Monday, August 8, 2011

Women's Rights: There Are Still Battles to be Fought and WON

Contributed by Katie Foley

This weekend I met a stunning young woman from a primarily Buddhist, South Asian island nation.  She has been educated in the United States, earning both her Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree from a state university.  She is now doing whatever she can to extend her stay in the U.S. because she knows that if she returns to her island home it is likely her parent’s will have picked a husband for her. 

It’s only natural for a flaming liberal and rabid feminist such as myself to contemplate at length the state of Women’s Rights, not only in this country but world-wide.  Women have come so far since we were finally given the franchise in 1920 [1], a *mere* 133 years after the Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention. [2] Thanks to World War II, when women were needed to produce supplies for the men fighting the war, women learned the satisfaction to be gained from financial independence.  However, I know for a fact my grandma had to hide that she was married from her employer lest she be fired for being derelict in her house-wife duties.

But even though we have entered the second decade of a new millennium, there are still innumerable strides to be made in order for women to gain the full equity of U.S. citizenship.  It’s no secret that women earn substantially less than men for comparable work, 78 cents on the dollar according to the latest census data. [3] Even if women find themselves in a position of equality with men they are still expected to present themselves as feminine and desirable, perhaps even demure.  This is true of women in any professional capacity, from lawyers to doctors to politicians such as Michele Bachmann.  I may not agree with her politics, or even think her completely sane, but I resent that she has to strive to appear feminine amidst what must be an exhausting bid for the GOP nomination. 

The continued subordination of women is not limited to cultural or economic phenomena. In February of this year the GOP in Congress wanted to limit abortion funding by inserting the word “forcible” before the word “rape” in federal legislation. [4]  This implies that there may be some types of rape that are okay, as long as they are not “forcible.”  Then again, I cannot think of a way that rape could be anything but forcible, given that the common law definition of rape is “unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman…through force and against her will.”

Now, thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act, women will have access to free birth control, including the “morning-after” pill, through their private insurers.  Those of us who have been perturbed for years by the fact that insurers were more interested in ensuring old men can still get erections than helping women with family planning [5] find the new mandate to be a step in the right direction for women’s rights and women’s health.  In fact, studies indicate that as many as 2/3 of women believe contraceptives should be covered by private insurance plans.  Yet the vociferous right-wing has indentified this as nothing more than a battle tactic by the culture warriors on the left. This is not about women’s health, it is just liberals looking to impose their immorality on the pocket books of private insurers. [6]

The last example I'll give of the stagnation of progress for Women’s Rights advocates was in the form of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court failed to allow a sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart to be certified as a class action, splitting 5-4 over the issue of whether all of the women alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex had a common claim, a requirement in class action law suits. [7] What this means is that each woman will have to individually litigate the issue, a daunting and expensive task when you’re fighting a global super power such as Wal-Mart.  The bottom line is that Wal-Mart will be able to continue its *alleged* practice of employment discrimination on the basis of sex because the likelihood of being sued successfully for having done dropped significantly with the Supreme Court’s decision. 

I don’t pretend to know the solution to the problem of the continued efforts of those in power to subordinate women.  I don’t know what we can do to liberate women in South Asian island nations and the Middle East from the religious and cultural chains that bind them.  What I do know is that what we have been doing has not been enough, and for a nation committed to “Equal Protection of the Law” we are sadly lacking in the area of Women’s Rights.  Just as all people should be allowed to marry who they want regardless of gender, women should not be told to be more feminine in the work place and should have insurance coverage for family planning. Women should not have to fear a forced marriage or wonder whether the rape they experienced was “forcible” or not.  As the old Cheris Kramarae quote says, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Women are over half of the population, it’s time to make the less-than-half part of the population truly acknowledge and value our humanity. I will not let my uterus dictate where I go in life.  No other women should have to either.    




Friday, July 29, 2011

It's Picnic Time!

With upcoming local elections and challenges posed by the "Tea Party", it will be an important time to join us for the 8th Annual SD-50 DFL Picnic taking place Wednesday, August 10th at Kordiak Park.


Wednesday, August 10
6:00 to 8:00 pm
Kordiak Park
1845 49th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights


Of course, taking center stage will be Senator Barb Goodwin, Representative Kate Knuth, and Representative Carolyn Laine! There is no charge, but a free will donation will be accepted.


WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE! 

Friday, June 24, 2011

Drink That Kool-Aid, Follow Their Lead

Contributed by Katie Foley

Please forgive me my absence. Much of what I describe below was gleaned from this article: http://www.twincities.com/ci_18342883?nclick_check=1  

I have been listening to a lot of MPR lately and between talks of mummies and tapping into the Strategic Oil Reserve is a lot of talk about the impending government shut-down.

The shut-down will go into effect on July 1, 2011.  The parties involved went to court today and a judge stated that if the parties cannot agree, she will decide which provision in Minnesota's Constitution is more important: that the government cannot spend money unless the legislature has appropriated it?  Or that Minnesotans should not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

One friend asked me, "Doesn't this happen every few years?"  The answer is yes and no.  Past shutdowns have been partial shutdowns.  Many agency budgets had been passed and money that was appropriated for another purpose could be diverted somewhere else.  This appropriation shifting was directed at what have come to be known as "essential" services.

For example, the State Patrol and court system are among the services thought to be essential.  Towards the bottom is the Minnesota State Lottery and Canterbury Park.  Actually, people who plan to go to State Parks for the 4th of July will have to cancel their plans. It'd be a shame to drive all that way to see the Parks' entrances barricaded.

The problem this year is that even if everyone could agree on what should be deemed essential, the legislature hasn't appropriated any money.  For anyone. That means no appropriation shifting as there will have been no appropriations. Hence the judge's dilemma about the Constitutional issues "at the core of government." My lawyerly brain is intrigued by the prospect of new jurisprudence, but my Minnesotan brain is outraged at the complete inability to compromise when anybody who has accomplished anything can tell you that compromise is the name of life's game.

Back to MPR.  One afternoon this week a newscaster asked who should take the political heat for this, the Republican legislature or the Democratic governor. Since I'm a flaming liberal, my response was pretty typical.

"The Republicans, of course!" I yelled at my radio, "They were elected to solve a budget crisis and instead they focused on making sure gays can't have the same legal rights as straights!"

But a couple days later a thought has struck me.  My opinion has been based on the underlying assumption that these men and women were elected to balance the budget - to solve the budget crisis.  This has been a mistaken assumption.  The Republicans were elected to cut spending and make sure that (non-property) tax rates did not go up.

Maybe someday I'll have the money to be concerned about the capital gains tax, or taxes on estates over $5 million.  Maybe someday I'll be in a tax bracket that doesn't result in a full refund every year, like the government feels sorry for how broke I am. Maybe someday I'll appreciate that I can speak with money, not just watch it all go towards keeping a roof over my head, food in my stomach and the luxury of a cell phone with an unlimited data plan.  For now I'm too busy being concerned about how to pay for health insurance coverage on the off chance that Blue Cross overlooks my pre-existing conditions and actually decides to insure me.

So to MPR, when you ask who should take the political fall for the budget impasse, I'm going to have to change my answer.  Who should take the political fallout?  The Democrats.  Because we keep thinking that if we play nice, the Republicans won't kick us in the shins and steal our ball.  Maybe we need to resort to playground politics because the Republicans elected because some people believe we are "Taxed Enough Already" are doing exactly what they were elected to do - to steal the ball and run home. Unfortunately, this isn't a playground where the one with the ball decides who gets to play. This is life. This is liberty. This is people's livelihoods and property.  Aren't those the rights that these supposed Patriots have proclaimed they stand to uphold? Or was that just another flavor of Kool-Aid that too many people have decided to drink without realizing what is really in the cup?

Thursday, April 14, 2011

New Idea for Hit Show "Survivor"

I got this as an email from my (not very political) sister and thought it was worth sharing.  Enjoy! -Katie Foley


Next Season on Survivor*

Have you heard about the next planned "Survivor" show?

Governor Scott  (Florida), Kathy Black (NYC Schools' Chancellor), Governor Walker (Wis) and Governor Christie (NJ) will be dropped in an elementary school classroom for 1 school year. Each of them will be provided with a copy of his/her school district's curriculum, and a class of 20-25 students.

Each class will have a minimum of five learning-disabled children, three with A.D.H.D., one gifted child, and two who speak limited English. Three students will be labeled with severe behavior problems.

Each of them must complete lesson plans at least 3 days in advance, with annotations for curriculum objectives and modify, organize, or create their materials accordingly. They will be required to teach students, handle misconduct, implement technology, document attendance, write referrals, correct homework, make bulletin boards, compute grades, complete report cards, document benchmarks, communicate with parents, and arrange parent conferences. They must also stand in their doorway between class changes to monitor the hallways.

In addition, they will complete fire drills, tornado drills, and [Code Red] drills for shooting attacks each month.

They must attend workshops, faculty meetings, and attend curriculum development meetings. They must also tutor students who are behind and strive to get their 2 non-English speaking children proficient enough to take the SOLS tests. If they are sick or having a bad day they must not let it show.

Each day they must incorporate reading, writing, math, science, and social studies into the program. They must maintain discipline and provide an educationally stimulating environment to motivate students at all times. If all students do not wish to cooperate, work, or learn, the teacher will be held responsible.

Contestants will only have access to the public golf course on the weekends, but with their new salary they will not be able to afford it. There will be no access to vendors who want to take them out to lunch, and lunch will be limited to thirty minutes, which is not counted as part of their work day. They will be permitted to use a student restroom, as long as another survival candidate can supervise their class.

If the copier is operable, they may make copies of necessary materials before, or after, school. However, they cannot surpass their monthly limit of copies. They must also continually advance their education, at their expense, and on their own time.

The winner of this Season of Survivor will be allowed to return to their job.


*Note: This is, of course, satirical.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Wachovia and Other Disasters - Where is the Outrage?

a Katie Foley rant

There's a lot of outrage lately. People are outraged that insurance companies may be forced to continue covering someone who gets sick. Others are outraged about the acceptance of things outside of the Biblical mainstream, thinking that the whole "Freedom of Religion" thing was clearly meant as "Freedom of Religion(s that do not threaten Christianity's dominance or freak us out)." Some are outraged that openly gay service members will now be tolerated because their sons may become the targets of sexual assault - never mind that the nation's daughters experience rape while serving in the military at twice the rate of their civilian counterparts. [1]
  
With so much outrage flying about I think one topic has seriously lacked the attention that it deserves, and that is the lack of penal accountability for the outright fraud committed by many banks over the past decade. Numerous investigations have revealed that that banks cut corners at the front end, misrepresenting information on up to 70% of the loan applications involved in the Early Payment Defaults - those that lost their homes when they could not afford their adjustable rate mortgage anymore. [2]

Then banks didn't agree to negotiate lower payments with mortgagees until Congress told them they had to by establishing the Making Homes Affordable program. [3] Next we find out that banks often could not find the proper legal paperwork for many of the transactions involving the sale of mortgage backed securities, causing  delays in countless foreclosure proceedings.  Then we find out that the documents, though once missing, have been found - except that they are themselves fraudulent.  The fraud spanned from erroneous dates and non-existent mortgage companies to forging the signatures of non-existent bank vice presidents.[4]
  
These are things that banks did to people's homes.  Now we find out that the actions of one, Wachovia Bank (purchased by Wells Fargo as a result of the 2008 mortgage meltdown) may have actually facilitated murder by laundering billions of dollars for Mexican cocaine cartels.  According to The Guardian, U.S. authorities from multiple agencies 
"uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts.  Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which coincided with the first escalation of violence along the U.S.-Mexico border that ignited the current drug wars."
The criminal charges levied under the Bank Secrecy Act were settled out of court, with punishment being a deferred prosecution agreement (now expired) and "$110 million in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and...a $50 million fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine." [5]
  
To put this into perspective, let's look at the consequences of cocaine possession.  Under Minnesota law, if you possess enough cocaine to equal the weight of two tablespoons of water (25 grams) you can be imprisoned for up to 30 years.  Wachovia laundered $378.4 billion which helped cover the cost of shipping 22 tons of cocaine and were fined less than 2% of Wells Fargo's 2009 profits [6] So, in review, 25 grams =  30 years in prison; providing the laundering service for $378.4 billion used to ship 22 tons of cocaine = a swat on the rear end (you can't even call it a spanking) and a "shame on you" fine. If we are to accept corporations as persons then I demand that they, too, be treated equally under the law - including laws related to criminal culpability and punishment.
  
There is evidence of one fraudulent action after another coming out of the banking crisis that lead to the Great Depression 2.0; one family after another watched their American dream shatter into a million pieces because of the greed sitting around bank boardroom tables. Now we find out that at least one bank may have flouted international and federal banking laws to the tune of $378 billion during a time when those benefiting from the bank's actions were engaged in one of the most violent drug-related street wars in recent history.  Not only that, but said bank had reason to know exactly what it was doing.  
  
No person, corporations included, should be above accountability for his/her/its complicity in a violent criminal enterprise. We give corporations tax breaks, they have the people creating the laws in their pockets and now even the courts have found corporations to be somehow less deserving of punishment for their engagement in conduct that is outright criminal.  Banks are a prime example of how we have allowed corporations to get out of control. 
  
Where is the outrage? People are shouting about distrusting the government - at least the government has some level of transparency and is accountable to the people.  Rather than blanket distrust of the government we should demand that our government "for the people" encompass only naturally born people, not corporate people.  At the very least we can hold corporations such as Wachovia as accountable as Mark Dayton would be if he helped launder billions of dollars for a Mexican cocaine cartel.  

[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html
[2] http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mortgage-fraud-2006
[3] For more information on this communist plot, visit http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov
[4] http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110404/bs_yblog_thelookout/the-foreclosure-mess-isnt-going-away I recommended watching the clip from 60 Minutes
[5] Both quotes are from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
[6] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.021http://www.asknumbers.com/tonnes-to-grams.aspxhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs 

Monday, April 4, 2011

From the desk of Al Franken

The Effects the Proposed Federal Budget Could Have on Minnesotans


SD 50 Chair Bill Krueger wrote to Sen. Al Franken regarding the federal budget and the fiscal priorities being set by the President and Congress.  Al responded to Bill, who asked that the response be posted to this blog.  Al's response is below.  At the end Al refers to H.F. 1, which can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c112f6veC1::


Dear Bill,

Thank you for contacting me about the federal budget.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter of critical importance to our nation.

As you may know, our country faces a tremendous challenge in getting our fiscal house in order.  Our debt has grown for decades under Congresses and Presidents of both parties.  And while it's easy to agree that we should cut government spending, it's much harder to agree on what we should cut.  We can't just say, "Let's cut $500 billion" or make vague promises about "increasing efficiency."  Cutting spending means choosing programs we currently spend money on, and deciding to stop spending money on them.  These decisions have real impacts on Minnesotans.

The President's budget does a good job of keeping our priorities in order while getting our deficits under control.  It would freeze non-security domestic spending across the board for five years, which would result in $400 billion in savings over the next decade.  I also believe the President's budget makes the right decision by continuing to invest in education, innovation, and infrastructure-areas key to creating jobs and growing our economy.

That being said, I worry that a few of the specific cuts proposed by the President will hurt Minnesotans disproportionately, particularly cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).  These cuts would mean that nearly 50,000 households in Minnesota could lose assistance and have to choose between food or heat next winter.  Anyone who's lived through a Minnesota winter knows that you simply can't go without heat.  As the budget process moves forward, I will fight to keep full funding for LIHEAP.

But while the President's budget generally hits the right mark, the spending legislation recently passed in the House, H.R. 1, puts our entire economy at risk.  H.R. 1 would slash vital programs in an indiscriminate and ideological way.  Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and advisor to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, has estimated that H.R. 1 would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012 if it were enacted.  Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs estimates that 2 percent of our nation's GDP would be wiped out by H.R. 1. During a fragile recovery, we can't be making indiscriminate or ideologically-driven cuts that will cost us jobs when we need them most.

Most troubling of all, H.R. 1 would take a meat cleaver to programs that disproportionately affect Minnesotans. I've heard from tens of thousands of Minnesotans who say these cuts would have a direct impact on their families and their livelihoods.  H.R. 1 would slash funding for job training programs at a time when 3,000 Minnesotans are on a waiting list to get trained and find new employment.  $1.1 billion in funding for Head Start would be cut, denying thousands of Minnesota children the chance to get their educations started right.  $1.6 billion in health research funding would be lost, delaying clinical trials and costing Minnesota good-paying medical research jobs.  All funding for high speed rail would be cut, and transportation grants that have funded projects like the Central Corridor Light Rail would be gutted.  These are cuts we simply cannot afford to make.

As you may know, Congress recently passed legislation that averted a government shutdown for three weeks.  That came after Congress passed a similar bill funding the government for two weeks.  Combined, these two measures made roughly $10 billion in spending cuts to federal programs.  However, making further cuts requires us to look at broader reforms, and I've proposed several that will significantly bring down our long-term deficits.

First, the government doesn't negotiate prices directly with drug companies under Medicare.  The Department of Veterans Affairs does, and for the ten most prescribed drugs, the VA pays about half as much.  Getting rid of the rule preventing Medicare from negotiating would save up to $240 billion over ten years.  Likewise, the oil industry already enjoys enormous profits, and yet still receives huge subsidies and tax breaks.  Many of these tax giveaways don't even help with domestic oil production.  Cutting these would save $64 billion over ten years.  And lastly, when the military says it doesn't need or want something, we should listen.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the military doesn't need the F-35 alternate engine, the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, or the Non-Line of Sight Launch System.  Simply not buying these items will save us billions of dollars.

I hope we'll be able to put our differences aside and find a way forward in addressing our nation's long-term deficits.  Minnesotans' jobs-and our place in the global economy-depend on it.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,





Al Franken
United States Senator

Thursday, March 10, 2011

The GOP's Got Nuthin'

Contributed by John Heluska

While Dayton puts out solid budget proposals the GOP continues its attack on the state's future prosperity as well as its unconscionable assault on Minnesota's most vulnerable - working families, the underprivileged, children and the elderly.  The GOP is hell bent on slashing state funding for education, healthcare and the protection of the elderly.  This shifts many of the costs to our local communities where they will become the burden of property tax payers, who have already seen a 70% increase in property taxes under the Pawlenty administration. Instead of recognizing that we are all in this together, the GOP continues its refusal to accept an equitable adjustment of income tax rates to make sure that Minnesota's wealthiest pay their fair share.

What Minnesota needs from the GOP is a commitment to become a real policy making partner with the governor to create a future where our children receive a world class education, where our elderly are cared
for, and where affordable healthcare is available for all Minnesotans. And, more than anything else right now, the state needs to create jobs to make it all possible.

Governor Dayton has put solid proposals on the table to address these issues. Other than "gut it all" and "let's start a war on social issues" the GOP's response is, more than anything, "We got nuthin!"

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Welcome to the Bottom - the Politics of Union Busting and the Responsibility of Middle Class Parents

Contributed by Rick Nelson
What Message are Parents Sending Now?

One of the roles of a parent is to teach your child how to improve themselves and their lives as they grow up.  I, for one, tried to teach my daughters that you must try hard, because nothing is given to you, and that improvement and betterment take work.

 But the adults involved in the current political debate surrounding unions are delivering a startlingly different message to their children. Instead of teaching that betterment requires hard work, children are learning that hard work does not matter at all. What matters is that no one else is receiving better benefits than you are. Union members are among the few middle class workers who still have access to affordable health care and pension benefits. Instead of asking why other jobs fail to provide these benefits people are trying to snatch them away from those who still have them.

Is this just a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do"?  I am saddened by the apparent mixed messages of "work hard to better yourself and your position" and "if someone else has access to something better you should eliminate that access."  Why aren't these parents teaching their children that they should fight to have equal access to the benefits enjoyed by union members?  Children are confused enough about life already, sending mixed messages of this nature is not at all helpful.

On Your Mark, Get Set, GO!


The way I see it, what is really happening is a race to the bottom.  People see the benefits enjoyed by others and, instead of working to have the benefits themselves, they are simply trying to bring their unionized counterparts down.  They holler that (unionized) public employees should not be enjoying such "luxurious" benefits at the expense of the tax payer.  Have they forgotten that these same public employees are themselves tax payers?  They are essentially paying their own wages.

Instead of asking "why should they?" people should be asking "why shouldn't we?"  We should be uniting together to preserve the middle class, not helping the corporate big wigs and their political puppets eliminate the benefits enjoyed by a fortunate few. You would spend the same amount of energy and you just may improve your own access to affordable healthcare and retirement plans. Perhaps whining, bashing and dragging others down with you is more appealing but in the end you're not actually helping yourself.  If the middle class does not start standing up for themselves and does not allow organized political forces (i.e. unions) do it for them, how are we going to preserve the middle class?  You cannot be a door mat unless you lie down.

Unions have brought value to everyone's lives.  They brought you the weekend and the 8 hour work day.  They allowed workers to unite and forced employers to recognize the value of their workers.  They forced employers to ensure the health and viability of their workforce instead of treating them like another cog in the corporate machine that, once worn, would simply have to be replaced.

If we continue to strip unions of their ability to bargain the end result will not be a balanced budget or improved working conditions for everyone else.  Instead, we will once again become cogs in a machine beyond our ken.  Unions are not the enemy.  Collective Bargaining Agreements are precisely that - bargained for agreements.  Employers and unions sit down together and establish what will and will not be part of an employment agreement.  It is disingenuous to suggest that unions are somehow finagling employers into acting in a way they did not agree to.  This is about people's lives, the lives and well being of their families, and the health of our society as a whole - not about improving the bottom line of those who are already at the top.

Parents need to teach their children that hard work and collective effort can improve the lives of everyone.  "We are all better off when we are ALL better off."  If we do not change our tone and work together it will only be a matter of time until we hear "Welcome to the Bottom."

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Governor Dayton Releases His Budget Proposal

Contributed by Katherine Foley

Republican leaders in St. Paul are calling Governor Dayton's budget proposal a "job killer" (Pioneer Press, "Dayton's 5% Solution", available here: http://www.twincities.com/ci_17397127?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com).  Dayton's plan, which calls for an income tax increase for Minnesota's top 5% of earners, would solve half of Minnesota's budget crisis.  The increase would apply to married couples filing jointly who earn over $150,000, Head of Household filers who make over $130,000 and single filers making over $85,000.  


As for it being a "job killer", Dayton claims that the increase would only apply to 9% of businesses, one could speculate businesses that already benefit from federal tax breaks and outsourcing.  The claim is that companies will either leave Minnesota or will decline to make Minnesota their homes in the future.  


No body wants to pay more in taxes but a further reading of the article reveals several startling facts that Republicans are either not privy to or do not care about.  For example, in the past 8 years property tax rates have increased by 70%.  Higher income earners tend to favor property taxes because in the long run it is less money owed, but the elderly and families on fixed incomes cannot keep forking over more in property taxes to keep the police and fire fighters available to ensure their community's safety or to ensure that a community's children are receiving a competitive education.  


Furthermore, the article states that currently these top earners are actually paying less than the rest of Minnesotans.  The top 5% of earners enjoy a 9% tax rate while the bottom 90% pay 12.3% of their income in taxes.  If the argument is that the wealthy shouldn't pay more since they are creating jobs, this blogger would like to know: Where are these supposed jobs?  Minnesota lost 22,400 jobs in December and the unemployment rate continues to hover around 7%. (see http://www.startribune.com/business/114278164.html) If tax increases kill jobs why have we lost so many under Tim Pawlenty's reign? The truth is that the Republican argument just doesn't hold up. 


Dayton's budget doesn't only offer tax increases but also includes about $1 billion in budget cuts.  On the chopping block are cuts in MinnesotaCare that would drop 7,200 adults who are earning 200% above the poverty line, $44,000 for a family of four.  Meanwhile, elders in nursing homes or receiving home care would see a funding decrease and health care providers will see a surcharge increase in an attempt to "rein in rising health care costs."  During the campaign Dayton promised to increase funding for K-12 schools, which the state owes $1.9 billion in delayed payments.  His promise was kept, but the increase is less than 1%.  Dayton warned that if Republicans fail to get on board with new revenue sources the cuts will be even more painful for the most vulnerable Minnesotans than those he proposes.   


It is not fair that the vast majority of Minnesotans (who pay a higher tax rate anyway) face funding cuts which could potentially cause an even bigger drain on their already tight budgets.  It's true that some people abuse the social safety net, but Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters demonstrated that abuse happens at both ends of the spectrum.  Parents are fighting desperately to stay in their homes and feed their kids.  We expect schools (i.e. teachers) to be held accountable to the highest extreme with less money to work with.  The fact is that Republicans are not in this for the average Minnesotan.  Declaring that Dayton's budget "doesn't have much of a pulse" just shows how clueless they are to the suffering of many of Minnesotans.  With poverty on the rise and median household incomes on the decline, it's disgusting that Republicans are still favoring their wealthy campaign contributors (see http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2010/09/28/minnesota-poverty-up-median-income-down-racial-disparities-persist/).  


I once saw a cartoon in The New Yorker that showed a lawyer sitting at his desk asking a potential client, "How much justice can you afford?"  (see image above). The cartoon could have just as easily have been a Republican sitting behind his desk asking a constituent "How much representation can you afford?"  It's a sad world when the majority can be out-represented by the wealthiest 5%.  

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The MN GOP Reveals Its True Colors with an Outrageously Inappropriate Campaign Brochure

Contributed by Danny S. 
Will the MN GOP ever learn from the past mistakes of political campaigns and political parties?

The MN GOP has mailed out a questionable campaign brochure that smears a DFL candidate who won the DFL primary for a special election in Northern Minnesota (House district 5B).  Carly Melin, the DFL candidate rhetorically attacked by what appears to be a highly inappropriate campaign mailer, has called for the current chairman of the MN Republican Party, Tony Sutton, to resign, according to the Star Tribune.

Melin—a 25-yr.-old attorney—is pictured in the brochure, which calls for voters to “Take your best shot” at “liberal” politicians.  

Indeed, according to the Star Tribune, the MN GOP has funded and mailed out a campaign brochure against Melin, a pro-gun Democrat running for a Minnesota House seat located in Northern Minnesota.  The campaign brochure strongly encourages voters to stand up for their “gun rights.”  Moreover, the campaign brochure implies that so-called “Liberal St. Paul Politicians” pose a risk to gun ownership.

Also pictured in the campaign brochure is a hunter with a shotgun.  That page of the brochure is emblazoned with the words “Take your best shot,” according to the Star Tribune.  On the next page of the campaign mailer, a display of Ms. Melin’s picture is shown.  

After the recent tragedy in Tucson, this extremely unfortunate and highly inappropriate campaign mailing seems insensitive, misleading, and possibly dangerous.  We all know that some individuals do not have adequate mental health resources in our society.  We all know that some people take criminal actions when they feel that they are justified in so doing.  Our political leadership across the political spectrum ought to encourage lawful and responsible behavior, since even a single, deranged person can do too much harm to the democratic process and our communities.  It seems that those on the political right who take delight in using violent political campaign rhetoric have gone too far here.

With this truly ugly campaign brochure, the MN Republican Party has crossed the bounds of acceptable campaign rhetoric and basic human decency.  The MN Republican Party should immediately stop sending this ad, and the MN Republican Party should officially issue an apology to Ms. Melin and Minnesota’s voters, without further delay or attempts at distraction.    

Additionally, the current chairman of the MN Republican Party, Tony Sutton, ought to retract the campaign ad and profusely apologize to the voters and Ms. Melin, or step down from his leadership post.

In terms of the governance of our people, our democratic government can only be as good as the people who choose it and participate in the democratic process.  The current words and actions of Mr. Sutton are unacceptable when comprising a part of this democratic process.  In addition to Mr. Sutton, the rest of the MN Republican Party should feel ashamed to fund and put its name on this sort of campaign drivel—pure nonsense that confuses the voters and possibly harms both the community and the community’s dialogue with elected officials.          

To learn more about this campaign brochure, please read the following articles:

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/190784/group/homepage/  

http://www.startribune.com/politics/115569129.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvckD8EQDUJ

Administrator Note: To support or learn more about Ms. Melin's candidacy please view her page on Facebook, located here: http://www.facebook.com/Melinfor5b

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Message from the Business Conference: The DFL is the party of creation

Contributed by Katie Foley
  
This past Saturday (Feb. 5) found DFLers flooding Cokato, Minnesota for the State Central Committee's Business Conference.  The agenda included electing new party officers and the weeks preceding the conference found this blogger's phone ringing semi-constantly with this candidate or another telling me that I should support them.


Among the offices to be filled were Chair and Vice-Chair.  Ken Martin and Marge Hoffa ran for the offices respectively, unopposed and as a ticket. I appreciated the fact that they were running campaigns and making phone calls even though they ran unopposed because, as Senator Amy Klobuchar pointed out, you can't make predictions in the DFL. Don't, however, get me started on the obnoxious pamphlets that flooded the auditorium and atrium - suffice it to say that the reassurances that I received that the amount of wasted paper has decreased over the years was not actually reassuring at all.  

Ken and Marge were elected by acclamation, with the sole dissenter being a gentleman behind me who claimed to "not know enough about [Ken]."  (He has apparently found a way to keep his phone number a secret...)  Vanessa Blomgren was elected secretary, a Mr. Hamilton was elected treasurer, Eric Margolles (likely spelled incorrectly) was elected Affirmative Action officer and Chris Schmitter and Jamal Abdhualli (also likely spelled incorrectly) were elected to fill the two vacant male director seats.

Anyone who has attended a party convention or conference can tell you that, for the most part, they are incredibly boring.  You sit for hours, listening to speeches and casting ballots.  Most of it involves waiting - waiting for a ballot, waiting for ballot results, waiting for the parliamentarian to decide whether Mr. Y can speak at microphone 1.  It's really very boring, except that it isn't.  To a political junkie such as myself, meeting with crowds of DFLers provides many opportunities for reflection and enlightenment.  

For example, I have discovered that the most coherent message the DFL has to offer right now is that we are in need of a coherent message.  Though I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment that getting DFLers elected (starting with my former classmate, Carly Melin) is what is best for Minnesota, that statement in and of itself is insufficient to establish the party's stance.  Why is electing DFLers what is best for Minnesota?  That is the question on everybody's mind, and the most consistent theme I spotted was that the DFL is the party of creation.

We strive to create jobs.  We know that tax breaks to the wealthy do not create jobs - in fact, many economists would say that tax breaks creates major disincentives for reinvestment in labor and other business costs.  We strive to create opportunities.  Lower tuition, increase funding for K-12 education, develop new technologies that can be manufactured in Minnesota - whatever the topic, the DFL wants to provide people with as many opportunities as possible, starting with a solid education.  We strive to create fairness.  We believe that the Right to Counsel means that there should be a well funded public defender system and that the size of your bank account should not be directly correlated to your political power or access to justice.  The DFL strives to create the educational, political, business and social environments necessary to ensure that Minnesota thrives, not merely survives.  

The Republican booth at the State Fair this past summer had a sign that listed what the Replicans stood for in 9 words (picture pending).  That's what the DFL needs to do, develop a succint statement of what we stand for.  My proposal, based on the speeches I heard this weekend, is this:

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
  • Create opportunities for all Minnesotans
  • Keep America Competitive
  • Ensure Fairness and Equality

It is not perfect as far as catchy political messages go - I'm not even sure it has mass appeal - but we need to start somewhere.  If this is not what the DFL stands for then we need to re-evaluate how we are talking about ourselves and our values.

Note: My two highlights from the day were 1) the t-shirts being sold to support the group D.O.G. - Democrats Own Guns; and 2) Jamal Abduhalli assuring us that 1 in 3 Somalian refugees do not come to Minnesota for the glorious weather or because it was their life's ambition to live in a city with "Pine" in the name - they are here because they heard Minnesota was the best state to live in.  

Monday, January 31, 2011

Less Water, More Whiskey Please! *

Contributed by Katherine Foley
Last night Senate minority leader Tom Bakk was gracious enough to appear at SD50's new winter fundraiser (which, by the way, was a huge success!).  He first spoke about the evils being perpetuated by the Republicans in Saint Paul and then allowed for a little Q&A.  Though he was saying things that Democrats love to hear, I was struck by the complete lack of an articulable plan to ensure that Democratic priorities become Minnesotan priorities.

Time and time again I hear people wondering what the plan is.  Platitudes serve their purpose but they do not fill the 20% hole in Minnesota's budget. The way I see it, Democratic leaders are serving the party's faithful water. Water is good.  It is refreshing, delicious and life-giving.  Water, however, does not get you drunk.  After the beating we took in November many of us are sick of water - we're craving a big ol' shot of whiskey.

For example, Democrats love to talk about how tuition rates are out of control, which adversely affects the ability of low-income students to pursue higher education. Tuition at the University of Minnesota has doubled in a decade. [1]  Lenders provided $95 billion in student loans federally in 2008-2009, and tuition has increased since then.[2] But when one member of the audience asked how Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MNSCU) gave bonuses to their administrators while simultaneously laying off employees and raising tuition, Bakk did not seem to have any concrete comfort to offer.  It seems that Bakk, like many Democrats, wants to value higher education without offering any real solutions to how to keep tuition from continuing to skyrocket.  

K-12 education is another priority area for Democrats.  Anybody familiar with the public education system knows three things.  First, public education achievement is on the decline.  American students are quickly falling behind their global peers, ranking 14th, 17th and 25th in reading, math and science respectively. [3] Second, teachers are grossly underpaid, with median teacher salaries at less than $45,000 at all levels. [4] Third, where teachers were traditionally responsible for passing on knowledge, they have become more and more responsible for developing the next generation of American citizens.[5]  Accountability not only for imparting knowledge but for creating an ideal learning atmosphere has become the norm for 21st Century teachers, yet we pay them less and give them fewer resources from which to develop an atmosphere conducive to student achievement.  Meanwhile, Democratic leaders are telling us that additional cuts to the K-12 system could be devastating, without proposing how to prevent said cuts from happening.    

Democratic priorities are not limited to issues of education.  We love to talk about "creating jobs."  I've gotten to the point now where I envision Mark Dayton standing on the capital steps and bellowing, "Let there be jobs!" to be the best approximation of any real "jobs plan."  We are quick to point out that tax cuts to businesses do not create jobs (as Republicans love to claim) but instead create additional incentive for businesses to drive up profits by lowering costs.[6] Yet we still concede tax cuts to corporations and other businesses while claiming we are going to "tax the wealthy."  Meanwhile, people are still out of work or underemployed and are praying to whatever god will listen to create some meaningful jobs since the mortals we have to deal with on Earth cannot seem to come up with any real plan.  

While we're on the subject of taxes, let's talk about how we need to "generate revenue." I like to fancy myself a reasonably intelligent person, so I'm going to call this what it is: more taxes!  We want to tax - whether we're raising existing taxes (cigarettes, I'm looking at you), "taxing the wealthy", or taxing goods and services previously untaxed (clothes and legal services, for instance) the fact of the matter is that the government wants a bigger slice of the proverbial pie.  But they won't tell us which parts of the pie they are going to take.  They have a lot of ideas but none that they will stick with.  Tom Bakk mentioned that adding a tax on clothes would generate something like $330 million a year.  That's great, but it's only 4.5% of the solution.  We are going to need our Democratic leaders to commit to more than adding a tax to clothing.  What they don't realize is that they've gotten us to accept they are going to take more money, but they won't even tell us where they are going to take it from. 

Finally, I asked Senator Bakk about the recent news related to the threat of judicial backlogs giving rise to Speedy Trial claims which would allow many alleged criminals to go free without ever having faced trial.[7]  I asked how Democrats planned to address this issue in light of the deficit and whether there were any reforms in criminal sentencing or the criminal code in the mix to ensure persons accused of violent crimes are answering for their charges within a Constitutionally alloted period of time. His only suggestion was to remind Republicans and the voting public that the courts are a part of the larger "public safety" structure and that cuts to the courts could adversely impact public safety.  

"Keep tuition down," "Make K-12 a priority," "Create jobs," "Generate Revenue," "Keep the public safe," these phrases are all water.  I would like to add to the list concepts such as "fairness" and "equality" as well as the idea that the public sector is somehow supposed to "compete" with the private sector.  These are all water - they can sustain you but they cannot lower your inhibitions enough to do something really stupid, like accept more taxes as inevitable. The Democratic party faithful are at the bar, poised to drink whatever our leadership are prepared to serve us. It's true that we would prefer to be served a quality single malt Scotch, but we're willing to swallow Canadian Mist if that is what is available. Unfortunately, Democratic leadership cannot even seem to muster up Canadian Mist; they just cannot answer the hard questions.  How, specifically, are you planning to keep tuition costs from continuing to rise at such staggering rates? What, in particular, do you see as needing to be taxed to save Minnesota from it's crippling budget deficit?  How do you envision jobs in the public sector as competing with jobs in the private sector?  We're ready for the shot - we just need you serve it up.    

   
*My apologies to any recovering addicts, various religious adherents, and non-drinkers who are alienated by my metaphor.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Obama Regains Public Support Despite Mid-Term Losses

Contributed by Danny S.

Evidently, President Obama has improved his standing with the American people considerably since the November 2010 mid-term election in which Democrats suffered major losses at the congressional and state levels.[1]  The swing of public opinion in favor of the President is impressive, given the level of so-called voter anger that allegedly was being directed at the Democratic Party in those elections.  The complete trajectory of the President’s job approval ratings is available at PollingReport.com.

Please see: http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm    

Since January 1, 2011, public opinion polls show that President Obama has bounced back in terms of his standing with the American public.[2]  Indeed the latest Associated Press-GfK poll was the first public opinion poll in a string of recent polls that show the President has recovered a bit in terms of public support since the bruising mid-term election.[3]  The Associated Press-GfK poll found that President Obama’s job approval rating is now at its highest since the health care reform act was enacted 10 months ago.[4]

The Gallup Poll daily tracking numbers released on January 20, 2011, show the President’s public approval rating at 51%, while disapproval of the President has slid down to 42%.[5]  More impressively, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 53% of the public approves of Mr. Obama’s job performance.[6]  The NBC/WSJ poll reveals that Mr. Obama’s standing has improved by eight points in just a month.[7]  This approval rating is the highest in the NBC/WSJ poll for Mr. Obama in many months.[8]

A recent Politico article mentions that at this particular moment in their respective first terms, former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were mired in the mid-40s range, as far as public approval of their job performance was concerned.[9]  The Politico article points out that this comparison in terms of job ratings is “a good sign” for the President.[10]

Additionally, the findings of the latest NBC/WSJ poll are mirrored in two other recent public opinion polls from this week: The ABC/Washington Post poll and the CNN/ORC poll.[11]  The ABC/Washington Post poll puts Obama’s approval rating at a healthy 54%.  The CNN/ORC poll shows that Obama’s job approval is a consistently similar 53%.  

RealClearPolitics.com has President Obama's average job approval listed as 50.2% approve as of the afternoon of January 20, 2011.  Of course, RealClearPolitics.com includes the sometimes questioned poll results of Rasmussen Reports.  Rasmussen Reports is the only survey that has shown the President with a net-negative rating in 2011.  Even Rasmussen Reports has President Obama's job approval at 49%, while it has his disapproval listed as 50%, just one point higher.  Please see: http://realclearpolitics.com/

Of course, the President’s approval varies slightly from day-to-day and in different polls.

The entire Democratic Party has reason to be optimistic about these numbers, especially the number of people who now view Democrats in a favorable light (“53 percent favorable”).[12]  The latest NBC/WSJ poll also shows that Democrats have “a net-positive rating from the American public.”[13]

Here is a summary of the recent Obama job approval ratings mentioned in this entry:
1.)  The Gallup Daily Tracking: 51% approve; 42% disapprove.
2.)  The NBC/Wall Street Journal: 53% approve; 41% disapprove.
3.)  The CNN/ORC: 53% approve; 45% disapprove.
4.)  The ABC/Washington Post: 54% approve; 43% disapprove.
5.)  The Associated Press-GfK: 53% approve; 46% disapprove.
6.)  RealClearPolitics.com: 50.2% approve; 44.7% disapprove.

All of the Republicans eagerly predicting doom and gloom for the Democrats and President Obama in the 2012 Election must be disappointed.  This latest batch of public opinion polling shows that it is too early to predict who will win the 2012 Presidential Election.  Indeed this batch of data shows that the President’s job approval ratings have rebounded.  And, generally, when an incumbent President has an average job approval rating at 50% or above, the incumbent wins.

[1] http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm    
[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47898.html
[3] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGj0OW9TFJOKcLMxqbfX_YpCERzAdocId=cf297da758c24652b7f3b48d9c878da1
[4] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGj0OW9TFJOKcLMxqbfX_YpCERzA?docId=cf297da758c24652b7f3b48d9c878da1
[5] http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx, on January 20, 2011
[6] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41161439/ns/politics-more_politics/
[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41161439/ns/politics-more_politics/
[8] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41161439/ns/politics-more_politics/
[9] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47898_Page2.html
[10] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47898_Page2.html
[11] http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm
[12] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGj0OW9TFJOKcLMxqbfX_YpCERzA?docId=cf297da758c24652b7f3b48d9c878da1
[13] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41161439/ns/politics-more_politics/

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Tim Pawlenty - It's not you, it's your underlying premise

Subtitled: An Analysis of Former Governor Pawlenty's January, 2011 Appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (January 12, 2011 episode; interview avialable in full here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-12-2011/exclusive---tim-pawlenty-extended-interview)


Contributed by Katie Foley

Never have the words "former governor" given me more pleasure than when used in relation to Tim Pawlenty.  Jesse Ventura was embarrassing, like an uncle who gets over-drunk at a wedding reception and then talks at length about his bowl movements.  Tim Pawlenty, on the other hand, was a straight up sleaze-ball and I doubt many Minnesotans miss him.  
 
Unfortunately, the rest of the country does not know T-Paw as well as we do.  Hoping to drum up support for a presidential bid, he has been touring the country and introducing himself to the rest of the American public. He has even wrote what has become the requisite pre-presidential campaign memoir, his entitled Courage to Stand: An American Story, published by Christian publisher Tyndale House.  (Side note: Aren't all of our stories "American Stories"?)
 
As part of his book tour, T-Paw was appearing on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The interview, however, happened in the wake of the shooting of an Arizonan Congresswoman  and Jon Stewart seemed to be feeling particularly philosophical. The result was that, aside from its initial mention, the book was not brought up again. 
 
Rather than discuss Tim's "American story", Jon challenged him to answer whether he agrees with the claims being made by key conservatives, mainly that our march toward tyranny is a much greater threat under Obama than it has been under any other president of recent history (particularly Bush).  For the most part, Jon asks only this question in different ways for the rest of the interview while Tim declines to answer. 

Tim first dodges the question by responding that we should not do anything that would "chill" First Amendment speech, to which Jon replies, "I don't mean it from a Free Speech standpoint, I mean it from a reality standpoint." 
 
Tim next states that we need to wield our freedoms and rights responsibly using the information we're given, going so far as to state, "an informed citizenry is the key to democracy, and you've got to have accurate, good information to make good decisions."    (If he's aware that accurate information is the key to democracy then he must know that Fox News is not really news and that he didn't leave Minnesota with a balanced budget. This makes him a liar, not just another delusional conservative.) 

Jon tries to latch onto the importance on a well-informed citizenry, asking if the current rhetoric is "a cynical attempt by the right to whip up a voting block, or do people really believe there has been a fundamental change in our government towards tyranny and socialism?" 
 
Tim dodges again, declining to answer Jon's direct question, instead deciding to talk about the 2008 Republican National Convention, held in Saint Paul during Pawlenty's tenure.  He describes the area around the convention as a "semi-militarized zone" set up because protesters "mostly on the left" were "yelling and screaming and in some ways creating a security threat."    
 
Jon responds by saying,  "I don't think you can conflate 18-year-olds, who've written a lawyer's name on their arm running around with bandannas with Newt Gingrich, with Rush Limbaugh, with the leaders of the Republican party..... What I'm asking you is, fundamentally, does the Republican party believe we are as close to tyranny and socialism as the tone of their rhetoric would insinuate?" 
  
Again Tim dodges like a pro, explaining how conservatives like him feel that government is crowding into places typically reserved for "individuals" and "private markets" and "charity" and "entrepreneurial activity" and "faith organizations".*  Eventually Stewart is able to get Pawlenty to agree that fear drives the public and the television cut of the interview ends with Jon wondering whether the fear being perpetuated on the right reflects the real fears of real people.  
  
It is too bad that the T.V. version ends here because the most poignant portion of the interview follows the the commercial break.  Tim incorrectly tries to restate Jon's underlying premise, claiming that Jon is trying to say that the right has been more vitriolic than the left.  Jon clarifies, saying that he just wants to know whether the right truly believes we are closer to tyranny under Obama than ever before.  The rest of the interview is both men trying to prove that their own underlying premise is the correct underlying premise.  
  
Tim tries to prove to Jon that the right is acting no different now than the left did then (under Bush).  Jon tries to prove to Tim that you cannot reconcile a plan to cut the deficit with a plan that allows only for tax cuts and cuts in government spending.  Tim tries to prove that the growth in government spending cannot be sustained so we need to cut government spending.  Jon tries to prove that real tax rates are the lowest they've been since the 1950's.  Tim tries to prove that government is out of control and so we need less of it. Jon tries to prove that less government is not necessarily indicative of more liberty. Tim tries to prove that we need to use blanket numbers to measure what is and is not sustainable. Jon tries to prove what Minnesota has been trying to prove to Tim for the past 8 years, that you cannot use a sledge hammer where a scalpel is needed (he actually uses the metaphor!) and that you cannot use "blanket figures" because we don't live in a "blanket world." They are both talking, just not to each other.     
  
The reason this is so important is that this is one of the major obstacles blocking constructive political discourse today.  At the root of the differences in political ideology are very different underlying premises.  For example, if you truly believe that human life begins at conception then it logically follows that abortion is murder.  However, this underlying premise is not accepted by many in the choice movement.  
 
Likewise, if you believe that the only moral Truth is offered by a particular religion, then of course morality is universal - we all just need to adhere to the correct religious Truth.  If, however, you believe moral truths can vary by belief, culture and region then you will never accept the premise that there exists a single, universal, moral Truth.  We must accept that different people are operating with different underlying premises.
 
But accepting that different underlying premises exist is not enough.  We also have to stop trying to prove to the opposition that our underlying premise is the correct underlying premise.  This argument is not constructive and does not help to solve the problems of society.  Whether life begins at conception doesn't really matter to an abused and pregnant young woman who cannot count on help from the government or anybody else to ensure her child has better opportunities than she did.  Whether the government or a charity is providing the food does not matter to a starving army veteran living on the streets.  Whether health care is provided by the state or through a private insurer does not matter to a person who is near-fatally wounded in a car accident.  It takes a village to raise a child, there's no reason for people to go hungry in America and an accident should not bankrupt a family. If we can agree on things such as this the underlying premise becomes less important.
 
The problem is that this process would require people to be honest with themselves and others about their beliefs, about which underlying premises motivate them. As stated best by George Orwell, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."  Mr. Pawlenty, I invite you to begin the revolution in order to achieve the "informed citizenry" that you claim to be the "key to democracy."     

*This is an example of what an associate of mine recently stated, "Republicans want government small enough to fit into your bedroom."  Apparently interfering with the Constitutional and contract rights of same-sex couples is okay but telling an insurance company that they cannot drop coverage when somebody becomes expensive to cover is tyranny.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Minnesota Republicans Propose Cutting LGA and Higher Education

Contributed by Danny S. 
  
Minnesota’s Republican legislators have proposed cutting about $200 million from state funding for Minnesota colleges and universities.  The budget proposals of the state GOP include plans to lop off $460 million in aid to local governments across the state, possibly resulting in higher property taxes for homeowners if the local governments decide this is necessary. 

Please see:  http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/114143054.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU 

Proposed cuts to funding for higher education will be framed as necessary to fix the state’s budget deficits.  Before accepting this premise, questions about Republican budget proposals should be asked by the public and other lawmakers who have not signed on.  For instance, will proposed cuts to higher education affect the future economic growth and competitiveness of Minnesota?  Additionally, if enacted, will the proposed cuts lead to higher tuition rates for Minnesota’s families and students?  Moreover, will the quality of education and programs at Minnesota’s institutions of higher learning suffer? 

Republicans have argued that they can balance the state budget by only making cuts. 

Again, please see: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/114143054.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU 

It appears, however, that the current plans of the new Republican leadership fall quite a bit short of cutting the amount necessary to balance the budget.  Even with their proposed $1 billion in budget cuts, the Republicans would need to find ways to cut a further $5.1 billion from the budget (if Governor Dayton agrees to the $1 billion in cuts). 

Even if we—as residents of Minnesota—accept the conclusion that these short-term cuts are required for reducing the state budget deficit, we should examine whether these cuts would undermine the role of higher education in Minnesota.  Would these budget cuts harm the quality or level of instruction at colleges and universities?  Would cuts to higher education funding affect access to higher education for Minnesota’s middle-class and working-class students?  And if these cuts to higher education funding would lead to higher tuition rates and fewer students who enroll in colleges and universities, how would having a less educated workforce and population affect Minnesota’s future economic growth and development?  Would less economic growth, in the future, affect incoming revenues collected through taxes, thereby creating a need for further tax increases and cuts? 

Unfortunately, the MN GOP’s reluctance to consider other ways of balancing the budget may lead to a situation in which the State of Minnesota is harmed both economically and socially.  Indeed a less well-educated workforce may mean that fewer individuals have the resources, knowledge, and connections to start new companies, and this, in turn, would mean that fewer Minnesotans could find well-paying jobs.  New, or start-up, businesses do most of the hiring in the United States, not established corporations—which, actually, have trimmed corporate payrolls considerably in recent years.  The MN GOP may be taking the residents of MN down a road of less prosperity and opportunity.  The economic growth and the social accord that exist when people have opportunities to gain an education or to be employed may be disrupted by a more dismal future brought about by the ill-advised and ill-timed policies of the MN GOP. 

Given former Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s decision to veto DFL budget proposals over a period of 8 years, leading in part to a massive budget deficit in MN, one would think that Minnesota’s new Republican leadership in the legislature would want to balance the budget carefully.  That appears to be wishful thinking today.  In the coming weeks and months, Governor Dayton and the newly-elected Republican leadership in the state legislature will wrangle over the particulars of the budget.  It will be unfortunate for the State of Minnesota if budgetary discussions and solutions consist of cutting the funding for higher education.