Of Cocoa Bean Mulch, Indigenous Earthkeepers and Composting Grants

May 10th, 2009

Little more than a week from now, politicians in St. Paul will be pointing their fingers of blame at others in their explanations as to why a special session is needed to complete the state’s budget. But keep this in mind. Legislative leaders have known since February how big the deficit is, and they have known how difficult it would be to make the tough decisions. This, however, did not prevent the Democrat leadership from wasting time debating ridiculous proposals, frivolously spending money and sending bills to Governor Tim Pawlenty that they know he will veto.

This past week the Minnesota House spent a half hour debating a bill that would require retailers who sell cocoa bean mulch to put up a sign, in 36-point type, warning consumers that their dog might die if they eat it. Apparently someone’s dog died and now we need legislation that forces retailers to put up signs (as if they don’t have enough signage requirements already). The bill eked out of the House with enough votes to make it to the Governor’s desk, where it died under his veto pen.

The Jobs and Economic Development Bill, if one could call it that, had a $250,000 provision for an “Indigenous Earthkeepers” program to American Indian youth for environmental educaiton and training. This bill also had a $34 million loan forgiveness to the City of St. Paul for some hockey rink that the state has already forgiven $17 million on. Thankfully, the Governor vetoed this bill.

Another item that the Democrats thought was a high priority showed up in the Omnibus Environment and Energy Bill is $500,000 for composting grants.

Probably the biggest waste of time are the tax increase bills the Democrats are passing, knowing these bills will die a quick death once they meet up with Governor Pawlenty’s veto pen. Rather than making tough spending choices and reforming government, the Democrats are choosing to play a losing game of “chicken” with the Governor.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This blog is not paid for or sponsored in any way by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are those of the administrator of this website and not necessarily that of any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee.

Tags: ,
Posted in Government Spending, Legislature | No Comments »

Letters from a Soldier Added

May 9th, 2009

The East Central Truth Detector is proud to publish letters from CPT Ben Wiener, a Pine County resident on his fourth deployment overseas. Click on the Letters from a Soldier link to go to the page. Ben’s letters are can also be found at East Central Minnesota 411.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Faust Rails on Governor’s Health Plan, then Votes to Move it Forward

May 6th, 2009
Rep. Tim Faust (DFL - No Man's Land)

Rep. Tim Faust (DFL - No Man's Land)

In his commentary in the Pine City Pioneer, State Representative Tim Faust (DFL – No Man’s Land) railed on Governor Pawlenty’s health plan and budget. Rep. Faust wrote about how nursing homes and hospitals would be cut if the Governor’s plan were to be enacted.  

Amazingly enough, on the very day the paper came out with his commentary in it, Rep. Faust actually voted to move the Governor’s plan one step closer to passage.

Here’s how it went down. Committee passage of a two-page bill related to county human services was reported to the House Floor. In a purely cynical political move, Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL – Duluth) offered the Governor’s Health and Human Services plan (several hundred pages long) as a “minority report”, in other words as an alternative to the committee action on the two-page bill. A Democrat supports the Governor’s plan, you ask? Pay attention here – remember, I said “political” and “cynical”. Rep. Huntley’s plan was to get an overwhelming bipartisan vote against the Governor’s bill. However, sometimes, when something sounds like a good idea at the time, it may backfire. And that’s exactly what happened.

Rep. Seifert raised a point of order that the minority report offered by Huntley was not germane to the underlying bill.  Obviously, a bill hundreds of pages long offered as an alternative to a two-page bill  “greatly expands the scope of the bill” as is often argued on germaneness points of order. Apparently, Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher agreed, since she deferred ruling on the point of order and let the full House rule on the Seifert point of order.

In a victory for the Republicans Rep. Seifert’s point of order prevailed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan 75-56 vote. (This in itself is noteworthy because the minority rarely prevails on procedural motions.) Nearly two dozen Democrats joined Republicans in repudiating cynical politics and upholding the House rules. But not the local Democrats from East Central Minnesota. Joining Rep. Faust in participating in cynical partisan politics were Rep. Bill Hilty, (Finlayson), Rep. Gail Kulik Jackson (Milaca) and Rep. Jeremy Kalin (North Branch).  

In short, a vote against the Seifert point of order was actually a vote to move the Governor’s Health and Human Services bill one step closer to passage. Rep. Faust apparently didn’t remember what he had just written about the Governor’s plan before he voted. Or maybe he just thinks his constituents aren’t paying attention.

 In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This blog is not paid for or sponsored in any way by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are those of the administrator of this website and not necessarily that of any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in cynical politics, Legislative Action | No Comments »

MN House Meltdown II – The Faust Nuclear Option

May 6th, 2009

In Minnesota, new nuclear power plants are prohibited. In fact, for quite some time, there has been a little sentence in Minnesota Statutes that prevent the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the entity responsible for permitting new power plants, from issuing a “certificate of need” for a new nuclear power plant.

But things are changing. During the 2007-2008 Legislative session, Republican legislators tried to no avail to take the prohibition out of the statute so that the PUC could at least consider new nuclear plants. This year, however, the Minnesota Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to lift the nuclear moratorium. (Local DFL Senators Olseen and Fobbe voted to allow new nuclear plants; Sen Lourey voted no.)

Why this change of heart from some on the left? Well, it turns out that Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, the hated colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally, but is supposedly heating our planet. This fact puts environmental extremists in an awkward position. And, admittedly, it also puts conservatives in favor of new nuclear plants in a bit of a strange position, since one of the selling points for more nuclear comes from a page out of the environmentalists playbook.

It was the Minnesota House’s turn to take up the energy policy bill on April 30th. Since the amendment to lift the moratorium now had a chance to pass, the majority leadership decided to let a Democrat carry the amendment. So they chose Rep. Tim Faust (DFL – No Man’s Land). Prior to the debate on the energy bill, the rumor around the capitol was that there were between 65 and 70 votes in the House in favor of lifting the nuclear ban.

The Faust amendment took up much of the  debate on the energy bill, as many House members spoke to the issue, although Rep. Faust himself didn’t speak very long at all. In the end, the expected 65-70 votes for the Faust amendment turned into 60. The amendment failed 60-72. Local Reps. Faust and Eastlund voted yes. Rep. Bill Hilty (author of the underlying energy policy bill) voted no, as did Rep. Jeremy Kalin (DFL – North Branch) and Rep. Gail Kulik Jackson (DFL – Milaca). My understanding is that Rep. Jackson stated her support of nuclear power during her campaign. However, during her floor speech, she noted that she needed to “educate” her constituents about why we shouldn’t build more nuclear plants. 

It also shows poor planning on the part of the DFL House leadership by not having the votes lined up to pass one of its own members’ amendments (unless they intende to throw him under the bus). It also a lack of leadership on the part of Rep. Faust by under-performing the expected number of votes on his amendment.

Hopefully, the Senate position will prevail in the conference committee, and the PUC can at least consider another option to meet our future energy needs with a clean efficient and cost-effective option.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This blog is not paid for or sponsored by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Energy and Utilities | No Comments »

MN House Meltdown I

May 6th, 2009

Early in the Legislative session this year, the DFL majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives put “time parameters” in the House Rules in an effort to shorten debate on bills. Up until a week ago Tuesday, Democrats had not enforced this rule. On their first try during debate on a transportation policy bill, it did not end well for the Democrats.

With two Republican amendments at the desk waiting to be offered to the bill, DFL Majority Leader Sertich moved to end debate and go to final passage of the bill. Republican Leader Seifert angrily protested, asking the majority leadership, if they are going to to gag the two Republican members who had amendments waiting, who’s next? Which members of the majority might be unable to stand up and speak for their districts the next time the rule is enforced?

In defending his actions, Rep. Sertich talked about how the Legislature should be focused on balancing the budget, and not on “tinted windows”. Uh, Rep. Sertich, the underlying bill was a transportation policy bill. No money. Not related to the deficit in the first place. And besides, it takes two to debate. The Democrats are just as responsible for taking the debate past the alloted time parameter for the bill as the Republicans.

In response, Republican members launched into a series of procedural motions amd parliamentary questions, which delayed the vote on the transportation bill. The atmosphere was chaotic, to say the least. This exasperated Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher to the point where she stopped discussion altogether, and an awkward silence filled the House chamber while her staff negotiated an endgame with Rep. Seifert and his staff.

In the end, the Republicans withdrew their points of order, and the members with amendments waiting were allowed to offer them. It took only a few minutes for the amendments to be offred and voted upon. Lesson learned (hopefully) by the Democrat majority: It’s much easier, and more efficient to allow debate than try to stifle free speech.

Shawn Towle over at Check & Balances (free subscription required) called the Republican effort a “futile exercise”. Fighting for the rights of the minority to debate and offer amendments is not a “futile exercise”. Especially when the minority got what it wanted.

A two-minute video snippet is available over at True North, but this is only a snapshot of the entire episode. The full version can be seen at the official House video archives. Go to this link, and scroll down to the video archive for Tuesday, April 28, 2009. The exchange starts at 3:16:12 into the video.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This blog is not paid for or sponsored by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Legislative Action | No Comments »

Rep. Tim Faust (DFL – No Man’s Land) – What’s He Done for Jobs?

May 3rd, 2009

 

 Rep. Tim Faust (DFL - No Man's Land)

Rep. Tim Faust (DFL - No Man's Land)

In his quest to get elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives, Tim Faust the candidate leveled many criticisms at his predecessor and opponent, Judy Soderstrom. One of the things he said publicly and repeatedly is that Rep. Soderstrom had not done enough to bring jobs to the area. He stated many times that it should be a state representative’s job to recruit businesses and bring jobs to the area.

Now that Rep. Faust has been in office nearly 2 1/2 years, I think it’s fair to ask what his track record on local jobs is. Can he point to one single new job that he has personally been responsible for? What businesses has he recruited to locate in our area? Although I haven’t looked at any specific stats, I think it’s also fair to point out that the job situation in House District 8B is much more dire than when Rep. Faust took office.

After watching a tape of the April 3, 2009 House Tax Committee hearing, it appears that Rep. Faust is doing the opposite of his stated intent as a candidate. In presenting a bill to the committee, he must have thought it was a good idea to run down his district in order to improve the chances of his bill getting included in the omnibus tax bill.

His bill would allow the economic development region in East Central Minnesota to grant tax increment financing (TIF) to tourism facilities.

In presenting the merits of his bill, Rep Faust talked about how his district is among the worst in the state for unemployment. He then explained that his bill is needed because his district is not really metro, and not benefiting from economic development going on in the suburbs. “We’re kind of in no man’s land,” he stated.

Just as an aside, Pine City city administrator Don Howard was on hand to testify in favor of Faust’s bill. In stark contrast to Faust’s depiction of the district, Howard talked about the natural resources and the fact that people flock to the region in the summer time.

Since this is the East Central Truth Detector, I will say here that Faust’s bill, if it becomes law, will be a good tool for cities in our area to use to attract businesses. Rep. Faust’s bill was included in the House Omnibus Tax Bill. Unfortunately, the Omnibus Tax Bill has $1.9 billion worth of tax increases, and includes elimination of the JOBZ tax incentives.  The Tax conference committee is meeting to negotiate the differences with the Senate’s $2.2 billion worth of tax increases. The final product is certain to meet its end with Governor Pawlenty’s veto pen.

My point here is that a state representative shouldn’t, and doesn’t need to, run down the area he represents in an effort to get a bill passed. Especially when, as a candidate, he promised to promote the area and recruit employers.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This website is not paid for or sponsored in any way by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are those of the administrator of this website and not necessarily that of any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Business and Jobs, Taxes | No Comments »

Unwanted Publicity for Attorney General Lori Swanson

April 29th, 2009

First, the WCCO I-Team. Then the Legislative Auditor. Then the I-Team again. That $6,000 carpet and those $15,000 oak doors in the Attorney General’s office are causing the AG Lori Swanson a lot of unwanted publicity.

The I-Team reported on March 31st that sound-proof oak doors (that the Governor across the hall at the Capitol does not have) were installed in the AG’s office, presumably as a result of a security recommendations. A specially-made carped with the Minnesota Seal stitched in was also installed as part of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on renovations in the AG’s office in the last few years. To be fair, it sounds like Lori Swanson is not completely responsible for ordering these renovations. It began at the end of former AG Mike Hatch’s term. Hatch is Swanson’s immediate predecessor and mentor.

At the request of State Sen. David Hann (R – Eden Prairie), a regularly scheduled audit of the AG;s office by the Legislative Auditor will include and investigation of these expenditures (confirmed by a letter to Sen. Hann from Legislative Auditor James Nobles). This caused the I-Team to follow up with another report on April 20th on more discontent by former employees in the AG’s office.

Beginning early in Swanson’s term, employees and former employees have expressed their discontent regarding the way the office is run. Going back to Hatch’s tenure in the office, employees have said that cases were prioritized on how much positive publicity they would bring to the office rather than their merits or representing the people of Minnesota or bringing justice to a situation. (The old joke is that AG stands for Aspiring Governor.)

One of the incicents that came ot light early in Swanson’s term was her alleged actions to squelch efforts among employees to unionize. Imagine that, a high profile Democrat acting in an anti-union way. I love it when unions and DFL politicians are at odds.

Anyway back to the $15,000 sound-proof doors and $6,000 custom made carpet that were ordered, likely at a time when Swanson knew about a looming budget deficit. It’s not much money in the grand scheme of things. But the bigger issue is the apparent attitude that public money is there for the taking. This, and the politicization of the AG’s office has been standard operating procedure for quite some time. This office has been run by Democrats since the 1960’s. Republicans aren’t immune from corruption, but it looks like a changing of the guard in the AG’s office is long overdue.

This post is also posted at East Central Taxpayers.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government Spending | No Comments »

The Closing of Reddog Billy’s and Why it Matters Politically

April 28th, 2009

A few weeks ago, a sizable family-owned restaurant in Pine City closed its doors. This article in the Pine City Pioneer tells the story, but in short, Reddog Billy’s owner Jeff Flaherty said the economy did him in. According to the Pioneer story, Flaherty cited four specific reasons that contributed to the closing of his restaurant:

  • the lower .08 percent blood alcohol content threshold for DUI offenses
  • the higher minimum wage
  • higher food and liquor taxes in Minnesota compared to Wisconsin
  • the implementation of Minnesota’s indoor smoking ban.

Now, I’ve only met Mr. Flaherty a couple times, and I can’t say that I know him personally, so I don’t know whether he has strong political leanings. I do know, however, that he is an experienced business person. He did not go into the restaurant business in Pine City green. He knows how to run a business, and as I read the article, it appears that he is speaking from the standpoint of his own experience and his own business expertise.

Mr. Flaherty did not appear to have a personal axe to grind or to play the victim as portrayed in the Pioneer article. He even went so far as to say that the opening of the new sports bar in town, Chubby’s, did not negatively impact his own business. He stated that the more choices a town has, more people will come to town.

While the lower blood alcohol content was not necessarily a partisan issue when it passed the Minnesota Legislature, it’s safe to say that Democrats in the legislature are mostly responsible for the other policies that forced the closing of Reddog Billy’s. These policies that liberal Democrats push with their heads in the sand, not thinking, or not caring, about the consequences are in fact forcing employers to close their doors and/or move to other states.

Reddog Billy’s at its peak employed 43 people. That is 43 people who are now either in the unemployment lines, driving farther to go to work, or having to work for less money.

To make matters worse, some local House members voted Monday to deny bar owners the option of having a “smoking room” where patrons could go to have a smoke. This amendment would have allowed employees the option of not entering the “smoking room”. Democrats voting to deny business owners this option were Rep. Tim Faust (Hinckley), Rep. Bill Hilty (Finlayson) and Rep. Gail Kulik-Jackson (Milaca). You would think Rep. Faust would especially know better, since the closing of Reddog’s should be fresh in his mind. Additionally, the temporary closing of the Sportsman’s Cafe in Mora was also blamed on the smoking ban by its manager.

Do you think Rep. Faust’s vote was influenced by the fact that one of his key campaign donors is a medical doctor and one of the most vociferous advocates of the smoking ban in the area? Just food for thought.

When liberals told us that businesses can absorb a higher minimum wage, that people will flock to restaurants when the smoking ban is implemented, and that employers don’t actually leave the state when we raise their taxes, real world experitnce tells us something different.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Minnesota House of Representatives in the Republican Caucus. This blog is not paid for or endorsed in any way by any legislative caucus, political party, candidate or candidate’s committee. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of any entity but the administrator of the East Central Truth Detector Blog.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Business and Jobs | 1 Comment »

Conservatives vs. Liberals: Who Cares (and Gives) More?

April 27th, 2009

This information has been around a while, but since it hasn’t received a great deal of publicity, and since it fits in with what this blog is about, I thought it would be good fodder for one of my first posts.

Most people think of liberals as people who care more about the less fortunate, and as more giving people in general. However, this New York Times op-ed column is about a gentleman who made the same assumptions until his own research proved otherwise. Nicholas D. Kristof, in his column points out some of the findings of Arthur Brooks, author of the book, “Who Really Cares”.

Mr. Brooks found that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. Some of his other findings from a number of sources include:

  • Average annual contributions to charity reported by conservatives are nearly double the amount reported by liberals.
  • People in “red states” are more likely to give to non-profits, while people in the northeastern “blue states” are least likely to do so.
  • Internationally, Europeans provide a safety net for the poor and give to foreign humanitarian efforts (via government), but as individuals, they are far less charitable than Americans.
  • If all donations to religious causes are excluded, liberals give slightly more than conservatives. However, as a percentage of income, conservatives are more generous, even to secular causes.
  • Conservatives are also more generous in non-financial ways, such as volunteering time and giving blood.

So if you haven’t arrived at the message, one that I’ve known for a long time, here it is. The liberal’s definition of charity and generosity and compassion is when government does it with someone else’s money. Conservatives quietly give of their own money (and time, and yes even blood), without seeking recognition. Yet conservatives are the ones who get labeled as uncompassionate because they believe charity begins at home and government by its nature cannot really care about people.

So think about that the next time you hear a liberal who is “happy to pay more for a better Minnesota.” If he hasn’t opened up his own checkbook yet, it’s not his own money he’s after.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Newer Entries »