http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/ RSS feed of mnpACT! Progressive Political Blog en-us sBLOG 0.5.0 Beta (Build 20050313) Sat, 18 May 2013 18:54:40 GMT Sat, 18 May 2013 18:54:40 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3761
Republicans can't seem to say enough about the IRS scandal. It is that perfect conflagration of martyrdom and government persecution. But the more they talk the dumber this gets....

From Gov. Bobby Jindal....

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will use a Saturday speech to Virginia Republicans to suggest the IRS officials who targeted conservative political organizations for scrutiny be sent to prison.

"You cannot take the freedom of law-abiding Americans, whether you disagree with them or not, and keep your own freedom,” Jindal, a Republican, will tell delegates at the Virginia GOP convention, according to remarks shared with POLITICO. “When you do that, you go to jail.”

Really?

First of all, nobody's freedom was taken away. The vast majority of these applications were still granted....they were just delayed. And quite frankly, these applications needed some scrutiny - I would contend that they did not meet 501(c)4 criteria.

On the other hand, I am not saying that there wasn't any wrong doing here...there was. But infringement on freedom? Seriously?

And jail time?

Our government engaged in torture - nobody went to jail. Our government did illegal wiretapping - nobody went to jail. Bankers nearly brought the entire economy of the United States down to rubble - nobody went to jail.

Continue the investigation - but let's have some reality about the scale of the problem.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 18:54:40 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3761 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3761 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3760
Sausage may make a fine meal, but don't watch it being made.

And so it is with budget legislation. The DFL Legislature has agreed to a tax bill and it is a good one - but getting there was an adventure.

What's In

Governor Dayton campaigned on taxing the wealthy and to no one's surprise, this is the foundation of the new revenue package. We now have the 4th highest state income tax rate in the nation, but we have always been near the top. A major jump in the cigarette tax is also part of the package. Although this has regressive elements to it, tobacco has always added health risks to our budget and most Minnesotans lean favorably to this type of taxation. The Senate provision that added some business service taxes to the sales tax also ended up in the final product. These deal with warehousing and software services which don't have much direct impact on consumers (although I am sure the GOP will be more than willing to point out that any tax on business ends up as higher costs to the consumer -- we get it).

It is a fair package and makes some good investments.

What's Out

The House provision for a surcharge on higher incomes to pay down the school shift is out. And, to be honest, I think that is good. I tend to agree with an op-ed by Minnetonka Superintendent Dennis Peterson (examined in Minnpost)....

The payment delay may have forced some districts to dip into reserves or engage in short-term borrowing. But to Peterson and many others, it was far less painful for school districts than comparable reductions in state aid.

Since the borrowing has already been done and since the school shift is going to be paid back within the next cycle, it seems unnecessary to add the surcharge on top of the new tax rate. If the school districts had been clamoring for a quicker return, it might have been a different story, but they are happier with the new education investments than they would be with an early shift repayment schedule.

The proposal on the alcohol excise tax is also removed. This had its share of controversy and the hospitality industry was pushing back. The concept was still sound and alcohol consumption is certainly discretionary, but given the choice of alcohol or tobacco, the cigarette tax is preferable.

Bottom line, for all of it, is that the needed revenue is available with a minimum amount of intrusion on the majority of Minnesota taxpayers.

What It Pays For

The big investment is in education - a promise the DFL made throughout the campaign.....and they delivered. In both K-12 and higher ed, education comes out the big winner.

But there is also $400 million in property tax relief - the details are still out there, but bigger rebates are part of the plan. And the city and county governments get exemptions on sales tax which will help enormously with their budgets.

Needless to say, the deficit is eliminated....but the bigger theme here is that there are no gimmicks; thus these changes will work to keep budget deficits to a minimum going forward. Not a full structural fix, but closer.

Other Items

The Mayo Clinic proposal is in the package. I'm not sure the details are complete but it does seem to be a done deal. There were some arguments over the total package and who is in control. We will see the end product soon enough. Other business incentives are also included - which should have some direct impact on jobs. Another promise kept.

And the Rest....

Now that the tax package is agreed to, the other omnibus bills can get finalized. It looks like health and human services will get a $50 million cut instead of $150 million. A bit better. We also have a tricky little back up plan for stadium funding. Looks like existing tobacco inventory will be retroactively taxed and the money used to fund the stadium "rainy day" fund. Ongoing funding will come from one of those "mysterious" closed corporate loopholes. (It would seem that corporate taxation is about as stable as the proverbial finger in the dyke - close one loophole and another opens up.)
****************************************

So now the race is on to get everything done before Monday night. The major conflicts are done, but time won't be kind to the smaller arguments.

It has been an interesting session. Let the spin begin.
]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 19:25:58 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3760 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3760 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3759
When the Labor department releases its monthly data on the first Friday of each month, there is always a back and forth spin about the data.

Currently if the data is good, the spin on the right looks for the negative aspects and sometimes they even say that the data was manipulated.

Well, let's talk about Wisconsin and Governor Scott Walker. His entire case for being governor centers on improving Wisconsin's economy. He promised to deliver 250,000 jobs during his first term. And he openly mocked Minnesota's budget emphasis on using taxes to expand economic growth. Walker is sure that all those Minnesota businesses are looking to the east for tax salvation.

Well, it's getting harder for Walker to make some traction on the economic front.

He is trying his best spin...he released figures that indicated progress during the first two years of his tenure; Wisconsin has added 32,000 jobs in 2012 and 62,000 during his first 2 years as governor.

That's great if you think that achieving 25% of your goal when 50% of your time is complete is a good thing.

But the report had more. Wisconsin unemployment sits at 7.1% (compared to Minnesota at 5.3%). And, the state lost 22,600 jobs during April....which, at least by my math, would wipe out over a third of all the gains Gov. Walker is touting as his economic jobs creation accomplishment.

But let's talk a little more abstractly about economics for Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Minnesota has now legalized same-sex marriage. The legislature in Wisconsin has been under GOP control and the state passed a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage in 2006. (now, 2006 seems like a political lifetime ago).

And the political leaders in Wisconsin are acknowledging that they may have a future problem....

In the seven years since then, Wisconsin Republicans have generally tried to avoid the topic, although Gov. Scott Walker and others have acknowledged the generational shift on the issue — and even suggested they may eventually surrender to it.

While Wisconsin has been talking about attracting businesses to its borders -- one could argue that Minnesota could be attractive to LGBT couples in our neighboring states. We don't even know what kind of economic activity that could be realized by that. We may get some hints by August 1st.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a lot in common....and at least in the past, their political paths have been similar. Recent events have shown a divergence in both social and economic ways.

Where that takes these states in the future will be worth watching.

]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 21:11:00 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3759 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3759 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3758
I have spent most of this week hacking and coughing and laying around like a slug...trying to get over a nasty head and chest cold. Needless to say, I haven't been up to blogging and the news hasn't helped my mood much. It has been one endless stream of gleeful Republicans hyping "scandal" after "scandal" in front of any camera that will point their way.

But since I was in a slug-like funk, it also gave me the opportunity to watch all of it and to get a fuller understanding of reality....and not just a GOP interpretation of it.

Benghazi

This gets the most sound bites but has the least actual news involved with it. It is hard to claim "cover up" when all the information has been in hand from the beginning. ABC News botched a "scoop". CNN debunked it. Darrell Issa continues his fishing expedition. Everybody tries to connect Hillary Clinton to anything they can. Meanwhile, the White House has accepted the investigative report. Plans to implement every recommendation. Now, will the GOP House fund the proposed security upgrades for our embassies? I'm betting not. It would be nice if this tragedy would not be politicized any further.

IRS

Of course, Michele Bachmann couldn't resist citing "worse than Watergate" in her hyperbolic way, but there is a problem here. However, the problem is NOT in the extra scrutiny of the applications, because 501c4 applications need it. The problem is that the scrutiny was one sided. There is little doubt that it wasn't just conservative groups that deserved that kind of attention. Liberal groups were involved as well.

I find it more than a bit ironic that Eric Cantor is calling for more transparency.....when the whole idea behind 501c4 applications is to avoid any semblance of transparency. They want to hide their donors from public view and keep funneling the "dark" money into campaigns. Even though the purpose is supposed to be for the "social welfare".

People should be held accountable but the the whole thing is a manufactured problem of Citizens United.

AP Phone Records

This is really the most troubling "scandal". An investigation into the source of a government leak is justified, but the broad and sweeping acquistion of reporter phone records is not. There has to be a more specific probable cause and preferably judicial oversight here. This is the Press and they should have protections.

I am not a big fan of Attorney General Eric Holder. He seems to be using a pretty broad office cudgel (ala Alberto Gonzales) in his investigative authority. Even though he recused himself here, he is not absolved of some responsibility. He is still responsible for the workings of the Justice Department and this is a very troubling event.
*********************************

These issues are worthy of discussion and investigation....but as usual, the Republican response is shrill and overblown.

Bottom line?

The end result of Benghazi should be safer embassies.

The end result of the IRS should be reform of a broken campaign finance system....or even better, a repeal of Citizens United.

The end result of the AP Phone Records situation should a renewed Press shield law that protects the first amendment fully and completely.

Any other actions are political....and as usual, the political is all the GOP is interested in.
]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 18:26:13 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3758 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3758 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3757
Good old Tom Emmer has decided to weigh in on gay marriage via the Davis & Emmer Newstalk Blog and cross posted at True North.

And as usually is the case, his title asks the absolute wrong question....

WHY DO WE NEED A LAW FOR HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

I have to question Emmer's basic understanding of the issue if he really thinks that is the question. We do NOT need a law FOR homosexual marriage, we need to get rid of laws that PROHIBIT homosexual marriage.

There is a big difference....a fundamental difference.

In 2012 a Constitutional amendment was defeated which would have taken current law and enshrined it into our state's founding document. And the actions taken this week will hopefully end the law that told a minority of our citizens - you cannot be married.

Emmer has a convulted idea of where the discrimination lies. He says it this way...

Again, if you really believe you are fighting against discrimination, then why propose a law that will enhance the very discrimination against which you claim to be fighting? Wouldn't it make more sense to propose the state get out of the business of defining a legal "marriage" in the first place?

Gay couples did not ask anyone to define marriage in a way that excludes them. Politicians like Emmer decided to do that. The courts began to wonder aloud as to why states did that as well. And in Massachusetts and Iowa, they said NO, you can't do that.

But Emmer uses another distorted argument...

There is another question: If the legislative advocates for homosexual marriage pass and the Governor signs their proposed law redefining “marriage,” how will they protect and respect the rights of those who believe homosexual marriage is wrong? Will they respect their neighbors' beliefs? Will they respect the right of others to pass their beliefs about right and wrong on to their children?

If you believe that homosexual marriage is wrong, what, exactly do you need protection from? Your beliefs won't be infringed upon unless you act upon them to harm others. If the tables are supposedly being turned and that now gay couples should be "respecting" their heterosexual counterparts, let us hope they do not use the example of respect that has been shown to them in the recent past.

Emmer ends with some words of advice...

...while you may have the right to live your life as you see fit, you will never have the right – even if you put it in law – to deny others the right to teach our kids to love thy neighbor but, at the same time, that marriage is and always will be a relationship between one woman and one man intended to carry on a moral, healthy and productive society.

Where Tom Emmer gets the idea that anyone is going to "force" some unwanted teachings on heterosexual families is a bit beyond comprehension. Frankly, Emmer and his colleagues are so busy trying to keep gay relationships hidden in dark corners that an argument could be made that they are denying gay couples their rights to be heard.

The suggestion that somehow we are going to have some kind of reverse discrimination backlash is just another distortion that weaves its way through the marriage arguments.

Relax, Tom, the sky will not fall. Really, it won't.
]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 19:04:43 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3757 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3757 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3756
This has been an interesting journey.

I looked it up and the first time I blogged about gay marriage was 4 years ago - 2009. That seems like a lifetime ago....but in other ways like yesterday.

The pendulum has been swinging steadily and today the Minnesota House passed the Gay Marriage bill in a 75-59 vote.

We still have a Senate vote to work through and a signature from Gov. Dayton....but it all seems like a formality right now.

In a way, we can thank the Republican legislature of the last biennium for all of this....really, I mean it.

If they had not set the wheels in motion to bring that Constitutional Amendment to the 2012 ballot, how would this conversation have accelerated to this extent?

In what we thought to be a pretty cynical political move to get out the "base", the Republicans awoke a sleeping giant. A unique call to action was in order and it changed the conversation in the state.

The national trends were part of the pressure as well. We saw a President who decided to get focused on the issue. We saw Senators move to a more public and positve position. We have seen churches move, employers move, and some of our most basic institutions move.

There are still some basic and deep objections to any change in who can participate in marriage....but in the end, this process seems to be driven by the basic principle of fairness. That is what moves all of this.

I hope that a year from now this conversation will be old news. That we can get beyond the sharp divide and get back to live and let live.

Let the progress continue.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 23:00:26 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3756 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3756 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3755
There has been all this speculation about the Democrats who are considering voting FOR the marriage equality bill, who come from districts that supported the amendment in 2012.

Yet, there is the other side of the coin....there are 21 Republican House members who come from districts that defeated the amendment.

Two of them are from District 57 (Apple Valley-Rosemount). Rep. Tara Mack and Rep. Anna Wills.

Tara Mack's district defeated the amendment by a 10% margin. Yet, she plans to vote NO on the bill. In fact, she was on the committee that brought the 2012 Constitutional Amendment to the floor. It was a 13-12 vote....and Mack was one of those 13 votes. She could have stopped it, but didn't.

Anna Wills has a district that defeated the amendment by 11%. She defeated marriage equality advocate Jeff Wilfahrt in the 2012 election, but she will also probably be a NO vote on the bill.

Time after time, the Democrats are told that they should vote with the majority of their constituents....yet, GOP representatives get none of the same advice.

I can respect a vote of conscience in this case. Personal principles do matter. But let's at least make it consistent.

And don't just consider current constituents either. This is a vote that must consider the future.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 19:43:02 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3755 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3755 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3754
There is an amendment to the Gay Marriage bill which is getting some attention.....

Rep. David Fitzsimmons,R-Albertville, wants to insert the words "civil marriage" in all instances where marriage is mentioned in state laws. It would apply to both same-sex and heterosexual couples.

Although on the surface, this appears to be another semantic exercise, there is one difference. The words "civil marriage" would apply to EVERY marriage in Minnesota.

This is getting some acceptance with Democrats.

DFL House Majority Leader Erin Murphy and the bill's co-author say they back the amendment. The House has scheduled a vote on the bill tomorrow.

It would be enormously beneficial for the future if there could be at least some bipartisan support for this historic bill. This amendment might provide it.

Sen. Branden Peterson, R-Andover,.... who is the only Republican to publicly say he'll vote for the bill, says he expects as many as six Republicans to support the same-sex marriage bill if the amendment is adopted.

Politics in Minnesota has reported that some Republicans had been toying with support before this amendment talk....

Eden Prairie Republican Rep. Jenifer Loon said this week that she’s still deciding how she will vote, but four other Republicans perceived as leaners on the gay marriage issue — Reps. Tim Kelly, Andrea Kieffer, Pat Garofalo and Denny McNamara — have opted to support a proposal to allow civil unions in the state. GOP Rep. Mary Franson also co-sponsored the civil unions bill. All of those Republicans say they still plan to vote against the gay marriage bill if the civil unions amendment is not adopted.

I don't know if these are the six that Rep. Peterson was referring to but I would guess a few of them might be involved.

Frankly, I would like see this amendment call the bluff of Rep. Pat Garofalo and Rep. Mary Franson as potential "supporters". It is hard for me to imagine that they will actually vote green in the end. Amendment or no amendment.

With all the talk about how difficult this is for rural Democrats, it should be noted that suburban Republicans can face just as much of a back lash.

Having said that, Rep. Joe Radinovich gets my vote for the most principled and courageous legislator in the House.....

DFL Rep. Joe Radinovich has gotten a taste of the backlash already. The 27-year-old freshman lawmaker from Crosby won his GOP-leaning District 10B seat by a mere 323 votes last fall, while his district voted more than 62 percent in favor of the constitutional amendment. Late last week, he became the second rural swing Democrat in a span of several days to come out as a supporter of the bill, and shortly afterward Republicans in his district announced that they would organize an effort to remove him from office.

The young representative is casting a vote that a 10 term veteran would have difficulty with - but he has done so with grace under fire.

I salute him.

And I salute the entire legislature for moving forward on this.... to do what is so ultimately right. Not just for the present, but for the future of this state.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 20:37:43 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3754 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3754 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3753
Congressman John Kline is sure he is doing working America a big favor with his new labor bill .

The bill, as he describes it, is a simple one. When hourly public-sector employees work overtime, they’re able to take paid time off (compensatory time, or comp time) in lieu of overtime pay, if they and their employer agree to it. By law, private sector employees can’t, so the GOP bill just makes it an option.

Since Kline has never actually worked in the private sector, he can be forgiven somewhat for not knowing the problem with that.

Let me give you a personal example.

A couple of years ago I worked on the clock. I punched in and punched out and got paid for the hours I worked. If I went over 40 hours, I got time and a half.

But then, my employer decided to do me a "favor" and made my position salaried. My wages were set and I was no longer "tied" to the clock.

Right.

I still had to punch that clock and if my hours didn't meet the regular schedule I could lose my health insurance until the time was made up. I would no longer be paid for early time needed to set up or time after work if needed to help someone at closing time. I ended up working more than I did before but paid only for my salaried time.

And then there is vacation time. I had to "request" my vacation days a year in advanace with no guarantee that I could get the days I actually requested for. Two and three options were required and I would probably get something other than what I planned.

Comp time? Seriously? I am lucky if I can get a sick day off. In the last 10 years I have been off sick less than 5 days. I come to work as the walking dead sometimes, but trying to stay home requires me to find my own replacement. And if I can't find one, they bring in a temp who works for nearly double what I do and they give me subtle hints that I shouldn't let that happen again.

I would be curious as to how well comp time works in the private sector. I haven't seen a system that works with it yet.

My guess is that if John Kline is proposing this, it is for the benefit of business. During slow periods they can "offer" comp time off and then work their employees without overtime during busy times.

Congressman John Kline can pontificate about this as much as he wants, but he is no friend of working people.

You can keep your comp time bill, Congressman. If I work, I want to be paid for my time. When you put options on the table, employers only use them when it is to their advantage.

But then you know that Congressman.

You get bags of political contributions that tell you how it is going to go down -- and yes, you follow those orders well. ]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 17:34:37 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3753 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3753 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3752
Question. In regards to having this sign posted in front of your house... would you be more or less likely to be burglarized?



Answer is here .

According to a search warrant request filed recently in Hennepin County District Court by investigators with the FBI Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Force, members of the Loud Pack gang, “target homes with American flags in the front yard because they believe these are homes or [sic] veterans and will have firearms inside them. Other items they take from these burglaries are sold on the street to various people to support the activates [sic] of the gang.”

These gangs don't "fear" the gunowners as the NRA would have you believe. Rather they become targets for easily obtaining guns for their own use.

More and more of the NRA arguments just don't hold water.

To paraphrase LaPierre -- Good guys with guns make easy targets for bad guys who want guns.

]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 04:50:49 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3752 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3752