How the gas tax will help us

The gas tax is in the news again. Republicans have been engaging in their favorite pastime: baseless attacks. It's always easier to make attacks rather than presenting your own plan, and the GOP is happy to shovel mud. Our favorite GOP shill/press-release-poster Micheal Brodkorb got the ball rolling yesterday:

It was the DFL legislative leaders who pushed a massive gas-tax increase.

Get a grip! The increase in the gas tax is responsible for a scarcely perceptible portion of increasing gas prices. In fact, I dare Mr. Brodkorb and his colleagues, like Michelle Bachman, John Kline, and Norm "W" Coleman, to keep pressing this attack. It illustrates the Republican mindset perfectly: they're perfectly willing to sacrifice our roads and bridges, our economic competitiveness, and our quality of life to save 5 cents. According to twincitiesgasprices.com, the average price of gas yesterday was $3.973/gal. 2 cents of that was due to the recently-increased gas tax--approximately 1/2 of 1 percent of the current price of gas. And it will bring us a bundle of benefits (more on that in a moment).

It continues to boggle my mind that Republicans oppose investment in our state. Nobody would run their personal finances the way they've tried to mismanage our state. Just suppose you had the opportunity to make an investment which would cost approximately 1 percent of your monthly fuel costs. In exchange for that small added expense, you could gain the following benefits:

• You could make needed home repairs more quickly, lowering your costs and gaining equity.
  
• Your health and productivity would increase, giving you more time with your family and making you more likely to get a raise at work.
• You would consume less fuel each year overall, thus reducing your costs.

That's exactly what the Republicans are huffing and puffing about! The DFL legislature has asked us for a modest sacrifice, equivalent to approximately 1 percent of our current gas costs. In exchange, we can have the following:

• We have already moved up the schedule for fixing our roads and bridges, which have been crumbling under Republican rule.
• We can expand the capacity of our roadways and transit, thus helping people move faster and making us a more attractive destination for doing business.
• Decreased congestion (or, the way things have been going, slower-increasing congestion) can help everyone reduce fuel consumption and commute time, helping our investment to pay off immediately.

Folks, this is a no brainer. I know that higher gas prices are hurting people, but the transportation bill is not responsible for that! Unfortunately, we have developed a transportation system so dependent on fossil fuels--for which both parties are responsible--that it will take a while to dig out of the current situation. In the meantime, we can't afford to let our infrastructure decay and our competitive advantage against other regions diminish. For the small cost of the investment, our returnsare vastly greater.

Like this post?
How the gas tax will help us	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Does Erik Paulsen believe in global warming?

The website for Republicans in Senate District 42, which Erik Paulsen represented in the House, has a despicable editorial on "The Cult of Global Warming." In this misguided article, the heads of the SD 42 Republican party deny the existence of climate change and offer tips for "Fighting their [rational people's] agenda".

Erik Paulsen was a contributor to this website during his time served in the house. Now that he's running for Congress, he must answer for its content. Erik Paulsen, do you agree with this extremist denial of climate change? Do you believe in global warming?

The Republicans' own words convey their extremism far better than I could. Here's just a sample of their lunacy:

When you hear the term "Global Warming", think "Central Planning". With Global Warming, the Left finally has its best excuse to restrict your lifestyle and take away your freedoms.

Liberals are huge supporters of Global Warming hysteria. Their belief in it has become almost cult-like -- to the point where those who voice dissent are threatened with loss of money, livelihood, and even their right to speak....

The truth is neither the science nor the economics of global warming is settled. But global warming is not really about science anyway. It is about big government.

How many different studies need to confirm the existence of climate change before these radical Republicans see fit to help us do something about it? It's time for Erik Paulsen to denounce these conservative whackos and present a real plan to help us protect our environment.

Like this post?
Does Erik Paulsen believe in global warming?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

A new type of politics? Maybe not.

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece laying out what I thought Obama and McCain needed to do to make good on their promises of a new type of politics. So far, that does not seem like it's happening--not by a long shot. Dan Balz of the Washington Post has a great piece on this that I think is worth quoting at length:

A campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.

Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.

...Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

This is a great analysis of a phenomenon that's a crying shame. I love politics; I think vigorous debate over the future of our nation is crucial to our continued success. But like a lot of Americans, I'm getting ready to tune out unless there's a change in the overheated rhetoric. We should be debating the issues, but our politicians need to drop the personal attacks and the hostility behind them.

Like this post?
A new type of politics? Maybe not.	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Cato Institute slams Pawlenty

I hate to defend the Guv after all the harm he's done to this state, but a recent Cato Institute attack on him is so indicative of the state of conservative politics, I had to share it. The Cato Institute derides him for being in favor of "big government." As far as I can tell, what they mean is that he has on occasion voted to improve our economy and quality of life.

In the post, they complain that Pawlenty:

* Supported health care for all children;
* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform;
* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising;
* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
* Increased the state’s minimum wage; and
* Imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country.

It boggles my mind that the Cato Institute could complain about these things. How can you be so obsessed with saving a buck that you oppose health care and education for children? Cato will seemingly not be happy with any politician that acts for the good of their state. And if Pawlenty has done too much good for their tastes, I'd hate to be represented by a governor they DO support!

(News of the Cato Institute posting courtesy of one of my favorite news sources, Rachel Stassen-Berger's Political Animal blog).

Like this post?
Cato Institute slams Pawlenty	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: employment

NOTE: This is the first in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm Coleman's record on the issues. All data in this series comes from CQ Weekly.

---

As I shared yesterday, Norm Coleman has been running toward the center, trying to fool Minnesotans into thinking he is more moderate than he really is. He knows his positions on the issues are out of touch, and so he's hoping the voters have short memories. So here's a reminder of some of his most egregious votes against American workers.

2003

Coleman gets off to a rousing start by voting against investment in our workers. He voted AGAINST increasing spending in the Workforce Investment Act by $678 million.

Not content to vote just against workers, Coleman votes against both workers and businesses by voting AGAINST a motion to increase the amount businesses can deduct for equipment costs, extend federal unemployment benefits and expand eligibility for the benefits to low-wage and part-time workers.

Finally, he votes for what is effectively a pay decrease for our workers by voting AGAINST an amendment to prevent workers from losing their eligibility for overtime pay.

2004

Coleman votes a second time AGAINST an amendment that would prevent workers from losing their eligibility for overtime pay.

2005

After voting for a pay decrease, Coleman votes AGAINST a motion to increase the minimum wage to $6.25 over one year. Republicans claim this hurts small businesses, but Coleman clearly doesn't care about them. He already voted against increasing the amount businesses can deduct in 2003. This is clearly just a mean-spirited vote against American workers.

2007

Coleman starts running toward the center and votes FOR raising the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. But, if he really believes in this, why vote against a smaller increase two years ago?

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman consistently voted against American workers, then tried to cover it up in 2007. Here's a news flash, Norm: it's too late! You're out of touch, and it's time you were held accountable.

Like this post?
Coleman's out-of-touch record: employment	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman, GOP senators running away from each other

During the glory days of one-party power, the GOP stuck together. Party discipline was high, and they fervently pushed President Bush's misguided agenda through Congress. Our own Senator Norm "W" Coleman was in the forefront of Bush's supporters, voting with his GOP colleagues nearly 95 percent of the time--even more than the GOP average.

Now, however, it's a different story. GOP Senators--including Coleman--are pathetically trying to mislead voters into thinking they are "moderate." Party unity has disintegrated as they each try to prove that they are in the mainstream.

Norm Coleman is no exception. In fact, he's run away even faster than his Republican colleagues. He now votes with his own party even less often than average. But we know today's Coleman isn't the real Coleman. So why has he run away from his party? Because he knows Minnesotans disagree with him on the issues, and he's desperate to be re-elected. Coleman was never elected because of his stance on the issues; he was elected because of the tragedy of Paul Wellstone's plane crash and the public's backlash to the now infamous memorial service.

DON'T BE FOOLED! Coleman is a far-right Republican in the mold of George W. Bush. Over the coming months, I will be exploring Coleman's record, with one issue in the spotlight each week. I will show that, while he is sprinting toward the center now, his heart lies far to the right. He is out of touch with Minnesotans, and he needs to be held accountable for that.

Like this post?
Coleman, GOP senators running away from each other	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Thank god it didn't fall

I am absolutely horrified at the Star Tribune's report that MnDOT knew about rusted gusset plates on the Winona Bridge in 2007. An April 2007 inspection showed major damage. Some of the most damning discoveries include:

1. One of the gussets had rusted all the way through.
2. Pack rust was pushing some pieces of the bridge apart.
3. Inspectors noted that two of the bridge's bearings "are not functioning as designed."

I can understand not shutting the bridge down in April, when gusset plates were not widely considered to be a major problem. But in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse, this bridge should have been closed immediately. MnDOT ordered new inspection after the collapse, but they had one that was only about four months old! This is a connection they would have required only a minimum of competence to make.

This is not meant to be a political attack. This particular incident was not Carol Molnau's fault or Tim Pawlenty's fault--it shows serious problems throughout the entire MnDOT organization. These inadequacies need to be addressed immediately. There are no two ways about it--MnDOT put thousands and thousands of our citizens at high risk every day.

Like this post?
Thank god it didn't fall	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Is the GOP capable of discussing issues?

Al Franken continues to try to start a debate on the issues, but the GOP isn't having it. They have proven that, no matter what the issue, they will stick resolutely to personal attacks. I suppose it's all they have.

The Star Tribune reports:

the Franken campaign said Coleman failed to hold hearings on waste and abuse in the reconstruction of Iraq when he was chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

A competent campaign might have offered some defense of its record. But not Coleman and the Republicans... they're hoping they can go five more months without ever mentioning their record. Instead, the responded with the most ridiculous attack I've heard in a long time:

Al Franken is a hypocrite. He demonizes oil and pharmaceutical companies, and attacks any Republican who receives donations from individuals who work for these companies. He attacks Halliburton as a corrupt company. Yet, he has made himself richer by investing in mutual funds that are soaked with investments in these companies.

Where to even start with this? First of all, who is even talking about the oil and pharmaceutical companies right now? Second of all, you're attacking him over the content of his mutual funds?! Come on, you guys are the party of the wealthy--you should know how mutual funds work. They invest in anything and everything, and their mix of stocks is constantly changing. This is such a non-issue, I can't even believe it. When the only attacks you can come up with are this irrelevant, you're better off just staying quiet.

Like this post?
Is the GOP capable of discussing issues?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

How do you balance the budget with "no new taxes"?

Simple--you play accounting games with the state's money. During the legislative session, the Guv attempted to take $50 million from the Health Care Access fund. Fortunately, he wasn't able to get that. Now, MinnPost is reporting that Pawlenty is responsible for a section of the final compromise bill which takes $15 million from the State Airports Fund. And this isn't the first time he's tried these accounting tricks: we already took $15 million from the fund as part of a similar effort to balance the budget without raising taxes in 2003. We just paid the money back as required by law, and now we've taken it again--except without any provision requiring that it be paid back. He's relied on similar accounting mechanisms throughout his tenure as Governor.

It's time for T-Paw to grow a pair and stand behind his membership in the "no new taxes" cult. He knows that he can't legitimately balance the budget without raising taxes, so he's making up the difference on paper. This sort of juggling isn't sustainable, and he's hoping that by the time we all catch on to his parlor tricks, he'll be on to bigger and better things. If he really believes in his "no new taxes" pledge, he should have the courage to enact the massive service cuts it would require and face the judgment of the voters.

Of course, we can't hold the DFL majority in the legislature blameless. 2008 was better than 2007, but they were still outmaneuvered at times by Pawlenty. Because this provision came in the final hours of the session, there was no time to push back against it. In 2009, I hope they will force the Guv to make the tough choices. We have the winning message of investment in our infrastructure and in our people, and it's time to force Pawlenty to show the state how bankrupt his policies are.

Like this post?
How do you balance the budget with "no new taxes"?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Safe bridges, courtesy of your DFL legislature

From today's Star Tribune:

Nearly 90,000 drivers a day got welcome news Monday, when the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced a major bridge improvement plan that would move up by a year the replacement of the Lafayette Bridge, which spans the Mississippi River in downtown St. Paul.

MnDOT is making a major effort to invest in the safety of our roads and bridges. What's making this effort possible? The gift that keeps on giving, the Transportation Bill passed by the legislature over Gov. Tim "Do-Nothing" Pawlenty's veto.

The Star Tribune also reported that the Lafayette Bridge is rated worse than the I-35W Bridge was when it collapsed. Delaying its replacement is just inviting another catastrophe. Users of the Lafayette Bridge--and indeed, all citizens of this state--should thank our DFL legislature for looking out for our safety when the Governor would not.

Like this post?
Safe bridges, courtesy of your DFL legislature	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Conservative math

Because I like fighting with conservatives debating the issues, I posted a redux of my analysis of Senator Bush's energy bill as a comment on SCSU Scholars. I received the following comments from Gary Gross, who runs the ever-so-rational blog Let Freedom Ring.

Ask yourself this: If an oil company was only going to get revenue from a reserve for 135 days, would they waste capital on harvesting it? Of course they wouldn't.

As for the 2.8 billion barrels, I'm betting that that's a typo. I'm betting that what he meant is that we could get 2.8 million barrels per day out of these reserves for the next 15 years.

This is such a great example of conservative math: "Well, the market is always right, so your math must be wrong. These other numbers I made up are probably more accurate."

The fact is, the days of cheap oil are over. I'm not saying that to be whiny, or doom-and-gloom, or [insert favorite Republican attack here.] I'm saying it because we need to address our energy challenges head-on so we can provide bold solutions to help our nation stay competitive.

Like this post?
Conservative math	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Oil, the Environment, and the Economy

Norm Coleman has proposed a bill to allow drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. Janet at SCSU Scholars, of course, is thrilled -- but would more drilling actually be helpful?

I don't actually want to get into the environmental issues here, although there are many. In a different post, Janet has already stated her beliefs that our environment has no inherent value except as a resource for humans, and that once we've raised temperatures and flooded our coastal cities, we can simply adapt. It sounds crazy, but given such a huge gap in our worldviews I don't see any point in debating the issue.

What I do want to debate is the economic sense behind the conservative mantra "Drill here, drill now, pay less." The thought that more drilling is going to be a significant help to gas prices is laughable. Here are a few reasons why:

1. The largest impact on oil prices is skyrocketing consumption in India and China, which will only speed up in the future.
2. America lacks the refinery capacity to actually increase the production of gasoline. Drilling for more oil would not increase the amount of gasoline being produced in our country by one drop.
3. Coleman's own press release estimates that there are 2.8 billion barrels of oil that could be produced from the Outer Continental Shelf by 2025. Sound like a lot? If U.S. consumption were to hold steady at over 20 million barrels per day, Norm's bill would provide us with enough oil to last a whopping 135 days.

I have a suggestion for conservatives. Instead of looking resolutely back to the past and trying to figure out how to return there, why not recognize the challenges of the future and actually propose a plan to meet them? We can no longer find large enough oil deposits to make oil a viable energy source in the long term, EVEN IF we didn't care about the consequences to the environment. It's time to invest in alternative energies, raise gas mileage (CAFE) standards, and start building our cities in a way that does not require us to drive everywhere.

Like this post?
Oil, the Environment, and the Economy	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Draft Ciresi? Don't think so

The appearance of a web site called Draft Ciresi! has gotten a lot of play in Republican blogs lately--and nowhere else. Of course the Republicans are happy for anything that will take attention from Senator Bush's record. Don't take it seriously, though. Ciresi doesn't have a chance, and we can't let the right-wing sound machine keep changing the subject.

Why doesn't Ciresi have a chance? Just look at the endorsement campaign he ran. He was practically invisible. Early on, the assumption was that he would be neck-and-neck with Franken. He dropped out because his failed campaign ended with him running a distant third to Franken and Nelson-Pallmeyer, a perpetual long-shot. Do we really want him running a general-election campaign like that?

Al Franken is a strong candidate who's right on the issues. He's running against a Senator who has consistently voted against our state's interest. He is not going to have a primary challenge, so now it's time to get back to the issues.

Like this post?
Draft Ciresi? Don't think so	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Winona bridge to reopen for cars, trucks still out of luck

The Star Tribune is reporting that the Winona bridge will reopen on Saturday for passenger cars. However, it will remain closed to commercial trucks, and cars will not be able to pull any trailers, including boats.

I find it quite ironic that trucks will still be unable to use this major crossing. As I've written previously, if you read Tim Pawlenty's argument against investing in our infrastructure (PDF link), he writes that this will harm our economy. What could be more harmful than being unable to ship our products to the rest of the country?

Like this post?
Winona bridge to reopen for cars, trucks still out of luck	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Obama vs. McCain: finally a change in the American political process?

I think we can all agree that American politics is in ugly shape. Over the past few campaigns, we've seen little substance—mostly they've been based on ad-hominem attacks. Americans' support for our politicians, from President Bush all the way through Congress, are at all-time lows. It's difficult for voters to focus on the issues when even our mainstream news media rarely focuses on the issues. We're due for a change.

Now we have a presidential election featuring two reformers running on messages of change. Barack Obama and John McCain have, at various times, both promised to run outsider, issue-focused campaigns. This election thus has an opportunity to bring long-overdue changes to the way debates are being conducted in our political system.

Of course, this isn't a guarantee. It's pretty easy to get pulled back down into the muck of politics as usual—just witness Obama's primary fight against Hillary Clinton, which at time devolved into a substanceless mess about lapel pins and whose associates were more offensive. To rescue American politics and regain voters' trust, there are four things Obama and McCain should do during the campaign:

1. Lay out a clear, positive vision for the nation.
2. Campaign together
3. Accept public financing
4. Avoid “going personal.”

More detail after the break...

Like this post?
Obama vs. McCain: finally a change in the American political process?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Some of John Kline's votes in the House this session

In honor of Steve Sarvi blog day, here are a few of John Kline's votes in this past legislative session. This isn't even the result of any digging--just a very simple search of roll-call votes.

Kline voted:
- Against a bill to establish a National Landscape Conservation System
- Against a bill to establish an Office of Congressional Ethics
- Against the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act
- Against the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
- Against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act


Please support Steve Sarvi today, if you believe we should protect the environment, if you believe in ethics reform in Congress, and if you believe in the importance of student loans.

Like this post?
Some of John Kline's votes in the House this session	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Team Franken: please get your act together

Since his endorsement on Saturday, many committed DFLers have been questioning Al Franken's ability to run an issues-focused campaign and be a strong presence at the top of the ticket. As I wrote last week, the Franken team has yet to show that they can perform damage control and turn the media's attention back to the issues. MNCR contributor Chris Truscott suggests that "Franken is politically toxic." Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been particularly vocal:

I think that this has the potential of being a very large distraction....

Mr. Franken, how are we going to stop talking about this this fall? What are you going to do so that we're talking about the economy, we're talking about education, we're talking about health care and we're talking about bringing out troops home from Iraq.

McCollum has nailed the issue on the head. The Franken campaign needs to learn how to change the subject. This campaign should be about the issues, because Senator Bush is wrong on every single one of them. At the convention over the weekend, a Franken staffer suggested to me that the poor media coverage was not the campaign's fault, because they can't control what's in the media. If they believe that, they're in major trouble.

Al, we're begging you, get your act together. We really don't want to keep bashing you. We support you on the issues, and we want to see you win. Once your campaign pulls itself together and turns the debate to the issues, I believe you'll have the full support of DFLers behind you.

Like this post?
Team Franken: please get your act together	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

GOP promises to make Senate race all about personal attacks

After Al Franken's nomination yesterday, the GOP said they will try to make this election about Al Franken.

Funny, I'd like to make this election about the people of Minnesota and making policy that will be good for our state. Senator Bush is going to try to make this all about Franken because he knows he has not represented the interests of our state. He knows that, if the debate ever turns to policy issues, he's sunk. He can never run on his record.

Like this post?
GOP promises to make Senate race all about personal attacks	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Good campaign, bad campaign

Perhaps just as important as a candidate's position on the issues or his/her charisma and speaking ability is the way they manage their campaign. I firmly believe that the way a campaign is run has a lot to say about how that candidate will govern if elected. Additionally, a well-managed campaign can keep a candidate on offense, while a poorly-managed one will put the candidate on defense, giving them a poor chance at success in November. Over this past week, I've been struck by two examples of campaign management, one good and one bad.

One of the best examples of campaign management in a long time has been Barack Obama. Time Magazine had an interesting article on "How Obama Did It." In the article, Karen Tumulty shows how Obama's steadfast leadership brought the campaign to victory:

About 200 of his biggest fund raisers were meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, and among them, near panic was setting in. His above-the-fray brand of politics just wasn't getting the job done, and some of his top moneymen were urging him to rethink his strategy, shake up his staff, go negative.

Obama made an unscheduled appearance that Sunday night and called for a show of hands from his finance committee. "Can I see how many people in this room I told that this was going to be easy?" he asked. "If anybody signed up thinking it was going to be easy, then I didn't make myself clear." A win in Iowa, Obama promised, would give him the momentum he needed to win across the map — but his backers wouldn't see much evidence of progress before then. "We're up against the most formidable team in 25 years," he said. "But we've got a plan, and we've got to have faith in it."

Obama's campaign hasn't been perfect, by any means. But through strong leadership, Obama managed to keep his campaign focused on the principles he had laid out. Partially because of his "above-the-fray brand of politics," even his worst gaffes and scandals have not caused much lasting damage. The Time article has some other great examples of how Obama's management-style has led to his success.

On the other hand, one of the worst-managed campaigns I've seen is Al Franken's Senate campaign. I've heard Franken speak a number of times, and he's great. He's entertaining, thoughtful, and he has a great grasp on the issues. But he'll never be able to stop playing defense long enough for anybody to listen to him. Franken's Playboy scandal has now been in the news for two weeks, and the campaign doesn't seem to have even made an effort to stop it.

Franken's history has always been his biggest weakness, but his campaign has insisted that the voters will understand that his past work was satire. But if the campaign can't put this ridiculous non-issue to rest, how can we ever expect them to defend Franken against the more substantive attacks he'll face once September rolls around?

I hope that more of our Democratic candidates can learn a few lessons from Obama:
1. Don't compromise your principles.
2. Minimize "drama" within the organization.
3. Respond to attacks quickly and re-focus the debate.

Like this post?
Good campaign, bad campaign	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Another thank you to the "Override 6"

I've written fairly often on the transportation bill passed in the last legislative session, because I keep seeing reminders of just how important it was for the future of our state. One of those reminders was an article in the Star Tribune about two of these courageous representatives--Jim Abeler and Kathy Tingelstad--highlighting the difficulties they've experienced since their override vote. I want to thank them for the sacrifices they made to help our state move forward.

The appalling state of our infrastructure--and the need for new investment to save it--continues to become more and more apparent. The Star Tribune reported today that yet another Minnesota bridge is being closed due to problems with its gusset plates. The closure will require commuters who use the Hwy. 43 bridge to drive a whopping 140 extra miles per day. Or, if you prefer to estimate the financial costs, if we assume an average of 20 miles per gallon, the closure will cost them approximately $28 per day! With the closure of the Hwy. 43 bridge, we now have a total of four bridges that are either wholly or partially closed due to structural dangers. Our transportation system is rapidly approaching the point where it is no longer functional. We desperately need to fix our roads and bridges--and the transportation bill at least allowed us to get started.

Now I'd like to hear from those who opposed this vital spending on our infrastructure. In particular, I want to hear from our Governor, who had the audacity to try to veto the bill. Can he really believe that the current situation is acceptable? What possible alternative would he suggest? Should we just continue to sit back and watch the collapse? In his veto message, the governor expressed concern that increasing taxes would harm the economy. Could it be worse for the economy than a system of bridges in such poor shape that our businesses need to send their goods an extra 140 miles to find a functioning bridge? His do-nothing plan was simply not acceptable. Ignoring the needs of our transportation system--letting it continue to crumble and drag our economy down with it--is not only irresponsible, it's downright despicable.

Like this post?
Another thank you to the "Override 6"	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Is Minnesota a presidential-election battleground?

As Barack Obama comes to St. Paul tonight to wrap up the primary season, Republicans are trying to claim that his rally "shows we picked the right city and the right state. It shows how competitive Minnesota's going to be." (Robert Duncan of the RNC, originally quoted in the Star Tribune). But that's a pretty substantial spin. I think Obama is campaigning here tonight because of its symbolism, to send a message to the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he's ready to begin his general election campaign. The polls indicate that Minnesota is not shaping up to be a particularly challenging race for Obama; two out of the three most recent polls show with with more than a 10-point lead over McCain, whom he has consistently led since February. Here are the numbers, courtesy of pollster.com

Pollster	Dates	N/Pop	McCain	Obama	Undecided	Other
Rasmussen	5/22/08	500 LV	38	53	5	4
SurveyUSA	5/16-18/08	600 RV	42	47	12	-
Star Tribune	5/12-15/08	1117 RV	38	51	11	-
Rasmussen	4/22/08	500 LV	38	52	5	5
SurveyUSA	4/11-13/08	535 RV	43	49	8	-
Rasmussen	3/19/08	500 LV	43	47	6	4
SurveyUSA	3/14-16/08	532 RV	47	46	7	-
SurveyUSA	2/26-28/08	609 RV	42	49	9	-
SurveyUSA	2/15-17/08	541 RV	40	55	6	-
Rasmussen	2/16/08	500 LV	38	53	5	4

Like this post?
Is Minnesota a presidential-election battleground?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Pawlenty vetoes relief for those trapped in subprime mortgages

As reported in the Minnesota Monitor, a recent veto by Governor Pawlenty was called "class warfare" by a University of Minnesota professor. There's a good reason for that: he seems to be ignoring the way the mortgage market works, looking for an excuse to avoid helping those who are the most vulnerable.

Molly Priesmeyer reports on the substance of the vetoed bill:

The bill would've required homeowners with a subprime or negative amortization loan originated before August 1, 2007 to pay either 65 percent of the payments due when the loan defaulted, or the minimum monthly payment when the mortgage was first created, whichever is less, for a one-year foreclosure-deferment period.

Essentially, it gives the homeowner a break for a year, to help them try to get their finances in order, and to bide time until a comprehensive federal law is passed.

In his veto message, Pawlenty wrote:

If Minnesota creates a statutory right for individuals to remain in their homes... mortgage providers will factor this additional business risk into mortgage agreements and Minnesota mortgages will be more expensive.

But Pawlenty's veto is based on a misunderstanding of how the mortgage market works. The fact is, this is good policy for both homeowners and lenders. Foreclosures are very expensive for lenders, who would rather avoid them. Usually, they can only recoup a fraction of the value of the loan. This begs a question: whom does Pawlenty think his veto is benefitting? The professor quoted in Priesmeyer's article, Prentiss Cox, sums it up well: "It may make good, if divisive, politics -- inciting fear in the affluent against homeowners in need -- but it doesn't make sense from a market perspective."

Like this post?
Pawlenty vetoes relief for those trapped in subprime mortgages	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?