May 9-10, 2011
May 09 04:17 Conference Committee Fireworks May 09 11:50 Tarryl's Travels & Travails May 09 17:20 Conference Committee Fight Intensifies May 10 02:40 Fisking Rep. Thissen's Op-ed May 10 09:52 Veterans Fight Intensifies, MMB Edition
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Conference Committee Fireworks
Last Friday, the State Government Finance conference committee met in the hopes of putting a bill on Gov. Dayton's desk. What happened instead was a tiresome charade by Gov. Dayton's commissioners.
Follow this link if you'd like to watch the video. Otherwise, here are my transcripts of the key portions of the conference committee hearings. (Keep in mind that a roomful of military veterans were seated right behind Gov. Dayton's commissioners the entire time.) Here's the first combative exchange:
SEN. PARRY: Commssioner, you have to realize that we have given discretion to MMB and, I guess, what concerns me is that the direction that the Senate has set of holding harmless because of the nature of the veterans that anyone would go against our intent...I guess that's what bothers me here is that knowing what the Senate's stance is that the commissioner of MMB would target you for more cuts and your department.
(INAUDIBLE)
COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER: The figures that you see and the impacts that you see are on average. So on point, if the commissioner of Management and Budget were to use as his or her discretion to put a lower cut on Veterans Affairs at some point in time, that means that somebody is unwittingly testifying that the effects of this provision are not as severe as they are about to be.
SEN. PARRY: So, Commissioner, what you are saying is that this administration and the Governor want us to leave Veterans on the table for future cuts? Is that what you're telling us?
COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER: Senator, what I am telling you is that the language has substantial impact on all elements of state government and, as it's currently construed, would be nearly impossible to implement without having dramatic impacts on many, many activities.
SEN. PARRY: I'm not sure I got the answer I was looking for Commissioner. Are you saying that this administration and the Governor want us to leave Veterans on the table for future cuts?
COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER: Mr. Chairman, I am not here to negotiate over the language. I'm just here to help provide information on the impact on the language from the House and Senate proposals.
SEN. VANDEVEER: Sen. Parry, I think what I'm hearing the Commissioner saying is that, due to the sensitive political nature of the veterans, that they are willing to throw them under the bus in order to make a broader point that they're being totally cut too extremely so, regardless of which direction this committee or this legislature should go, it sounds to me like their intent is to play political games and they're willing to do that regardless of what the truth is.
Commissioner Showalter's evasive answers clearly put the committee in a fowl mood. Rather than reply to their questions with straightforward answers, Commissioner Showalter was more interested in giving the Dayton administration's worst case scenarios the most authentic appearance possible.
Shortly thereafter, Chairman Lanning expressed his disgust with Commissioner Shellito, the commissioner of Veterans Affairs:
REP. LANNING: Commissioner General, you know that the Veterans budget is the only budget that got an increase and it seems to me that that sends a pretty clear signal of what our intent is that both the House and the Senate want to protect veterans and military affairs. There should be no mistake about that because it's very clear because everybody else got cuts. If you take a look at the intent further on the House side, we're doing everything possible we can to protect nursing homes. If you think that the House is intent on having veterans facilities suffer consequences here that would be problematic, then you're misunderstanding the intent.
That's why I'm disappointed that, for whatever reason, you have apparently been given impressions that are not accurate and have led to very serious misunderstanding that we need to address. If there are suggestions that we could do to get more comfort here in stating our intent, then let's talk about that.
But let's not go scaring people into thinking that something is going to happen when that's not likely to happen.
SHELLITO: Rep. Lanning, I appreciate that and I understand your frustration but I would then give you my viewpoint. Yes, you've given us a 3% increase in the omnibus bill, both sides. Thank you. That I understand. But my mission is to protect the veterans in this room so I only go with the language that I have, which is the omnibus bill as written.
And as I look at it, I see the vagueness of the 15%. I see the vagueness of the 10% and doing my due diligence requires me to...I cannot get into your head and get what you're really thinking. I couldn't get into the committee's head to know what they're thinking so I had to provide the...and you said it quite eloquently, the worst, worst, worst case scenario. And again, I apologize for that. I don't want to do that. I value how you've treated the veterans in the past.
REP. LANNING: General-Commissioner, we've known each other since high school.
SHELLITO: Yes sir.
REP. LANNING: A simple phone call maybe could've cleared up some of the simple misunderstanding if you were lacking and let this be a lesson to us all. Before we go spouting off in a public sort of way, then maybe we go to the source or have some conversation about it.
The fact that Commissioner Shellito and Chairman Lanning knew each other in high school is telling in that, despite the fact that Commissioner Shellito had questions, he didn't bother calling his old friend who is the vice-chair of this conference committee. Instead, Commissioner Shellito misrepresented the GOP's bill as hurting veterans.
Again, remember that the two rows behind Commissioners Shellito and Showalter were filled with retired military vets dressed in military garb while Shellito was making these accusations that veterans were getting cut.
Shortly thereafter, things boiled over:
CHAIRMAN PARRY: General, I do admire your position. I do know that you are a soldier. And I know that when soldiers are given orders, they carry them out to the fullest and I admire you for doing that. My concern is, for all in here who are veterans, it's time that this administration quits using veterans as a political pawn. I don't think I have to say anymore. Stop it.
Chairman Parry isn't the type that gets hot under the collar often. In that context, that statement was downright vesuvial. It was also justified. That wasn't the end of the fireworks, though. Here's Rep. Downey's expressed outrage:
REP. DOWNEY: I'm looking at the House bill and maybe there's some things in the Senate bill, and I know that the Commissioner has said that they've done some extrapolations and assumptions that revenues that they couldn't realize so I appreciate them working off a different number but I'm looking at the House bill and we are expecting that the executive branch agencies would generate $94,875,000 in additional reductions that aren't already factored into our other omnibus finance bills and yet you're talking about a $90,000,000 reduction and yet we've just heard that from the Department of Veterans Affairs that $10,000,000 in reductions so we're already exceeding the target so we're talking about two of our relatively smallest agencies so we haven't talked with Health and Human Services or the big monsters.
So, members, I just want to pull us back to the fact that these commissioners are relying on information that appears to be largely politically motivated, to somehow extrapolate from these bills to proscribe none of the things that are being communicated here. Nowhere in this bill is there a $90,000,000 reduction so if you're getting your information from MMB or admin or wherever it comes from or the executive branch, I'm not sure how valuable this hearing is, Mr. Chair, if every single number is being presented and all of the draconian outcomes that are being represented aren't even close to the provisions in this bill.
And if we're going to continue with the hearing, I would like the testifiers to say that, upon the governor's instruction, and direction from the office of management and budget, that we are going to make these cuts, that these are the Governor's prerogatives or his priorities and not ours because they are nowhere's in our bill. And we can continue to sit here and have the discussion with Mr. Showalter about how they were trying to come up with calculations and derrivations from our bill to support these numbers but members, I'm starting to tire of the discussions and having to constantly come back to the fact that it's not our bill that's driving these numbers, that it's the Governor's priorities.
All of these numbers represent the Governor's priorities, not our bills.
Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Showalter made this admission:
CHAIRMAN PARRY: Commissioner Showalter, was there written instructions given to each commissioner to how to proceed for today's hearing?
COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER: Mr. Chair, I alerted commissioners, I believe yesterday, of the impact of the provisions that are in front of you (GARBLED FEED)
We've been trying to understand the interactions and the magnitude of that impact. We have been in communication with the fiscal staff over the last day to get their understanding and impact of the programmatic impact that we're trying to present to you today.
In general, contrary to what Rep. Downey, and I do respect his work, but the instructions are pretty clear in the bill as to the level of reductions within this provision and the other provisions. There are a few cost-savings items, but in general, most of the savings that we're talking about are related to items reducing the staffing complement, reducing the available resources to commissioners to execute their responsibilities so that is the spreadsheet that I talked about before to give you the overall context and to give you an idea.
CHAIRMAN PARRY: So you did give written instructions so that they fully understood how they were to move forward with their testimony today?
SHOWALTER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't instructed anyone on testimony. What I have asked and informed them on is these provisions because not everyone is watching the State Government Committee or they're assuming that we take the lead in looking at these elements and helping them understand the impact and what issues they need to be aware of.
PARRY: So were your instructions orally delivered, your message, or in form of the information that they're working off from. I guess what I'm asking for, Commissioner Showalter, I would like to, if there was a written memo given to each commissioner on how to look at their budget, I would be interested, and I'm sure this committee would be interested to see that memo.
Because if every commissioner that's coming here with worst case scenarios, that is a far cry from what is inside the House and the Senate versions of this bill as I have listened. And so I guess maybe, for us to understand what the commissioners are working off of, I would think that it would be prudent to give us...let us look at the instructions that you have given commissioners.
Rep. Downey wasn't as polite as Chairman Parry:
REP. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the graciousness of the chairs because, frankly, I'm not feeling quite as gracious. I think it would be extremely important for us to see whatever worksheets they've been working off of, Veterans and Corrections and understand the assumptions and interpretations of our bills from MMB.
Frankly, I just think it needs to be plainly said, and I've said it before and I'll probably stop, I'm getting tired of having the same conversation but it seems pretty obvious that the Governor is far less interested in having substantive, collaborative discussions about how we understand these bills and how we translate them into a final budget solution that everybody can agree with and is far more interested in hiding behind the smokescreen of problematic fiscal notes and all kinds of assumptions and interpretations and far more interested in getting out politically and hammering on the legislature rhetorically and we don't have very far to go.
It's past the time that we get off the political rhetoric side of it and get onto the true hard work of negotiations and collaboration. I find this hearing to be less about our bill and far more about political messaging and I don't know why we'd continue.
Commissioner Showalter said about half way through the hearing that he wasn't there to negotiate with the committee, that he was just there to talk about the impact the bill would have.
With so many points of contention with the people that wrote the bill and with military veterans sitting right behind the commissioners, it's difficult to think that this was anything other than the Dayton administration's attempt at a cheap PR stunt.
Rep. Downey said what was on everyone's mind: that Gov. Dayton put a higher priority on the PR stunt and fuzzy math than he put on balancing the budget on time. Shame on him for that. It's time that he put Minnesota first instead of putting politics first.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2011 4:17 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-May-11 08:13 AM
I've told you before to give the DFL a break: political talking points, rhetoric and games is all they have to work with. Never two good ideas to rub together.
Tarryl's Travels & Travails
This weekend, news broke that Tarryl and Doug Clark had purchased a condominium in Duluth specifically to run against Chip Cravaack in CD-8. This morning, the new district map was released by the House Redistricting Committee.
I personally wish Tarryl nothing but the best in running against Collin Peterson in the DFL primary in the new Eighth District. Thanks to the new map, St. Cloud fits into the new 7th District with at least 2-3 miles to spare. In fact, the home that Tarryl and Doug have lived in might be within whispering distance, aka with a couple blocks, of the new 6th District.
With the help of a good realtor, it wouldn't take much for Doug and Tarryl to relocate to the 6th District either. I've heard that condos are pretty cheap in Elk River. Personally, though, I'd personally recommend her relocating down I-94 to Clearwater to be near Clearwater Travel Plaza . Their fritter french toast is fantastic and their steaks are pretty good, too.
In all seriousness, if the courts redraw the district differently, they could give Tarryl a nervous breakdown. I doubt that they'll redraw it to the point that St. Cloud would fit into the 2012 Sixth District.
Rumor has it that TPT is thinking about producing a new TV documentary on Tarryl. The tentantive title is said to be 'Have Open Seat, Will Relocate." At this point, though, that's purely speculation. Check back to LFR in the days ahead for more juicy Tarryl gossip.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-May-11 01:14 PM
Wherever she is, she's the better choice. The farmers liking seniority on the Ag. Committee might not believe it, but Peterson's a good fit for that mentality.
Iarryl belongs in Congress.
Others, clearly her lessers, remain there for now, Bachmann and Kline, as examples.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-May-11 01:26 PM
Tarryl isn't a talented politician. She's a cheap political opportunist who puts herself ahead of her constituents. That's been her history, starting with her 2006 Senate race. She told the St. Cloud business community that she was a centrist who could bring people together. Almost immediately, she started voting for the biggest tax increases in Minnesota history while we had a $2.2 billion surplus.
She would've gotten her ass handed to her in 2010 by John Pederson had she run for re-election. She'd misled the St. Cloud business community so often that they had turned on her. Deception doesn't work in politics. Unfortunately for Tarryl, deception is what she specializes in.
Finally, it's getting sickening to hear how Bachmann & Kline are Tarryl's lessers. Tarryl is a great gabber but she isn't the brightest bulb in the DFL chandelier. For all of Michele's indefensible statements, she's an exception policymaker. Ditto with Kline.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-May-11 01:17 PM
In fairness, McCollum is a lesser talent, relative to Clark. It's not entirely a partisan thing.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-May-11 01:27 PM
McCollum couldn't win if her life depended on it if the district wasn't so badly skewed for the DFL.
Comment 3 by eric z at 12-May-11 12:02 PM
"Carpetbag" stone throwing seems ill advised with both Kline and Cravelak living in glass houses.
Just an observation, pile up stones at the ready if you choose.
Comment 4 by eric z at 12-May-11 12:07 PM
As to Tarryl Clark, I preferred the physician, Maureen Reed, before Reed dropped out. But Gary, Tarryl Clark IS a centrist. It's unfortunate, I would prefer someone more progressive yet among the three centrist women wanting to defeat Bachmann, Reed in my view was the most capable, and had the better chance. She may run again in 2012, but I have not heard anything either way about that possibility. It would be good for the district if she ran.
But Bachmann is a town dunce. Kline is not. He is egregious and obsequious, but not the dunce Bachmann is.
However, Tarryl Clark is more impressive than the Colonel, or the Clown.
Conference Committee Fight Intensifies
This weekend, I wrote about the firestorm that erupted during last Friday's conference committee hearing on the State government finance omnibus bill. I thought some harsh words were said during that meeting. Conference Committee Chairman Mike Parry just pushed that dispute to the next level with this letter to Gov. Dayton:
Dear Governor Dayton,
This morning, I received a letter from the State Commander of the American Legion that recognizes the legislature has openly and publicly defended our stance to hold veterans and the Department of Military Affairs harmless in our budget. The State Commander correctly recognized that the honorable men and women that serve in our armed forces have been a top priority with both the Senate and House for the entirety of this session.
The rhetoric being used by your administration completely disregards the legislature's intent to provide the funding necessary to provide care to our veterans in our state's veterans homes, to assist veterans in securing federal benefits and to maintain the readiness of our national guard. At the first hint of discretionary authority, you directed your staff to cut veterans and military affairs.
I grew up in a military household. I served eight years in the National Guard. I have been around the military and veterans my whole life and I know what leadership looks like. What you have done to the military and veterans community is not leadership.
The sound you hear is Gov. Dayton's facade of nonpartisanship shattering. The State Commander of the American Legion isn't an honorary title given to someone for being a swell guy. They're picked because it's known that they'll be the veterans' fiercest advocate.
Furthermore, the American Legion isn't a partisan organization. They've shown their appreciation for those legislators who've been the veterans' staunchest allies, regardless of political affiliation. Testiment to that principle is the praise Republican Dan Severson and Democrat Larry Haws received in 2007 for their work on the veterans bill.
When General/Commissioner Shellito said that "the legislature shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the veterans", he ignited a firestorm, a firestorm that's been intensifying since.
MMB Commissioner Showalter has been at the heart of this administration's attack on the truth. He's insisted that his numbers are right even though the plain language of the House and Senate bills have mocked him.
Keith Downey, Ray Vandeveer, Conference Committee Chairman Parry and House State Government Finances Committee Chairman Morrie Lanning have each taken turns lambasting Commissioner Showalter. Of the exchanges I transcribed, this might be the one that illustrates just how upset Chairman Parry got:
CHAIRMAN PARRY: General, I do admire your position. I do know that you are a soldier. And I know that when soldiers are given orders, they carry them out to the fullest and I admire you for doing that. My concern is, for all in here who are veterans, it's time that this administration quits using veterans as a political pawn. I don't think I have to say anymore. Stop it.
Chairman Parry wasn't the only one to notice:
REP. DOWNEY: I'm looking at the House bill and maybe there's some things in the Senate bill, and I know that the Commissioner has said that they've done some extrapolations and assumptions that revenues that they couldn't realize so I appreciate them working off a different number but I'm looking at the House bill and we are expecting that the executive branch agencies would generate $94,875,000 in additional reductions that aren't already factored into our other omnibus finance bills and yet you're talking about a $90,000,000 reduction and yet we've just heard that from the Department of Veterans Affairs that $10,000,000 in reductions so we're already exceeding the target so we're talking about two of our relatively smallest agencies so we haven't talked with Health and Human Services or the big monsters.
So, members, I just want to pull us back to the fact that these commissioners are relying on information that appears to be largely politically motivated , to somehow extrapolate from these bills to proscribe none of the things that are being communicated here. Nowhere in this bill is there a $90,000,000 reduction so if you're getting your information from MMB or admin or wherever it comes from or the executive branch, I'm not sure how valuable this hearing is, Mr. Chair, if every single number is being presented and all of the draconian outcomes that are being represented aren't even close to the provisions in this bill.
And if we're going to continue with the hearing, I would like the testifiers to say that, upon the governor's instruction, and direction from the office of management and budget, that we are going to make these cuts, that these are the Governor's prerogatives or his priorities and not ours because they are nowhere's in our bill. And we can continue to sit here and have the discussion with Mr. Showalter about how they were trying to come up with calculations and derrivations from our bill to support these numbers but members, I'm starting to tire of the discussions and having to constantly come back to the fact that it's not our bill that's driving these numbers, that it's the Governor's priorities.
I was stunned at how Commissioner Showalter tried manipulating the bills' language. Time after time, Republicans exposed him as taking partisan positions. Time after time, Commissioner Showalter spoke about worst case scenarios that weren't in the bill. In one instance, Commissioner Showalter hinted that the workforce reductions that would happen if Keith Downey's 15 by 15 bill passed would all happen in the first year of the legislation being enacted.
There's a reason why the legislation is called 15 by 15. It requires a 15 percent reduction in the state workforce by 2015. The last I looked, 2015 is more than 12 months away.
Commissioners Showalter and Shellito got exposed as partisans working for Gov. Dayton's political agenda. When Commissioner Shellito said that "the legislature shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the military", he crossed a bright, unmistakeable line.
Between the two of them, they said things that forced the American Legion into the fight. Like I said earlier, politicians picking fights with the American Legion leads to predictable outcomes. That outcome won't be good for partisan politicians.
UPDATE: Apparently, Gov. Dayton didn't like getting called on playing partisan tricks with the military. According to this PIM article , Gov. Dayton got more than a little heated:
The GOP State Government and Veterans Committee Chairs, Sen. Mike Parry and Rep. Morrie Lanning, had a closed-door meeting with Gov. Mark Dayton Monday afternoon after tensions escalated over the division's budget bills late last week. The meeting was short and unfriendly, Parry said afterward. 'Today I saw a very angry governor.'
The row started last week after Veterans Affairs Commissioner Larry Shellito said in a Star Tribune article that the lack of specificity in the Republican budgets could have unwanted consequences, including the closure of a veterans home and higher burial fees for veterans.
Republicans held a press conference Friday, saying Dayton and his administration were misleading the state and using veterans as political pawns. They maintained that they have preserved funding for veterans in their budget bills.
Dayton officials called the meeting today to respond. Afterward, Lanning described the meeting as more of a lecture and walked away. Parry returned to speak to the press, and said he had hoped to keep emotions out of the budget negotiations. He admitted, however, that Dayton seemed primarily upset by a letter the committee chair sent him earlier on Monday. In the letter, Parry questioned Dayton's leadership style.
Gov. Dayton apparently didn't like getting exposed as playing political games with military bills. Gov. Dayton's temper tantrum that Chairman Lanning spoke to isn't surprising considering the type of life of privilege Gov. Dayton has led.
I can't imagine he's dealt with that type of harsh criticism that often in his life.
When he was a senator, Gov. Dayton got criticized by Republicans but the Strib and other media allies kept saying nice things about him. Also, he never got important enough to sit on a conference committee, much less chair one.
Now he's the guy and his administration is getting criticized by the American Legion for using veterans as political pawns. I can't imagine Gov. Dayton taking that well.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 09-May-11 05:57 PM
No issue with supporting the men and women who served and are serving.
We could use a few less generals as both Gates and Rummy have tried to do. I respect the military but they like all of us make mistakes. Enough of the manlove towards the military.
Fisking Rep. Thissen's Op-ed
If it weren't for Rep. Thissen's mischaracterizationss and his trademark whining, Paul Thissen's op-ed would vanish into thin air.
This year, the Republican legislative majority is pushing the same flawed approach, an approach that keeps us stuck in a failed past instead of moving us forward.
When asked recently about Republicans' willingness to seek a compromise to balance the budget, Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, channeled Pawlenty's spirit, flatly stating that the House GOP budget was their "first, best, and last" offer.
The reality is that the DFL doesn't support Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. Theologically speaking, they certainly support it. It's just that DFL support plummets when viewed through the prism of re-election.
Eliminating the $2.7 billion in additional revenue means a corresponding drop in spending. That drops the DFL's budget to spending $34.3 billion as compared with the GOP's $34 billion.
Here's where Thissen's figures are exposed as pure BS:
More than copying his negotiating style, the Republican majority seems to have adopted Pawlenty's budgeting techniques. The Republican budget is missing more than $1 billion.
According to the MMB spreadsheet that Gov. Dayton's commissioners operated off of, the House GOP budget cut spending by 10% across the board. Meanwhile, according to MMB, the Senate GOP budget cuts spending by 9% across the board.
That's an outright lie. It isn't based even slightly in fact. In fact, in testimony, Commissioner Showalter admitted that they were operating from a worst case scenario in each of those cases. Apparently, getting the figures right didn't rate as high a priority as scaring veterans.
The spreadsheet that I'm basing my statements on was sent by Commissioner Showalter to Conference Committee Chairman Mike Parry. MMB Commissioner Showalter's spreadsheet indicates that there would be a 15% workforce reduction during the 2012-2013 biennium.
A key part of Rep. Keith Downey's 15 by 15 plan is that state government will reduce their staffing by 15% by 2015. MMB's spreadsheet assumes that the state workforce will be reduced by 15% in the first 2 years.
This is why GOP legislators are skeptical of MMB's fiscal notes. They're being polite. When this information is highlighted, bloggers would rightly question whether Commissioner Showalter isn't totally corrupt.
This is a perfect example of Rep. Thissen's whining from this session:
In addition to continuing massive state deficits, the Republican budget continues the backward, job-killing, all-cuts approach that squeezes middle class families in our state.
Only liars or delusional people could look at a budget that spends $3,500,000,000 more during the 2012-2013 biennium than during the 2010-2011 biennium as "an all-cuts budget."
As for what's squeezing middle class families, Rep. Thissen would have us believe that $4 a gallon gas prices, higher grocery bills resulting from those higher gas prices and unjustifiable property tax increases caused by buying $50,000 per unit drinking fountains aren't squeezing middle class families.
Someone this dishonest shouldn't be trusted. Rep. Thissen isn't interested in the truth. He's only interested in the type of spin that he hopes will return the DFL to majority status. If that means telling whoppers, then Rep. Thissen is happy serving more whoppers than Burger King.
Shame on the DFL whopper machine. Shame on Commissioner Showalter and Rep. Thissen. Their corruption is appalling.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:40 AM
No comments.
Veterans Fight Intensifies, MMB Edition
Yesterday, I wrote this post that the fight between the Dayton administration and the conference committee had intensified after initially igniting during Friday's conference committee hearing . Here's the exchange that got things started:
CHAIRMAN PARRY: Commissioner Showalter, was there written instructions given to each commissioner to how to proceed for today's hearing?
COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER: Mr. Chair, I alerted commissioners, I believe yesterday, of the impact of the provisions that are in front of you (GARBLED FEED)
We've been trying to understand the interactions and the magnitude of that impact. We have been in communication with the fiscal staff over the last day to get their understanding and impact of the programmatic impact that we're trying to present to you today.
In general, contrary to what Rep. Downey, and I do respect his work, but the instructions are pretty clear in the bill as to the level of reductions within this provision and the other provisions. There are a few cost-savings items, but in general, most of the savings that we're talking about are related to items reducing the staffing complement, reducing the available resources to commissioners to execute their responsibilities so that is the spreadsheet that I talked about before to give you the overall context and to give you an idea.
CHAIRMAN PARRY: So you did give written instructions so that they fully understood how they were to move forward with their testimony today?
SHOWALTER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't instructed anyone on testimony. What I have asked and informed them on is these provisions because not everyone is watching the State Government Committee or they're assuming that we take the lead in looking at these elements and helping them understand the impact and what issues they need to be aware of.
PARRY: So were your instructions orally delivered, your message, or in form of the information that they're working off from. I guess what I'm asking for , Commissioner Showalter, I would like to, if there was a written memo given to each commissioner on how to look at their budget, I would be interested , and I'm sure this committee would be interested to see that memo .
Because if every commissioner that's coming here with worst case scenarios, that is a far cry from what is inside the House and the Senate versions of this bill as I have listened. And so I guess maybe, for us to understand what the commissioners are working off of, I would think that it would be prudent to give us: let us look at the instructions that you have given commissioners.
Before the conference committee recessed, MMB Commissioner Showalter agreed to get the spreadsheet MMB had prepared into the committee's hands, a promise Commissioner Showalter kept.
Commissioner Showalter essentially said that the commissioners were singing from the same hymnal. After looking at the MMB spreadsheet, it's apparent that that hymnal didn't put a high priority on accuracy. That's what triggered Sen. Parry to write this letter to Gov. Dayton:
Dear Governor Dayton,
This morning, I received a letter from the State Commander of the American Legion that recognizes the legislature has openly and publicly defended our stance to hold veterans and the Department of Military Affairs harmless in our budget. The State Commander correctly recognized that the honorable men and women that serve in our armed forces have been a top priority with both the Senate and House for the entirety of this session.
The rhetoric being used by your administration completely disregards the legislature's intent to provide the funding necessary to provide care to our veterans in our state's veterans homes, to assist veterans in securing federal benefits and to maintain the readiness of our national guard. At the first hint of discretionary authority, you directed your staff to cut veterans and military affairs.
I grew up in a military household. I served eight years in the National Guard. I have been around the military and veterans my whole life and I know what leadership looks like. What you have done to the military and veterans community is not leadership.
That letter was sure to provoke a fight, which it did. At 2:00 pm Monday afternoon, Sen. Parry, Rep. Lanning and Commissioner Showalter met with Gov. Dayton in Gov. Dayton's office. According to Sen. Parry, the Gov. Dayton he saw "was a very angry governor." Gov. Dayton shouldn't be upset with the letter. Gov. Dayton should be upst with the spreadsheet Commissioner Showalter prepared for the other commissioners.
LFR got a copy of that spreadsheet last night. What jumped off the page were two columns in particular. The 4th column on the spreadsheet is titled 2012-2013 House Across the Board Reductions. The 7th column of the spreadsheet is titled 2012-2013 Senate Across the Board Reductions. Neither column accurately reflects what's in the GOP budgets.
The MMB spreadsheet 'reports' that the House GOP budget calls for 10% across-the-board reductions. Further, the MMB spreadsheet 'reports' that the Senate GOP budget calls for 9% across-the-board reductions. This spreadsheet isn't saying that about specific departments. It's saying that each line item is getting hit with a 10% cuts. K-12 education gets hit with a 10% cut, as does Corrections, the MPCA, the PUC, Agriculture, DEED or any other department.
Here's what Commissioner Shellito said in his testimony to Chairman Lanning's questioning:
REP. LANNING: Commissioner General, you know that the Veterans budget is the only budget that got an increase and it seems to me that that sends a pretty clear signal of what our intent is that both the House and the Senate want to protect veterans and military affairs. There should be no mistake about that because it's very clear because everybody else got cuts. If you take a look at the intent further on the House side, we're doing everything possible we can to protect nursing homes. If you think that the House is intent on having veterans facilities suffer consequences here that would be problematic, then you're misunderstanding the intent.
That's why I'm disappointed that, for whatever reason, you have apparently been given impressions that are not accurate and have led to very serious misunderstanding that we need to address. If there are suggestions that we could do to get more comfort here in stating our intent, then let's talk about that. But let's not go scaring people into thinking that something is going to happen when that's not likely to happen.
SHELLITO: Rep. Lanning, I appreciate that and I understand your frustration but I would then give you my viewpoint. Yes, you've given us a 3% increase in the omnibus bill, both sides. Thank you. That I understand. But my mission is to protect the veterans in this room so I only go with the language that I have, which is the omnibus bill as written.
And as I look at it, I see the vagueness of the 15%. I see the vagueness of the 10% and doing my due diligence requires me to: I cannot get into your head and get what you're really thinking. I couldn't get into the committee's head to know what they're thinking so I had to provide the: and you said it quite eloquently, the worst, worst, worst case scenario. And again, I apologize for that. I don't want to do that. I value how you've treated the veterans in the past.
Shellito admits that the House omnibus bill will increase the Military Affairs budget by 3%. Shellito further admits that he had to provide "the worst, worst, worst case scenario." Shame on Commissioners Showalter and Shellito for relying on faulty premises and absurd assumptions.
It's bad enough that MMB is making these assumptions about the Military Affairs budget. It's disgusting and intellectually dishonest that MMB is making that assumption across the board. There's no justification for that.
This spreadsheet is proof that the GOP is right in questioning MMB's fiscal notes. MMB's spreadsheet isn't based on the bills' language. Commissioner Shellito admitted that it's based on "the worst, worst, worst case scenario", hardly the most accurate analysis of budget bills.
This spreadsheet should be published on the MNGOP and legislative websites for all the world to see along with the letter from the State Commander of the American Legion.
It's painfully obvious that MMB Commissioner Showalter has corrupted the budgeting process, compiling spreadsheets that don't appear to be attached to the legislative language or the legislators' intent.
Ultimately, though, it's Gov. Dayton's responsibility to rein in or terminate his commissioners if their work product is corrupt or chronically inaccurate, as is the case here.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:52 AM
Comment 1 by Donna Foster at 11-May-11 08:22 AM
Whoever makes those computer-generated animated shorts with the computer-genterated conservatives having inane conversations with computer-generated liberals needs to do one of those based on this conference committee hearing. I think that would be fun!
