Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Special Interests’ Category

Based on what he tweeted this morning, Chris Bremseth sounds like a Dorholt supporter. Bremseth’s tweet insisted that Zach Dorholt had “signed a pledged to get big money politics out of St Cloud.” Actually, that isn’t what Dorholt pledged to do. Dorholt’s own communication tells a totally different story, saying “In an effort to reduce the negative influence of outside spending during the upcoming election season, Minnesota House of Representatives District 14B candidate Zachary Dorholt authored a pledge to issue a bipartisan call for outside groups to disclose their donors before spending in the district.”

This is part of the DFL’s political showmanship. It’s substantively meaningless because special interests can (and will) ignore Dorholt’s pledge. It isn’t a coincidence that the item at the top of Dorholt’s priorities page is titled “Political Climate.” Dorholt said “The 2016 elections will be a defining moment in Minnesota politics. We will decide not only who will lead our government, but the manner in which we select them. Are we going to allow shadowy organizations with millions of dollars select our leaders or will we stand up and make sure that all citizens have a proportionate share in our elections?”

That’s laughable and disgusting. Dorholt’s 2014 campaign finance disclosure report shows that he raised $37,709.00, of which $5,675.00 was contributed by Minnesota individuals. Of that $5,675.00 raised in Minnesota, a whopping total of $225.00 came from a St. Cloud resident. That means $32,034 came from contributors in Philadelphia, PA, West Hollywood, CA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL and other places. That means that Dorholt, as an incumbent DFL legislator, raised 0.6% of his money from the city he supposedly represents.

When it came to lobbyists and special interest PACs, Dorholt was well-funded, getting $5,175 in cash contributions from them. Let’s summarize these totals. During the 2014 election cycle, Zach Dorholt, the incumbent legislator, raised $225 from the city he represents while raising $10,875 from other Minnesotans, from lobbyists and special interest PACs.

Why should the people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents think that he represents them while he raises the overwhelming percentage of his Minnesota contributions come from Twin Cities elites and from lobbyists and special interest PACs? The people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents shouldn’t pay attention to this PR stunt of a pledge:

Based on how much money the special interests and the PACs support him and how Mr. Dorholt faithfully votes for their agenda, isn’t it safe to say that this pledge is a PR stunt?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The SC Times Editorial Board isn’t as unflinchingly liberal as the Strib’s Editorial Board but it’s a close second in Minnesota. This editorial isn’t the worst that they’ve published but it’s still a cheerleading editorial.

For instance, this editorial says “Earlier, the Times Editorial Board gave this advice to Gov. Mark Dayton: Don’t call a special session. Make the lawmakers deal with the consequences of failing to find agreement on some major legislation.” Clearly, the Times Editorial Board is picking Gov. Dayton’s side. It’s as if they’re absolving him of any responsibility for the trainwreck.

Gov. Dayton isn’t innocent in all this. He’s the idiot that vetoed the Tax Bill that would’ve provided tax relief to small businesses, farmers, students with crushing student loan debt, parents trying to save for their kids’ college education and military veterans. Is the Times Editorial Board cheering this disastrous decision? That’s what it looks like.

Dayton’s glum status report: “We’re moving backward.”

Gov. Dayton ought to know. He’s the politician who’s moving things backwards. During the session, he signed a supplemental spending bill. It wasn’t for nearly the amount that he’d originally wanted. Gov. Dayton is now insisting that a special session won’t be called until Speaker Daudt agrees to give him the rest of his spending request.

Thankfully, Speaker Daudt rejected that demand. Meanwhile, the Times apparently doesn’t care that hard-working blue collar people have gotten deprived of tax relief thanks to the actions of a spoiled trust fund liberal. Listen to Sen. Hann’s opening statement in this video. It’s quite compelling:

Dayton’s limousine liberalism and his my-way-or-the-highway negotiating style sends the clear message that he puts his ideology ahead of doing the right thing for Minnesotans. Lumped in with that is the DFL itself.

Sen. Hann noted the bipartisan nature of the bonding/transportation bill. Now Gov. Dayton wants to essentially start over and include all of his priorities while refusing to accept Republicans’ proposals. That’s what obstructionist liberalism looks like.

Let’s be clear. If Sen. Bakk were a profile in courage, he’d break with Gov. Dayton and insist that Gov. Dayton call a special session to fix the Tax Bill. The fact that he’s stayed silent says everything.

Finally, why has Gov. Dayton and the DFL insisted on a bonding bill that funds Southwest Light Rail? Twin Cities progressives insist that it’s needed. They’ve never explained why it’s needed. That hasn’t mattered to the Times. Like an obedient puppy, they’ve refrained from asking important questions. That isn’t surprising, especially considering the Times’ puppy dog reputation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It wouldn’t be a special session if the DFL’s special interest allies didn’t suddenly rush out of the woodwork like they’re doing now. This morning, legislative leaders met with Gov. Dayton and Lt. Gov. Tina Flint-Smith. PBS’s Mary Lahammer tweeted that negotiations are underway. Meanwhile, David Montgomery is reporting that the meeting is over. Montgomery quoted Speaker Daudt as saying “I’m still optimistic we’ll get to a special session. It may take some time.”

That’s probably right. I suspect that the DFL won’t cave until they start seeing how poorly they’re doing in outstate districts in the House and Senate. That’s the point at which they’ll have their ‘come to Jesus’ meeting with Gov. Dayton. It would be embarrassing for the DFL to thrown out of the majority in the Senate in the year Hillary cleans Trump’s clock in Minnesota. Still, that’s a distinct possibility.

The array of DFL special interests this morning was impressive in a depressing way. Transportation Forward put together a rally. Check out their list of DFL special interest “Coalition Partners“. I’ve made this graphic showing the environmental organizations on Transportation Forward’s “Coalition Partners”:

Organizations highlighted are hardline environmental activist organizations.
Here’s some other Coalition Partners:

Transportation Forward’s special interest allies have made it essentially impossible to negotiate a deal for a special session. That’s disappointing.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t difficult to read between the lines of Zach Dorholt’s op-ed. It’s clear that he, like Rep. Thissen and Gov. Dayton, long for the days when the DFL ruled everything in St. Paul. It would be a major mistake to return to that situation. It’s a recipe for disaster. It was a disaster then, too.

Let’s look at the Thissen-Dorholt-DFL ‘accomplishments’. They raised taxes by $2,200,000,000. The DFL promised property tax relief. We got the additional taxes. We didn’t get the property tax relief. In fact, the DFL touted their historic investment in education. A year later, the school districts in Princeton and St. Cloud enacted major property tax increases. What’s worse, they raised property taxes without bringing the increase before voters.

The last time that the DFL ran St. Paul, Rep. Thissen, Rep. Dorholt and the DFL ignored the dozens of in-home child care providers. Instead, Rep. Thissen, Rep. Dorholt and the DFL listened to AFSCME and the SEIU. As a result, they passed a forced unionization bill that Gov. Dayton then signed. The in-home child care providers, which are small businesses, told them they’d reject unionization, didn’t get a say in the matter because the DFL is a wholly owned subsidiary of the public employee unions.

When it came time to vote, in-home child care providers sent a loud message to the DFL and their special interest masters. They rejected AFSCME’s and the SEIU’s representation, with 1,014 child care providers voting against unionization and 392 child care providers voting for unionization. Jennifer Parrish summed it up perfectly:

We know that over the 10 years that we’ve been working on this that child-care providers are hands down overwhelmingly opposed to this. They were waiting by their mailboxes just so they could have an opportunity to vote no. Family child-care providers are small business owners. We set our own rates, we create our own working conditions, all the things that unions typically negotiate for, we determine for ourselves.

The point is that Dorholt and the DFL don’t listen to anyone except their special interest puppeteers.

This statement is particularly insulting:

My commitment: I will always put the public good above the appeals of powerful special interests. The people of Minnesota deserve much better than what we have now.

This special interest flier says that Dorholt isn’t honest:

It’s worth noting that I didn’t get a single lit piece from Dorholt’s campaign. I got tons of lit pieces and mailers from special interest organizations like Working America advocating for Dorholt. Isn’t it interesting that the man who’s pledging to “always put the public good above the appeals of powerful special interests” had 2 Minnesota contributors to his campaign? BTW, both of those contributors weren’t from his district.

Dorholt put the public employee unions, the environmental activists and the DFL’s bosses ahead of the public good. He voted 100% with Twin Cities DFL legislators. Zach Dorholt was too busy paying attention to the public employee unions, the environmental activists and the DFL’s bosses to notice he doesn’t represent the Twin Cities. Dorholt didn’t notice that the Twin Cities’ needs are different than the needs of HD-14B.

That’s because Zach Dorholt’s commitment is to the DFL, not the people of HD-14B.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

All weekend long, E-Democracy has been repeatedly tweeting a hate-filled, dishonest message, saying “Franklin Graham to bring program of hate to State Capital next Thursday.” Earlier this weekend, I wrote this article to expose E-Democracy’s habit of preaching inclusivity and practicing limited inclusivity.

The truth is that E-Democracy, the organization behind MN-Politics Forum on Twitter, hates Christians. The proof is in their communications. In one of their communications, E-Democracy said “Evidence strongly suggests that being a fundamentalist Christ and being a bigot is a very strong corollary but that doesn’t mean all fundamentalist Christians are bigots. I’m sure it’s just the vast majority.” Thank God for E-Democracy’s open-mindedness. (Am I allowed to say that or does that automatically make me a bigot?)

E-Democracy shouldn’t be taken seriously. Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse have helped more people from more countries, ethnic backgrounds and races than E-Democracy knows exist. Samaritan’s Purse’s history speaks for itself:

Samaritan’s Purse travels the world’s highways looking for victims along the way. We are quick to bandage the wounds we see, but like the Samaritan, we don’t stop there. In addition to meeting immediate, emergency needs, we help these victims recover and get back on their feet.

No matter where we go or what we do, we offer more than help. We offer hope. To suffering people in a broken world, we share the news of the only One who can bring true peace—Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

E-Democracy should be renamed. It’d more accurate to call them E-Demagogues. Their ‘accomplishments’ consist of trashing people who’ve actually helped people who’ve helped people in need. E-Demagogues preaches inclusivity. Where’s proof that they’ve practiced what they’ve preached?

There’s an important question Minnesotans should ask themselves before they head to the polls this November. Should they vote for a political party that’s owned by the special interests? If they don’t want to vote for a political party that’s owned by the special interests, then they can’t vote for DFL candidates.

The child care unionization vote provides the perfect illustration of how much the DFL is owned by the special interests. On May 15, 2013, the Minnesota Senate debated the child care unionization bill for 17 hours. The bill passed 35-32, with 4 DFL senators joining all 28 Republicans in voting against the forced unionization legislation. Five days later, on May 20, 2013, the House passed the unionization bill 68-66.

The DFL passed the bill despite a strong self-organized marathon lobbying effort by the in-home child care providers. When the DFL took up the debate in the House of Representatives, in-home child care providers were legion in the halls outside the House chamber. Repeatedly, these child care providers told the few DFL legislators who would listen that they’d reject unionization.

That didn’t matter to the DFL. Mike Nelson, the DFL’s point person on all things unions, argued for passage of the bill. The DFL passed the bill by the narrowest of margins, 68-66.

Rather than listen to the people, the DFL listened to the special interests. The bill passed. The DFL bragged about another legislative victory to go along with raising taxes and making historic investments in schools.

The DFL’s victories were short-lived. Several of the taxes that they raised were repealed 9 months later. The “historic investments” in education were touted as a way to stop property tax increases. Less than a year later, school districts were raising property taxes to sustain their operating levies.

On March 1, 2016, in-home child care providers pounded the final nail in the DFL’s forced unionization plans, defeating the organizing effort with 1,014 child care providers voting against unionization and 392 child care providers voting for unionization. In-home child care providers rejected unionization by a 72%-28% margin. That didn’t surprise Jennifer Parrish:

We know that over the 10 years that we’ve been working on this that child-care providers are hands down overwhelmingly opposed to this. They were waiting by their mailboxes just so they could have an opportunity to vote no. Family child-care providers are small business owners. We set our own rates, we create our own working conditions, all the things that unions typically negotiate for, we determine for ourselves.

The DFL listened to the SEIU and AFSCME. Republicans listened to in-home child care providers. Remember that the next time you wonder which party to vote for.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The person that wrote this St. Cloud Times editorial didn’t do their homework. If they’d done their research, they wouldn’t have written “As stated in a plea last week to Dayton not to convene one, except for political gains for incumbents in both parties, there really is no compelling reason for a special session.”

Had they read this article, they’d know that there’s a compelling reason for a special session. Had the Times read that article, they would’ve learned that Gov. Dayton’s veto of the tax bill will likely have a dramatic effect on the economy of Madelia, MN. Had Gov. Dayton paid attention to Speaker Daudt’s press conference, he would’ve heard about the needs of shopkeepers like Ryan Visher in Madelia.

Visher and several other shopkeepers had their stores ravaged by fire. According to Visher, the insurance check will pay for the rebuilding of the buildings lost in the fire. That isn’t the problem. Mr. Visher explained the problem:

The problem, though, with that is that the insurance money will build the building but now we’re gonna have a building that’s going to be valued at 5 times, 6 times than what it was originally and we probably can’t pay the taxes on that. We’d have a great building that isn’t viable for us and so they came up with a plan to give us some tax relief and so both parties and both houses supported that and it got to the Governor’s desk. And the Governor was down here and he said that he would help us and he hasn’t yet…

Whatever happened prior to Gov. Dayton’s veto of the tax bill is irrelevant. Gov. Dayton could’ve signed the bill and called a special session immediately to fix the bill. Instead, Gov. Dayton used Mr. Visher as a bargaining chip. Gov. Dayton wanted to use these people’s lives as leverage to win an additional $423,000,000 worth of spending on the DFL’s special interest allies. That’s after the legislature approved $183,000,000 in spending in this year’s supplemental spending bill.

Gov. Dayton, Ryan Visher isn’t a bargaining chip. He’s a shopkeeper whose business was devastated by fire. He’s planning on rebuilding his shop so he can earn a living while providing people with jobs. What Gov. Dayton is doing is totally un-Minnesotan. He should be ashamed of himself using hurting people for political purposes.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

On Monday, I wrote this post to highlight Paul Thissen’s hypocrisy on a tax bill that got strong overwhelming bipartisan support in the Minnesota legislature. Monday night, Matt Swenson confirmed that Gov. Dayton won’t sign this year’s tax relief bill, saying Dayton “will not sign a tax bill that includes a $101 million error.”

That’s BS. Gov. Dayton signed a tax bill in 2013 that contained far more than $101,000,000 in errors. Then, there was a DFL governor and DFL majorities in the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate. That year’s tax bill included $90,000,000 for Sen. Bakk’s Senate Office Building. The DFL Tax Bill of 2013 applied, for the first time in Minnesota history, Minnesota’s sales tax to farm equipment repair, telecommunications equipment and warehousing operations. Those taxes were passed over the strenuous objections of the business community. According to this article, “Dayton’s plan would dramatically alter the state’s revenue streams. Over time, the state’s system has tilted toward the property tax, which supplies 40 percent of the state’s revenue. Income taxes provide 33 percent and 27 percent come from sales taxes. The overhaul would ensure that each of the three sources provided roughly a third of state revenue.”

If that’s accurate, then one-third of the Dayton-DFL tax increase came from the sales tax increase. That year’s tax increase was projected to be $2,250,000,000. When the DFL legislature went home after the 2013 session, they found out that the B2B sales tax increases were wildly unpopular. By August, the DFL had essentially admitted that those B2B sales tax increases were a mistake. The DFL didn’t issue a statement admitting it in those words. Rather, they admitted it by initially considering the repeal of the B2B sales taxes during that summer’s special session.

The repeal of those sales taxes didn’t happen during that summer’s special session. Instead, they were repealed in the regular 2014 session. Either way, the repeal of those sales taxes represented a mistake of over $350,000,000. Couple that with the $90,000,000 Senate Office Building and you’re talking well north of this year’s drafting error of $101,000,000.

It’s worth noting that the DFL’s tax mistake was a major policy mistake. They made a $400,000,000+ mistake by not understanding how counterproductive those tax increases were. In the case of the GOP Tax Bill’s mistake, it was simply a drafting mistake, something that happens multiple times each year. It’s an easy fix.

Gov. Dayton’s threat is now a reality.

Gov. Dayton isn’t being honest with Minnesotans. Here’s what Gov. Dayton demanded during negotiations for a special session:

The demands essentially call for about $423 million in additional spending, on top of the $183 million in additional spending this session, on top of the additional spending added last year when the state crafted its new two-year budget.

That means Gov. Dayton vetoed a bill that would’ve a) helped students pay off their student loan debt, b) helped parents save money for their kids’ college education and provided property tax relief to farmers and small businesses. Further, it’s been confirmed that Speaker Daudt suggested a meeting between the governor, Senator Bakk and himself and that Gov. Dayton refused to meet.

Gov. Dayton ignored Minnesotans’ needs. Gov. Dayton didn’t pay attention to the “farmers, parents and veterans” that Republicans brought to St. Paul to lobby Dayton. Instead, Gov. Dayton vetoed a tax bill that would’ve helped these Minnesotans because Republicans didn’t say yes to Gov. Dayton’s spending demands. Gov. Dayton said no to providing tax relief to thousands of Minnesotans because Republicans didn’t spend half of the surplus on Gov. Dayton’s and the DFL’s wish list.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I knew that the DFL and ABM would start spinning things after they created a mess but this is ridiculous. While the legislature was still in session, Susie Merthans started spinning things. She quoted Paul Thissen as saying “Modest victories are due to Gov Dayton & DFL Senate dragging GOP kicking and screaming across the finish line.” Then, as though that wasn’t enough, she added “Paul Thissen: GOP beholden to corporate special interests, it’s time for a change.”

First, it’s frightening that Ms. Merthans admits in her profile that she’s the “Communications Director for @ABetterMN by way of @mnhouseDFL.” Why should ABM’s communications director get paid by Minnesota taxpayers? That’s the definition of corruption. ABM doesn’t change when the session ends. It’s the same dishonest messaging as they used during the legislative session. The only difference is that ABM will spend more money on mailers and ads during the campaign. The dishonest themes remain pretty much intact.

That’s before talking about the dishonesty of Thissen’s statements. The DFL is the party that does whatever the environmentalists tell them to do. Actually, they don’t do what the environmental activists tell them not to do. Think about the DFL’s opposition to the Sandpiper Pipeline project. Think about the DFL’s opposition to a resolution at their State Convention in 2014 that said the DFL supported mining. At the DFL’s State Convention in Duluth in 2014, that timid resolution was pulled by Ken Martin said it was too controversial. Seriously.

Another example is how the DFL rammed through forced unionization on in-home child care providers at the end of the 2013 session. Despite a massive lobbying effort organized by in-home child care providers, the DFL ignored the in-home child care providers and sided with public employee unions. Again, the DFL didn’t care about the people. The DFL sided with their special interest allies. It isn’t surprising. That’s their habit.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Zach Dorholt’s op-ed in this morning’s St. Cloud Times is a reminder of why he should be a one-term wonder. The Times asked what the legislature’s top priorities were. According to Dorholt, the answer is ” a constitutional one. The Minnesota Constitution obligates the Legislature to fund transportation and education.”

While it’s true that Minnesota’s constitution talks about transportation and education, it’s equally true that education was fully funded in last year’s budget. The budget that was adopted last year was a bipartisan budget that reflected both parties’ priorities. In short, neither party got everything they wanted but the people got a budget that funded everyone’s needs. What they didn’t get was everything on the special interests’ wish lists.

That’s why it isn’t worth paying attention to some of Dorholt’s drivel. In Dorholt’s op-ed, he brags about the fantastic job they did. Q: If you did such a magnificent job, why were you fired after your first term? Q2: If your education funding was so positive and so historic, why have school boards increased their operating levies? They’ve done that all across Minnesota. They’ve raised property taxes in both St. Cloud and in Princeton.

Simply put, Dorholt’s rhetoric doesn’t match Dorholt’s record.

The last Legislature — of which I was a member — left this Legislature a budget surplus for a reason: the next generation of Minnesotans deserves the same quality-funded education their predecessors got.

However, these legislators have let college and university tuition go up again, forcing students to foot another large bill, or take out more loans, or even forgo college altogether. We still have a lot of catching up to do for our schools and colleges.

Let’s talk about Dorholt’s time in the legislature. Specifically, let’s discuss his time as vice-chair of the House Higher Education Committee. During his time as vice-chair, Dorholt ignored St. Cloud State’s financial and enrollment problems. There’s a reason why Dorholt only talks about tuitions going up. It’s because his time on the House Higher Education Committee was a disaster.

St. Cloud State is pretty much the poster child for financial dysfunctionality. Dorholt’s solution was to throw more money at the problem without fixing the underlying problem. In fact, there’s little evidence that he was interested in finding out what the underlying problems were.

It’s just more proof that you can’t find what you refuse to look for. Dorholt’s ostrich strategy (burying his head in the sand) didn’t work the last time he was in the legislature. That’s why he shouldn’t be returned to the legislature. He was a failure then. Nothing he’s said suggests that he won’t be a failure again.