About Joe Loveland

I've worked for politicians, a PR firm, corporations, nonprofits, and state and federal government. Since 2000, I've run a PR and marketing sole proprietorship. I think politics is important, maddening, humorous and good fodder for a spirited conversation. So, I hang out here when I need a break from life.

Campaign Finance Reform En Vogue…Better Get This Marty Started

Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg thinks one way for Democrats to mitigate their traditional midterm election setbacks is to stump for limits on the influence of big money on politics and policymaking.

In the wake of a couple of unpopular Supreme Court decisions that greatly increased the power of über-wealthy donors in elections, a recent Greenberg poll finds that campaign financing reform is very popular.  Greenberg tested support for the Government By The People Act (GBP), which would encourage small in-state contributions by establishing a capped 6-to-1 public financing matching program, and giving a tax credit to small donors.

Among the Democratic base that progressive candidates desperately need to turn out in 2012, this proposal is supported by a nearly 5-to-1 margin.  Among the Independent swing voters Democrats need to sway in the 2014 election, it enjoys a 3-to-1 supportive margin.

campaign_financing_poll_supportThanks to Senator John Marty (DFL-Roseville) and others, Minnesota has better campaign financing laws than most states.    But Minnesota’s campaign finance system could be improved, and this research shows this is an opportune time to propose improvements.

It’s too late for DFLers to pass campaign financing law improvements in 2013, but it’s not too late to inject the issue into the 2014 election debate.  This would be a great time for Marty to propose GBP-type rewards for small donors, and for DFL candidates to embrace them.  It’s the right thing to do substantively, and politically.

– Loveland

Al Franken: He’s Good Enough, He’s Smart Enough, and Doggone It People…Are A Little Bored With Him

Al_Franken_pencilWhen Al Franken started running for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota, a lot of Minnesotans worried he would embarrass them by becoming the class clown of the Senate.  Franken had been silly-to-outrageous as a comedian, talk radio host, and author, so Minnesotans understandably worried he would be a goofball as a senator as well.

But Franken ran a serious-minded campaign, narrowly defeated then-Senator Norm Coleman, and, according to polls, has won over many voters since then.

How did Franken convert the skeptics?  As a Senator, Franken hasn’t been the class clown.  In fact, he has been the class nerd, serious as a heart attack, even by stoic Minnesotan standards.  Franken has bent over backwards to show that he takes his job seriously, and he has had some serious legislative victories on important but obscure policy issues, such medical loss ratios, diabetes prevention, and promotion of agricultural energy technologies.

To paraphrase  Franken’s Saturday Night Live character Stuart Smalley, Senator Franken has proven to Minnesotans that he’s “good enough” and “smart enough.”   But when it comes to likability, sometimes it’s difficult for Minnesotans to warm up to Franken, simply because they don’t see his less serious side very often.

Being perceived as too serious is perhaps a good problem to have for a recovering comedian.  But it could pose a bit of a political challenge as Franken prepares to connect with voters during a reelection fight in a difficult year for Democrats.  After all, this is the same state that elected  the cartoonish Jesse Ventura, in part because Ventura’s humorous debate appearances helped Minnesota voters relate to him on a personal level.

Having proven that he can be serious and effective, I think Minnesotans now would be okay if Franken showed a bit of his humorous side more often.  He shouldn’t return to SNL or Air America form, but he could occassionally lighten it up.  After all, many serious-minded congressional leaders have shown that serious legislating and humor can go together.

 “It’s a great country, where anyone can grow up to be President…except me.” – Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)

“They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won’t be able to be outraged anymore.”  Representative Barney Frank (D-MA)

“We have the same percentage of lightweights in Congress as you have in your hometown.  After all, it’s representative government.  Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)

“I’ve never really warmed up to television and, in fairness to television, it’s never warmed up to me.” Senator Walter Mondale (D-MN)

“The difference between a caucus and a cactus is that the cactus has the pricks on the outside.”  Representative Mo Udall (D-AZ)

Meanwhile comedian Al Franken is here to tell us:

“Antitrust enforcement has always been more effective at stopping horizontal integration…than it has at this kind of vertical integration.”

Rimshot.

A New York Times headline recently noted Franken’s earnest dive into the complex Comcast-Time Warner merger is “No Joke.”  Don’t we know it.   When the subject turns to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, Franken’s eyes light up.  Most Minnesotans’ eyes glaze over.

I wholeheartedly applaud the studiousness and work ethic that Franken is bringing to his Senate duties.  In an age when self-serving circus ponies like Michele Bachmann can’t stop posing for the cameras long enough to accomplish anything for the people they serve, Congress needs more work horses like Franken to do the thoughtful legislating.

That focus on legislative plodding really does impact the lives of ordinary Americans.  For example, Franken’s “medical loss ratio” legislative victory may not make for scintillating water cooler discussions, but it is helping taxpayers save a remarkable $4 billion per year.   That’s billion with a “b.”  Unsung policy accomplishments like this are why I am thrilled to have Senator Serious representing me.

Still, debates aren’t only impacted by persistence and process mastery.  Congressional leaders like Bob Dole and Mo Udall proved that debates also can be informed and shaped by judicious use of humor.  Like Dole and Udall, Senator Franken has a special gift that all too few of his congressional colleagues possess.  After he is given a well-earned reelection victory, here’s hoping he feels more free to use it.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was featured as a “best of the best” by MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Five Reasons It’s Okay To Just Say “No” To Checkout Charities

Americans don’t lack for opportunities to donate to charities.  We are continually solicited by telephone, email, social media, mail, and door-to-door.

In recent years, we have added checkout counters to that list.  Now  many retail transactions are concluded with  “would you like to make a donation today to…?”   It’s not unusual to get solicited like this half a dozen times a day, day after day.

I’m not a fan.  It feels like the glaring checkout person is judging while customers are craning their necks to see what kind of sociopath would deny hope to the homeless puppies, cancer battlers or wounded warriors.  And I’m that kind of sociopath.

Good Brand Management?

I understand why charities like this approach.  It’s an opportunity to have third parties making their pitch to a captive audience who just happens to have it’s wallet wide open.  It also doesn’t hurt that the prospective donors’ peers are watching.    The checkout solicitations constitute free advertising and fundraising services delivered at a very opportune moment.

Nickels and dimes, you scoff?  This approach raises a great deal of money — $358 million from 63 charities in 2012 – with the charities barely lifting a finger.

no_solicitations_signI also understand why retailers like it.  The theory is that associating a retail brand with a warm and fuzzy charity makes the retailer feel more warm and fuzzy by association.   At first blush, it looks to be savvy brand management.

But is it?  While few openly complain, I have a feeling I’m not the only one grumpy about it.  There is a reason why you see so many “No Solicitation” signs in front of stores.  Because for many, being solicited is unpleasant and something we try to avoid.

Given how much retailers invest in optimizing the “customer experience “– the music, the lighting, the staff professionalism, the packaging, the flow of the store – it’s interesting how willing the same brand managers are to top off my customer experience with a big fat guilt trip that leaves me resenting them.  And they wonder why I’m increasingly shopping online?

Five Reasons to Not Give To Checkout Charities

 So I’m here to give you permission to say “no” to the homeless puppies.  If others want to give at checkout, I applaud them.  If that works for them, I’m all for it.  But there are plenty of reasons – altruistic reasons  even — to take a pass at the checkout counter, and donate on your own terms at another place and time.

Reason #1.  To give yourself time to research and prioritize.  Charities are not commodities.  Some are better than others.  Some fit your values better than others.  Some are more efficient than others.   Some produce better results than others. Maybe the charity soliciting at your favorite store is the best choice for you, but you won’t know until you take a little time to learn about them and others.  Most of us wouldn’t dream of investing our savings without doing a bit of research, so why would we invest in charitable work without first doing a little research?

Reason #2.  So you can nudge charities to get better.  When we are doing impulse giving at checkout stands, charities don’t have much competitive pressure to improve their services.  After all, why control your administrative costs and strive to get better results when your impulsive donors aren’t paying attention to those things.   When donors are doing their research, asking probing questions, and voting with their feet based on what they learn, charities improve their services so they can earn more donations.  And when charities improve their services, more people get helped.

Reason #3.  So you can stick to your philanthropic budget. Just as many set a household spending budget, it’s a good idea to have a personal philanthropic budget.  Let’s say your household budget says you can afford to donate $2,500 in a given year.  When you’re haphazardly giving micro-donations at checkouts, it’s difficult to tell if you are over or under that budget at the end of the year.

Reason #4.  So you can get the tax deduction owed to you.  Okay, I don’t want to go all Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue code on you, but you probably already know that charitable giving is tax deductible.  However, it feels like almost no one tracks the $358 million per year in checkout donations.  Not taking advantage of that deduction can mean the loss of a fair amount of money at tax time.  That may strike you as awfully green eye shadey, but bypassing the charitable deduction is effectively throwing away money, money that you could choose to give charities.

Reason #5.  So you can discourage a proliferation of checkout shakedowns.  This much I promise you, the more we give at checkout, the more we will be solicited at checkout.  Non-profits copy whatever works for other non-profits.  So, if you don’t want to be continually solicited, you have to start declining.

Again, I’m not discouraging giving.  Please keep giving.  I’m just suggesting that it’s perfectly acceptable to deny the homeless puppies at the checkout counter and give on your own terms.  As Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, sometimes you “must be cruel only to be kind.”  If you ask me, the checkout counter shakedown is one of those times.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also published in MinnPost.

Paul Begala: Wry Wing Politics Devotee

Okay, call me a rube, but my obscure little blog doesn’t get linked everyday in Tweets by national talking heads like Paul Begala.  So when it happens, I have to take a moment to feel self-important, before I slink back to my dark  corner of the world.

Begala_tweets_wry_wing_politics

 

Yes, Paul (I call him “Paul” now) links to among the least unique posts I’ve ever penned.  (And trust me, there is plenty of competition for that honor.)  Yes, it is surely his first and last visit to WWP.  Yes, this happened because of Rick Weiland’s great work, not mine.

But still, a sideways glance from Paul freakin’ Begala makes a backwater gadfly’s little heart go pitter-patter, and page views go through the roof.

I’m thinking I’m probably now on his holiday card list, right?

South Dakota’s Rick Weiland: A Different Kind of U.S. Senate Candidate

Most U.S. Senate candidates spend all of their time traveling to Wall Street, K Street, LaSalle Street, Montgomery Street, and Federal Street to beg for money from millionaires and billionaires who demand obedience after they’re elected.

Most U.S. Senate candidates produce phony cookie cutter ads whose stock photography make them all look and sound the same.

So, it’s refreshing to see at least one U.S. Senate candidate, South Dakota’s Rick Weiland, running a very different kind of campaign, on Main Streets running to reform Wall Street.    Three hundred and eleven South Dakota Main Streets, to be precise.

This video, shot and editied by the candidate’s son Nick, and song, performed by the candidate with family members and friends, isn’t the slickest thing you’ll ever see.  It might even be a little corny for some of you hipsters.  But it’s also a rare breath of fresh air in an all too polluted political atmosphere.

Billionaire Purchases Naming Rights To Uninsured South Dakotans

Sioux Falls, South Dakota — South Dakota billionaire banker and philanthropist T. Denny Sanford announced today that he will fund free health coverage for 48,000 uninsured, low-income South Dakotans.  The announcement comes in the wake of Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard’s continued refusal to accept $224 million in federal funding to cover the same group of citizens.

In recent years, Sanford has been lauded for donating large amounts of money to South Dakota health facilities, sports complexes, and other popular projects.   The high interest banker often has his projects named after him, such as Sanford Health™, Sanford Children’s™, Sanford Heart™,  Sanford Medical School™, Sanford Pentagon™, Sanford Sports Complex™, and Denny Sanford Premier Center™.

Sanford’s latest donation comes in the midst of a bitter political debate that has been intensifying in South Dakota for several years.

As part of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes called Obamacare, about 48,000 low income South Dakotans are eligible for Medicaid coverage.  By the year 2020, South Dakota was to have received a massive influx of $224 million due to this expansion of coverage.

Medicaid_ExpansionHowever Governor Daugaard has refused the $224 million to cover uninsured poor people, citing his  personal opposition to Obamacare and the cost of the expansion that would be paid by South Dakota.  The federal government is paying 100 percent of the total costs through 2016, and 90 percent after that.

The neighboring states of Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota are all expanding Medicaid coverage to uninsured citizens, while Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming are not.  States that are opting out of the program will leave over 5 million of the poorest Americans without basic health benefits, or shifting their health care costs to other citizens.

Under pressure from South Dakota physicians and 63% of South Dakotans who support the Medicaid expansion, Daugaard recently asked the federal government to cover a little over half of the eligible citizens, but deny coverage to the rest of eligible citizens. The federal government rejected Daugaard’s proposal, leaving all 48,000 South Dakotans without coverage.  The Legislature  refused to allow the Medicaid expansion question to be posed to South Dakota voters at the ballot box.

But Sanford stepped into the fray today, announcing that he is creating a new Medicaid-like health plan, which he is calling SanfordCare™.  Any South Dakota citizen who would have been eligible for the Obamacare expansion would be eligible for the free SandfordCare™ coverage, provided they agree to legally change their surnames to Sanford™.  Any children born while under the health coverage would also have to adopt the first name Denny™ or Denita™.

Note:  This post is, to the best of our knowledge, satire.  There is no SanfordCare proposal, but there are 48,000 South Dakotans being denied health coverage.

Franken Opponent McFadden Refuses To Confirm Own Existence

invisible_manSaint Paul, Minnesota — Minnesota U.S.  Senate candidate Mike McFadden held a news conference today to announce that he would be announcing nothing.

“Minnesota is great, and I’ll do lots of great stuff in the Senate to make it even greater,” said McFadden, to roaring applause from his supporters.  “Beyond that, I promise that I will not do wasteful ungreat things that keep Minnesota from becoming greater.”

Under questioning from reporters, the wealthy businessman running to replace U.S. Senator Al Franken refused to provide positions  on the national policy issues that are debated in the U.S. Senate.   For example, McFadden declined to state his position on the minimum wage, the Paycheck Fairness Act and a “personhood” anti-birth control measure.

MinnPost reporter Eric Black recently attempted to profile the stealth Senate candidate, but struggled to find anything to profile beyond the over $2 million the former businessman has raised from enthusiastic conservative donors.  Black characterized the McFadden record like this:

I’m not sure what the record is for seeking a seat in the U.S. Senate without disclosing issue positions, but McFadden, who declared his candidacy nine months ago, may be giving it a run.

There is no “issues” section on his campaign website. He skipped the first three opportunities to debate his Republican opponents for the nomination.  On Monday, he appeared at the fourth debate, but that one was closed to the press and public.

The McFadden campaign maintains that the candidate has taken many position stands, such as his desire to “name way more awesome things after Ronald Reagan” and “repeal and replace” the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA).

When pressed for details about what he would replace the ACA with, McFadden said that announcement would need to wait until he begins his six-year term in office.

“We will help, not hurt Americans,” McFadden  explained.

The campaign did release a 12-page single spaced list of things McFadden would rename after Ronald Reagan.

When asked to name political role models McFadden listed Ronald Reagan, several Reagan impersonators and Chauncey Gardiner.

“By standing for no one, and Mike is appealing to everyone,” said Saul Loes, a conservative political consultant advising the McFadden campaign. “He just might be the most brilliant politician of our generation, if he exists, which we are neither confirming nor denying.”

Note:  This post is satire.

What Does Ortman Really Think About Palin Endorsement?

Barack Obama’s favorable ratings have seen better days.  An average of polls compiled by Real Clear Politics (RCP) shows that an underwhelming 47% of Americans have a favorable view of the President.

This presents a challenge for incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Al Franken, because Franken has been a supporter of the President’s efforts on health care reform, job creation packages, a minimum wage increase, ending the Middle East wars and other Obama initiatives.

So who does State Senator Julianne Ortman partner with to make her case to replace Franken?  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose abysmal 37% favorability rating (RCP average of  recent polls) makes President Obama look like a rock star in comparison.

Palin, one of the Tea Party’s wackiest voices, laid it on thick for Senator Ortman:

“Let’s give voters a contrast this fall: a clown vs. a Mama Grizzly, an Obama 100 Percenter vs. a Blue Star Mom, a talker vs. a doer, and a liberal Obama rubber stamp legislator vs. a proven conservative fighter.”

While Senator Ortman said positive things about the Palin endorsement, her body language perhaps exposes more ambivalence.  This photo was featured on Governor Palin’s Facebook page.Palin_Ortman_birdFor the Republican primary, the Palin endorsement definitely helps Senator Ortman.  For the general election, the Palin endorsement is good news for Franken, not Ortman, because it frames the largely unknown Ortman up as a Palin-esque Tea Partier.

So, while I’m sure Senator Ortman’s bird escaped accidentally in this photo, you could hardly blame her if it didn’t.

MN Congressional Candidates Take Note: 6 of 10 Americans Want To Keep Obamacare

The reporting on Obamacare public opinion research has been consistently shallow, as I’ve noted for years.  Despite the many simplistic “Public Opposes Obamacare” stories and punditifications, a deeper dive into the polls shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans want to either keep the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as is, or improve it.

The latest Kaiser Family Health Foundation Tracking Poll, which was fielded prior to this week’s positive publicity about ACA insurance exchanges targets being met, finds that this trend is continuing.  Even after a pre-deadline deluge of anti-Obamacare advertising, Americans still oppose repealing the Affordable Care Act, by a huge 29% to 59% margin.  Independent voters, who will be so important in the upcoming mid-term elections, also overwhelmingly oppose the GOP’s repeal calls, by a 32% to 52% margin.

Survey__59_pct_want_to_keep_acaSo, nervous DFL congressional candidates, improvements to the ACA — a better exhange website, a more robust exchange call center, more exchange “navigators,” stronger enrollment incentives for young adults,  and/or a public insurance option — would be welcomed by voters.  But let your Republican opponents blather on about “repeal and replace” all they want, because it simply is not selling.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Are Vikings Whitewashing Bird Droppings Issue?

There are many big unanswered questions associated with the new stadium being constructed for the Minnesota Vikings.

  • How will we pay for our new sports palace if iPad gambling problems continue?
  • Will we be able to host a Super Bowl, so Johnny Manziel and the rest of the Vikings can enjoy home field advantage?
  • Will Andrew Zimmern’s Bizarre Foods be served at the new stadium (If so, I’m guessing polite Minnesotans will  call them “Different Foods,” so no one feels bad.)?

bird_poop_on_windshieldThose are important questions.  But I’m focused on something REALLY important:  How are we going to stop the world’s largest transparent roof from becoming the world’s largest collection of bird excrement?

I’m quite serious.  Think about it.  Your standard automobile windshield is about 15 square feet.  At that size, it is a bird shit magnet.  But, the saving grace is that your windshield is easily cleaned with a touch of a button, or at least with your feet planted firmly on the ground.

vikings_stadium_roofYour Vikings stadium transparent roof, on the other hand, will be 240,000 square feet, the largest such transparent roof in the world.  Local birds will have a target that will be difficult to miss.  And so far as I know, Zygi Wilf is not springing for a ginormous windshield wiper system.  Because of this, over time I’m concerned our transparent roof could end up as gray as the Metrodome roof.

Pioneer Press reporter Bob Sansavere asked about this almost a year ago, and was given a curt answer by the Vikings’ Lester Bagley.

“The ETFE (ethylene-tetraflouroethylene) product is self-cleaning.”

Blue skies, nothing but blue skies, according to Mr. Bagley.  Mr. Sansavere didn’t probe for details about that “self cleaning” claim, but I remain curious.   How exactly does “self cleaning” work?

  • Do plopping molecules disintegrate when encountering with ethylene-tetraflouroethylene molecules?
  • Is ETFE so darn slippery that bird poop immediately slides off of it? (In which case I have pedestrian-oriented follow-up questions.)
  • Are the Vikings planning to deploy something from Ronald Reagan’s strategic defense initiative (SDI) to protect the roof from sparrow-launched missiles?
  • Do we believe that local grackles will have so much reverence for the dazzling beauty of ETFE that they will voluntarily take their business elsewhere?
  • Can I get this miraculous bird shit-proof technology installed on my car and home?

Mr. Bagley’s “self cleaning” claim might very well be true. But since we taxpayers are buying about half a billion dollars worth of stock in the world’s biggest shrine to ethylene-tetraflouroethylene, I want to hear more.

– Loveland

Note:  This post also appeared in streets.mn and Minnpost.

MN GOPers Offer Bill To Insure More Families and Ban Preexisting Condition Exclusions

Saint Paul, Minnesota (April 1, 2014) —  Republicans legislators in the Minnesota House of Representatives today released detailed legislation that would extend health insurance to 489,000 uninsured Minnesotans, and guarantee that Minneostans will never again be denied health coverage because of a preexisting health condition.

“Democrats have put their detailed health care plan out there to be analyzed by Minnesota citizens, so we decided that we should develop our own detailed proposal,” said Minnesota House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt (R-Crown).

republican_alternative_to_obamacare_GingrichThe Democrats’ Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made it illegal for private insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing health conditions, something that impacts many of the 2.3 million Minnesotans who have some type of pre-existing health condition, and others who could develop one in the future.

The ACA also successfully helped 95,000 of Minnesota’s most vulnerable citizens get efficiently covered in Medicaid, including about 12,000 uninsured Minnesotans whose medical expenses were being shifted to insured Minnesotans.  In addition, the ACA covers 35,000 Minnesota young adults, many of whom otherwise would have been uninsured, but now are able to stay on their parents’ health policy until age 26.  Finally, over 150,000 Minnesotans recently enrolled into health insurance plans via the MNsure online insurance selection and comparison tool, in part because the plans offered on MNsure carried the lowest premiums in the nation.

Despite those findings, Republicans gathered at a news conference at the State Capitol today to declare the Democratic effort a “train wreck,” and to release their detailed legislative alternative  They note that their legislation will achieve more results at a fraction of the cost of the ACA.

“We’re proud of our party’s health reform ideas, and have no problem setting our detailed proposal alongside the Democrats’ detailed proposal,” said Daubt.  “In fact, we have already asked for a non-partisan third party analysis of our legislation, so that Minnesotans can see precisely how our bill compares with the ACA in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and affordability.”

In other April 1 news, a large group of boars was reported to be flying through a brutal polar vortex over the frozen southeastern Michigan town of Hell.  The soaring swine seemed to be disoriented by a blinding morning sunrise on the western horizon.

Note:  This satirical post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Minimum Wage “Indexing”: DFL Political Marketing At It’s Worst

pay_raiseGetting an “annual pay raise” is pretty awesome, especially if you’re a minimum wage worker.   Fist pumpingly awesome even.  So is getting a pay “bump,” “bonus,” “boost” or “hike.”

But having your wage “indexed” for inflation is underwhelming and/or confusing.

When a politician has an opportunity to legitimately claim credit for a guaranteed annual pay raise, that’s political gold.  So why are Minnesota DFLers marching around the State Capitol continually yammering to Minnesotans about their desire to “index” the minimum wage?  After all, the outcome of indexing is an annual pay raise, unless there is deflation, which is relatively unusual in the United States.

So why not call the DFL’s proposal what ordinary people would call it, an “annual raise?”

“The DFL is fighting to increase the minimum wage increase now, and build-in an annual pay raise for years to come.”

Voters would understand that much better than the current language being used:

“The DFL is fighting to adjust the minimum wage, indexed to the rate of inflation.”

When most minimum wage recipients hear the term “index,” they don’t think “an annual raise.”  They think one of two things:   1) Huh? or 2) The  part of the book that everyone skips because it’s too boring.  Either way, no fist pumps.

Mere wordsmithing, you say?  Republicans invest heavily in wordsmithing, and it has proven very effective for them.  They hire consultants like Frank Luntz, the author of “Words That Work:  It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear,” and many an Orwellian moment.   Luntz famously convinced  Republicans to shift from “inheritance taxes” to “death taxes.”  Luntz understood that “inheritance” sounds unearned and aristocratic to the masses, while “taxing death” sounds outrageously insensitive and unfair.  When Republican leaders followed Luntz’s advice, the level of support for inheritance taxes among non-wealthy citizens dramatically decreased.

But that’s not all.  Luntz convinced Republicans to march in lockstep from “oil drilling” to “energy exploration,” “health care reform” to “government takeover of health care,” and “corporations” to “job creators.” Luntz showed Republicans that words can work against you or for you.  Those seemingly minor shifts have helped Republicans win over many lightly engaged citizens.

So, my fellow liberals, what do you think the great political pied piper Luntz would have to say about Democratic politicians’ love affair with the term “indexing?”

“Indexing” is hardly the Democrats only jargon problem.  There is the coded term “single payer” instead of the instantly understandable “Medicare for all.”  There is the emphasis on the abstract move to “address the achievement gap” instead of on the more understandable push to  “fix failing schools.”  There is the sterile push for something called a “sustainable environment” instead of a push for something more tangible and visceral, such as “clean water, land and air.”

Ever-earnest Governor Dayton is trying to fix this through executive order.  The Plain Language Fact Sheet that he issued notes, plainly:

Using Plain Language to communicate will: 1) reduce confusion for citizens; 2) save time and resources; 3) improve customer service; and 4) make state government work better for the people it serves.

It will also improve DFLer’s chances in elections.  You go, Guv.

Republicans seem to be much more thoughtful and disciplined about campaign communications than Democrats.   Republicans will read Luntz’s talking points, and dutifully execute them day after day.  “Death tax, death tax, death tax.”  Meanwhile, self-serious Democrats  turn up their noses about what they regard as superficial “spin,” and cling to their beloved Wonkspeak to impress the think tankers.

Then, come Election Day, the Democrats wonder why voters don’t appreciate their accomplishments.  But as I watch the DFL speak in code about “indexing,” I don’t wonder.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost.

Minnesota Law Enforcement Lobbyists Move To Criminalize Abused Prescription Pain Drugs

prescription_pain_killer_bustSaint Paul, Minn. —  A coalition of Minnesota law enforcement officials announced today that it will push to ban Minnesota patients from using a long list of dangerous prescription pain killers being sold on the streets by criminals.

At a news conference at the State Capitol today, the  Minnesota Law Enforcement Coalition (MLEC) called for legislation to ban codeine, morphine, methadone, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, bitartrate, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, meperidine, and propoxyphene.  Law enforcement officials stressed that these prescription pain medicines all are dangerous when not used as prescribed, and are currently being sold by criminals on the streets, often to young people.

MLEC has taken the same stand against legislation to make marijuana available to Minnesota patients.  Because many seriously ill patients find that marijuana relieves pain and nausea, it has been legalized for medical use in 20 states.  But MLEC opposes making marijuana available to Minnesota patients, since it  can be harmful when abused, and is being sold illegally on the streets.

“We must do whatever we can to eliminate the abuse and criminal activity associated with these dangerous prescription pain killers,” said Wayne Krupke, Executive Director of MLEC.  “For the same reasons marijuana shouldn’t be given to patients, these prescription pain killers shouldn’t be given to patients.”

The advocacy organization Patients for Effective Pain Management (PEPM) maintains that drugs like marijuana, morphine and oxycodone relieve the pain of seriously ill patients, and the good that comes from that outweighs the harm caused by abusers of those drugs.

morphine_pump“It’s inhumane to deny a proven pain reliever to suffering patients, simply because abuse is possible,” said Mary Ann Wakefield, PEPM’s Executive Director.  “Many of the most effective pain meds can be abused or sold on the black market, but that doesn’t mean that we should turn our backs on patients helped by those drugs.”

However, Krupke maintains that the medical community has many other pain killers at their disposal, such as aspirin, acupuncture and meditation.  At the same time, he points out that the National Institute on Drug Abuse has found that approximately 16 million Americans reported using a prescription drug for nonmedical reasons in 2010.

“As with marijuana, no one can guarantee that drugs like morphine and oxycodone won’t be sold by drug dealers and abused by kids,” said Krupke.  “Until and unless they can provide such a guarantee, those pain killers must be outlawed for all, including patients.”

Meanwhile, Governor Mark Dayton pledged to support whatever the law enforcement lobby recommends.

“I will not compromise on this issue unless someone can convince the law enforcement lobby to compromise on it,” said Dayton.  “When it comes to what is best for patients in pain, I put my full confidence in the law enforcement lobby.”

Note:  This post is satire, and not an actual news story.  It was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Dayton Needs To Reclaim Veto Power From Lobbyists

Governor Dayton says he will veto any medical marijuana proposal unless legislators can reach a compromise with law enforcement group lobbyists.  The Associated Press reports:

Dayton repeatedly cites law enforcement concerns for his own opposition to medical marijuana. But in an interview today with the Associated Press, the Democratic governor says he’d probably sign a bill to legalize it if sheriffs, prosecutors and other law enforcement groups get behind it.

I support and admire this Governor, so let me say this as politely as I can:  Sir, may I please inquire as to WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?

Governor Dayton, with all due respect, lobbyists were not on our election ballots.  You were.  Minnesota citizens didn’t give any lobbyists the most powerful tool in a democracy, the veto.  We collectively gave it to you, because we can hold you democratically accountable when we disagree with you.  We can’t do that with unelected, unaccountable lobbyists.

veto_stampWe voted for duly elected lawmakers to compromise with other duly elected lawmakers.  The Governor and legislators should certainly be informed by lobbyists on all sides of the issue, but the veto power shouldn’t effectively be handed to lobbyists, as Governor Dayton is doing on the medical marijuana issue.

Unfortunately, this is not all that uncommon in Minnesota State government.  From the left, education reforms too often don’t  get a fair debate if the teacher’s union lobbyists turn their mighty thumbs downward.   From the right, tax reform has become the impossible dream because a bevy of business lobbyists are effectively given a collective veto.

Too often, legislators aren’t crafting legislative compromises inside legislative hearing rooms and chambers.  Instead the compromises are being formulated by the most politically powerful lobbyists in hallways and bars, and are then rubber stamped by legislators eager to please the lobbyists who decide which legislative candidates’ campaign war chests get filled.

I’m not a simplistic lobbyist basher.  Lobbyists are here to stay, and that’s actually a very good thing. Though campaign finance laws should limit their influence on the electoral process and less powerful interests need to have better access to lobbyists of their own, I know lobbyists can improve the legislative decision-making process with the specialized information that they bring.

Moreover, I’m not convinced the law enforcement position is all that unreasonable.  My understanding is that they could accept a proposal in which the active ingredient in marijuana (THC, Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) is delivered to patients through pills, oils and vapor.  Their concern apparently is with allowing patients to smoke unprocessed leaves, either home grown or commercially grown, because they think having more legal leaves floating around Minnesota would make it more difficult to enforce criminal marijuana laws.  Though I support decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana, I am encouraged that law enforcement isn’t saying “never” to these patients.  And they certainly have a right to their position.

But they don’t have a right to veto.

So, Governor, please do what we elected you to do.  Do the hard work of listening to all sides of the medical marijuana issue, and negotiating with them.  At the end of those negotiations, let us know whether YOU believe there is a reasonable policy position, and explain YOUR reasoning for YOUR decisions.

Governor Dayton’s Medical Marijuana Blindspot

Imagine a man so obsessed with eliminating useless, harmless clutter from his attic that he fails to hear the cry of a suffering relative just a few feet away from him.

Recent news coverage conjures that image for me.

In one part of the news, we have ever-earnest Governor Mark Dayton sorting through the cluttered statutory attic to find useless laws.  Downsizin’ Dayton is finding lots of regulatory rubbish, such as a law requiring the capture of wild boars in the Twin Cities.  (Don’t worry, legislators, that’s “boars” with an “a.”)

medical_marijuana_patient_Photo_by_Raw_Story-2Elsewhere in the news, we have Minnesotans in severe pain pleading Governor Dayton and legislators for a law to allow them to use medicinal marijuana to relieve severe pain and nausea, as 20 other states already do.  To be clear, we’re not talking Cheech or Spicoli here.  We’re talking about people suffering and dying.

The Governor is no stranger to pain, and has proven throughout his career to be a very compassionate guy.  But for whatever reason, he doesn’t seem to be hearing the cries of these victims. Instead, he’s fixated on getting Boar Laws to the dumpster, and blindly following law enforcement officials who are so obsessed with chasing potheads that they can’t think straight about this very different issue.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Boar Law sympathizer.  Like the Governor, I stand steadfastly against the Boar Law, and other forms of legislative hoarding.  Moreover, I recognize that some of Dayton’s “Unsession” proposals are very meaty, such as speeding up the environmental permitting process.  That’s extremely worthwhile reform work, and I hope the Legislature follows the lead of Governor Dayton and his Un-Lieutenant Tony Sertich.

But let’s face it, much of Dayton’s initiative to eliminate 1,000 laws falls firmly into the category of “nice to have,” rather than “must have.”  He is cleaning harmless clutter, and most of us function just fine with harmless clutter in our midst.

Practically speaking, no Minnesotan violating the Boar Law, or similar antiquated laws, is  in danger of being busted and imprisoned.   But a Minnesotan trying to buy marijuana to ease the pain of a loved one is in very real danger of being busted and imprisoned.  That’s bananas.

To the Minnesotans suffering from deadly illnesses, and their loved ones frantic to help them, medical marijuana is much more than a “nice to have.”   Former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders explains the type of relief that Minnesota lawmakers are denying suffering citizens:

“The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS — or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day.”

“Huh, Surgeon General Elders, did you say something?  I can’t hear so well up here in the statutory attic.”

– Loveland

Note:  The photo is from Raw Story.

A Liberal’s Perspective On Minnesota’s Winter From Hell

Cloud_silver_pencil-2I like to complain as much as the next guy.  Well okay, I probably like to complain a whole lot more than the next guy.   But in a year with something like three feet of snow on the ground, 44 days with sub-zero temperatures, and six-ish weeks of winter wonderland still on the horizon, even I am searching for silver linings in our ubiquitous cumulonimbuses.

So, as I was out carving a canyon out of the house this morning, I asked myself this question:

“Self, why do you stay in icy Minnesota instead of moving to one of those toasty sunbelt states?”

I suspect I wasn’t the only one asking that question today.

Upon snow blown reflection, I decided that there actually are darn good reasons to stay here, at least if you’re a wacked out liberal like me.

silver_lining_cloud-2While we have long, hard winters, I am supremely grateful that we don’t have the sunbelt’s  conservative governors leading us on a race to the bottom.  With every scoop of snow I hurled this morning, I spewed out their names to remind myself of my good fortune.   “No Rick Scott here, grunt.   No, Jan Brewer either, groan.  No Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, and Rick Perry, wheez.”

While Minnesota doesn’t rank anywhere near the top of the climate rankings, this is a good time of year to remind ourselves that it does rank in the top 10 for some pretty meaningful things.  Math and reading scores.  Percentage of high school graduates.  Crime .  Home ownership.  Liife expectancy.  Health coverage.  Unemployment.  Poverty rates.  Health.  Reported well-being.

Overall, a composite score of quality-of-life scores put together by Politico ranked Minnesota second best in the nation.  On the same measure, every one of the sunbelt states led by conservative governors ranked in the lower half of the 50 states.

So while I reserve my right to whine about the weather, I’d much rather have an icy winter and warm community values than a warm winter and icy community values.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was republished in Minnpost.

Franken and Dayton Approval Ratings: A Tale of Two Headlines

Two recent Star Tribune headlines brought good news and bad news  to Minnesota DFLers about their top-of-the-ticket candidates, Governor Mark Dayton and U.S. Senator Al Franken.

Dayton approval rating at its highest

Franken remains a divisive figure

Franken_poll_headline_PDF__1_page_Wow, that must mean that Dayton’s poll numbers are dwarfing poor Al Franken’s, right?

Nope.   The actual Minnesota Poll findings told a completely different story than the Star Tribune’s headlines.

A similar number of Minnesotans approved of the jobs Dayton and Franken are doing, 58% and 55% respectively.  About the same number of Minnesotans have a favorable attitude of Dayton and Franken, 36% and 38% respectively.

Both DFL candidates are looking relatively strong at this very early stage of the campaign season.  Both candidates’ approval ratings are above the 50% mark, which is often considered a key benchmark for incumbents.

Franken’s 55% approval rating would be the envy of many other Democratic Senate incumbents around the nation, such as Alaska Senator Mark Begich (41% approve), Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (40% approve), North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan (36% approve), and Arkansas Senator Mark Prior (37% approve).  Likewise, Dayton’s 58% approval rating is higher than 19 other gubernatorial incumbents facing races in 2014.

It’s true that Senator Franken has extremely high approval ratings among DFLers (97% approve) and extremely low approval ratings among Republicans(15% approve), hence the “divisive figure” headline.  Dayton’s DFL approvers outnumbered his Republican approvers by a massive 4-to-1 margin, but the partisan gap for Dayton was not as large as the partisan gap for Franken.

That kind of large partisan divide is something you see in most political surveys these days.  It is a relevant subplot, but its hardly the most important finding to feature in the front page headline.

In the age of information overload, headlines matter, more than ever.  Headlines are the only thing that many busy news browsers see.  Browsers assume that headlines about a survey feature the most important “bottom line” finding of the survey. The Star Tribune is a very good newspaper, but this was not the Star Tribune at it’s finest.

– Loveland

SD Senate Challenger Shows How Obama Should Have Led On Health Care Reform

rick_weiland_head_shot-2President Obama and his supporters have struggled mightily to market the byzantine Affordable Care Act (ACA) reforms to the public.  But by uttering three simple words – “Medicare for all” –  U.S. Senate candidate Rick Weiland in neighboring South Dakota is showing President Obama how it should have been done way back in 2008.

The “Medicare For All” approach that Weiland proposed last week is much easier to sell than the ACA.  The Associated Press reports:

Weiland has proposed that citizens of any age be allowed to buy into Medicare, which now is generally open only to people 65 and older, as an alternative to private health insurance plans.

“People understand Medicare,” Weiland told The Argus Leader. “It works, it’s efficient, and all this other stuff that they’re having now to focus on is extremely complicated, and they don’t understand it.”

Clear.  Concise.  Compelling.  The same can’t be said about most ACA-related rhetoric.

Obama Framed Up The Wrong Comparison

In the book Predictably Irrational,  Dan Ariely, a psychology and behavioral economics professor, examines how we make choices.  One of the phenomena Ariely describes is research showing that humans tend to judge their environment in relation to things that are comparable.

For instance, let’s say you give newlyweds the choice of three honeymoon options – Paris with free breakfast included, Rome with free breakfast included, and Rome with no breakfast included.  Because the two Rome options are comparable, most will gravitate away from the single Paris option.  We are attracted to comparability.

The Comparability Obama Offered.  With that research in mind, consider what President Obama and congressional Democrats did on health reform in 2008.  He believed that Americans needed to have a system that was comparable with what they were familiar with, our American system of private insurers and private health care providers.  So, from 2008 to 2010, Obama framed the health care reform debate as the choice of two comparable things:

Private-centered status quo model.  The pre-2010 status quo system of private insurers and private health care providers.

vs.

Private-centered model, coupled with reforms..  The status quo system of private insurers and health care providers coupled with complicated reforms.

Affordable_Care_Act_infographic-2The ACA reforms were enormously complex, mostly because the underlying pre-2010 status quo health care system was so decentralized and entangled.  Obama’s reforms were narrowly enacted in 2010, primarily because the status quo was so overwhelmingly unpopular.

The Comparability Obama Should Have Offered.  But what if Obama had framed up  a different kind of comparable choice for the American people?  While it’s true that Americans are familiar with private health insurance, they are also familiar with Medicare.  So why didn’t Obama frame the debate up as a choice between these two comparable things:

Medicare for some.  A status quo system where Medicare is available only to seniors.

vs.

Medicare for all.  A new system where Medicare is available to everyone who wants it.

The Political Advantages of Medicare for All

Obama didn’t go with Medicare For All, presumably because he was afraid that Republicans would castigate it as “government run health care” and “socialism.”

As it turned out, the Republican spin machine was determined to characterize anything Obama proposed as “government run health care” and “socialism.” After all, it uses those terms to describe the ACA, which is  absurd, because the ACA relies on private insurers and private caregivers without permitting a single government-run option in the mix.

President Obama was never going to avoid this “government run health care” political attack , so there was no good reason to allow it to shape the proposal.

Moreover, Medicare happens to be “government run health care” that Americans really like.  About 56 percent of Medicare recipients give it a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale, while only about 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans such a high rating. An amazing 70% of Medicare recipients say they always get access to needed health care, while only 51% of people with private insurance say that.

A 2007 Associated Press/Yahoo survey showed that about two-thirds of Americans (65%) agreed that “the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

So demonizing the specific (“Medicare”) would have been much more politically difficult for Republicans than demonizing the abstract (“government run health care” or “socialism”).

Could Obama have passed a “Medicare For All” bill?  Expanding the nation’s most popular health plan was certainly possible.   After all, knowing that two-thirds of Americans support Medicare for All, what politician of either party would want to take to the stump arguing:

“For your parents, grandparents, neighbors, and friends, Medicare is terrific.   I’ll fight to the death to protect it for them.  But for the rest of you,  I am blocking you from accessing  Medicare.  Medicare for YOU would be radical socialism that would lead to horrific health problems.”

Huh?  That would be a head-spinning political argument to sell.

Still, because the insurance lobby is so strong, maybe Congress would have rejected Medicare for All, against the wishes of two-thirds of their constituents.  But if Obama had made  Medicare for All the starting point for the debate, the compromise at the end of the process may have been more progressive, such as a private-dominated marketplace with a Medicare-like public option impacting market competition.

Incumbents who voted for the ACA in 2010 need to defend that confusing law in the 2014 mid-term elections, and the ACA is certainly a vast improvement over the pre-ACA status quo that Republicans have effectively embraced by not offering alternatives for reducing the rate of uninsurance and outlawing preexisting condition bans.  The ACA, for all its warts, is the most significant health care reform since the creation of Medicare.

But even in a neon red state like South Dakota, challengers like Mr. Weiland are wise to adopt the clear, concise and compelling “Medicare for All” rallying call, just as Obama and congressional Democrats should have done back in  2008.

Loveland

Note:  This post was featured in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Long Live The Same Rowdy Crowd

In 2007 at the Keys Cafe in downtown Minneapolis, my pal Jon Austin asked Bruce Benidt and me to contribute to an ensemble blog Jon was calling The Same Rowdy Crowd.  I was reluctant.  The opening harumph of my inaugural post captures my sunny mood at the time.

I hate blogs. Self-centered., self-righteous, self-reinforcing, and self-promotional. self-gratification. Seldom right, but never in doubt. I’ve never posted on one, and only read when forced by a friend or client.

So why did I agreed to do this? They bought me beer. Lots of it.

I guess I do need a primal scream about the state of the world, and this is cheaper than a therapist. Anyway, it’s not like anyone is actually going to read it.

So, there. Now I officially blog. But I’m not a blogger. Those guys are freaks.

But over 1,700 posts later, I must admit ich bin ein blogger.  I am proud to have been a small part of the Crowd’s long-running rowdiness.

house_party_aftermath-2Just as not every cocktail party conversation is enlightening, not every SRC conversation was a thing of beauty.  But to my surprise, many kinda were.  Many made me refine or better support my shallow opinions.  Lots of them made me laugh out loud to myself.  A few even made me think about the world differently.  I appreciated every one of those gifts.

Maintaining a reasonably fresh blog is one hell of a slog, and the Same Rowdy Crowd party hosts finally ran out of steam.  Like other parties of my misspent youth, the SRC’s 7-year rager left me with dead brain cells, new friends and foggy but fond memories that I will always cherish.

Twenty-four thousand comments later, the Crowd is dead.  Long live the Crowd.

– Loveland

GOP Senators Offer Compromise Design For New Senate Office Building

Saint Paul, MN — Minnesota Republicans today revealed an alternative design for a new office building to serve as home to state senators and their staffs.

Minnesota_Senate_Office_Building-2Republicans have been critical of a $63 million building design backed by Senate DFLers and Goverrnor Dayton.  They say the design is too lavish, such as plans for a reflecting pool and more space than senators currently occupy in the State Capitol Building.

Today Senate Republicans put forward a compromise design.   Senator Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville) said she was aware that some citizens have come to believe that GOP legislators only criticize others’ proposals, without offering constructive alternatives of their own.

“This is a great example of Republicans being reasonable, constructive, and innovative,” said Fischbach.

Fischbach said she and her colleagues retained King Oscar Designs, an architectural firm in Monterey, California that is known worldwide for making efficient use of space.  An artist’s rendering of the alternative office building was released today by Senate Republicans at a State Capitol news conference.

Strom_Senate_Office_Building_rendering-2“We removed the elitist elements from the DFL-backed design, such as windows, space not being occupied by bodies, and ventilation systems,” said Oscar Pilchards, Chief Architectural Officer at King Oscar.  “It’s a classic design that is much more streamlined, sustainable and efficient than the previous design.”

Fischbach stressed that the alternative plan represented a sincere effort to meet Senate DFLers half way.

“In the spirit of compromise, we did include a modified version of the skylight that our Democrat friends wanted, and are heating the structure with 100% body heat, a renewable energy source,” said Fischbach.

The Republican caucus proposed to name the building after David Strom, a former Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota lobbyist who has been named by City Pages as Minnesota’s “Best Villain” for his stanch conservative advocacy.  However, several members of the Senate Republican caucus were said to be outraged by that decision, noting that they believed Strom was too liberal for such an honor.

For their part, DFL Senate leaders were not impressed with King Oscar’s alternative plans.

“Frankly, it stinks,” concluded Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL-Duluth).

Note:   This post is absurdist satire, I think.

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.