October 31, 2017
Oct 31 10:12 Is Gov. Dayton pro-mining? Oct 31 13:55 Consumer confidence surging Oct 31 18:33 What if?, City Council edition
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Is Gov. Dayton pro-mining?
If we know anything about Gov. Dayton, it's that he's a political opportunist. This article insists that Gov. Dayton has "shrewd political instincts", too. J. Patrick Coolican's article is nothing more than another Strib pro-Dayton puff piece.
It opens by saying "Since Gov. Mark Dayton came out in favor of a controversial proposal by PolyMet to mine copper, nickel and other precious metals in northeastern Minnesota, he and his allies have said that his support is guided by sound environmental and economic policy, not politics. But Dayton's decision and its timing showed the shrewd political instincts, as well as the loyalty to the DFL Party, that have helped him win statewide office four times. By giving his public support to PolyMet he offered an olive branch to the Iron Range, knowing that he could take the political hit from environmentalists since he's not running for re-election next year, and at the same time forge a temporary peace in the ongoing conflict."
Actually, it's guided by politics. Gov. Dayton hasn't changed into a consistent supporter of the Range. He's still opposed to the Twin Metals project. He's still vehemently opposed to the Line 3 Pipeline project that would create approximately 3 times as many jobs as a typical end-of-session bonding bill would create.
This quote is telling:
"It diminishes PolyMet as an issue going forward. It's one less flash point. That's what a responsible steward of his party would do," said Joe Radinovich, a former DFL state legislator who was U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan's 2016 campaign manager.
It hasn't had that effect whatsoever. It's telling that Coolican said that Gov. Dayton "could take the political hit from environmentalists since he's not running for re-election next year." Doesn't that mean that the candidates running to replace him can't afford to get on the environmental activists' bad side? Further, a page will get turned when the DFL picks their gubernatorial candidate. From that point forward, the Range will make their decision based on that candidate.
This paragraph is telling, too:
For some, it came too late. Dayton's DFL has taken heavy losses in legislative districts in greater Minnesota, as Republicans have successfully tied them to Twin Cities environmentalists and other progressives at the expense of economic development in struggling communities.
Do the people in this video sound like they're pro-mining? [Video no longer available.]
Further, Coolican is right. Republicans have flipped rural Minnesota. The DFL have repeatedly proven that they're anti-farmer, anti-labor. You can't be anti-mining and pro-labor. You can't ignore the farmers' agenda and stay on the farmers' good side.
This isn't just about PolyMet. The Range wants to vote for someone who'll always have their backs. The DFL is still the divided party, with a heavy anti-mining slant:
The DFL factions hit a breaking point recently when Reid Carron, well-known environmentalist in Ely, made disparaging remarks about miners in a Sunday New York Times Magazine story. "They want somebody to just give them a job so they can all drink beer with their buddies and go four-wheeling and snowmobiling with their buddies, not have to think about anything except punching a clock," he said, before later apologizing.
It didn't take long for Gov. Dayton suddenly react to the article:
So Dayton stepped on the fire. Just eight days after publication of the explosive story in the Times, the governor announced in an interview that he favors the PolyMet project if it meets permitting requirements and financial assurances that would protect Minnesota taxpayers in the event of a fiscal or environmental catastrophe.
What a coincidence! Immediately after environmental activists show their true colors, Gov. Dayton made his pro-mining announcement. If he was truly pro-mining, why hasn't Gov. Dayton done anything to make the permitting process fair and transparent? If he's truly pro-mining, why didn't Gov. Dayton take on the environmental activists?
Perhaps, it's because he's a political opportunist who isn't really pro-mining.
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:12 AM
No comments.
Consumer confidence surging
This article is just what the Trump administration wanted to hear. I'd have to think that the Trump administration started smiling when they read "Consumers were even more optimistic in October than economists polled by Reuters expected. Consumer confidence rose to 125.9 in October, according to the Conference Board. The index 'increased to its highest level in almost 17 years,' Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board, said in a statement. That was in December 2000, when the index hit 128.6." Franco added the "high level of confidence suggests the economy will continue to expand 'at a solid pace' for the rest of 2017."
This article is sure to add to the Trump administration's positive attitude. According to the article, "President Donald Trump's Council of Economic Advisers on Friday released the second in a series of reports on how proposed changes to the tax code could influence economic growth. The CEA predicted that corporate tax cuts alone would produce GDP growth of between 3 and 5 percent in as little as three years. The cuts are part of the tax reform package currently being finalized in Congress and expected to be unveiled as a bill next week."
Here in Minnesota, though, Gov. Dayton sounded like Mr. Pessimism:
"One of the most offensive proposals would eliminate the deductibility of Minnesota's state income and sales taxes and local property taxes from our citizens' federal tax liabilities," Dayton said. "It would completely remove these important tax deductions which total over $12.3 billion per year for 900,000 Minnesota families."
The good news is that a Republican governor, working with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, will fix Minnesota's anti-growth tax and regulatory system. Why the DFL hasn't figured out that people really want to keep the money they've earned is baffling. The good news is that the next Republican governor will get things straightened out.
Rick Santelli is back and he's excited. [Video no longer available.]
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:55 PM
No comments.
What if?, City Council edition
Last week, this St. Cloud Times editorial said "The St. Cloud City Council did the right thing Monday night when it voted 5-1 to adopt a resolution declaring the city a just and welcoming community." They're entitled to their opinion, though they aren't entitled to their own facts. The truth is that the Council didn't vote on Councilman Goerger's resolution, at least during the regularly scheduled meeting. They voted on whether to end discussion on Jeff Goerger's resolution.
Instead of rehashing what happened last Monday, let's play a game called 'What if'? For the sake of this post, let's imagine that the City Council had 5 people who opposed refugee resettlement and just one that wanted the federal government to send more refugees to St. Cloud. Next, let's assume that the resolution wasn't published until minutes before discussion started on the resolution. Next, let's assume that the majority attempted to end discussion after just 5 minutes. Finally, picture this happening while the audience screamed 'Out of order' when they weren't booing the lone councilmember who supported unlimited refugee resettlement.
Given the different outcome, would the St. Cloud Times write that the City Council had done the right thing? Would the Times say that hiding such a resolution was a good thing? Or would they criticize the angry mob for hiding the resolution from the people? Would they praise the City Council for their lack of transparency? Or would they criticize them for ambushing an unsuspecting city councilmember?
If you attended the meeting 2 weeks ago or watched it livestreamed, you don't have to imagine anything. You watched it play out that way, just with the roles reversed.
The point of this thought exercise is to highlight the importance of a few things, starting with the necessity of playing fair. Without consistent enforcement of the rules, chaos runs rampant. Without enforcing the rules of the City Council, people might get ambushed, which is what happened on Oct. 23.
Another thing that hasn't been emphasized enough is the fact that Councilman Goerger's resolution, which called for a just and welcoming city, wasn't discussed with respect towards those who didn't agree with them. The meeting was the definition of chaotic. [Video no longer available.]
This ambush was the City Council at its worst. It didn't discuss the issue thoroughly or respectfully. The Council didn't listen to the people before shutting down debate. Worst, the Council wasn't interested in having a debate. Those that sided with Jeff Goerger were interested in winning. They cared more about mob rule than they cared about principled, respectful governance.
Posted Tuesday, October 31, 2017 6:33 PM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling,sr at 31-Oct-17 08:00 PM
FIVE SMUG COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVING THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA RATHER THAN THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO ELECTED THEM. HAVE THEY ALREADY PREDETERMINED THE STANCE THEY WILL TAKE ON THE TOBACCO ISSUE?
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 31-Oct-17 08:19 PM
More what ifs. What if:
four or more of the council members used a string of voice and electronic media to plan the events that unfolded on the evening of October 23rd?electronic communications were occurring between those that offered and subsequently voted to close debate on the motion?members of an organized group were communicating with council members regarding the Goerger resolution in real time and hidden from public view?Clearly, if any of the previous what if questions occurred, the spirit, if not the letter, of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law was violated. With the clear violation of the Council's own rules and the potential of open meeting law violations, what should the Council do?
They should have an open, balanced and civil discussion, including input from the community, regarding the impact of refugee resettlement on our community.
Comment 3 by Greg at 01-Nov-17 04:12 AM
Mr Palmer's efforts (he can share if he chooses) will go far to MAKING the City "own up" to this B.S. I sent my own message and demands.The Mayor called me upon receipt and wanted a meeting. He ADMITTED to me face to face the Council was a total train wreck AND that there WERE VIOLATIONS, and that he consider himself "almost" an expert in Roberts rules.
He also stated, like he does about LOTS of things, he has "no control" over the Council and this was their doing. He stated he had little if any advance knowledge..."he heard about it". On the GOOD side, he did write to Emmer and HHS and asked for answers. The time has come to file a MN Data Practice Act Request for the Council's and City staff emails (and texts that were transmitted and received during the meeting which is a CLEAR Open meeting law violation. THAT WILL EXPOSE THIS ENTIRE CHARADE FOR THE CIRCUS IT WAS/IS.
Comment 4 by Kathleen Virnig at 01-Nov-17 06:07 AM
I witnessed the charade of so called City Council, using Roberts Rules. The City Council were clearly out of order & appeared to be in collusion against Jeff Johnson. He seemed to be completely taken by surprise by the anti-moritorium vote. This smacked of a planned event -- without warning or openness. The fact that President Lewis had closed the meeting already violated Roberts Rules. This must be inveestigated right away.
Comment 5 by Troy DanDurand at 02-Nov-17 12:15 PM
Firstly, the issue is not a Refugee issue.
The real issue is placing a Moratorium on Refugee Resettlement because it solely represents the largest and biggest threat/risk to our financial security as a community. It's not a religious or bigot or hate issue; period!
A moratorium represents a formal amen responsible action/response as a legitimate Fiduciary ACTING AS A TRUSTEE. AS ONE EXAMPLE OF THE CITY COUNCILS FAILURE AS A TRUSTEE AND DEMONSTRATING POOR FINANCIAL EXPERTISE, why did it take those same City Council members 'years' to suddenly vote on a REFINANCE to realize a $3M+ savings? Are we making more money than we can spend? If not, it sure is evident to me that 'an immediate focus' of the Mayor and other Fiduciary sound leaders WOULD HAVE RECTIFIED AND REFINACED IMMEDIATELY. Only a fool would have waited; and that's exactly what they did; they waited again diluting their value as community trustees.
On a separate note...
Quick question, did anyone meet or introduce themselves to a Christian Refugee at the Saint Cloud City Council meeting? If not, why not?
In fiscal 2016, according to PewResearch.org, 44% of refugees brought to the U.S. are Christian. 46% of refugees brought to the U.S. are Muslim.
My question is why does it appear that the city of Saint Cloud MINNESOTA, and the Minnesota Refugee Resettlement Programs as a whole, is obviously discriminating against Christian Refugees by NOT bringing more Christians Refugees into our community?
One only need to travel abroad in Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Morocco, to see the impact on Christians globally. The poor decisions of our city council members are precursors to what's to come, which is not value-added benefits. God help us!!
