November 19-22, 2015
Nov 19 03:34 LFR's 11th Anniversary, Part I Nov 19 06:39 LFR's 11th Anniversary, Part II Nov 19 15:51 Bakk's metrocentric agenda Nov 20 10:23 Trump vs. President Obama Nov 20 11:23 Daudt, GOP, offer solutions for Range Nov 21 00:30 Bakk quits fighting for middle class Nov 21 10:07 Feingold betrays his principles Nov 22 03:17 Bakk's PolyMet spin
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
LFR's 11th Anniversary, Part I
Eleven years ago, I published my first post. Back then, I didn't think about whether I'd blog another year, whether blogging would be a passing fad. I certainly didn't think of blogging as a way to contribute to the political dialog even though that's what I wrote about.
The first year of LFR, I wrote about the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. That's how I got introduced to the MOB, aka the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers. Back then, I was fascinated by the various liberation revolutions, including the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, which started in the aftermath of the Purple Thumb Revolution in Iraq. That revolution intensified with the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon.
I remember writing about the first election in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. As I recall, the first person to cast a vote in that election was an elderly woman. I remember thinking that Mullah Omar must've been pulling his beard off. One of the Taliban's specialties was treating women like chattel. Another of their specialties was to ostracize women from open society. In a single page of history, both of those Taliban 'specialties' were vanquished in the minds of the Afghan people. It didn't mean that the war was over. It was just a symbolic point in history.
It's amazing the lessons I've learned through this writing. One blog that I got a kick out of was called Give War a Chance. It isn't that I want the United States military to be constantly at war. It's that I'll admit that Islamic Jihadists have been at war with the United States since the overthrow of Teheran. I recall Rudy Giuliani's response to whether 9/11 was the jihadists' declaring war on the United States. He said that it wasn't, that they'd been waging war with us since 1979. Then he said that 9/11 was the first day that the US joined the war.
I've learned that presidential leadership makes a difference. President Bush wasn't a great president but he was infinitely better than President Obama in the one category that matters. He put policies in place that actually put the terrorists on the run. People got bored with hearing him say that he'd deployed our intelligence assets to gather information that led to entire terrorist networks getting rolled up. He said he did that because he'd rather take them down where they lived rather than clean up the messes from terrorist attacks where we live.
That program led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, aka KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. After capturing KSM, the Bush administration kept his capture quiet. They studied the laptops in an attempt to study the networks KSM was in charge of. That helped them capture entire networks of terrorists. When President Obama took over, he replaced those policies with drone strikes. Killing terrorists in drone strikes made for a nice headline every couple of months but it didn't help us gather intelligence that kept us a step ahead of the terrorists.
That's how the Obama administration was surprised by the rise of ISIS. They didn't know much about that group of terrorists. They certainly didn't know ISIS was as lethal as they are. As a result of not gathering intelligence in Iraq, the administration let ISIS establish a caliphate that's let ISIS conduct lethal terrorist attacks in Paris.
Think of this post as LFR's highlights of international events. Throughout the years, I've stuck my fingers into more than a few other things. I'll write about some of them in Part II.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:34 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 20-Nov-15 03:51 PM
I feel like I've been following you for at least 10 of those years, plus the Examiner of course. Let's go another 10!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-15 11:44 PM
Thanks Rex. It certainly feels like we've been friends 10 years. Let's do another 10 years, or more, of friendship & I'll see if I have another 10 years of blogging left in me.
Comment 3 by eric z at 21-Nov-15 08:19 AM
Gee, Gary. I never realized you were that old to have over a decade of opinions. Published opinions. And, never wrong.
Seriously, aim to make it fifty years straight. Whatever opinion publishing will look like in fifty years, aim to be around to see it and do it.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-15 09:02 AM
Thanks Eric. I've been wrong with my predictions plenty of times but I hope I've never been wrong about the principles that guide my opinions. If your principles are right, the rest is fine.
LFR's 11th Anniversary, Part II
LFR's 'early years' were spent mostly offering opinions on international events. That abruptly changed when John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians in cold blood. That weekend, I spoke with Leo Pusateri about the lies that Murtha was told. Later that weekend, Leo started the Murtha Must Go blog on Blogger. (Actually, the first couple of years of LFR were on Blogger, not on this website.)
Thanks to some committed retired Marines and that website, the Haditha Marines weren't railroaded by John Murtha. Murtha was the quintessential corrupt politician. I kidded at one time that they should rename his office after he died to the 'Office of Corporate Welfare'. After he died, Nancy Pelosi didn't take my advice. The good news is that the Haditha Marines either had their charges dropped or they were acquitted.
The next thing LFR dealt with extensively was the anti-war movement, which started with John Murtha and Amy Klobuchar, who I nicknamed St. Amy of Hennepin County. When she ran for the Senate, St. Amy of Hennepin County said "America needs a change of course in Iraq," Klobuchar said. The measure "continued an open-ended commitment with no clear transition to Iraqi authority," she said. "My priority is to transition to Iraq authority by beginning to bring our troops home in a responsible way." I noted at the time that St. Amy didn't express an interest in winning the war. Her interest was in bringing "our troops home in a responsible way." It isn't surprising that St. Amy has been an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama's lose-at-all-costs strategy in Iraq.
We're still paying the price for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
At one point, LFR was hacked, which kept the website down for almost a month. Thankfully, I wasn't silence thanks to Examiner.com. Click on this link to subscribe to my articles. They're entirely different than the things I publish on LFR.
One of the things that I'm most proud of is the role I played in defeating the School Board bonding referendum here in St. Cloud. The ISD 742 School Board tried passing the $167,000,000 referendum without giving people the opportunity to give input into the project. When the ballots were tallied, 7,393 people voted to approve the bonding while 8,460 people voted to reject the School Board's proposal.
For a little perspective, most School Board elections and special elections in the St. Cloud area have a turnout rate of 18%. This vote produced a 31% turnout rate. After the measure was defeated, I got an email from a frequent reader of LFR which said in part "They had a turnout strategy and tons of money. You had common sense and the ability to motivate 8400 people to vote. (31% turnout in an odd-year election? with reduced polling places? Just amazing.)"
While it's nice getting credit for producing those results, the reality is that the ISD 742 School Board was its own worst enemy. LFR was just the amplifier that highlighted their corruption. They tried keeping the vote below the citizens' radar. They tried making voting as inconvenient as possible. When pressed why people couldn't see the blueprints for the future Tech High School, the leader of the Vote Yes campaign explained "What a lot of them don't recognize is, with the cost of designing a building, 80 percent of it isn't going to be designed until after the referendum. And the plans we've got now are still tentative."
Imagine that. The School Board wanted the citizens, since nicknamed "The Uppity Peasants Brigade", to give the school board a blank $167,000,000, $115,000,000 of which is for a building that wouldn't be designed until after the bonds had been approved.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2015 6:39 AM
No comments.
Bakk's metrocentric agenda
When it comes to spending money without producing solutions, Sen. Bakk is an expert. He's even got Gov. Dayton on his side in his fight to spend taxpayers' money on his latest agenda item. Sen. Bakk thinks that it's important to "also address Minnesota's persistent racial inequities" during a potential special session.
Apparently, Sen. Bakk thinks it's important to extend unemployment benefits "for miners experiencing long-term unemployment" and to "address Minnesota's persistent racial inequities" without insisting that the Public Utilities Commission approve the building of the Sandpiper pipeline. Building the Sandpiper Pipeline project would actually employ people but that apparently isn't a priority for Sen. Bakk.
Building Bakk's Palace was a priority but getting PolyMet's permits wasn't Sen. Bakk's priority. Has he lifted a finger to tell the Minnesota Department of Health to butt out of the PolyMet process? Of course he hasn't and he won't because the environmental activist wing of the DFL, which is the dominant wing of the DFL, won't let him win that fight.
Everyone on the Range knows that the Department of Health study is just latest tactic the environmental activists have employed in their attempt to prevent the creation of good-paying Iron Range jobs. When's the last time Sen. Bakk fought the environmental activists and won anything longlasting for the mining industry? If you guessed that dinosaurs walked the earth the last time Sen. Bakk fought the environmental activists and won anything longlasting for the mining industry, you wouldn't be wrong.
The hard-working people of the Iron Range don't need someone that fights for them. That just takes a temper. What they need is a political party that'll fight and win for them. Thus far, they've resisted that. Hopefully, they'll get smart and change their voting habits soon. Their families' financial well-being is at stake.
Sen. Bakk is a typical DFL politician. First, he either creates a problem with terrible policies or he just sits idly by while things deteriorate, then comes rushing in to fix the problem that he created or that he didn't give a shit about until it was a crisis.
What the Iron Range needs is a legislative delegation that put the Range's prosperity at the top of their priority list. They don't have that right now.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Nov-15 08:13 AM
The Range gets what it votes for and it's hard to bite the hand that feeds them the government assistance checks. It's sad that they don't understand they are their own worst enemy.
Trump vs. President Obama
When it comes to military insightfulness, it's difficult to pick whether Donald Trump is more devoid of military expertise or whether President Obama is more certain that he's right when he's wrong. I wrote this article to highlight the stunning lack of important information that Mr. Trump has. Mr. Trump's ego easily outdistances his expertise on ISIS. His bombast easily outdistances his honesty.
When it comes to military expertise, Trump's "I'll bomb the shit out of them" falls exceptionally short of reassuring a nation that wants its commander-in-chief to actually know what he's talking about. When it comes to honesty, Trump's nonexistent group of military advisers leads to the question of whether he's capable of putting together a cabinet of topnotch national security experts. ISIS and national appear to be an afterthought for Mr. Trump more than a point of emphasis.
As for President Obama, Peggy Noonan's WSJ column captured things beautifully when she wrote "No commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces can be wholly irrelevant, but to the extent one can be, Mr. Obama is. He has misjudged ISIS from the beginning - they were not, actually, the junior varsity - to the end. He claimed last week, to George Stephanopoulos, that ISIS has been 'contained.' 'I don't think they're gaining strength,' he said just before Paris blew."
In President Obama's world, ISIS is either the JV team or they're contained. In President Obama's 2012 world, al-Qa'ida was on the ropes and bin Laden was dead. At least then, bin Laden really was dead. Charles Krauthammer's column is a literary scalpel to the myth that President Obama is a trusted commander-in-chief:
Obama defended his policy by listing its multifaceted elements. Such as, 'I hosted at the United Nations an entire discussion of counterterrorism strategies and curbing the flow of foreign fighters.' An 'entire' discussion, mind you. Not a partial one. They tremble in Raqqa. And 'We have mobilized 65 countries to go after ISIL.' Yes, and what would we do without Luxembourg?
Mr. Trump and President Obama are thin-skinned narcissists. They think that they know more than what they actually know. President Obama is, by far, the worst president in my lifetime. He's worse than Jimmy Carter, something I thought impossible until the start of President Obama's first term.
Mr. Trump thinks he knows things about military strategy but he doesn't. During his "I'll bomb the shit out of them" speech in Fort Dodge, IA, he said that he'd blow up the oil pipelines and refineries in northern Iraq. That's bombast masquerading as military expertise. Northeastern Iraq is controlled by the Kurds. They've been US allies since 1991. Why would Trump destroy oil fields, pipelines and refineries run by our allies?
It's time for voters to replace the fool in the White House with someone who actually knows what they're talking about. For all of the Trumpians' talk about him not taking anyone's guff, there's scarcely a mention that he knows what he's talking about.
God help us all.
Posted Friday, November 20, 2015 10:23 AM
No comments.
Daudt, GOP, offer solutions for Range
Tim Pugmire's article is an attempt to make it sound like Republicans oppose a special session. Nothing is further from the truth. When Pugmire wrote "Minnesota House Republicans threw cold water on a proposed special session Thursday, saying DFL Gov. Mark Dayton's plan to help laid-off steelworkers doesn't go far enough," the intention was to suggest that Republicans oppose a special session. The opposite is true. First, Speaker Daudt "did not rule out the possibility of a special session." It's just that Daudt thinks "an extension of unemployment benefits is only a 'short-term band aid,'" which it is.
Speaker Daudt is right in saying "We want to make sure that the jobs on the Range are long-term and sustainable, and frankly what these folks really want isn't extended unemployment benefits. They want their job back. So, we want to figure out how to do that."
It's clear that the DFL isn't serious about fixing the Iron Range's economic structural deficiencies. They've had 30 years to fix the Range economy. They've failed miserably. That's indisputable. According to the latest census information for Hibbing , which was for 2009-2013, their median household income was $38,077 and their poverty rate was 18%. Think about that last statistic. Almost one in five people in Hibbing lives below the federal poverty line. The statewide poverty rate is 11.5%, which is virtually half of what it is in Hibbing.
The sad truth is that Hibbing is prosperous compared with Virginia. Virginia's median household income for 2009-2013 was $32,850. Virginia's poverty rate was a whopping 24.1%. Accepting a poverty rate of one in four is downright immoral.
The difference between Speaker Daudt and the GOP and Gov. Dayton and the DFL is that the DFL wants to spend money on a short-term fix without fixing the underlying problem. Republicans actually want to fix the problem. If Mr. Pugmire thinks that fixing a problem is a poison pill that the DFL won't accept, he should say that directly.
Personally, I'd argue that Speaker Daudt and the GOP have exposed the DFL as being the party that doesn't want to solve big problems.
Originally posted Friday, November 20, 2015, revised 24-Nov 1:24 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Nov-15 02:43 PM
The only thing the DFL is serious about is keeping people on government programs so they can show a need for those government services which in turn allows them to raise taxes and create even more government programs.
Bakk quits fighting for middle class
Tonight, I was stunned and disgusted when Sen. Bakk told the Almanac Roundtable panel what he hoped would come from the possible special session. I was especially startled when Sen. Bakk said "I lived through the 1981 downturn on the Range when waves and waves and waves of Iron Rangers moved to the northern suburbs and had to settle there when most of the mines had to shut down. We're on the cusp of this again this time and I think that the state coming to their aid and giving them extended unemployment benefits, to give those families some time to make some decisions and maybe get a little closer to see if our federal government will act as some of this unfairly traded steel is coming into this country just to build a bridge for those families because once they run out of unemployment, they're in a situation of probably having to relocate their families."
There wasn't anything in his statement that talked about rebuilding the Iron Range economy. There wasn't anything in his statement that talked about turning the Iron Range's economic slide around. His sole focus was on giving families more time to relocate out of his district and Sen. Tomassoni's district.
The Republican panelists tonight were Sen. David Hann and House Majority Leader Joyce Peppin. The DFL panelists were Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen. When Majority Leader Peppin talked about finding a long-term solution to the Iron Range's economic problems, House Minority Leader Thissen said that that isn't what special sessions should be about, that that's what regular sessions should be about.
It's beyond ironic that Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature didn't lift a finger to provide a long-term solution for the Iron Range when there were DFL majorities in the House and Senate and a DFL governor. It's almost as if the Iron Range was an afterthought, something to worry about only during election years.
When Majority Leader Peppin talked about Gov. Dayton ordering another environmental review, this time involving the Minnesota Department of Health, and cutting through the red tape, Sen. Bakk criticized her, saying that taking a "shortcut" would hurt them when the inevitable lawsuits came. Sen. Bakk didn't consider the possibility of transforming Minnesota's environmental review process so that the review is thorough but that it doesn't last 10-15 years to complete.
This is proof that the DFL's top priorities are appeasing the environmental activist obstructionists, growing government and appeasing the Metro DFL. They haven't proven that they care about Iron Range families. Sen. Bakk admitted as much.
I wrote here that the poverty rate is 18% in Hibbing and 24.1% in Virginia. To have Sen. Bakk essentially give up on a once-prosperous region is beyond sad. It's disgusting.
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2015 12:30 AM
Comment 1 by J at 21-Nov-15 10:22 AM
Democrats, DFLers, only want control. Relocating people is NOT the answer when resources are readily available. IronRangers have been the stalwart soldiers of the DFL. Being used??? Who knows but blocking real jobs under the guise of a phony environmental issue is just wrong. Stealing?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-15 12:16 PM
Question for DFL: How many hoops do businesses have to jump through to create jobs? Environmentalists killed agricultural jobs in western Minnesota. They're trying to kill mining jobs on the Range. Reagan said that you can't be pro-jobs if you hate employers.
Comment 2 by Aaron at 21-Nov-15 12:48 PM
Gary, can you explain how any of the mine closures have anything to do with environmentalists? Or, alternately, why opening another mine would help the economy of NE Minnesota when copper-nickel mines across the globe are simultaneously idling and shutting down production?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-15 12:57 PM
Mr. Klemz, are you accusing PolyMet of lying about creating 360 jobs because that's what it sounds like? Further, I'm not accusing environmentalists of shutting down iron ore mines. I've accused them of doing lots of dishonest things that've prevented PolyMet from opening. This isn't a theory, either. There's abundant proof that environmental organizations have lied about the dangers of non-ferrous mining. Let's start with Conservation Minnesota's MiningTruth website. Then there's the lies that Becky Rom has gotten caught telling about her organization requesting a programmatic environmental impact study.
I could continue but you get the picture.
Comment 3 by Aaron at 21-Nov-15 05:02 PM
You didn't answer the second question. The PolyMet mine is not financeable under current and foreseeable market conditions. Please share any evidence you have that proves otherwise. My evidence is the wave of idled and shuttered copper mines worldwide and in the U.S. I'm intrigued by your assertion of lies told about sulfide mining risks. I assume you can provide at least one example of a lie on the Mining Truth website, for example.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-15 06:36 PM
Mr. Klemz, I've actually written about the inaccuracies on LFR. One of the lies that Conservation Minnesota made via their MiningTruth website is that there aren't any sulfide mines that haven't polluted.
Two of Kennecott's mines, one in Wisconsin, the other in Utah, have been fully restored and gotten the EPA's seal of approval.
There are other mines in other states that've met that standard, too, but I haven't written about them. CM's work isn't sloppy. It's downright dishonest.
I don't trust you that market considerations are what you say they are because I've read too many of the environmentalists' lies. Their 'statements of fact' have a history of being lies.
Further, it's interesting that you haven't said a thing about how Minnesota's regulatory system, which the DFL implemented, has strangled job creation in rural Minnesota.
When the DFL had total control of the legislature & the governorship, they used their time to raise taxes, not to fix Minnesota's terrible business climate.
Comment 5 by eric z at 23-Nov-15 09:32 AM
Quits what?
Was that bullheaded lout ever for anyone's interests besides his and Tommasoni's?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-15 10:27 AM
Was that bullheaded lout ever for anyone's interests besides his and Tomassoni's?He definitely was for whatever Alida Messenger told him to be for. He's no different than any of the other DFL politicians. The last time an Iron Range Democrat fully supported mining, other than Rep. Rukavina, was Rudy Perpich in the 1980s.
Feingold betrays his principles
It isn't difficult to find a liberal who's willing to betray his principles, at least when it comes to campaign finance. Russ Feingold is that type of progressive. He's definitely a do-as-I-say-no-as-I-do progressive. This time, the lesser known half of McCain-Feingold, the bill written by politicians to protect incumbents under the guise of preventing corruption, held a fundraiser in Washington, DC , the US capitol of corruption according to progressives like Feingold.
According to the article, the "fundraiser took place Tuesday night at 201 Bar's Executive Lounge located just a short walking distance from the Capitol. The dimly lit basement-level bar was reserved by the Russ for Wisconsin campaign." The reason that's a big deal is because Feingold said it's a big deal. According to Feingold, "During a panel at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2012, the former 18-year senator singled out the exact location of Tuesday's fundraiser as a venue where lobbyists buy influence and lawmakers circumvent rules when asked by an audience member to comment on the amount of money lobbyists donate to individuals and political campaigns."
Joining with John McCain, they crusaded for rooting out the corruption in DC by limiting political speech. In McCain's and Feingold's definition, corruption was found anywhere in Washington, DC where people contributed money to politicians.
This is obviously part of the issue. It's not that lobbyist themselves give huge campaign contributions it's that they become conduits for collecting large contributions,' Feingold said. 'So in Washington typically a member of the House or Senate will be having, quote, a 'fundraiser', and the lobbyist will bring in a few people and a bunch of checks, and this, you know, this is the same lobbyist who is arranging to have meetings to talk to this guy about policy in his office the next day - hopefully they're not doing the same thing in the office because that's illegal - but I mean, it's across the street. You know, at the 201 Club or the Monocle.
Feingold is a fossil. Also, he's bought into the DC theory that the people can't be trusted to make decisions. He's repeatedly proven that he doesn't like the First Amendment.
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2015 10:07 AM
No comments.
Bakk's PolyMet spin
Lots of people, including some journalists, think that Sen. Bakk is pro-mining. He might be but there's a respectable case that can be made that he's a tepid supporter of mining. Brian Bakst's article says that "Bakk is a leading legislative proponent of the PolyMet copper-nickel mine." Look at what he's done to push for making PolyMet a reality. Better yet, let's see what Sen. Bakk hasn't done to make PolyMet a reality.
Let's start by determining which side Sen. Bakk is on. Bakk said "I just want to take as long as it systematically takes in order to get those permits awarded. And I should want it expedited more than anybody else." That's a weasel-word quote. Let's be clear. Sen. Bakk hasn't lifted a finger to streamline the permitting process. Likewise, Sen. Bakk hasn't criticized Gov. Dayton for proposing another review of PolyMet, this time by the Minnesota Department of Health. Thus far, the MPCA and the DNR have required environmental impact studies. Then special interests have requested a programmatic environmental impact statement. Now, they're pushing for the MDH to do another EIS, supposedly to determine whether PolyMet would cause any health issues.
What's really happening is that environmental activists are using the current regulatory system to delay the building of PolyMet. Then there's this insane statement:
[Bakk] said any actual or perceived shortcuts "could potentially weaken the state's position in a lawsuit." Environmental groups, who are wary of the new kind of mining, have signaled they'll explore litigation if permits are granted.
That strains credibility. Environmental activists have their lawsuits ready to file. This isn't a case of them waiting to see how things go before determining whether to file a lawsuit. It's a matter of waiting for the most opportune time to file their lawsuit. I'd be surprised if they don't have the lawsuits written. Likewise, I'd be surprised if other like-minded organizations don't already have their friend of the court briefs written.
Why isn't regulatory reform a priority for the DFL? This isn't about whether these projects will get reviewed. It's a matter of whether they'll get reviewed into oblivion. Reviewing PolyMet for 10 years isn't justice. It isn't being thorough. It's attrition through regulation and litigation. Sen. Bakk has essentially defended an unjust status quo system.
Defending a system that favors the special interests over hard-working blue collar workers isn't justice. It's the epitome of injustice.
Saying that Sen. Bakk is a pro-mining advocate is questionable. His inactions say otherwise.
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Nov-15 09:30 AM
Get serious.
Bakk backstabbed PolyMet opposition within the party he was tasked to lead.
If you backstab your supposed friends, you surely are on the side you backstabbed for.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-15 10:24 AM
Those so-called friends wanted to kill mining, which means they weren't friends of the Iron Range. That's why the poverty rate in Virginia is an immoral 24.1% and the poverty rate in Hibbing is an immoral 18.0%. The environmental activists from the Twin Cities don't care about Iron Range families. They care about their agenda. The DFL's environmental activist wing doesn't want to make sure mining is done safely. They don't want it done. Period.
Comment 2 by eric z at 25-Nov-15 10:33 AM
People come. People go. The planet is forever on human time scales, if not astronomical ones.
Poisoning things for half a millennium, as might happen, is a high price for 350 short term jobs - for only as long as the ore bed is profitable, then exit Polymet, so nice to have known you and hope you like cleaning behind us.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-15 04:49 PM
Eric, I'd love seeing you say that to the Iron Range families that are hurting, especially the 24.1% of people who live in poverty. That's assuming that PolyMet will poison the waters in the area. I don't assume that. In fact, I assume the opposite. I'm certain that the environmentalists don't believe that PolyMet will pollute things. I'm confident that they don't want mining of any sort so they can turn the BWCAW into part of a UN biosphere.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 26-Nov-15 12:45 PM
Neither the DFL nor Eric Z want the Range to have good paying, private company jobs. They would rather "save" mother earth from possible pollution by making the Range residents reliant on government welfare checks instead of paychecks. Of course where will we get all the copper and nickel needed for the solar panels and wind turbines the DFL believes will save poor mother earth?
And if we are going to use the short term/long term jobs litmus test, maybe there shouldn't be a bonding bill at the legislature. The DFL crows about all the jobs that the bonding bill creates but those are only short term jobs also. And while pollution generally isn't a problem with the bonding bill, continued taxation and further bonding bills to keep those projects in operation is just as bad.
As for Polymet just walking away, there are things called performance and construction bonds, escrows, etc. that can and would be added to the permits so as to hold Polymet responsible for restoring the mine when it is depleted. Keep the EPA away from the site and things will probably be fine.
