May 13-15, 2011
May 13 05:26 Redistricting Notes May 13 06:04 Priorities Personified May 13 12:01 Sad Day For Twins Fans May 14 08:12 Quite the Admission May 14 10:27 From Serious Candidate to Laughingstock May 14 17:53 Elitism Run Amok at SCSU? May 14 22:28 DFL's Lame Redistricting Strategy May 14 23:45 More Redistricting Outrages May 15 17:45 DFL & Their Fair Share
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Redistricting Notes
Thursday night, I attended the St. Cloud League of Women Voters Forum on Redistricting. The featured experts were Larry Jacobs from the U of M and CSB's Kate Wolsborn. Wolsborn opened with a PowerPoint redistricting primer presentation. The PowerPoint presentation listed "Geographic representation, population representation, one person/one vote, competitive elections, majority rule" as past guidelines. Ms. Wolsborn also said that the "U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1973, equivalent population, contiguous compact boundaries, Conformity with existing political boundaries and preservation of communities of interest (social, cultural, ethnic & economic)" were principles used in drafting redistricting maps.
During his presentation, Professor Jacobs mentioned "the redistricting game" software as a way for citizens to get involved. He then said that former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz put together some principles for redistricting. Those principles are:
Don't dilute minority voting strengthProfessor Jacobs said that achieving all three of these principles in a single redistricting plan likely isn't possible. Nonetheless, he said that these goals are worth striving for. Informational- During her presentation, Ms. Wolsborn defined Communities of Interest as being "social, cultural, ethnic or economic" in nature.
Maintain city, county & township lines when possible.
Maintain communities of interest
Later, Professor Jacobs said that there weren't enough "public hearings" and that the public wasn't given the "opportunity to submit draft maps." On that count, Professor Jacobs isn't right. I wrote here that the House Redistricting Committee had held 13 hearings as of May 4. That's not including the public hearings in Hermantown, Marshall and Rochester.
I'd further submit that Common Cause MN and other organizations had websites with redistricting software tools available practically from the day the census data was released. Noticeably escaping Professor Jacobs wrath was the DFL legislature. To date, the DFL hasn't put their map together, at least not publicly.
I'd submit that it's impossible to put a redistricting map together that wins bipartisan support if the DFL refuses to participate in the drawing of the new maps. I'd further submit that the DFL's 'participation' thus far has been to criticize the Republicans' plan while pandering to their assortment of special interest groups.
Professor Jacobs also complained that politicians get to pick their constituents too often. He said in a democracy, it should be the other way around. Based on where the population shifts happened (both to and from), I'd argue that people picked their representation with their feet.
Looking at where the biggest population growth and the biggest population shrinkage tells a sobering tale to the DFL. People 'voted with their feet' for limited government representation, both at the federal, state and local levels.
They left the metro areas represented by the most liberal politicians and governed by the most reckless-spending mayors and city councils. People flocked to cities that were represented by fiscal conservatives and governed by mayors who worked hard to hold the line on spending.
Professor Jacobs talked about an initiative called "Putting Citizens First- A Civic Approach." Jacobs said it was an initiative put together by Walter Mondale and Arne Carlson. Their redistricting plan called for the following items:
Create an independent, non-partisan redistricting commission.Another highlight of the Q & A was Professor Jacobs talking briefly about Michael Brodkorb and MDE, saying that "while most of his writing was over-the-top partisan, he did break several big stories", later mentioning that Michael's reporting was right on the money on these big stories.
Five members made up of retired appellate court judges.
Each legislative leader would select one member, with the fifth member would be picked by the four appointees.
Retired appellate court judged that had served in elected office wouldn't be eligible to serve on this commission.
The final redistricting map will undoubtedly be drawn by the courts. Still, I'd argue that the House GOP redistricting map was a fair map. Accusations of partisanship should be ignored. The House Redistricting Committee can't ignore where the population shifts happened. They have to be factored into the final map.
While it's true that Gov. Dayton will veto this map, it's equally true, IMO, that he's vetoing it for partisan reasons, not because the map doesn't meet the criteria listed in past judicial rulings on redistricting.
Finally, I'd argue that it isn't possible to draw competitive districts in outstate Minnesota when many of the DFL legislative candidates are perceived as being too willing to vote the Metro DFL's way rather than voting their constituents' wishes. That's the reason, in my opinion, that the GOP-dominated portions of the state experienced the greatest population growth this past decade.
If people wanted to have input, they shouldn't have waited until the last minute. The census information has been available for months. I first looked at the breakdown by House district almost 2 months ago. It was obvious that this wouldn't turn out well for the DFL regardless of how much public input was given.
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 5:26 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-May-11 09:34 AM
The norm is that the majority party moves first. Blame the GOP for not moving more expeditiously.
It was deliberate sandbagging. Nothing less.
Waiting until the last minute before the deadline when, as you point out, redistiricting tools were promptly available on many fronts, is an affront to good governmental procedure.
The GOP's handling was elevating trickery to preeminence, and you complain against the minority for not acting quickly?
There is an inconsistency as to what is tolerated as okay for the majority, but called hindrance against the minority.
Until there was a majority proposal to react to, what would you have had the minority do?
Make sense.
Comment 2 by Stonewall Jackson at 13-May-11 10:09 AM
I'm not a native Minnesotan, thank God!
This idea of a Mondale-Carlson commission made up of the elites is classic Minnesotan, Lake Wobegon, mentality.
Let's have five elites on a commisison resolve the issues of today because, in Minnesota parlance, the people just are not elite-enough to vote for people who can do that job in the first place.
That's the Minnesota mentality and we see it time and time again in public policy discussions.
It makes me want to vomit!
Priorities Personified
According to this Strib article , the House/Senate conference report on transportation is telling government to establish better priorities. Here's how they're doing that:
The reduction in general fund money for Twin Cities transit would affect the Metropolitan Council regional planning agency, which operates the bus and rail system. The cut eliminates all but $20 million in general fund money to the council for transit.At a time when money is tight, state agencies should propose budget cuts to things like lobbying and PR campaigns. They simply shouldn't be a priority. I'd further argue that it's obscene to think that taxpayer-funded agencies would use some of the taxpayers' money to lobby for more money from the taxpayers who thought that their taxes went for things like fixing potholes, maintaining roads and bridges and other high priority items, not for lobbying and PR campaigns.
Met Council chair Susan Haigh had opposed the cuts, calling them "devastating." She said they could result in a 25-cent fare increase and substantial service cuts. Recently, the Met Council warned it might eliminate weekend service.
The transportation bill instructs the Met Council to rely on money from housing programs if needed to run transit. The bill also suggests the Met Council tap money used to pay for agency public relations and lobbying.
For Susan Haigh to say that spending cuts are devastating is insulting in that she obviously didn't offer to shrink her lobbying and PR budgets. The fact that her first instinct is to raise fares rather than cut lobbying and PR budgets is actually quite instructive. In fact, it says everything that needs to be said about the DFL's budgeting approach the past decade.
Everyone's tightening their fiscal belts. The Met Council shouldn't be exempt from that belt-tightening. The fact that they planned on raising fares before shrinking their PR and lobbying budgets tells me that the Met Council isn't serious about being part of the solution, that they're content with overspending to their heart's content, then raising taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending.
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 6:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-May-11 07:31 AM
Met Council, fire the planners. They represent developer interests, which the developers themselves can represent without citizen subsidy of things like the beating up done by Met Council on Lake Elmo.
Rational transporation prioritization means something besides the highway in front of Molnau's farm, hence, change is due on ALL fronts.
Zygi's brownfield included.
Met Council is a basket case. Bandaids will not work. There is a fundamental hatred it causes, witness Wright and Shurberne Counties compelling will to stay out of "metro" designation.
A big part of pushing growth from that body, with its outrageously high quotas for communities doing the periodic comprehensive plans, is to sell hook-ups and flushes, to service and retire Pigs Eye debt. They will plow under the burbs to grow housing, if they could, but this economy will not allow it.
Ted Mondale's "Smart Growth" failed, with several communities left holding the bag. Lift a few rocks. What's Mondale's activity record between Met Council and the Stadium pom-pom squad leadership?
The Met Council has been spoiled, and cutting planning payroll would be my suggestion for belt tightening. Run busses, operate Pigs Eye, quit beating up on the Lake Elmo communities with the will to say no to prostituting themselves to growth. Many in north metro burb government, and in the towns dislike compelled comprehensive planning. Call it "central planning" to juice up a part of the GOP reflex-action core, but that entire operation has gotten way too far out of hand.
Comment 2 by C Quigley at 13-May-11 08:34 AM
Eliminate MetCon altogether. If they can't handle a 25 cent fare increase while the rest of us have had to eat a dollar plus increase in fuel costs, they have no business being in the transit business.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 13-May-11 08:47 PM
Cutting the Met Council budget I get. Doing it this way I don't get, letting MC play the layoff police, teachers game. And since Transit largely serves working poor, disproportionately black, GOP could get a huge black eye out of this.
Maybe this is a high stakes gamble, that if MC tries to cut service, Legislature can then proceed to eliminate the MC next session.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-May-11 07:26 AM
Rex, I think there's growing momentum to pressure the Met Council in 2012, with the intent of dissolving it or shrinking it in the future.
Quite the Admission
This WSJ article , written by Art Laffer and Stephen Moore, makes a rather stunning statement on the state of private sector unions. It's made in the context of the NLRB's ruling against Boeing. Here's what jumped off the page at me:
A recent New York Times editorial justified the NLRB decision by arguing that unions are suffering from "the flight of companies to 'Right-to-Work' states where workers cannot be required to join a union." That's for sure, and quite an admission. We've been observing that migration pattern for years, but liberals have denied it's actually happening - until now.
Why wouldn't businesses migrate to right-to-work states? The things that businesses crave are cost certainty and sane regulation levels. That's what right-to-work states offer, often in conjunction with lower tax rates. Because the trend has been to move to right-to-work states, right-to-work states have been able to upgrade their education systems while also offering businesses stable labor, regulatory and taxing environments.
This is a stunning statistic, too:
Every year we rank the states on their economic competitiveness in a report called "Rich States, Poor States" for the American Legislative Exchange Council. This ranking uses 15 fiscal, tax and regulatory variables to determine which states have policies that are most conducive to prosperity. Two of these 15 policies have consistently stood out as the most important in predicting where jobs will be created and incomes will rise. First, states with no income tax generally outperform high income tax states. Second, states that have right-to-work laws grow faster than states with forced unionism.
The thing that make these statistics powerful is because it isn't about partisanship. Art Laffer and Stephen Moore are economists first and foremost. They go where the information takes them.
That all states don't adopt their findings is astonishing. If it's proven that states that don't have income taxes "outpeform states with high income taxes", why wouldn't states adopt Laffer's and Moore's recommendations? I suspect it's because some governors are too wedded to their progressive ideology to accept success and prosperity.
We're living in a post-union world, mostly because people have rejected the unions' protest tactics, the unions' policies and the direction of unions' political contributions. Non-union people have also rejected a world-view that demands striking as a means to earn raises and promotions.
The NLRB's ham-handedness doesn't help the rank-and-file brethren in their neighborhoods, their churches and around town. That matters in winning the big fights. And the NLRB's Boeing ruling is a big fight.
These statistics are stunning:
As of today there are 22 right-to-work states and 28 union-shop states. Over the past decade (2000-09) the right-to-work states grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts : 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.
The stunner for me is the payroll number. The doubling of the right-to-work state populations vs. union-shop states is pretty eye-opening, too. These aren't numbers that suggest that there's an ongoing dispute in the matter. These numbers suggest that that argument has been settled.
That the NLRB is attempting to tell a company where it can and can't locate is beyond extreme. It's utterly absurd. In fact, I think a case can be made that the NLRB's ruling smacks of fascism. Here's the first definition of fascism in Dictionary.com :
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism
The NLRB is certainly attempting to dictate what companies can and can't do. They're attempting to intimidate companies. Their attempt will fail, mostly because companies can't afford to take them seriously.
I suspect that right-to-work states will continue to grow in numbers, strength and influence. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that pace accelerates the next 3-5 years.
In the end, the Obama administration's NLRB will get slapped down by the judiciary as being a ham-handed threat to capitalism. In short, it will be seen like much of the Obama administration is seen: a laughingstock portion of presidential history, a failure to be eliminated ASAP.
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-May-11 06:36 AM
Is the premise that screwing workers is a good thing? That US labor should be treated as unfit, because it objects to sweatshop status? The flight is to Asian sweatshop operations. Play that on your iPad, made at one such operation in mainland China. Tweet it from your 4G superphone, ditto.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 07:32 AM
That's quite the illogical rant you had there. Didn't you see the statistic that says right-to-work state employees earn higher wages??? That's verifiable information provided by the Labor Department. That means your sweatshop rant is laughable paranoia. Sweatshop??? Eric, you can do better than that.
Sad Day For Twins Fans
As a passionate, lifelong Twins fan, it was difficult to read this news :
Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew said Friday he will no longer fight his esophageal cancer and is settling in for the final days of his life.One of my favorite memories as a teenager is thinking back to the night I met Mr. Killebrew. He was the featured guest at the grand opening of the St. Cloud Crown Auto store on Division Street. Every kid that played Little League or sandlot baseball was there. (Or so it seemed.)
The Minnesota Twins released a statement on Friday from Killebrew, who said he has "exhausted all options" for treatment of the "awful disease" and that the cancer is incurable.
"It is with profound sadness that I share with you that my continued battle with esophageal cancer is coming to an end," he said. "My illness has progressed beyond my doctors' expectation of cure."
The 74-year-old Killebrew said he will enter hospice care.
"I am comforted by the fact that I am surrounded by my family and friends," he said, thanking fans and well-wishers for their support and encouragement. "I look forward to spending my final days in comfort and peace with (wife) Nita by my side."
Harmon wore as big a smile that night as he did throughout his illustrious career. Throughout his illustrious career, Harmon was as great an ambassador to the game as has ever lived. Simply put, Harmon wasn't just one of the 5 greatest home run hitters of all time (behind Ruth, Aaron & Mays). Harmon was a true fan of the game. Besides, he was one of the greatest gentlemen to ever play the game. (In that respect, the Twins have his modern-day equivalent in Jim Thome.)
Let's remember that Harmon essentially played his entire career in spacious outdoor stadiums. As spacious as Target Field is, it would be swallowed up by Old Met Stadium with room to spare. Just to the right field side of center field was 430 feet. The power allies were 365 feet in left, 370 in right. Down the lines were 343 in left, 330 in right.
Had he played in the Metrodome, I'd argue that you should've tacked at least another 100 onto his home run total.
Typical Harmon home runs weren't the type that just landed 6-7 rows deep in straightaway left. They were "no-doubters" as Herb Carneal used to say. I remember watching Harmon shatter a seat in the upper deck at the Met on the nightly news. It was estimated that that ball travelled 535 feet. Suffice it to say that the wind wasn't blowing out that day.
Joe Garagiola had a saying reserved for the biggest mashers. He'd say [fill in the name] can hit the ball out of any park in America, including Yellowstone. That would've fit Harmon to a Tee.
Now baseball is losing one of its greatest ambassadors, one of its great gentlemen. It's a sad, sad day for this over-grown teenager-at-heart to think that the man who provided so many great memories will soon be leaving us.
If baseball had more Harmon Killebrews, it'd still be the most popular sport in America. In fact, America could use more decent, straightforward people like Harmon.
Harmon, I'll miss hearing you in the Twins booth twice a year. May God pour out His blessings on you.
Posted Friday, May 13, 2011 12:02 PM
No comments.
From Serious Candidate to Laughingstock
In July of 2009, the Minnesota DFL and the DCCC had high hopes for Tarryl Clark, especially because she was seen as the silver bullet that would end Michele Bachmann's career.
I noted in this post in March, 2010, that Tarryl faced a steep uphill climb to defeat Michele:
Tarryl knows she's facing a tough fight this election. Even if everything falls into place for her, she will still likely lose because she still doesn't fit the district well. Still, I expect her to fight hard through until that first Tueday in November.
That prediction turned into reality this past November when Michele defeated Tarryl by 13 points in a race that was never close.
Fast forward to last Saturday when this news appeared in news stories:
Clark says she and her husband, Doug, bought a home in Duluth a few months ago. Asked if that makes her vulnerable to charges of moving for personal political gain Clark had this response:
"I have deep roots and connections and you know no one of us can be from every community," Clark said. "I'm certainly proud of central Minnesota and I love northeastern Minnesota and believe that honestly, this is not about me, it's about all of us coming together to create change."
When asked about the possibility that the congressional lines could be redrawn, Clark says it's too important to wait for the final map to be drawn.
TRANSLATION: I hate not being an elected somebody. I crave power. I must have power. It's all about the power.
Tarryl's decision turned her into a statewide laughingstock to the point that the St. Cloud Times, a newspaper that had endorsed her multiple times in the past, wrote this Our View editorial :
That's definitely the case for DFLer Tarryl Clark, who this week made statewide news by announcing she was, ahem, moving to Duluth solely in anticipation of running for Congress in 2012. This board sees her action making several statements. Among the most notable:
Personal ambitions No. 1
She is unequivocally putting her personal ambitions at the top of her priorities list. Granted, many politicians, especially those seeking federal elected offices, probably have 'personal ambitions' in that spot. However, most recognize they can't blatantly acknowledge that, at least until they actually win federal office.
Yet Clark's 'move' to Duluth, which is reported as buying a condominium but by no means completely leaving St. Cloud, does just that.
Ironically, in trying to win a job that's supposed to be all about public service, Clark charts a path that makes connecting with that public almost an after-thought. Perhaps it's naive, but familiarity with any congressional district, its people and their issues should matter in elections. Apparently they don't matter as much to Clark as finding the quickest path to Washington.
The day after Clark's announcement, Rep. Sarah Anderson's Redistricting Committee released the new congressional redistricting map. If the map is accepted by the courts, Tarryl's home will, at minimum, be in the Seventh District.
In that district, Tarryl doesn't have a chance. She'd get trounced again.
The Times Editorial Board is right in saying that Tarryl's announcement exposes her primary motivating factor as personal avarice. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of avarice :
insatiable greed for riches; inordinate, miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth
Tarryl clearly craves elected power. It isn't about being a public servant. It's about Tarryl first, last and always.
Whatever the redistricting resolution is, the reality is that Tarryl Clark's career ended this week because she exposed the fact that she's a machine politician, not a public servant.
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:27 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 14-May-11 01:57 PM
The sad thing is that if Tarryl was able to get a home in the 8th district and win the nomination, the DFLers would gladly accept this carpetbagger as their representative. No different than ol' Hillary. The democrats don't care who you are or were you came from as long as you're not a republican.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-May-11 03:07 PM
She'd get her ass kicked running against a Republican like State Sen. John Carlson. That's my prediction & I'm certain of that.
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-May-11 06:32 AM
You are confusing Michele Bachmann and Tarryl Clark, when using the term laughingstock.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 07:28 AM
No, I'm not. By playing the carpetbagger, Tarryl has exposed herself as the political equivalent of a gold-digger. I'd also add that she's never been a great policy person. She's just been a great self-promoter. Once you get beyond the polished veneer, you realize that there's nothing else there.
Elitism Run Amok at SCSU?
It's long been believed that political correctness and uniformity have ruled college campuses for a generation. Julie Condon's YTE does nothing to change people's minds on that:
Those of us who have asthma, upon seeing a smoker at a doorway, do not have to time when we will inhale and exhale, closing our eyes as we pass, to avoid the potentially deadly cloud of stench, which envelopes us, stinging the eyes and flaring the nose.
In addition, smoking carries social stigma. This is not something others want to know about you, especially those whom you might ask to recommend or employ you.
A cigarette in a student's hand near a doorway gives many negative messages to me.
BULLETIN TO MS. CONDON: This isn't just about you.
According to Ms. Condon, people shouldn't smoke because smoking "carries social stigma" and because smoking might trigger an asthma attack if the smoker indulges too close to a university doorway and, besides, people don't like it.
First, who made her the campus policymaker and campus police? Second, When did non-smokers, of which I'm one, become entitled to getting everything we demand but smokers lose all rights? Who appointed Ms. Condon the ultimate arbiter of all things good and evil? Finally, Ms. Condon cites one past solution. Why shouldn't we think that there's a better way to make sure people with legitimate asthma worries aren't adversely affected while still letting smokers smoke?
Might it be that Ms. Condon isn't as worried about health issues as she's worried about health issues AND controlling people's lives?
I posit that 92 percent of the St. Cloud State population should not have to endure the sight, stench and voluminous garbage created by smokers at our workplace and school. We expect better at a university.
I think that's grounds for an 'I know better control freak' warning. I'd posit that that's verification that Ms. Condon is a control freak who enjoys controlling other people's lives. Who put Ms. Condon in charge of being the official SCSU control freak?
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-May-11 06:30 AM
A guest post from Captain Fishsticks?
Comment 2 by Bill C at 15-May-11 10:31 AM
"I'd posit that that's verification that Ms. Condon is a control freak who enjoys controlling other people's lives."
I'd add the idea that she is well on her way to being a DFL politician.
DFL's Lame Redistricting Strategy
Initially, I thought that the DFL didn't have a redistricting strategy. Based on the whining they're doing today, it's obvious that they've got a redistricting strategy. It's just that their redistricting strategy doesn't include drawing a map.
Part of the DFL's redistricting strategy is doing a hatchet job on the House GOP redistricting map:
Even though the hearings on redistricting have been help with very short notice, Republicans have taken heat from the public indicating more discussion about the plan is really desired. The conversations between Redistricting committee chair Anderson and testifiers have been terse. During the only House public hearing held on the legislative redistricting plan since it was released, Representative Anderson interrupted non-partisan testimony from Mankato City Manager Tom Hedges when he used the word 'gerrymander' to describe one of the lines in the Republican map. She objected to the use of the word and interrupted him twice more and then dismissed him before he could finish his testimony.
I watched that hearing. It was apparent that Mr. Hedges wasn't interested in facts. He was just intent on making that accusation. If a testifier isn't telling the truth, which Mr. Hedges wasn't, then committee chairs are within their rights to correct the testifier.
I'd also add that public officials don't have the right to make statements that can't be verified. It's their obligation to stick with the facts. If he wanted to voice his disagreement with the lines, that's acceptable. He's out of bounds the minute he intentionally mischaracterizes the district.
Representative Karen Clark (DFL) then asked Anderson to 'show mutual respect'. We have people who have come a long distance. If you could, please adopt an attitude of lets listen to the witnesses first and then the kind of correction you just wanted to make, go ahead and do it afterwards. I feel I really didn't get to hear the end of what the concern was of that particular witness. So I'm hoping for the subsequent witnesses we can actually hear them out and if you want to make sure that they understand something about the process you don't think they understand that would be OK. But we didn't really get to hear the whole concern. Let's just be a little more calm and mutually respectful.
Anderson replied 'I would like the respect on this level as well. When people say that this plan is 'gerrymandered', I take great offense to that. This plan is a good plan that is fair to the entire state of Minnesota and when someone accuses me and this committee of putting together a gerrymandered plan I find that offensive.'
Mr. Hedges' testimony was offensive. He didn't care about the facts. He didn't care that he'd been called on his dishonesty. He was there with his hatchet and he was going to make sure his hatchet got planted firmly in the GOP's back.
Rep. Clark asked for mutual respect. That's fine, Rep. Clark, but the key to that phrase is MUTUAL. Mr. Hedges didn't show any respect for the truth and he certainly didn't respect the committee's integrity.
Finally, the map speaks for itself. Mr. Hedges attempted to bring a hatchet to the testifying table. His biggest difficulty is that the map says that he's wrong.
Another part of the DFL's redistricting strategy is to complain that the Republicans is steamrolling the DFL:
State Senate DFL leaders Saturday accused Republican lawmakers of steam rolling the redistricting plans through the Legislature.
"We have strong disagreements about the process that you and the House majorities are employing to pass redistricting bills that you know will be vetoed by the Governor," Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, and DFL redistricting lead Sen. Ann Rest, of New Hope, wrote to the Republican Senate leaders.
The Democrats said Republicans moved so quickly in the process that some of their meetings didn't even meet the minimum public notice requirements, the letter said.
"Your approach has been to steamroller principles and maps through the House and Senate," they wrote.
The Senate GOP quickly responded:
"It's not accurate," Deputy Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel said of the letter. Michel is a Republican from Edina and the chair of the Senate redistricting committee.
"Sen. Koch and I, multiple times, reached out to both Sen. Rest and Sen. Bakk," he said. But they never heard back.
"We've been here five months. We are going to get our work done on time, which means a redistricting plan. They've had all that they need...They have staff they have budget they have machinery. They certainly have experience. And they've chosen to offer no amendments, so far, to offer no plan and to not get back to us, except now with a letter and they're a week and a few days left," said Michel. "They've sat on the bench for a budget and they've sat on the bench for redistricting."
The DFL hasn't done anything this session in either the Senate or House on the budget or redistricting except whined that they don't like the Republicans' plans.
As part of the Senate DFL's complaint, the DFL issued this letter:
May 14 Letter
On Page 2, Sen. Bakk and Sen. Rest propose these things:
1. In the interest of promoting bipartisan discussions, we will not be introducing any redistricting plans for the rest of this session.
2. Let's develop joint redistricting principles that are truly open and fair. We should invite nonpartisan academics or other nonpartisan experts to vet the content and the structure of potential principles and indices to remove all partisan bias.
3. Let's take our plan out to the community for public comment. We suggest one meeting each in each of the congressional districts over the interim. Let's open the process for the people to submit their own plans.
4. Then let's try and come up with and pass a truly nonpartisan plan when we return next year that will be signed by the Governor.
The thought that the DFL is interested in a truly nonpartisan plan is absurd. Redistricting is a partisan issue. Let's not pretend it isn't.
Second, let's not pretend like the "nonpartisan academics" aren't liberal poli-sci professors. Let's not pretend like they won't bring with them their partisan biases.
Finally, the fact that the DFL didn't use their analysts, software and hardware already to produce a redistricting map is infuriating. It's irresponsible in the most disgusting way.
The taxpayers paid DFL legslators and staffers to get the people's work done. Thus far, the DFL legislators' constituents and Minnesota's other taxpayers have gotten cheated by the DFL.
That's something that I'll remind independent voters from tonight through the first Tuesday in November, 2012. That I'll guarantee.
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:28 PM
Comment 1 by Bill C at 15-May-11 10:38 AM
It's the same on the national level as it is on the state level. When the Dems/DFL are in control, they have no interest in being bipartisan or "working together". When they are out of power, then the calls for "bipartisanship" and "working together" are bleated out.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:47 AM
"In the interest of promoting bipartisan discussions, we will not be introducing any redistricting plans for the rest of this session."
IF the Dems were truly interested in "promoting bipartisan discussion" then they would put forward a map as a starting point FOR discussions. The fact that they refuse to put a map forward bespeaks their lies.
LL
More Redistricting Outrages
This evening, Senate GOP Communications Director Michael Brodkorb posted this tweet :
@SenateDFL redistricting staffer= $66000; DFL Workstation= $3500, DFL Plotter= $11000, DFL Printer= $3500, DFL Software= $10000 #nomaps
I wrote in this post that the Senate DFL leadership is now proposing to not draw any maps the rest of this session:
1. In the interest of promoting bipartisan discussions, we will not be introducing any redistricting plans for the rest of this session.
2. Let's develop joint redistricting principles that are truly open and fair. We should invite nonpartisan academics or other nonpartisan experts to vet the content and the structure of potential principles and indices to remove all partisan bias.
3. Let's take our plan out to the community for public comment. We suggest one meeting each in each of the congressional districts over the interim. Let's open the process for the people to submit their own plans.
4. Then let's try and come up with and pass a truly nonpartisan plan when we return next year that will be signed by the Governor.
In other words, the Senate DFL spent $94,000 of the taxpayers' money on the personnel and equipment they needed to put a redistricting map together, then refused to propose a map in committee.
Minnesota, how does it feel to know that the DFL spent $94,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars on redistricting personnel, software and hardware, then see them refuse to create a redistricting map? Does that make you feel happy? Or are you infuriated that they're using the personnel, software and hardware to create the map that they'll submit for the appeal?
Now that the DFL confirmed that the DFL isn't putting a redistricting map together, it's appropriate that Minnesota taxpayers hold DFL legislators' feet to the fire for wasting the taxpayers' money. That money is wasted because the Senate DFL refused to accept responsibility for something that's done once a decade. It's one of their affirmative responsibilities and they failed miserably.
According to the Senate's employee list , Vic Thorstensen is the DFL's Redistricting Specialist. If you wish to express your outrage, Mr. Thorstensen can be reached at 651-297-8070.
Remember that I've just talked about the Senate DFL thus far.
Let's remember that the redistricting money is split 4 ways. There's the Senate GOP budget, the House GOP budget, the Senate DFL budget and the House DFL budget. That budget includes money for staffing, redistricting software and the computers and workstations that utilize the redistricting software.
According to the House staff directory , the DFL redistricting analyst is Jaime Tincher. Tom Des Lauriers is the DFL's Redistricting Technician in the House. (Des Lauriers' phone number is 651-296-6650; Ms. Tincher's number is 651-296-3909 if you'd like to ask them what they've done to earn their salaries.)
That's alot of staff to hire and not get any work product from it. Again, I ask Minnesotans whether they got their money's worth from the DFL this year. They didn't produce a budget plan. They didn't generate a redistricting map.
What the DFL has done is complain that the Republicans' plan doesn't spend enough on the DFL's special interest allies and it doesn't tax Minnesota's job creators enough. Rep. Thissen has specialized in that. Meanwhile, Sen,. Bakk has spent his time insisting that the GOP doesn't understand St. Paul's convoluted ways.
While Sen. Bakk might be right about that, I'd argue that I'd wear that as a badge of honor. I don't consider it a great accomplishment to understand totally twisted logic and wasteful government.
Shame on the Do-Nothing DFL legislature. They've avoided responsibility because they didn't produce anything of consequence in terms of a redistricting map or a budget.
Rest assured that this blog will remind Minnesotans that the DFL wasted upwards of $200,000 on redistricting staff in the House and Senate, redistricting software and the computers to run the DFL's redistricting software while not creating a single state legislative or U.S. Congressional district map.
The DFL owes Minnesotans an apology for not taking responsibility for their part of the budget or redistricting. The DFL can't say with a straight face that they've had a productive session.
Posted Saturday, May 14, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-May-11 06:25 AM
It looks as if Brodkorb is becoming more of the spokesperson for GOP leadership, while Sutton is reported now by Strib as resigning from CAGE.
Is this only an outsider's perception, or is Sutton taking a back seat, with Brodkorb more the full time party leader?
And, what's the GOP position on gambling, tribal and expanded?
It seems there is none.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 07:22 AM
Brodkorb is the Senate GOP Communications Director. His talking about redistricting is simply explained. It's part of his official responsibility.
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 15-May-11 08:36 AM
Speaking of productive, have you gotten a job yet so that we hardworking taxpayers can stop paying for your do nothingness?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 02:12 PM
Chad, it's best that you understand that Eric's comments aren't on topic. He's a hater whose comments are proof of his hating. He's fed at the public trough all his life but he's criticized people who've used the government's safety from time to time.
Let me set the record straight once for all time to come. Yes, I'm enrolled in MinnesotaCare. That's the only form of government assistance I've ever received. PERIOD. I've lived off of my 401(k) plus some contracting income doing research for various companies. These contracting jobs are TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of this blog.
If Eric Austin wants to show his 'tolerance' by being a hate machine, I can't prevent that. In fact, I won't worry again whether he's critical of me about anything. He just isn't that important to me.
It's worth noting that Eric can't argue that the DFL has been productive. He didn't attempt it because he'd be utterly ridiculed for arguing that the DFL is interested in being part of the solution. Whether they've been the majority or the minority, the DFL has refused to put an official budget together. In fact, in 2009, then-Speaker Kelliher admitted that they wouldn't be putting an official budget together. That's verifiable fact. At the time, she said that they'd "be working off of the governor's budget."
Now the gutless wonders are sitting on the sidelines, whining that we aren't spending enough & that we aren't killing enough jobs by raising taxes on Minnesota's job creators. If the DFL wants to go to a special session by claiming that we aren't feeding government enough & that we aren't raising taxes, then let's have that fight. It's a fight that they'll lose bigtime on.
Comment 3 by Chad Quigley at 15-May-11 09:28 AM
Way to stay on topic Eric A. Again, the whole problem with the GOP is that they do not get this info out to the public. The DFL is ready and willing to step up to the mic/camera and whine that they aren't getting their way while the GOP just sits back and takes it without so much as a peep, well except for the tweet.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 02:18 PM
Chad, I'm perfectly willing to hold the DFL & Gov. Dayton accountable. To do that, though, I need to be able to pay my bills. I can continue holding the DFL accountable if people like you drop a few dollars in the tip jar at the bottom of the page.
I'm good at reporting things accurately. I love transcribing hey exchanges in committee hearings & I'm not afraid to call people out when they aren't doing their jobs.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 15-May-11 11:32 AM
And they want to postpone the whole redistricting thing until next year? Whatever for? I mean, we know their knee-jerk and only reaction to the GOP plan is going to be to scream about it, but if that's the only plan "we" have, what are "our" choices? Or theirs? If you can't show us a better plan, if only by your own yardstick and after spending a boodle of OUR money trying, then just quit trying to tell us you can.
Comment 5 by Eric Austin at 15-May-11 08:02 PM
"He's a hater whose comments are proof of his hating. He's fed at the public trough all his life but he's criticized people who've used the government's safety from time to time."
Oh that's classic. I have a job and pay dearly for my own health care and I am "feeding at the public trough" and YOU are just temporarily using the government's safety? If that doesn't show how blind you are to your own hypocrisy I don't know what does.
I don't hate you, Gary. I have too much other shit to do to put the time in it takes to hate. I do, however, think you are a hypocrite and a mindless drone whose sole purpose is to repeat whatever the Republicans say as gold and denigrate everything that the DFL says. So, my purpose from time to time is to stop by and remind you about your hypocrisy and inaccuracies.
You aren't even brave enough (just like your bromance Steve Gottwalt) to allow me to follow you on twitter.
As for this post, what can I say other than meh. It is really just you whining and it wouldn't really matter what the DFL did you would still whine about it so forgive me if I don't really care what you think the DFL minorities should or shouldn't be doing.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 15-May-11 09:22 PM
So you've told Tom Dooher to stop lobbying the legislature for increased funding while the state is broke, right???
If you don't hate me & you haven't been able to prove me wrong yet in your Gross Inaccuracies posts, then what is your motivation? As for "repeating whatever the Republicans say as gold", you've been wrong about that since the start. You're just too hateful to admit that I'm a leader, not a follower.
As for blocking you on Twitter, I've got better things to do than deal with your BS.
Finally, the DFL hasn't done the people's business from the start of this session. They've whined. They've refused to put a redistricting map together after the taxpayers paid upwards of $200,000 for their redistricting team & probably another $35,000 for the computers & redistricting software. That'll play well when the publis hears about that, won't it? They've even refused to sponsor Dayton's budget.
The reality is that the DFL has a spending plan for $37,000,000,000. They've got a budget for $34,300,000,000 because they won't vote for tax increases. That's prove historical fact. This DFL legislature is filled with gutless wonders & smack-talking windbags. There isn't a leader in the bunch. Go stick that in your pipe & smoke it.
Comment 6 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:44 AM
Eric A - well what would you call it if you begrudge a retiree (who happens to not agree with your political opinion) access to affordable healthcare? If hater is not an accurate word what is?
OH - maybe hypocrite? Or possibly just a rank mean-spirited political hack?
Which is it Eric?
LL
DFL & Their Fair Share
Saturday night, I wrote two posts highlighting the DFL's strategy this session, which might best be described as playing the innocent bystander while the GOP majorities do the heavy lifting.
Rep. Thissen, the House Minority Leader, has whined all session about the GOP not spending enough on the DFL's special interest allies or forcing Minnesota's job creators to "pay their fair share" of taxes. Ineptly assisted by his trusty sidekick Rep. Winkler, this dynamic duo has given a new definition to the term do-nothing congress.
That's before talking about Sen. Bakk, Rep. Thissen's brush buck sidekick from northern Minnesota. Sen. Bakk announced in a letter that the Senate DFL wouldn't be putting a redistricting map for the rest of this session.
Color me shocked...shocked that they'd admit that they're admitting that the DFL hasn't contributed their fair share of ideas to solve Minnesota's biggest problems. That's because they're so involved in playing political angles while hoping that Republicans make a major mistake.
It's best to be brutally honest right upfront in situations like these. Republicans won't make a major mistake anytime soon. Conversely, the DFL won't propose any viable solutions to Minnesota's economic and budgetary problems anytime soon.
Unless they start putting real solutions on the table that fix the deficit and restore Minnesota's prosperity, the DFL should expect to stay in the minority for a good little while.
People crave solutions and leadership. The DFL hasn't offered them either. If anything, they've proven to be the most crass political opportunists and cheapshot artists. They won't say what they're for except in the most general terms and by saying more. As in more spending and more taxes.
Except that their supposed convictions haven't translated into support for Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. For that matter, it hasn't translated into support for any tax-the-rich scheme.
That isn't a profile in political courage. That's the profile of a solutionless, idealess political party whose only goal is to accumulate or maintain political power.
Minnesotans demand more than that. That's why the DFL is the minority party in the Senate for the first time since it became a partisan body in 1972. That's how they went from having a veto-proof majority in the upper chamber and an 87-47 seat supermajority in the House to minority party status in both houses in a single election.
A long list of whiny-sounding complaints doesn't a positive agenda make. The good news for Republicans is that the DFL's inaction, coupled with redistricting, will make it easier to maintain and increase the Republicans' House and Senate majorities.
While the DFL is critical of seemingly everything the GOP does, they've refused to offer an alternative. (That's if you accept that more of everything from taxes to spending on the DFL's special interest allies isn't an alternative.)
If I was advising campaigns next summer, I'd tell all the GOP candidates campaigning in swing districts to emphasize that the DFL incumbent in that district refused to lift a finger on any of their policy beliefs.
The DFL isn't a solutions-oriented political party. That's why they'll lose big again in 2012.
Posted Sunday, May 15, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-May-11 07:01 PM
Remember they pretty much did nothing when they DID have the power, last year. They demanded to see Pawlenty's budget, then spent the next 3 months doing nothing but wailing about how terrible it was, without offering an alternative. That was followed by passing a budget which didn't even come close to balancing, literally in the last 5 minutes, followed by a tax increase that they KNEW Pawlenty would veto. That's almost worse than nothing. So, when Pawlenty did what he had promised and was required to do, make the required cuts, the DFL then SUED to prevent the budget from being balanced. That IS worse than nothing, that's actively trying to make matters worse. Then, having mysteriously won, they come back into session and basically rubber-stamp exactly what Pawlenty had done.
Just think, if we had knocked a few more doors for Emmer, we wouldn't even have to listen to these people!
