Category: Environment

by Dave Mindeman

I noticed this letter to the editor from District 57B Representative Anna Wills of Apple Valley-Rosemount.

Let's see if you notice a problem here.....

To the editor:

I am honored to have been elected to represent District 57B, which includes Rosemount, northern Apple Valley, and Coates. I want my constituents to know my strong desire to be their voice and advocate, and that includes advocating for the Minnesota Zoo-one of the most important assets here in District 57B. The zoo is a destination for families to take their children, provides 220-300 jobs depending on the season, and has an annual statewide economic impact of over $114 million.

After I was elected, Minority Leader Kurt Daudt formally recommended I be placed on the Legacy Committee, which allocates money from the Legacy Amendment that was passed by voters in 2008. The zoo receives about 29 percent of its annual budget funding from the state, some of which comes from the Legacy Amendment funds. The remaining 71 percent of the zoo?s budget comes from private donors and patrons. I have met with the zoo?s CEO and Director, Lee Ehmke, and believe the Minnesota Zoo has a visionary plan to maintain and grow exhibits so it can continue to thrive in our community. The zoo is a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars and is very deserving of the Legacy Amendment funding it receives.

Although House Rules are very clear that recommendations from the Minority Leader are to be followed, Speaker Paul Thissen chose to replace me with a different representative on the Legacy Committee. Given my desire to be an advocate for the Minnesota Zoo, I have had discussions with Daudt and Thissen to convey how important this committee assignment is to me. I am pleased to have been put back on the committee and I look forward to being a strong advocate for the Minnesota Zoo and the rest of District 57B this legislative session.

Anna Wills
Apple Valley
District 57B state representative

The way Rep. Wills seems to be approaching this, indicates a lack of understanding of how the Legacy Committee is supposed to work. Rep. Wills seems to believe that her position on the committee gives her an additional avenue to specifically advocate for the Minnesota Zoo.

This is not entirely true.

One of the more controversial provisions for the Legacy implementation is that it MUST be a supplemental funding - not a replacement source of funds. To quote the MN auditor's office:

Another area that concerned auditors is a provision that forbids legacy money from replacing traditional funding.

?It?s not clear what constitutes a traditional source of funding,? auditor Judy Randall said, adding that the constitutional amendment voters approved does not require lawmakers to maintain current funding to any program.

Rep. Wills needs to be careful in regards to traditional funding of the Minnesota Zoo. Yes, it is funding in large part by state funds and bonding projects.....however, if there are cuts to "traditional" funding, Legacy funds cannot replace that money. Any Legacy money has to meet criteria that indicate any money given to the Zoo would be over and above "traditional" funding.

As a member of the Legacy Committee, Ms. Wills must consider the merits of all requests given to the committee. She can't simply advocate for her district alone.

Judging by the tone of this letter, maybe Speaker Thissen was justified in taking Rep. Wills off of the committee and giving it to a more experienced representative.

Now that she has been reinstated, her actions will have to watched.

She needs to remember that her first priority is to advocate for the Zoo in the normal legislative process. If the Zoo funding is reduced or fails to get a bonding request, she cannot just move to the Legacy Funding for replacement of funds lost.

Her letter seems to imply the use of that very process.

Category: Environment

by Dave Mindeman

As we look ahead, post-Mayan, we still seem to have a mental block on really looking forward. Matt Damon who stars in a new movie about fracking called "Promised Land", had a memorable quote in a recent interview:

?We?re at a point where politicians don?t really get any benefit from engaging with long-term issues. Instead, it?s all about the next election cycle. Those guys in the House don?t do anything now but run for office. So unless they can find some little thing that zips them up a couple of points in the polls, they?re not interested. There?s a consensus among scientists, though, that we face serious long-term issues. They?re saying that unless we engage with those issues, we?re genuinely f*cked. The way it looks, we?re going to wait until one of those big issues smacks us.?

I think that all of that is very true. We will continue to deny the evidence (as a matter of policy) until something happens that is very, very real and very, very dangerous. Only then will we get desperate enough to make changes.

Fracking, global warming, ice cap melt, loss of permafrost, sea level rise, increasing storm severity....these are all real events with real impact. And yet, our government has ceased to function beyond the next election cycle.

At some point, the economy and capital accumulation has to cease taking a primary position for evaluating what we do. At some juncture, we have to deal with what is best for a global picture and bypass our own small sphere of influence.

Our politics begs for real leadership right now. Do we really think we can solve a global warming crisis when we flounder helplessly with answers to budgetary credits and debits?

My confidence level is low.

We have no one willing to look beyond their own politics and give themselves to the politics of country and world.

The NRA promotes paranoia. The business community promotes only what will make money. The Defense community protects its weapons of war. Wealthy individuals interfere in politics to push their own narrow interests.

It is a bleak look ahead. The Mayans may have missed predicting a global calamity for the moment, but mankind is still working very hard to produce one of its own making.

And that doesn't need to be predicted. It is happening.

Category: Environment

by Dave Mindeman

The BP oil spill did happen didn't it?

Mitt Romney is telling us that energy independence is "achievable".

Seeking to reset his economic message, Republican Mitt Romney pledged Thursday to create 3 million jobs and more than $1 trillion in revenue by ramping up offshore oil drilling and giving states more control over energy production on federal land.

The echo of "drill, baby, drill" is reverberating once again. A sound only Sarah Palin and the oil companies can really love.

We have seen this movie before. Energy companies with billions in profits and billions more in tax breaks keep ramping up production by drilling ever deeper into the ocean and blasting ever deeper into the earth's crust. And the oil extracted could just as well end up in Pakistan as the United States. Oil companies are not interested in making the US energy independent - oil goes to the highest bidder.

We are no longer really dependent on foreign oil in the Arab states...we are dependent on Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and BP. Our policies are dictated by petrol dollars and the environment is never a concern.

Wind, solar, biomass were not part of Romney's speech because saving the environment and CO2 emmissions is not part of the equation...the profit equation and the political donation equation are the only things of import.

Romney has deep ties to big oil and raised more than $7 million from industry executives during a campaign fundraiser in Texas earlier this week.

And besides all that -- what good is a Romney promise or a Romney plan? He can't keep one or fulfill the other.

Want to make some money? Buy stock in drug companies that make asthma inhalers.