Category Archives: Poltiics

Ballot Language Ruling Easily Could Come Back To Bite Minnesota GOP

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the GOP Legislature’s ballot wording for two proposed constitutional amendments, endzone-dancing Republican leaders should keep something in mind.

The Supremes did not rule in favor of the Republican Party.  They ruled in favor of the legislature branch.   Important difference.

Here is what the Court said:

The proper role for the judiciary, however, is not to second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches.

…

The Secretary of State exceeded his authority … when he provided titles different from those passed by the Legislature.”

Granted, that’s good news for Republicans this year, because they’re the ones currently controlling  the legislative “policy decisions” of which the Court speaks.

But in future years, the same ruling could easily turn out to be very bad news for Republicans.  After all, the way Minnesota’s long-term demographics are trending – with the most rapid population growth happening in demographic groups historically more supportive of DFL candidates – the prospect of permanent GOP control of the Legislature is far from certain.

Future DFL-controlled Legislatures, stinging from the constitutional word games Republicans have played during their leadership reign, could do something equally absurd, or even more absurd.

For instance, a DFL-controlled Legislature could propose a constitutional amendment to require an enormous tax on the wealthiest Minnesotans to finance, let’s say, vacation homes for DFL leaders, or something else completely reckless.  Furthermore, taking a page out of the GOP’ 2012 playbook, the DFL-controlled Legislature could then deceptively present this proposal to voters on their ballots in benign-sounding euphamisms:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to support fairness in housing financing in Minnesota, effective July 1, 2015?”

As I understand yesterday’s ruling, the Supremes wouldn’t overrule that kind of a hypothetical ballot wording scam.  Not their job.  I exaggerate in my example, for I am a blogger and exaggeration is what we do, but you get the general idea.

This is not a problem that is going to go away under the status quo approach to wording ballot questions.  The majority party in the Legislature will probably continue to play word games in their drafting, and, again, the majority party may not always be to Speaker Zellers’ liking.

A few days ago I proposed what seems to me to be a more fair way of drafting ballot questions.  Whether the reform comes off of my cocktail napkin, or from someone who actually knows what they’re doing, reform of the current ballot initiative drafting system is needed.   If Minnesota politicians are going to persist in continually trying to amend the State Constitution to tickle their political fancy — and it seems pretty certain that they are — we need to at least get the proposals described to voters clearly and fairly.

– Loveland

Beyond Duluth Flood, Minnesota Legislature Must Address Quieter Everyday Disasters

Posted on by

Last Friday, following the Minnesota Legislature’s passage of $160 million in flood relief for the Duluth area, House Speaker Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) was in full self-congratulatory mode about the body’s decisive bipartisan action to help Minnesotans in need:

“When bad things happen to people … the last thing you want is a bunch of politicians bickering in the Capitol.”

My goodness, no, we don’t want THAT!

But, Mr. Speaker, “bad things” aren’t limited to buckets of water falling from the sky on the Duluth area.

Every day, “bad things” quietly happen to ordinary Minnesotans.  Every day, Minnesotans go untreated, undertreated, homeless, unprotected, undereducated, abused, underemployed and unemployed because of “a bunch of politicians bickering at the Capitol.”

Those “bad things” are often due to events that, like Duluth’s storm of the century, are not the fault of the victim:  Being born into poverty.  Being born into an abusive or otherwise non-functioning family.  Having your job sent overseas, or eliminated due to a global financial meltdown.  Discovering a debilitating tumor or aneurysm.  Falling off a ladder, or getting in a disabling car crash.

And when Minnesotans face those “bad things,” your cutting of $7 billion in services over the last decade has made their catastrophes much worse, not better.

So, yes, I applaud Speaker Zellers and the Minnesota Legislature for not bickering at the Capitol last Friday when Minnesotans needed help to survive the spectacularly “bad things” that recently befell the great City of Duluth.

But please also remember that most of the emergencies in our state are much less visible than the recent Duluth drama.  Most Minnesota emergencies don’t lead our news.  But they are crises nonetheless, that crush hopes, dreams and lives nonetheless, that require disaster relief nonetheless.

– Loveland

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

Two Decades Of GOP Domination of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Finally Ends

Posted on by

The last time a Minnesota DFL Governor was able to appoint a State Supreme Court Justice, the Cold War was still officially underway.  Bill Clinton was an obscure Governor of a small state, a quixotic wannabe instead of an accomplished elder statesman.  Arnold Schwartzenegger was a cartoon character in The Terminator 2, instead of a disgraced former Governor. In fact, 1991 was so long ago that the Twins actually won a World Series that year, and something called the “Minnesota North Stars” was in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Twenty-one years is too long for any state to go with one party thoroughly controlling it’s State Supreme Court.  So, let’s celebrate Governor Dayton’s historic appointment of Minnesota’s first female African American Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, Wilhelmina Wright.  But let’s also celebrate the long overdue movement towards a return to balance in Minnesota’s judicial branch.

What if Romney Picked Bachmann To Be His Running Mate? He Did.

Posted on by

Congressman Paul Ryan comes across well.  He’s attractive, smiles a lot, wears the presidential uniform well, and has a ready string of impressive-sounding statistics on the tip of his tongue.

But beyond the candidate packaging, what does this guy stand for?

When trying to understand something new entering our lives, the natural tendency is to seek out a local point-of-reference.  For instance, when Minnesota Timberwolves fans recently asked “who the heck is Alexy Shved,” a player the Wolves’ brain trust acquired this summer, Wolves PR people explained “He’s the Russian Rubio,” referencing their talented point guard Ricky Rubio.

Whether or not the “Russian Rubio” description turns out to be an apt description of Shved’s ability and style of play, it connected with Minnesotans, because it took something unknown and linked it to something known.

So with the Russian Rubio example in mind, what’s the Minnesota parallel to Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

Since he’s a popular, moderate-feeling Republican, is he “the Wisconsin Jim Ramstad?”   Since the Beltway media often labels him a “serious” numbers guy, is he “the Wisconsin Arne Carlson?”

Try “the Wisconsin Michele Bachmann.” An analysis of congressional voting patterns by DW-Nominate found that Paul Ryan’s voting record is nearly identical to  Michele Bachmann’s, the local politician who most consistently embarrasses Minnesotans with her ideologically extreme positions.

(Incidentally, another analysis found that Ryan was the most extreme conservative vice presidential nominee — the furthest from the center — since at least 1900.)

Ryan’s tone may be less grating than Bachmann’s, but once you remove the packaging, his policies are almost identical to Michele Bachmann’s.  Paul Ryan is Michele Bachmann, just with more lip control and less lipstick.

Knowing that, ask yourself this question: “If Mitt Romney had chosen Michele Bachman for his running mate, would that make Minnesotans more or less likely to support Romney?”  Because, substantively, that is the question Romney has now effectively posed to Minnesotans, and Americans.

Though Michele Bachman continually gets reelected in one of the most conservative parts of Minnesota, she is remarkably unpopular with Minnesotans as a whole.  A January 2012 PPP survey found that only 34% of Minnesotans view her favorably, while 57% view her unfavorably.  She would get crushed by a whopping 23 points in a head-to-head race versus U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

In other words, Governor Mitt Romney just picked the ideological twin of one of Minnesota’s least popular figures to join his ticket.  Good luck selling that in Minnesota.

– Loveland

What A Pill: Parry the Puerile Pill Policeman Pops Off

Posted on by

Today, Republican congressional candidate Mike Parry charged that Governor Mark Dayton is “scary” because Parry supposedly witnessed the Governor taking 15 or 16 pills at a breakfast meeting.

Then the news cycle takes off:  Dayton says the claim is a lie.  Parry says that it may not have been that many pills, but doesn’t back off the rest of his statement.  The Star Tribune notes that Dayton takes anti-depression medication, and that Parry stopped short of calling the Governor a drug addict.

All of the sudden, the Governor has to deny he is a drug addict?

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You want to know what is truly “scary?”  It’s scary that anyone would even think to make the alleged taking of medication before a meal an issue.  Though the Governor says Parry’s story is not true, and we should take him at his word, SO WHAT if it was true?

Go ask some of your older friends and relatives how many pills – prescription, over the counter and supplements — they take every day.  You may very well hear a number that could be approaching 15, or could be mistaken by nosey onlookers as being in that range.

And you know what?  That makes them neither scary nor a drug addict.

I have a confession to make.  I too am “scary.”  Today, I took three fish oil capsules, a baby aspirin, a multivitamin, over-the-counter allergy medicine, and two types of prescription asthma medications.  If someone who hated me was watching me take my handful of daily meds, he might delude himself into believing that this handful of pills makes me a scarry drug addict.

Despite those eight medicines, I run about 20 miles per week, have healthy vital signs, and only am certifiably crazy when I hear about things like Mike Parry’s  accusation.

I suspect that the inneuendo game Parry is playing is to remind his fellow Dayton haters that Dayton, gasp, takes depression medication, something Dayton long ago disclosed, prior to be elected Governor.  I suspect that in Parry’s very small mind, taking depression medication somehow equates to “scary.”

But may I remind the wannabe Congressman that about 10% of the population – 27 million people – take depression medication, and the vast, vast majority of them function extremely well in their chosen fields.

Unless I’m missing something here, Mike Parry owes an apology to the Governor, the millions of people who are responsibly and effectively treating their depression and the millions more who take multiple medications per day to keep themselves healthy.

If Mr. Parry must worry about addiction, maybe he should worry about his own apparent addiction to childish personal cheapshots.

– Loveland

Twenty Debates? Oh No, Mr. Bills!

Posted on by

“Less is more,” minimalist designers tell us.  “The law of diminishing returns,” economists explain.

And so it goes with campaign debates.

Campaign debates serve a lot of important purposes for our democracy. They are a more efficient way to communicate with voters than door-knocking or pressing the flesh one clammy hand at a time.  They get candidates off-script, which captures rare moments of candor, humor, humanity, intelligence, stupidity and reality.  They cover more issues than ads, direct mail and other forms of political communications, which exposes candidates’ depth, or shallowness.

But clearly, there can be too much of a good thing.  In the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Dayton, Tom Horner, and Tom Emmer debated and debated, and debated some more.  They debated an eye-glazing 25 times.  Most of the debates ended up getting ignored by reporters, and just about everyone else, because they became complete and utter re-runs. I mean, even if you love Gilligan’s Island, and who amongst us does not,  the 25th time you see a re-run about Gilligan’s pedal powered bamboo car is significantly less riveting than the first 5 times.

As Washington University political scientist Steven Smith observed about the 2010 marathon debate-a-thon:

 “…there is a point of diminishing returns and I think in the Minnesota case we may have reached the point in the last month where there have been so many debates that the individual debates just don’t receive much attention.

Now in 2012, State Representative Kurt Bills wants to debate U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar 20 times over about 90 days.  This desire likely has less to do with Bills‘ love of debates than it does with the fact that his campaign is broke and having a difficult time delivering his oddball Wellstonian-libertarian fusion messaging.

Though Kloubachar is a bright and skilled debater, her campaign strategists would prefer to keep the popular incumbent in highly controlled settings until Election Day, to preserve her large lead.  Therefore, so far they have agreed to two debates.  For context, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman agreed to debate challenger Al Franken five times.

Somewhere between Kloubachar’s 2 and Bills’ 20 is a reasonable number.  I’d say the number is no higher than 10.

Here is my rationale:  Most of what is learned by undecided voters through debates is conveyed through news coverage.  After all, the people actually attending the debates, or monitoring them start-to-finish on TV or radio, are predominantly voters who made up their minds long ago.  So, when the news coverage stops, the debates pretty much stop yielding benefits for undecided voters.

Minnesota’s newsrooms continue to shrink dramatically, and are decreasingly willing to cover politics, particularly broadcast news outlets.   Given those unfortunate trends, I find it difficult to believe that the Minnesota’s press corps will give decent coverage to more than about 10 debates.

So, I’m all for debates.  And two is not enough.  But oh no, Mr. Bills, not 20.

– Loveland

 

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

A Better Way to Write Minnesota’s Ballot Questions?

Posted on by

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of the debate over the wording of Constitutional Amemdment summaries appearing on Minnesota ballots.   Secretary of State Ritchie’s wording seems significantly more clear and descriptive of the actual amendment content.  But I’m not sure if a Secretary of State has authority to change the language that the Legislature passes.  Soon, the Minnesota Supremes will clarity that question.

But regardless of what the justices say about authority, I wonder if there is a better way to draft clear and accurate ballot language in the future?

I have a rough idea that I recently developed over a few adult beverages.  What, you think the Founding Dads didn’t scribble on the occasional ale house napkin?

Anyway, here is my idea:  The Legislature and Governor could pass a statute to create a “Ballot Initiative Commission,” or some such proper sounding name. The Commission’s job would be to develop the wording of ballot summaries, which means neither the Legislature nor the Secretary of State would have drafting authority in the future.

Sample Commission details:  The Governor could appoint three members, and legislative leaders could appoint three members.  None of the members could be current elected officials or government employees, or have served as an elected official or government employee for the past 10 years.

To help get the focus on clarity, the first draft of the ballot language would be developed by whoever is the current head of the University of Minnesota’s Department of English.  The English Department Chair’s role would be advisory only.

The Commission could alter the draft however it collectively wanted.  There would need to be a majority vote of the Commission supporting the final wording before the language would be conveyed to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.  There would be deadlines to ensure they got their work done in a timely fashion.

The Commission’s wording obviously could still be challenged in the courts, as is happening now with the status quo system.  But the big change would be that the language would originate from this less partisan Commission that is structurally required to compromise, not elected officials in either the Legislature or the Secretary of State’s office, or their staffs.

I don’t feel especially strongly about the details of the proposal.  The pointy-heads at the Capitol can add all the “whereases,” “in lieu ofs” and “heretofores” they want.  The underlying principles are what matter:

REDUCE THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DRAFTING PROCESS.  Get ballot language drafting out of the hands of elected officials, who will always be tempted to be more concerned about partisan advantage than clarity or accuracy.   Instead, get the drafting into the hands of less partisan Minnesotans.

BAKE THE NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE INTO THE PROCESS.  Numerically speaking, structure the Commission so that the Legislature’s appointees can’t attain a majority without winning over at least one vote from a gubernatorial appointee, or vice versa.

PUT MORE INITIAL FOCUS ON CLARITY.  At least begin the process with a writer who is paid to be clear, not a writer who is paid to win elections.

A perfect process?  Of course, not.  Games would still be played.  But it would be much better than the current process that is currently in the throes of a messy food fight in the State Supreme Court.

Anyway, if anyone out there is interested, I think I still have the napkin.

– Loveland

 

This post was also featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Sponsor a Starving Minnesota Republican Party Leader Today

Posted on by

Just pennies per day.

That’s all it will take to sponsor a starving Minnesota Republican Party official suffering under the most brutal fundraising drought in years.

Drought conditions in the troubled land of AynRandia have reached catastrophic proportions.

  • Beluga sturgeon caviar at GOP fundraisers is being rationed with Death Panel-like barbarity.
  • Tri-corner hats for Tea Party rallies are in desperately short supply.
  • GOP leaders’ extramarital liaisons are having to take place at mere four-star hotels.

Relief workers in the front lines have described conditions as “horrific.” Continue reading →

Pawlenty and Romney Both Benefit from Third Party-Related Luck

Posted on by

In Minnesota, we know a little bit about the power of a third party to swing an election, even when the third party doesn’t reach double digits in electoral support.

After all, Tim Pawlenty never would have been a two-term Governor, and subsequently on the verge of being nominated to be a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world, without a lot of help from third parties.

In 2002, prominent DFL career politician Tim Penny won 16% of the electorate and Green Party Ken Pentel took another 2%.  That may be why Pawlenty was able to defeat DFLer Roger Moe 44% to 36%.   I’m not completely convinced about that, because Penny had more Republican appeal than a typical Democrat, but a former Democratic and Green candidate siphoning off 18% of the vote did look to be a net positive for Pawlenty.

In 2006, however, I’m convinced.  Third parties clearly prevented Pawlenty from being swept out of office.  Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson, who had served for years in prominent roles in DFL administrations, and Green Party candidate Ken Pentel combined to win 7% of the vote.  With DFLer Mike Hatch only losing to Pawlenty by 1%, 46% to 45%, Pawlenty clearly would have lost the 2006 race without Hutchinson and Pentel on the ballot.

University of Minnesota political scientist Larry Jacobs concurs with this conclusion in a recent Nation article:

“Both elections featured Independent candidates, which exit polls showed drew more votes from Democrats in close races,” says Jacobs. “I looked closely at the data and there’s no doubt that Independence Party candidates accounted for Pawlenty’s margin, particularly in his re-election (in 2006).”

All of which leads me to one of the most significant, and underreported, political developments of 2012, the quiet demise of the potentially game-changing third party Americans Elect.

Americans Elect was the national third party movement that was to choose its nominee via an Internet-based “convention” this June and place them on the ballot nationally.  It burst onto the political scene with fanfare, and the reform halo the news media tends to bestow upon third party movements.  As New York Times columnist and bestselling author Thomas Friedman breathlessly described Americans Elect:

              Make Way for the Radical Center

“What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

Such hyperbole aside, the Americans Elect movement was gaining momentum.  It was on the ballot in 28 states, including several swing states, such as Florida, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.  The party-hating party was starting to look like a serious force in American presidential politics.

But the Americans Elect revolution crumbled before it formally began.  Under Americans Elect rules, to win the nomination candidates had to first prove their viability by winning a minimum number of preliminary votes of support via a complex Internet voting system.  As it turned out, no candidate met the viability threshold.  So on May 15th, Americans Elect unceremoniously folded its e-tent, and will not have a nominee on any ballots after all.

Meaning, May 15th may turn out to be the luckiest day of Mitt Romney’s political life.

Here is why:  The candidates who were leading contenders to get the Americans Elect nomination were Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Republican Governor Buddy Roemer.  As I understand it, both Paul and Roemer supporters were fairly close to achieving the Americans Elect qualification requirements.  (The Roemer campaign maintains that website irregularities held him back.)

If either of those Republicans had gotten on the ballots as Americans Elect candidates in key swing states, it’s not hard to imagine that they could have impacted the outcome of the General Election in President Obama’s favor, even if the Americans Elect nominee’s level of support stalled in the single digits.

Both because Roemer and Paul are Republicans, and because the polls show that Republican Romney is not generating as much enthusiasm among his supporters as President Obama is, it would have been very bad news for Romney if Paul or Roemer had gotten their names on 28 state ballots.  Unenthusiastic Romney supporters would be tempted by a Republican-leaning third party alternative right now, and it wouldn’t take very many defectors to impact what is expected to be a razor thin race.

Because third parties are rarely a threat to win elections outright, it’s easy for pundits and political reporters to cavalierly dismiss their relevance.  But if you want to understand what a difference a third party winning “only 7%” of the vote can make, and what a huge bullet Mitt Romney dodged on May 15th, Minnesota’s Mike Hatch could explain it to you.

 

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

Missing: Kurt Bills

Posted on by

If anyone has seen this man, please notify the authorities immediately.  His name is Kurt Bills, and he has been missing since the moment in mid-May that he was endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party.

It is feared the man is squandering his donor’s money on bizarre, inscrutable ads that are invisible to the swing voters that he needs to win over in order to have any hope of defeating overwhelmingly popular U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

The man is likely dressed like Rod Sterling, muttering about the gold standard, and attempting to use “Minnesota Dollars” to purchase additional cryptic ads.

His Party is worried about him, and would appreciate any clues about his whereabouts.

Brodkorb Alleges Steamy Sexcapades, But Can He Prove It In Court?

Posted on by

Throughout the Senate Sexgate scandal, GOP former Minnesota Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb has been threatening to disclose the names of Senators and staffers who have had sexual relations with each other but were not fired for their behavior, as Brodkorb alleges he was.  The former author of “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” now is preparing to effectively author what could be called “Minnesota Fornicators Exposed.”

As a non-lawyer, my legal opinion is worth roughly as much as readers are paying for access to this blog.   But it would seem Brodkorb’s tell-all threat is a stronger negotiating weapon than  courtroom weapon.

As a negotiating tactic, Brodkorb’s disclosure threat probably caused many with lipstick on their collars to favor a prompt and generous settlement for Mr. Brodkorb.  Because in the court of public opinion, and the court of spousal opinion, such disclosures certainly would pack a punch.

But in the court of law, Brodkorb now has to PROVE the affairs actually happened, long after-the-fact.  Proving them could be difficult.  The DNA evidence is long gone, the parties to the porking may not be truthful, and the odds of there being eyewitnesses to any of the lustful legislative liaisons would seem slim.

Again, I don’t deny that threats about rumors were powerful motivators in settlement negotiations.  But in the court of law, Mr. Brodkorb now faces a burden of proof more rigorous than what is used in the blogosphere and Capitol hallway gossip sessions.

Anyway, if it looks like the Capitol Building’s Rotunda walls are a bit concave these days, it may be because so many the building’s inhabitants are collectively sucking in their breath.

Why Aren’t Minnesota Reporters Asking: ‘What the Frack Is Pawlenty Up To at Smart Sands?’

Posted on by

The new Bain of Tim Pawlenty’s existence is a corporation called Smart Sands.  Smart Sands provides Wisconsin sand for fracking,  a very controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground that potentially contaminates groundwater supplies and causes earthquakes.   Since Pawlenty’s political wells all went dry, Smart Sands has become his financial fracking gambit.  Pawlenty was named a Smart Sands Board of Director in June 2012.

While news outlets such as the Saint Paul Pioneer Press have noted that fracking is “increasingly controversial,” they haven’t asked the kinds of questions national reporters will ask if Pawlenty becomes Mitt Romney’s choice for the GOP vice presidential nomination:

  • How much is Smart Sands paying Pawlenty?
  • What major local, state and federal regulatory issues is SmartSands facing?
  • Has Pawlenty made any contacts to government officials on the company’s behalf?
  • Is the fracking industry subsidized through the tax code, or through other means?
  • Is Smart Sands involved in any controversies?
  • How is the safety record of Smart Sands, and fracking in general?
  • How is the environmental record of Smart Sands, and fracking in general?

Whether or not Pawlenty is chosen, Minnesotans and Wisconsinites derve to know what the frack Governor Pawlenty and Smart Sands are doing.

The NRA’s Political Silencer

Posted on by

“You’re using this tragedy to your political advantage.”

That’s the standard line used any time a politician discusses ways to reduce the odds of tragedies like the Batman massacre occurring.

It’s a very effective way to silence all debate, because no one wants to look like they’re insensitive to the victims. The NRA and its supporters know this, which is why they use this rhetorical weapon with AR-15-like speed and repetition. Continue reading →

Dayton: Even a Flat Tax Better Than Minnesota’s Current Regressive Tax System

Posted on by

Not so long ago, there was a strong national consensus in favor of progressive taxation.   In the 1980s, conservative Ronald Reagan was running around telling his followers:

 “We’re going to close some of the loopholes that allow some of the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.  In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable.  But in practice, they sometimes make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver is paying 10% of his salary, and that’s crazy.

…Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?

(Crowd:  “More!”)

That was then, but this is now.  Now, conservatives call conservative Reagan’s pro-progressive tax position “socialism” and “anti-American,” a sign of just how radicalized Republicans have gotten in their desperation to pander to conservative talk radio hosts, wealthy donors, and Tea Party primary challengers.

Among the most radical things that Republicans now push is a flat tax.  While a flat tax is attractive at first blush because it is simple compared to the maddeningly complex federal income tax, it is the polar opposite of the progressive income tax that Reagan championed.  While a progressive tax is designed to take a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals, the flat tax takes the same percentage from everyone, whether you are a bus driver or a billionaire.

As the Founding Father of the modern conservative movement said, “That’s crazy.”

Yesterday in a Minnesota Public Radio interview, Minnesota Governor Dayton made an interesting point on this subject.  When asked what kind of tax reform he favors, Dayton said:

 I still believe in a progressive income tax.  But I sure don’t believe in a regressive income tax, which is what we have now.  …Conservative Senator Rod Grams was always talking about a flat tax.  Well that would be an improvement in Minnesota!  We have less than that now.

Ponder that.  A flat tax – which embodies the radical anti-progressive notion that conservative icon Ronald Reagan not so long ago mocked as “crazy” to the delight of his conservative followers – actually would be an improvement over the regressive tax system that Minnesota currently has on the books today.

Millionaire Mark Dayton is often characterized, by opponents and even by mainstream reporters, as favoring a “soak the rich” ideology.  That’s a silly characterization, because what Dayton actually proposes is not to “soak” the wealthy.  What Dayton recommends is simply a return to the common sense notion of progressive taxation supported by a strong majority of Minnesotans, and even the founder of the modern conservative movement.

 – Loveland

Grover Norquist: Pawlenty Is “A Little Scott Walker”

Posted on by

Yesterday’s New York Times brings us an interesting quote about Minnesota’s favorite son candidate for the GOP veep nomination, former Governor Tim Pawlenty.

"A little Scott Walker"

Grover G. Norquist, who leads the group Americans for Tax Reform, said the full scope of Mr. Pawlenty’s record was strong, despite the tax increase. He pointed to his leadership on a 44-day transit strike in 2004, where he won a fight over compensation and retirement benefits.

‘He was a little Scott Walker before Scott Walker,’ Mr. Norquist said…”

The GOP primaries and caucuses are over, so hard core conservative voters are no longer Romney’s biggest need.  At a time when Republicans desperately need help winning over middle-of-the-road moderate Republicans and Independents, it’s not helpful for TPaw to be compared to a perhaps the most polarizing political figure in the Republican Party by one of the most polarizing conservative ideologues in the nation.

Why Aren’t Healthy, Wealthy and Wise Minnesotans Happier?

Posted on by

The news media loves state rankings and report cards.  A constant array of news stories continually lets states know how well they’re keeping up the with the Jones’s in their national neighborhood.

This coverage often leads to the vigorous debates between political activists and leaders about which ratings matter most?  Many conservatives prefer measures such as “best business climate,” “most free,” “most religious,” and “lowest taxes.”  Many liberals covet measures such as “healthiest,” “best educated,” “best quality of life,” or “best child wellness.”

Who is right?  Nobody and everybody, of course.  It depends on what each individual values most in life.

That’s why the ultimate state ranking is Gallup’s Life Evaluation Index, which measures the proportion of a state’s citizens that self-report that they are “thriving.” I like this measure, because it focuses on happiness bottom lines, not the variables that research designers speculate are the ingredients for happiness. Continue reading →

For 30th Time, Bachman and the Gang Misread Obamacare Public Opinion

Posted on by

When it comes to Obamacare, Minnesota Congressman Michele Bachman could not be more certain that she has public opinion behind her.  For instance, in her latest broadside, she signed a letter to all 50 Governors urging them to avoiding implementing Obamacare insurance exchanges to help Americans obtain affordable coverage, Bachman cited an oft repeated myth:

I urge all Governors to let Congress finish the job the American people sent us to do, to fully repeal Obamacare and replace it with common-sense free market solutions.

“…the job the American people sent us to do, to fully repeal Obamacare and replace it…” Whether they are spinning or they actually believe that, they are wrong.  This notion that a majority of the American people want the Affordable Care Act repealed or weakened is demonstrably false.

A June 2012 Kaiser Permanente poll is the last latest to show that a majority (53%) either wants to “keep the law as is” (25%) or “expand the law” (28%).

At the same time, only 38% of Americans support what the Republicans propose.  The Kaiser poll finds that 18% of Americans said Congress should “repeal the law and replace it with a Republican-sponsored alternative,” and 20% said Congress “repeal the law and not replace it.”

So, yes, a majority doesn’t support the law as is, because so many Americans, myself included, would have liked the law to have been stronger…if there had been congressional will to do so.  But it simply is not true that a majority of Americans want to do what the Republicans propose to do to the Affordable Care Act — real it or repeal and replace it.

And so today, for the 30th time, Michele Bachman, John Kline, Erik Paulsen, and Chip Cravaack will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  And for the 30th time, they will be dead wrong about the will of the American people.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as part of the “Best of the Blogs” feature in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

Hey General Mills, Make Pop Tarts, Not Politics

Posted on by

In this morning’s news, Best Buy and other corporations announced that they are joining a growing list of corporations pulling out of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ).  The corporations are doing so because they were worried about their valuable brands getting muddied from fallout due to ALEC’s aggressive advocacy of “stand your ground” gun laws, such as the one at the center of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

Best Buy’s decision is smart brand management.  Goodness knows, it has enough issues of its own to solve.  Best Buy doesn’t need to add to its woes by putting its  brand in the middle of the political knife fights over the most polarizing political issues of our times.

Which brings me to General Mills and its opposition to the marriage ban amendment that will be on Minnesota ballots in November. Continue reading →

Minnesota Health System Needs Obamacare Too

Posted on by

On a weekly basis, Garrison Keillor reminds Minnesotans that we are above average.  But we didn’t need him to tell us that.  We’re a pretty innately smug bunch when it comes to our state.  Call it “Minnesota Exceptionalism.”

We’re especially smug about our health care system.  Therefore, some of us were not all that sure we needed Obamacare’s private health insurance mandate, which is presently the only politically feasible way of improving health insurance coverage and banning pre-existing condition restrictions.

But we do.

It is true that Minnesota is better off than the rest of the nation. Nine percent of Minnesotans lack health insurance coverage, and that’s much better than the nation as a whole, where 16% are uninsured.

We can rest assured that we aren’t suffering nearly as much as many other states, such as Texas (27% uninsured), Mississippi (24% uninsured), Louisiana (22% uninsured), Nevada (22% uninsured), and Oklahoma (22% uninsured). These GOP strongholds are suffering more at the hand of the GOP’s shameless health reform stonewalling than we are.

But let’s not delude our exceptional selves.  Minnesota needs the private insurance mandate too.   After all, using the same kind of health insurance mandate the Supreme Court just upheld, Massachusets has a much better record than Minnesota.  Under ArneCare in Minnesota, we have 9% uninsured, which is better than average.   But under ObamneyCare in Massachusetts, they have only 5% uninsured.

Moreover, we self-congratulatory Minnesotans should never forget that in the shadows of Minnesota’s overall 9% uninsured rate are pockets of much deeper health care despair. For instance, more than a quarter (27%) of low income adult Minnesotans are uninsured. That’s a little bit of Texas in our midst.

No, 9% is not good enough. That’s 463,100 of our Minnesota friends, neighbors, and coworkers who are just one metastasized cell or black ice sheet away from a mountain of medical bills, and the bankruptcy that so often goes with it.

That’s 463,100 Minnesotans delaying medical care until medical care becomes much more expensive, and often much less effective.

That’s 463,100 Minnesotans who obviously don’t stop getting hurt or ill, and therefore are forced to shift their enormous medical expenses to the rest of us, which in turn forces more of us to drop our own coverage.

That’s 463,100 Minnesotans — the population of Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud, Eagan, Plymouth, Lino Lakes, Willmar and Ramsey, combined.

That can’t be ignored.  Minnesota needs the insurance mandate, and the rest of Obamacare too.  So thank you Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, Don Nickles, Mitt Romney and, now, John Roberts for giving it to us.

– Loveland

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on Minnpost’s Blog Cabin feature.