As thoroughly satisfying as it is to watch Republicans bury the schadenfreude needle with their public humiliation of Kevin McCarthy, (who couldn’t deserve it more), there’s been a fascinating and telling split-screen on display these past few days as Democrats took over full control of Minnesota government.

One one side we had hapless, spineless McCarthy, a man of no detectable policy interests, suffering his ordeal in the public stocks. On the other we had our local Democrats — i.e. “radical socialists” if you drink the MAGA Kool-Aid — gleefully reminding constituents of the very long list of laws and programs they intend to pass with their new and (likely) transitory majority.

Armchair cynics invariably roll their eyes every time some liberal runs down their legislative “to-do” list. The end credits for a Hollywood super-hero blockbuster are shorter than what liberals vow to do — by god — if they ever get full control of the gears of gummint.

But, lo and behold! That is pretty well what Democrats find themselves being able to do here in Minnesota, at least until the end of the 2024 session of the legislature.

Given both control and an eye-watering surplus, every wish on the DFL’s long list is within reach, presuming the absence of a local version of Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.

High on that list is certifying abortion rights, and shoring up family leave and voting processes, followed closely-to-simultaneously by bills to address climate change, making prescription drugs affordable, reducing gun violence, boosting education resources, controlling rent costs, filling potholes, re-building bridges, building out broadband and … and … well you get the idea.

Essentially everything that rational taxpayers expect government to do is suddenly possible … for the next two years.

But, as Peter Falk’s Columbo so often mumbled as he exited a scene, “There’s just one thing … .”

To me and a few others the juvenile McCarthy v. Matt Gaetz et al farce in D.C. is a vivid testament to the sewer we’re all forced to live in under minority rule. And there are few better systemic cures to blunting minority rule and the the institutionalized anarchy of modern conservatism than doing away with or at least neutering the Electoral College.

In 2019 the DFL-controlled Minnesota House signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. You can read all the clauses of the compact, but basically it really is this simple : It is “an interstate compact to award member states’ presidential electors to the candidate that receives the most votes nationwide. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.”

In other words, for all those “originalists” sentimental about the Electoral College, which in recent years has given us George W. Bush and the epic disaster of the Iraq War, followed by Donald Trump’s start-to-finish dumpster fire, the College would remain. But states signing on to the compact would agree to assign all their electoral votesa to whoever won the popular vote … nationwide.

This thing has been winding its way through legislatures for years and at present has 15 (all blue) states and D.C., representing 195 of the 270 votes needed to give it authority.

Did I mention that the Republican-controlled Senate stifled the vote here in Minnesota four years ago?

If Minnesota’s new DFL Senate majority gets on board, the national number rises to 205, leaving a pathway to 21st century election fairness and actual majority rule in the hands of states like Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), and Virginia (13).

I hold little hope for Ohio these days, but the idea may have some possibilities in Arizona and Georgia.

Obviously, Republicans with their cro-magnon view of originalism and the glorious Founders’ affinity for … minority rule (!?) … will fight the Compact with everything they’ve got.

Why? Well, because they, like you and I, know that without the tortured, anachronistic conventions of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have presided over the 9/11 response and very likely not have gone rampaging into a country that had nothing to do with the attack. And likewise, Hillary Clinton would have steered the ship of state from 2017 until at least 2021. That would have meant, among so much else, a coherent, coordinated, science-based early response to COVID and a leadership that would not have persistently pandered to white nationalist fever dreams and incited a mob to attack the Capitol.

Politics, I’m told, is a game played incrementally and opportunistically. So all I’m suggesting is Minnesota’s Senate Democrats take advantage of the rare opportunity they have and move the ball of actual democratic majority rule another couple yards down field by voting “yea” on the NPVIC.

Looking at the McCarthy farce I think we can all agree that everything would be better off with fewer fools and frauds steering the ship.

Minnesota’s Social Security recipients don’t have bills for child care, which for infants in the Twin Cities metropolitan area child care center are averaging about $18,000 per year.

Most retirees no longer have to pay any of the costs for raising children, which averages about $233,610 per child, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

 Oh and by the way, that USDA figure is only until age 17. After that, many families face massive bills for public college tuition, books, and housing bills, which are averaging about $17,606 per year, per child.  That expense is also in the rearview mirror of Social Security beneficiaries.

Keep in mind that many in this generation of young families facing those daunting expenses are also starting off life with huge student loan bills that dwarf what today’s retirees paid.

In the face of these figures showing the crushing expenses facing Minnesota’s young families, the Minnesota Legislature is fixated on a large $510 million tax cut for Social Security recipients. 

As MinnPost explains, that cut won’t be helping the neediest Social Security beneficiaries.  Low-income Minnesota retirees already pay no taxes on their benefits, as do many middle-income retirees.

Right now, about 55 percent of the roughly 400,000 people who receive Social Security in Minnesota don’t pay taxes on the benefits. The bulk of the elimination would help taxpayers who have $100,000 or more in total income, according to a Senate analysis.

That Senate research found people with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would save an average of $733 per year. Those making more than $500,000 would save $2,397.

So why is the Minnesota Legislature considering putting the state’s wealthiest Social Security recipients at the top of its gift list? Because wealthy retirees need the help more than young families in their heaviest spending years? Nope.

Because retirees vote.  According to U.S. News and World Report, in 2018 voter turnout for 18 to 24-year-olds was 30%. For voters over 65, turnout was more than twice as high at 64%. Politicians who want to hold on to power are all too aware of this fact. That’s a terrific political argument, but it’s a terrible equity argument. 

If the Minnesota Legislature can find a way to finance universally accessible quality child care, adequate k-12 education funding, paid family and medical leave, low-income housing to address the homelessness crisis, enough food to help all hungry children, and significant public college tuition relief, maybe it can then find enough to help some more middle-income retirees. Maybe. But can we at least require Minnesota’s wealthiest Social Security recipients to pay their fair share for helping struggling young families and children?