Category Archives: Minnesota Legislature

MN GOP Running Again on Taxes? Yes, Please!

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans think they have found a golden issue to run on in 2024. In the 2022 elections, campaigning on interfering with women’s healthcare decisions, blocking gun protections, banning books, censoring teachers, and championing insurrectionists didn’t go that great for them. Therefore, Republicans have settled on an old reliable “bread and butter” issue — fighting to cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations.

Bam! Take that, big-taxing progressives. Here come the trickle-down “Reagan Republicans.”

The problem is that this isn’t 1984, and most Americans do not want the wealthiest and corporations to have lower taxes. According to a March 2023 Pew survey, a jaw-dropping 83% of Americans are bothered — 61% “a lot,” 22% “somewhat” — that “some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.” A nearly identical number are bothered that “some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.” Only 17% agree with Republicans on that issue.

Looking at these numbers, you would be hard-pressed to find a worse issue for Republicans to emphasize during the 2024 elections. DFLer activists should consider contributing to Republicans who are paying to put their “shame on the DFL for taxing the wealthy and corporations” messages in front of voters. That messaging does Republicans much more harm than good.

If only Minnesota DFLers had a way to show the swing voters who will decide close races how they are fighting to ensure that wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes to support state infrastructure and services.

Enter the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). The national think tank recently found that Minnesota currently has the #1 most equitable state and local tax system, thanks to changes made by DFLers.

How does Minnesota have a more equitable system than other states? The breakdown for Minnesota by the Minnesota Budget Project shows that Minnesota’s highly progressive state income tax offsets out highly regressive sales and excise (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, gasoline) taxes. 

You may recall, that in 2020 GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen and his followers ran on eliminating that state income tax. That 2020 election didn’t go particularly well for Johson and his party.

Based on the polling and Jensen’s shellacking, shouldn’t Minnesota’s tax fairness ranking be something that DFLers tout to the 83% who agree with them? Shouldn’t they “go on offense” on this issue?

Minnesota redesigns its flag, and the Internet is NOT PLEASED

Posted on by

What issue gets Minnesotans most engaged and inflamed? 

The wealthiest not paying their fair share?  The unaffordability of health care and child care?  Proposals to deny citizens the freedom to control their bodies, marriages, and reading choices? Low-income families lacking affordable food, housing, and early education?

Nope.  State flag redesign! Fetch the torches and pitchforks!

If you want to see Minnesota’s “public square” aflame, take a look at social media posts about the re-design of the Minnesota state flag. Minnesotans are passionately rising up 1) in defense of the current state flag, and/or 2) expressing outrage about the lack of their preferred colors, layouts, symbols, and words being included on the six designs that have been chosen as finalists.

“Where’s the fucking loon?”

When the Minnesota Legislature decided to redesign the current state flag, it took on a thankless political challenge. But I give them a lot of credit for taking this on, because the change is badly needed.

The current flag has many faults. The state seal on a plain background design is dull, illegible at a distance, and similar to many other state flags. More disturbingly, Minnesota’s current flag spotlights a white settler plowing a field as a Native American rides away on a horse, a scene that seems to glorify Minnesota’s most shameful chapter, when indigenous people were slaughtered and robbed of their land and livelihoods by white newcomers and white supremacist politicians. 

Even if you disagree that the scene on the state seal glorifies mistreatment of indigenous people, you have to acknowledge that, given our history, it feels that way to many. Therefore, this is a needlessly divisive image to feature on a flag that that is supposed to unify all Minnesotans.

Moving into the future, we need a flag that is more unique and unifying. However, redesigning a flag in the age of social media is easier said than done. Anyone who works in or around graphic design won’t be surprised by the volume and temperature of the feedback being offered about Minnesota’s new flag design finalists. In the world of graphic design, this happens all the time. We are all supremely confident that we have impeccable design taste that everyone else should follow, and we’re not shy about sharing our thoughts. 

However, we don’t all make the same design choices. Take a look at the artistic choices we individually make in our lives. You’ll see that there is nothing close to an aesthetic consensus amongst Minnesotans. Therefore, picking a consensus flag out of the pile of over 2,000 submissions is going to be impossible. Even the finest of designs is going to be controversial with many Minnesotans.

In addition to the “everyone thinks they’re a designer” phenomenon, we now have social media, where the masses are empowered to impulsively and repeatedly voice their opinions in the most harsh terms. In the social media age, a public relations shitshow was sure to follow the naming of these flag finalists, and it has.

So really, are these six finalists really that horrible? Or would any flag design have faced similar public brickbats?

Imagine if the Internet had existed in 1776, and that George Washington had sought popular input on Betsy Ross’s flag design. Just like with the Minnesota flag designs, Betsy would have gotten an earful about her stars and stripes proposal.

“LMAO. I’m sorry, but this is reallly the best she could do?

Even I could draw that! This is so simplistic it looks like a talentless child did it!

How much did the corrupt Continental Congress pay for this monstrosity? Those founding fathers fuck up everything.

WTF do stars have to do with America anyway. And why such ugly stars?

Where’s the EAGLE? There must be at least one EAGLE!!!

WE NEED TO START OVER FROM SCRATCH!!! Here’s MY much better drawing…”

Woud it kill them to include the actual name of the country on the country’s flag?

I don’t see cotton farmers or anything else representing the south’s proud heritage here. So typical! Such disrespect! “

Why is the design so vague and symbolic? This doesn’t look anything like the 13 colonies!

Why not just use that awesome Gadsen snake flag instead?!?

Before the flag fetishists go off on me, let me be clear that my point isn’t that Betsy had a bad design. My point is that any time you ask the public to weigh in on graphic design, some will inevitably pick apart any design that is offered, even one that over time ultimately becomes beloved.

Therefore, state leaders just need to approve a design and get prepared to be pummelled for a while by the self-righteous masses of wannabe graphic designers. It’s inevitable.

Legislators won’t be praised now, but history will look more kindly on them.



The Dumbest Part of Minnesota’s New Marijuana Law

Posted on by

This is an awkward time for Minnesota’s brand-new marijuana legalization law. Currently, it’s legal to use marijuana, grow marijuana plants at home, and keep up to two pounds of it.  At the same time, it’s illegal to buy or sell it.

However, it is still legal to buy and sell hemp-derived products, which, by the way, have the same intoxicating impact on a user as marijuana-derived products.

It all makes perfect sense, right?

Actually, it does. Or at least it will. Minnesota is wisely taking time to get its regulatory framework built before it starts letting stores sell cannabis, but the new framework will eventually make good sense.

Mostly.

Most components of the law are logical. Beyond the fact that I worry state politicians may have taxed marijuana products at too high of a rate to allow legal products to put the black market out of business, Minnesota Public Radio recently revealed a particularly wacky provision in the weed law:

A pending update limits use of both hemp-derived THC products and marijuana to adults age 21 and older, but it says establishments can’t serve someone both alcohol and THC products during the same visit.

Under the new law, if the bar knows that a customer has had a marijuana-based beverage within five hours, they’re not allowed to sell them an alcoholic drink, and vice versa. To manage this legal mandate, some bars say they will have THC drink customers wear wristbands or get ink stamps.

To be clear, Minnesota’s bars can still sell you multiple shots of alcohol in a row. Or they can sell multiple THC drinks in a row. That kind of dangerous selling is legal.

However, bars can’t legally sell you one beer and one THC seltzer in a single sitting or they run afoul of the law.

This makes no sense. Total speculation here, but I can imagine this provision being inserted to win over the vote of a holdout state legislator who had an uninformed hunch that mixing alcohol and THC might be super-duper intoxicating as if the two drinks were the intoxicant equivalent of coke and Mentos. 

Obviously, the THC impact on bar customers will be somewhat different than the alcohol impact. After all, the impacts of different kinds of alcoholic drinks — beer, wine, straight shots, and mixed drinks — vary a bit in their intoxicating impact too. Therefore, mixing THC and alcoholic drinks will create a somewhat new sensation for people to learn to manage. 

But the impact of mixing drinks that are derived from different plants – grapes, hops, potatoes, grains, juniper, cannabis, sugar cane, agave — isn’t different enough to warrant strict segregation of usage. It puts a regulatory burden on bars and the state that delivers little to no public benefit. This ill-conceived provision should be eliminated the next time the Minnesota Legislature adjusts this law.

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.



Taxpayer-Subsidized Vikings Stadium Continues to Deliver Huge Returns for Billionaire Wilfs

Posted on by

Eight years ago, the owners of the Minnesota Vikings, Zygy and Mark Wilf, paid about 21 percent of the cost of the new Vikings’ stadium.  At the time, an obscure socialist blogger described what we knew about the sweetheart cost-sharing arrangement:

Vikings PR people like to tell Minnesotans that the team’s owner, billionaire Zygi Wilf, is paying about 60 percent of the ever-growing $1.2 billion stadium cost.  

The truth, as Star Tribune/1500ESPN columnist Patrick Reusse pointed out back in May 2012, is that something like $450 million of the Wilf’s share will be paid by people other than the Wilfs. For instance, season ticket holders will be making exorbitant seat license payments to the Wilfs, the National Football League will be paying a subsidized “loan” to the Wilfs, and U.S. Bank will be making naming rights payments to the Wilfs.  All of this will offset the Wilf’s stadium costs by about $450 million

Taking all of that into consideration, Mr. Wilf looks to be shelling out more in the neighborhood of $250 million of his own money, or 21% of the cost of the $1.2 billion total, not the 60 percent the Vikings claim.  

It’s difficult for an outsider to come up with precise numbers, but that seems like a pretty fair, pardon the pun, ballpark estimate.

Taxpayers often subsidize infrastructure — roads, bridges, ports, rural broadband, community centers, etc. — that private companies can’t or won’t build on their own.  That makes good sense.

But should an NFL stadium be considered one of those things? Did the Wilfs really have so little to gain financially from a new stadium that they needed massive taxpayer subsidies? 

Vikings billionaire owner Zygi Wilf surveying the taxpayer gift that keeps on giving.
(Photo credit: Star Tribune)

Every year, we’re learning a bit more about just how much the Wilfs gained from this new stadium.  In 2005, the Wilfs paid about $600 million for the Vikings.  The last time Forbes did its estimates, the Vikings were thought to be worth $3.93 billion. 

To be sure, not all of this gain in team value is due to the stadium. But the stadium is certainly a substantial driver of increased valuation, and it’s never been more clear that NFL owners have more than enough financial wherewithal to fund their own revenue-generating assets.

By the way, the Wilfs’ money-making machine is just getting warmed up.  Last weekend, St. Paul Pioneer Press sports Columnist Charlie Walters speculated that this year Forbes will say the Vikings are valued at around $4.5 billion, which is about 7.5 times more than what the Wilfs originally paid. 

Meanwhile, the Minnesota Legislature is struggling to come up with ways to fund basic life necessities for struggling low-income families, such as housing, nutrition, medical leave, child care, mental health care, health care, nursing home care, roads, and bridges.

So, yeah, I haven’t really gotten over it yet.

South Dakota’s Recession Shows Minnesota GOP Is Wrong on Economic Policy

Posted on by

In hot pursuit of the 2024 GOP vice presidential nomination, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is aggressively marketing herself as the creator of a conservative Canaan.  With the help of overwhelming Republican majorities in the South Dakota State Legislature, Noem has been leading South Dakota into a race to the bottom on taxes, services, and tolerance. 

SD Governor Noem, showing off the flame-thrower she got from her staff for a Christmas gift. (Photo Credit: Sioux Falls Argus Leader)

South Dakota is one of only nine states – Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, Washington, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming and South Dakota — that doesn’t have a state income tax.  This is a major reason why under-funded South Dakota ranks, to cite just a few examples, worst in the nation in teacher pay, 39th in internet access, and 49th in child wellness visits.

Meanwhile, Minnesota — a purple state neighboring scarlet red South Dakota — is becoming more progressive than ever. In 2011, Governor Mark Dayton raised taxes on the wealthy to put an end to chronic budget shortfalls that Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty used to cut state government services. Dayton’s successor Governor Tim Walz has used huge subsequent state budget surpluses to strengthen a broad array of popular state services.  And after the Democrats surprisingly won razor-thin majorities in the Minnesota Legislature in 2022, Walz and Minnesota Democrats have been engaged in a bold, fast-paced drive to make Minnesota a much more progressive place.

In other words, Minnesota and South Dakota are increasingly heading in opposite directions.

Best Economic Approach?

This begs the question: Which state’s direction is better for delivering economic prosperity? 

Noem has been persistently declaring her race-to-the-bottom approach to be the best path to overall economic prosperity.

“The last four years, we have made South Dakota the strongest state in America. We lead the nation in almost every single economic metric,” Noem claims. 

Governor Noem says her policies are attracting “freedom-loving people from every corner of the country to move to South Dakota, join our record-breaking economy, and pursue their American Dream.”

At the same time, Minnesota and South Dakota Republicans have long insisted that DFL policies are scaring away people and killing Minnesota’s economy.  For this reason, Walz’s Republican challenger in 2022, Dr. Scott Jensen, promised a set of very South Dakota-like policies, such as an elimination of Minnesota’s state income tax, which would have dramatically eroded Minnesota’s infrastructure and services. 

“Record-breaking Economy?”

South Dakota Standard’s reporter John Tsitrian recently did something that no other South Dakota news source seems willing to do these days. He fact-checked Noem’s “record-breaking economy” claims:

As 2022 closed out, you can see from the above graphic that South Dakota was dead-last in the country in GDP growth, with our state’s economy contracting 4.3%. Yep, that would be minus 4.3%. By comparison, the rest of the country grew by 2.6%. The BEA graphic also starkly reveals South Dakota’s dead-last standing among our contiguous surrounding states.  

This follows a steady, quarter-by-quarter contraction of South Dakota’s economy during 2022.  During Q1, we were at -3.5%.  During Q2, we were -1.7%.  During Q3, we were -0.5% — all crowned, of course by the fourth quarter’s descent to -4.3%. 

Each quarter’s performance significantly lagged the country overall and generally compared unfavorably with our contiguous neighbors.

To underscore our status as an economic laggard, BEA notes that South Dakota is one of only eight states that saw a decrease in its GDP for the entire year of 2022.

While the country overall prospered, albeit at a modest pace, we South Dakotans had our very own little homegrown recession.

A South Dakota recession? Worst in the region and nation? Who knew?

The emergence of the South Dakota recession ought to do at least two things. First, it should put an abrupt end to the Noem veep talk. Who wants the Governor with the worst economy in the nation on their ticket? Second, the South Dakota recession should discredit Minnesota Republicans who keep insisting that the surefire way to make Minnesota more prosperous is to imitate South Dakota’s fiscal race to the bottom.

Infrastructure Investment or Dog Sleds?

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: The utterly disposable Homo sapien known as Joe Loveland has hereby been replaced by artificial intelligence (AI), Chat GPT to be precise.
po
The following was generated on Chat GPT with the human prompt “A humorous blog post about Republicans being wrong to oppose infrastructure spending.” Before generating the post, Chat GPT advised “As an AI language model, I do not take political sides or promote political bias. However, I can help you come up with a humorous blog post that highlights the importance of infrastructure spending.”

So, what do you think, dear readers?

— ChatGPT Overlords

Well, well, well, it looks like Minnesota Republicans are at it again, blocking infrastructure spending like they’re trying to win some kind of backwards competition. If there was a prize for being short-sighted and stubborn, they’d surely be in the running for the trophy.

I mean, come on, guys. Infrastructure spending is like investing in the foundation of your house. Sure, it’s not the most glamorous or exciting thing to spend money on, but without a solid foundation, the whole thing is going to come crumbling down eventually.

And let’s face it, Minnesota winters can be brutal. I’m pretty sure the roads here have more potholes than a slice of swiss cheese. If we don’t invest in repairing and maintaining our roads, we might as well just invest in a whole lot of new tires.

But maybe the Republicans have a different plan. Maybe they want us all to get around on dog sleds or something. Sure, it would be environmentally friendly, but I’m not sure how practical it would be for commuting to work or taking the kids to school.

And don’t even get me started on bridges. I mean, we’ve had some pretty high-profile bridge collapses in recent years. If we don’t invest in making sure our bridges are safe, we might as well all start practicing our swimming strokes.

So come on, Minnesota Republicans, let’s put aside our differences and agree on one thing: we need to invest in infrastructure. It’s not just good for our economy, it’s good for our safety and well-being. And who knows, maybe we’ll even get some new, exciting potholes to drive through.

Dueling Visions for Minnesota: Scandinavia or South Dakota?

Posted on by

Elections in a purple state can give you whiplash. 

After red wave elections, we’re led by Republicans like Tim Pawlenty who push for low taxes, poor services, and culture wars.

After blue wave elections, we’re led by DFLers like Tim Walz who push for higher taxes, better services, and cultural tolerance. 

After elections with more mixed results, legislative stalemates cause us to keep the prevailing status quo frozen in place.

That makes every election cycle extremely consequential.

The South Dakota Vision for Minnesota

In 2022, a decidedly purple Minnesota – at the time, it was the only state in the nation with one chamber of the state Legislature controlled by Democrats and the other controlled by Republicans – held a particularly high-stakes election. 

If Minnesota voters had elected ultra-conservative former physician gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen and a Republican Legislature dominated by far-right Trumpers, Minnesota would have become a conservative promised land, much like its neighbor to the west, South Dakota. 

During the campaign, Jensen and other Republicans proposed a race-to-the-bottom on taxes, including eliminating the state income tax, which would have led to dramatically worse services.  Republican spinmeisters prefer to say “smaller government,” but the reality is that it would have meant much worse services. The anti-vaxxer Doc Jensen also pledged a South Dakota-like war on public health and culture war initiatives to force conservatives’ thinking on gays, guns, God, and gynecology on all Minnesotans. 

In other words, think Kristi Noem, with a stethoscope prop.

The Scandinavia Vision for Minnesota

Fortunately, 192,408 more Minnesotans voted for incumbent Governor Tim Walz than Jensen. More surprisingly, since it was predicted to be a historically horrible year for Democrats, Minnesotans also elected narrow DFL majorities in the state House and Senate.  The all-important Senate majority is especially razor-thin at 34-33.

Walz and the DFL-controlled Legislatures are armed with a $17.5 billion budget surplus and are offering a vision that is more like a social democratic-led Scandinavian country in the 1970s than South Dakota in the 2020s:

  • Paid family and medical leave;
  • An enormous funding increase for public schools;
  • A targeted child tax credit to dramatically reduce childhood poverty;
  • Free school lunches for all students;
  • An opportunity for people without employer-based health insurance to buy into public health insurance (MinnesotaCare/Medicaid), instead of only being able to choose private insurance;
  • Down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and rent vouchers;
  • A huge package to save the beleaguered childcare sector and make child care free for poor families and more affordable for middle-class families;
  • Large subsidies for weatherization, electric vehicle infrastructure, and solar energy expansion to combat climate change;
  • A range of gun violence prevention reforms, such as universal background checks, red flag laws to prevent people who could be perceived as a threat to themselves or others from getting guns, raising the legal age for obtaining military-style rifles to 21, and banning high-capacity magazines;
  • Legalized marijuana and expunged records for past offenders;
  • Driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants;
  • Automatic voter registration;
  • Enfranchising felons who have served their time; and
  • A capital gains tax hike for the wealthiest Minnesotans.

The list goes on. Overall, think Bernie Sanders, with a Fargo accent.

This is the most dramatic swing of state policy in my lifetime, and perhaps in the history of the state. And if somebody you may have never heard of, Judy Seeberger (DFL-Afton), had received just 322 fewer votes in her state Senate race, most of those changes would never have been possible. Without Seeberger’s handful of votes in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota would still be stuck in limbo between the South Dakota vision and the Scandinavia vision. 322 votes.

Time to Limit HOAs’ Solar Panel Policing Powers

Posted on by

Who stands in the way of the expansion of residential solar panel use?  You’ve likely heard about politicians who are protecting the dirty fossil fuel special interests in order to tap into huge campaign contributions. And then there are the people who spread false information that solar is more expensive than fossil fuels or will deplete the sun’s energy.

But you might not have heard as much about the barriers Home Owners Associations (HOA) present.

Home Owners Associations — those earnest guardians of neighborhood uniformity, conformity, and banality — are a substantial barrier for those who want to use solar panels to cut their energy bills and/or reduce their impact on climate change. 

Many HOAs have bylaws that directly or indirectly forbid the installation of rooftop solar panels. They apparently view solar panels as something that adds too much unsightly variation to their carefully planned cookie-cutter housing developments.

While solar panels are not works of art, they now blend in much better than in the past. We’re all much more accustomed to seeing them, and solar panel products are more attractive and unobtrusive than they used to be.



More importantly, the benefits of solar panel use — limiting catastrophic climate change and defraying significant household costs — greatly outweigh any slight aesthetic cost. It’s not a close call.

Still many HOAs are doing what they do, enforcing their rules. That’s substantially limiting the use of solar panels.

I have a personal story to illustrate how this works. For the first time in my life, I recently moved into a home governed by an HOA. Shortly after moving in, I emailed the HOA contact to ask if there are any limitations related to rooftop solar panels. (I should note that I had not yet secured the all-important spousal approval and appropriation, a daunting hurdle in itself, but I first wanted to see if this was even an option.)

The HOA contact swiftly emailed me to deliver a non-rejection rejection:

“…there are currently no specific restrictions on solar panel installations, other than they must not be visible from the public right-of-ways.”

About that “other than” clause: Since all pitched roofs are visible from public rights-of-way — streets, sidewalks, and alleys — the HOA is effectively telling me, in an indirect “Minnesota Nice” way, that there is no way in hell they are going to let me or anyone else install solar panels in their development.  So, I dropped it.

How many Minnesotans does this impact? According to Iproperty Management:

“There are 7,780 HOAs in Minnesota. Roughly 1.52 million people in Minnesota live in HOA communities. 26.6% of Minnesotans live in HOA communities. 13.7% of Minnesota homeowners are part of HOAs. An estimated 583,462 homes in Minnesota are part of HOA communities.”

This is not just a “woke” liberal issue.  Because homeowners with rooftop solar panels are saving thousands of dollars in energy bills, this is also a significant financial issue. It benefits the 20% of Americans who still somehow don’t believe climate change is happening, but want to save thousands of dollars in energy bills. Now that the price of solar energy systems has decreased significantly, and energy costs are skyrocketing, the payoff from solar panels has never been more lucrative.

I hope this is the year that Minnesota HOAs will be stopped from standing in the way of solar panel use.  Over the last two years, Minnesota legislators considered a bipartisan bill authored by State Senator Karin Housley (R-Stillwater) and Representative Ami Wazlawik (DFL-White Bear Township) to regulate the HOA regulators. The Housley-Wazlawik bill would have allowed the HOA to impose limits, but the limits could not decrease production by more than 20%, or add more than $2,000 to the cost.

 Since my HOA’s “not visible from the public right-of-ways” restrictions effectively decreased production for any pitch-roofed home near a street, sidewalk, or alley by 100%, it would seem to be an illegal restriction, if a bill like the Housley-Wazlawik bill passes.

With the Minnesota Senate controlled by Republicans during the 2020-2022 legislative sessions, the Housley-Wazlawik bill languished.  Moreover, last year’s partisan-divided Legislature ended in a stalemate that left most business undone. 

Now the Minnesota Senate, House, and Governor’s office will be controlled by DFLers. These are folks who promised on the campaign trail to address climate change and help Minnesotans “make ends meet” during a time of historically high inflation. Now they need to deliver on those promises. Therefore, it would sure seem that the legislation’s likelihood of passing have improved significantly. Here’s hoping.

Now, does anyone know a good lobbyist I can hire to persuade my wife?

Scott Jensen’s Unanswered $15,000,000,000 Question

Posted on by

Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen proposes to eliminate the state income tax.  At first blush, that might sound good to inflation-weary taxpayers. But to balance the state budget, such a change would necessitate $15 billion per year in service cuts and/or increases in other types of more regressive taxes.

Quite irresponsibly, Jensen won’t say what services he would cut, or what taxes he would increase, to balance the state budget.  But make no mistake, serious pain would result.  Jensen’s plan would necessitate massive cuts in education and/or health care, and/or a huge increase in property taxes, or other types of taxes that are more regressive than the state income tax. 

Shifting from the progressive state income tax to the regressive property tax is popular among the wealthiest Minnesotans, because that change would greatly benefit them. The progressive state income tax requires that the wealthiest Minnesotans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than is paid by the poorest Minnesotans.  On the other hand, regressive property, sales, and/or excise taxes put more of a burden on lower-income Minnesotans compared to the wealthiest Minnesotans.

Wealthy doctors like Jensen, multi-millionaire professional athletes like his running mate Matt Birk, and the most financially privileged Minnesotans who disproportionately fund Republican candidates don’t want to pay their fair share in taxes.  This is a political payoff to them.

Jensen’s proposal not only is a grossly inequitable giveaway to the wealthiest Minnesotans, it’s also dishonest.  Jensen only discloses the benefits – no more income tax bill! – without disclosing the costs – crippling school cutbacks, slashed health care services for vulnerable Minnesotans, and/or crushing property tax increases. All of those costs are enormously unpopular with Minnesotans, so Scott Jensen simply refuses to answer that critical $15,000,000,0000 question.

Jensen isn’t explaining the downside of eliminating the state income tax, but reporters should be doing that. Unfortunately, it’s barely happening.  Compared to heavy front page reporting on Walz’s actions related to a nonprofit fraud prosecution and the debate over the number of debates, this hugely consequential policy proposal has received relatively scant coverage.

One exception is the Minnesota Reformer. Though the Reformer has relatively light readership, it has done thoughtful and constructive reporting, such as this: 

“Minnesota has a steeply progressive individual income tax, meaning households with higher incomes have a higher tax rate as a share of their income compared to lower income households. Eliminating individual income taxes would disproportionately burden low-income Minnesotans while giving huge tax cuts to the state’s wealthiest.

‘Progressive income taxes are integral to having budgets that can meet the needs of all citizens, and they’re also really important in ensuring racial and socioeconomic equity,’ said Neva Buktus, state policy analyst for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ‘Eliminating the personal income tax would completely throw that out the window.’

Each year, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy creates a ranking of state tax systems and how they foster income inequality.

The six least equitable in the U.S. are among the nine states with no individual income taxes. Minnesota’s progressive personal income tax makes it one of the least regressive in the country — 47th out of 50. That means our lowest income earners get a better deal than nearly every other American when it comes to state and local taxes. 

‘If you’re going to eliminate the income tax, there’s no way to spin it. It disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Minnesotans by a long shot,’ Buktus said.”

At other major news outlets, my best guess is that reporters are shrugging off the issue relative to other issues because they believe that elimination of the state income tax could never pass the Legislature.   

It’s not reporters’ jobs to gauge likelihood of passage.  After all, no one knows what the future makeup of the Legislature might be if voters sweep Republicans into office, as historical trends portend.  Instead, reporters are supposed to explain the candidates’ major policy proposals and analyze the consequences so voters can make fully informed decisions.

That’s just not happening as much as it should. Whatever the thinking in Twin Cities newsrooms about Jensen’s most radical and reckless policy proposal, their silence on the topic has been deafening. 

If You Think Republicans Can’t Ban Abortion in Minnesota, Look No Further than Iowa

Posted on by

Though Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen told anti-choice extremists that he would work to ban abortion, he has since been busily telling more moderate general election voters that he can’t, due to a Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling which held that the Minnesota Constitution guarantees a right to get an abortion. 

But here’s how quickly Minnesota’s current reproductive health care protections can disappear. 

  • Step One: A few weeks from now, Minnesota voters elect Jensen and a GOP Legislature.
  • Step Two: The GOP majority appoints anti-abortion judges, who overrule the state constitutional right to abortion at the first opportunity.
  • Step Three: Republicans enact legislation banning abortion, which the far-right U.S. Supreme Court now empowers states to do.

Bam, reproductive health freedom could be gone in Minnesota that quickly. 

If you think it can’t happen, look no further than Iowa. Planned Parenthood’s Tim Stanley explains in the Minnesota Reformer:

Much like current abortion protections in Minnesota, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.”

Reynolds and her predecessor have appointed five Supreme Court justices, building a strong conservative majority on the bench.

Fast forward to June 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court didn’t think twice about “stare decisis,” fulfilling the role they were put there to do: They overturned past judicial precedents and reversed the decision that purported to secure a right to abortion in the state constitution. 

Now, with nothing protecting abortion in Iowa, the Iowa Legislature can completely ban abortion, which it is unfortunately expected to do.

As the Iowa example clearly proves, an abortion ban is on the ballot in Minnesota. Elect Republicans and it will happen pretty quickly.

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.

Minnesota Legislature, What Are You Chewing?

Posted on by

For years, Minnesota legislators from both political parties with puritanical and law-and-order instincts have fought hard to preserve the prohibition of marijuana, a plant that is much less addictive and lethal than already legalized alcohol. 

But marijuana prohibition in Minnesota is now effectively over, kinda sorta. The Star Tribune explains one of the most surprising and senseless moves the Minnesota Legislature has made in my lifetime:


“A new state law took effect July 1 that allows Minnesotans 21 and older to buy certain edibles and beverages containing small amounts of THC, the ingredient in marijuana that produces the high associated with the drug.

The new law allows the sale and purchase of edibles — such as gummies, hard candy or chocolates — and beverages that contain up to 5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per serving and 50 milligrams per package, and no more than 0.3% THC by weight. Products containing THC, as well as those containing cannabidiol (CBD), must be clearly labeled and can only be sold to those 21 and older. Edibles must be in child-proof and tamper-evident packages and carry the label “Keep this product out of reach of children.” Serving sizes must also be clearly defined.

THC products sold in Minnesota must be derived from legally-certified hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by weight, according to the law. Marijuana flower and all THC-containing products derived from it remain illegal in Minnesota for recreational use.

The law places no limit on how many CBD and THC products can be purchased and does not regulate who can sell them.”

This shocking development is at the same time encouraging and frustrating.  Legislators have lots of high-minded (sorry, couldn’t resist) explanations about how they were merely trying to keep Minnesotans safe from low-THC hemp with new regulations. But regardless of actual intent, the Legislature has legalized intoxicating THC products. That’s great for those who partake and don’t want to go to jail, but bad for those who care about sensible public policy.

The Legislature, wanting to show their constituents that they’re being prudent with “low and slow” dosing, essentially created the THC equivalent of 3.2 beer, or beer with no more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight.  Anyone who came of age in the 3.2 era knows that past generations of Americans did street research and discovered a clever workaround for that law:  Consume more weak product, and get as wasted as your heart desires.

Similarly, there is a fighting chance that today’s Minnesotans will make a similar discovery about the Legislature’s new half-baked model. Obviously, Minnesota’s relatively low-THC gummies can get you every bit as high as the higher-THC gummies available in states where marijuana is fully legalized. More bites begets more buzz.

Equally stupid, the Minnesota Legislature is also requiring that companies produce the THC-containing gummies in the least efficient, most expensive way possible.  In Minnesota, companies are required to make THC-containing gummies out of relatively low-THC hemp plants, instead of high-THC marijuana/cannabis plants.  

This is like requiring that companies produce sugar from tomatoes rather than sugar beets.  It’s feasible, because tomatoes have a relatively small amount of sugar in them, but why do it that way? The massive inefficiency of this hemp requirement ultimately causes huge additional growing and processing costs to be passed on to inflation-weary Minnesota consumers, for no good reason.

But that’s not all. Because legislative hemp regulators quietly snuck into the back door of THC edible legalization without wanting to wake sleeping prohibitionists, they didn’t include any taxation provisions in the new law. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars in THC product taxes will not be collected to fund badly needed public services, such as education, early learning, or environmental protections.  That’s a huge missed opportunity.

Worst of all, the Legislature didn’t expunge the criminal records of Minnesotans whose lives are being needlessly harmed because of past marijuana-related convictions.  As of July 1, 2022, Minnesotans can now legally get high as the IDS Tower at the same time their fellow Minnesotans — disproportionately people of color, because of shameful racial bias in Minnesota’s law enforcement and judicial systems — continue to be harshly punished for having consumed the very same chemical.  That’s layering an outrageous new injustice on top of the outrageous old injustice.

To summarize, Minnesota’s THC edible legalization framework offers a good buzz, but no consumer cost-containment, public improvements, tax relief, or justice. We can now “get stupid,” but we will never get as stupid as this regulatory framework.

Despite all of those flaws, THC edibles are now finally being enjoyed by Minnesotans of all political stripes.  Because of that, this product will quickly get more normalized in Minnesota society. As a result, bringing back prohibition, as some Republicans propose, will be more unpopular than ever.

Ultimately, that normalization should pave the way for the future passage of a more thoughtful, comprehensive legalization framework, presuming a wave of extreme marijuana prohibitionists aren’t swept into office in the 2022 midterm elections. That could happen because of voter frustration over crime and inflation, but it won’t be because of this issue. Minnesotans support marijuana legalization by a 14-point margin.

The Minnesota Legislature will probably eventually get to a sane legalization framework that produces lower consumer prices, better funded government services, and justice for thousands. Winston Churchill famously said that “The United States can always be relied upon to do the right thing — having first exhausted all possible alternatives.”  Unfortunately, marijuanaphobic Minnesota is currently in the process of exhausting a particularly ludicrous alternative on its path to the right thing.

Jensen Blocking Improvements for Education, Nursing Homes, Roads, and Mental Health

Posted on by

GOP gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen says he wants a special session to address public safety. 

Great. Despite the GOP insistence that DFL candidates support “defunding the police,” DFL Governor Tim Walz has proposed $300 million in public safety improvements. DFL legislators have some other ideas of their own for improvements.  For his part, the Trump-supporting Jensen hasn’t proposed any funding, saying he would leave such minor details to the Legislature. But Jensen does have a brief fact sheet which makes it seems as if he supports a lot of the same general approaches as Walz.

So, here is a rare case of bipartisan common ground, right?

Nope. Despite the fact that Minnesota has a massive $9.25 billion budget surplus that can help Minnesotans in multiple ways, Jensen is stubbornly insisting that public safety be the only issue addressed in a special session. Everyone, including Jensen, knows that such an insistence is a deal breaker when dealing with a bipartisan representative body that has broad-ranging responsibilities to the Minnesotans it serves.

To be clear, Jensen’s narrow-minded demand that the Legislature have an anti-crime only special session means the party that claims to be all about tax cuts is effectively blocking the largest tax cut in Minnesota history. Stop and think about that for a second.

And that’s not all.

The Republican party that insists it isn’t anti-education is blocking $1 billion in improvements for a struggling e-12 education system.

The party that historically relies on large majorities of seniors to get reelected is blocking a massive amount of funding that is needed to keep struggling nursing homes open.

The party that claims to be best for the economy is blocking a huge amount of investment in transportation and infrastructure that economists say is necessary for economic efficiency and growth.

The party that calls for improving the mental health system after every tragedy that is enabled by easily accessible guns is blocking a $93 million mental health package.

And the party that is opportunistically running a “tough on crime” campaign is demanding a “my way or the highway” legislative approach that is serving as the death knell for a sweeping anti-crime bill pending at the Legislature.

When Jensen made this announcement, the headlines in numerous publications were variations of “Jensen Pitches Public Safety Plan.”  That’s accurate, but incomplete.

It would have been just as accurate, and more complete and illuminating, if the headlines had said something like “Jensen Blocks Improvements for Education, Nursing Homes, Roads, and Mental Health.”  That’s an equally important part of Jensen’s extreme right-wing candidacy that is currently being under-reported.

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 Gubernatorial Candidate Proposes Gift Cards for Families Who Make Kids “Herd Immunity Enhancers”

Posted on by

Saint Paul, Minnesota — Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen today called on the Minnesota Legislature to give $2,000 gift cards to eligible Minnesotans who “responsibly refuse” COVID-19 vaccinations for their children.  Jensen, a medical doctor and former state senator, says his proposal is the best way to help families without resorting to “sick Nazi-like forced medical experimentation of the Walz regime.”

“We’re putting out a call for patriotic families who agree to keep their children free of tracker chips and DNA mutilation, and instead serve as beautiful little herd immunity enhancers,” said Jensen surrounded by unmasked young children at a news conference held in conjunction with a protest of a community vaccination event. “As a doctor, I know we must end the so-called virus the way we did before humans went soft, by fearlessly facing it maskless and trusting in God and his gift of natural herd immunity.”

The Jensen proposal comes in the wake of a recent announcement by Governor Tim Walz that his administration will provide $200 gift cards to Minnesota families who agree to vaccinate their 12- to 17-year old children.  The families of vaccinated children will also be entered into a lottery for $100,000 in tuition for a Minnesota public college of their choice.

Jensen, who is seeking the Republican endorsement for governor in party caucuses that are expected to be heavily populated by vocal Trump loyalists and vaccine opponents, announced that Minnesotans who don’t get vaccinated will get $2,000 gift cards to TrumpStore, the official retail arm of the Trump Organization. 

They also will be entered into a lottery for a scholarship to Trump University. Upon questioning, Jensen clarified that the scholarships will be revert to the Trump Organization in the event that the university is unable to serve the children.

In what Jensen called a prudent move to conserve tax dollars, he also indicated that the offer would not be available to citizens in Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, and Cook counties.

On his website, Former President Trump praised Jensen and his proposal as “a beautiful doctor who knows a great store and university when he sees it and is going to be a great pro-Trump governor of the corrupt election-stealing fake state of Minnesota.”

Note:  This post is satire, the use of humor and exaggeration to make a point. Jensen did not make this proposal. Only the part about Walz and his proposal is true.

Truth: The non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact cited Jensen as a major source of its 2020 “Lie of the Year 2020 about coronavirus downplaying and denial. Politifact noted Jensen’s appearances on Fox News claimed that overflowing hospitals were committing Medicare fraud by overcounting COVID-19 cases. Then-President Donald Trump repeated the unsubstantiated claims as he minimized the seriousness of the COVID pandemic while other wealthy countries around the world were implementing effective public health protections.

Experts say the number of COVID deaths are likely under-counted, not over-counted, due to false negatives on tests and a lack of testing.

In May 2021, Jensen also joined U.S. Capitol insurrectionist Simone Gold and others in suing the federal government to prevent children from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit claims that COVID-19 poses “zero risk” to children. The suit indicates that Jensen believes “it would be reckless to subject anyone in that age group to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine” and that he believes recommending that children get vaccinated “would violate his oath as a doctor and place him in an untenable position.”

Data from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that more than 6 million children have tested positive for Covid since the beginning of the pandemic.  While children are less likely to get hospitalized and die than adults, it does happen.  Children also help spread the virus to more vulnerable people.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , 77.9% of Minnesota adults (18+) have been vaccinated.

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.”

MN GOP’s Freedom-to-Infect Agenda As Bad Politically As It Is Morally

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans are falling all over themselves to the appeal to non-maskers and non-vaxers who they apparently believe, probably correctly, will make up a majority of Republican caucus participants in the 2022 election cycle.  They’re obsessed with the people in their partisan echo chambers.

Take Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen, MD, who made his name in conservative politics by questioning how serious a threat COVID was and suing to keep life-saving vaccines away from young people. Jensen is calling for  businesses and citizens to engage in “civil disobedience” by ignoring experts’ vaccine and mask recommendations and requirements.

The physician turned politician who is under investigation by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for spreading misinformation about COVID19, also wants to pass legislation to make Minnesota something called a “health freedom sanctuary state.”  Dr. J was light on details about what this would mean for Minnesotans, but presumably it would ensure we all have the sacred right to infect and kill others.

Jensen is hardly alone.  Throughout the pandemic, Minnesota Republicans at the state and local level have continually questioned the need for measures to protect Minnesotans against COVID.  They have advocated freedom-to-infect positions similar to those used by neighboring deep red state South Dakota, which has by far the worst per capita COVID death rate in the midwest region (236 COVID deaths per 100,000 residents). Meanwhile, Governor Tim Walz’s Minnesota has one of the best in the region (142 COVID deaths per 100,000 residents).

Being opposed to masking and vaccinating is another issue that looks to be a savvy political move for Republicans during party caucuses and primaries, but potentially disastrous when it comes time to win a plurality in general elections, where Democratic and independent voters get their say.

After all, about 75 percent of Minnesotans over age 12 now have at least one dose of vaccine, and that number will be higher by election day.  And national polls show large majorities of Americans back extremely tough restrictions.

  • 64 percent support state and local governments requiring masks to be worn in all public places.
  • 59 percent support requiring teachers to wear masks in schools.
  • 58 percent support requiring students to wear masks in schools.
  • 57 percent support limiting travel on airplanes to vaccinated people.
  • 51 percent support limiting attendance to bars and restaurants to vaccinated people.
  • 56 percent support limiting crowded gatherings — movies, sporting events, concerts– to vaccinated people.
  • 60 percent support requiring vaccines for federal government and large business employees.

At a time when 80 percent of Americans are concerned about the spread of the COVID19 Delta variant, Minnesota Republicans are hell-bent on making opposition to restrictions their centerpiece issue.  These surveys show that only about one-quarter to one-third of Americans agree with Republicans, with the remaining respondents unsure. 

Oh and by the way, Minnesota’s DFL Governor Tim Walz, the person Republicans portray as being way too radical on COVID restrictions, hasn’t supported anything anywhere near as restrictive as the previously mentioned widely popular measures. Not even close. And since Republicans stripped Walz of his emergency powers in the spring of 2021, he hasn’t been able to do much of anything to protect Minnesotans.

Even if opposing safe and effective COVID protections during the deadliest pandemic in a century were savvy on a political level, it would be morally unconscionable. But it’s every bit as indefensible politically as it is morally.

Does Walz Care About ONECare?

Posted on by

So far, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has largely been a responsive caretaker governor, responding to the crises du jour rather than than actively pushing a progressive agenda and building a legacy for himself.

Governor Walz’s legacy is essentially “pissed off all sides while consumed with thankless pandemic management.” I think he did a reasonably good job managing the pandemic, but he definitely had to make enemies doing it.

One partial break from caretaker mode was his poorly named “ONECare” proposal, which would give Minnesotans the option to buy into MinnesotaCare. MinnesotaCare is a longstanding program serving low-income individuals and families who can’t get employee-sponsored health insurance and don’t quality for Medicaid, which is called Medical Assistance (MA) in Minnesota.

Giving Minnesota health insurance consumers of all income levels this additional option would ensure that every Minnesotan in every county had at least one health insurance option available to them. That’s a big deal. It also would bring more competition to an individual market that sorely needs more competition. Over time, this could result in lower premiums for consumers.

Walz has not pushed his proposal particularly hard. Meanwhile, other states’ Governors are leading their states forward.

Colorado and Nevada this year passed public option plans—government-run health insurance plans—that are set to launch in 2023 and 2026, respectively. They join Washington state, which enacted its law in 2019 and went live with its public option in January.

The early results from Washington state’s experiment are disappointing. In many parts of the state, premiums for the public option plans cost more than premiums for comparable commercial plans.

Many of the state’s hospitals have refused to take part in the public option, prompting lawmakers to introduce more legislation this year to force participation if there aren’t sufficient health insurance options in a geographic area. And consumer buy-in is also meager. In its first year of operation, the state health insurance exchange sold only 1,443 public option plans, representing fewer than 1% of all exchange policies.

Michael Marchand, chief marketing officer for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, the state’s health insurance marketplace, said it’s premature to judge the program by its first year.

During the earlier years of Obamacare, the premiums for many commercial plans were high, he pointed out. Eventually, as insurers became more knowledgeable about the markets, prices dropped, he said.

If Governor Walz would get re-engaged in this issue and actively market his plan, they could learn from the experiences of Washington and avoid it’s mistakes. For instance, in areas where there is insufficient health insurance competition, Walz could require hospitals to participate.

A MinnesotaCare buy-in option is extremely popular — only 11% oppose it, according to a Minnesota Public Radio survey. This is probably in part because it is an option. Any Minnesotan who opposes buying into MinnesotaCare — because of conservative ideology or because MinnesotaCare turns out to be expensive or poor quality — they can vote with their feet, as consumers in the state of Washington are doing.

Fighting for a MinnesotaCare buy-in option makes sense for Walz. The polls consistently show that health care is a top issue for voters, and huge majorities consistently trust Democrats over Republicans on that issue.

Moreover, in the 2022 gubernatorial general election campaign Walz may very well be running against a physician, Scott Jensen. This will ensure that health care is high profile in the race. Therefore, candidate Walz needs to be seen fighting for better health care, and this proposal gives him that platform.

If a MinnesotaCare buy-in option passes, Walz finally has a legacy beyond pandemic management. If Senate Republicans kill it, which seems likely, Walz has a great political argument to make while running for reelection and trying to retake the Senate: “I worked my ass off to give you another health insurance option and bring you some price competition, but Republicans like Scott Jensen opposed it on orders from private insurance lobbyists. If you want to more options and more price competition, vote for me and change the Senate leadership.”

Pushing a public option is a great political option for Walz. So why is he so damn cautious about it?

On Minnesota Police Reform, Show Me The Money

Posted on by

In the wake of the George Floyd murder, I’m appreciative that the Minnesota Legislature finally is about to pass some police reforms. But I’m also pretty underwhelmed.  

Based on reports I’ve heard, it seems heavy on mandates and light on investments in changing the face of law enforcement. The compromise package that will soon pass includes things such as requiring officers to intervene in cases of abuse, banning choke holds and “warrior training,” and having a better statewide database on abuse cases. 

That’s all good stuff, as far as it goes.  The problem is, it doesn’t go very far.  The New York Times summarizes the debate and the unfinished business:

“Ultimately, legislators could not reach a deal that reconciled the Democrats’ calls for far-reaching changes to police oversight with Republican leaders who supported a shorter list of “common-sense police reforms” that included banning chokeholds in most situations and requiring officers to stop their colleagues from using unreasonable force.

Democrats said the plan passed by the Republican-led Senate consisted of tepid half-steps that were already in place in most law-enforcement agencies and did not rise to the moment’s calls for dramatic action. Republicans balked at the proposals passed by the Democrat-controlled House to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons and put the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, in charge of prosecuting police killings.

Republican leaders later said they had agreed to alter arbitration proceedings when officers are accused of misconduct, but Democrats said it was not enough.

All week, state legislators held emotional hearings on proposals to increase oversight of how the police use force and are disciplined; change the process for firing officers; and explore alternatives to policing, such as sending social workers to respond when people in mental distress need help.”

What About Ending Marijuana Prohibition?

I was disappointed that putting the marijuana prohibition question on the ballot wasn’t part of this session focused on preventing future police abuses. After all, the ACLU has documented that marijuana prohibition is a root cause of much racial profiling and police abuse:

A Black person in Minnesota is 5.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Minnesota ranks 8th for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests.  In 2018, marijuana possession arrests accounted for 35% of all drug arrests here. 

Although the overwhelming majority of Minnesota counties have racial disparities, Goodhue, Olmstead, St. Louis, Ramsey and Carver Counties have the worst records, ranging from Black people being 7.07 times more likely to face arrest than whites in Carver County to 11.19 times more likely in Goodhue County.  

Arrest rates decreased in states that legalized marijuana, but racial disparities remained. 

It’s clear what we need to do. Let’s take marijuana enforcement off of police officer’s plates, because marijuana is much less dangerous and addictive than legal alcohol, and it’s leading to much police abuse.

I understand this would have been a very tough sell with Senate Republican leadership, but this topic should have at least been part of the discussion. Legislators should have seized this educable moment to further build already strong public support for legalizing marijuana. (KSTP 2018 survey: 61% support marijuana legalization, including 54% of Republicans)

Reforms That Require Substantial Investment

Also missing from the list of reforms are any proposals to professionalize policing that costs more than a nominal amount of money. Spending money is something that both sides avoid, because neither side wants to take the political hit for proposing offsetting spending cuts and/or tax increases.

For instance, how about paying for a rigorous De-escalation and Racial Justice Re-Training Academy, to give every Minnesota law enforcement officer in the state extensive training about how to do their job more respectfully, lawfully, safely, and effectively.  How about requiring all officers to subsequently pass a training proficiency test to prove they did more than doze and wise-crack their way through the training? 

To keep this re-training top-of-mind and up-to-date, how about also funding biennial supplemental training courses, such as we require for other professions with life-and-death powers (e.g. Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for medical professionals)? 

How about a Police Professionalization Fund to establish financial incentives for local governments that hire college-educated officers and/or officers from under-represented communities?

How about a Hometown Officer Fund to pay for moving expenses for officers who move their home into the neighborhoods they are serving?

(Note, a couple of these good ideas came from Wry World Messrs. Lambert and Austin.)

Think about it. More officers who are college educated people of color whose family lives in the community they serve and have extensive and regular training about how to be a different kind of public servant.  All of that coupled with the changes in the current bill would go a long ways toward changing the toxic culture in many law enforcement departments. 

But all of those things cost money. The State should be funding them because many unenlightened and/or financially strapped local governments are unlikely to do these things on their own without financial help. 

But apparently legislators from both parties still aren’t willing to put their money where their mouths are. So unfortunately there’s much more police reform work to do in the 2021 session.