Category Archives: Poltiics

News Flash: Candidate Announces a Running Mate…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted on by

KuisleIn recent years, it feels like the quantity of political reporting in daily newspapers has dropped off.  Whether a function of smaller newsrooms, editors who believe the public wants less political coverage, editors who are gun shy about provocative political topics, or something else, there just seems to be less political coverage.

Political reporters do still cover the most predictable, scripted and formal of political events — candidacy filings and announcements, campaign finance filings, party endorsement events, and running mate announcements.   For the most part, the public snores through all of this formulaic coverage of predictable events.

Case in point:  Today’s Star Tribune carried a fairly in-depth article about Hennepin County Commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson picking Guy I’ve Never Heard Of as his Lieutenant Governor running mate.   In this article, we are earnestly briefed about the selection of someone who almost certainly won’t impact the outcome of the gubernatorial race, and almost certainly wouldn’t have substantive duties if he somehow beat the odds and actually got the job.

What is even better is that we can look forward to this kind of scintillating “candidate chooses running mate” coverage for each of the multitudes of candidates in the gubernatorial race.  Spoiler alert:  Each candidate will be picking someone brilliant who is “balancing their ticket” in some fashion.

Meanwhile, more important and interesting things go uncovered or undercovered.

  • When congressional candidate and big box store heir Stuart Mills III airs a TV ad portraying himself a self-made man who treats his workers well, there is no newspaper  probing of those two claims.
  • When Senator Al Franken films an ad implying he has been working overtime to help small businesses get high skilled workers, there is no probing of the veracity of that claim.
  • When shadowy independent expenditure groups’ attack ads are aired, there is too little work put into trying to learn about the financial backing for the ads, and whether the groups’ claims are based in fact.
  • When Candidate A criticizes Policy X while refusing to offer a detailed alternative, there is too little exposing that act of political cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

These are shadowy areas where savvy, sleuthing political reporters could actually shed light.  But when political operatives figure out that lying and hiding won’t get exposed, guess what, lying and hiding proliferates.  When that happens, our democracy gets weaker.

I hope this isn’t an either/or issue.  Maybe there still is enough capacity in newsrooms and column inches in newspapers to cover both the formulaic stories and the more probing stories.  That would be ideal.  But if there no longer is enough journalistic capacity for both types of coverage, our democracy needs the latter much more than it needs the former.

– Loveland

Stewart Mills’ Ad On Truth Serum

Posted on by

This is the script of a political ad that was recently released by conservative Republican Stewart Mills III, who is running against DFL Congressman Rick Nolan in Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District.  The ad shows young Stew the third sporting the orange shirt worn by front line employees at the Mills Fleet Farm chain of big box stores that his family operates.

I’m Stuart Mills.  My family operates Mills Fleet Farm.

As a teenager, I worked here stocking shelves.  (chuckle)  Then I got promoted to mopping floors.

Now I run the health care program for thousands of our employees and their families.

Everyday, I see how Obamacare hurts small businesses and the middle class.

As your congressman, I’ll replace it.

I’m Stewart Mills and I approve this message, because we need to grow the middle class and get Minnesota back to work.

Stewart_Mills_III_orange_shirt

If Stew the third were injected with truth serum, the ad might sound more like this:

I’m Stewart Mills the third.  My family operates Mills Fleet Farm.

As a teenager, I worked there stocking shelves.  (chuckle)  Then I said,  screw this, daddy, make me a top executive faster than everyone else.  And he did.

In other words, I was born on third base, but think I hit a triple.

Now I’m fighting to protect my millions of dollars in inherited wealth.

But every day in Minnesota I see how 350,000 minimum wage workers have gotten a raise, 95,000 have new Medicaid coverage, and 2.3 million with pre-existing conditions have gotten their coverage protected through Obamacare.

As your congressman, I would oppose those things, and  offer no alternatives.

I’m Stewart Mills III, and a bunch of other folks with inherited wealth approve of this message, because they want a fellow silver spooner growing the upper class and putting ordinary Minnesotans back in their place.

 

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

Legislative Pay Commission: Where Have We Heard That Before?

Posted on by

moses_mt__sinaiRegular readers – happy Mother’s Day mom – may remember that on December 12, 2012, during a 40-day, 40-night junket to Mt. Sinai, Wry Wing Politics heard a voice telling it:

…we pay the folks who make our laws, struggle with our most controversial societal issues, and manage billions of our hard earned tax dollars substantially less than we pay the average sewage worker ($37,000/year), clown ($38,000/year), mall cop ($45,000/year), social worker ($40,000/year), and garbage collector ($43,000/year).

Minnesota’s legislative salaries are set by the Legislature.  Obviously, legislators don’t keep their salaries at $31,141 because they think it’s the correct level to draw the best people.  They do it because they realize that raising their own salary brings the voters’ wrath.  Their salary-related decisionmaking is driven by fear, not an objective market assessment.

This is an area that is ripe for reform.  …there must be a way to take legislator salary-setting away from legislators, and stop all of this destructive self-flagellation.

WWP then delivereth stone pixel tablets authoritatively declaring:

Maybe legislators could authorize some kind of independent Legislative Salary Commission to set salaries.

Confronted with the profound wisdom embodied in said stone pixel tablets, legislators saweth the light, and yesterday passed legislation to put on the ballot a state constitutional amendment spinfully titled “Remove Lawmakers’ Power to Set Their Own Pay.”

If ultimately embraced by the Senate and Governor, the ballot measure would ask voters whether the Minnesota Constitution should “be amended to remove state lawmakers’ power to set their own salaries, and instead establish an independent, citizens-only council to prescribe salaries for lawmakers?”

Blogging doesn’t pay much, but the whole omnipotence thing doesn’t suck.

Will Progressives Step Up To Support An Unapologetic “Class Warrior?”

Posted on by

class_warfare_buffet_quoteFor the last several years, too many political debates have gone roughly like this:

A progressive pol points out the obvious, that wealth is getting too concentrated, and that the wealthy donors are controlling the political system as a means to accumulate still more wealth.

Then, conservatives, moderates and conservative-controlled news outlets cry in unison “Class warfare,” and “both sides do it.”

Then, the progressive politician timidly drops the subject, and agrees to their risk averse consultants’ demands that they henceforth sugar coat their campaign rhetoric.

This familiar scenario has played out hundreds of times over many decades, and that is why the United States now has the most unequal distribution of wealth of any advanced economy in the world.

Let that fact sink in for a moment.  The home of the American dream now has the most unequal distribution of wealth of any advanced economy in the world.  Is that really okay with us?

It’s not okay with South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate Rick Weiland.  He looks to be a rare exception to the rule of political cowardice in the face of, gasp, “class warfare” accusations.

From the beginning, Weiland’s “Take It Back” campaign has been focused on battling the influence of big money.  For instance, he has said that the first bill he will introduce in Congress will be a constitutional amendment to limit campaign donations and spending.  The language of the amendment specifically calls out the need to limit the excessive influence of the wealthy.

This is not okay with the blog Constant Commoner, which is a more thoughtful than most conservative blog in South Dakota.  In a piece titled “The Problem With Prairie Populism, Rick Weiland Style,” the Commoner recently shot this across candidate Weiland’s bow.

Where Weiland’s message is out-of-synch with reality is the way it lumps wealthy interests into some sort of monolithic, unified political juggernaut bent on making life miserable for ordinary Americans.  This actually is way off the mark. The politics of big money simply don’t congeal that way.   CNBC’s Robert Frank writes a nice critique and analysis of the study I reference and calls attention to the fact that for every right wing rich guy promoting schemes that Democrats abhor, there’s probably a wealthy leftie advocating the opposite. As Frank notes, for every Koch there’s a Buffett.

Historically, this is the point when progressive politicians would always obediently slink back to the mushy middle of American politics, like a scolded lapdog who had been caught pissing the Persian rug.  But Weiland didn’t do that.  Instead, he went right back onto the  blogger’s home turf to politely but assertively call bullshit:

Warren Buffet understands big money’s total triumph in public argumentation perfectly when he says, “There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

I’m sure Mr. Buffet has met Mr. Soros, and knows full well of the wide range of opinions within the billionaires club.  But Mr. Buffet also understands the bottom line, and knows that the actual, factual distribution of wealth is the bottom line.

I agree with Warren Buffet.  I believe the bottom line proves that the “big money” big foot against which I am campaigning hard not only exists, but is the fundamentally incorrect and unfair set of policy assumptions which must be slain before we can hope to right our course.

It is not true that the right to buy politicians is big monies free speech right.

It is not true that granting tax free status to offshore profits, and billionaires grand kids piggy banks, or bundling bad mortgages, helps spur productive economic growth.

The results of these untruths, propagated by our refusal to challenge the ascendant political myths of big money, are stunting our economy and defrauding our middle class.

Like Seymour’s plant in Little Shop of Horrors, their myths have been allowed to grow unchecked for far too long, and they must be pruned.

That is why I am campaigning against “big money.”

I’ve been waiting for a long time to see a courageous politician under pressure from the defenders of the status quo reply: “Class warfare? Hell yes I’m engaging in class warfare, on behalf of 99% of the rest of us!”

Everywhere_Man_-_YouTubeToday I saw it, and it was said exceptionally well.  Weiland is not only an unapologetic “class warrior,” but his campaign carries the optimistic tone of a “happy warrior,” in the tradition of Minnesota’s happy warrior Hubert Humphrey.

Finally, here’s a gritty leader who has a strong enough spine to declare himself an unrepentant class warrior, and he’s doing it in a wicked tough environment – a deep red state versus a billionaire-backed conservative Governor.  If  progressives around the country don’t step up to financially support this kind of progressive eloquence and courage under political fire, and instead continue to fund the same old milquetoast  timidity they have for decades, well, then they deserve what they have been getting from Congress.

– Loveland

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile comedian Al Franken is here to tell us:

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

Rimshot.

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

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

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

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

– Loveland

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

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Billionaire Purchases Naming Rights To Uninsured South Dakotans

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does Ortman Really Think About Palin Endorsement?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Loveland

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

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.

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was republished in Minnpost.

Franken and Dayton Approval Ratings: A Tale of Two Headlines

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.

Long Live The Same Rowdy Crowd

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Loveland

Would Vikings Have Doubled Down On Priefer If Accused Of Racial Slurs?

Posted on by

Al_Campanis_Nightline-2When Los Angles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis said black players “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager,” he was quickly fired.

When Minnesota Vikings punting coach Mike Priefer was accused of saying something much more violent and radical about gay people, the Vikings gave him a vote of confidence before the issue was properly investigated.

That’s messed up.

Imagine if a Minnesota Twins pitcher accused pitching coach Rick Anderson of saying the things Priefer is accused of saying:

“Coach Anderson would ask me if I had been defending the black people recently and denounce as disgusting the idea that a mixed race couple would kiss, and he would constantly belittle or demean any idea of acceptance or tolerance.

Another time, Coach Anderson made a joking remark about me leading the Martin Luther King Day parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Coach Anderson, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: “We should round up all the black people, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.”

Would the Minnesota Twins shrug off such an accusation?  Would they announce him as their guy for next year before an investigation was completed?  Not a chance.

Watching this, you have to conclude that there is an ugly double standard at work here.  It is  much more acceptable to use gay hate speech in the professional sports world than racial hate speech.

To be clear, I’m not concluding that Coach Priefer is guilty.  The matter needs to be fairly investigated.  But giving the accused a professional vote of confidence in the midst of the investigation is a boneheaded PR move. Worse than that, it is an act of its own form of institutional bigotry.

Here is what I keep asking myself:  If Mr. Kluwe made up this story, why wouldn’t he fabricate a story where there are no witnesses and evidence involved, so he wouldn’t be forced to produce witnesses and evidence?  Because there are claims of witnesses and text messages, at this stage Kluwe’s charge can’t be prematurely dismissed as obviously groundless.

Again, there is a double standard at play here.  If Coach Priefer had allegedly castigated Kluwe for marching in a Martin Luther King parade, the Vikings would have taken this much more seriously.   If Priefer were accused of saying that  people with black skin should be murdered en masse, the Vikings would not have announced yesterday that they were doubling down on him.

There was a time when spewing racial hate speech was much more acceptable among professional sports coaches.  No more.  But with gay speech, we clearly have a ways to go.

– Loveland

A New Nickname For Minnesota’s New Stadium

Posted on by

The_Dome_Deflated-3The stadium formerly known as Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome” (MOAF@HHHM) obviously screamed out for shorthand, or a nickname.  So most of us just called it “The Dome,” much to the chagrin of the MOAF@HHHM brand managers.

“The Dome” was a bite-sized and descriptive label, so it worked better for ordinary people. “Metrodome,” “Thunderdome,” or “Homerdome” were occasionally in the mix, but usually it was simply “The Dome.”

But now that “The Dome” has been popped in spectacularly anticlimactic fashion, stadium officials are focusing on naming the replacement.   The corporate auction over naming rights probably will lead to a name that will be a mouthful, and therefore probably will be replaced by the masses with a new nickname.

Vikings_Stadium-2So what will we use as a shorthand reference for our new sports palace?  I’m hoping the nickname will be derived from the nature of the structure itself, as “The Dome” was.  When the shorthand is derived from the corporate name –  see “the bank” and “TCF Bank Stadium” – that strikes me as selling out to The Man.  Taxpayers paid significantly more to finance the stadium than the corporate sponsor, so I hate for the nickname to give the suits all the credit.

Like “The Dome,” the new nickname should be 1) concise and simple and 2) descriptive of a differentiating feature of the building.  Here are few options to spark  community brainstorming:

  • The Ship.  We’re told the architects were going for a Viking ship look with their design.  Therefore, calling the stadium “The Ship” could help architecturally challenged citizens like me appreciate the method behind the madness.  The park to the west then could be the Ship Yard, The Dock, or something corny like that.  To get more authentic, we could call it the Knarr, Karve, or Faerring.  But that’s probably too Scandi-geeky, even for Minnesota.
  • The Hipsterdome.  Minneapolis hipsters can’t like anything that the masses like, such as pro football stadia.  If they sided with the masses, they wouldn’t be hipsters.  However, if the non-hipster masses express disapproval for the controversial modernist design,  hipster contrarians would feel compelled to embrace it to show that they alone can see the genius in the design.  In that case, “Hipsterdome” would give Minneapolis hipsters ownership, or blame, depending on your opinion of the design.
  • The Oops.  I kind of like the unusual design, but I’m not sure it’s beautiful.  It’s asymmetrical form is reminiscent of everyone’s first “oops” pottery project.   It’s misshapen and lopsided, but, doggone it, it’s our misshapen and lopsided.  For some, dubbing it “The Oops” would represent a celebration of the beauty of bold non-conformity.  For others, “The Oops” would serve as a populist critique of the fancy pants architect, who clearly is “not from here.”
  • The Cheeseball.  Get it?  You know, because it looks like a cheeseball after the  guests have hacked it up?   You seriously don’t see that??!
  • The Sunporch.  Our new stadium will have the largest transparent roof in the world, and the largest casement windows in the world.  In other words, the Wilfs are constructing  the world’s largest sunporch.  You know, one of those pre-fab transparent porches that are always tempting pale, Vitamin D-deprived Minnesotans at the Home Shows?  In the middle of a brutal winter, what midwesterner doesn’t want to spend time battling Seasonal Affective Disorder in “The Sunporch?”
  • The Artless Museum.  The Vikings stadium design seems derivative of the Weisman Art Musem and Walker Art Museum, so “The Artless Museum” would help people understand the differentiation among those three buildings. That is, this is the chunky building that contains no art.   “The Artless Museum” also would serve as commentary on the quality of the home team on permanent display.
  • The Rohrschach.  If you asked 100 Minnesotans what this amorphous new stadium  looks like, you might get 100 more different answers.  So rather than having a nickname that forces a single interpretation on everyone, maybe we should nickname it after the psychological inkblot test that allows for an unlimited number of interpretations.
  • The AntiDome.   It’s the AntiDome because the jagged, asymmetrical shape is the polar opposite of the smooth, symmetrical Dome.  It’s the AntiDome because it overcomes the things we hated about the Dome – the drabness, the frumpyness, and the shabby amenities.   The Dome is dead, long live the AntiDome.

Ok, maybe I’m not entirely serious about all of these options.  If you think you can do better, add your voice.  Like it or not, with a community project as prominent and distinctive as this one, nicknaming will happen.  So how about we give it some collective thought?

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured in streets.mn, Twin Cities Daily Planet, and Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

MNsure Ads: 10,000 Reasons We Already Know About

Posted on by

paul_bunyan_mnsure_tree-2For about five months now, MNsure ads have repeatedly told us:  “Minnesota is the land of 10,000 reasons to get health insurance.”  To educate us of this fact, the ads have portrayed a variety of health calamidies befalling Minnesota icon Paul Bunyan.  Incidents involving crushed private parts are particularly popular.

MNsure’s ad agency seems convinced that as soon as Minnesotans understand that they could face Bunyan-esque health problems without health insurance, they will surf on over to mnsure.com.  But at this stage of the game, that message isn’t sufficient.  Repeatedly telling Minnesotans that  coverage brings treatments is like telling us that parkas bring warmth.  We get that.  If Minnesotans somehow didn’t know that self-evident fact before the MNsure ads, they darn sure do five months into the multi-million dollar campaign.

So how about we share some motivating information that many DON’T know?

Sharing New News About MNsure

For example, the ads could tell Minnesotans that if they don’t get coverage by March 31st, they have to pay a large government penalty.   That would seem to be a pretty motivating piece of information, and research shows that about a third of the population doesn’t know about the penalty, and 8 out of 10 don’t know about the deadline.

Or the ads could explain how health coverage has never been more affordable for thousands of Minnesotans.  That also would seem to be a pretty motivating fact, yet research shows that a whopping 69% of Americans don’t know about new premium tax credits and other financial assistance.  Among the young  people who are so key to making the Obamacare risk pools stable, awareness about financial assistance is even lower.

Minnesota has a particularly good story to tell on the affordability front, because MNsure is offering the lowest premiums in the nation.  So, why isn’t MNsure telling that story?

“Newly affordable” and “mandatory a few weeks from now” are messages that are motivating and new news.  And as far as I can tell, they are missing from MNsure’s current ads.

Bye Bye Bunyan

So it’s time to retire the sophomoric Paul Bunyan hilarity.  As MNsure enters the home stretch toward the March 31st deadline, it should switch to  a much more utilitarian message.  Rough example:

Young adult:

Why did I use MnSURE to get health coverage?   Not because I think buying insurance is fun.  It’s no more fun than buying car insurance, which I also have to do.

No, I did it to avoid  a double hit.

First I did it to avoid a looming government penalty.  If you haven’t heard, there is a big penalty that kicks in March 31 for anyone who isn’t covered.  And it gets bigger over time.

Second, I did it to avoid the crippling medical bills that can come from being uninsured.

And the good news is, getting coverage on MNsure was more affordable than I expected.   Minnesota’s MNsure site offers the lowest average premiums of any state, and over two-thirds of the uninsured are eligible for help to make coverage more affordable.

So, no missed deadline.  No penalty.  No medical bankruptcy.  And more affordable than I expected. www.mnsure.com

I’m not an ad copy writer, so someone can write a much better ad than this.  But you get the general idea.

When the MNsure ads launched in September 2013, the light approach maybe made sense.  Five months later, WE GET THE JOKE ALREADY.  Now it’s time for MNsure to tell Minnesotans some things they don’t already know.

– Loveland

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

Why Minnesota Might Be Planning TOO MUCH Road Expansion

Posted on by

MnSHIP_cover-2The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released a new 20-year plan in December 2013 – the Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP).  Spoiler alert:  MnSHIP says we need more money to build more road capacity.

MnSHIP says much more than that, but adding road capacity is a central theme, as has been the case for many years with such long-range plans.  At first blush,  the call for increased road capacity seems like the most unassailable part of the plan.  After all, Minnesota’s population is expected to increase over the next 20 years.

But the call for additional road capacity could ultimately turn out to be the most flawed part of the plan.   Here’s why:  One term you won’t see in MnSHIP is “driverless car.”

Are Driverless Cars Feasible?

When I was a lad, the science fiction cartoon The Jetsons offered  the dream of flying personal vehicles, which, alas, have not materialized.  That has made many of us skeptical about subsequent predictions about revolutionary transportation technology, such as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and driverless vehicles.

Google_driverless_care_on_street-2But driverless cars are far less speculative that flying cars.  Google, one of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, has been investing heavily in a driverless car.  Their test vehicle has logged over half a million miles, and it has never had an accident while the computer was driving.

Based on their tests to date, Google founder Sergey Brin predicts that Google will have autonomous cars available for the general public by 2017.   Again, this isn’t some penniless, garage-based tinkerer expressing his utopian pipe dream.  This is the founder of a company bringing in almost $15 billion in revenue per year.  This is someone who has already produced a prototype that is successfully operating on the streets and has been legalized for use in California, Florida and Nevada.

Beyond Google, just about every major auto manufacturer is engaged in developing this technology.  If Google doesn’t nail the driverless car assignment, one of their well-resourced and experienced competitors might.

Model_T_bad_roads-2Ignoring driverless cars in a 20-year transportation plan beginning in 2013 plan may turn out to be akin to ignoring horseless carriages in a 20-year transportation plan written in 1903.  Ford Motor Company was founded in 1903, and by 1923 Ford was flooding 2,000,000 Model T cars per year onto an overwhelmed infrastructure.

Consumer Buy-In?

But will consumers really surrender control of their vehicles to a computer?  In 2017, the first year Google predicts that driverless cars will be available to consumers, we won’t see mass consumer buy-in.  It will take time for the skeptical masses to observe the early adaptors.  But within the 20-year sweep of the MnSHIP era, broader consumer buy-in is certainly a distinct possibility.

Google_driverless_car-2Safety Advantages.   Driverless vehicles could offer consumers significant advantages.  Any life insurance underwriter can tell you that driving is one of the most dangerous tasks any of us regularly undertake, and driverless vehicles offer the hope of vastly improved safety.    Though human egos makes us skeptical of this truth, computer drivers have the capacity to be much more attentive, reliable and quick to react to danger than even the most skilled human drivers.  In this way, the computers have the potential to keep us safer than human drivers can.

Time-Saving Advantages.  Driverless cars also can offer us more of life’s most precious and limited commodity — time.  Distance sensors and computers allow computer-driven vehicles to safely follow each other at much closer distances and higher speeds than human-driven cars, making for shorter, less congested and less stressful trips.

If driverless cars can supply Americans with more time, less stress, lower insurance rates, and less death and suffering, consumers will demand it.  If policymakers further stimulate such consumer demand with incentives, such as tax breaks or dedicated lanes that offer faster and safer service, the revolution could happen even more quickly.

“Game Changer”

At first blush, the dawn of the driverless car era doesn’t seem to have implications for a transportation plan like MnSHIP.  After all, we would still need roads for those driverless vehicles, right?

While we would still need roads in the era of driverless cars, we might need much less road capacity, and different kinds of road capacity.

Both because of fewer crashes and  vehicles that can follow each other more closely at higher speeds, we might need much less road capacity to serve travel demand.   How much less?  Patcharinee Tientrakool of Columbia University estimates that autonomous vehicles could improve capacity by 43%.  Driverless vehicles that can coordinate with other driverless vehicles would increase capacity by 273%.

Adeel Lari, a transportation expert and former MnDOT leader who is now at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, points out that in the 1960s traffic engineers were taught that highway capacity maxed out at around 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour.  With improved traffic management methods and technology, Lari and his MnDOT colleagues later found they could briefly push capacity as high as 2,600 vehicles per lane per hour.

Temporarily moving from 2,000 to 2,600 vehicles per lane per hour was a huge improvement.  But driverless cars could push capacity to a jaw-dropping 6,000 vehicles per lane per hour or higher, which Lari calls a “game changer.”

Transportation Planning Implications

For MnDOT, here’s how “the game” could rapidly change:

  • Less Road Capacity?  Minnesotans might need much less road capacity at a much lower taxpayer cost.
  • Narrower Lanes?  We also might be able to use narrower lanes, since driverless cars could reliably navigate tight spaces, and squeeze more vehicles through choke points in the process.
  • Dedicated Lanes?   In the interim period when both human drivers and computer drivers are sharing the roads, it might make sense to have dedicated lanes for driverless vehicles, to keep them safe from more erratic and less skilled human drivers.
  • More sprawl?  If driverless cars allow for shorter and less stressful trips,  people may  feel free to move further away from their jobs and other destinations.  If they do, the increased sprawl would impact infrastructure needs.
  • Gas Tax Alternative?  Safer driverless vehicles might be able to be much lighter, and therefore be more fuel efficient.  Additionally, less stop-and-go traffic would also save fuel.  While these changes would be good for the environment and energy security, they also would mean less gas tax revenue available for maintaining and retrofitting the transportation infrastructure.

These are just a few of the kinds of issues transportation leaders should be analyzing. Land use planners have their own set of issues to analyze.

MnDOT, and its MnSHIP collaborators at the Met Council, are wise not to construct MnSHIP on an assumption that mass use of driverless vehicles is imminent.  I’m not naive about all the variables that could delay or stop the successful development and deployment of this technology, or the public acceptance of it.

But in a 20-year plan, it is an oversight to ignore the potential implications of an issue as distinctly possible as driverless vehicles.  MnSHIP should call on MnDOT and Met Council leaders to closely monitor and analyze the pace of driverless vehicle development, and consumer buy-in, so they could, if necessary, swiftly adjust their plans to fit a newly emerging reality.   After all, the transition to driverless cars will be no time for vision-less planning.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also republished in MinnPost and streets.mn.

Vikings Should Investigate Priefer Bigotry Charges Before Making Him Head Coach

Posted on by

Chris_KleweLast year I wrote a blog post asking the question “Is Chris Klewe Getting A Same Sex Divorce?”  I asked whether the Vikings punter, who had the best punting statistics in Vikings history according to KFAN Vikings analyst Paul Allen, was replaced by a Vikings coach who opposes same sex marriage because of his vocal support for same-sex marriage.

But whatever the real reason(s) for Mr. Klewe’s firing, new information shared by Klewe may need to be factored into the Vikings’ pending decision about its next Head Coach.

In a lengthy Huffington Post piece released today, Klewe shared several stories of allegedly disgusting encounters with his Special Teams Coach Mike Priefer, who is reportedly the leading internal candidate to replace Leslie Frazier as Vikings Head Coach.  Klewe claimed Priefer’s tone changed after Klewe starting speaking out for gay rights:

Throughout the months of September, October, and November, Minnesota Vikings special-teams coordinator Mike Priefer would use homophobic language in my presence. He had not done so during minicamps or fall camp that year, nor had he done so during the 2011 season. He would ask me if I had written any letters defending “the gays” recently and denounce as disgusting the idea that two men would kiss, and he would constantly belittle or demean any idea of acceptance or tolerance. I tried to laugh these off while also responding with the notion that perhaps they were human beings who deserved to be treated as human beings. Mike Priefer also said on multiple occasions that I would wind up burning in hell with the gays, and that the only truth was Jesus Christ and the Bible. He said all this in a semi-joking tone, and I responded in kind, as I felt a yelling match with my coach over human rights would greatly diminish my chances of remaining employed. I felt uncomfortable each time Mike Priefer said these things. After all, he was directly responsible for reviewing my job performance, but I hoped that after the vote concluded in Minnesota his behavior would taper off and eventually stop.

According to Klewe, all pretenses of joking went away as time went on:

Near the end of November, several teammates and I were walking into a specialist meeting with Coach Priefer. We were laughing over one of the recent articles I had written supporting same-sex marriage rights, and one of my teammates made a joking remark about me leading the Pride parade. As we sat down in our chairs, Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: “We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.” The room grew intensely quiet, and none of the players said a word for the rest of the meeting. The atmosphere was decidedly tense. I had never had an interaction that hostile with any of my teammates on this issue—some didn’t agree with me, but our conversations were always civil and respectful. Afterward, several told me that what Mike Priefer had said was “messed up.”

Messed up indeed.  If this account is accurate, Priefer has proven that he can’t separate his personal bigotry from his coaching job.  That’s a huge problem.

It will be very difficult to get players to publicly corroborate Klewe’s version of the stories, because current players obviously have every reason to avoid offending coaches who hold their multi-million dollar careers in their hands.  Special teams players especially tend to be “on the bubble” between being on and off the team.  Therefore, they will be particularly careful about what they say about the people who make decisions about final cuts.

But this is why I’m inclined to believe Mr. Klewe:  If Klewe were making this whole thing up, why he would be citing rants that happened in front of large groups of other players?  Love him or hate him, Klewe is a bright guy, and he could surely fabricate more bulletproof lies, such as tirades that he alone witnessed.

Reasonable football fans can disagree about whether Mr. Klewe should have been replaced as the Vikings punter.  In his piece, Klewe himself acknowledged that his high veteran salary and his age were likely contributory factors, in combination with his outspokenness.

But reasonable people should be able to agree that anyone who rants about killing an entire class of humans because of who they love should not be representing the State of Minnesota as the head coach of our most popular professional sports team, a team that is now being heavily subsidized by Minnesota taxpayers.

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf should be able to learn whether Klewe’s accounts are true.  Confidential one-on-one inquiries with other other special players who were at the meetings Klewe references should reveal the truth.  If Wilf finds that Klewe’s accounts about Priefer are true, or even half true, Priefer’s name should be immediately removed from the Vikings’ list of Head Coach candidates.

– Loveland

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.