prudent conduct along with her blatant disregard for the MNGOP Platform make Ms. Anderson an unacceptable representative of this organization on the Republican National Committee.
The Minnesota State GOP Executive Committee must take purposeful and expeditious action to request that Ms. Anderson resign from the honored position of GOP National Committeewoman.
Notwithstanding her response or cooperation, prompt action must be taken to replace Ms. Anderson by arranging an election for that purpose consistent with the provisions of MNGOP's Constitution.
Sincerely,
Ted Lovdahl, Chair 8th CDGOP
By unanimous vote of the executive board, May 10, 2011
Pat Anderson either had been offered the job of lobbying for expanding gambling or knew that a formal offer was forthcoming when she stood for election to be the next RNC committeewoman.
That she said nothing about this lobbying job is sufficient grounds for removing her from the position of RNC committeewoman. The job of RNC committeewoman shouldn't be a placeholder position to run for office. Instead, it should be a position that builds, strengthens and grows the party.
That can't happen if the party platform says one thing and high ranking officials within the party opposes a key portion of the state party platform.
I'd argue that expanding gambling is a major part of the Republican Party platform because it would be another source of revenue at a time when the Republican Party is trying to return to its roots of limited government conservatism.
It's inconsistent to think that adding additional revenue fits with limiting the size and scope of government. Simply put, they don't fit whatsoever.
If Ms. Anderson wants to be a lobbyist, that's her right. With that right, however, comes the consequence that it eliminates her as an effective spokesperson for the party advocating a return to the principles of limited government.
The Republican Party, both at the state and the national level, faces a time of choosing. We must either take seriously the principles of limited government or we should be satisfied with being seen as the party that doesn't mean what it says.
I agree wholeheartedly with the CD-8 Executive Committee's unanimous vote.
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 11-May-11 08:28 PM
So expanding gaming is bad but paying for a Queens stadium is good? I don't agree with expanded gaming because the reasons to do it are poor (screwing the indians and money for the state). I also don't want to pay for a new Vikings stadium but the GOP was fist in line to offer a plan back a couple months ago. No one talked of banning the two GOP stadium authors.
Comment 2 by Ron Niemala at 11-May-11 09:28 PM
There is a difference here. One person represents a House District or Senate District, the other represents the whole MNGOP on a national level. Removal of a National Committee Woman for what was done is vastly different and needs to be followed thru at the State Executive Board level. Deviation from the party platform at that level is unexcuseable and requires action. Chad, your comparison is not comparing apples to apples, but watermelon and grapefruit.
Comment 3 by Sam at 11-May-11 09:45 PM
So are you also calling for a removal of Tony as Chair for his involvement with tribal casino and fighting against limits on tribal casinos (also in the platform).
Has Tony released a full list of everyone he has as a client?
And the Senate has proposed Stadium bill and State Casino, will you be asking the paid spokesman for the Senate to resign if he were to hold a state MNGOP office?
Or do you only dance when your master ask you to?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-11 10:02 PM
First, I don't know anything about Tony Sutton's alleged involvement with tribal casinos so I won't address that except to say that the resolution that CD-8 referred to was to oppose EXPANDING gambling & to oppose state-sponsored gambling, aka Racino. Based on the existence of tribal gaming, Tony Sutton's actions haven't run contrary to the state party platform.
As for the stadium bill, that's between the legislator & his/her constituents. The Republican Party can take a position on that but ultimately, that's between the legislator & his/her constituents.
In this instance, we are Pat Anderson's constituents. It's her right as a Minnesotan to be a registered lobbyist if she meets the requirements. As her constituents, though, it's well within our right to demand her fidelity to the party platform while being a high-profile official within the party.
The CD-8 executive committee was well within their rights to call for her resignation.
Comment 4 by Sam at 11-May-11 10:10 PM
Would that be the same CD8 that has Justin Krych as Deputy Chair.
The same Justin who sits on the board of the organization bought and paid for by Minnesota Indian Gaming Association.
Wow just took me 2 seconds to see where this supposed stand came from.
When I see folks like Justin resign then maybe this will have some meaning, otherwise it needs to have the "The Message Paid for by Indian Gaming Interests"
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 12-May-11 08:29 AM
Are you dipsticks really this stupid? Pat Anderson must go because she tried hiding something important from the delegates. She knew that if she was open about the fact that she was days away from being hired as a lobbyist for Racino, she likely would've lost to Janet Beihoffer on the first ballot. That's why she hid that fact until after getting elected as RNC Committeewoman.
If people can't trust the people they've elected, they have the right to 'unelect' them if that's an option available in the rules.
Comment 5 by Richard at 11-May-11 10:47 PM
Since when do any of the elected representatives follow the platform? I don't want the state to sponsor anything, but why does anyone care about the expansion of gambling? Because adults might make decisions for themselves and have to deal with their own consequences? The horror! I'm so scared! Big Government, please save me!!!
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 12-May-11 08:55 AM
Somebody is trying the typical liberal "hide the pickle" rhetoric. The issue is that Pat Anderson seems to violate the platform which high officials of the Party are /supposed/ to support. She ought to stand or fall based on that conflict and that conflict alone. What somebody else has or has not done is IRRELEVANT and immaterial.
Also irrelevant is the issue of Indian gaming and their "monopoly." That ship has sailed, and if you want to persecute the dim-witted DFLer (though that is generally redundant) who gave it to them, feel free. What IS relevant is why State government is in, and seeks to further profit from, gambling which they make illegal for everybody else. And why we should expand gambling just to "profit" already-punitive state taxing and spending. This is what the Platform stands firmly against.
Comment 7 by Ticked Off Delegate at 12-May-11 10:44 AM
This is insanity at its worst. Tony Sutton and Jack Meeks are lining their pockets with tribal casino dollars. The same tribal casinos have pumped tens of millions of dollars into the DFL state party, the DFL House Caucus and the DFL Senate Caucus over the last decade. Just last year, they donated over $1 million to those three entities to try to bury our Republican candidates. I find it outrageous that there are supposed Republican activists who would call for Pat Anderson's removal while supporting Sutton. Instead of working to protect tribal casino interests, we as Republicans should be working to break their monopoly and end the millions of dollars lining the DFL's pockets.
Comment 8 by eric z at 12-May-11 10:47 AM
One hundred percent behind you and Andy and whoever else is onto this GOP bandwagon. It is a bipartisan thing. I had big time problems with El Tinklenberg's lobbying career, and his denial of it, when he ran against Bachmann. I have the same criticism, however, of Jungbauer's Landform ties, about which the GOP is silent. All instances, Tinklenberg, Jungbauer, and Anderson now to me are a taint upon what most citizens expect of government, in terms of propriety and entire distancing from conflicting interests. Each party owes the public the attention to muck its stables; a duty often honored in the breach. I applaud this, even if it leads to the GOP ultimately substituting one such as Tom Emmer for Anderson. Hopefully, it would be a different national party rep replacement, but as an independent, because the DFL is not progressive enough, I have no place in your people naming a replacement name. But again, good for the unanimous MN8 vote.
Comment 9 by Ticked Off Delegate at 12-May-11 10:48 AM
By the way, if Pat Anderson is a bad Republican for working to "expand gambling" then so are Governor John Kasich, who is pursuing Racino legislation in Ohio; Governor Haley Barbour, who expanded his state's economy exponentially by adding riverboat gambling in Mississippi; and Governor Mitch Daniels, who just signed legislation for Indiana's horse racing industry.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 12-May-11 10:58 AM
TOD, Pat Anderson isn't a "bad Republican" for expanding gambling. Pat Anderson isn't a "bad Republican". PERIOD. What she is is someone who didn't tell the delegates about her job offer before the vote to become the RNC committteewoman. She did it that way because she knew that she would've gotten soundly beaten, possibly on the first ballot, had she told the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth from the start.
It's one thing to advocate policies I disagree with. It's quite another to betray people's trust. Pat Anderson betrayed people's trust.
Comment 10 by eric z at 12-May-11 11:04 AM
Help me.
I do not know your platform.
Is it against the State Lottery?
Not to debate whether it should have a position either way; only, does it?
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 12-May-11 12:04 PM
Eric, The train of tribal gambling & the state lottery have left the metaphorical station. The MNGOP isn't thinking about putting that genie back in the bottle. We're thinking to the future that's still undecided. When people talk about Republicans that are linked to Indian casinos as being the moral equivalent of fighting against Racino, they're missing the point. The point is partially about not wanting to created another revenue stream to fund ever-expanding government on autopilot, partially about Pat Anderson not telling the delegates the whole truth right upfront. It's nothing more complicated than that.
Comment 11 by Ticked Off Delegate at 12-May-11 12:18 PM
Gary,
Your argument makes no sense to me. It might work in a vaccum, but it doesn't work in reality. If the GOP platform isn't opposed to the lottery or to tribal gaming, then why should it oppose racinos or other gaming. Further, the GOP platform does say that it favors free market competition and opposes government barriers to trade. Supporting the lottery and tribal casinos while opposing racinos and other gaming is supporting government barriers to trade!
There is only one reason the platform opposes expansion to gambling. That reason is because Jack Meeks (Chairman of CAGE), Chris Georgacas (Lobbyist for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe) and Tony Sutton (CAGE Board Member were on the platform committee and pushed the no-expansion plank on behalf of their clients.
You say that Pat Anderson should have disclosed her potential conflicts. Do you think Tony Sutton should disclose his client list, which he has refused to do?
The bottom line is that bunch of Republicans have gamed the system (and the delegates) by working for tribal casino interests which have been one of the largest funders of DFL campaigns in our state. Makes me wonder if Tony Sutton would work for George Soros if he flipped him some money.
Comment 12 by Ticked Off Delegate at 12-May-11 12:20 PM
One other point about your feeding the beast comment. Since when are Republicans in favor of a special interest getting a tax-free monopoly meanwhile everyone else's personal and property taxes have gone up and up. It's absurd that we as Republicans would continue to support a sweetheart deal for one group of people while we get our own asses kicked in having high taxes for ourselves.
Comment 13 by Justin Krych at 19-May-11 05:42 AM
As Deputy Chair of the 8th Congressional District, I was present during the 8th District Full Committee meeting in which Pat Anderson was specifically asked whether or not she had lobbied or intended to lobby on any issue that was in opposition to the Party Platform. She said "No" in front of me and 30 other people in the room who all heard the question and heard her response. She also seemed very bothered that she was even asked as noted by several committee members. Pat knows she would not have been elected if she had been honest about her future intentions.
In regard to comment #6, my advocacy against gambling expansion is in a fully volunteer capacity. I have never made one penny from being an activist on ANY issue. In fact, I have spent thousands of dollars over the last 15 years in support of Republican endorsed candidates, our grass roots process and conservative values and issues.
Personally, I am opposed to ALL gambling in Minnesota, whether it be tribal or non-tribal. Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the sweetheart deals made decades ago which brought casino gambling to Minnesota, nor can I do anything about the expansion of tribal gambling on reservation properties. The Racino legislation does nothing more than create a NEW gambling monopoly in Minnesota controlled by a handful of investors who control the only properties that would benefit from the expansion. There is nothing "free market" about a "new monopoly".
I am also deeply opposed to any additional revenue stream for the state that would expand the size and scope of government. The beast of big government will continue to get stronger and more powerful only if it continues to be fed. Gambling revenue is just one more way to feed the beast, giving government more power to control the lives of Minnesotans who would be happier and more productive if they were left alone.
Response 13.1 by Gary Gross at 19-May-11 05:49 AM
Justin, I've meant to address your point earlier but haven't had the time to. (Something about an impending special session & Gov. Dayton's insistence of raising taxes.) Thanks for explaining your position on gambling.
The End of Western Civilization As We Know It?
You'd think western civilization was ending if you trusted Kate Knuth's statement on repealing the Next Generation Energy Act:
'Sounds science tells us that climate change will have a profound impact on Minnesota's next generation. Coal power is the wrong way to fuel our future,' said Knuth. 'Turning back the clock to build new coal plants puts Minnesota's economic and environmental future at risk.'
If I trusted Rep. Knuth on this issue, which I don't, I'd be thinking that the world would look like a dirty ashtray if NGEA was repealed.
I'd love hearing Rep. Knuth explain in detail what verifiable scientific facts prove that "climate change will have a profound impact on Minnesota's next generation." For that matter, I'd love hearing Rep. Knuth explain, again in detail, what health and environmental difficulties coal-fired power plants cause.
Let's stipulate before Rep. Knuth's reply that allegations aren't proof. They're nothing more than an opinion. In fact, in some instances, the allegations are nothing more than focus group-tested chanting points designed to excite a special interest group in the hopes that they'll start writing checks for that politician's next campaign.
I'm betting that's what happening here.
Not to be outdone on the environmental campaign contribution front, Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson) and Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) pandered to the DFL's environmental base:
Along with serious environmental and health concerns, the bill comes with a significant price tag for ratepayers. Coal is one the most expensive forms of electricity, with the cost for consumers doubling from 2001 to 2008. State Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson) said the bill is not in the best interest of Minnesota ratepayers.
'This bill is trying to take us back to an inefficient and expensive energy,' said Hilty. 'Instead, we should look to the future and make Minnesota a nation leader in clean energy. That is the best to reduce long term energy costs for Minnesotans.'
Legislators argued that many job providers in Minnesota are already working to build renewable energy infrastructure that provides jobs and economic investment in Minnesota. Repealing the coal moratorium would likely send these innovators to other states.
'Repealing the coal moratorium greatly diminishes Minnesota's standing as a national leader in renewable energy,' Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) said. 'This bill moves our state backward, away from homegrown Minnesota energy produced by Minnesota workers. Investing in renewable energy is the key to reversing climate change and creating thousands of jobs in our 21st century economy.'
Saying that "This bill is trying to take us back to an inefficient and expensive energy" is an outright lie. I won't tapdance around on this one. It's insulting to hear a politician say something that's demonstrably false. The reality is that alternatives are still higher even with state corporate welfare and federal subsidies.
Shame on Rep. Hilty for propogating this lie. He should be ridiculed mercilessly for attempting such spin.
As for Rep. Hansen, I'd just argue that alternative energy of the type that the DFL subsidizes aren't the future. I'd argue that because they're subsidizing some things that don't have a chance of becoming self-sustaining.
I'm not against alternative energy. I just don't want to artificially prop up alternatives that don't appeal to the people. If it doesn't appeal to people, no amount of subisidies will rescue it from the trash can of failed ideas.
If an idea catches on, it survives because it's appealing to people and because it can stand on its own.
The DFL's worship of the environment has led them into some political relationships that aren't helping them on a statewide basis. It might help in little pockets here or there but it won't help them statewide.
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:21 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-May-11 11:17 AM
The Koch brothers, again.
The Koch brothers' version of Western Civilization survives and thrives. May it end, sooner being better than later.
Comment 2 by IndyJones at 12-May-11 12:25 PM
I really wish the old hippies of my generation would or maybe could put away the doobies and the Malthusian end of the world as we know it philosophy and get on with life. Thorium fueled reactors are the best and cleanest source of electric power. Why are we investing in bird blenders and solar, neither of which are reliable 24/7 or affordable?
Gov. Dayton Can't Veto Photo ID After This
The question about Photo ID has been whether Gov. Dayton would pander to the DFL's anti-accountability, anti-solution wing of the party. He can't pander to those wings of the DFL after getting the results of this poll :
Legislation requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls has ignited a partisan battle at the Capitol this spring, but an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans support the idea, according to a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.
Eighty percent of respondents said they favor a photo ID requirement, which Republican majorities at the Legislature have made one of their signature goals of the session. Democrats have almost universally opposed it, arguing that it will prevent members of some groups from voting.
That party split was reflected in the poll: A whopping 94 percent of Republicans supported photo ID, compared to 64 percent of Democrats.
Both houses of the Legislature have already passed photo ID legislation, which would also eliminate the current practice of residents vouching for Election Day registrants and create an entirely new system of provisional balloting.
"That way you can prove who the voter is, that it's actually that person," said Ron Bogstad of Hatfield, Minn., expressing a view apparently held by many Minnesotans. "And it would stop illegal immigrants and unauthorized people that aren't eligible to vote from voting."
The fact that 64% of Democrats support Photo ID should tell Gov. Dayton that vetoing Rep. Kiffmeyer's Photo ID bill is a political-disaster-in-waiting. Swing district DFL legislators that vote against Photo ID will seal their electoral fate.
The usual suspects are out with their predictable soundbites:
Opponents note that requiring voters to have a valid Minnesota ID with their current address in the precinct will hinder seniors, college students and minorities from voting. The bill offers free voter ID cards to people without a driver's license or other valid ID, but opponents contend they will be difficult for some to obtain.
"It's just putting a barrier in some people's ability to vote, to be part of the citizenry," said Ann Uehling of Ely. Uehling said the requirement will be particularly taxing on elderly Minnesotans who no longer have driver's' licenses.
Ms. Uehling, what proof is there of that? I've heard the allegation. I haven't seen the proof. Then there's this:
Sherri Knuth with the League of Women Voters said that while the issue may poll highly, many people change their minds when they hear the details and implications.
"If you spend five minutes with them explaining what photo ID really means, and how it would impact voters who don't readily have a photo ID available, then they switch their positions," Knuth said.
TRANSLATION: Give me five minutes of time to fill their heads with misinformation and non sequiturs and they'll switch their position.
Good luck with that one, Ms. Knuth. Photo ID is so straightforward that it's almost impossible to spin. People understand that it's essential to identify before they're given a ballot. That's the first essential building block of the election system.
If we don't get that part right, the rest of the system is questionable, not because election workers aren't honest but because that 'first line of defense' has just been negated.
Note that Ms. Knuth isn't arguing that voter fraud doesn't exist. Ms. Knuth's argument is that senior citizens might have difficulty getting a Photo ID. At no point does she offer a solution to that situation. That's because she isn't interested in a solution.
Kiffmeyer said all aspects of the issue have already been extensively aired in the media. "And yet the people still say 80 percent? That's really big," she said.
Rep. Kiffmeyer nails it with that response. Photo ID isn't an obscure issue that people are just learning about. It's been talked about for a decade. They're familiar with it. To the tune of 80%, people agree with it. Any attempt to thwart the will of the people won't be viewed kindly.
If Photo ID is offered as a constitutional amendment, it will pass with a large margin of victory. Thanks to Gov. Dayton's quote, he's just identified this as a potential problem for the DFL:
"Any election reform, so called, needs to pass with broad bipartisan support," Dayton said last Friday. "So far that proposal has not met that test." In the Legislature, only two Democrats supported the bill.
That's what's called a major disconnect. When DFL legislators vote against 64 percent of DFL voters, that's a major disconnect. I'm betting that there's more support for Photo ID with independents than within the DFL.
Gov. Dayton just said that the DFL has voted against the will of the people on an issue that's near and dear to them. That can't end well for swing district DFL legislators.
I know that Photo ID isn't voters' highest priority. Their highest priority is getting spending under control, creating jobs and balancing the state's budget. Still, Photo ID isn't unimportant either.
They've heard the stories about ACORN's fake voter registrations. They've heard about felons illegally voting in Minnesota. They know that voter fraud exists.
Finally, they know that voter fraud will only increase if Photo ID isn't implemented. At this point, the DFL is passionately opposed to solving this ever-increasing problem. That's their choice.
It's just that their decision won't end well electorally for them.
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011 9:41 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-May-11 10:38 AM
I bet, for you GOP guys, an orange NRA membership card would be as good, or better, than a photo ID at the polling places. Sure, deny it. I know you guys. NRA cards, and marriage amendments to assure a 100% crazies turnout. It all squares.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-May-11 02:15 PM
Eric, Shame on you for making such an assinine statement. You know me better than that.
Kele, Photo ID eliminates the voting fraud that never gets investigated, namely, vouching voter fraud. And yes, it's been tried before, in 2004 to be precise. I've cited the email that was intercepted from ACT to "volunteers" who were getting hooked up with people willing to vouch for them:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!Kele, perhaps you can explain why a person that isn't registered needs to get hooked up with a person they've never met who is willing to vouch for that person being who they say they are. I'm betting that you can't but that isn't surprising.
The nonchalance of the "there's nothing going on around here" DFL apologists who don't bother looking into fraud where it starts (AT THE REGISTRATION DESK) is stunning.
Perhaps you could explain how to detect voter fraud during a recount. What identifying marks do you look for on ballots during a recount? I'd argue that you can't determine a fraudulent vote from a legally cast vote once it reaches a recount.
Let's remember, too, that it isn't that felons don't know whether they can vote or not as much as it's about felons saying that. I've written about one felon who was registered while still in prison. Clearly, the people that registered him should've known the law. It happened anyway. How do you explain that as just an honest mistake?
Your arguments don't even rise to the level of feeble. They're that weak.
Comment 2 by Kele Cable at 12-May-11 01:48 PM
You accuse the DFL of being anti-solution but what does the photo ID solve? The problem of voter fraud is entirely made up. Every election a few felons vote because they weren't aware that they couldn't. A photo ID wouldn't solve that (minimal) issue anyway.
Furthermore, implementing voter ID is going to cost a lot of money, especially for small towns and counties already in financial straits. Why should we burden them with even more costs now?
The scare tactics of the GOP claiming rampant voter fraud is tiring. I still have yet to be convinced why anyone would even bother attempting voter fraud - risk a felony for an extra vote among millions?
Comment 3 by Kele Cable at 12-May-11 03:48 PM
Interesting e-mail and yes, that is shameful. I wonder how many people participated, if any? Saying something is one thing, actually committing the crime is another.
The Minnesota Majority submitted over a 1,000 possible cases of voter fraud, most accused of voting as felons, which the Hennepin County Attorney, a Democrat, investigated. There was enough evidence to charge 43 of them. So the DFL does pursue charges of voter fraud.
I still don't know what a voter ID would do to stop felons from mistakenly voting. Felons can have driver's licenses.
Comment 4 by Kele Cable at 12-May-11 04:02 PM
After browsing around the site, I came across a link you or someone else posted: http://www.wewantvoterid.com/
I am happier with this system than the arguments for voter ID I have seen elsewhere. I am glad to know that the state would issue free photo IDs for those that need them. (I saw one person arguing that this item should be struck from the bill which I find a terrible idea.)
I also take back my statement that voter ID would remove the problem of felon voting - somewhat. As has been said, voter ID won't solve the problem, but the system that comes with it will.
Comment 5 by Kele Cable at 12-May-11 04:32 PM
The link to the RSS feed for your blog isn't working, by the way.
Pork Kills
Patrick McIlheran is onto something in this article about Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's giving away $2,000,000,000 in pork. In fact, Mr. McIlheran nails it with this:
Of course it's payback that Wisconsin got snubbed when the Obama administration divvied up $2 billion in train booty. Wisconsin said no to the administration's grander, gauzier rail dreams, embarrassing the president, so of course Wisconsin gets nothing now. This is how things work. It should surprise no one.
Unless, that is, you'd mistakenly thought you'd voted for change in how the country does politics.
Sorry: Politics is as it ever was, which is why federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was passing out $2 billion this week. It was money Florida didn't want to start a rail line it couldn't afford. Its governor said no after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker managed to quash a proposed $810-million-for-starters Milwaukee-to-Madison train that would average 69 mph and need endless taxpayer subsidies.
Spend the billions instead to fix crumbling bridges? Just save it? Don't be silly: LaHood made a show of redistributing that cash to other train projects, just to teach Wisconsinites and, now, Floridians that their frugality is futile.
And when Walker sought $150 million for new trains to improve long-established, well-used train service from Milwaukee to Chicago, LaHood had his revenge: Money would go to "reliable people," he said, to states that buy into the dream. Places that elect uppity penny-pinchers? Get lost.
People right now are in no-nonsense-mode. They want their bridges fixed. They want their potholes filled. They don't care about Obama's transit-of-the-future.
If a reputable pollster like Scott Rasmussen or Doug Schoen conducted a poll on Obama's transit-of-the-future in terms of John Q. Public's list of priorities, Obama's transit-of-the-future might rank right up there with protecting bureaucrats and funding studies of Barrows cairbou migration routes.
To put it differently, if Obama's transit-of-the-future was pitted against just about anything else in a two-way race, Obama's transit-of-the-future might finish in third or fourth place.
If President Obama thinks that handing out pork is the pathway to election victory, I'd highlight that that was their strategy in 2010. As Herman Cain said at the South Carolina GOP debate, "How's that working out for you?"
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-May-11 11:22 AM
In terms I can understand, all politics being local, is this to say that all state taxpayers subsidizing a Northstar stop in Ramsey is killing pork? In the abstract, I have problems with understanding where the Republicans can be counted on to stand. On specifics, the Ramsey Northstar issue, is a concrete thing, and local Republican wants (vs needs) seem to be in conflict with your GOP platform or such.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-May-11 12:09 PM
Let's ask it a different way. How many people would use the North Star rail on a daily basis? How big of a subsidy from the state would be needed to operate annually? With money being tight, is this the best use of scarce dollars? If the ridership numbers aren't there, shouldn't we reject North Star to wherever? If we don't reject it, isn't that causing further structural deficits into the future?
Comment 2 by eric z at 13-May-11 09:36 AM
I understand what you are saying.
Could you say it to Matt Look?
Comment 3 by IndyJones at 13-May-11 02:19 PM
Light rail AND Northstar should have been sentenced to death row a couple of decades ago. State and Federal governments keep bleeding funds generated by motor vehicles to subsidize utopian rail projects that are nothing more than black holes for tax dollars.They serve few people at the expense of everyone. Not unlike sports stadiums, they seem to appeal to the ego and fortunes of a few.
St. Cloud Times Adds to the Anti-Photo ID Drumbeat
Earlier this morning, I wrote this post saying that Gov. Dayton would give the GOP a huge advantage if he vetoed Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer's Photo ID legislation. In that post, I wrote that 64 percent of Democrats supported Photo ID. This St. Cloud Times Editorial Board editorial adding to the anti-Photo ID drumbeat:
Despite no credible evidence voter fraud exists on more than a minuscule scale, Republican majorities in the House and Senate are pushing for a showdown on Voter ID, first with Gov. Mark Dayton this session and then with Minnesota voters in 2012.
Dayton should reject this legislation, and Minnesota voters should do the same in 2012.
That opening paragraph is laughable, especially considering the fact that multiple news stories have chronicled voter fraud, including an expanding investigation in Washington County of felon voter fraud . As flimsy as that argument is, it isn't the flimsiest argument in the Times' editorial. This is:
If they even can catch people; after all, look how effective photo IDs are in stopping minors from mayhem or catching illegal immigrants.
Let's study that argument a bit. What they're essentially saying is that we shouldn't require photo ID because people will just get fake ID's. They're essentially saying that people committing voter fraud will just change their tactics.
That's an odd argument.
If they're saying that people committing voter fraud are flexible enough to change tactics to avoid getting caught, isn't the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board arguing that these people are real pros?
This discredited argument keeps getting used:
Still, the most compelling fact acknowledged by Republicans in 2006 when they began to trumpet this nonissue remains the same: There is no credible evidence of organized voter fraud in Minnesota.
That's pure BS, as I've often cited this Powerline post proving otherwise:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day.
Americans Coming Together doesn't exist anymore but that doesn't mean that they didn't attempt to use Minnesota's vouching system to commit voter fraud during the 2004 presidential election. The intercepted e-mail is proof of their attempt.
This paragraph is particularly infuriating:
Really? Then what about letting us also vote on a unicameral Legislature, term limits, tax help Minnesota's electoral integrity much more than this idea, which is nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to make it harder for people to vote.
The people that supposedly have the most difficult time with photo ID's include students. That's been debunked. The vast majority of students have acceptable photo IDs. Another allegedly afflicted group are seniors. Seniors living in assisted living or nursing home facilities would likely have the greatest incidence of not having a photo ID.
It can't be that difficult for the Secretary of State to hire part-time workers each even-numbered year to stop at each nursing home or assisted living facility to guarantee that everyone is registered and has a valid photo ID.
Saying that photo ID makes it difficult for people to vote hasn't been proven. In fact, in the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board findings of fact, the Indiana Democratic Party said that "as many as 989,000 Indiana people might not have photo ID's." The judge looked into it and said that that figure was off by just a little bit...like by 946,000 people.
I'd also ask how the St. Cloud Times knows that voting "on a unicameral Legislature" and "term limits" would "help Minnesota's electoral integrity much more than this idea." Without the ability to verify that people getting ballots are who they say they are and that they're eligible to vote in that precinct, it's impossible for the St. Cloud Times to prove their statement correct. Not difficult. IMPOSSIBLE.
As for costs, estimates for applying Voter ID range from $5 million for the cards to $30 million for related equipment. Where is the fiscal conservatism, or common sense, in an already-strapped state spending millions of dollars to create another government program to solve a nonexistent problem?
That paragraph is typical of what people who aren't conservatives would say. It's predictable. The reality is that conservatives are perfectly willing to spend money on the essential government services. We're perfectly content to spend money on public safety, conducting elections, the criminal justice system, etc.
We're just opposed to reckless mayors like R.T. Rybak spending $500,000 on 10 artistic drinking fountains. We're opposed to a MnSCU system that isn't living up to its original function. We're opposed to the layers of deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and legislative liaisons in each state department and agency.
If we didn't a) have layers of bloat in each bureaucracy and b) have an insatiable appetite for spending recklessly, we probably wouldn't be strapped for cash as a state.
But why let a little logic and a ton of facts get in the way of a good chanting points editorial? It's more fun just recycling the DFL's chanting points.
Posted Thursday, May 12, 2011 5:50 PM
Comment 1 by C Quigley at 13-May-11 08:42 AM
Where is the DFL's proof voter fraud doesn't exist or at most is only minuscule? Perpetrators of fraud usually don't willing let you know they are committing the crime. We need to make it harder, not easier for people to commit voter fraud. It is the DFL's fear mongering running at full steam as usual.
Comment 2 by Robert Hunter at 13-May-11 10:50 AM
Your Washington County article on voter fraud cites felons who voted before their voting rights were restored. Whether this was fraud depends on being able to prove intent. Photo ids will do nothing to stop such felons from voting.
