To: GOP Legislative Freshmen  Freshpeople Freshlegislators Newbies

From: Mitch Berg

Re: Good job.

Dear…you know who.

Good job.  You took your unprecedented mandate and held the line against a governor who was never anything but hell-bent to uphold his special interest agenda.

So far so good.

Now – do something about your upperclasspeople.  Keep ’em on the beam.  Some of ’em make me nervous.

That is all,

Mitch Berg

Well, it’s May 24.  No stadium deal.

So I guess it’s off to LA for  you, then, huh?

(With a nod to AAA)

Session ends and, if you believe the the media, the MNGOP spent the entire time sightseeing:

All that and more must now await a special session this summer, as the Republican majority and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton ended an acrimonious five-month session with very little business done and a $5 billion projected shortfall mostly untouched.

There’s no sign more time in St. Paul would spark a deal to avoid a bruising government shutdown. A long season of legislating only hardened and widened the deep, bitter divide between Dayton and the new legislative leadership.

Read: The Governor used the only tactic he has: stalling, and counting on the media to shape public opinion for him.

Expect a “Minnesota Poll” showing Minnesotans favor “compromise” 60-40, with a 3:2 oversample of DFLers.

And probably a “Humphrey Institute” poll showing it’s more like eleventy-teen to one.

Here you go, Star Tribune and KARE11 and Esme Murphy; it’s your moment to shine.

I think it’d be a great idea for any of you who are looking for work to get down to the DFL office on Plato Boulevard, and apply for a job.

And get hired.

And when they ask them to show your ID as part of the hiring process, tell them they’re disenfranchising you.

Just saying.

Yesterday, the Senate Leadership decided not to send SF1357 – the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill – to the Governor.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m deeply ambivalent about pretty much everything in the Gay Marriage mix; gay marriage itself, sure, but straight marriage too, and amending the constitution to protect it as well.

Yesterday, if you were at the Capitol, you saw a Madison-like outpouring of support for gay rights and opposition to the Amendment.  And by “Madison-like”, I mean “largely Metrocratic”.

But while I’m ambivalent about gay marriage (I support civil unions, but don’t plan on ever getting a government marriage license, even if I do get married ever again), I think there is one uncontrovertible fact; the DFL’s motivations in opposing the Amendment were purely, and just a tad cynically, political.

Call From Pauline Kael:  The left’s approach on gay marriage, thus far, has been to get it instituted by fiat, either by politicians (former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome) or the courts.  It’s a fact that gay marriage has never passed a public referendum, not even in “progressive” cesspools like Oregan.

But there are polls that indicate that people are changing their tune; that people actually support gay marriage.

So is the landscape changing?  It depends on the polls you believe, of course; I’ve seen surveys of likely voters  that indicate most Minnesotans oppose it; there are others, of course.  We’ll see – in November, 2012.  I strongly suspect most people do, in fact, oppose gay marriage because…

What Happened In 2009? Last night, during the Madison-like surge of lefty outrage on Twitter, a “progressive” sniffed at me:

Sir- the agenda is Rights. DFL Benson: My conscious comes first, my constituents second, and my desire to be reelected, third.

Which makes a good chanting point.  But it doesn’t stand up to history.

Four years ago,the DFL took control of the government in Saint Paul.  Two years ago, the DFL had absolute control of Minnesota government, except for Governor Pawlenty.  Had they wanted to push a gay marriage law, they could have.  It would have been vetoed – but they’d have made their moral case to take to the voters.

And don’t forget that they could have  passed a constitutional amendment, as the GOP just did, and bypassed the Governor completely.

And yet they dawdled for four years, and made no significant effort toward Gay Marriage.  None. Zero.

If the DFL’s stance were “about civil rights”, about immutable libertarian principles, as Rep. Benson grandiloquently claimed, they’d have used their absolute majority to do something,

Contrast that to the GOP, which introduced the Constitutional Amendment immediately.

Leaving aside whether it’s good to vote on civil rights or whether Gay Marriage is a civil right, here’s a question: which is the stance of a party that believes that they are going to win a referendum?

I suspect the DFL ignored gay marriage (and their gay supporters) for four years because they knew the votes weren’t there throughout Minnesota; that if they voted for legislation pushing gay marriage, they’d get shredded statewide.   They’d be kissing any outstate seats goodbye; they’d shave some of their majority in the Arrowhead and in the Twin Cities; few people oppose Gay Marriage less than Afro-Americans and Latinos; they might even jeopardize Tim Walz’ seat.

My thesis – this was never about principles, about liberty, about fairness for gays.  This is about votes.  The DFL believes they’ll lose them – lots of them.

The GOP leadership in the State Senate, as of today, decided not to have a floor vote on Senate File 1357, the “Stand Your Ground” bill.

Here’s my letter:

sen.amy.koch@senate.mn; sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn; sen.doug.magnus@senate.mn; sen.david.senjem@senate.mn; sen.dave.thompson@senate.mn; sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn; sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn; sen.gen.olson@senate.mn

Subject: Please Vote On SF1357

Senators,

I’m Mitch Berg. I know, and have interviewed, not a few of you. I’m a constituent of Mary Jo McGuire, so I don’t expect a lot of sanity from my own “representation”.

But having heard that the Senate has refused to vote on SF1357, I have to say I expected better from a GOP-led Senate.

I ask you to please reconsider this, and bring the bill to the floor and send it to the Governor. As he ran as a “Second-Amendment-Friendly” gubernatorial candidate.

Sincerely,

Mitch Berg

Saint Paul

If you’re a Second Amendment supporter, it’s go-time – again.   Call your Senator.  Email the whole list above.  Be polite, but let them know – we gun owners have long memories, and when it comes to having our votes taken for granted, we did our time back in the nineties.

No more.

UPDATE: Rob Doar is equally unamused.

The “first class” cities – Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth – are, predictably, howlin’ mad over the proposal to return Local Government Aid (LGA) to its original purpose – help out poor communities.

Both the GOP-controlled House and Senate this week passed a tax plan that would cut the amount of local government aid that cities across the state are certified to receive this year by 26 percent or $137 million.

Republicans say the effort is needed to balance the state’s budget deficit. But critics say it’s a politically charged move aimed at crippling urban centers — which are largely governed by Democrats.

It’s buncombe, of course.  The cities crippled themselves.

The linked piece – by MPR’s Laura Yuen – is balanced enough, but it’s clearly cribbed this next bit from a DFL or League of Minnesota Cities (pardon the redundancy) handout:

LGA was part of a series of tax reforms in the ’70s known as the “Minnesota Miracle.” It was designed to pay for basic services — from parks to public safety — that cities with greater needs couldn’t cover through property taxes alone. The idea was no matter where you lived in Minnesota, your quality of life would be consistent.

The key part Yuen left out – it was initially aimed at small, poor outstate cities with smaller, aging tax bases.  At the time, the Twin Cities were wealthy – booming, even.

And that’s where things start to break down.

Here’s the quote that set me off.  Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman said:

“If the leadership of the Republican Party wants to come and look through my budget, tell me how many cops they want me to lay off, tell me how many fire stations they want me to close, tell me how many libraries I’m supposed to close. The fact of the matter is they’re governing in ignorance. They don’t know what we do. They have a mythology of what cities do. They have a mythology of where we spend our money.”

Now, I think Coleman is being tongue in cheek – there are most certainly Republicans in Saint Paul who’d be happy to take him up on that very offer, and none of us have heard from him yet.

But let’s say he has a point; let’s say the Saint Paul budget – notwithstanding its electric cars and loafing employees and brand-new indoor ice rinks in a city that is below freezing seven montsh a year  – really is cut to the bone.   Maybe, in that case, it’s not a spending problem.

Maybe the problem is that Saint Paul – and Minneapolis and Duluth – once prosperous cities, don’t have enough tax base to support the spending they want.

And there’s the problem; the governments of the Big Three cities – Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Duluth – have been doing their best to become poor cities.

Not, perhaps, in the sense that they actually sat down and tried to dive into a vortex of crime and poverty; that’d be a silly claim.  Probably.

But looking at the history of the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota from the 1960’s through today, it’d be hard to say how the DFL majorities would have governed differently if they had been trying to flense their cities of prosperity and gut them of vitality:

• Minnesota, driven by the Scandinavian communitarianism which had served small, impoverished communities in the old country well, adopted a highly comprehensive welfare system; in many ways, by the 1980’s, it was the “best” in the country.  DFLers saw it as a sign of advanced civilization; Conservatives rightly noted that if you pay people to do something – in this case, nothing – people will take the money.
• The state, like much of the country, adopted service-based budgeting; in other words, if you spend $100 on a service this year, and the person providing the service guesses the need will rise 10% next year, then you pay $110 next year.  This was put on auto-pilot, so that in effect social spending could not shrink.
• In the meantime, Minnesota also become the softest-on-crime state in the Union, a distinction we still hold.
• The Big Three cities also became warehouses for the poor, both “inadvertently” (“urban renewal” and highway construction gang-raped the property values in the inner cities) and on purpose (centering welfare services in the Big Three cities – partly out of government convenience, partly to build a large pool of voters who were dependent on the DFL’s bureaucracies, either as employees or clients.
• DFL tax and spending policies – and those of the “Independent Republican” party, which were largely indistinguishable from the DFL – aggressively stripped businesses from the Big Three cities.  Look at a list of Minnesota’s major corporations; the ones that existed in 1970 (3M, Ecolab, the parts of “Daytons” that became Target) have done all their expanding in the ‘burbs, or in other states (the network of plants that 3M used to have in Saint Paul is a distant memory); the ones  that sprouted up since then (United Healthgroup, Best Buy, Medtronic) have all located in the suburbs from the very beginning.   The jobs – and the people who worked at them – moved outside the cities.
• In their quest for “affordable housing”, the Big Three cities have virtually outlawed “affordable housing” on the private market.  Starting in the eighties, the cities stigmatized small, “absentee” private landlords (Saint Paul DFLers can’t refer to them as anything but “slumlords”).  Focusing on outcomes (“the poor should have nice housing!”), the cities’ bureaucracies essentially made it impossible to rent out housing that didn’t meet the cities’ absurdly high standards (Government-owned housing wasn’t held to the same standards, naturally).  The process is in the process of culminating right now; as a mammoth surge of supremely affordable housing gets foreclosed onto the market, the cities – led by Saint Paul – launched a campaign to actively crush private, market-driven low-income housing.
• While all this was going on, Minnesota in effect developed two school systems; a blighted, addled, watered-down system in the cities, and a modestly capable one in the ‘burbs and outstate.  The vortex has accelerated, as school choice – charter schools and open enrollment – have taken the families, especially low-income ones, that actually care about education out of the public system.

So over the course of forty years, the DFL’s policies have denuded the Twin Cities of everything – jobs, primary education, quality of life, affordable places to live – for anyone that isn’t already thoroughly comfortable or, by the opposite token, a government client.

Opponents of the current system say that cutting LGA will expose the urban DFLs’ free-spending wastrelcy to their taxpayers.  But it’s worse than that.  It’ll expose the extent to which the DFL administrations have not only cooked the golden goose, but then let it go bad in the refrigerator.

If you follow the “logic” behind Andy Birkey’s piece (and like all lefty memes, it came from Birkey’s superiors; Phyllis Kahn was mumbling the same sort of tripe a few weeks ago), that…:

If you have even been divorced – in other words, if some part of your life or paper trail is inconsistent with the position, Then you have no business debating what “marriage” is…

…then consistency more or less demands you apply that same logic throughout.

Don’t look at me.  It’s Phyllis Kahn and Andy Birkey’s idea.

Further proof that my “Logic For Leftybloggers” series – especially the piece two weeks ago on the Tu Quoque Ad Hominem – is long, looong, lo-o-o-o-ong overdue comes in a piece yesterday at the Minnesota Birkeydependent where Andy Birkey, taking a rare break from covering Bradlee Dean, writes:

In testimony before Minnesota Senate and House committees last week, religious leaders and representatives from religious right organizations cited single-parent families and a skyrocketing divorce rate as reasons to protect marriage from being redefined to include same-sex couples by “activist judges” and “handfuls of legislators.” And GOP members rebuffed efforts by DFLers to include a ban on divorces in a proposed ban on gay marriage. However, a number of the legislators who say they want to protect marriage appear to have been divorced.

Right.  But in fairness, a number of DFLers aren’t really gay,aren’t on welfare, and haven’t had abortions either.

Note to DFLers and the writers writer at the MinnBirk: the fact that someone making an argument has not always been utterly consistent with their side of the argument is not evidence against the argument.

In a sense, we should be happy that this is the best George Soros can get for his money.

On the other hand, to 43% of our population, this is what passes for an argument.

As I’ve pointed out on this blog in the past, I’m a former liberal.  But for the grace of God and Doctor Blake, I could still be one today.

But I also had a thing for getting the story right, even when I was a liberal. So I could see how, in an alternate world where common sense never intervened, I might be working as an editor for Twin Cities Ministry Of Independent Media (MiniIndiMed), the centralized editorial control center for all Twin Cities “alternative” media (I did say it was an alternate world, right?) where I”d be collecting a Soros paycheck (alternate worlds by their nature share some traits with our world) to take my red editorial pencil to the output of the Twin Cities’ “alternative” media community.

With that in mind, I thought I’d take a swerve through a “What If”; if I had stayed liberal, and gotten that job with MiniIndiMed.   Here might be my series of revisions – a “red pen”, which will be represented here with red type – to  this Jeff Rosenberg piece on MnPublius:

I’ve been appalled by the MNGOP’s absolute refusal to compromise. They have insisted that they either get every single thing they want or they will shut down our government. It’s an outrage.   [Jeff – I know “victorian vapours” is your gig, but they are doing what they were sent to office,with a resounding mandate, to do.  Feigned outrage looks a little comical after a while – Ed.]

I’m even more outraged, though, when I think of exactly what it is they’re fighting for. I said they insist on getting everything they want. But exactly is that? Here are a few of their top priorities:

Over 100,000 Minnesotans thrown off health care  [Jeff, your link provides no source for this claim.  And when the undecided reader (you have some of those, right?) learns that what the GOP is really doing is transitioning able-bodied, single people off of benefits, and means-testing more, it might tend to undercut your narrative.  Please check into this – Ed.]

Massive cuts to higher education  [More of the same here, Jeff; the “cuts” can be entirely made up by rolling administrative costs back to levels of a couple years ago; and just between and me, you know how much professorial deadwood there is a the U. Please check – Ed.]

A $1.4 billion property tax increase [Jeff, I keep telling you this; eventually, a Republican blogger is going to ask you to show us the bill where the property taxes were increased.  You know it’s absurd, of course – city councils and county commissions do that! – Ed.]

30,000 lost jobs [Jeff, you’re giving me a headache now.  This a number, very likely a random one – something someone at the DFL down on Plato pulled out of their ass to use as a chanting point.  Go ahead and use the number – but know that if you do, people will think MNPublius is some sort of DFL press-release site or something.  You wouldn’t want that, would you?  Of course not! – Ed.]

It’s bad enough that the Republicans are so arrogant they don’t believe they need to compromise. But look at their agenda — look what they’re fighting for. These are absolute disasters for our state. Responsible policymakers would be working hard to protect us from the worst of these cuts. The Republicans, though, are actually fighting for them. [This, on the other hand, is good stuff.  The victorian vapors play well with our base – Ed.]

Governor Dayton is trying to protect Minnesotans from the worst consequences of our budget deficit, while still making needed cuts. The Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to make sure the pain is as bad as possible. [It’s a good thing we don’t pay you to substantiate claims!  Whew! – Ed.]

Every day, in every way, I thank God I took the path I took.

Although that Soros check would be nice.

Where are those Koch Brothers, anyway/

Here is the list of Minnesota House members who voted for HF1467 – which expands the human right of self-defense, and creates a legal possibility that demonstrably-legitimate self-defense shootings don’t have to plead “guilty with an explanation” for exercising the human right to defend their lives and their families from lethal threats.

If you see your representative on this list, please send them a nice “thank you”.

• Abeler, Jim (R-48B) rep.jim.abeler@house.mn
• Anderson, Bruce (R-19A) rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Paul (R-13A) rep.paul.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Sarah (R-43A) rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn
• Anzelc, Tom (DFL-03A) rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn
• Banaian, King (R-15B) rep.king.banaian@house.mn
• Barrett, Bob (R-17B) rep.bob.barrett@house.mn
• Beard, Michael (R-35A) rep.mike.beard@house.mn
• Benson, Mike (R-30B) rep.mike.benson@house.mn
• Bills, Kurt (R-37B) rep.kurt.bills@house.mn
• Buesgens, Mark (R-35B) rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn
• Cornish, Tony (R-24B) rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
• Crawford, Roger (R-08B) rep.roger.crawford@house.mn
• Daudt, Kurt (R-17A) rep.kurt.daudt@house.mn
• Davids, Greg (R-31B) rep.greg.davids@house.mn
• Dean, Matt (R-52B) rep.matt.dean@house.mn
• Dettmer, Bob (R-52A) rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn
• Dill, David (DFL-06A) rep.david.dill@house.mn
• Downey, Keith (R-41A) rep.keith.downey@house.mn
• Drazkowski, Steve (R-28B) rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
• Eken, Kent (DFL-02A) rep.kent.eken@house.mn
• Erickson, Sondra (R-16A) rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn
• Fabian, Dan (R-01A) rep.dan.fabian@house.mn
• Franson, Mary (R-11B) rep.mary.franson@house.mn
• Garofalo, Pat (R-36B) rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn
• Gottwalt, Steve (R-15A) rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn
• Gruenhagen, Glenn (R-25A) rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn
• Gunther, Bob (R-24A) rep.bob.gunther@house.mn
• Hackbarth, Tom (R-48A) rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn
• Hamilton, Rod (R-22B) rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
• Hancock, David (R-02B) rep.david.hancock@house.mn
• Holberg, Mary Liz (R-36A) rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn
• Hoppe, Joe (R-34B) rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn
• Hosch, Larry (DFL-14B) rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
• Howes, Larry (R-04B) rep.larry.howes@house.mn
• Kath, Kory (DFL-26A) rep.kory.kath@house.mn
• Kelly, Tim (R-28A) rep.tim.kelly@house.mn
• Kieffer, Andrea (R-56B) rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn
• Kiel, Debra (R-01B) rep.deb.kiel@house.mn
• Kiffmeyer, Mary (R-16B) rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn
• Koenen, Lyle (DFL-20B) rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn
• Kriesel, John (R-57A) rep.john.kriesel@house.mn
• Lanning, Morrie (R-09A) rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn
• Leidiger, Ernie (R-34A) rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn
• LeMieur, Mike (R-12B) rep.mike.lemieur@house.mn
• Lohmer, Kathy (R-56A) rep.kathy.lohmer@house.mn
• Loon, Jenifer (R-42B) rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn
• Mack, Tara (R-37A) rep.tara.mack@house.mn
• Marquart, Paul (DFL-09B) rep.paul.marquart@house.mn
• Mazorol, Pat (R-41B) rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn
• McDonald, Joe (R-19B) rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn
• McNamara, Denny (R-57B) rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
• Melin, Carly (DFL-05B) rep.carly.melin@house.mn
• Murdock, Mark (R-10B) rep.mark.murdock@house.mn
• Murray, Rich (R-27A) rep.rich.murray@house.mn
• Myhra, Pam (R-40A) rep.pam.myhra@house.mn
• Nornes, Bud (R-10A) rep.bud.nornes@house.mn
• O’Driscoll, Tim (R-14A) rep.tim.odriscoll@house.mn
• Peppin, Joyce (R-32A) rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn
• Persell, John (DFL-04A) rep.john.persell@house.mn
• Petersen, Branden (R-49B) rep.branden.petersen@house.mn
• Poppe, Jeanne (DFL-27B) rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn
• Quam, Duane (R-29A) rep.duane.quam@house.mn
• Runbeck, Linda (R-53A) rep.linda.runbeck@house.mn
• Sanders, Tim (R-51A) rep.tim.sanders@house.mn
• Schomacker, Joe (R-22A) rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn
• Scott, Peggy (R-49A) rep.peggy.scott@house.mn
• Shimanski, Ron (R-18A) rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
• Smith, Steve (R-33A) rep.steve.smith@house.mn
• Stensrud, Kirk (R-42A) rep.kirk.stensrud@house.mn
• Swedzinski, Chris (R-21A) rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn
• Torkelson, Paul (R-21B) rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn
• Urdahl, Dean (R-18B) rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
• Vogel, Bruce (R-13B) rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn
• Ward, John (DFL-12A) rep.john.ward@house.mn
• Wardlow, Doug (R-38B) rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn
• Westrom, Torrey (R-11A) rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
• Woodard, Kelby (R-25B) rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn
• Zellers, Kurt (R-32B) rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn

I bolded the names of the DFLers who bucked their party’s elitist, anti-civil-liberty stance (knowing that their outstate districts would not be amused); if you are represented by any them, send them an especially nice note.  Gun rights in Minnesota depends, at the moment, on DFLers with principle standing up to the vile, statist rot that is the Metrocrat wing of the party.

The bad news?  Here are the ones that walked in the footsteps of Stalin and Pot and Mao, and voted against the bill:

1. Benson, John (DFL-43B) rep.john.benson@house.mn
2. Brynaert, Kathy (DFL-23B) rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn
3. Carlson Sr., Lyndon (DFL-45B) rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn
4. Champion, Bobby Joe (DFL-58B) rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
5. Clark, Karen (DFL-61A) rep.karen.clark@house.mn
6. Davnie, Jim (DFL-62A) rep.jim.davnie@house.mn
7. Dittrich, Denise (DFL-47A) rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn
8. Doepke, Connie (R-33B) rep.connie.doepke@house.mn
9. Falk, Andrew (DFL-20A) rep.andrew.falk@house.mn
10. Fritz, Patti (DFL-26B) rep.patti.fritz@house.mn
11. Gauthier, Kerry (DFL-07B) rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn
12. Greene, Marion (DFL-60A) rep.marion.greene@house.mn
13. Greiling, Mindy (DFL-54A) rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn
14. Hansen, Rick (DFL-39A) rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
15. Hausman, Alice (DFL-66B) rep.alice.hausman@house.mn
16. Hayden, Jeff (DFL-61B) rep.jeff.hayden@house.mn
17. Hilstrom, Debra (DFL-46B) rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
18. Hilty, Bill (DFL-08A) rep.bill.hilty@house.mn
19. Hornstein, Frank (DFL-60B) rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn
20. Hortman, Melissa (DFL-47B) rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn
21. Huntley, Thomas (DFL-07A) rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn
22. Johnson, Sheldon (DFL-67B) rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
23. Kahn, Phyllis (DFL-59B) rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn
24. Knuth, Kate (DFL-50B) rep.kate.knuth@house.mn
25. Laine, Carolyn (DFL-50A) rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
26. Lenczewski, Ann (DFL-40B) rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn
27. Lesch, John (DFL-66A) rep.john.lesch@house.mn
28. Lillie, Leon (DFL-55A) rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
29. Loeffler, Diane (DFL-59A) rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn
30. Mahoney, Tim (DFL-67A) rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn
31. Mariani, Carlos (DFL-65B) rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn
32. McFarlane, Carol (R-53B) rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn
33. Moran, Rena (DFL-65A) rep.rena.moran@house.mn
34. Morrow, Terry (DFL-23A) rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
35. Mullery, Joe (DFL-58A) rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
36. Murphy, Erin (DFL-64A) rep.erin.murphy@house.mn
37. Murphy, Mary (DFL-06B) rep.mary.murphy@house.mn
38. Nelson, Michael V. (DFL-46A) rep.michael.nelson@house.mn
39. Norton, Kim (DFL-29B) rep.kim.norton@house.mn
40. Paymar, Michael (DFL-64B) rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
41. Pelowski Jr., Gene (DFL-31A) rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn
42. Peterson, Sandra (DFL-45A) rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn
43. Scalze, Bev (DFL-54B) rep.bev.scalze@house.mn
44. Simon, Steve (DFL-44A) rep.steve.simon@house.mn
45. Slawik, Nora (DFL-55B) rep.nora.slawik@house.mn
46. Slocum, Linda (DFL-63B) rep.linda.slocum@house.mn
47. Thissen, Paul (DFL-63A) rep.paul.thissen@house.mn
48. Tillberry, Tom (DFL-51B) rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn
49. Wagenius, Jean (DFL-62B) rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
50. Winkler, Ryan (DFL-44B) rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn

I bolded the two Republicans who should have known better.  If you are represented by either of them – or have an interest – please send them a polite note asking for their reasons.  Feel free to forward them to me, if you get a moment.

As to the other 48?  Most of them are metrocrats.  Most of them would get turned over their chairman’s knee and spanked if they broke with the DFL’s racist, paternalistic party line on this issue.  None of them is authorized to actually consider the facts, and none of them will.

(Lists courtesy of GOCRA)

Tony Jones, writing at MinnPost,notes that M the “Marriage Amendment” is, as he says, a “ploy”:

Dear State Senator Geoff Michel and Representative Pat Mazorol,

Your party’s move to put to a statewide vote a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is unnecessary (we already have a state law on the books that defines marriage as such).  It is also a political ploy, attempting to fire up the conservative base, bringing them to the polls in hopes of defeating Barack Obama.  I hope it backfires on you (and, if a recent poll is correct, it will).

The “recent poll” is just a Strib Minnesota Poll.  I’d normally say no more – Minnesota Polls are unfiltered DFL propaganda at worst, printed mulch at best.  Actual reputable polls disagree.

What this amendment campaign will do is flood our state with outside money from groups that thrive on an embittered and polarized electorate.

And I just looooove the way the DFLers are crying about that now.  The DFL spent the past two generations building an outside money machine; they’ve politicized our public employees, our teachers, our higher education system, turning all of them not only into DFL contributors, but spigots for outside money.  “Outside money” is a huge reason we have a Governor Dayton.

But, most tragically, it will send a message to my friends (and your constituents) like Rachel, that she is not a valued citizen of our state.

And here we get out of “obvious” and into “cynical”.

As I’ve noted, Gay Marriage isn’t a huge issue to me, in terms of policy – but it’s also not a government issue.   So when people like “Rachel” write…

In more than 515 ways (and more than twice that federally) our marriage is inferior to that of my opposite gender counterparts.I am not asking anyone to bless what Karen and I have. God has, and will continue to do that. What I am asking is for our marriage to not be constitutionally banned. I am asking that the state in which I live and love and have my being to not put my right to ever be married to Karen to a vote.

So rather than change those “515 ways” “Rachel’s” “marriage” is “inferior”, we should impose her version of marriage  – which she believes is recognized by God, and I won’t argue, but it certainly isn’t recognized by any major religion, or denomination, or anything, anywhere in the world – on all the rest of us?

The proposed amendment protects absolutely no one. It does not create jobs or attract visitors and would be Minnesotans to our state.

Either do most of our laws.

Back to Jones, who closes with a strawman that I’m getting tired of:

Read her whole post and answer me this: How is Rachel’s marriage a threat to yours, or to our state?

It’s not.

Stop asking.

Her “marriage” is of no consequence to me – I wish them well, personally.  It’s all the more reason to get government out of the business of defining marriage; let people sign contracts (or not) and get them blessed (or not) by any religion they want (or not).

That may or may not be what Tony Jones wants.  It’s certainly not what Big Gay or Big Progressive wants.  It’s not about gays’ ability to marry; it’s about solidifying “progressive” control of society and all its institutions.

The House passed the “Stand Your Ground” bill in a solid vote Saturday night.  The margin was 79-50:

The bill sponsored by Rep. Tony Cornish, a Good Thunder Republican and a small-town chief of police, would give a person in a home, car, tent or other dwelling the legal right to decide how much force should be required to defend oneself.

(Although – and the media never notes this – the consequences for choosing wrong have not changed.  The DFL narrative on this has been pretty universally, cynically misleading).

The bill has drawn the ire of gun-control advocates and is opposed by a number of chiefs of police and prosecutors around the state.

But let’s be clear – every single one of these “chiefs of police” and prosecutors are politicians  – elected or appointed- who serve at the pleasure of a DFL city or county administration.

Just like every time a proposal to broaden our Second Amendment human rights.

Just like they did when the Minnesota Personal Protection was being debated.

They were wrong then, too.

A spokesman for Gov. Mark Dayton says the governor is likely to take that opposition into account.

He should “take into account” the fact that during the campaign, he neutralized the Second Amendment vote by claiming to be friendly to self-defense shooters – to have “a pair of 357 Magnums” in a lock box at home.

Think he might have lost 8,000 votes if he’s come out hostile to the Second Amendment?

Think whatever support he has outstate might have gotten gut-shot?

If he doesn’t remember 2000, and 2002, that’s just fine by me.

I’m not sure what bugs me more about this Doug Grow column; the fact that he deemed a bit of screeching DFL illogic newsworthy, or that he doesn’t seem to realize that it’s screechingly illogical at all.

He’s writing about the MN Senate debate over a Human Services bill which would change the way the state delivers health care to the poor, from a bureaucratic entitlement to a voucher system.

Grow:

Apparently, what’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander.

That little truth came to light during Tuesday’s Senate debate over health care for the poor.

Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, introduced one of the GOP’s plans for cutting Human Services costs by taking about 15,000 single adults out of MinnesotaCare and giving them vouchers so they can buy their own health insurance.

Hann sang the praises of the bill: It will save the state money. It will give the poor more choices. It will improve the health care of the poor. It will get government out of health care. It’s the American way!

No sarcasm clogging Grow’s keyboard there.  Nosirree Bob!  It’s the Twin Cities Media way!  All them poor folks is too dumb to take care of themselves!

But that’s not really the issue here:

Then, Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, rose to speak. She offered a simple amendment to this GOP plan.

She said her amendment would require legislators to test the plan for two years, before the poor were forced into it.

“I hear what a wonderful deal this is for people,” Goodwin said. “We can determine if this plan is working as it should.”

Amendment greeted with silence

For a moment, you could have heard a pin drop in the Senate chambers. What? Us on this plan?

When columnists try to play mind-readers, it’s pretty my much their own minds they end up reading.  Because I know that if I’d been sitting in that Senate chamber, I’d have been quiet, myself.  But not from taking offense at someone thinking I’d dream of being lumped in with the hoi-polloi.

No, it’d be because I’d be wondering…:

• …if Senator Goodwin gets the difference between people doing a job who get health insurance as part of their compensation – the legislators, in this case – and people who come to the taxpayers for help with getting health care?  If she recognizes a difference between someone who takes a job (yes, even an elected one) with full knowledge of what the health benefits are, just like most of us in the private sector do (with benefits that are admittedly not nearly as nice), and…
• …if she realizes how much of the private sector is moving in the direction of self-directed health care – where the consumer makes the key decisions about their own health care…
• …whether she appreciates the idea that vouchers, compared to the trough-slopping reality of most government entitlement programs, gives the recipient some dignity…
• …or, for that matter, giving public healthcare for the poor any chance of being sustainable at all…
• … or if any of that matters compared to her prevailing priority – keep the bureaucracy fat ‘n happy?

Doubt it’d be fit all that into a politic statement if I didn’t have the floor.

A rookie senator, Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, stood, clearly offended by Goodwin’s amendment.

“We’re citizen legislators,” she said, adding that she’d waived her right to receive the health insurance benefits that most legislators receive.

After proclaiming her own goodness, she attacked the Goodwin amendment.

One wonders if Grow would ever call a DFLer a “Rookie”, or write off their defense as “proclaiming their goodness”.

“Political tomfoolery,” Hoffman said.

Again there was silence in the Senate. It had been years since anyone had heard the expression “tomfoolery.”

And later, Goodwin said that “tomfoolery” had never been applied to her before.

If “tomfoolery” means ‘incapable of carrying on a logical argument”, I’ll be it has.

Anyway, here’s what they’re arguing about;

Back up for a moment and look at the plan Hann sings the praises of but — as it turned out — wouldn’t want for himself.

Single working adults who have incomes of between 133 percent and 250 percent of poverty-level would no longer be covered by MinnesotaCare, the publicly subsidized health insurance program for the working poor that’s been in existence since 1990. Under MinnesotaCare, low-income working people pay premiums on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.

The Republican plan would force those earning between $14,400 and $30,000 off MinnesotaCare and into the “free” market. With the help of state vouchers, they could select the health insurance they want for themselves.

Hann says that by “allowing” these people to go into the free market, the state would save $100 million per biennium.

And since they’re “single, working” adults – unlike Grow, I’m using using scare quotes in place of an actual argument – it seems like a great compromise.  Grow’s, and Goodwin’s, only argument seems to be that Senators don’t want to trade their current plans for it.

By that “logic”, Goodwin and Grow should both shut up and go on welfare, including MNCare.

It’s come to my attention that there are Republicans flirting with a public “Racino” – a state run casino, intended to rack up tax money for the state.

There are so many reasons this is just plain wrong.  I’ll give the Republicans the top ten.  Any one of them should be good enough.

10.  A new tax on the stupid is still a new tax. You were sent to Saint Paul to hold the line on taxes.  That doesn’t mean “find reasons to rationalize them”.

9. Gambling has done such wonderful things for Nevada ‘s deficits, hasn’t it? Seriously.  Panacaeas never works.

8.  Ditto New Jersey. Sheesh. Gimme a break.

7. Guido Greaseaballa and his syndicate thank you. Don’t wanna pay up? F*** you!

6. Giving the state more money is like giving teenagers more booze.

5. Yeah, Biloxi, too. We can be a cold Gulf.

4. How does it help pass the budget? I’m sorry – the DFL says it all the time.  Just thought I’d see how it felt.

3. Gambling addiction?  No action on that bet! It harms Afro-Americans more…

2. We owe the Indians.  We took this state from them. It’s only fair that we give them something in return.  Best of all? It’s not “reparations”; it’s a free-market solutions. Everyone wins.

1. Mark Dayton wants you to support it.  The state’s tribes have been solid DFL supporters for a generation- but that’s fading.  Fast.  It’s falling rapidly toward even.  And Indian gaming has been a huge cash cow for the DFL for a couple decades now. If the GOP can be tied to a Racino, Dayton will veto it immediately, and claim credit with the tribes, turning the spigot back on into the DFL’s coffers.

So – it helps the DFL, and it hurts everyone else.

What’s to like?

During World War II, there was a story recounted by legendary Marine fighter pilot “Pappy” Boyington in his book Baa Baa Black Sheep.  He and his flight were involved in a dogfight high over the Pacific; they were outnumbered by a flight of Japanese planes.  He and his wingman, George Ashmun, got separated.  Ashmun called out on the radio trying to find Boyington.  After a moment, Boyington called back “I’ve got five Zeros (Japanese fighters) surrounded”

“Where?” called Ashmun.

“Outside this cloud I”m in”.

I think Hamline U prof David Schultz has gotten a touch of the same thing in  his “Schultz’s Take” post from yesterday:

If ever a party were trapped by its political rhetoric it is the Republican Party of Minnesota (RPM). With two weeks to go before the end of the regular legislative session it is more than ever clear that there will be no budget deal by then, forcing a special session and perhaps running a risk of a partial government shutdown on July 1.

Right now it does not look like there is a common ground or room for compromise–mostly because of the GOP–and the Republicans stand to be the biggest loser if there is a shutdown, so long as the DFL can play it right. Fortunately for the RPM, the DFL is probably unable to set the political hook.

That’s because the GOP is “trapped” by “rhetoric” that won it not just an epic victory last November, but turned around two cycles’ worth of crushing defeats.

We’re surrounded outside that cloud they’re in.

And they’re trying to “set the hook” with nothing but…

• …a message most of Minnesota refudiated last fall – 22% spending hikes per biennium, and private sector workers being obliged to work ’til they’re 70 so government workers can retire at 55.
• …A lot of sniping, carping and attacks.

Schultz:

Since January the positions of Dayton and the Republican legislature have hardened even more, with them turning more firm in the last few weeks.

First, Tony Sutton, RPM Party Chair, sent a letter to the Republican legislators urging them to remain firm on no tax increases. Second, Geoff Michel has stated that the Republicans have already compromised enough in agreeing to spend $34 billion or $3 billion more than they wanted. (Yet he did not indicate how with that compromise the Republicans planned to pay for that extra spending).

Er…with growing state revenues?  The way conservatives always pay for more spending?

Maybe Schultz was busy in March…

Conversely, Dayton has made it clear that he does not support these cuts. He also stated last week he would prefer a special session rather than sign these bills.

The lines have been drawn in the sand. There seems to be no room or avenue for compromise. Both sides are playing chicken, waiting for the other side to blink or give in. As of now, there seems to be no middle ground for compromise, rendering deadlock and partial shutdown a possibility.

Good.

Let Dayton impale himself on the message of “you peasants can work ’til you die so AFSCME can retire at 55”.

(Scene: Sergeant BUCK SLAUGHTER,a 29 year old veteran of two tours overseas in the War on Terror, is  just home from his tour in Afghanistan.  Hestops by the Veterans Affairs office.  Looking worried he steps up to the desk.  ANASTASIA BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER  is sitting at the desk.

SLAUGHTER: Hello.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Take a number.

SLAUGHTER: I’m the only one here.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Then you shouldn’t have to wait long.

SLAUGHTER:  Um, OK.  (Takes a number).

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (Waits, typing passive-aggressively for about 40 seconds.  Looks up at “Next Number” sign).  “Number 1”.

SLAUGHTER:  That’s me.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER:  (Grimaces). How can I help you?

SLAUGHTER:  Well, I’m just back from Afghanistan.  I just wanna know what I can do about education benefits, and also VA benefits for the shrapnel I got.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER:  (Hands SLAUGHTER a couple packets of information).  Anything else?

SLAUGHTER:  Well, yeah.  I’ve never been all that into politics, but I’m hearing that they’re going to cut funding for Veterans.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Oh, yes.  Republicans are trying to cut everything. Grandma, kids, veterans, even kittens.

SLAUGHTER: OK, well, what can we do?

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: You need to call your state representative and demand that they put the following language into the budget… (goes on her computer):  ”

“Add specific language in The Ominous [sic] Bill…”

SLAUGHTER: “Ominous” bill?

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Whatever.  Let me continue:

“…UES1047-2 on both sides (House and Senate) on page R19 when addressing any overall general cuts and on pages R20 and R21 at the opening of both Military and Veterans Affairs budgets.”

” To read:”

“In respect to the fact we are a nation at war at the Departments of Military and Veterans Affairs are paramount in those operations providing manpower…

SLAUGHTER: So far so good!

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (continues)

…support programs and services, the following special consideration is hereby adopted for the Biennium ending 2013: The Department of Military Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs are to be held harmless to any budget cuts…

SLAUGHTER: Excellent!  They’ll hold all veterans benefits harmless!  Right?

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (continues)

…in salary, staff, FTE, personnel, equipment, programs and or services including any reductions of deputy commissioners, or the combining of commissioners of these two agencies.”

SLAUGHTER: Um – what’s that?

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: We’re going to make sure nothing harms any of the program administrators or management!

SLAUGHTER: And what about the actual veterans?

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER:  The what?

SLAUGHTER: US!  The veterans!

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Oh, yeah…

SLAUGHTER: US:  I mean, “holding harmless” the bureaucrats and administrators is like sending Military Police on patrol.

BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Don’t care.  Number two!

SLAUGHTER: There is no  number two.

(And scene).

The Legislature – really the GOP majority – has released its take on Congressional redistricting.

Two points:

Elections Have Consequences: If adopted – more later – this map will have some pretty hefty consequences.  While it leaves the three “safest” districts in the state – the solid DFL 4th and 5th, and the very red 6th – pretty much as is (if anything, more solid), it makes some changes that could have impact on the 2012 House races.

• It cuts Tim Walz’ mushy-left stronghold Mankato out of the 1st CD, putting it into John Kline’s solidly-conservative 2nd District.  This means the 1st CD’s fundamentally conservative, rural nature can be maintained.  It’ll be interesting to see how the DFL rationalizes pushing back against this, while fighting to keep the 5th and 6th districts uncorruptedly institutional-blue.
• Other than adding Mankato, the 2nd CD stays pretty solid.
• The 3rd CD’s “purple” days would seem to be over, with the addition of a stretch of solid red to its southwest.
• The 4th and 5th CDs become brighter-blue than before, from the looks of it.
• The 6th appears to jettison most of St. Cloud – the one place where Michele Bachmann faces serious opposition – and consolidate solid-red Wright County
• The 7th morphs immensely, losing the Red River Valley (and, it’d seem, Colin Peterson) and picking up Saint Cloud (blueish) and the far-northern Twin Cities exurbs currently in the 8th CD.
• The 8th swoops west, covering the entire northern part of the state, diluting the solid-blue Duluth and Arrowhead areas with good conservative northwestern counties.

Gerrymandering? That’s the claim you’re seeing from some lefties.  I think it’s worthwhile to note that most of the changes – the First, Seventh and Eighth – actually undo some of the gerrymandering that took place on the DFL’s watch (the Ventura-era court-drawn settlement in 2000 favored the DFL; Arne Carlson completely caved to the DFL in 1990, court settlement notwithstanding.   The DFL isn’t going to like it – but redistricting isn’t supposed to be predicated on the happiness of the party that loses the election.

Dayton has said he won’t pass any redistricting plan that doesn’t have “bipartisan support” – and when DFLers say “bipartisan support”, what they mean is they want to nag the GOP into giving them a victory they didn’t earn at the polls.  There was no talk of “bipartisanship” when the DFL controlled the process with an iron fist; it’s disingenuous, and playing to the ignorant (but typical politics) that they demand it now.

I don’t know that anyone is covering the stadum debate  like Mr. D.

On the debate between Minneapolis and Arden Hills sites:.

The Arden Hills site may not make it through the legislature this time around, because there are far more important issues than a Vikings stadium. But one thing is clear — the Arden Hills proposal is the only one that has any chance. At this point, Minneapolis has to be rooting for gridlock.

Read the link to see why.

And re Sid Hartman’s crabbling about the team leaving downtown (and his employer’s backyard):

Sid’s been grumpy since well before any of us were born, so you have to take this statement with at least two grains of salt. He’s a company man and if the Vikings were to somehow find a way to stay near the Metrodome, it could potentially benefit his longtime employer, which owns a fair amount of real estate in the area. He’s also a Minneapolis man and in the eternal struggle between the Mill City and the Capitol City, he cannot in good conscience support any advantage going to the hated rival to the east (and I don’t mean the Packers).

He’s got several posts on the subject.  Check ’em out.

Then call your legislator and tell them not one dime of taxpayer general fund money.  Wilf is going to make out like a bandit on either site, especially the Ammo Plant site.  His takeaway, and his progeny’s, is going to be well into ten figures in the nine figures.

About a week ago, I started seeing leftybloggers writing posts titled “Why Does The GOP Hate Teh Veterans”.  I knew they were up to something…

The DFL, and Govenor Dayton, have moved from their usual tactic – beating us over the head with women and children and the elderly – to beating us over the head with veterans.

Via Gary at LFR, the commander of the MN American Legion begs to differ, in a letter from Senator Mike Parry (emphasis added):

Dear Governor Dayton,

This morning, I received a letter from the State Commander of the American Legion that recognizes the legislature has openly and publicly defended our stance to hold veterans and the Department of Military Affairs harmless in our budget. The State Commander correctly recognized that the honorable men and women that serve in our armed forces have been a top priority with both the Senate and House for the entirety of this session.

The rhetoric being used by your administration completely disregards the legislature’s intent to provide the funding necessary to provide care to our veterans in our state’s veterans homes, to assist veterans in securing federal benefits and to maintain the readiness of our national guard. At the first hint of discretionary authority, you directed your staff to cut veterans and military affairs.

And I loved this bit:

I grew up in a military household. I served eight years in the National Guard. I have been around the military and veterans my whole life and I know what leadership looks like. What you have done to the military and veterans community is not leadership.

Gary adds:

The sound you hear is Gov. Dayton’s facade of nonpartisanship shattering. The State Commander of the American Legion isn’t an honorary title given to someone for being a swell guy. They’re picked because it’s known that they’ll be the veterans’ fiercest advocate.

Furthermore, the American Legion isn’t a partisan organization. They’ve shown their appreciation for those legislators who’ve been the veterans’ staunchest allies, regardless of political affiliation. Testiment to that principle is the praise Republican Dan Severson and Democrat Larry Haws received in 2007 for their work on the veterans bill.

The real problem, of course, is that the DFL – faced with a GOP majority that has acted with unusual decisiveness to release a balanced budget that capitalizes on savings – is stuck arguing that the Minnesota Management and Budget office, whose commissioner (Schowalter) is appointed by Dayton and serves at his pleasure, is “non-partisan”, and that their fiscal models, which ignore realized savings, are valid in analyzing a budget that counts heavily on them.

MMB Commissioner Showalter has been at the heart of this administration’s attack on the truth. He’s insisted that his numbers are right even though the plain language of the House and Senate bills have mocked him.

Schowalter is a key part of Dayton’s campaign of obfuscation; he – they – are trying to make reform seem impossible…

Fisking Lori Sturdevant is the new Fisking Nick Coleman.

Like Coleman, Sturdevant is a reliably monochrome columnist; practically her every word is predictable.  In fact, if anything Sturdevant is worse; Coleman at least had the occasional story about the community, something about a crime or a community institution where he could depart from “droning DFL hack” mode and actually write something worthwhile.  And, as I acknowledge over years, he did that occasionally.  Rarely, but it happened.

Sturdevant writes about nothing but politics – and her writing is entirely, 100% DFL chanting points.

Like yesterday, where  she burned 20 column inches parrotting Tom Bakk.

There’s nothing in the column that couldn’t have come from DFL Legislative PR flaks Beau Berendtson or Carrie Lucking; indeed, it reads in every particular like it does:

It must be acknowledged that the official line from the Legislature’s GOP majorities is that they don’t need to look for more revenue for the state’s 2012-13 budget, even though it’s $5 billion short.

(Of course, it’s not, and never was, except in comparison with the DFL’s wish list).

But it also must be noted that the GOP’s proposed fix to said budget contains a little north of $1 billion in presumed cost savings that no credible nonpartisan analyst will vouch for.

Sturdevant is repeating the DFL’s chanting point.  Minnesota Management and Budget is no more “non-partisan” than, well, Lori Sturdevant.  And the DFL was saying exactly as much, back when they were trying to pass off a bogus budget:

In the meantime, the GOP has gotten, well, “credible nonpartisan analysts” – ones” that don’t report to Mark Dayton, anyway – to “vouch” for their budget.

I’d love to see someone from the Strib defend the notion that Lori Sturdevant is anything but a DFL propaganda tool.

From the lefty playbook; compare apples to distributor caps, then use the results to give ones’ supporters the sense of victimizaiton that, you hope, will keep them chanting on cue.

So with this bit from the City Pages:

Minnesotans who can’t afford their rent outnumber those who can, according to a new study released today, landing us dead last in a ranking of affordable housing markets in the Midwest.

The statement is…well, just wierd.

Over half of Minnesotans can’t afford rent?

Rent…where?

Which half of Minnesotans?

Don’t worry – the point isn’t about thinking:

The National Low Income Housing Coalition released numbers today showing that Minnesotans need to be making, on average, $15.79 an hour in order to afford a decent two-bedroom apartment. Most of us are not.

Well, yeah – most of “us” do, if by “us” you mean Minnesotans, who according to the Census have a median income of $56955 a year.

That’s only part of it, of course:

• For 2-person families, it’s $ 61,457.  That’s about $30 an hour (our two incomes at $15-ish per hour)
• for 3-person families, $74,371 – AKA $37 an hour (or two incomes at $18.50)
• 4-person families’ median incomes in Minnesota are $86,099.
• 5-person families average 83,143 – if you’re following along with the math, that’s like $42/hour, or two incomes at around $21.  But there we’re getting into three-bedroom apartment material.

Maybe by “us” the author, Jessica Lussenhop, means 20-something freelance “writers” who are trying to eke out a living at the City Pages.

The study considers paying up to 30 percent of one’s income on rent to be “affordable,” and the average fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $821 a month. The number crunchers figured you need to make $15.79 an hour to make that work, but the mean wage in the state is only $11.61. That means about 55 percent of us are paying more than we can afford on rent.

If “55 percent of us” are living alone on $11 an hour in a two bedroom apartment, then 55 percent of us are too dumb to be living on their own for long.

You’re you’re working for $11 an  hour, how about moving into a one-bedroom place?  Or getting a roommate ($22 an hour between you; plenty of money for that fabled two-bedroom apartment)?

In the metro area, the average rent skews higher for a two-bedroom–about $924 a month–and vacancy rates are at an all-time low of 3 percent. But the least affordable counties in the state are Winona and Aitkin Counties, and the problem is worst in the greater state.

“Rents tend to be cheaper, but there’s a real shortage of good affordable rental housing,” says Minnesota Housing Partnership researcher Leigh Rosenberg.

Their “data“

The goal of the study, of course, is to create the impression that the average Minnesotan can’t afford to live in Minneosota – presumably without government subsidies.

Let’s be clear, here:  “Public Art” is to art what “public restroom” is to rest.  I’m at a loss to think of any publicly-supported “art” that advances “art” in any way.  It could exist – my art trivia-fu isn’t the same as my music-fu – but it’s not leaping to mind.

I think public subsidy of art is a bad thing, both as government fiscal management and as art.

So when the idea of the “Legacy” amendment – diverting part of a one percent sales tax to the arts as well as natural resources – came up, I was skeptical.

But I thought “as long as the money goes to art education, it’d be the lesser of the possible evils”.  Art education is sorely neglected in our society; having some appreciation for art in its many forms is one of the things that adds depth and color to life, and it doesn’t matter if that art is a trip through the Minnesota Museum of Art or a little music or the occasional play (from the Ordway to some waaaaay-off-Nicollet startup house) to a good book.  Music – along with foreign languages – was one of the few things that kept me engaged with the idea of “education” at all during those miserable years from seventh through tenth grades; I’m hardly alone.

So if you have to spend money on “arts”, for the love of pete, spend it on bringing art in its various forms to schools and community centers and kids who, in our society, just don’t get exposed to much of it at all.

So how much could we have done for $45,000?

A Stillwater library paid that much in Legacy funds to bring in Sci-Fi author Neil Gaiman.   And Rep. Matt Dean was unhappy about it, and called Gaiman a “pencil-necked weasel”, which got Sci-fi nerds and GOP-haters all up with the victorian vapours:

(“Um, hullo? It’s “SF”, not “Sci Fy”.  Doy.  And don’t call me a “Trekkie”.  It’s Trekker, thank you very much”  There.  I wrote it so you don’t have to).

The feud between celebrity author Neil Gaiman and House Majority Leader Matt Dean took several bizarre twists Thursday, when lawmakers threatened retaliation against local libraries, Gaiman threatened retaliation against Dean, and the cast of characters expanded to include Snooki from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

Neil Gaiman, starving artist.

The action started when a House Republican committee chair said he is recommending a $45,000 cut in the Twin Cites’ regional library system budget to make up for the state Legacy money it paid last year to Gaiman for a speaking appearance.

Gaiman quickly defended his speaking fees, saying they are comparable to those charged by Snooki, the reality TV star.

And to be fair to Gaiman, if taxpayer money had gone to “Snooki”, I’d be even more irate.

“I won the Newbery Medal. I won the Carnegie Medal,” said Gaiman, who said he has 1.5 million Twitter followers. “I’ve written movies that were the Number 1 movie in the entire world.”

Well, that’s great.  Kudos.

You, Mr. Gaiman, are someone who has been rewarded bountifully for your talents.  I don’t begrudge a nickel of what you’ve earned…

…from the private sector.

But can anyone say, honestly, that $45,000 expropriated from all of us working schlubs for “arts and culture” is better spent on allowing locals to bask in the presence of a millionaire sci-fi writer than on, say, buying rental band instruments for a high school music program?  For keeping an after-school art program open?  For anything else?

Dean, R-Dellwood, got things rolling Tuesday by calling Gaiman a “pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota,” has since apologized. He said Thursday he did not direct Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City, who chairs the House Legacy Funding Division committee, to trim $45,000 from the regional library system’s proposed budget.

Dean’ comments, however, underscored the ongoing concerns of the Republican majority about Legacy money being spent on arts and cultural projects as the Legislature struggles to solve a $5.1 billion budget deficit.

Concerns?

Try outrage.  As someone who supports the arts, I’m stupefied at the tone-deafness of the library’s action.

Although my inner cynic isn’t surprised (I’ll be adding some emphasis):

The Legacy amendment, passed in 2008 with considerable financial support from arts groups in Minnesota, raised the state sales tax for 25 years to fund outdoors, clean water, parks and trails and arts and cultural heritage projects.

And when Republicans point to things like…:

• …the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and their racket of funding arrogant avant-garde art while school arts programs go begging
• …the millions in annual funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which enforces a rigid political agenda on its own governance…

…as evidence that the public art funding bureaucracy is out of control, and the arts and culture advocacy communities are fighting against a legislative majority committed to cutting government waste, really, it seems it’s more than just arts education that’s lacking.

Gaiman is a successful “artist”, and a pretty wealthy guy:

Gaiman, reached Thursday afternoon, said he found the entire episode “very weird” and said he could win court damages from Dean, the leading Republican in the Minnesota House, should he choose to do so.

“If I actually wanted to come after you, dude, I could,” Gaiman said of

[For what?  Defamation?  Buncombe.  Dean made no factual assertions; he stated an opinion.  The opinion isn’t going to harm Gaiman’s standing in his community or his livelihood; it’ll likely do quite the opposite.  And malice?  Gaiman must be a sci-fi writer – Ed]

Gaiman said he would not file a lawsuit, but was considering other options that would be “so much more fun than going legal.”

There’ll be a Klingon character named “Deangrfx” in his next book, I’ll bet.  Socially-maladjusted twentysomething computer geeks will titter with glee.  Life will go on.

Gaiman also maintained that he received $33,600 for the four-hour appearance — a booking agency received the remainder — and said other appearances, outside Minnesota, have paid him more than $60,000.

And if they were paid for with tax money, then we really need to talk.

Anyway, fine – Gaiman’s not a pencil-necked weasel.

He’s just an unconscionable waste of tax money.

How many writing programs, or art teachers, or after-school music programs, could we have supported for what we wasted on this narcissistic frippery?

Governor Dayton tells the legislature to “suck it”:

Gov. Mark Dayton says Republican legislative leaders are underestimating his resolve if they think he’ll back off his plan to raise taxes on Minnesota’s top earners.

Fewer than three weeks remain in the legislative session, and Dayton and legislative leaders aren’t close to reaching agreement on a plan to erase a $5 billion budget deficit.

Dayton seems to be counting on the GOP reverting to its traditional behavior – bowing to media pressure and DFL browbeating.  Their most recent model – the “Gang of Six”, the GOP “moderates” two years ago who caved in on a DFL tax and spend bill.

And we know what happened there, don’t we?

It’s not the same GOP as it was two and four years ago.

Dayton said the Republican budget is more than $1 billion out of balance, and that they should agree on spending cuts instead of relying on budget savings that will never materialize…

…according to a Management and Budget director that serves at his discretion, using formulas that are not designed to account in any way for savings.

“This is real to so many thousands of Minnesotans and they won’t now, two months away from the beginning of the next biennium, even tell the people of Minnesota what it is they’re willing to do to them. And that I do not respect,” Dayton said.

Dayton is, of course, unwillling to point out that down his path lies madness; 20% spending hikes in this biennium will be followed by 20% more in 2013, and more after that.  And if the economy improves, and tax receipts climb with it?  All of that will be spent too.

Dayton doesn’t want to talk about that.

Dayton said there’s enough time to reach a deal but worries that Republicans aren’t going to budge on their opposition to tax increases. He said Minnesotans want them to compromise.

“They want us to work out our differences. So it seems to me that they have that responsibility. I have that responsibility,” he said.

57% of Minnesotans voted against Dayton.  He’s the one that needs to compromise.

The GOP?   No way.  They got sent there with a mandate.  They had best follow it.