Category Archives: Minnesota DFL Party

Surveys: DFLers Haven’t Overreached On Their Electoral Mandate

Posted on by

Governor Tim Walz and Minnesota DFL state legislators are getting glowing national attention for passing an array of progressive changes in recent months.  NBC News recently reported:

Nearly four months into the legislative session, Democrats in the state have already tackled protecting abortion rights, legalizing recreational marijuana and restricting gun access — and they have signaled their plans to take on issues like expanding paid family leave and providing legal refuge to trans youths whose access to gender-affirming and other medical care has been restricted elsewhere.

“When you’re looking at what’s possible with a trifecta, look at Minnesota,” said Daniel Squadron, the executive director of The States Project, a left-leaning group that works to build Democratic majorities in state legislatures.

In fact, the Legislature passed more bills in its first 11 weeks of the current session than in the same time frame of every session since 2010, according to an analysis by The States Project.

To me, the lesson is clear: When voters in gridlocked purple states elect Democrats, Democrats deliver on changes that are popular with a majority of voters. However, Republicans who have blocked these same politics for decades see it differently. They’re crying “overreach.” And crying. And crying. And crying.

What’s “overreach?” Republicans claim “overreach” every time something passes the Legislature that they and their ultra-conservative primary election base oppose.  A more reasonable definition is passing something that a majority of all Minnesotans oppose, If DFLers are doing that, it would reasonable to conclude that they have gone beyond the electoral mandate they were given in November 2022. 

By that definition, DFLers aren’t overreaching.  For instance, survey data show that 67% of Minnesotans oppose abortion bans, and therefore presumably support DFL efforts to keep abortion legal in Minnesota in the post-Dobbs decision era. Likewise, gun violence prevention reforms are extremely popular with Minnesotans – 64% back red flag laws and 76% want universal background checks. Sixty percent of Minnesotans support legalizing marijuana for adults. Sixty-two percent support making school lunches free. Fifty-nine percent say everyone should receive a ballot in the mail.

I can’t find Minnesota-specific survey data on all of the other changes DFLers are making, but national polls give us a pretty good clue about where probably Minnesotans stand.  Given how overwhelming the size of the majorities found in the following national surveys, there’s no reason to believe that Minnesotans are on the opposite side of these issues: More school funding (69% of Americans support), a public option for health insurance (68% of Americans support), disclosing dark money donors to political campaigns (75% of Americans support), child care assistance for families (80% of Americans support), and paid family and medical leave (80% of Americans support). 

Granted, Minnesotans may be a few points different than national respondents on those issues. But it’s just not credible to believe that there isn’t majority support among Minnesotans on those issues.

The only issue where there might be a wee bit of overreach is on the restoration of the vote for felons.  While national polls find 69% support for restoring the vote for felons who have completed all of their full sentence requirements, including parole, that support might be a little weaker for restoring the vote before parole is completed, which is what DFLers passed. A survey of Minnesotans conducted by the South Carolina-based Meeting Streets Insights for the conservative Minnesota-based group Center for the American Experiment found only 36% support on this question:

“Currently in Minnesota, convicted felons lose their right to vote until their entire sentence is complete, including prison time and probation. Would you support or oppose restoring the right to vote for convicted felons before they serve their full sentence?”

I don’t suspect that restoration of the vote for felons is a top priority issue for the swing voters who decide close elections. Moreover, the strong 69% support found in surveys for restoring the vote after parole indicates that if DFLers are perceived to be “overreaching,” it likely will be viewed by swing voters as a relatively minor one.  Republicans probably will try to characterize this as “a power grab to stuff ballot boxes with votes of convicted criminals” in the 2024 general election campaigns. But they won’t have much luck with that issue, beyond the voters who were already supporting them based on other issues.

I understand that the loyal opposition has to say something as DFLers hold giddy bill-signing celebration after celebration on popular issues. But survey data indicate that Republicans’ “overreach” mantra is, well, overreach.



Jensen’s Abortion Ban Promises Come Back to Haunt Him, Thanks to Oppo

Posted on by

Particularly in closely contested purple states like Minnesota, the game for Republican candidates has become to run as an extreme right-winger in Republican primaries, then pretend to be a “moderate” in the general election by walking back much of what you promised in the primary. 

This “pivot to the center” is done to appeal to “swing voters,” or voters who tend to swing back and forth between voting for Democratic and Republican candidates. These voters often prove to be key in general elections.

There’s one impediment to politicians’ deceptive strategy–opposition research.

A lot of people tend to think of campaign opposition research, or “oppo” for short, as being unsavory or unethical. They envision political hacks “digging up dirt” about opponents, private investigator style.  In reality, opposition research is most often just documenting the opponents’ public statements. Typically, a relatively low-level staffer is hired to catalog news coverage and go to the opponents’ public events to record what the opponent is saying. 

Gathering and organizing this information is horribly tedious work — more like an archivist than a private investigator — but the messaging fodder it produces can be decisive in close elections. And it brings more transparency to politics.

For instance, in the Republican primary, Scott Jensen promised Republicans in unequivocal terms that he would try to ban abortions in Minnesota.  MinnPost summarizes his position during the Republican primary campaign:

“In March, before Roe was overturned, Jensen told MPR News he would ‘try to ban abortion’ if elected governor. And in a May interview on WCCO radio, Jensen, a practicing family physician, said he wouldn’t support exemptions for rape and incest…”

ABM even says Jensen told the St. Thomas University Young Republicans in December 2021 that he would throw a party if he was able to limit abortions.

“If I get a chance to sign a pro-life piece of legislation, we’re not just going to sign it, we’re going to have a party.”

But alas, abortion banning statements that produce thunderous ovations from ultra-conservative primary voters produce lusty boos from more moderate swing voters.  After all, about two-thirds (65%) of Minnesota voters oppose new severe abortion restrictions. Most Minnesotans clearly don’t view abortion banning as party-worthy.

Therefore, once Jensen won the primary, he began frantically trying to walk back his promise, saying he would grant exceptions in the case of rape and incest.  (Or as Jensen’s running mate Matt Birk might put it, Jensen “played the rape card.”)

For a while, it felt like Jensen’s flip-flop was working a bit. The news coverage of his flip-flop muddied the waters and made Jensen seem more moderate than he is (e.g. Based on his policy positions, Jensen has a 100% rating from the extremist anti-choice Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life).

But thanks to a behind-the-scenes opposition researcher, a devastating ad is currently being heavily aired by the progressive Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM). The ad is holding Jensen accountable for his primary election promises.  (I’d provide a link to the ad here, but ABM inexplicably doesn’t seem to be making it available online.)

The ad captures Jensen’s original promise to ultra-conservative primary voters and plays it back to more moderate general election swing voters.  It also includes a chorus of Minnesota women expressing outrage about Jensen’s abortion ban promise. It’s powerful.

Though news media coverage exposed Jensen’s flip-flop on abortion, the ABM ad does several important things that news media coverage can’t.  For instance, ads provide brevity for voters who don’t have the patience to dig into detailed news stories.  They are carefully targeted to reach persuadable voters who often don’t follow the news closely, or at all. Finally, unlike news coverage, ads deliver message repetition, which makes the issue and the messaging stick in voters’ minds.

So, if Governor Tim Walz ends up being reelected this November because pro-choice suburban voters swing in his direction, don’t give all the credit to the candidate, field organizers, and his big-buck political consultants.  Remember to give a little love to the lowly bottom-feeding staffer who captured and shared that audio clip to prevent Jensen from deceiving his way into the Minnesota Governor’s  office.

Why Did Minnesota GOP Legislators Effectively Quit Their Jobs?

Posted on by

In your career, imagine that you faced a deadline to deliver on an employers’ assignment — a report, a construction project, a patient treatment, a classroom unit, a research paper, a production goal, a sales pitch.  Then imagine that despite your best efforts, due to factors beyond your individual control, you run out of time. 

It happens to all of us all the time. Do you double down on effort and finish your assignment, or point fingers, declare defeat, quit your assignment, and refuse to return to it? 

If the latter, I’m guessing you probably have been fired at least once, or denied advancement.

Well, the Minnesota Legislature had an assignment from their employers, the constituents they are sworn to serve.  The promise each of them made to their bosses on the campaign trail was to make life a little better for them during challenging times.  But the legislators encountered challenges that were outside their immediate control–principally disagreement from the opposition party, which is to be fully expected. Because of the challenges, they ran out of time.

So, they walked away from the job, and say they’re not coming back to work until 2023. See ya!

So Close

Quite remarkably, legislators actually appeared to be very close to at least partially delivering on the assignment that their constituents gave them.

Tax deal? Done. It’s not everything that Democrats wanted, and not everything that Republicans wanted. But it was agreed upon and done.

Overall fiscal deal? Done.  It outlines how much in tax cuts and supplemental spending would be acceptable to both parties. Again, the compromise agreement was equally satisfying and disappointing to both Democrats and Republicans.

Those two parts of the task are arguably the most difficult that legislators faced. That’s where past Legislatures often have failed.  But to their credit, this 2022 Legislature got that difficult work done, along with deals related to unemployment insurance, health reinsurance, farm disaster aid, and other items.

But by the time the legislative clock ran out, this year’s Legislature hadn’t agreed on the specifics for how to divvy up already agreed upon sized budgetary pies for public safety, education, and health and human services.  To be sure, those are challenging assignments for two parties with fundamentally different values.

But this Legislature got other difficult tasks done this year, so this final task is imminently doable. 

Why Quitters?

If you try, that is.  Democrats are willing to keep trying in a special session. Republicans apparently are not. 

For now, Republicans are saying they won’t give one more second of effort to help those who clearly will be hurt by their refusal to come back to work – taxpayers, renters, seniors, children, parents, child care providers, nursing home operators, police officers, and crime victims.

Minnesota Republicans looked at those struggling constituents, shrugged cavalierly, and walked away before the assignment their employers gave them was done.

Why? I’m speculating here, because I’m not a mind reader. But I suspect it’s not because Republicans are lazy or incompetent.  They seem industrious and competent bunch, at least when it comes to things they care about, such as campaigning. 

I’m also guessing that it’s not a negotiating ploy. I hope I’m wrong, and that they’ll be back. But right now it doesn’t look like that’s what they’re doing.

I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect worse. I suspect they just don’t care about their job assignment.  That is, at their core they don’t really think that making their constituents’ lives better as soon as possible is sufficiently important to merit the extra work and headaches associated with a special session.

Sure, these Republican legislators love much of what comes with the job — the title, office, public platform, power, and respect.  That’s presumably what keeps them running for reelection year after year. But the work assignment itself? I’m just not convinced.

Worse yet, a few who are disproportionately influential on their caucus actually seem to feel that their work assignment is, in the name of conservative or libertarian ideology, to prevent the government from helping  taxpayers, renters, seniors, children, parents, child care providers, nursing home operators, police officers, and crime victims.

That’s not what they tell those groups on the campaign trail, but it’s too often how they govern.

Do Voters Care?

Back to the opening analogy. After failing to complete your task on time, how do you suppose this would go over with your employer?  “Yeah, I just don’t really believe in this job assignment, and it got really difficult, and the time clock ran out, so I quit and I’m not going back to the assignment you gave me.”

Yeah. Maybe it’s time Minnesotans reacted the same way.

Minnesota Continues to Soak The Poor

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans love to portray Minnesota as a liberal la-la land that unfairly victimizes their oppressed wealthy donors by “soaking them” with high taxes. 

Not true.  The reality is, Minnesota’s state and local taxes remain regressive, meaning that the rate of taxation actually decreases as incomes increase. 

This is wrong. Those with higher incomes should pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes, because they can afford to do so without suffering as much of a blow, proportionally speaking, to their quality of life.  

Conservatives typically point to state income tax rates to make their case, because that tax is indeed progressive.  The problem with that tired old spin is that the income tax is far from the only tax.  Minnesotans also pay sales, property, and excise (on alcohol, tobacco, and motor fuels) taxes, and those taxes are all very regressive.  That is, those types of taxes all hit people with lower incomes much harder, as a percent of income, than they hit people with higher incomes.

So the most relevant measure of whether Minnesota’s overall tax system is based on the ability-to-pay is the effective tax rate for all state and local taxes combined.  Every year, the Minnesota Department of Revenue calculates this amount.  Here is what the most recent version looks like.

Here are a few important things to note:

  • Tax Burdens Are Decreasing, Not Increasing.  Between 2018 and 2023 (projected), tax burdens are decreasing at every level of income.  Remember this the next time you hear conservatives whining about “skyrocketing taxes.”
  • Progressivity Is Improving, But Not Enough.  Between 2018 and 2023 (projected), the gap between the effective rate for the poorest and wealthiest Minnesota pay is narrowing , but it’s not a large or sufficient improvement.  The arc of the moral universe is bending towards justice, but it’s a painfully slow rate-of-change.
  • Minnesota’s Taxes Remain Very Regressive.  This is the most important thing to take away from this chart. Minnesota still has a very regressive tax system that hits poor people much harder than rich people.  Minnesota’s poorest taxpayers pay a 24.7% state and local tax rate, while our wealthiest taxpayers only pay 11.6%.

Before you shrug this off, stop and really think about it. The wealthiest Minnesotans are required to pay less than half the tax burden the poorest Minnesotans are required to pay.  For those who want Minnesota to be a more just and equitable place, the work is far from done.

Yes, stalwart conservative protectors of the wealthy will be quick to say, but the wealthy pay much larger tax bills than the poor! This is true. But it’s also true that when someone at the bottom of the income heap has to pay 24.7% for taxes out of their nearly empty wallet, that takes leaves a lot less to provide for their family than when the wealthiest Minnesotans only have to pay 11.6% for taxes out of their much fatter wallets and investment portfolios.   The poor person may not be able to pay rent, while the rich person may only need to leave ever so slightly less to their already well-pampered scions.

Every time someone proposes asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes, wealthy news anchors, pundits, and politicians breathlessly characterize the proposal as “controversial” and “unrealistic.”

For what it’s worth, Americans disagree. For instance, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found an overwhelming 76 percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. It might be controversial at the large donor soirees, but not most other places in America.

So when Minnesota DFL legislators propose, as they did this year, to create a new fifth tier state income tax rate of 11.15% on income above $1 million (or $500,000 for single filers), don’t fall into the trap of repeating the conservatives’ well-focus grouped “it’s soaking the rich” narrative.

Instead, look at these data and say “it’s a start.”

To Address Racial Equity, Most of Us Need To Pay Higher Taxes

Posted on by

When it comes to addressing racial equity issues in education, health care, and housing, racism is a barrier.  But I would argue that fiscal conservatism is an even bigger barrier. 

In Minnesota’s policymaking debates about racial equity, this is the unacknowledged “elephant in the room.” It is what makes all of the hopeful dialogue about addressing racial equity feel hollow to me.

DFL Governor Tim Walz, Speaker Melissa Hortman, and many others deserve a lot of credit for leading on police reform.  Despite the failure to pass police reforms during the recent special session, I suspect they’ll eventually enact some police reforms. This is in large part because police reform is relatively inexpensive. 

But beyond police reform, I’m pessimistic when it comes to DFLers being willing to address other major forms of systemic racism in society, such as in health care, housing and education. 

That’s because most DFLers and all Republicans seem completely unwilling to make the case for higher taxes.

Elected officials need to get courageous and make the case that privileged white people like me need to pay higher taxes in order to build a more equitable state.  I’m not naive about this. I’ve worked in and around politics for thirty five years, so I know tax-raising is excruciatingly painful for politicians, particularly in an election year. But if we truly care about making racial justice progress in this agonizing “educable moment,” there truly is no other way.

To cite just one example, Minnesota has long had some of the worst achievement gaps in the nation, gaps that open as early as age one.  The roots of k-12 achievement gaps are early education opportunity gaps. Year after year, about 35,000 low-income Minnesota children can’t access the high quality early learning and care programs that they need to get prepared for school. Those 35,000 left-behind low-income kids are the children who are most likely to fall into achievement gaps in the school years and other types of disparities throughout their lifetimes. The lack of new revenue is why our 35,000 most vulnerable children continue to be left behind every year.

Similar tales can be told about many other issues, such as health care and housing. We know what to do in those areas as well, but we don’t do it, because the changes would necessitate requiring Minnesotans to pay higher taxes.

I understand why politicians are afraid of being branded tax raisers.  But the inescapable truth is that lawmakers’ long standing insistence on perpetuating the fiscal status quo is perpetuating systemic racism.  

So we need to start talking honestly about the fiscal side of these racial justice issues too. Until we do, progressive leaders’ lofty rhetoric about racial justice gains is just idle chatter.

5 New Year’s Resolutions for Liberals

Posted on by

The 2020 elections are the most important elections of my lifetime, and potentially the most important in American history.  Will we replace the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times, and his shameless congressional enablers, or will we go further down the road to authoritarianism and corporatism?  That sounds melodramatic, but given what we’ve learned about Trump over the last three years, it’s not an exaggeration.

The stakes are high, so liberals need to step up their game. 

This isn’t about trashing liberals.  Liberals have done a lot of great things for America.  At a time when all of these things were quite unpopular, liberals had enough vision, courage, and commitment to pass Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, marriage equality, civil rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

But we grassroots liberals also can be also our own worst enemies.  To win in 2020, we need to make five New Years resolutions to do better than we did in 2016.

STOP THE PETTY, PERSONAL ATTACKS.  With hundreds of substantive reasons to criticize Trump and his lackeys, there is no reason to stoop to snotty attacks about personal issues like the President’s complexion, hair, waistline, hand size, penis size, verbal slips, and misspellings.  The same goes for personally insulting his supporters.

Among the moderate swing voters who will decide the outcome of this election, those kinds of personal shots inadvertently create sympathy for Trump and others who don’t deserve swing voters’ sympathy. I get that they are cathartic, and sometimes tongue-in-cheek.   But they’re also and self-defeating in the end, and therefore self-indulgent, so liberals need to get better at taking a pass on the personal shots.

STOP THE CANNABILISM.  Liberals also need to be mindful of Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans.” 

I understand the temptation to wage civil war.  My top presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has already dropped out of the race, and my second choice, Cory Booker, doesn’t look like he will last much beyond Iowa.  Having to go to Plan C is deeply disappointing to me. Having to go to Plan D, E, F, G, H, I, J, or K, a distinct possibility in a field this large, likely will be even more disappointing to me. 

In the end, I realize that I am unlikely to be in love with my Democratic Party nominee.  But if I can’t be with the one I love, honey, I’ll love the one I’m with. Unless we learn something dramatically scandalous about one of the Democratic candidates in the coming months, I’m pledging to myself that I won’t trash other Democratic candidates, vote for a third party candidate, or sit out the election.  For a long time, I’ve even been making monthly donations to the eventual nominee, whomever that ends up being, via the Unify or Die fund.  

All liberals should make a resolution to forgo intra-party cannibalism, because it greatly increases the chances that we have four even more catastrophic years with the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times.  That can’t happen, so we all have to suck it up and pledge to support the candidate that prevails in the nominating process.

STOP THE SHINY OBJECT CHASING.  We all know that President Trump is going to do and say hundreds of things before the election that are mock-worthy and outrageous, but probably are not issues that are going to sway swing voters or motivate non-voters.  Every moment we spend talking about those side issues –say, a funny golf story, a boneheaded gaffe, a stupid joke at a rally, a silly exchange with an athlete or celebrity–is a moment we’re not talking about issue differentiators that are more likely to influence voting decisions.

What Trump actions are more deserving of our focus? His giving lavish, deficit-spiking tax cuts to the wealthy. His separating young children from parents and caging them. His taking birth control and other types of reproductive health care away from women. His blocking legislation to control pharmaceutical prices. His cowardly refusal to cross the NRA to support common sense gun safety laws. His erratic Russian-friendly foreign policy decisions in dangerous places like Iran, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. His repeated attempts to repeal Affordable Care Act protections, such as preexisting condition protections for 133 million Americans.

Polls show those kinds of issues work against Trump with swing voters and non-voters, so those kinds of issues should be the primary focus of conversations at the break room, bar, barbeque, or online chat. 

With such a steady stream of Trump’s outrages, it’s difficult to not take the bait from the ever-outrageous tweet stream. I’m far from perfect on this front.  But we liberals have to get better about focusing on the issues that matter the most to swing voters and non-voters, and that means shrugging off a lot of the side issues.

FOCUS ON ROOT CAUSES.  When deciding how to spend time and resources, liberals should also consider focusing on the root causes of Trump’s electoral success.   For instance, rather than only supporting individual candidates, consider supporting groups like Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight 2020 and the ACLU. Those groups are battling Republicans’ relentless voter suppression efforts aimed at people of color, which threaten to swing close elections to Trump and his political toadies now and for decades to come. 

Ensuring that every vote counts and voting is easier will help progressive local, state and federal candidates up and down the ballot. It will help preserve our representative democracy for future generations. Supporting those groups isn’t as obvious to most of us as supporting parties and candidates, but it’s every bit as important.

SPEAK OUT EARLY AND OFTEN.  Speaking out against Trump and Republicans in person and on social media is frowned upon by Americans who are “non-political,” ignorant, and/or in denial about what is happening to America.  That can make speaking out about Trump unpleasant and exhausting.  Goodness knows, no one relishes being called, gasp, “political,” and being accosted by trolls. 

But in America today, we have politicians who are all too willing to separate brown-skinned kids from their parents and put them cages indefinitely.  We have politicians trying to repeal health protections for 133 million Americans. We have a party that gave a massive, deficit-ballooning tax gift to the wealthiest 1% at a time when we have the worst income inequality since 1928 and record deficits.  We have a President taking birth control and other reproductive rights away from women. If we don’t vote out this crew, we could easily have much worse developments on the horizon in a second, even more unhinged Trump term.  

All of which is to say one person’s “politics” is another person’s life, livelihood, and rights.  A while back, writer Naomi Shulman helped put this issue in proper perspective for me:

“Nice people made the best Nazis.  My mother was born in Munich in 1934, and spent her childhood in Nazi Germany surrounded by nice people who refused to make waves. When things got ugly, the people my mother lived alongside chose not to focus on “politics,” instead busying themselves with happier things. They were lovely, kind people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away.”

I’m not saying liberals have be jerks and nags to their friends and relatives. We don’t have to be the turd in the punch bowl.  In most cases, we should be calm, respectful, factual and measured when we speak out, even when the respect isn’t deserved and returned, because that’s usually the best way to win hearts, minds, and votes. 

But we do have to speak out, because silence implies consent.  As Martin Luther King  famously said of another movement in another time:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”  

The same is true of the movement to save America from Donald Trump and his Republican enablers.  I’m about as conflict averse as they come, but unfortunately that excuse just is not going to cut it with so many lives hanging in the balance.

So my fellow liberals, this New Years Eve raise a glass of your favorite truth serum, and make some challenging resolutions that nudge you outside of your comfort zone.  Your country needs you now more than ever.

Left of Eden

Posted on by

Guest post by Noel Holston

On the first night of the first round of debates among Democratic presidential aspirants, Julián Castro, who was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration, had a spotlight-grabbing moment when he upbraided fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke for not supporting his plan to end criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants crossing our southern border from Mexico.

On the second night, when a different 10 hopefuls fanned across NBC’s Wheel of Fortune stage, the impact of Castro’s attack was obvious. Aked if they backed Castro’s plan, nine candidates raised their hands. All 10 said they would back federal health subsidies for undocumented immigrants, an idea President Barack Obama nixed a decade earlier.

The candidates’ stampede to out “left” each other reached its most bizarre point when Castro volunteered that his universal healthcare plan would cover abortions, including abortions for trans women. At least this would not be a benefit that would significantly affect the deficit.

Since those nights, one of the hottest topics among the commentariat has been whether Democrats are going to blow their opportunity to dethrone President Trump by catering to their most progressive constituents.

Writing in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart asked, “Will the Democratic Party go too far?”

“I’ll vote for almost any Democrat, but lurching left won’t beat Trump,” read the headline on a USA Today editorial by Tom Nichols, a national security professor at the Naval War College and a self-identified “Never Trump”-er.

“Democratic candidates veer left, leaving behind successful midterm strategy,” read the headline on a Washington Post analysis piece by Michael Scherer, one of its national correspondents.

Hogwash, say others, among them Keith A. Spencer, writing in Salon.com about “hard evidence” that supposedly proves a centrist Democrat will belly flop in 2020.

Other op-ed’s have warned Democrats to beware of Republican trolls trying to trick them into pursuing foolish moderation.

So, what are Democrats to do?

Well, what if they borrowed a phrase from “A Clockwork Chartreuse,” Loudon Wainwright III’s tongue-in-cheek paean to an anarchist: “Let’s burn down McDonald’s/Let’s go whole hog.”

Here are few things Democratic candidates can advocate at the next round of debates – July 30 and 31, CNN — if they really, really want to test the notion that the way to deny Donald Trump a second term is not moderation but a triple jump to the left. In no particular order:

Claiming “originalist” interpretation, ban private ownership of all firearms designed after 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Ban bacon and big-ass pick-up trucks.

Remove slave owners’ heads from Mt. Rushmore.

Outlaw Mountain Dew.

Expand national park acreage to include Texas.

Along with abolishing private health insurance and replacing it with Medicare for All, reimburse patients for parking at hospital ramps.

Mandatory kale consumption.

Stop construction of Trump’s wall; commence construction of automated “people mover” walkways.

Change national anthem to Neil Diamond’s immigrant-friendly “(Coming to) America.”

Abolish apple pie as the national dessert. I’m thinking rhubarb.

Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune  (1986-2000).  He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” which is scheduled for publication fall of 2019 by Skyhorse.

Championing Both Medicare-for-All and Buy-in Option

Posted on by

During last night’s Part I of the Democratic Presidential debate, moderators and candidates acted as if candidates must make a choice between advocating for Medicare-for-All and a Medicare buy-in option.  It was one of the few areas of division among the progressive candidates

Why?  Progressives should be simultaneously advocating for both policies. 

Stop Bashing Buy-In Option

Medicare-for-All advocates like Sanders and Warren need to stop taking cheap shots at a Medicare buy-in option. 

The reality is, without a filibuster-proof Senate majority, Medicare-for-All simply can’t pass for a while.  Therefore, progressives need a Plan B that helps as many Americans as possible, shows that Democrats can deliver on their health care rhetoric, and advances the cause of Medicare-for-All. 

That’s what a Medicare buy-in option does. 

It helps more Americans in the short-run by bringing much more price competition to the marketplace and ensuring every American has at least one comprehensive coverage option available to them, even in poorly served areas. 

Beyond helping Americans in the short-term, a buy-in option also advances the cause of Medicare-for-All. Americans have been brainwashed by decades of conservatives’ vilifying of “government run health care,” but a buy-in option will give younger generations of Americans first-hand evidence showing that Medicare is not to be feared. It will show millions of Americans that Medicare is cheaper and better than conservatives’ vaunted corporate health plans.

And that will help disarm conservatives’ red-faced criticisms of “government run health care” and Medicare-for-All.

Stop Bashing Medicare-for-All

At the same time, champions of a Medicare buy-in option like Biden and Buttigieg need to stop railing on a Medicare-for-All. 

Even though Medicare-for-All can’t pass right away, progressives need to keep explaining what the world’s other developed nations figured out a long time ago, that a single payer government-run is the only real solution for any nation that hopes to control costs, cover everyone, and improve health outcomes.

For far too long, progressives have been afraid to educate Americans about why a single-payer system is needed.  When fearful progressives sensor themselves from explaining why Medicare-for-All is needed, they leave the stage to conservative and corporate demagogues relentlessly spreading myths about the evils of “government-run health care.” 

And when progressives leave the stage to conservative demagogues — surprise, surprise – progressives lose the debate.

Start Pushing Both

What would it sound like to advocate these two positions simultaneously? It could sound something like this:

Ultimately, we must cover everyone, control skyrocketing costs, and improve health outcomes. And you know what? Ultimately, the only way to do that is Medicare-for-All. 

In America, Medicare has proven effective and is popular with those who use it. In developed nations around the world using government-run systems like Medicare, everyone is covered, costs are much lower and health outcomes are much better. 

So Medicare-for-All must to be our ultimate goal. We have to keep our eyes on that prize. We need it as soon as possible.

At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate won’t pass Medicare-for-All.  That’s reality folks.

Given that reality, what can Democrats do right now to both help the American people and pave the way for Medicare-for-All in the long-run?  A Medicare buy-in option.  A buy-in option has lots of public support among Republican voters, so it has a much better chance of passing the Senate than Medicare-for-All.

Let Americans choose between corporate care and Medicare. If they want to keep their private health insurance, they can. But given them another option.

President Trump is afraid to give Americans make that choice. I’m not. He knows Americans will like Medicare better, and doesn’t want to give them that option. I’m not afraid, because I know that a Medicare plan that isn’t required to profit off of patients will be cheaper and better that corporate care. So let Americans choose.

Enacting a buy-in option now will show more Americans that they have nothing to fear from Medicare coverage. And that will help us move the American people towards embracing Medicare-for-All.

Pols and pundits keep framing this issue as if it must be a battle to the death for progressives. But Medicare-for-All versus a Medicare Buy-in Option is a false choice.  Progressives should be advocating for both, and stop savaging each other on the issue.

Don’t Donate To Presidential Candidates

Posted on by

If you want to defeat Trump in 2020, I’d argue one of the worst things you can do right now is donate to Democratic presidential candidates.  I’m serious. 

Bear with me. 

Last time I checked, Democrats have something like two dozen candidates in the race.  That means any given donor’s chances of picking the winning candidate who ultimately runs against Trump are poor.  Therefore, the contribution you give today could be, for the purposes of defeating Trump, pretty much wasted.

But what if you really feel strongly about a candidate? 

Look, the policy differences between most of the candidates are not very significant.  The differences get artificially magnified in heated primaries, but let’s keep things in the proper perspective.  If you feel strongly about Issue X, the odds are very good that you are going to have several candidates in the race who agree with you, if not all of them. 

So, donating now won’t particularly help promote Issue X. That’s why it’s very difficult to pick a Democratic candidate deserving of your donation.

Finally, making a contribution to an individual candidate now could inadvertently prolong the portion of the campaign season where Democrats have so many candidates in the race that their message is pretty much incoherent.  Candidate winnowing is particularly needed with a field of 24, because a crowded, contentious field muddles the eventual nominee’s message and probably muddies the nominee’s reputation. 

Candidates typically leave the race when they run out of money to pay for staff and ads, so giving to candidates now could simply delay the badly needed winnowing phase of the campaign. 

So, which candidate or candidates should get your contributions?  None of them. 

Instead of contributing to one of the Democratic presidential candidates at a stage of the process when the race is essentially a roulette wheel, direct your contributions to Unify, Or Die. 

Unify, Or Die was started by the hosts of the excellent podcast Pod Save America, in partnership with Swing Left.  The idea simple and brilliant.  People who want to defeat Trump can Donate to the Unify, Or Die Fund now, and the minute there is a Democratic Party nominee, all of the accumulated funding immediately will go to the Democratic nominee, so they can hit the ground running post-Democratic Convention against Trump and his massive war chest

So before you write that next big Hickenlooper check, stop, think big picture strategy, and redirect your money to a unified movement to remove the most corrupt, incompetent, and bigoted President of our times.

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.

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.

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.

Franken Wasn’t “Denied Due Process” By Critics

Posted on by

One of the primary rallying cries of the righteous defenders of Senator Al Franken is that he is being “denied due process.”  Republican former Governor Arne Carlson was the latest in a long line of folks to make this righteously indignant assertion:

I am deeply troubled by the resignation of Al Franken and the complete absence of anything resembling due process. While I am not always in agreement with Senator Al Franken, I firmly believe in due process which is a cornerstone of our democratic way of living. Whenever in history we abandoned it, we severely damaged ourselves. Just think about the lynching of Blacks in the South, the internment of people of Japanese descent in World War II, or the era of McCarthyism when lives were destroyed based solely on allegations.

With all due respect to the often thoughtful Governor Carlson and my progressive friends who are understandably stinging over the loss of an effective champion, puh-lease. Al Franken is being treated like lynched African Americans or imprisoned Japanese Americans?  Really?

This is a silly argument. Clearly, Senator Franken had due process available to him every step of the way – the Senate Ethics Committee investigation process.  Franken said he wanted make use of that process when there was one accuser. After the number of accusers increased to eight, he decided to resign and not tap into that process.  That’s not quite how it went down for African Americans and Japanese Americans.

The critically important point is, the decision to forgo the process was always Franken’s.  It was not forced upon him by “the lynch mob,” the favored term Franken defenders use for anyone who believes Franken’s accusers.  The U.S. Senate’s due process existed for former Senator Bob Packwood when he faced sexual abuse accusations, it existed for Franken, and it still exists for accused pedophile Roy Moore if he, gulp, wins a seat in the Senate today.

While the “denial of due process” argument doesn’t hold up, there is a reasonable discussion to have about whether there was a “rush to judgment.”  Who knows, maybe all eight of these accusers were lying, exaggerating, conspiring or confusing an ass grab with a “hug.” To me, the evidence was pretty strong that Franken’s behavior — sophomoric and degrading, though nowhere near as bad as Moore’s or Trump’s assualts — no longer left him credible enough, at this unique time in history, to be effective representing his state and progressive causes.  That photo, which would have lived on in political ad-driven infamy, made it much worse for him.

But if some disagree with me on that, and want to make the “rush to judgment” argument, that argument is reasonable. Now, it would feel much more reasonable if those same folks were making the same “don’t rush to judgment” argument in the case of Cosby, Weinstein, Rose, Lauer, Keillor, Franks, Moore, Trump and others, which they aren’t.  But that is at least a worthy topic of discussion.

Not so with the “due process” hysterics. If the accusations of all eight women were as false and/or exaggerated as Senator Franken claims, he did have an impartial investigative process during which he could have tried to prove his case. The fact that Franken’s colleagues and constituents exercised their free speech rights to criticize him did not take that right away. He voluntarily abandoned that option himself, just as the list of women accusing him of unwanted grabbing and kissing was growing longer.

Al Franken Is Putting His Self-Interest Over Everything He Claims Is Important

Posted on by

If Senator Al Franken left the U.S. Senate in the wake of his sexual harassment admission, Governor Mark Dayton would be able to appoint a replacement.  Many speculate that he might name his Lieutenant Governor, Tina Smith, a respected, thoughtful leader who would likely be a very capable candidate in a November 2018 special election.  There are also other excellent choices Dayton could make.

As a result, Al Franken and Minnesota DFLers need to be asking themselves some important questions.

Who would have more moral standing to hold sexual harassers and abusers like Roy Moore and Donald Trump accountable, and send a clear signal that sexual harassment will no longer be tolerated?

Who would be a more credible and persuasive advocate for progressive causes?

Who would be a more respected representative of Minnesotans’ interests, opinions, and values?

Who would be a better role model for Minnesota’s young men and women?

Who would be more re-electable in 2020, and more likely to help Democrats stop Minnesota’s Senate seat from going to a Trumpublican?

What Al Franken did is less egregious than what Moore and Trump did, so he may be able to hold onto his job, even after a long and humiliating Senate Ethics Committee investigation that will further cement this incident in the public mind. But just because he can hold on to his job doesn’t mean that he should.

Note:  The day after this post was written, Senator Franken resigned, proving this post’s headline wrong.  In his resignation speech, Senator Franken said: “Minnesotans deserve a senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day.  I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls is running for Senate with full support of his party.” 

Two days after this post was written, accused pedophile Roy Moore lost his Alabama U.S. Senate race by 1.5 points, which underperfromed Trump’s 2016 victory margin in Alabama by a staggering 30-points.

Voters Need To Fire The Creeps

Posted on by

We’ve learned a lot of grotesque things in recent weeks.  Minnesota U.S. Senator Al Franken will do anything to get a laugh, including humiliating women. Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore is a serial pedophile predator who should have been prosecuted before the statute of limitations ran out. Minnesota Representative Dan Schoen and Senator Tony Cornish continually go way over the flirt-harassment line, and it’s not close. President Donald Trump has admitted on videotape to sexually assaulting women, and at least 16 women have gone on the record to assure us that what the President told Billy Bush is true.

So enough with the political noise.  Enough “if the allegations are true” games.  Enough “what about others in the other party?” What these men did was unacceptable.

I obviously can’t control the outcomes of these controversies.  But if I could, this is what I would wish for all of them: None of them would resign under pressure from party leaders. All of them would be voted out.

Clearly, if they do resign before their next election, that’s better than them retaining their power.  But if I could wave a magic wand, I don’t want the final chapter on these men’s history to be “resigned under pressure from party leaders.” I want it to be “rejected by the voters.”

Here is why:  If it’s the former, there will be many Americans who blame the spineless, “politically correct” party elites who forced the resignation. If it’s the latter, it will be much more clear that the community-at-large rejects sexual harassment and assault. That’s what we need to stigmatize this behavior and make it less prevalent.

I understand why party leaders call for these men to resign. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they’re showing that they take the issue seriously. To look at it more cynically, they need to replace their damaged political goods with a more electable candidate so they can retain power for themselves. Whatever their motivation, I’m glad they’re doing it, because it helps to spotlight and denormalize the behavior.

But I don’t want party elites to end these political careers. I want the larger “us” to do that. We’re a democracy. Voters need to step up and do our job. We need to overcome our tribal instincts and vote these guys out. We should replace them with more women. We should send a clear signal to political leaders that creepiness and criminality are electorally toxic, so parties will start nominating better people.

Like a lot of men, I’m not all that comfortable speaking out on this topic. Men who are self-aware and honest know that we’re all part of the sickness we’re reading about on the front pages.

Though we continually assure ourselves that we’re “way better than most,” we also know we’re far from perfect. Maybe we’ve told a joke that we understand in retrospect made women uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve confused objectification with flattery. Maybe we haven’t always controlled our eyeballs. Maybe in the exclusive company of men, we didn’t have the courage to speak out about comments that embolden harassers. Maybe we haven’t called out peers who went over the line in our presence.

So I’m not coming at this from a holier than thou perspective.  We all need to improve. We all need to own this and fix this. Seeing the community at large — masses of fed up voters — reject this behavior will do more to hasten the improvement process than seeing them forced out by a handful of party elites scrambling to cover their asses.

Estate Tax Exemption Spotlights Minnesota Republicans’ Twisted Priorities

Posted on by

In the first year that Minnesota Republicans took full control of the Minnesota Legislature, they elevated Minnesota’s millionaire heirs and heiresses to the very top of their fiscal priority list.  Representative Greg Davids (R-Preston) says the wealthiest Minnesotans should be able to “keep more of what their mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers have earned,” so Republicans significantly increased the’ estate tax exemption for millionaires.

To be clear, we’re talking about filthy rich grandfathers and grandmothers,  After all, only the very wealthiest Minnesota estates pay any estate tax.   According to the Minnesota Public Radio:

“Up until now, your estate would have to be worth more than $1.8 million before the Minnesota estate tax kicked in, but that changed during this year’s legislative session.

The tax bill passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and reluctantly signed by DFL Gov. Mark Dayton increases the taxable estate value from $1.8 million to $3 million over the next three years. The top tax rate remains at 16 percent.

Minnesota is among 14 states that impose their own estate tax. Farms and family-owned businesses worth up to $5 million are already exempt.”

So, we’re not talking about the four-, five- or even six-figure inheritance you might get from Aunt Gertie.

All of this is being proposed by Republicans at at time when wealth inequality has reached grotesque proportions, as illustrated by this stunning video:

This is how intergenerational privilege perpetuates: Millionaire heirs and heiresses – having done nothing more than winning the birth lottery by being born into a wealthy family — are exempted from taxation, including for wealth that has already avoided taxation because it is unrealized capital gains.

And on it goes, generation after generation. This is how we get the Donald Trumps and Donald Trump, Jr.’s of the world, entitled scions born inches from home plate crowing about their home run.

To state the obvious, because it apparently is no longer obvious to everyone, this is not in keeping with the American value of “all men are created equal,” which used to be all the rage in America. America was founded in defiance of the British system of aristocracy, which gave power to a small, wealthy privileged “ruling class.”  Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance was a primary way the founding fathers went about furthering American equality.

While today’s Republican Tea Partiers don Revolutionary War-era tri-corner hats while asserting that the estate tax is “Marxist,” the truth is that the estate tax has been strongly supported by a number of founding fathers.

Remember Thomas Jefferson, the guy who penned “all men are created equal,”  America’s “immortal declaration?” He promoted the egalitarian values of America’s founding fathers by arguing against the passing of property from one generation to the next:

“The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.“

Jefferson was hardly alone in this opinion. Similar sentiments were expressed by Adam Smith, the hero of conservative free market advocates, as well as Republican Party icon Theodore Roosevelt.

“The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.  The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is passed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”

You might guess that someone like Bill Gates, Sr. would be all-in when it comes to increasing the estate tax exemption. But he eloquently explains why the wealthy people need to pay back the community that supported them:

“No one accumulates a fortune without the help of our society’s investments. How much wealth would exist without America’s unique property rights protections, public infrastructure, and academic institutions? We should celebrate the estate tax as an ‘economic opportunity recycling’ program, where previous generations made investments for us and now it’s our turn to pass on the gift. Strengthening the estate tax is important to our democracy.

Consider all of the other alternative ways Minnesota Republicans could have used the $357 million that they are giving to Minnesota’s wealthiest heirs and heiresses over the next two bienniums. They could have used it to improve our transportation or broadband infrastructure,  help vulnerable children access early learning programs to close our dangerous achievement gaps, or expand clean energy capacity.  Those kinds of investments would have paid dividends for all Minnesotans far into the future.

Instead, Republicans made their top priority lavishing more enormous tax breaks on the small number of ultra-wealthy Minnesotans who least need help.

Governor Dayton has already signed the Republicans’ estate tax exemption, so at this point he has little if any negotiation leverage. But if Democrats take control of state government in 2018, this should be one of the first policies they reverse in 2019.  In the meantime, at every campaign stop they should spotlight this outrageous Republican giveaway to the wealthy elite.