Author Archives: Joe Loveland

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.

On MinnesotaCare Buy-In Option, Legislators Must Put Patients Over Lobbyists

Posted on by

Why can’t the Minnesota Legislature give consumers a MinnesotaCare buy-in option so that they have a guaranteed health insurance coverage option, more doctor choices, and much better price competition?  An army of corporate lobbyists say it’s because reimbursements to the health care industry would be lower under that approach, an argument that froze legislators into inaction during the 2019 legislative session. 

To be clear, if that argument prevails, Minnesota lawmakers will never contain health care costs.

To contain costs, policymakers have to lower the amount of money going to the major cost drivers — insurance overhead, doctors, nurses, medical devices and pharmaceuticals.  If politicians reject a reform every time lobbyists for those cost-drivers object about getting lower reimbursements, they will never contain consumer costs.

Let’s look at one of those cost-drivers, physicians.  Politicians like to complain about insurance overhead and pharmaceuticals, for very good reasons, but that’s too easy.  Let’s look at the most sacred of health care’s sacred cows.  Doctors have an abundance of fans, campaign donating power, and lobbyists, so politicians are especially afraid to direct cost-control efforts at them. 

When you look at the long list of developed nations where physicians are paid less than in the U.S., paying less for doctors seems reasonable and doable.  For example, the average specialist in the U.S. earns $230,000 per year, while the average specialist in other industrialized nations receives less than half that amount, $107,000 per year. 

Remember that the next time you hear physicians and their lobbyists complaining about reimbursements being too low.

Oh and by the way, the health outcomes in those developed countries with modestly paid physicians are better than in the U.S. So don’t buy the claim or inference that better pay automatically leads to better care.  It doesn’t.

And about those pharmaceuticals.  American patients pay much more for pharmaceuticals than patients in many other developed nations around the world.  Remember that the next time you hear lobbyists complaining about Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements being too low.

(On this front, the Minnesota Legislature needs to pass legislation to allow importation of Canadian pharmaceuticals, as I argued a while back.  Florida recently passed such a bill, but Minnesota politicians remain frozen by health care lobbyists.)

A Minnesota Care buy-in option — branded as “ONECare” in Minnesota by Governor Tim “One Minnesota™” Walz — would ensure that every Minnesotan always has at least one health insurance option available to them, which is particularly important in remote rural areas.  It would give them broader networks of caregivers, which again is important to Greater Minnesota residents.  It would provide comprehensive benefits and a service that gets good consumer reviews. It would bring better price competition to hold down the health insurance costs.  Those all would be huge benefits for hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans.

But not if Minnesota politicians get cowed into inaction every time corporate health care industry lobbyists complain about receiving lower reimbursement rates. If this group of legislators won’t do the right thing on a MinnesotaCare buy-in option, we should elect a new group who will.

“No New Taxes” Is The Real Winner In Minnesota’s 2019 Legislative Session

Posted on by

Today in its lead front page story, the Star Tribune trumpeted Governor Tim Walz as the triumphant victor in the recently concluded legislative session.  But the truth is, the real victor looks more like conservative devotees of a “no new taxes” pledge.

For many years, former Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota Taxpayer’s League’s David Strum enforced strict adherence to a “no new taxes” pledge, even during many years when lawmakers were struggling with huge budget shortfalls. Though Pawlenty and Strum are no longer players, and conservatives have a weaker bargaining position now than they had in those days, Pawlenty’s “no new taxes” position still somehow bested Walz’s “many new taxes.”

  • No Gas Tax Increase. Governor Walz wanted a large gasoline tax increase. He didn’t get half of what he recommended.  He didn’t get one-quarter.  He got no increase. Zip.
  • Income Tax Cut.  Walz wanted to preserve the status quo on state income taxes. That didn’t happen either.  He got a cut instead.
  • Provider Tax Cut.  Walz desperately wanted to keep the provider tax at the same 2.0% level it has been for years.  He got a 10% cut in the tax instead, to 1.8%.
  • Overall Revenue Cut.  Overall, Walz wanted to raise much more revenue to deliver much improved services.  Instead, he got lower overall revenue.  As a result, he was forced to dramatically scale back his agenda and a dip into the state’s rainy day fund to balance the budget, a fiscally irresponsible move that DFL former Governor Mark Dayton strongly opposed.

A Walz Win?

With all of this Walz losing on the taxation front, how can Walz be crowned the session’s big winner?

The Star Tribune sees it this way:  First, Walz kept legislative overtime to a minimum by capitulating to Republican demands early and often.  They seem to put an inordinate amount of value on ending on-time. Second, interest groups who either oppose taxes or support Walz declared him a great guy.  Third, Walz declared himself victorious, during a news conference in which he made a touchdown signal.  And, duh,everyone knows losers don’t make touchdown signals.

“No New Taxes” Leads To Dozens of Losses

To be fair, the Strib did acknowledge, in the 23rd paragraph where few readers read, that Walz lost on the revenue side of the ledger:

“Still, the cut in the health care tax, coupled with a middle income tax cut of 0.25%, means state government gets less money than if current taxes had stayed in place. On that, Republicans could claim victory too.”

But here’s the thing:  “No new taxes” is not just one individual issue that is equivalent to other individual issues debated at the Capitol.  Pawlenty and Strum understood that very clearly.  They understood that winning on “no new taxes” meant stopping progressives from making progress on dozens of issues.

That’s exactly what happened in 2019.

Without more revenue, Walz-backed improvements in roads, bridges and transit became impossible.

Without more revenue, the large House-passed increases for k-12 education became impossible.

Without more revenue, restoring the Pawlenty-era social services cuts became impossible.

The point: When Tim Walz lost on “no new taxes,” he didn’t lose on one issue.  He effectively lost much of his policy agenda.

Walz Reluctant to Use Negotiating Advantage

State budget negotiations can be thought of as a three-legged stool, with one leg controlled by the House, one by the Senate, and one by the Governor.  DFLers currently control two-thirds of the legs — the House and the Governor’s office — and Republicans only have one of the legs, with a narrow majority in the Senate.  This means DFLers should have an advantage in budget negotiations.

But to tap into that negotiating advantage and move a progressive agenda forward even just a little bit, Governor Walz needed to hold firm, and probably go into legislative overtime.  I understand that’s not a pleasant proposition for an affable fellow like Walz, but my guess is that a more progressive and fiery Governor Erin Murphy would have been willing to do that.  Governor Tim Walz was not.

If that “no new taxes” trend continues over the next three years, the Walz era may not be as different from the Pawlenty era as progressives like me had hoped.  Somewhere I have a suspicion that David Strum and Tim Pawlenty are smirking to themselves.

The Applause Line You Won’t Hear At Trump’s Minnesota Tax Day Rally

Posted on by

President Donald Trump is coming to Minnesota today.  That means we’ll be treated to lots of bullying of Representative Ilhan Omar, crowing about the “exoneration” that the Special Counsel specifically has said was not an exoneration, and vilifying of families fleeing desperate conditions for a better life in America.

And you thought there was a cold wind blowing into Minnesota last week?

Since it’s Tax Day, we’ll also be hearing lots of bragging from the President about his tax cut law.  But you probably won’t hear him mention that his tax law, which was dutifully supported by every Republican in the Minnesota congressional delegation, led to twice as many corporations paying $0 in taxes compared to the period before the Trump tax cuts.  Here is an excerpt from an NBC analysis.

At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero…according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.

Among them are household names like technology giant Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.

“Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.”

“The specter of big corporations avoiding all income taxes on billions in profits sends a strong and corrosive signal to Americans: that the tax system is stacked against them, in favor of corporations and the wealthiest Americans,” Gardner wrote in the report.”

The next time you hear Trump or other Republicans say there isn’t enough money to help seniors, children, disaster victims, patients, farmers, disabled people, veterans, students, parents, and dislocated workers, remember this report and these lavish corporate handouts that are blowing an enormous hole in the federal budget.

I’m pretty sure “and we doubled the number of corporations paying zero taxes” is not likely to be an applause line that we will hear from President Trump at today’s Minnesota Tax Day rally.  So I thought I’d do the President a favor and promote that particular accomplishment here.

Minnesota Senate Republicans Enact New Alcohol Prohibition Law

Posted on by

Saint Paul, Minn. — Republican lawmakers in the Minnesota Senate today passed historic new legislation to make the drinking, possession or sale of alcoholic beverages a crime.

“For all who care deeply about the horrific damage that highly addictive alcoholic drinks are doing to young Minnesotans’ brains, and the carnage created by drunk driving, this is a tremendous victory,” said Senate Majority Leader Paul Purity (R-Dryville).

In the midst of Republicans’ successful effort to preserve marijuana prohibition, Purity said he and other Republicans came to the realization that they also needed to prohibit alcohol use. Alcohol was last illegal in the United States from 1920 to 1933.

“It dawned on us that alcohol is much more addictive, lethal and damaging to young brains than marijuana, so to be consistent we needed to bring back alcohol prohibition,” said Senator Warren Dimmer (R-Chaste), a key marijuana and alcohol prohibition supporter.

Opponents of alcohol prohibition tried unsuccessfully to keep alcohol legal while enacting a series of initiatives to limit the harm caused by youth alcohol abuse and drunk driving. But alcohol prohibition proponents successfully argued that such efforts would be insufficient.

Under the new alcohol prohibition law, criminal penalties will be identical to what is currently in place for marijuana offenders.

To prepare for the new law, Republicans said they will support a massive increase in state spending for what they dubbed a “war on alcohol.”  Among other things, that will mean millions more in state and local funding for more police, prosecutors, and prisons to make room for the thousands of Minnesotans expected to be arrested in coming years under the new law.

However, finding sufficient funding for the new war on alcohol could prove to be a challenge.  Because of the new alcohol prohibition law, the state will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue as the alcohol excise tax is eliminated.  Also, hundreds of Minnesota bars will be required to close, and the resulting unemployment will cause the demand for social services to increase as income tax and sales tax revenues decrease.

“The booze heads on the fringe of society are exaggerating the implications,” said Purity. “The new law does pose challenges, but we couldn’t logically justify support for marijuana prohibition unless we also supported alcohol prohibition, We didn’t want to look like hypocritical morons.”

Jubilant law enforcement and prison officials joined Senators Purity and Dimmer at a celebratory State Capitol news conference.  They praised the vote, and said they can’t wait to begin ramping up their hiring and purchasing of new military-style equipment to crack down on drinkers.

Meanwhile, a small group of deflated pro-alcohol activists drank beer on the steps of the State Capitol Building in defiance of the vote.  When the law becomes effective on July 1, 2019, such activity will become a crime.

Note:  Just in case you’re unbelievably gullible, this is satire, not actual news.

Medicare Buy-In Option: The Next Span in the Bridge to Medicare-for-All

Posted on by

Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans.  Around the world, single payer systems like Medicare-for-All are delivering better and cheaper health care than Americans are getting, and we need to adopt such a system as soon as possible.  As William Hsiao, Ph.D., professor of economics at the Harvard School of Public Health puts it:

“You can have universal coverage and good quality health care, while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”

But for reasons I’ll explain below, I don’t believe Medicare-for-All can pass in 2020, even if Democrats control Congress and the White House.  So, we need to extend a meaningful bridge to Medicare-for-All.

So what could Democrats pass to make Medicare-for-All possible in the relatively near future?

The 74-Year Battle

Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we got here.   In 1945, Harry Truman wanted what we today would call Medicare-for-All.  For 20 years, it went nowhere.  What was dubbed “socialized medicine” by Ronald Reagan and other Republicans just didn’t prove to be politically feasible.

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had a partial breakthrough. He passed Medicare for 65 and older, but it wasn’t as comprehensive as today’s Medicare. As support for Medicare grew, improvements were made.  In 1972, Republican Richard Nixon agreed to expand coverage. In the Reagan years, home health care, hospice services, and a limited prescription drug benefit were added.  In the George H.W. Bush era, the prescription drug benefit was expanded.

The historical lesson:  Health care reform in a nation dominated by powerful private health insurance companies has been supremely arduous, and therefore incremental.  This is true even though Medicare has proven popular and efficient.

Medicare-for-All Next?

Unfortunately, three-quarters of a century after Truman started advocating for Medicare for All, the debate still is treacherous. In 2019, the Medicare expansion debate boils down to essentially this:  Should progressives push for 1) publicly financed, mandated Medicare-for-All; 2) voluntary, consumer-financed Medicare buy-in option; or 3) a publicly financed, mandated “Medicare at 50.”

Many progressives, myself included, point to the polls showing strong support for Medicare-for-All, and say now is the time to push for it.

Indeed, progressives should continue to make the case for making Medicare-for-All the goal. At the same time, we have to recognize that in the current political environment, Medicare-for-All has much less popular support than a Medicare buy-in option.  A January 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll finds that  56% of Americans support Medicare-for-All, while 77% support a Medicare buy-in option.  So when conservatives and insurance companies start attacking, the buy-in option would be much more politically bullet-proof than Medicare-for-All.

Moreover, as the debate heats up Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will be vulnerable to two of the most deadly attacks in all of American politics.  First, opponents will say they’re “massively expensive.” Second, they will say consumers would be “forced to give up your current coverage.”

We shouldn’t discount the political power of those two critiques.  When it comes to taxpayer expense and mandated change, American voters have historically been very easily spooked. Those two attacks, which would be greatly amplified via hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the most intensive political and special interest propaganda the nation has ever seen, will be very effective at eroding support.

Therefore, today’s poll numbers for Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will not hold up, and when they shrink, congressional votes will disappear.

Advantages Of A Medicare Buy-In Bridge 

A Medicare buy-in option, however, is much more politically durable, and not just because it has 21 points more support in the KFF survey than Medicare-for-All.

Not Expensive. First, a Medicare buy-in option wouldn’t have a big taxpayer price tag like Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, because consumers under age 65 would be paying premiums, not taxpayers.

Not A Mandate.  Second, a buy-in option wouldn’t force any consumer to give up their current coverage, which they would need to do with either Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50.  Under the buy-in option, consumers who want to continue to pay more to keep their private coverage could still choose to do so.

The fact that a Medicare buy-in option is voluntary and self-financing would largely disarm the most potent political attacks that have been working since 1945.

A Bridge To Medicare-for-All. But make no mistake, passing a Medicare buy-in option would constitute dramatic progress that would make Medicare for All much more likely in the future.  Let me count the ways:

  • More Affordable for Millions.  Because Medicare has much lower overhead than private health insurance, it would give millions of Americans more affordable coverage than they have today. By the way, if private insurance somehow turns out to be cheaper and/or better than the Medicare option, as conservatives have long claimed, consumers obviously will choose it.  If that happens, Republicans will be proven correct. So let patients decide, not politicians. Conservatives should have nothing to fear from giving this option to consumers.
  • Aid Cost Control.  A Medicare buy-in option would give Medicare a bigger pool of consumers, which would give Medicare officials much more leverage to negotiate cost control with hospitals, doctors, device makers and pharmaceutical companies. “Medicare-for-more” would not be as effective at leveraging lower costs as “Medicare-for-All” will be, but it will bring important progress.
  • Deepen Medicare Support. As more Americans voluntarily switch from private insurance to the cheaper Medicare buy-in option without experiencing worse service and coverage, it will show Americans that this “government-run health care” is not the horrific bogeyman Republicans have made it out to be.
  • Broaden Generational Support. Finally, while Medicare currently mostly only has senior citizen champions, newly converted believers in Medicare would be in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s. This would dramatically strengthen the Medicare-for-All base of support.

So, a Medicare buy-in option would be much more politically feasible than Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, and it is the next logical span of the bridge to Medicare-for-All to add. Progressives shouldn’t be hesitant to build it.

Democrats’ Pending McCain Moment

Posted on by

Arguably Senator John McCain’s finest moment came in Minnesota, when he corrected a Minnesota woman who called Barack Obama an Arab, a shockingly widespread belief at the time among Republicans.  With the audience chuckling, and an easy cheap-shot applause line tempting the candidate, McCain showed political discipline, courage and integrity when he famously corrected her. “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with…”

(By the way, it would have been much more admirable had Senator McCain added something like: “And ‘Arab’ should never be used as a criticism or slur, because most people of Arabic descent are decent family men and women, and many are American citizens who love this country every bit as much as we do.”  That would have been even more courageous and constructive. But I digress.)

Very soon, I suspect Democratic presidential candidates will have their own McCain moment in front of them.  For instance, eye-for-an-eye Democratic activists at rallies will surely echo and mock Trump supporters by chanting “lock him up.”  Though that chant isn’t as racist or removed from reality as the “Arab” remark, it’s also ugly in its own way.

In that same moment, Trump shamelessly promoted ignorance, disinformation, and mob rule by leading the chant, because he is a petty, short-sighted and dishonest authoritarian.  But Democrats should show swing voters that they are better than Trump and his sycophantic Trumpublicans, and should not further normalize Trump’s abhorrent behavior by aping it.

A primary problem with the Trump supporters’ “lock her up” chants was not just that Secretary Clinton hadn’t been found guilty of any jailable offense, or even charged with one.  It also was that politicians should never be making incarceration decisions and declarations about political opponents, Putin-style.  In our American democracy, those are decisions that should be reserved for the independent judicial branch of government, after due process has been completed.

So when the “lock him up” chants inevitably start at Democratic rallies, Democratic candidates and party leaders should immediately stop their crowds and gently but firmly say something like this:

“No my friends, that’s them.  That’s not us.  That’s not how it works in this great democracy of ours. Incarceration is for the judges and juries in the judicial branch to decide, not for us.  But here is something that we can do, and must do. Vote them out!  Vote them out! Vote them out!”

That will show swing voters — Independents, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans — that Democrats are the adults in the room. It will show them that it’s not true that “both sides do it,” as moderates frequently assert.   It will show them that Democrats are focused on democracy and not being an authoritarian lynch mob.  It show them that Democrats are leaders not demagogues.

For a country suffering extreme Trump fatigue, those things will matter a great deal in the 2020 elections.

Barack Obama showed Democrats the way.  At campaign rallies, his fired up supporters often started  booing their opponents.  But Obama firmly redirected his supporters in a more constructive democratic direction. “Don’t boo. Vote.”

In other words, Obama was a moral leader, not a demagogue.  His wannabe successors will have a similar moral test in front of them in the upcoming campaign.  They need to follow President Obama’s lead.

Easing The Harms of Legalizing Marijuana In Minnesota

Posted on by

I’m a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana in Minnesota, and nationally.  As I’ve written before, legalized marijuana “will make Minnesota a more sensible, just, fiscally sound, humane and free state.”  The evidence is overwhelming.

But let’s not be naive or dishonest here.  As with any vice, there are also huge problems associated with legalization that need to be alleviated.  To me, the most troubling downside of legalization is harms to minors, transportation users, and seriously ill patients.

Disadvantages of Ending Marijuana Prohibition

Damaging Minors’ Brains. First, credible researchers are finding that marijuana use by minors appears to be much more damaging than it is for adults. For an example, an article in an American Psychological Association publication reports numerous alarming research findings:

Heavy marijuana use in adolescence or early adulthood has been associated with a dismal set of life outcomes including poor school performance, higher dropout rates, increased welfare dependence, greater unemployment and lower life satisfaction.

Duke University psychologist Terrie Moffitt, PhD, and colleagues… found that persistent marijuana use was linked to a decline in IQ, even after the researchers controlled for educational differences. The most persistent users…experienced a drop in neuropsychological functioning equivalent to about six IQ points (PNAS, 2012). “That’s in the same realm as what you’d see with lead exposure,” says Weiss. “It’s not a trifle.”

There are some reasons to think that adolescents may be uniquely susceptible to lasting damage from marijuana use. At least until the early or mid-20s, “the brain is still under construction,” says Staci Gruber, PhD, a neuroscientist and director of the Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core and the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery (MIND) Program at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School…

Also immature in teens is the endocannabinoid system. As its name implies, this system comprises the physiological mechanisms that respond to THC. That system is important for cognition, neurodevelopment, stress response and emotional control, and it helps to modulate other major neurotransmitter systems, says Krista Lisdahl, PhD, director of the Brain Imaging and Neuropsychology Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Repeated exposure to marijuana can dial down cellular activity in the endocannabinoid system. Such interference might be a bigger problem for immature brains, says Lisdahl. “That sets the stage for why adolescents may be more sensitive to the effects of repeated marijuana exposure, from a neuroscience perspective.”

So, should we oppose legalization of marijuana?  Not unless we also want to bring back alcohol prohibition, because alcohol also is extremely damaging to the brain and many other parts of the body, and alcohol leads to countless more deaths than marijuana.

Still, in the rush to legalize marijuana, these kinds of findings shouldn’t be shrugged off by legalization enthusiasts.  We need to shine a light on these findings to encourage young people to delay marijuana usage until later in life, and to encourage everyone to not overdo it.

More Traffic Fatalities.  Second, legalization of marijuana also will increase the number of impaired drivers, which will likely lead to more traffic injuries and fatalities. USA Today reports the expert findings from states where the drug is now legal:

According to research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute, the frequency of collision claims filed to insurers were higher in four states where marijuana is legal: Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The Highway Loss Data Institute study focused on collision claims between 2012 and October 2017, and compared against four control states where marijuana remains illegal: Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.

A separate study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety focused on police-reported crashes before and after retail marijuana was allowed found Colorado, Oregon and Washington saw a 5.2 percent increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations, compared with neighboring states.

Law enforcement officials and others are using these kinds of findings as a reason to oppose legalization.  That’s absurd.  No one, including law enforcement officials, wants to bring back alcohol prohibition because of the staggering number of serious drunk driving problems, so we shouldn’t keep marijuana illegal because stoned driving problems are in the mix.

At the same time, we also shouldn’t deny the existence of the problem, and be passive about harm reduction.

Destroy Medical Cannabis Program For Patients.  Finally, ending marijuana prohibition could inadvertently harm or destroy Minnesota’s fledgling medical cannabis program, and consequently harm the seriously ill Minnesota patients benefiting from it.

According to Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) patient surveys, many Minnesota patients are benefiting from precisely dosed, tested, and customized cannabis-based capsules, oils, tinctures, and topicals. Across a wide variety of qualifying conditions, two-thirds of patients report significant benefits, while only 10% report little to no benefit.

When it comes to chronic pain patients, the MDH surveys show that 63% of patients who had been on highly lethal, addictive opioid medications were able to reduce or eliminate their use of opioids after moving to much less addictive, lethal cannabis-based pain relief medicine.

Many seriously ill patients desperately want to hold onto those successful medicines, but worry that the post-legalization availability of cheaper, unprocessed raw marijuana plant material will put the manufacturers of their precisely dosed and formulated medicines medicine out of business.

Many Minnesotans probably won’t care too much that those manufacturers would go out of business.  But the problem is, if they do go out of business, patients would suffer.  That is, patients who are currently benefiting from those precisely formulated and dosed medicines would be forced to use raw plant material that they and their caregivers consider to be less safe, pure and customized form of medicine.

Mitigating the Harm

We can’t wish these problems away.  Therefore, the law ending marijuana prohibition should set aside a reasonable amount — for the sake of argument, let’s say five percent to ten percent of the revenue raised from legalizing marijuana — for  a Marijuana Harm Reduction Fund.  The lion’s share of the revenue raised by legalizing marijuana still could be allocated however lawmakers and their constituents see fit.  But a mitigation fund could be used for harm reduction projects like:

  • Medicine Affordability Assistance. Some type of patient-friendly sliding scale subsidy to make precisely dosed, tested and formulated cannabis-based medicines available and affordable to all Minnesota patients who, according to medical caregivers, need them.
  • Youth Brain Impact Public Education Campaign. A multi-media public education campaign aimed at teens, young adults and parents to raise awareness about the heightened dangers of marijuana use at an early age.
  • Stoned Driving Public Education Campaign. A multi-media public education campaign aimed at raising awareness about the very real dangers of driving while under the influence of marijuana.

A couple of important caveats about this fund:

  • Evidence-based campaigns. The content of the public education campaign should be overseen by inter-disciplinary experts to ensure campaigns don’t become Reefer Madness-like misinformation campaigns, and are instead based on the consensus of the best available scientific evidence.
  • Subsidy oversight. The subsidies of patients using cannabis-based medicines should be monitored to ensure physicians are verifying that patients are benefiting from the medications and the amount of patient subsidies are kept at a reasonable level.

Again, cannabis is much less addictive and deadly than already legalized alcohol.  Again, marijuana prohibition has been horrific for communities. of color.  Again, marijuana prohibition is very bad, and legalization is much better.  Don’t get me wrong.

But that can’t be the end of the debate.  Citizens like me who are advocating to end marijuana prohibition must own these problems, and do what we can to reduce the associated harm.

Disclosure: The author is a public relations consultant who helps one of Minnesota’s two manufacturers of cannabis-based medicine share patient success stories with the news media.  He doesn’t lobby for that company, and the public policy opinions expressed here are his own, not the company’s.

To Remain On Top, Minnesota Needs To Up It’s Voting Game

Posted on by

It’s official.  During the recent 2018 elections, about 64% of Minnesotans voted, including 73% in the third congressional district.  That’s the best rate of voter participation in the nation, a familiar spot for Minnesota.  Local  massage therapists are reporting record-breaking business as smug Minnesotans seek relief following vigorous self back-patting.

Good for us, again. But here are a couple important things we need to do in the next legislative session to up our game, so we can hold onto that top spot.

 

Automatic Voter Registration

First, we need to remove bureaucratic hassles from the voter registration process.

Like most states, Minnesota still has “opt in” voter registration. Under this approach, an eligible voter must proactively find and fill out a voter registration application. It’s a bit of a pain, particularly if you’re a young adult who hasn’t yet built up a tolerance for paperwork or knowledge of the workings of government.

Under the automatic voter registration model that should be adopted in Minnesota, citizens are proactively registered to vote unless they “opt out.”  As of October of this year, 14 states are using various forms of automatic voter registration.

Just as an example, Oregon seems to have a good system. In that state, the DMV automatically shares voter registration-relevant data with the election agency.  When computers determine that age, citizenship and residency requirements have all been met, the election agency mails out a registration notification card.

On the card, the resident has three choices:  a) Choose a party affiliation and mail the card back; b) Check a box on the card to opt out of registration; or c) Do nothing, and after three weeks become automatically registered to vote as “unaffiliated.”  That’s it.  It makes democracy as easy as it should be.

To be sure, being registered to vote obviously doesn’t guarantee participation.  Far from it.  But it at least removes that initial barrier. Whether automatic voter registration leads to more participation or simply makes a needlessly cumbersome process more user-friendly and efficient, Minnesota needs to do this.

Vote By Mail

Second, Minnesota needs to make the process of voting much more convenient.

In a modern society, we can do just about everything without leaving home, such as hold meetings, shop, and fill out government paperwork .  But we still require citizens to leave their homes to vote in person, unless they proactively go to the trouble of securing an absentee ballot. That makes voting more difficult than it needs to be, especially if you’re old, sick, hurt, disabled, in a remote location, or lacking transportation.

We can do better.  In case you’ve missed this news, we have something called a mail system.  That means we can mail all registered voters a ballot, and let them study issues and candidates at home and mail it back at their convenience, within a set election period.

Variously called “vote by mail,” “vote at home,” or “all mail elections,” this is lot like the tried-and-true absentee voting system, with one obvious advantage: You don’t have to request a ballot.

The ballot just arrives in all registered voters’ mail at the beginning of an election period, without having to request it. In terms of convenience, it’s sort of like the difference between having to physically go to a utility office to hand over a payment in person versus having a utility bill mailed to you so you can pay by mail without leaving your home.

If that much convenience is objectionable to you, or you’re one of those many traditionalists, fine, we’ll still have a smaller number of physical locations for some of you holdouts.  Enjoy your time in line.

Vote-by-mail is obviously more convenient than voting in person, and it breaks down barriers to voting. The nonpartisan National Council on State Legislatures (NCSL) notes that research finds “turnout increases by single digits for presidential elections and more in smaller elections.”  That alone is enough reason to make the change.

But wait, there’s more! Vote-by-mail also is about 40 percent cheaper for taxpayers than traditional elections, according to a 2016 Pew study of Colorado’s experience.

Fraud, you ask? All election systems, including the current system, carry the possibility of fraud, as would vote-by-mail. But as the National Vote at Home Coalition (NVAHC) notes:

“Oregon has mailed-out more than 100 million ballots since 2000, with about a dozen cases of proven fraud.” That’s a 0.00000012 percent rate of fraud.”

Importantly, vote by mail also has a huge anti-fraud advantage.  Voting by mail leaves a trackable, auditable paper trail, which cybersecurity experts tell us is the surest way to thwart hacking and ensure election integrity.  In that very important way, vote by mail is much less prone to fraud than the current election system, particularly where voting machines are in use.

As an aside, I wish we could do online voting to save some trees.  But cybersecurity experts say online voting would be too prone to hacking. So vote by mail is the next best thing.

Minnesota legislators don’t like to be trailblazers, but we don’t have to go out on a limb on this one.  Oregon has been successfully using vote by mail this for 18 years, and 22 other states have followed their lead.

So while we Minnesotans are justifiably celebrating our civically engaged selves, we shouldn’t rest on our laurels.  If we want to maintain our top spot and strengthen our democracy, we’re going to need to take these steps to break down more of our remaining barriers to voting.

Farewell Mark Dayton, The Un-Politician

Posted on by

As we count down Mark Dayton’s final days as Governor of Minnesota, it’s worth reflecting on one of the more peculiar figures in recent Minnesota political history.

If mad political scientists had set out to create the perfect politician, rest assured it would look nothing like Mark Dayton.

In a profession where optimism sells, Governor Eeyore came across as perpetually gloomy.

In a job where gregariousness and charm are needed to build winning coalitions, Dayton wasn’t very willing or able to glad-hand with legislators or other power brokers.

In a business where glibness is an invaluable asset, Dayton was often difficult to understand and unpersuasive in his speaking style. (Some of this may have been due to an underlying health issue, but the political challenge remains.)

In a grueling endeavor where energy and stamina are needed, Dayton’s chronic health issues have slowed him in his job and on the campaign trail.

And in a job where charisma often wins converts, Dayton possessed all the charisma of a lump of lutefisk.

Poor Governor Dayton. He lacks the hard-wired optimism of Hubert Humphrey, charm of Tim Pawlenty, glibness of Norm Coleman, energy of Paul Wellstone and charisma of all of the above.

But somehow, some way, Mark Dayton became a successful Governor.

He raised taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans and increased the minimum wage without crashing the economy, as his conservative critics had promised would happen.

He expanded Medicaid and faithfully implemented the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which led to Minnesota having the best rate of health insurance coverage in state history, and one of the best in the nation.

He paid back millions that Pawlenty had borrowed from schools, and increased investments in them.

He refused to use the budget gimmicks Pawlenty employed to avoid tough choices, which helped end Minnesota’s long run of budget shortfalls, and allow Minnesota to earn a coveted AAA bond rating, which will save taxpayers millions in future years.

While implementing these progressive policies, Minnesota’s economy has boomed, outperforming the national economy and the economy that conservative Governor Scott Walker built in neighboring Wisconsin.

It also should be noted that Dayton’s family inheritance made it possible for him to self-fund his rise to political power. Ordinary people with Dayton’s political disabilities could not have achieved what Dayton did in his career.  That’s a problem for our democracy.

But the fact remains, Dayton achieved all of this without a lot of political talent. He mostly accomplished those things due to his decency, candor, policymaking expertise, disciplined focus, and commitment to doing the right thing for vulnerable Minnesotans and our common good.

In the end, I’d take those things over all the optimism, glibness, gregariousness, energy, stamina and charisma in the world. Somehow, Dayton the un-politician made it work.

If You Like TrumpCare, You’ll Love JohnsonCare

Posted on by

Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) is crying foul over an Alliance for Better Minnesota television ad that says Johnson’s health care proposals would take health care away from Minnesotans who need it.

But the Alliance’s ad is accurate. Without question, the health care “reform” approach candidate Johnson is promoting during his campaign would take health care away from Minnesotans who need it.

Let’s break down the proposed JohnsonCare plan, piece-by-piece.

Johnson Eliminating ACA Protections

Johnson wants to make the Affordable Care Act (ACA) a thing of the past in Minnesota, via a federal waiver granted by the Trump Administration. More specifically, Johnson wants to eliminate the ACA approach that has:

  • Protected Record Numbers of Minnesotans. Under the ACA framework, Minnesota achieved the highest rate of health care coverage in state history.
  • Made Previously Unaffordable Protections Affordable. For lower and middle-income Minnesotans who don’t get coverage through their employer, the ACA has provided hundreds of millions in financial assistance to reduce or eliminate premium costs.
  • Strengthened Minnesotans’ Protections. The ACA also banned the hated preexisting condition denials, insurance payment limits, and dangerous junk coverage.  Because fewer Americans are no longer living one illness or injury away from being crushed by a mountain of bankrupting medical bills, personal bankruptcies have decreased by 50 percent during the time the ACA has existed.

If Johnson eliminates the increasingly popular ACA protections in Minnesota, that all goes away.  So yes, in several different and dramatic ways, Johnson absolutely would take health care away from Minnesotans who need it. The ad is correct about that.

Johnson’s False Claims

Johnson’s criticism of his opponent’s health care proposal is also utterly ridiculous.  Johnson says claims opponent Tim Walz “wants to eliminate private health insurance and force all Minnesotans onto one government program.”

The reality is, Walz supports a MinnesotaCare buy-in option. Under that approach, Minnesotans would have the option of either buying private plans or buying into the MinnesotaCare program, which is a government program operated by private health insurance programs.

In other words, Johnson’s claims that Walz wants to “eliminate private health insurance” and “force all Minnesotans onto one government program” are flat wrong.

If Walz is proposing a government-run single payer plan in the short-term, I’m not aware of it. Even if that were true, Johnson’s inference that eliminating private insurance in favor of government run health care would hurt Minnesotans is also wrong.  After all, Medicare, a government-run health plan, is popular and effective.  Medicare is helping Minnesotans, not hurting them.

Moreover, government run health plans are used in many other developed nations. Compared to the United States, consumers in those nations have 1) universal comprehensive coverage, 2) lower overall health costs and 3)  better overall health outcomes.

JohnsonCare and TrumpCare

Instead of the ACA, Johnson wants to back a high risk pool program that was very expensive for both consumers and taxpayers when it was used pre-ACA. Minnesota Public Radio reported:

Craig Britton of Plymouth, Minn., once had a plan through the state’s high-risk pool. It cost him $18,000 a year in premiums.

Britton was forced to buy the expensive MCHA coverage because of a pancreatitis diagnosis. He calls the idea that high-risk pools are good for consumers “a lot of baloney.”

“That is catastrophic cost,” Britton says. “You have to have a good living just to pay for insurance.”

And that’s the problem with high-risk pools, says Stefan Gildemeister, an economist with Minnesota’s health department.

“It’s not cheap coverage to the individual, and it’s not cheap coverage to the system,” Gildemeister says.

MCHA’s monthly premiums cost policy holders 25 percent more than conventional coverage, Gildemeister points out, and that left many people uninsured in Minnesota.

Johnson also wants to promote “junk,” “short-term,” or “skinny” plans, which are cheap because they don’t cover basic protections.  Promoting junk plans to reduce health care costs is like promoting cheaper cars lacking seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, and anti-lock brakes. They look good if you’re only considering the price tag, but they’re a disaster when you and your family are in dangerous situations and desperately need those life-saving protections.

On health care, as with so most other issues, Jeff Johnson is aping Trump. President Trump is obsessed with eliminating Americans’ ACA protections in favor of a skimpy TrumpCare replacement. Trump insists that TrumpCare will cover everyone and cut costs, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that 23 million Americans would lose their protections, and millions more would pay higher premiums.

So Minnesotans, if you like TrumpCare – and only 17% of Americans do – you’re going to love JohnsonCare.

A Path Out of the Ellison Mess?

Posted on by

When it comes to the abuse accusations against DFL Attorney General nominee Keith Ellison, DFL leaders are in a tough spot.

Currently, they’re supporting Ellison and making their candidates vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and being soft on abuse. If the DFLers embrace the allegations, they could be destroying a rising star with less proof than existed in the Franken situation (i.e. multiple accusers and an attack ad-ready photo of a Senator faux groping to get a cheap laugh at an unsuspecting woman’s expense).

It’s difficult to figure out the right thing to do. It would be easier for DFL leaders to do the right thing if the Ellison accuser released the video of the incident she describes, where she says Ellison forcefully pulled off a bed while verbally abusing her. If DFL leaders knew that incident was real and as described, they could condemn the documented abuse and actively oppose Ellison.

But the problem is, the accuser doesn’t want to make the video public, for some pretty good reasons. She feels that having the video on the news for the whole world to see would be humiliating and traumatic. That’s an understandable and reasonable position for a victim to take.

So maybe this is the solution: The accuser allows a group of credible anti-abuse advocates to see the video. If the advocates see abuse in the private viewing of the video, they proclaim that to the world, and DFLers oppose him. If the accuser refuses to allow that kind of private viewing, while Congressman Ellison welcomes it, I’d feel a little better about supporting him. Minnesota voters might too.

Wait, Lori Swanson Wiretapped Her Employees?

Posted on by

The coverage in The Intercept and other news outlets about accusations of wrongdoing by  Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson is voluminous. These are very long stories. Headlines and summaries have focused on the accusation that Swanson pressured staffers to do campaign staff work in a government office, and punished those who refused.

But is that really the most surprising and shocking thing that’s being alleged?

I don’t want to make light of politicking on the government dime, and strong-arming employees to do so. That’s a big deal, particularly if done as forcefully and punitively as Swanson’s employees claim. If the accusations about Swanson pressuring employees to do campaign work are true, the state’s chief law enforcement officer broke the law.

Now, are those accusations true?  I don’t know, but the fact that the documents show that Swanson ran statewide Attorney General and Governor campaigns with $0 in personnel costs indicates that there very well may have been substantial illegal government subsidization of Swanson’s political campaigns.

As significant as that is, there may be an even bigger scandal buried deep in those long stories. In the 32nd paragraph of The Intercept story was this little Nixonian nugget about an accusation by former Swanson employee D’Andre Norman.

Similarly, in one of the Star Tribune’s follow-up stories, under the headline “Lori Swanson hits back at former aide who says she politicized attorney general’s office,” this item was buried in the 26th paragraph, long after many readers stopped reading.

Wait, what? A guy who work worked at Lori Swanson’s side for years says he was wiretapping employees at Swanson’s behest, presumably so Swanson could retaliate against them? I’ll leave it to others to determine whether this kind of alleged spying on employees is illegal, but it certainly is, if true, supremely creepy and unethical.

Keep in mind, these employees weren’t accused of doing anything illegal. They were thought to be supporting an effort to unionize their workplace, which seems like something that a would-be standard bearer for the Democratic Farm Labor (DFL) Party should support.

If the spying and wiretapping accusations are true, that’s a seismic political event. And if the recent headlines had been more like “Accusation: Swanson ordered wiretapping of employees,” the pre-primary political damage done to Swanson might have been much worse.

Democrats Who Want To Win Need To Stop Scolding Trump Voters

Posted on by

Blue wave? We’ll see. In an off-year election when too many Democrats typically don’t vote, Democratic candidates and activists have a lot of work to do before they can win over enough 2016 Trump voters to fuel a wave that will turn the national political map blue.

The kind of work I’m talking about isn’t door knocking, fundraising and get-out-the-vote organizing. That’s very important too, but I’m talking about messaging. So far this election season, much of the Democrats’ messaging has been ineffective to harmful.

On social media and on the campaign trail, I see a lot of self-indulgent, self-righteous scream therapy from the left. There is a lot of snide mocking and scolding of Trump voters. Trump voters are called “stupid,” “naive,” “racist,” and worse. As Trump becomes more untruthful, unhinged and un-American by the day, frustrated progressives lash out with greater ferocity at the 46 percent of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016.

Ridiculing Trump voters on a personal level is never politically helpful. But it is a bit more understandable during party caucus and primary season, when Democratic candidates are trying to out-liberal each other when preaching to the progressive, anti-Trump choir. But in the summer and fall of 2018, when Democrats need to appeal to 2016 Trump voters rather than other Democrats, they need to stop scolding.

Pushing Trump Voters Into Deeper Entrenchment

Don’t get me wrong. I love a good cathartic rant as much as the next guy or gal, and I’m frustrated with Trump voters too. But we all need to get more self-disciplined. All this constant chiding does is make 2016 Trump voters more defensive and prone to rationalizing another vote for Trumpublican congressional apologists in 2018. Every time I observe a Trump voter being castigated by a cocksure progressive candidate or activist, I can feel Trump voters getting more deeply entrenched in the Trump column.

Open-minded Trump voters, and there are some, need a face-saving way to justify and explain a move away from Trumpism. So for messaging during the 2018 campaign, the villain needs to be Trump and his post-election flip-flops, not Trump voters. The messaging needs to focus on Trump’s failure to keep his 2016 promises to Trump voters, not on Trump voters being stupid in 2016. That’s an important nuance.

Here’s what it would sound like for a candidate to run against Trump lies rather than Trump voters:

I don’t blame Trump voters for wanting a president who promised he would drain the special interest swamp in D.C. I wanted that too. But the fact is, as president, Trump did the complete opposite.

And I don’t blame Trump voters for wanting someone who promised to make the wealthiest 1 percent to pay more, not less. I wanted that too. But the fact is, as president, Trump did the opposite.

I certainly don’t blame Trump voters for wanting someone who promised better health care protections. I wanted that too. But again, as president, Trump did the opposite.

So, if I seem angry, I am. But I’m not upset at Trump voters. I’m furious at President Trump for lying to his voters and all Americans.

As mad as I am, Trump voters have a right to be a thousand times angrier at Trump. When someone lies to you, it’s because they don’t respect you enough to be honest. They lie because they think you’re too stupid to know the difference. But in 2018, Trump is going to learn that many of his 2016 voters aren’t stupid, and they now see through his betrayals and lies.

Some Won’t Be Persuaded

I’m not naive about this. I understand that this messaging nuance won’t persuade every Trump voter. Nothing will persuade Trump voters who are deeply racist, closed minded, or hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda spewed on Fox News and conservative talk radio.

But this approach gives progressives a shot at winning a modest subset of Trump voters, such as the many voters who were more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump. Given that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 2 percent, the attraction of even 5 percent of those 2016 Trump voters could be enough to make Nov. 6, 2018, into a Blue Tuesday.

Winning in 2018 and limiting Trump damage is worth taking a pass on the cathartic message of “I told you so.” So my fellow Democrats, if only for the next five months, let’s get disciplined and stop nagging Trump voters.

Note:  A version of this commentary also appeared in MinnPost.com.

A Progressive’s Argument For Democrats Being More Independent From Unions

Posted on by

I’m not a union basher.  Overall, I’m a very progressive guy — a “socialist,” many would say.  For years, I’ve lived in a union household and supported union causes.  I understand and honor the important things unions have done for America – the 40-hour work week, weekends, child labor laws, sexual harassment laws, the minimum wage, civil rights laws, paid vacations, paid family and medical leave, workplace safety laws, and employer-based health coverage. I know unions have helped all Americans and the entire nation, not just union members.

I strongly disagree with those who say unions are no longer needed. In fact, during a time of the worst income inequality since 1928, we need more unionization in America, not less.

But just as I have a problem with Republicans who refuse to oppose businesses and billionaires when their interests don’t match the public interest, I have a problem with Democratic politicians who refuse to oppose unions in the relatively rare instances when their interests don’t coincide with the public interest.

A few weeks ago, I was reminded of this as I was watching part of the DFL State Convention online. I watched a parade of DFL politicians line up to deliver speeches about which of them was most unfailingly loyal to unions and their policy agenda. Their speeches made it sound as if unions are public interest groups, instead of self interest groups.

Unions are special interest groups.  That’s not a criticism; it’s just reality. They promote what is good for their organization and members.  In contrast, public interest groups — the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the ACLU, the Environmental Defense Fund, Children’s Defense Fund, Consumer’s Union, others —  promote what they believe is good for the public at-large.  Public interest groups are not perfect, but their missions are broader than special interests groups.

For instance, the public needs things like accountable law enforcement officers, effective teachers, efficient government, and environmentally safe industries.  Unions are often supportive of those things, but not always.

When the rules police unions demand inadvertently serve to keep abusive law enforcement officers harming vulnerable citizens, unions are not serving the public interest.

When the rules teachers’ unions demand inadvertently keep relatively ineffective teachers in public school classrooms, unions are not serving the public interest.

When public sector unions force governments to do things inefficiently, that effectively takes limited funding from addressing worthy unmet public needs, and is therefore not serving the public interest.

And when unions fight to maintain and expand environmentally destructive industries and projects, they’re not serving the public interest.

Again, union self-interests often overlap with the public interests.  But there are important exceptions to that rule. The unwillingness of so many Democratic politicians to be independent from unions who aren’t always working in the public interest is one the party’s primary blind spots that prevents it from appealing to swing voters and enacting truly progressive policies.

MN GOPers Aren’t the Health Care Saviors They Claim To Be

Posted on by

Exuberant Minnesota Republicans seem to think they have a winning health care issue for the 2018 election season–reinsurance. And they do deserve a great deal of credit for helping to enact a state reinsurance program that is reducing premiums for Minnesotans in the individual market. The individual market is for the 162,000 Minnesotans who can’t get insurance from their employer or the government.

While their claim that premium increases in 2016 and 2017 were due to DFL policies is ridiculous, it is true that the Minnesota reinsurance program they helped pass is helping those consumers. As the Star Tribune reported:

Jim McManus, a Blue Cross spokesman, said that were it not for the state’s reinsurance program, the carrier’s Blue Plus HMO would be seeking an average individual market premium increase of 4.8 percent as opposed to the 11.8 percent decrease cited Friday by Commerce

Impressive, and Republicans deserve credit for this.

The Rest of the Story

But as Ricky Ricardo would say, before Minnesota Republicans can credibly brand themselves health coverage saviors, they still have some splainin to do.

Why Not National Reinsurance? First, they need to explain why their party – in complete control of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and the Presidency and entire U.S. Executive Branch of the federal government – doesn’t enact reinsurance to help all Americans. Because of economies of scale and the need for market consistency, a national reinsurance program makes much more sense than a hodgepodge of variable state programs.

Moreover, if stabilizing the market and helping consumers pay less is good for Minnesotans, wouldn’t it be even more awesome to do that for all Americans?  That’s likely why 75% of Americans support enacting reinsurance at the national level.

Why Sabotage the ACA?  So why aren’t Rep. Erik Paulsen, Rep. Jason Lewis, Rep. Tom Emmer, Jeff Johnson or former Governor Tim Pawlenty pressing for reinsurance at a national level? Because they and their White House puppet master would rather sabotage the remarkably effective Affordable Care Act (ACA) than improve the ACA to help American families.

The list of things Trump and his congressional Trumpbulicans are doing to irresponsibly sabotage American families benefiting from ACA protections is long and breathtakingly irresponsible.  This is hurting tens of millions of struggling Americans.  Republicans are ignoring the 71% of Americans who say the Administration should do all it can to make the the ACA work, compared to just 21% who support efforts to make the ACA fail and replace it later.

Why Oppose Adding A MinnesotaCare Buy-in Option?  The other thing Republicans boasting about the state reinsurance bill need to explain is this: Why aren’t they supporting giving the 162,000 Minnesotans in the individual market a MinnesotaCare buy-in option?

The MinnesotaCare buy-in option would achieve much of what Republicans profess to support — more plan and doctor choices for consumers in sparsely populated areas, guaranteed coverage for all Minnesotans in sparsely populated areas, and more competition to control prices.

The fact that Minnesota Republicans won’t support the common sensical MinnesotaCare buy-in option proposal, won’t push for a national reinsurance program, and continue to actively sabotage the ACA makes their gloating about being health care saviors ring very hollow.

MN DFL Should Champion Importation of Canadian Medications

Posted on by

Here’s a political idea for the DFL: Find a massively expensive thing that enrages voters.  Then make it dramatically cheaper. Oh, and do it without increasing government spending or taxes.

I understand the skepticism.  It does sound akin to the classic Student Council President campaign promise to reduce the cost of cafeteria soda — a crowd-pleaser but infeasible.

But there actually is such an issue available to Minnesota state leaders –empowering Minnesotans to purchase cheaper prescription medications from Canada.

According to drugwatch.com, prescription drugs are on average 65 percent cheaper in the Canada than they are in the United States. This is because Canada has huge government controlled health care plans using their purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry, and the U.S. doesn’t. Minnesota state lawmakers can’t change the underlying problem driving high drug prices in the U.S., but they could at least allow U.S. citizens to benefit from the more sane Canadian system.

After all, the Vermont Legislature just did it. Why not Minnesota?

In the upcoming 2018 elections, this should be the top issue Minnesota DFL state legislative candidates stress. Making more affordable Canadian medications available to Minnesotans would improve the lives of ordinary Minnesotans, and it’s a huge selling point with voters. Just ask Mark Dayton, who in 2004 made a lot of political hay by financing busloads of senior citizens going to Canada on medication shopping trips.  This proposal is similar, but it eliminates the long bus rides.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans like this idea. By an overwhelming two-to-one margin, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey found Americans support “allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from online pharmacies based in Canada.”

This is an easy-to-understand issue to explain the difference between Republicans and DFLers to swing voters, and it especially appeals to seniors, who are the most likely to show up to vote.

This issue communicates important messages:  DFLers hear voters who are struggling to pay their medical bills; Republicans don’t. DFLers are proposing something real and tangible to control health care costs; Republicans won’t. DFLers will put the interests of ordinary Minnesotans over special interest lobbyists; Republicans won’t.

Coupled with the DFL’s MinnesotaCare for All buy-in option, offering cheaper Canadian medications would give Democrats the upper hand on perhaps the number one issue in the 2018 elections.

I can already hear overthinking DFL wonks explaining why they shouldn’t do this. President Trump won’t allow it to happen, they’ll say. I say force Trump’s hand. Though Trump’s HHS Secretary, a former pharmaceutical company executive, calls it a “gimmick,” Trump enthusiastically proposed this very idea during the campaign.

“…the last provision of his new seven-point plan is: “Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable, and cheaper products.”

“Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America,” the plan says. “Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe, and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.”

So, either make an honest man of Trump or expose him and his congressional Republican enablers for flip-flopping and being the cause of outrageously high drug prices.

This is the right thing to do, and it’s an extremely popular thing to do.  Empowering Minnesotans to benefit from more affordable Canadian medications should be one of the centerpieces of Minnesota DFLers’ 2018 campaigns.

Why Are Minnesota Republicans Cutting Corporate Taxes?

Posted on by

Yesterday, Minnesota House Republicans–following the lead of President Trump and congressional supporters like Representatives Lewis, Emmer and Paulsen–enacted legislation to lower Minnesota’s corporate taxes from 9.8 to 9.06 in 2020.

On most levels, cutting Minnesota’s corporate taxes makes no sense.

BAD POLITICS. Minnesota House Republicans certainly aren’t cutting corporation’s taxes because most of their constituents want it. By an overwhelming three-to-one margin, a Pew Research survey recently found that Americans say corporate taxes at the federal level should be raised (52%) or kept the same (21%), as opposed to lowered (24%), as Minnesota House Republicans are doing. There’s no reason to believe that Minnesotans would view cutting corporate taxes at the state level much differently than Americans do at the federal level.

BAD FOR NECESSARY INVESTMENTS. Minnesota Republicans aren’t cutting corporate taxes to help help finance necessary and popular state investments in things such as infrastructure, education, and health protections.  After all, corporate tax cuts will significantly reduce state funding available for such investments.

BAD FOR MOST CONSTITUENTS. If Minnesota Republicans are cutting those corporate taxes because they believe doing so will help their constituents, they should dig more deeply into the facts. We’ve already seen at the federal level that the benefits of federal corporate tax cuts are mostly staying with corporations and wealthy people. As CNN Money recently reported:

The White House has celebrated the tax cut bonuses unveiled by the likes of Walmart (WMT), Bank of America (BAC) and Disney (DIS).

Yet shareholders, not workers, are far bigger direct winners from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

American companies have lavished Wall Street with $171 billion of stock buyback announcements so far this year, according to research firm Birinyi Associates. That’s a record-high for this point of the year and more than double the $76 billion that Corporate America disclosed at the same point of 2017.

Wall Street loves buybacks because they tend to boost the share price in part by inflating a key measure of profitability. In just the past three days, Cisco (CSCO), Pepsi (PEP) and drug maker AbbVie (ABBV) have promised a total of $50 billion of buybacks.

“It’s the largest ever — and nothing has really changed, except the tax law,” said Jeffrey Rubin, director of research at Birinyi Associates.

Conservative Republican Senator Marco Rubio summarized the situation well when he recently told The Economist “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”

Federal corporate tax cuts are primarily good for a very small slice of the wealthiest citizens.  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analysis finds:

“Mainstream estimates conclude that more than one-third of the benefit of corporate rate cuts flows to the top 1 percent of Americans, and 70 percent flows to the top fifth. Corporate rate cuts could even hurt most Americans since they must eventually be paid for with other tax increases or spending cuts.[1]

While this analysis focuses on federal corporate tax cuts, it’s reasonable to assume that the same is true with state corporate tax cuts.

GOOD FOR CAMPAIGN DONATIONS. At the same time, cutting corporate taxes would ingratiate Minnesota House Republican legislators to large campaign donors in corporations.

I’ll let you reach your own conclusion about what is going on here.

Minnesota’s Trumpublican Trio Owns The Trump Damage

Posted on by

This week, statewide coverage featured Minnesota Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer and Jason Lewis mugging with President Donald Trump’s lead partner in crime, Vice President Mike Pence.

The news coverage serves as a helpful reminder to Minnesotans that these three gentlemen have enabled Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency every step of the way. They have slavishly voted for the mean-spirited Trump agenda about 90% of the time. It reminds us that the reelection of Minnesota’s Trumpublican Trio is effectively a referendum on Trump’s corruption, chaos, incompetence, and extremism.  A few things that Minnesotans should be reminded of during campaign season:

WEAKENING OUR HEALTH PROTECTIONS. These three congressmen repeatedly supported Trumpcare, which would have stripped health protections from 51 million Americans, and only had the support of 17% of Americans. They are also complicit with Trump’s ongoing sabotaging of the historically effective Affordable Care Act protections. Moreover, they oppose efforts that would make health protections much more available and affordable, such as with a national reinsurance program, restoration of the Cost Sharing Reductions (CSR) they cut, and giving Americans the option of buying into the popular and efficient Medicare program.

DEFICIT SPENDING TO ENRICH BILLIONAIRES. Paulsen, Emmer, and Lewis brought us Trump’s trickle down tax code, which gives a huge tax break to the wealthiest 1% at a time when we are suffering from the worst wealth inequality since 1928. The top 1% got an obscene 83% of the benefits provided in the tax bill, creating the largest transfer of wealth to the richest Americans in the nation’s history.

Oh, and by the way, these self-proclaimed “deficit hawks” put the $1.5 trillion cost of their lavish tax giveaway to the wealth on the federal credit card that our kids and grandkids now have to pay.  Absolutely shameless.

PUTTING TRUMP ABOVE THE LAW. They have turned a blind eye to Trump’s repeated obstruction of justice during the investigation into Russia’s attack on America’s democratic jewel, our free and fair elections. This obstruction of justice is far more extensive than the actions that forced President Nixon out of the White House, but the Republicans of 1972 had enough integrity to fulfill their oversight duties and push Nixon out, while these contemporary Republicans are cavalierly shrugging it off.

PUTTING NRA CONTRIBUTIONS OVER COMMON SENSE GUN PROTECTIONS. They have blocked common-sense gun protections that enjoy overwhelming public support, because they and their guy Trump value NRA donations over the wishes of the people they were elected to represent.

PUTTING CORPORATIONS’ NEEDS OVER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. They have marched lockstep behind Trump as he has racked up the worst environmental record in our lifetime.  For instance, Trump made the United States the only nation on the planet to not sign the Paris accord on climate change.

These are just a few examples, but the list of pro-Trump votes is a long one. According to FiveThirtyEight, Rep. Emmer votes with Trump 87% of the time, Rep. Lewis votes with Trump 90% of the time and Rep. Paulsen votes with Trump 97% of the time. Clearly, a vote for Emmer, Lewis, and Paulsen is effectively a vote for the historically unpopular Trump.  Minnesotans who are fed up with Trump need to be speaking out, donating and organizing against them.

All Hail The Return Of Sir TPaw!

Posted on by

Who is that gallant knight gliding o’er the horizon on his white steed? Come hither good people of the frozen Kingdom of Minnesota! All hail the return of Sir TPaw!

Forsooth, the brave knight’s pinstripe Stuart Hughes Diamond Edition suit of armor is overflowing hither and tither with gold lavished upon him by the robber barons of Wall Street.

After being left for dead in the Battle of Iowa, the bloodied knight hath been highly rewarded by the gentry for pillaging the lowly wind-sucking peasants, and for bestowing further riches to their rightful place in the palaces of Edina, Wazyata, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka.

Sir TPaw returneth to overthrow King Dayton and his would-be successors! He is returning to save Minnesotans from the current ravages of historically low unemployment, progressive taxation, services for the peasantry, and a steady stream of national kudos.

Prithee, Sir TPaw, restore us to the glory days of a “no new taxes” troth, budget gimmicks, lower taxes for the upper classes, fewer alms for the commoners, “borrowing” from classrooms, and chronic budget shortfall crises.  (Not to mention your “red hot smokin'” Lady!)

Aye, his beauteous mullet hath been shorn in the c-suite battlefields. But perchance it too shall soon be returned to its past glory?

Gramercy Sir TPaw! How fortunate we all are to once again grace your now wealthier — and, if we may say so, oh-so-presidential — shadow! Dilly, dilly!

But wait! Nay, why o why is thy Kingdom of Minnesota not rising up in rapture and adoration for the newly enriched Sir TPaw riding in on his white steed? The well-born are pitchkettled!  This is utter woodness!

“Trumpublicans” Not Republicans

Posted on by

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not on the ballot in 2018.  If he was, polls indicate he would get crushed in a landslide by Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or Oprah Winfrey.  But because Trump isn’t on the ballot, criticizing him during the campaign will have little effect on the Trump agenda, unless voters become convinced that the 468 Republican nominees who are on the general election ballots are substantively the same as Trump.

After the 2018 Republican primaries are over, we can expect many congressional Republicans to stop pandering to the roughly 35% of Americans who make up the “Trump base” and instead distance themselves from him in an attempt to win over the swing voters who will decide the election.  They’ll be saying things like “I support his tax cuts, but I’m my own person and don’t agree with him on many things.”  This is absurd because most Republicans voted with Trump over 90% of the time in Congress.

Still, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising will be spent in gerrymandered districts to build this “independent from Trump” illusion.  If congressional Republicans get away with this Extreme Makeover, Americans will be stuck with unchecked Trumpism in 2019 and 2020, and perhaps beyond.  It could get so much uglier.

So Democrats need to do more than just give long-winded anti-Trump speeches on MSNBC. Casually involved swing voters don’t have the patience for long-form communications. Instead, Democrats need a concise term to rebrand Republicans in the Trump era.  Congressional Republicans need to be branded what they are, a group of Trump-programmed bots who are ideologically indistinguishable from Trump.  Republicans of the Trump era need to be branded as “Trumpublicans.”

I certainly didn’t invent the term “Trumpublican,” and I don’t find it especially clever.  But it has the important virtue of clearly and concisely communicating that Republicans have become a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump.  These shameful 468 Republicans have empowered this dangerous, bigoted, unpopular moron.  So let’s shine klieg lights on what these Republicans have allowed themselves to become, boot-licking Trumpublicans.

Even Republicans of the Reagan, Dole and Bush eras would never have kicked 30 million Americans off of health coverage.  But that’s what Trumpublicans giddily did when they repeatedly pushed Trump’s unpopular and cruel TrumpCare bill.

Even Republicans of the Reagan, Dole and Bush eras would never have deported 800,000 beautiful young people productively living out the American dream.  But Trumpublicans enthusiastically embraced Trump’s unpopular and racist DACA repeal.

Even trickle-down Republicans of the Reagan, Dole and Bush eras never would have given 83% of a tax bill benefits to the richest 1% of Americans.  But these Trumpublicans toasted the billionaire Trump as that extremely unpopular and immoral bill was enacted into law.

Even Republicans of the Reagan, Dole and Bush eras supported conservative Presidents and Administrations that had at least some modicum of experience, integrity and ethics.  Trumpublicans have embraced and blindly defended the Trump Administration’s jaw-dropping parade of incompetence, inexperience and corruption.

Because of congressional Republicans’ complete lack of Trump oversight the last two years, they are no longer Republicans in the sense Americans have traditionally used that word.  That term is now much too good for them.  Republicans have completely merged with Trump Incorporated and made themselves into Trumpublicans.  Americans need to understand this truth before November 6, 2018.  Drain THAT swamp.

So Democrats should be continually reframing Republicans as “Trumpublicans” during the 2018 mid-term campaign season.   Unlike conservatives, progressives don’t have Russian bots and billionaire funders to drive the message.  So Democrats are going to have to do it the old-fashioned way, with disciplined repetition.  Trumpublicans, Trumpublicans, Trumpublicans.