Category Archives: Politics

Dayton Needs To Reclaim Veto Power From Lobbyists

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they don’t have a right to veto.

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

Franken and Dayton Approval Ratings: A Tale of Two Headlines

Posted on by

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

Dayton approval rating at its highest

Franken remains a divisive figure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Loveland

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Framed Up The Wrong Comparison

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

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

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

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

vs.

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

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

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

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

vs.

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

The Political Advantages of Medicare for All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loveland

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

Now Is The Winter of Our MNbamacare Discontent

Posted on by

So much political analysis is focused on the short-term:  “Which side won yesterday’s news cycle.” But unless it’s the day before an election, such short-term analyses aren’t particularly meaningful.

Hand_of_cards-2The more useful question to ask is this: “On the next Election Day, would I rather be playing the proponents’ or opponents’ hand?”     Applying that question to the issue of MNsure and Obamacare, I’d  much rather be playing the supporters’ hand.

Public relations-wise, MNsure has definitely “lost” many a news cycle over the last several months.  Security breaches, website crashes, protracted customer service waits, and data transfer blunders.  And as we all know, when the going got tough, the tough got going, to a Costa Rican beach, a particularly damaging episode.

These things all hurt, and I don’t mean to diminish them.  MNsure and Obamacare supporters have been dealt bad cards in recent days.  If you’re only focused on the short-term history, it looks like reform supporters might have a very bad political hand to play in the 2014 elections.

But forget about December 2013 for a moment, and consider how things will look like on November 4, 2014.

What GOP Will Be Proposing To Eliminate In 2014

By Election Day 2014, eliminating the reforms will be a more difficult sell, because by that time the reforms will have touched millions of lives in pretty significant ways.  Republican candidates will need to make the case “I will eliminate something that has…”

PAID MILLIONS IN REBATES.  Produced millions of dollars in rebates paid by insurance companies to thousands of Minnesotans and millions of Americans, thanks to an Obamacare provision authored by Minnesota’s U.S. Senator Al Franken.  The provision limits the proportion of premium dollars insurers can use for non-health care expenses, and requires that the difference be paid back in customer rebates.

HELPED THE MOST VULNERABLE MINNESOTANS.  Got 95,000 of Minnesota’s most vulnerable citizens efficiently covered in Medicaid, including about 12,000 uninsured Minnesotans whose medical expenses were being shifted to insured Minnesotans.

COVERED UNINSURED YOUNG ADULTS.  Covered 35,000 Minnesota young adults, who otherwise would have been uninsured and now are able to stay on their parents health policy until age 26.

MADE PRIVATE COVERAGE MORE FEASIBLE.  Offered lower costs in the marketplace to 382,595 Minnesotans who are uninsured or otherwise eligible for subsidies.

HELPED CONTROL HEALTH EXPENDITURES.  Contributed, along with state and health plan-driven reforms, to the slowest growth of health care expenditures since the state began tracking expenses in the mid 1990s, which will immensely help Minnesota’s future fiscal and economic outlook.

ELIMINATED CO-PAYS FOR PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SERVICES.  More than 1.4 million Minnesotans no longer have to shell out co-pays for preventative health care, because of an Obamacare requirement.  This includes things like flu shots, colonoscopies, mammograms and well-child check-ups.

DELIVERED LOWEST PREMIUMS IN THE NATION.  Created a simple-to-understand — though still not simple to use — apples-to-apples insurance marketplace that has prompted competitors to offer Minnesota consumers the lowest insurance premiums in the nation.

ENDED PRE-EXISTING CONDITION BANS.  Made it illegal for private insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing health conditions, something that impacts many of the 2.3 million Minnesotans who have some type of pre-existing condition.

Presentation1Again, I don’t intend to sugar coat the current situation.  It’s been a rough few months for Obamacare and MNsure supporters.  The exchange website, call center, and management problems need to be improved as soon as possible.  Now most definitely is the winter of MNbamacare supporters’ discontent.

But come next fall,  Republican candidates, who offer no viable health care reform plan of their own, will have a very difficult time making the case for elimination of reforms that have been producing strong benefits for millions of Minnesotans.  “Elect me, to increase our rate of uninsurance again!”  “Elect me, to eliminate what you want to work better.”  “Elect me, to bring back pre-existing condition bans for your family!”

MNsure and Obamacare’s 2013 frailties aside, trying to take away those widespread benefits will be a very difficult political hand for the GOP to play in the 2014 elections.

– Loveland

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

The Daytonomics-Walkernomics Border Battle, MNsure and Our Addiction To Instant Analysis

Posted on by

Because journalists believe their audiences won’t tolerate nuance and ambiguity, they recruit  political analysts who are certain, clear and decisive over those who are unsure, equivocal and astraddle.  As a result, a kind of Punditry Darwinism plays out, where only the cocksure survive to deliver a steady stream of provocative instant analysis informed by little to no evidence.

MNsure’s Premature Death Proclamation

Take MNsure, Minnesota’s fledgling online tool for comparing and buying health insurance. When MNsure enrollment started slowly in its first month, Minnesota’s conservative talk radio pundits immediately declared it a train wreck, and this instant analysis has dominated the coverage to date.

MNsure may ultimately be a train wreck.  After all, covering uninsured Americans has always been a very difficult task.  But the immediate post-launch period is not a sensible time to make that judgment.

Romneycare_enrollment_chart-2Historical data shows that consumers don’t tend to purchase health insurance the way they purchase Xbox 360s, lined up outside the store on launch day.  Quite the opposite, most consumers purchase insurance at the very last moment possible.  Purchasing an expensive service that you hope to never use is just not very satisfying, so most of us procrastinate.

I’m not pulling this assertion out of my pundit posterior.   In Massachusetts, just 123 early adapters stepped forward during their first month, and it didn’t get much better the second month.  Instead, the big rush came just prior to the open enrollment deadline, when people face the prospect of a missed deadline and financial penalty.

It turns out that pulling the plug on the Massachusetts exchange when it only had 123 customers would not have been a wise decision for Commonwealth citizens, because  Romneycare ultimately was worth the wait.  After a few years of growing pains, Massachusetts’ Obamacare-like reforms increased the ranks of the insured to 97%.  This puts states like Minnesota (91% insured) to shame, not to mention Chris Christie’s New Jersey (84% insured) or Ted Cruz’s Texas (76% insured).

Declaring a trainwreck just as a new train is lurching out of the depot is ludicrous.  As much as it pains the cognoscenti, at this stage they need to be saying the four little words that might  get them deleted out of reporters’ speed dials – “I don’t know yet.”

Daytonomics The Winner Already?

Then there is the Minnesota-Wiscoonsin border battle over state fiscal policy.  In a New York Times commentary piece that has been widely shared via social media, a University of Minnesota professor and pundit recently declared that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton’s Keynesian approach to state fiscal policy has been more successful than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s austerity approach.  His conclusion:

“The lesson from the upper Midwest is that rigid anti-tax dogma fails to deliver a convincing optimistic vision that widens economic opportunity and security.”

To his credit, the University of Minnesota professor does include  caveats, such as “firm answers will require more time and more data.”  But in the rush to be a clear and certain pundit who can get past the New York Times gatekeepers, the professor ultimately declared Daytononomics triumphant.

Here’s the problem with that:  Daytonomics is very much in its infancy.  Most of Governor Dayton’s most progressive policies are only now being put into effect, so the state of Minnesota’s economy can’t yet be attributed to the Daytonomics.

It’s true that Dayton has been in office for three years now.  But, with the exception of Dayton’s expansion of Medicaid to 95,000 uninsured Minnesotans, the lion’s share of his progressive agenda — the improvements to education and other government services funded by tax increases on the wealthy — passed just a few months ago, after the 2011-2012 GOP-controlled Legislature was vanquished and could no longer block Dayton’s progressive policies.

Just as President Obama could not be fairly blamed for the 2008-2009 economic meltdown that played out before he could put his policies into place, Governor Dayton cannot be fairly celebrated for a better-than-average state economy when most of his progressive policies are only now being put into place.  As a liberal, I hope Daytonomics bests Walkernomics, and expect it will.  But it’s much too early to declare a winner.

As a public relations guy, I understand why the media wants  commentators who give their audience instant gratification through instant analysis.  But as a citizen, I worry about what all of this instant gratification does to us.

Psychologists find that children who can’t learn to delay gratification at an early age are much less likely to succeed in later life.  The research indicates that the ability to delay gratification is absolutely key for success in school, marriages, friendships, health and jobs.  The young kids who can’t learn to stop themselves from consuming marshmallows become the adults who can’t stop themselves from consuming the adult versions of marshmallows.

Given that research, what kind of democracy will we become if journalists, pundits and voters can’t learn to wait to make policy judgements until evidence is available to inform our debates?

– Loveland

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

Context Matters in Minimum Wage Debate

Posted on by

Real_value_of_minimum_wage_since_1968-2In 2014, the Minnesota Legislature will enact a long overdue minimum wage adjustment.  A large majority of Minnesotans support an increase and the DFL controls the House, Senate and Governor’s office, so the stars are finally aligned for 357,000 of Minnesota’s workers and 137,000 of their children.  If self-defeating bi-cameral bickering can be put aside, the only real suspense should be about the amount of the minimum wage adjustment.

This year, the House passed legislation to set Minnesota’s minimum wage at $9.50 per hour, but it was rejected due to howls of outrage from the business lobby and Senate DFLers.  They maintained that $9.50 per hour was extravagant.

Compared to What?

At first blush, I understand why a jump from as low as $4.90 per hour to $9.50 per hour could seem excessive.  But Minnesota’s minimum wage hasn’t been adjusted in a very long time, and plenty of successful economies are operating very successfully with a much higher minimum wage.  Here is some context for this debate:

  • $5.15:  Georgia minimum wage (lowest in the U.S.)
  • $4.90-$5.25-$6.15:   Minnesota minimum wage for trainees, small businesses, and large businesses respectively.
  • $7.25: Federal minimum wage.
  • $7.25:  Minimum wage in ND, NE, SD, TX, WV, WI and many other states.
  • $7.75:  2013 Minnesota Senate-passed minimum wage (not enacted).
  • $9.00:  National Democrats’ recommendation:  The federal minimum wage increase endorsed by President Obama in 2013 (accompanied with an automatic annual adjustment for inflation).
  • $9.19:  Washington state’s minimum wage (highest among the states).
  • $9.50:  2013 Minnesota House-passed minimum wage (not enacted).
  • $9.95:  Canadian minimum wage.
  • $10.70:  What the U.S. minimum wage in 1968 would be today if it had kept pace with cost-of-living increases.
  • $10.93:  Dutch minimum wage.
  • $11.09:  Irish minimum wage.
  • $12.09:  French minimum wage.
  • $16.88:  Australian minimum wage.

So, the House-recommended level does look generous compared to the Minnesota’s embarrassingly stingy status quo.  But the 2013 House-enacted minimum wage looks downright miserly compared to what Americans were paid in the Nixon era, what many peer nation employers are paying, and what it actually takes Americans to cover the costs of basic needs.

The Floor for Negotiations

Minnesota’s cost-of-living is 105% of the national cost-of-living, a bit higher than average.  Therefore, Minnesota’s minimum wage should be a bit higher than federal minimum wage to have the same purchasing power.  One hundred and five percent of the $9.00 per hour recommended by President Obama would be $9.45 per hour, almost exactly what the Minnesota House enacted in 2013.

A minimum wage of $9.45 per hour is nowhere near what American workers were paid when in the Nixon era, or what contemporary Americans actually need to make ends meet, but it would represents modest progress.

Given that progressives saw minimum wage adjustments vetoed by Minnesota Republican Governor’s five times over a 14-year span, they also need to push, as President Obama is, for an annual inflation adjustment to prevent effective annual wage cuts in the future.   It makes no sense to fight for a decade and a half to win an adjustment only to watch workers’ wages effectively shrivel year-after-year.

Moving from $4.90 per hour to $9.45 per hour sounds exorbitant to leaders who haven’t done their homework.  In 2014, Minnesota’s working poor need those leaders to do their homework.

– Loveland

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

5 Crucial DFL To-Dos For The 2014 Session

Posted on by

Minnesota_Legislature_To_Do_List-2The Minnesota DFL is in serious danger of losing ground in the 2014 elections.  A primary reason is turnout – too many DFLers traditionally tend to stay home in years when there isn’t a high profile presidential race.  But there are policy steps that the DFL can take during the 2014 to  improve their chance of bucking the historic trend of Democratic setbacks in off-year elections.

INCREASE  MINIMUM WAGE. Minnesota’s minimum wage is lower than the federal minimum wage, despite the fact that our overall per capita income is the 11th highest in the nation.  Shameful.   Six decades of data show the claims that increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment are unfounded. Only one-quarter of Minnesotans support keeping the minimum wage this low.  The DFL needs to show its electoral base, and moderate swing voters, that it is helping the most vulnerable workers make ends meet in a shaky economy.  Petty DFL-on-DFL infighting killed a minimum wage increase last year, which was an embarrassment to a party that needs to show that it is mature enough to lead the state.  That can’t happen again.

PASS A MODEST BONDING BILL.  It’s a bonding year at the Legislature, so much of the session’s news coverage will be focused on the bonding bill.    The DFL needs to show that it is a) making job-creating infrastructure investments but b) not breaking the bank, as Republicans will reflexively claim.  Passing a smart bonding bill that costs about as much as average bonding bills in the Pawlenty and Carlson eras will show moderate voters that the DFL can get things done, and be trusted to control the purse strings another couple of years.

SPOTLIGHT GOP SUPPORT OF SHUTDOWNS.  The federal government shutdown in 2013 and the Minnesota government shutdown in 2011 have left Republicans’ approval ratings at historic lows.  Government shutdowns are a very toxic political issue for Republicans right now.   But in politics, time heals all wounds.  Therefore, the DFL needs to find new ways remind moderate voters that GOP legislators still are stubbornly refusing to swear off of their reckless government shutdown fetish.  Maybe that means holding votes on legislation to require a supermajority vote for the enactment of shutdowns.  Maybe that means requiring votes on legislation to dock the future pay for legislators who support shutdowns.   Those votes can be used in the 2014 election to breathe new life into the Republicans most damaging political baggage from the 2011 and 2013 shutdown debacles.

GIVE THE REPUBLICANS THE MICROPHONE.  The DFL legislators’ best electoral weapon remains Republican legislators.  When it comes to appealing to swing voters, there are a group of Tea Party-supported GOP legislators who tend to be their own worst enemies.  For instance, they compare food stamps to feeding wild animals and use the floor to drive their anti-gay obsessions.  For a party that tends to keep digging their hole deeper, my advice to the DFL is to refrain from taking their shovel away.  In fact, give them a backhoe.   Don’t unnecessarily limit debates.  Don’t interrupt.  Give their radical bills hearings.  All the while, keep the video recorder on, and share their extremeness via social media and the news media.

GET WORK DONE ON TIME.  Voters don’t pay attention to 99% of the legislative machinations during sessions, but they do notice when legislative gridlock causes missed end-of-session deadlines.   For swing voters, a missed deadline is an easy-to-understand symbol of immaturity, irresponsibility and incompetence.  The father of the modern Democratic party, Franklin D. Roosevelt, advised “be sincere, be brief, be seated.”  Modern DFLers should take FDR’s advice to heart.  Imagine how pleasantly surprised swing voters would be to read a spring 2014 headline reading “DFL Leaders Quietly Finish Legislative Business A Day Early.”  Easier said than done, I know, but it should not be underestimated how symbolically important making that deadline is to middle-of-the-road swing voters.  An early adjournment should be a top priority for DFL leaders.

Most of the moderate swing voters who will determine the 2014 elections don’t pay close attention to legislative minutiae.  They simply want state leaders who are passing a few constructive and popular bills, avoiding embarrassments, and  keeping the government  running on budget and on time.  In the 2014 legislative session, that’s what DFL leaders should strive to deliver.

– Loveland

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

 

Paulsen and Kline Finally Support A Jobs Bill

Posted on by

Erik_Paulsen_John_KlineIn the past, I’ve been critical of Minnesota Republican  Congressmen John Kline and Erik Paulsen for not doing enough to address America’s chronic unemployment problem.  But I have to hand it to them, because yesterday they passed legislation ending the government shutdown that will immediately put 800,000 Americans back to work, and stabilize the economic position of many others.  That’s fantastic news.

Unfortunately, Paulsen and Kline haven’t always been so strong supporting job creation for Americans.  They both refused to support President Obama’s 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that, according to the independent, non-partisan organization FactCheck.org, created a whole lot of jobs:

“…the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has “[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points” and “[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.”

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.”

Paulsen and Kline have also refused to support pending legislation proposed by President Obama, the American Jobs Act, that, according to private sector experts, would stimulate millions of more jobs:

Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi: “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. Zandi, who was briefed on the plan before the president’s speech, forecast passage of the entire jobs package would add 2 percentage points to economic growth next year and bring down the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point compared with current policy, under which a temporary payroll tax cut and an extended unemployment benefits both expire Dec. 31.”

This morning Economic Forecasting FirmMacroeconomic Advisers issued a report: “We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term. The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would: Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013. Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline.”

…Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said, “The President’s proposed combination of personal and business tax relief, targeted spending to support infrastructure, and aid to states offers several direct and innovative ways of creating jobs and bolstering our economy. The President’s focus on assisting small business is spot on, since small business is the engine of job creation.”

Finally, Paulsen and Kline have refused to support legislation to end the “sequester” of billions of dollars federal funds.  CBO economists say lifting these spending cuts would immediately add millions more jobs for the American people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that keeping the spending cuts from sequestration in place through fiscal 2014 would cost up to 1.6 million jobs.

Canceling the cuts, on the other hand, would yield between 300,000 to 1.6 million new jobs, with the most likely outcome being the addition of 900,000, the CBO said.

“Those changes would increase the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.7 percent and increase the level of employment by 0.9 million in the third quarter of calendar year 2014 (the end of fiscal year 2014) relative to the levels projected under current law,” the report states.

Again, these are the job creation bills that Kline and Paulsen have historically refused to support.

But I do want to give credit where credit is due.  The bipartisan legislation Paulsen and Kline supported yesterday will immediately put 800,000 more Americans back to work, and end a government shutdown that will have cost taxpayers, according to Standard and Poors, about $24 billion.  That’s $24 billion that isn’t circulating in the economy creating jobs.

Forget that Kline and Paulsen originally did nothing to speak out against their fellow House Republicans who were giddy in forcing these 800,000 Americans out of work.  At long last, Paulsen and Kline have supported a jobs bill.  Here’s hoping it’s the beginning of a trend.

– Loveland

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

The Minnesota Legislator Salary Shutdown Act of 2014

Posted on by

carrot_and_stick_vintage_photoSometimes good policy and good politics intersect.  Fixing the problem of ideological extremists shutting down governments with a steady stream of ransom demands is one of those instances.   Any legislator who could figure out a way to reduce the frequency of hugely unpopular shutdowns would further the cause of a more stable democracy, as well as harvest political benefits with three-fourths of voters.

I recently promoted the idea of challenging candidates to pledge to not shutdown government, to effectively increase the political price for shutdowns.  But another way to address the problem it is to increase the personal price for shutdowns.

I therefore propose the Minnesota Legislator Pay Shutdown Act of 2014:

Whereas, reaching consensus and keeping government services operating is the job of the Minnesota legislators;

Whereas, government shutdowns are a clear indication that Minnesota legislators are not doing their jobs;

Therefore, be it resolved that any Minnesota state legislator who supports legislation that results in a government shutdown shall be ineligible to draw their state government salary for a period of one year.

Nobody would ever accuse me of being a legislative draftsman, so this language is obviously illustrative only.  Legislative staffers would need to substitute murky legalese so that virtually no one ultimately could understand it.  But you get the general idea.

Is that fair or just demagogic blogger bluster?  Well, people from surgeons to salespeople have “pay-for-performance” pay models.   So why not legislators?

– Loveland

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

Which MN Candidates Will Sign The Pull-The-Plug Pledge?

Posted on by

Pull_the_plugAs a general matter, I despise campaign pledges.  Candidates are continually badgered by interest groups to pledge in writing that they will always do X, or never do Y.

The Problem With Pledges

The problem with most pledges is the “always” or “never” parts of them.  The world changes, and policy positions therefore sometimes need to change with them.

  • Pledging to not increase taxes today may make sense at one point in history, but a few years later the circumstances may have changed dramatically.
  • Pledging to support a policy or project now may make sense, but not after surprising new information surfaces.
  • Pledging to tax millionaires may make sense at a time when they’re not paying their fair share, but not a few years later when circumstances may have changed.

So sometimes making policy shifts isn’t  a sign of weakness or dishonesty, as pledge enforcers often claim.  Sometimes, shifting is a sign of courage, vision and integrity.

That’s why I don’t like most campaign pledges.

Pull-the-Plug Pledge

But I came across a pledge the other day that fits our times, and has an infinite shelf life.  South Dakota congressional candidate Rick Weiland challenged all congressional candidates to sign this simple pledge:

“I hereby pledge that, if elected to represent you, I will never vote to shut down your government, or to place your government in default, in order to force it to act, or to prevent it from acting, on unrelated issues.” 

As a voter, I want to know where every Minnesota congressional candidate stands on this Pull-The-Plug Pledge.

Flat_line-2If there are candidates out there who think it is acceptable from them to pull the plug on the American people’s government and economy, that is their right.  But it’s also the right of the overwhelming 72% percent of Americans who oppose the Republicans’ current plug-pulling scheme to be forewarned of a congressional candidate’s position on that  issue, so that they can vote with their eyes wide open.

Yes, Americans and their policymakers must always be able to make their government a different size and shape as future circumstances dictate.  This pledge doesn’t prevent them from having such flexibility. It simply says it’s not acceptable to completely pull the plug on the American economy and government.

So, Tim Walz, Mike Benson, John Kline, Mike Obermuller, Paula Overby, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer, Rhonda Sivarajah, Phil Krinkie, John Pederson, Judy Adams, Collin Pederson, Rick Nolan, Stewart Mills III, Monti Moreno, Chris Dahlberg, Mike McFadden, Julianne Ortman, Jim Abeler, and Al Franken, will you sign the Pull-The-Plug Pledge?

– Loveland

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

Learning To Lose With MnSure

Posted on by

Bunyan_woodpeckerIn case you haven’t heard, Republicans hate health insurance exchanges like MnSure. While the conservative Heritage Foundation developed the approach, conservative leaders like Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Orrin Hatch endorsed it, and conservative standard bearer Mitt Romney pioneered it, contemporary conservatives have come to despise it since it was adopted by President Obama.

Conservatives now prefer to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines governed by federal regulations, instead of the current system of state-by-state regulation of insurance products.  But there isn’t sufficient political support to enact the conservatives’ preferred interstate competition approach.

I feel my conservative friends’ pain, because my preferred approach also doesn’t have enough political support to become law, and I also don’t love insurance exchanges like MnSure.  I’d much rather have a single payer system — the system that delivers the best care and value in other industrialized nations — than this competitive private sector exchange model.  However, since there wasn’t sufficient political support for my first choice, my fallback preference was to authorize a “public option”—a Medicare-for-All — competing against private options to test which model is more efficient and effective.

But alas, after a long, fair and considered congressional debate, I lost on both my first and second choices.  Now I and all Americans have to accept the private competitive exchange model that prevailed in the democratic arena.

Memo to my Republican friends:  That’s how losing works in a democracy.  You have to accept the outcome of the democratic process, and move on like an adult.

While insurance exchanges like MnSure were far from my preferred option, there are things I like about them.  For the first time, they require products to be directly comparable, so that a lightly informed consumer like me can actually do apples-to-apples shopping, or silver plan-to-silver plan shopping.

That represents a significant improvement that will reshape the marketplace in a somewhat more consumer-friendly way. With private and non-profit insurers required to create directly comparable products, insurers now know that many consumers are going to buy the more affordable apple over the comparatively expensive apple.  That puts consumer demand pressure on insurers to offer the most affordable apple possible, just as airlines have constant demand pressure to offer the most affordable ticket to New York City via online marketplaces like Kayak, Orbitz and Travelocity.

Whether we’re talking about Kayak or MnSure, the widespread availability and use of the Internet makes this kind of comparison shopping possible.  Social media and advertising guru Simon Mainwaring is among those those who have written about how the Internet changes modern marketplaces:

“More than ever before, consumers have the ability to unify their voices and coalesce their buying power to influence corporate behaviors.”

So far, this type of “coalesced buying power” is showing promise.  In Minnesota’s competitive exchange, we are seeing among the lowest premium prices in the nation.  That’s a tribute to Minnesota’s non-profit health insurance companies, the state health care model that Republican Governor Arne Carlson significantly shaped and the exchange model that Republicans developed, supported and pioneered.

In life and in policy making, sometimes we don’t get our first choice, or even our second choice.   Liberals like me certainly didn’t get our first or second choice in the 2010 federal health reform debate.  But that doesn’t mean that some good can’t come from the third choice, if we’re adult enough to give it a chance, instead of working overtime to sabotage it.

So my conservative friends, on the launch day for MnSure, join me in belting out those healing Stephen Stills lyrics:  “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with.”

– Loveland

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

Bachmann Accuser Says He Prays Daily for Bachmann

Posted on by

Bachmannistan__Behind_The_Lines_eBook__Peter_Waldron__John_Gilmore__Kindle_StorePeter Waldron, the evangelical Christian minister and former adviser to Minnesota U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann in her 2012 presidential bid, has accused the Bachmann campaign of a series of illegal and unethical acts.  Waldron’s charges have been made in discussions with federal investigators and in Waldron’s recently released digital book, Bachmannistan:  Behind the Lines.

In a response published in the Star Tribune this morning, the Bachmann campaign gave the evangelical minister some old fashioned fire and brimstone:

“This former staffer with an ax to grind has been peddling these same reckless falsehoods, half-truths, and innuendos for well over a year in his attempt to maliciously smear Congresswoman Bachmann’s name,” finance chairman James Pollack said in a statement released by the campaign. “Doing this to someone of her immense character is despicable. Whether his motivation is an attempt to selfishly get 15 minutes of fame or reap an economic benefit on this e-book, it is unconscionable.”

jesus_turn_the_other_cheekDespite the Bachmann campaign’s blistering attack, Waldron apparently is a turn the other cheek kind of guy.  He told Wry Wing Politics in an email this morning that he prays every day for Bachmann and her husband Marcus.

“Of course, I pray for Michele and Marcus daily.  They are my brother and sister in Christ, their health, family, and future are the areas about which I pray.  God is abounding towards them at all times to love, care, and provide for them.”

On Pollock, Waldron says:

“With regard to Mr. Pollack’s effort to discredit me or our book is to simply say that I forgive him. There is one, Jesus Christ, who has forgiven me of my sins. I must forgive Jim Pollack with the same love that our Lord showed me.”

As for the the Bachmann team’s accusations that Waldron was motivated by financial gain, Waldron pointed out to Wry Wing Politics that a portion of the proceeds from the book will be donated to a church.

“I am a lifelong tither.  The work of the local church is critical to the Lord’s work in the community and nation.”

The Merriam Webster Dictionary says the definition of the verb tithe is “to pay or give a tenth part of especially for the support of the church.” That leaves 90% of the proceeds for other uses.  Still, at a relatively modest list price of $2.99 on Kindle, it’s unlikely that Waldron will achieve Stephen King-like financial status anytime soon.

Despite the firestorm Waldron encountered during his last foray into politics, the minister told Wry Wing Politics that he remains interested in working on more presidential and congressional campaigns:

“Yes, I will work for another presidential candidate, the Bachmann for President campaign was an anomaly in the context of my previous experience on campaigns for the House, Senate, and OPUS.”

Bachmannistan is available to Kindle users on amazon.com.

The Bachmann Wannabes: Conservative in the Abstract, But Slippery with Specifics

Posted on by

All four candidates running to succeed U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District are running on their intent to reverse budget deficits allegedly piled up during the Obama era.  As Minnesota Public Radio’s (MPR) Brett Neely reports:

“So far, there’s little in the way of policy differences that separates the four candidates.  They’re all sticking with the national GOP’s message about what ails Washington.

GOP candidate Rhonda Sivarajah:  “The debt.”

GOP candidate Phil Krinkie:  “Out of control spending.”

GOP candidate Tom Emmer:  “Bureaucrats.”

GOP candidate John Pederson:  “The deficit.”

The same can be said of the Republicans challenging Senator Al Franken, Governor Mark Dayton, and every other DFL incumbent.  This should come as no surprise.  “The national GOP message” is based on public opinion research, and polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans are concerned about the deficit.  For instance, about 90 percent of Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg poll believed that the deficit is getting worse (62 percent) or not improving (28 percent), with only 6 percent saying that the deficit is decreasing.

In other words, the Republican message is selling with Americans.  This bodes well for them in the 2014 mid-term elections.

 The Myth of “Skyrocketing Deficits”

It’s worth noting that 90 percent of Americans are wrong about the state of the deficit.  In an article titled “The Best Kept Secret In American Politics-Federal Budget Deficits Are Actually Shrinking!,” Forbes magazine notes:

Over the first four years of the Obama presidency, the deficit shrunk by a total of $300 billion dollars.  The improvement in the deficit as measured against GDP is the direct result of the deficit falling to $845 billion for fiscal year 2013—a $300 billion improvement over the previous year. And the positive trend is projected to continue though the next fiscal year where the the annual budgetary deficit will fall again to $430 billion.

More recently, the deficit outlook has further stabilized. As CNN Money reported in May 2013:

By 2015, the deficit will fall to its lowest point of the next decade – 2.1% of GDP. And it will remain below 3% until 2019, at which point it will start to increase again. Deficits below 3% are considered sustainable because it means budget shortfalls are not growing faster than the economy.

Still, perception is reality in politics, so conservatives can be expected to milk this inaccurate “the deficit is skyrocketing” myth for all it is worth.

Courting “Progressative” Voters With Generalities

Will_reporters_press_deficit_chicken_hawks_for_specific_cuts_At the same time, don’t look for conservative candidates to provide a detailed list of spending cuts they would make to reduce the deficit and debt more rapidly.  Again, they read polls, so they know that Americans overwhelmingly oppose cutting the largest and fastest growing government programs.  For instance, a Washington Post poll finds that 77% oppose “reducing Medicare benefits,”  82% oppose “reducing Social Security benefits,”  and 51% oppose “reducing military spending.”  Other polls show that opposition to cutting Medicare and Social Security is even more vehement among Americans over 50 years old, who are disproportionately likely to vote, particularly in non-presidential election years such as 2014.

Pew_Research_Poll__May_2013Beyond those enormous spending programs, a Pew poll also finds that a plurality of Americans believes that the funding levels for all 19 major government spending categories they tested should be either increased or maintained.  Though conservatives have spent decades calling for cuts in “government spending,” Americans are steadfastly rejecting specific cuts in all parts of the federal budget.

Therefore, the dilemma for contemporary politicians is this:   Americans support the abstract notion of “cutting government spending,” which sometimes make us appear to be a conservative nation.  At the same time, Americans oppose cutting any of the component parts of “government spending,” which makes us look like a remarkably progressive nation.  Fiscally speaking, Americans are “progressatives,” conservative with our generalized rhetoric, but progressive with our program-by-program choices.

If the past is predictive of the future, most political reporters won’t press conservative candidates for a specific list of spending cuts to support their bluster.  Instead, reporters will allow conservative candidates to rail in a generalized way about “cutting spending,” and in a false way about “skyrocketing deficits.”  And as long as that rhetorical free ride is allowed to continue, the polls show that conservatives’ “cut government spending” mantra is a winning message.

 -Loveland

Note:  This post also was chosen for re-publication in Minnpost and as one of Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Minnesota Majority: Too Fig To Fail

Posted on by

Fig leafs to hide that which you'd rather not be public.

There was an interesting item this week in Politics in Minnesota about the potential demise of a conservative interest group called Minnesota Majority.  In the most desperate fundraising appeal I’ve seen since the waning days of Tony Sutton at the Minnesota GOP, the power brokers at Minnesota Majority declared that if their conservative benefactors don’t deliver another $20,000 to their doorstep this week, they would be forced to cease operations.

Founded in 2007 by a fellow named Jeff Davis, Minnesota Majority was the lead organization behind the 2012 drive to build additional barriers to voting in Minnesota, a proposition that was wisely rejected by 54% of Minnesota voters.

Since Minnesota Majority proved to be in the minority, it apparently has fallen upon hard times.  Current Majority leader Dan McGrath spins it this way in a recent fundraising appeal:

“The 2012 election results seem to have brought about a dangerous malaise causing many people, including some past major donors, to disengage,” the appeal states. “As a result, we’ve been struggling to raise enough money to keep the lights on all year and we’re rapidly reaching a critical point, where we will have do decide if it’s viable to continue operating at all.”

If Minnesota Majority actually goes under, I’d love to go to their  “Going Out of Business Sale.”  I bet you could get some sweet deals on glamour shots of the Koch brothers, the billionaire masterminds of the voter suppression drive.  I’d also love to see how much they can get for that framed May 2011 Star Tribune poll showing 80% support for Minnesota Majority’s voter ID proposal.  (To me, the smashed glass only adds a sense of history to the artifact.)

I still am not convinced that Jeff “Not Jefferson” Davis and his merrymakers at Minnesota Majority are truly done with their voter suppression shenanigans.  After all, it seems to have served a very important purpose for a lot of conservative  donors intent on preventing voting among those least likely to have a photo ID — the old, the young, the poor, and the minorities.  Many of those Minnesota Majority donors would rather not be too public about these sordid anti-democratic efforts.

In short, the voting suppressor enthusiasts need something to cover up that which is embarrassing to show in public, a sort of 501(c)(3) fig leaf.  Even if Minnesota Majority goes away in its current form, it will return in a laundered form, so that there will be someone to do the things some conservative donors would rather not do too publicly.  The struggling voting suppressors at Minnesota Majority are, in the final analysis, too fig to fail.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a Best of the Blogs by Politics in Minnesota and in MinnPost.

Mullet Brotherhood Starts Draft Shelby Drive

Posted on by

Bloomington, Minn., July 31, 2013 — A national hair style advocacy group called the Mullet Brotherhood announced today that it was organizing a drive to draft legendary WCCO-TV anchorman Don Shelby to run for Congress against Minnesota 3rd Congressional District Representative Erik Paulsen.

After retiring from the anchor desk, Shelby became a cause celebre in the mullet-American advocacy community when he let his hair down, the hind half of it.  News reports that Shelby may run for Congress have caused a buzz among mullet activists anxious to see one of their own representing them in Washington.

“Former Governor Pawlenty had a chance become the first mulleted President, but unfortunately he dumped us for a Super PAC-approved cut,” said Floyd “Flow Joe” Joyner, President of the Mullet Brotherhood.  “We’ve long admired Mr. Shelby’s silver cascade, and would dearly love to see that bad boy in the Capitol Building.”

Joyner admitted that the road will be long for Shelby.  Protesters outside the news conference mocked Shelby and the group with various forms of hate speech, such as hockey hair, ten ninety, helmet hair, coupe Longueuil, haircut o’ death, neckwarmer, shorty longback, the 10-90, the Kentucky waterfall, the bi-level, the faded glory, the Ben Franklin, the Missouri Compromise, the Louisiana Purchase, the Camaro crash helmut, the business cut (business in front, party in the back), the LPGA, the soccer flip, the convertible, the Tennessee top hat, the Canadian passport, the New Jersey neckwarmer, the Chattanooga choo choo, and the neck blanket and the Wisconsin waterfall.

“If that ‘Wisconsin waterfall’ label sticks, that could be the end for Shelby,” said Dr. Harold Cloister, political science professor at St. Thomas University.  “I’d look for Shelby’s handlers to spin it as more of a Minnesota Mudflap.”

With the exception of a few short-lived fads, hind heavy hair has been slow to be accepted in contemporary mainstream society.  Though fossil records indicate that homo sapiens with primitive mullets have walked the Earth for at least 130,000 years, it was 2001 before the word “mullet” even appeared in dictionaries.  Mullet activists see a Shelby candidacy as a historic opportunity to normalize the oppressed mulleted minority.

“We did have Governor Ventura in the State Capitol a few years back, but to be honest there is a rather ugly debate within our community about whether a skullet should be considered to be in the mullet family,” said Joyner.  “Naturally, we value all forms of unbridled neck hair, but many feel that crown-based flow is a necessary element of the art form.  But dandy Don’s ape drape, dude, we all get goose bumps about that mofo.”

Joyner announced the launch of a Draft Shelby website www.DonsDo4u.com.  Along with a draft petition, the site also is selling “Don’s Do 4U” trucker’s hats, with a faux silver mullet flowing from the back.

Mr. Shelby refused to comment for this story.  However, in previous news reports he has indicated that he has not yet ruled out becoming “a terrible congressman.”

Naming The Vikings Stadium

Posted on by

And what shall we name our new little crown jewel?  No, I’m not talking about His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge.  I’m talking about the long-gestating  stadium of Minneapolis, formerly known as Mall of America Field, formerly known as the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome.

The stakes for this little name game are high.  The owners of the San Francisco 49ers recently negotiated a stadium naming rights deal worth $220 million over 20 years with Levi Strauss, an obscure little brand desperate to buy itself some name recognition.  Vikings owner Zygi Wilf hopes to secure a cool $10 to $15 million per year off of naming rights of the new stadium.

The Wilfs have hired a firm to handle this task in Minnesota, Van Wagner Sports and Entertainment.  The naming guru at Van Wagner, Jeff Wagner, gave us “Target Center” a few years back.

But I am willing to offer my services for free.  After much research, here is my detailed analysis:

U.S. Bank Stadium.  This is the front-runner, because U.S. Bancorp is local, and because financial institutions are big into the stadium naming game these days.

  • Pro:  They’re sitting on lots of money and not lending much, so why not buy yourself a vanity plate?
  • Con:  Brand confusion.  Another crappy football team already has “The Bank” on the east bank, so adding a second “The Bank” branch on the west bank just would make everyone’s heads hurt.

Land O Lakes Stadium.  It would make a lot of sense for our local dairy food processor to want to put its name on the asymmetrical building that looks like a half eaten block of butter.

  • Pro:  Sounds like a melodic description of the Vikings’ beautiful home state, not like just another corporate commercial.
  • Cons:    Our neighboring rivals may have the corner on all dairy-related branding.

Wheaties Stadium.  If General Mills wants in, I hope they lead with their top sports-related brand rather than the parent company brand.

  • Pro:  “Wheaties” connotes “champions,” our aspiration.
  • Con:  “Wheaties” connotes “champions,” which would bring immediate false advertising charges.

3M Stadium.  3M, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, is an iconic Minnesota company that produces world famous products such as PostIt Notes.

  • Pro:  Ultra-compact two-letter name dramatically saves on signage costs.
  • Con:  Sets up endless hilarious post-game punchlines for our beloved Wisconsin friends:  “You know what the three “m’s” in 3M Stadium really stands for, don’t you?”

Matt’s Bar Stadium.  If we must have a stadium named after a business, why not one that Minnesotans actually like, such as the loveable home of the Juicy Lucy in south Minneapolis.

  • Con:  They may not have quite as much money as U.S. Bank to pony up.
  • Pro:   It would be a homage to small businesses, which quietly account for half of Minnesota’s private sector jobs, while remaining “small enough to fail” without need of taxpayer bailouts.

OmniSynCorp Stadium.  OmniSynCorp is a little known start-up company that spent all its seed capital on hiring a corporate naming firm that now badly wants to see its name in lights.

  • Con: Promoting a business that will be in Chapter 11 in a few months may ultimately reflect poorly on the home team’s brand.
  • Pro:   The corporate naming firm promises that the corporations’ bleeding edge brand represents “an iconic homage to the game-changing synergistic synergy imbedded in our value-added values.”

Target Stadium.  I mean, why not?  We already have Target Center, Target Field, the Target Public School system, and Target Politicians.

  • Con:  It’s unfair to poor Walmart.
  • Pro:  It’s the soothing symmetry that only monopolies can offer.

People’s Stadium.  Governor Dayton famously promised us this would be a “people’s stadium,” not just the Vikings’ stadium, which persuaded the people of Minnesota to put up a half-billion dollars to pay for the joint.

  • Con:  It’s vaguely Soviet.
  • Pro:  Justice.

– Loveland

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

End State Senate Confirmation Authority

Posted on by

In a State Capitol environment rife with puerile debates, the most inane are those associated with confirmation of gubernatorial nominations to cabinet posts.

The State Senate pours too much blood, sweat, tears and time into confirmations. DFLers especially have used confirmations as a partisan bludgeon, rejecting Chris Georgacus in 1997, Steve Minn in 2000 (twice), Cheri Pierson Yecke in 2000, and Carol Molnau in 2008.   Republicans haven’t blocked as many because they have held the Governor’s office for so long, but they did return the favor in 2012 by rejecting DFLer Ellen Anderson.

These tit-for-tat games are a waste of time and largely inconsequential.  Usually, the nominees are just toyed with before being approved, but the toying itself expends too much legislative time and goodwill.  Even in the relatively rare instance when a nominee is rejected – usually due to political score-settling rather than the nominee being unqualified or corrupt — the Governor simply puts forward a new nominee who has the same basic policy positions as the rejected nominee.  The scene resembles a dog chasing its tail.

These confirmation debates represent the worst kind of scab picking in an institution that needs to heal key relationships in order to make more consequential policymaking possible.  Picked scabs leave lasting pain and scars that impact the long-term ability of our state government to reach constructive compromises.

In an era when the executive branch and legislative branch vigorously compete against each other like the Minnesota Vikings and the Green Bay Packers, the legislative confirmation authority is the functional equivalent of  the Packers possessing veto authority over which players the Vikings may have on their team.  A Governor from any party should be able to choose his own team, and immediately put them on the field without waiting for the approval from the other team.

So I have a simple reform proposal:  Stop it.  Stop requiring legislative approval of the Governor’s cabinet members.  Just stop it.

I know the confirmation requirement is traditional and legally mandated, but laws and traditions can be changed.  Minnesota’s future success is not dependent on the continuation of the confirmation process, but it is dependent on legislators not clawing each others eyes out over issues that simply don’t matter that much.

I did take a civics class a long time ago, so I realize there is a downside of this.  An imprudent Governor could choose a nominee who is grossly incompetent, inexperienced, and/or unethical.  That can happen.

But when it does happen, legislators have the ability to expose the Governor’s flawed nominee in the news media and campaigns, and let voters decide whether the nomination bothers them enough to take it out on the Governor and his party at the ballot box.  Yes, legislative confirmations are a check on gubernatorial power.  But two checks on gubernatorial nominations already exist – freedom of speech and elections.  The third check – Senate confirmation votes — just isn’t needed.

Whatever small benefits confirmations may have are dwarfed by the substantial wear and tear they put on policymaker relationships.  Ending gubernatorial nomination confirmations certainly won’t stop bloodshed at the Capitol.  But it will stop one of the more trifling reasons for bloodshed.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured by MinnPost Blog Cabin and Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs.”

Rep. Kline To Be Deported By Immigration Reform-Supporting Minnesotans?

Posted on by

A new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey finds that Minnesota Congressman John Kline could be deported from Congress by Minnesotans if he and his Republican caucus continue to obstruct the immigration reform package recently passed by the U.S. Senate.

Almost 7 out of every 10 (69%) Minnesota voters living in Kline’s congressional district support the immigration reform proposal.  By more than a 2-to-1 margin, those Minnesotans say Klein’s blocking of this set of reforms would make them less likely to support him in his upcoming reelection bid (44% less likely to support Kline if he opposes immigration reform versus 19% more likely to support him).

PPP surveyed a representative sample of Americans in seven congressional districts, including districts in California, Colorado, Nevada, and New York.   Among those seven districts, the support for the package was strongest in the Minnesota 2nd congressional district that Kline currently represents.

– Loveland

Political Cliches on Amobarital

Posted on by

I suppose it’s a cliché to point out that politicians speak in  clichés.   Their wall-to-wall use of bromides to mask deeper political truths has made political news conferences and speeches a rhetorical wasteland.  Everyone can finish the sentences of the politician speaking:

“We must grow the _______.”

“We must invest in the _____.”

“Our greatest natural resource is our ______.”

“Economy,” “future” and “people/children,” right?  No wonder the masses only perk up for scandals.  They spice up an  utterly predictable political discourse.

To cut through the cliches and learn what politicians really think, what if we snuck a little amobarbital — sometimes used as a “truth serum” to obtain information from those who are unable or unwilling to tell the truth — into the water bottles at the podium of State Capitol news conferences? The first sentence or two would be the predictable, carefully focus-grouped political clichés.  But then, bam, it’s amobarital time, baby!

“It’s time for the Legislature to do what ordinary Minnesota families do when they encounter difficult financial times.  Mom and dad gather around the kitchen table, they thoughtfully review their household finances, and they have tough conversations about how they could cut the family budget to make ends meet.

(Amobarital kicks in)

But then most of those dads and moms say “screw it” and run up their high interest credit cards instead.   After all, that’s why the Federal Reserve reports that consumer debt is at an all time high of $2.75 TRILLION.  So whatever the Legislature does, it should not, I repeat, NOT act like those ordinary Minnesota moms and dads grappling with their financial future at the good old kitchen table.”

For the record, State Capitol Police Force, I understand that drugging elected officials would be an ill-advised and felonious act that I am not seriously contemplating or encouraging.  But a boy can dream, can’t he?

– Loveland

DisHonourable

Posted on by

Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Honour has a surname that sounds as if it was fabricated by a team of political consultants.  What, “Bob Dignity” wasn’t available to run for governor?

I don’t know a lot about Mr. Honour’s pre-political life, but from what he has published on his website biography, he sounds like a pleasant chap and a capable business person.

But so far, his performance since becoming a politician does not live up to the expectations set by his surname.

Mr. Honour has been busy making the case that Minnesota state government spending is out-of-control.  For instance, this campaign video claims:

“Did you know that our state is spending over twice as much per citizen as when I graduated from high school in 1984?  It sure doesn’t feel like we’re getting twice as much value for our money.”

That’s a potent political statement.  But is it an honorable statement?  A truly honorable leader would acknowledge that the median household income when Mr. Honour graduated from high school in 1984 was $22,415.00, while in February 2013 median household income had grown to $51,404, more than twice as high as it was in 1984.

As a successful businessperson, Mr. Honour surely understands that as household incomes have more than doubled between 1984 and 2013, the cost of just about everything else, including the major things government has to purchase – medical care, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, energy, asphalt, private and public sarlaries, technology, real estate, construction materials, etc. — have also gotten dramatically more expensive.  He is a bright and experienced enough businessperson to understand that economic reality, but he is not honorable enough to publicly acknowledge it.

So what’s the truth about state government spending in Minnesota.  A thoughtful and thorough Minnesota 2020 analysis recently found:

Adjusted for inflation, accounting shifts, state takeovers, and the tobacco bond sale, Minnesota is spending about $5.2 billion less (in 2012-13 dollars) than it was a decade ago. That’s roughly $730 less per capita, or an 18 percent decline in state expenditures.

Claims of rapid state spending growth are based on comparisons that fail to account for inflation, population, school funding shifts, and other one-time events that distort spending over time.

If legislature implements Governor Dayton’s current budget plan, by FY 2016-17 Minnesota’s adjusted per capita spending would still be $500 less than it was a decade ago (FY 2002-03).

Continue reading →