September 26-29, 2013
Sep 26 03:44 Ted Cruz and the emerging GOP leadership Sep 26 04:36 Open letter to SCSU faculty, enrollment edition Sep 27 03:30 Dayton still at odds with the business community Sep 27 04:17 Open letter to SCSU faculty, transcript edition Sep 27 12:31 Dayton attacks child care providers Sep 29 01:06 Gov't shutdown will be Democrats' fault Sep 29 06:04 Don't take Sierra Club's accusations seriously Sep 29 10:42 A survey worth taking
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ted Cruz and the emerging GOP leadership
DC's chattering class has been talking about how Sen. Cruz's talkathon (filibuster?) was all show that hurts Republicans. If I read another quote about how foolish it was, I'll be ill. Thankfully, Michael Walsh gets it :
After his disgraceful attacks on Cruz, including his reach-across-the-aisle, dog-in-the-manger response today, this should be the end of Senator John McCain as a voice of influence in the Republican party. Ditto his mini-me, Senator Lindsey Graham. Indeed, the entire Old Guard of business-as-usual 'comity' fans passeth. When you care more about what the other side thinks, it's probably time either to switch teams or step down.
This is the difference between the Democrats' old guard and the GOP's old guard. Sen. McCain thinks Democrats care about comity. They don't. Whenever they have a chance to stick the knife in, Democrats (think Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) stick the knife in, give it a twist, then revel that they railroaded the McCains and Grahams of the world.
There is new leadership in the GOP, whether the party wants to admit it or not: Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, and the others who stepped into the breach to spell the senator from Texas.
Another person who should be included in that list is Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Sen. Cornyn is another senator who signed his political death warrant during this debate. Keeping him around is fine but he needs to be run out of the Senate GOP leadership team.
Had the old guard been smart, they would've embraced Sen. Cruz's talkathon. Instead, they criticized him. Someone from the old guard even sent Chris Wallace opposition research to do a hatchet job on Sen. Cruz. If they find out who sent the opposition research, that person should be primaried the next time he/she is up for re-election.
The Cruz faction in the Senate, and its allies in the House (whose leadership is now up for grabs) must now press their advantage. The louder the Democrats squawk, the more they are wounded; the one thing they've long feared is a direct assault on their core beliefs as translated into actions, and the deleterious effects of Obamacare, just now being felt by the population, are the most vivid proof of the failure of Progressivism that conservatives could wish for.
Carpe diem isn't just a nice slogan. It should be the TEA Party's rallying cry now through the first Tuesday in November, 2014. The Democrats' worst nightmare in 2014 is that they might be forced to defend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the PPACA.
The PPACA is so unpopular that, in lots of House districts, Democrats wouldn't have a chance of winning if the PPACA is the chief issue.
Back in their glory days, the Packers and the USC Trojans were dominant. It wasn't because they fooled people with their playcalling. When the game was on the line, USC called Student Body Right or Student Body Left. The Packers ran sweeps led by Paul Hornung or Jim Taylor. Everyone knew what was coming. It didn't matter.
The Democrats know what's coming. They can't stop it because they voted for a bill that's less popular than Wall Street.
This is a great idea:
Make Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin into the faces of the Democratic party and watch the votes peel away from the Left.
Having Reid as the other face of the Democratic Party isn't bad for Republicans either.
Posted Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:44 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 26-Sep-13 04:42 PM
To those "mainstream" "sensible" Republicans like McCain et al, I have one thought and one name to consider. The thought: you didn't build that. That the GOP has any power now (control of the House) is entirely due to the Tea Party, yet the Establishment GOP takes all the credit. The name: Bob Packwood, the ex-Senator, once the poster child of bi-partisanship. But when he needed help to fend off sexual harrassment charges, the Democrats, realizing they really didn't need him anymore anyway, tossed him aside.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-13 10:05 PM
Great catch Rex. You're exactly right. More importantly, though, why wouldn't you fight for conservatism & free markets?
Wherever they've been tried, they've worked. Compromising your core values is foolishness on steroids.
Negotiating with the other side in divided government is necessary. Throwing away your core principles isn't.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 30-Sep-13 08:11 AM
2016 - time for a woman in the Oval Office?
Not that one.
Elizabeth Warren.
Open letter to SCSU faculty, enrollment edition
To: SCSU Faculty
From: Gary Gross, citizen journalist
Subject: St. Cloud State's declining enrollment
If people only listened to President Potter's predictions, they might think St. Cloud State was in solid shape financially. That'd be a mistake because his enrollment predictions have been pretty worthless. Last spring, the administration predicted enrollment would be down 2.4%. Later they predicted it would be down 2.8%-3.2%.
According to MnSCU's data for Sept. 4, enrollment at St. Cloud State was down 12%. They've made up ground since then but it's still down 6.4%. By comparison, Minnesota State-Mankato is down .6%:
Even if you use the worst case scenario from last spring, their projection vs. today's reality was off by 100%. In other words, their projections weren't even close. Their predictions were, putting it politely, SWAG. SWAG is the acronym for Statistical Wild Ass Guess. They might've had better luck had they thrown darts at a dartboard while blindfolded.
People who can't identify how bad the problem is certainly can't be trusted to figure out a solution to St. Cloud State's enrollment crisis. And yes, crisis is the right word. St. Cloud State's FYE enrollment, which is what the above report reflects, has dropped by approximately 15% over the last 3 years.
Yesterday, I wrote this post about the financial mismanagement of the University. I wrote then about the budget implications the declining enrollment and the financial mismanagement are having. I believe that that's the proper way of looking at these things. Looking at one without the other doesn't give you, the professors, the complete picture.
The reality is that budget cuts are heading in your departments' directions. In fact, the administration has admitted that it needs to cut $2,861,117 from the budget. Provost Malhotra tried spinning that by saying $2,861,117 represents just .3% of St. Cloud State's budget. Whether that's accurate or not, $2,861,117 isn't a trivial figure. That will have a serious impact on the budget.
It's important you ask yourself this question: Do you trust this administration to make the decisions needed to pull the University out of this enrollment crisis? Here's another question you should ask yourself: Considering the foolish decisions they've made the past 3 years, do they deserve the opportunity to right the ship?
If you answered no to either question, your path forward is clear.
Posted Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:36 AM
No comments.
Dayton still at odds with the business community
If ever there was a fit made in heaven, Gov. Dayton and the business community isn't it. Gov. Dayton hasn't hidden his dislike of the business community. That feeling is mutual. It's with that context that this article should be viewed:
'I realize that most of you are unhappy with my raising some taxes to balance the state's budget last spring. I was just as unhappy about the need to do so,' Dayton told the sold-out crowd at the Minneapolis Convention Center. 'But there's good news ahead. Under current trends, our state's economic future looks even better. The most recent state budget forecast predicts we will start the next biennium beginning July 1, 2015 with a $728 million surplus: If I'm in office, I want to devote much of that surplus to serious tax reductions.'
'I don't expect you to believe this,' Dayton added. 'Just remember it.'
Gov. Dayton is right. I don't believe him. That's especially true since Sen. Bakk, the Senate Majority Leader, insisted that repealing the business-to-business tax increases would be difficult. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though it's a big iceberg.
Cargill is moving their warehousing operation to Iowa. Red Wing Shoes is thinking about moving their warehousing operation to Wisconsin. Polaris is thinking about moving their warehousing operation to another state. DigiKey, easily the biggest employer north of Brainerd, is thinking about moving to North Dakota.
Gov. Dayton didn't improve his standing with the business community when he told the AFL-CIO he wants the minimum wage increased to at least $9.50/hr .:
On the same day California's governor signed a bill upping the state's minimum wage to $10 within three years, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton made clear that he would be disappointed if the Legislature doesn't push up his state's wage floor next session.
Addressing a retiree council of the AFL-CIO, Dayton said Wednesday that it's wrong that Minnesota has a lower minimum wage than all of its Midwest neighbors and one of the lowest in the country. It hasn't gone up since 2005. While the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour often applies, some workers in Minnesota earn as little as $5.25 from small employers or $6.15 from larger companies.
One minute, Gov. Dayton is pandering to the business community. The next, he's telling people he wants to dramatically raise Minnesota's minimum wage. Gov. Dayton's behavior is baffling. Didn't he figure it out that the business community won't support him if he supports a significant increase in the minimum wage? Apparently, Gov. Dayton is about as bright with pandering with entrepreneurs as he is with farmers .
Gov. Dayton didn't make friends in St. Cloud when he visited St. Cloud this April. This is how one businessman responded to Gov. Dayton's rhetoric:
After Teresa Bohnen pointed out concern by the business community on the impact of Governor Dayton's 4th tier income tax on S-Corps I felt his response was disrespectful. He implied that businesses are 'OK' with disparities in tax rates of businesses compared to middle income earners. He called the Minnesota Chamber destructive. Then he implied that Teresa and other businesses were unrealistic about the facts.
Telling businesses that they're ok with hurting the middle class, then telling the AFL-CIO that he wants a significant increase in the minimum wage, isn't the way to win support for his (anti-entrepreneurial) agenda.
It's pretty clear that math and economics aren't Gov. Dayton's strong suits.
Posted Friday, September 27, 2013 3:30 AM
No comments.
Open letter to SCSU faculty, transcript edition
To: St. Cloud State faculty
From: Gary Gross, citizen journalist
Subject: St. Cloud State's transcript cover-up
I've written lots of articles about President Potter's attempt to cover up his administration's transcript scandal. These aren't baseless accusations, though they've been characterized that way by this administration. It's been verified by some of your colleagues. This is one of the posts I've written on the scandal. Judge for yourself if my accusations are baseless or irrefutable. This is from Dr. Phyllis VanBuren's monthly column for the St. Cloud Times:
Meet & Confer sessions are held regularly between the Faculty Association and St. Cloud State's administration. On every agenda of M&C minutes from October 2012 through this May, the topic of grades changes appeared.
The minutes show there is a lot of finger-pointing and the need for data sharing and adherence to policies and practices by students, faculty and administration. There are two main issues. One involves changing grades, usually to a W. The other involves the possibility of dropping classes from transcripts without informing faculty.
This post verifies as fact that students' participation in classes have been completely deleted:
ST. CLOUD, Minn. - Last spring, Tamara Leenay, a chemistry professor at St. Cloud State University, was reviewing grades when she came across the transcript of a student who failed an organic chemistry class she taught a couple of years earlier.
'I noticed the course was not even on his transcript,' Leenay said. 'There was no 'F.' There was no course number: It was completely gone. And I have [a] record that he was in my class and that I gave him a grade: and I was never notified of any of these changes.'
Leenay's experience isn't unique. Faculty members at St. Cloud State say they're concerned that students' grades have mysteriously disappeared from transcripts. Professors and instructors aren't sure how widespread the problem is, but say, except in rare instances, the university's failure to notify them of grade changes is an ethical breach.
'A number of faculty members raised concerns that they believed from what they were seeing that student's grades were actually disappearing off transcripts,' said Stephen Hornstein, president of the university's faculty association. 'A student would take a course, get a poor grade and then a semester or two later that grade would not appear on the transcript at all.'
Dr. Leenay's statement was unequivocal. There isn't room for interpretation. A student took a class from her. The student failed the class. Later, she discovered that the student's participation in the class had disappeared from St. Cloud State's official transcript system.
Despite this irrefutable proof, the administration insists proof doesn't exist :
In addressing this concern at a meet and confirm meeting conducted amongst university professors and administration, Hammer said the cause for concern primarily dealt with late drops and withdrawals.
Here's what Provost Malhotra said about the issue:
Recently, questions about student registration and transcript changes, specifically late withdrawals and drops, at St. Cloud State University have been reported in a few media outlets.
Apparently, Provost Malhotra think that getting a grade removed after a student has failed the class deals specifically [with] late withdrawals and drops.
When your colleagues have a name for when the transcripts have been permanently and secretly altered, that suggests this isn't an isolated incident. When your colleagues add 'poofs' to the campus jargon, that's proof that the administration isn't telling the whole truth about this.
When academic integrity is compromised at a university, no amount of rebranding will help wipe that away. The only way to correct that is to admit that it happened, then restore the students' transcripts. Without that act of integrity, the university's reputation will continue suffering.
Posted Friday, September 27, 2013 4:17 AM
No comments.
Dayton attacks child care providers
Calling in-home child care providers extremists won't help Gov. Dayton politically with this group. Still, that's what he did yesterday:
He added, "There's a whole extreme right-wing element in this state and this country who believe they should dictate to people, 'No you don't have that chance, to vote for yourself.'"
Gov. Dayton, it's time you stopped with the vitriol. You represent all Minnesotans, not just those that contribute to your campaign. Predictably, Gov. Dayton's aide tried walking his boss's statements back:
Bob Hume, Dayton's Deputy Chief of Staff, said the governor respects providers who oppose the union and has met with them in the past. He said Dayton's reference to the "extreme right wing" was "not to the providers, but to the national moneyed interests" who are funding lawsuits and seeking to prevent providers from voting.
That's a pathetic explanation. It's as if Mr. Hume expects people to think that the people filing the lawsuits aren't in-home child care providers. Unfortunately for Mr. Hume, in-home child care providers were the people that filed the lawsuits. These independent businesspeople also lobbied the legislature to not pass the bill in the first place.
Predictably, the DFL ignored these grassroots women's efforts. And yes, it's grassroots because it's mostly been the effort of a handful of in-home child care providers that organized these efforts. The DFL legislature didn't care. They owed the public employee unions too much to say no to the unions.
The DFL legislature didn't care that private sector employers aren't public sector employees. They wrote the bill in such a way that said these independent business owners were public sector employees. Using their logic, anyone doing any work for the government would fit the description of a public employee. Cement contractors, public housing contractors and others would be getting their checks from the government.
Gov. Dayton has a nasty habit of shooting his mouth off at people he disagrees with. That's especially true when he doesn't stick to his script. His vitriolic statements reveal the real Dayton.
The definition of a political gaffe is when a person accidentally tells the truth or accidentally reveals a part of their personality/character that they don't want the public to see. That's what happened with Gov. Dayton when he made these hate-filled, ill-advised statements.
Is Gov. Dayton the gentleman he tries to portray? Or is he the vitriolic man that surfaced yesterday? Or is it that he can't control himself, at least not consistently? I suspect it's all of the above. It's a shame he can't control himself. It's a shame because he lapses into the vitriolic politician far too often.
Couple his vitriolic nature with the fact that he's totally beholden to the DFL's special interest allies and you have the recipe for a disaster. That desciption definitely fits Gov. Dayton. He's been a disaster for most of the last 15 years.
Posted Friday, September 27, 2013 12:31 PM
No comments.
Gov't shutdown will be Democrats' fault
Despite the Democrats' spin otherwise, the looming government shutdown will be their fault. Tonight, Republicans voted to keep the government open while attaching a provision that would delay the start of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Here's the White House's response:
The White House on Saturday said President Obama would veto the House GOP's latest stopgap spending measure.
It said Obama would veto the bill because of the inclusion of language delaying ObamaCare and eliminating a medical device tax, while faulting the House for not moving a simple funding measure approved by the Senate on Friday.
"Rather than taking up that legislation, the House proposes amendments that advance a narrow ideological agenda and threaten the nation's economy," the White House budget office said in a statement. "By including extraneous measures that have no place in a government funding bill and that the president and Senate already made clear are unacceptable, House Republicans are pushing the government toward shutdown," it said. "If the president was presented with H.J. Res 59, as amended by these amendments, he would veto the bill."
Putting things into a bill at the last minute has been happening for decades. In most instances, however, the changes are additional pork used to buy votes that ensure passage of the bill. This time, the change to the Senate bill would delay the negative impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka the PPACA.
The administration immediately attempted to paint Republicans as extremists:
Before the veto threat, White House press secretary Jay Carney called the GOP measure 'reckless and irresponsible.' Any Republican who votes for the bill is 'voting for a shutdown,' he said in a statement.
It isn't amazing that the administration is attempting to portray Republicans as extremists. What's amazing, though, is the fact that the media isn't questioning the White House. They aren't even pretending to be mildly interested in reporting facts.
Unlike the formerly mainstream media, I'll put forward some verifiable facts. If Senate Democrats defeat the bill passed tonight by the House of Representatives:
- they will have voted to not fund the government's operation.
- they will have voted for giving corporations a huge break while forcing families to suffer the consequences of the PPACA
- they will have voted for hurting families while getting an exception for themselves and their staff.
It's impossible to take Jay Carney seriously, especially considering his repeated indefensible statements. Here's his latest spin:
In his statement, Carney criticized Republicans for repeatedly trying to attack the healthcare law, noting they have held more than 40 votes to defund, delay or repeal it.
'The president has shown that he is willing to improve the health care law and meet Republicans more than halfway to deal with our fiscal challenges, but he will not do so under threats of a government shutdown that will hurt our economy,' he said.
That's BS. If President Obama was "willing to improve the health care law", he'd push for something that didn't use the government to force families into buying something they don't want to buy. If President Obama truly was willing to meet Republicans half way on health care reform, he wouldn't have shoved the PPACA down families' throats. If President Obama was truly willing to meet Republcans half way, he wouldn't have ignored the American people's vociferous cries to stop the insanity of passing the ACA.
There's no polite way of putting this so I'll just say it. Mr. Carney is a liar. Mr. Carney insists that President Obama "has shown that he's willing to improve the health care law." I'm calling Mr. Carney's bluff. I won't believe him until he cites examples of President Obama did that. What specific provisions has he used that the Republicans proposed? We know that Republicans proposed tons of alternatives during the Health Summit. Here's one of their proposals:
10:07- Sen. Coburn is now talking about lawsuit abuse reform and defensive medicine costs. Eliminating lawsuit abuse and defensive medicine costs would save almost $850,000,000,000 annually.
That went in one of President Obama's ears and out the other. Nothing in the ACA addresses reducing defensive medicine costs.
10:42- Paul Ryan is responding to Rob Andrews on the issue of federal regulations. Andrews says that the federal government needs to regulate health care mandates. Ryan nailed Andrews, saying that organizations like NFIB will do a good job of negotiating health care policies for their members. Ryan then says that governors will do a good job regulating health insurance, too.
When I wrote this post , I cited Lamar Alexander's statement:
Today, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month, a 190 percent increase. Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month, a 97 percent increase. Even with a tax subsidy, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today.
Today, women in Nashville can choose from 30 insurance plans that cost less than the administration says insurance plans on the exchange will cost, even with the new tax subsidy. In Nashville, 105 insurance plans offered today will not be available in the exchange.
When the federal government dictates what health insurance policies have to cover, families' affordable choices shrink.
Again, President Obama is about getting everything his way. Mr. Carney's lies aren't persuasive.
When Democrats vote to defeat the House CR, they'll have their fingerprints all over the looming government shutdown.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12 AM
No comments.
Don't take Sierra Club's accusations seriously
Rep. Jim Newberger's op-ed in this morning's St. Cloud Times highlights how out-of-state special interests, with allies within Minnesota, want to make electricity more expensive and less abundant. Rep. Newberger's op-ed highlights the lies the Sierra Club is willing to tell to get their way:
First, the Sherco power plant is not 'dirty,' nor does it produce 'slime' as recent Times submissions have opined. I have lived 1 mile downwind from the Sherco plant since 1998. Every morning, I look out my window and see the plant. I have never seen plumes of black smoke coming out of four smoke stacks, as portrayed in some of the environmentalists' propaganda.
The truth is Sherco has two stacks and the color of the 'smoke' is clear white. And I have yet to find 'slime' in my yard,or on my car or home.
Second, Sherco meets the strict federal standards for clean air and will be spending millions to make its operation even cleaner.
The Sierra Clubs' lies aren't surprising considering the Sierra Club's agenda :
Our goals include:
- Retiring one-third of the nation's more than 500 coal plants by 2020
- Replacing the majority of retired coal plants with clean energy solutions such as wind, solar, and geothermal
- Keeping coal in the ground in places like Appalachia and Wyoming's Powder River Basin
In short, the Sierra Club's goal is to take America back to the stone ages. Wind, solar and geothermal aren't capable of replacing coal. What's worse is that that's just the tip of the Sierra Club's anti-civilization agenda :
"No state has adequate protections in place. Even where there are rules, they are poorly monitored and enforced. Thanks to the multiple federal exemptions, we can't even count on the federal government to keep us safe! Together, though, we can change that! No industry, no matter how wealthy or powerful, can withstand the righteous passion of the American people. The out-of-control rush to drill has put oil and gas industry profits ahead of our health, our families, our property, our communities, and our futures. If drillers can't extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas."
- Allison Chin, Sierra Club president, July 28, 2012, at the Stop the Frack Attack rally
These nutjobs think that natural gas isn't clean enough? That's insane. Let's remember that the Sierra Club passionately opposed the building of the Alaskan Pipeline in the 60's and 70's. Back then, the Sierra Club's president wrote an op-ed in Outdoor Life. In his op-ed, the Sierra Club president predicted doom and gloom for the Barrows Caribou, stating the Pipeline would forever disrupt the Barrows Caribou's migration routes. "And for what?", the Sierra Club president asked. "For a few years worth of oil?"
These environutters' predictions have consistently missed their mark. In fact, they've missed to such an extent that it's impossible to take them seriously. The Sierra Club's latest campaigns are just the latest campaign against modernity.
Finally, what's worst is that they can't prove their accusations. The people making the accusations aren't scientists . The vast majority of the executive board for the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club are nothing more than activists. John Hottinger used to be the Senate Majority Leader. Several executive committee members are from the Blue Green Alliance. Javier Morillo-Alicea is the president of SEIU Local 26.
In other words, the Sierra Club's executive committee is filled with progressive activists. Their expertise on the environment is nonexistant. If reporters did their jobs, these activists/faux experts wouldn't have any credibility.
What they're experts at, though, is organizing campaigns. That's their specialty. It's foolish to let these faux experts set environmental policy. I'm confident that, if questioned by a real expert, like Mike Beard, these Sierra Club Executive Committee members probably couldn't speak beyond their chanting points.
The best thing for conservatives to do is a) expose these political activists for the frauds they are, b) write frequently about these activists' anti-jobs, anti-middle class agenda and c) get politically active by commenting on regulations when regulatory agencies open themselves for comments.
Just complaining about these environmental extremists isn't sufficient. Defeating them is the only acceptable response. If conservatives do their due diligence, they'll defeat these anti-jobs activists. If conservatives leave the battlefield unattended, they'll lose. Worst of all, families will lose. The DFL, the Sierra Club and their allies want high energy prices.
It's time to win this fight.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:04 AM
No comments.
A survey worth taking
Conservation Minnesota says their priorities are your priorities. They've put this survey together, theoretically to record Minnesotans' opinions. I highly recommend you do that. Here's a sampling of their questions:
Protecting lakes and rivers from sulfide mining pollution.
Replacing dirty coal with clean, renewable energy.
Investing in energy saving transit and transportation systems.
I don't believe that Conservation Minnesota is that interested in hearing from all Minnesotans. Rather, I think they only want to hear from Minnesotans that agree with them.
Conservation Minnesota hasn't hesitated in lying about the 'dangers' of precious metal mining. Here's one of their lies:
Sulfide mines have a long record of polluting surrounding lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater with mercury, acid mine drainage, and toxic metals. Mines proposed in Minnesota would pose risks to some of our most important water resources like Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters.
That's BS. Conservation Minnesota knows it's BS. PolyMet and Twin Metals are south of the continental divide in northern Minnesota. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, aka the BWCAW, is north of the continental divide in northern Minnesota.
Waters on the south side of the continental divide flow south. Waters on the north side flow north. That means it's imposssible for the water from the PolyMet and Twin Metals mines to ever flow into the BWCAW.
The dirty little secret (actually, it isn't that secret anymore) is that the DFL can't survive without organizations like Conservation Minnesota writing lots of checks to their campaigns. Gov. Dayton is, in fact, in a difficult position because he wants to keep the greenies on his side without pissing the miners off too much.
Conservation Minnesota's impact, along with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, aka MCEA, and the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, aka the MEP, isn't just in writing checks. They're part of the DFL's GOTV operation during the election and their lobbyists when the legislature is in session. Without their muscle, Gov. Dayton and the DFL would be in a difficult position electorally.
If conservatives don't take the time to fill out this survey, they'll be giving the DFL's special interest allies a huge political advantage. The survey only has 12 questions so it isn't a major time investment.
Posted Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:42 AM
Comment 1 by SamDaniel at 30-Sep-13 02:24 AM
Thats a great survey. A survey is worth it in knowing people's opinion and to improve your work.
Comment 2 by Frank Pafko at 30-Sep-13 05:36 AM
While I agree that Polymet and Twin Metals mines can be undertaken without serious pollution to the adjacent waters, you may wish to write a correction to this post. The Polymet mine, east of Hoyt Lakes, would be adjacent to the Partridge River, which is in the Lake Superior drainage. However, The proposed Twin Metals underground mine is located adjacent (south ) of Birch Lake and the South Kawishiwi River. This river does flow north into Basswood Lake and the BWCA.
Conservation Minnesota fails to point out the lack of noticeable water pollution from a real world test. SE of the proposed Twin Metals site, also adjacent to Birch Lake, is the Dunka iron ore open pit mine. This mining operation, for over a half century,has needed to remove sulfide bearing rock to get to the iron ore. Rainwater has been leaching through these rock piles without treatment the entire time. While elevated metals are found in the runoff, downstream lakes have not been polluted as has been implied would happen from "sulfide mining".
This has been submitted for your consideration, you do not need to publish this comment.
Comment 3 by JJ at 30-Sep-13 09:51 AM
I don't believe the survey is all that great considering the slant of the questions. The survey doesn't give you options for extent and basically all the questions are more or less along the lines of do you want what we're supporting or do you want to kill puppies? I find question 7 especially interesting in that it asks if you want to remove toxic chemicals from food packaging and consumer products, but then when you are asked to rank the top priority the question seems to have been about saving the children from toxic chemicals (the summary became "Protecting children from toxic chemicals." The best part of the survey was being able to disagree with replacing "dirty coal."
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Sep-13 09:56 AM
JJ, the survey is worth knowing about because we need to expose the DFL's agenda.
