Archive for the ‘Cronyism’ Category
Yesterday, the ISD School Board put its best happy face on during their interviews. Whether they believed that they were going to win or whether they knew a defeat was in the cards, the indisputable truth from Tuesday night was that taxpayers rejected the School Board’s proposal by a pretty significant margin.
Tuesday afternoon, School Board Chairman Dennis Whipple told KNSI’s Dan Ochsner that most referenda and special elections attract approximately 4,000-6,000 voters in St. Cloud. When all the ballots were counted, ISD742 residents cast 15,853 votes; 7,393 (46.6%) were yes votes while 8,460 (53.4%) were no votes.
It’s one thing to lose a tight race. It’s another to lose by 1,000+ votes.
Tuesday afternoon, I told Dan Ochsner that we would look at the Times’ Our View Editorial as the turning point if this bonding referendum lost. At the time, I wrote in this post that it’s “foolish to think that this group of “experienced leaders” is running an under-the-radar campaign because this is a terrific deal for St. Cloud. If this deal was that important and that well thought out, these “experienced leaders” would’ve canvassed St. Cloud at least 3-4 times.”
The fact that only 3 mailers were sent out and that few Vote Yes signs were put up around town indicates that the School Board didn’t put much effort into this campaign. In hindsight, I never saw anyone from EdMinn dropping lit or knocking on doors.
Whipple said that the School Board would “return to” listening to the people. Hint for Chairman Whipple: it’s time for the School Board to start listening rather than talking amongst the education community, then telling the taxpayers what their bill will be for the School Board’s plans.
Special Interests’ Citizens Board held its final meeting Tuesday. It was a bittersweet day, depending on your political persuasion. For environmental activists, it was a bitter ending. For people that believe in holding government accountable, it was a beautiful sight. First, let’s listen to the special interests’ whining:
“Dissolving the Citizens’ Board is bad for rural and metro Minnesota,” said Kathy DeBuhr at a protest before the board’s final meeting Tuesday morning. “This legislature has taken away the voice of the common person. The little guy.”
DeBuhr was among those who protested a proposed 9,000-cow “mega-dairy feedlot” in western Minnesota in 2014. In a controversial move, the Citizens’ Board ordered the dairy operation to seek an expensive and time-consuming environmental impact statement even though MPCA staff had not ordered one. The dairy ultimately decided not to go forward with the project.
Ms. DeBuhr’s whining is annoying at best. This wasn’t a panel of ordinary citizens. It was an activist board. The fact that they ran off a major dairy operation after the operation had gotten its permits from the MPCA speaks to their activism.
Further, what type of citizens panel reserves a spot for a union member? The Board had a member of Duluth’s Transit Authority and an “agriculture representative”, too. I still haven’t heard anyone explain why there’s a need for a citizens panel. Isn’t the MPCA doing its job properly? If it isn’t, shouldn’t the MPCA be overhauled or outright abolished?
The Citizens’ Board was established to guard against undue political influence of the agency and to create a public and transparent decision making process on controversial issues. Supporters of the board say its abolishment will remove the final public process for environmental review and permitting actions for industry and factory farms.
The notion that the Citizens Board was impartial is absurd. It wasn’t. It was filled with activists. As for the statement that this removes “the final public process for environmental review and permitting,” that’s a bit melodramatic. Why is it necessary for limitless environmental reviews?
When Jeb Bush surprisingly announced his candidacy for president, pundits of all political stripes said it was a political masterstroke because it caught his rivals off-guard. Fast forward to today. Those pundits are singing a different tune:
“We’ve learned that the prospect of a big financial advantage is not going to keep people out of the race and that the notion of a new face is stronger than we might have thought,” Vin Weber, an outside Bush adviser, said in an interview. “That requires modest adjustments in strategy, not wholesale changes.” After weeks of bad press, “donors were getting a little edgy,” Weber said. “No one is ready to jump ship. Nobody has lost heart. But they have watched other candidates rise in the polls.”
At first, pundits said that Jeb’s team was seasoned. The reality is that Jeb’s team is all but fossilized. Vin Weber is to GOP politics what Bob Shrum is to Democratic politics. He’s got a great reputation and a lengthy losing streak. Jeb’s problem is that he hired guys with great reputations rather than picking the best and the brightest.
Washington’s pundits didn’t think things through. They thought that hiring people with lengthy resumes equated to hiring the best people. They’re seeing now that that isn’t the truth. The bad news is that that’s the least of Team Jeb’s worries:
On the stump, Bush has stuck to his pledge not to shift to the right to win the nomination, but his middle-of-the-road positions on immigration and education have come off more as out of step with the base of his party than shrewdly pragmatic. His wonky question-and-answer exchanges with voters sometimes resemble college lectures rather than a disarming appeal for votes.
Jeb’s biggest problem is Jeb. He’s robotic. He’s interested in antagonizing conservatives. There isn’t a mindset of ‘let’s win this together’. It’s mostly about Jeb.
That’s harmed other parts of Jeb’s campaign:
His operation’s ability to rake in large checks also fueled inflated expectations. Supporters acknowledged this week that an allied super PAC was likely to fall short — perhaps substantially — of predictions that it would bring in $100 million in the first half of the year.
If Jeb isn’t able to carpet-bomb the rest of the GOP field into submission, he won’t win the nomination. He simply isn’t a top tier candidate otherwise. Otherwise, he’s just another legacy candidate living off past headlines.
There’s no secret that Minnesota environmental activists are trying to stop the Sandpiper Pipeline project that would transport oil from the Bakken oil field across Minnesota to Wisconsin. This article highlights what’s behind the environmentalists’ protests and who’s funding them:
Now the Sandpiper Pipeline from North Dakota’s Bakken shale region across Minnesota to Superior, Wis., is meeting similar resistance. As with Keystone, the protesters say they’re concerned student, hiker and Native American grass-roots activists. The facts do not support their narrative.
Putin-allied Russian billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found. Sandpiper opponents are likewise funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations, researcher Ron Arnold discovered.
Several small groups are involved in Sandpiper. But the campaign is coordinated by Honor the Earth, a Native American group that is actually a Tides Foundation “project,” with the Tides Center as its “fiscal sponsor,” contributing $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.
The Indigenous Environmental Network also funds Honor the Earth. Minnesota corporate records show no incorporation entry for IEN, and that 95% of its money comes from outside Minnesota. Tides gave IEN $670,000 to oppose pipelines. Indeed, $25 billion in foundation investment portfolios support the anti-Sandpiper effort.
Isn’t that interesting? At the very time that Russia’s economy is tanking because the oil revenues they rely on have shrunk dramatically, “Putin-allied Russian billionaires” reached out to organizations that fund environmentalists to protest the building of the Sandpiper Pipeline project.
In reaching out to the Tides Foundation, these “Putin-allied Russian billionaires” reached out to an old ally. Teresa Heinz-Kerry is a major contributor to the Tides Foundation. Not coincidentally, she’s married to John Forbes Kerry. His current job title is U.S. Secretary of State.
But I digress.
Like most things progressive, the progressives’ attempt to sabotage the Sandpiper Pipeline project is being led by an organization (Tides) that specializes in AstroTurf campaigns. Think of it this way. The party of the little guy is sabotaging a project that would make people’s gas prices cheaper and their home heating bills less expensive. That’s happening because a company supported by one of the wealthiest families in America is funding them.
When she’s campaigning, Elizabeth Warren frequently states that the game is rigged against the average person. When that message caught fire, Hillary adopted the campaign theme of being “everyday Americans” champion. The truth is that the game is rigged against the little guy. One-percenters like Teresa Heinz-Kerry do their utmost to make sure average people pay more.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL certainly haven’t fought against these AstroTurf organizations who’ve protested the building of the Sandpiper pipeline. That’s because they’ve decided to side with environmental activist organizations that are funded by big corporations that don’t give a damn about Minnesota.
The RNC should pull the plug on the Republican presidential debate that ABC is hosting. It isn’t just that George Stephanopoulos didn’t clothe himself in glory with his nondisclosure of his donations to the Clinton Foundation. It’s that ABC is caught in another controversy that proves ABC isn’t trustworthy:
Games may have been played yesterday in connection with the week’s resounding media story. On Thursday morning, Politico media reporter Dylan Byers broke the story of George Stephanopoulos’s big-money donations to the Clinton Foundation (at first they were reported as $50,000 but grew to $75,000 by day’s end). The headline of Byers’s story: “George Stephanopoulos discloses $75,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation.”
Big deal. The Internet exploded with commentary, criticisms of Stephanopoulos, liberal-media slams and claims that the PR department of ABC News had done something untoward in handling the story.
Thanks @ABC for leaking statement to @DylanByers after @AndrewStilesUSA and @FreeBeacon asked you about Stephanopoulos donation to Clintons
— Matthew Continetti (@continetti) May 14, 2015
.@AndrewStilesUSA spotted the donation yesterday. I told him to ask @ABC for comment. They said they’d give a statement—to @DylanByers!
— Matthew Continetti (@continetti) May 14, 2015
In other words, ABC issued a statement to a newspaper that they thought would write a friendlier story about the Stephanopoulos story rather than let a real journalist write the story he’d discovered. That’s a pretty scummy thing to do. I don’t think it’s coincidence that ABC gave the Washington Free Beacon a comment … 10 minutes after the Byers Politico article broke. Here’s why:
When the Washington Free Beaconers put their heads together Thursday morning, there was still no comment from ABC News. “I say, ‘Let’s begin to move this story,’” recalls Continetti. The piece wasn’t complicated: A network news anchor had contributed to a charity run by the first family of the Democratic party and hadn’t told viewers when that charity emerged in news coverage. What was complicated was its landing. “Literally as we were about to hit ‘post,’ we are alerted to the Dylan Byers piece that just went up,” says Continetti, who moved to publish their piece without the ABC News statements. Those arrived later.
This sounds like Stephanopoulos and the ABC PR department trying to direct the story to a friendlier media outlet. They know that the Washington Free Beacon is a right-of-center newspaper. Stephanopoulos might’ve suspected that Stiles’ article would’ve been harder hitting than Byers’ spoon-fed article.
The RNC shouldn’t be in the business of fighting reporters’ fights. Still, it shouldn’t let networks host debates if they’ve shown themselves to not be trustworthy. It isn’t just that Stephanopoulos isn’t trustworthy. It’s that ABC has proven that they aren’t trustworthy. They’re more trustworthy than MSNBC but they’re far from trustworthy.
Earlier tonight, I wrote this post that said a budget deal had been reached. This picture of Sen. Bakk and Speaker Daudt seemed to confirm that a deal had been reached:
Since then, though, Gov. Dayton has tried sabotaging the deal. Here’s the first tweet I saw announcing his opposition to the deal hammered out at his mansion:
Gov. Dayton has sent his education funding requirements to #mnleg leaders and is now waiting to hear back. https://t.co/hQCIk8vUjt
— R. Stassen-Berger (@RachelSB) May 16, 2015
Thankfully, some people are relatively sane:
. @kdaudt echoes Bakk about proceeding with #mnleg-struck accord as discussed: “It’s solid as far as we’re concerned”
— Brian Bakst (@Stowydad) May 16, 2015
Others are trying to pay off the special interests:
In an exclusive interview with the Pioneer Press Friday night, Gov. Mark Dayton said lawmakers reached their budget deal without checking with him and stood by his demand that they give early childhood through high school funding at least $550 million more over the next two years.
“If I’m not able to agree to anything that’s in there, including the E-12, I do not take responsibility any more than either of them for the fact that we couldn’t reach an agreement,” Dayton said as he closed out a long day of negotiations at the governor’s residence.
Now that’s a shocker. Gov. Dayton saying he isn’t taking “responsibility” for something. Minnesota, this is why Gov. Dayton was given the title of being the worst senator in the United States Senate. The House and Senate rejected Gov. Dayton’s universal pre-K proposal. Gov. Dayton’s response to the bipartisan rejection was to insist on an additional $550,000,000 for the K-12 formula:
The governor said he had few objections to the budget plan as lawmakers laid it out other than its level of education spending. “I won’t accept anything less than $550 (million),” for education, he said. “If they agree to that….I’m not aware of anything else that could stand in the way of the overall agreement.”
That means Gov. Dayton is willing to shut down the government because the legislature won’t increase K-12 funding that Gov. Dayton first proposed tonight. What type of lunatic would attempt to pull a stunt like that at the eleventh hour?
If there’s a shutdown, it’s because Gov. Dayton engineered it at the eleventh hour. That isn’t statesmanship.
That’s acting like a spoiled brat.
UPDATE: Speaker Daudt and Sen. Bakk agreed to spending targets. Follow this link to find out more about the agreement.
I’ll cut straight to the chase. Nan Madden’s op-ed in the St. Cloud Times is disgustingly dishonest. Check this lie out:
Large tax cuts passed at the end of the 1990s and 2000s proved to be unsustainable, and were followed by deep cuts in higher education, affordable child care and other services.
That’s total BS. First, the “large tax cuts passed at the end of the 1990s and 2000s” weren’t unsustainable. What happened is that the US economy took a major, lengthy hit because of 9-11, then the first banking crisis. If not for that major recession, the Jesse Checks would’ve been totally sustainable. Madden’s disgust with tax cuts is based more on misinformation and misguided ideology than by facts.
Her ideology is hard left. First, Madden is the director of the Minnesota Budget Project. MBP is part of an organization called Invest in Minnesota, an organization that “was founded by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition(JRLC) and the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits (MCN).”
According to IIM’s website, “Invest in Minnesota is united around two core principles:
- Revenue-raising must be a significant part of the solution to resolving the state’s budget deficit.
- The overall package of fair revenue-raising must make the tax system fairer.
It isn’t difficult to figure out why The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and the Minnesota Budget Project hates tax cuts of any kind. Check out MCN’s agenda page:
I’d also argue that the tax cuts were large. Here’s some details on the Jesse Checks program:
“In late summer, I get to stand here and say, the checks are in the mail.”
Ventura pushed for returning surplus money in the form of a sales tax rebate, which some Minnesotans have come to call “Jesse checks.” This year, the average check is $512 for a married couple or head of household, and $232 for a single filer. State officials say all eligible taxpayers should receive their checks by Labor Day. But Ventura cautions that this may be the last year of rebate checks, since the state has cut taxes and the economy has slowed. “We are not bringing in the money that we used to bring in prior to my administration, and in light of that, and the economy, there may not be a fourth,” says Ventura.
Nan Madden is the type of person that thinks the government and the NPOs they support should get first dibs on the money Minnesotans earn. She thinks that because she can’t envision a world where NPOs don’t get first dibs on the taxpayers’ money.
Minnesota Budget Project, like Invest in Minnesota, pushed hard to pass a major minimum wage increase that includes cost of living adjustment. They’re currently pushing for a law that would require companies to pay for sick leave for their employees. It isn’t surprising that businesses have left Minnesota.
For nearly two decades, the Minnesota Budget Project has analyzed state tax and budget choices, and called for policies that propel Minnesota toward a future where all of us have access to opportunity and economic well-being.
That’s similar to the truth but it isn’t complete. Here’s the whole truth about the Minnesota Budget Project. The Minnesota Budget Project supports economic policies that support intrusive, ever-growing government. If that means intruding on businesses’ decisions for ‘the greater good’, they’re fine with that.
They aren’t a pro-growth organization any more than the Obama administration is a pro-growth administration.
When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1991-92, their war room operations were second to none. Hillary’s press operations are second to everyone. Check out this video:
Here’s the transcript of what Bill Clinton, Brian Fallon, John Podesta and James Carville said:
BILL CLINTON, 42ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Even the guy that wrote the book apparently, had to admit under questioning that he didn’t have a shred of evidence for this. He just sort of thought he would throw it out there and see if it’d fly.
BRIAN FALLON: It’s full of sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air with no actual evidence.
JOHN PODESTA: It’s a book that’s written by a former Bush operative. He’s cherry-picked information that’s been disclosed and woven a bunch of conspiracy theories about it.
JAMES CARVILLE: There’s everything here but that she did anything — this is spaghetti journalism. There’s throw spaghetti at the wall and hope something sticks.
Here’s the transcript for Peter Schweizer’s response to Team Clinton’s ineffective response:
KELLY: Joining us now is the spaghetti maker, Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”
Peter, good to see you. So, I mean, obviously, what those clips show is they are a little worried about you. And that’s obvious. But their main line of attack seems to be, there’s no there there, there’s smoking gun. Something you’ve admitted yourself.
PETER SCHWEIZER, AUTHOR, “CLINTON CASH”: Well, what I argue is the smoking gun, I don’t have an e-mail that says, do this and we’ll give you money. What I do have is a pattern of behavior that I think is very troubling. And the pattern is revealed in dozens of examples where there’s an influx of money to the Clintons. Hillary Clinton and shortly thereafter takes favorable actions for the individuals who are giving them the money. You can look at one of two of these, Megyn, and say, come on, it’s a coincidence. But when you see it replicated dozens of times, I think it warrants serious investigation by people that have subpoena power that can look at e-mails, that can look at correspondence.
KELLY: They don’t seem to think it counts unless there is direct proof. They don’t seem to believe in circumstantial evidence when it comes to their behavior.
SCHWEIZER: Yes, that’s exactly right. I mean, here’s what I like to say, Megyn. Imagine three years from now we have a secretary of defense not named Clinton and she has a private foundation with her husband and a small company has business before the Pentagon, needs Pentagon approval for something and the shareholders in that company send $145 million to that family foundation. Are people going to just ask them, did anything happen here and we’re going to take their word that everything was good? Of course not, we would investigate and look into it except for the fact that when it involves the Clintons they seem to operate on a level that’s very different than anybody else in American politics.
KELLY: What should happen though? Because now she is going to testify before the Benghazi committee, at least. So, I mean, that she’ll get asked and she will have to answer, correct?
SCHWEIZER: Yes, you know, I don’t know in terms of the committee what the scope of their questioning is going to be, but look, I think we need to have somebody that has subpoena power look into some of these deals. We need to look at some of the inflated speaking fees that Bill Clinton got as she was considering everything from the Keystone Pipeline to issues related to sanctions on Iran.
KELLY: Who would look into it? Who specifically? I mean, O’Reilly is looking for the FBI to do it. Who specifically?
SCHWEIZER: Well, I think the FBI is an excellent suggestion. You could have Congressional committees do it. Frankly, I think I’d like to see somebody with subpoena power that is a prosecutor, possibly even convene a grand jury. I mean, look, you look at the Menendez case, you look at the case down in Virginia, you look out in Oregon with Keith Saber (ph), the pattern of behavior here is somewhat similar. And it is crying out for further investigation.
This is the part where Schweizer blows Bill Clinton out of the water:
I don’t have an e-mail that says, do this and we’ll give you money. What I do have is a pattern of behavior that I think is very troubling. And the pattern is revealed in dozens of examples where there’s an influx of money to the Clintons. Hillary Clinton and shortly thereafter takes favorable actions for the individuals who are giving them the money. You can look at one of two of these, Megyn, and say, come on, it’s a coincidence. But when you see it replicated dozens of times, I think it warrants serious investigation by people that have subpoena power that can look at e-mails, that can look at correspondence.
Like Schweizer said, if this happened once or twice, chalk it up to coincidence. When the same thing happens dozens of times and the outcome is always the same, that’s a pattern. Patterns aren’t coincidences. Here’s the definition for coincidence:
a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.
Here’s the definition for pattern:
a combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement.
Hillary’s rapid response team aren’t top notch. They’re leftovers who’ve hung around long after their sell-by date. John Podesta? James Carville? Lanny Davis? Seriously? They belong in the political geriatric ward, not on the campaign trail.
Thus far, Hillary’s campaign has been a blast from the past. She isn’t a fresh face peddling fresh ideas. She isn’t energetic like Obama was. She’s overstaged and overchoreographed. All of the queen’s horses and all of the queen’s messengers can’t put Hillary’s campaign back together again.
What’s worst for Hillary is that she isn’t the dynamic candidate Bill or Obama was. She’s just Hillary.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Clinton Foundation, Pay to Play, Clinton War Room, John Podesta, James Carville, Brian Fallon, Lanny Davis, Barack Obama, Democrats, Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash, Election 2016
This Strib article is an excellent piece of reporting in that it explains what the Met Council is:
“It’s not about simply griping about allocation of transportation or parks money or housing in any given particular funding cycle,” said Dakota County Commissioner Chris Gerlach.
“We look at it and say, there is a fundamental problem with the way the Met Council functions. You think it’s one thing, but it’s really not,” Gerlach said. “You think that a Met Council is made up of 16 individuals and a chair appointed by various districts and therefore you have a diverse group that is going to advocate for the region. It’s not that at all. What it is, it’s a state agency.”
I can’t disagree with Gerlach’s statement. The Council is appointed by the governor. Political appointees don’t work on the behalf of these counties. In this instance, they work for Gov. Dayton and the DFL’s special interests. The Met Council either needs to be changed or gotten rid of.
Counties still aren’t happy, though. Four years ago, they were angry enough to take their case to the Transportation Department, which eventually affirmed, via a letter, that the current makeup is legal. That 2011 letter is still used by the Met Council to justify its decisionmaking process.
Changing the Met Council’s board would require a change in state statute; several proposals pending in the Legislature would examine the issue. The way the Met Council operates is extremely rare: A 2010 report paid for by the Federal Highway Administration found that 94 percent of organizations like the Met Council are made up of elected officials.
A government agency that doesn’t answer to the people is unaccountable. I wouldn’t trust them.
Of course, Gov. Dayton is upset because he didn’t pay attention to what’s happening:
Quarrels between cities and suburbs about how to spend public dollars are as old as the cities and suburbs themselves. But the decision by the four counties to hire a federal lobbyist, before checking with the governor, is viewed by Dayton as a nuclear option.
“It’s really, really reprehensible on their part to be sneaking off to Washington behind the back of, I don’t know if the people on the Met Council were aware of it, but at least behind my back,” Dayton said. “And then come to the state of Minnesota for funding for their projects and the like? If we have a disagreement within our family, then the place to resolve that is within our family. To go out to Washington behind our backs and trash our situation here in Minnesota, and denigrate Minnesota in front of federal authorities, and try to turn the federal government against Minnesota is really, really irresponsible. I’m appalled to just learn this.”
First off, this isn’t just a fight “within our family”:
WASHINGTON – Four suburban Twin Cities counties say they are agitated with the way the Metropolitan Council is making decisions and have hired a federal lobbyist in hopes of gutting the regional planning organization’s appointed board of directors. The lobbyist, who represents Anoka, Carver, Scott and Dakota counties, will work to make the case to the U.S. Department of Transportation that the Met Council, the seven-county regional agency whose 17 members are appointees of Gov. Mark Dayton, is violating a federal rule by distributing more than $660 million a year without appropriate input from elected officials.
Secondly, it isn’t these counties’ fault that Gov. Dayton is frequently asleep at the switch. It’s time to either restructure the Met Council or tear it all down.
The past 4 years have provided Minnesotans plenty of proof that the DFL is the party of corruption. Simply put, the DFL will do anything to increase or regain political power. During the 2012 campaign, 13 DFL state senate candidates coordinated their advertising campaigns with the DFL Senate Campaign Committee, which is illegal. Republicans filed a complaint about the DFL’s campaign committee hijinks. The end result was the DFL Senate Campaign Committee getting fined $100,000, the biggest fine in Minnesota campaign history.
Unfortunately, 11 of those 13 DFL state senate candidates won their election. In essence, these politicians bought their senate seats. Rather than apologize for their unethical actions, DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin characterized the incident as a nuisance before declaring the need to get back to governing. That makes sense in Chairman Martin’s world because this was just a financial transaction to him.
DFL State Sen. Jeff Hayden is tangled up in multiple messes, starting with the corruption that shut down Community Action of Minneapolis. He’s also had ethics charges filed against him for pushing the Minneapolis school board into funding a program run by his friends and associates.
I’m not surprised. The DFL is as interested in providing oversight of their political allies’ nonprofits as Hillary is interested in turning over Bill’s email server.
During the final days of the 2013 session, hundreds of in-home child care providers of all political persuasions descended on the Capitol to tell the DFL not to pass the forced unionization bill. Mike Nelson and the DFL waged war on these women, essentially telling them that they knew what was best. On June 30, 2014, the US Supreme Court told Mike Nelson and the DFL that their legislation was unconstitutional.
Mike Nelson, the DFL and AFSCME didn’t care about the Constitution. They didn’t care that private employers weren’t public employees. Mike Nelson, the DFL and AFSCME just deemed private small business owners public employees. That’s because their first concern was accumulating political power. That’s why the DFL sided with the special interests. That’s why the DFL didn’t pay attention to women they simply disagreed with. They only cared about their big money benefactors.
The DFL’s cronyism knows no limits. Senate Minority Leader Hann’s op-ed shows how invested the DFL is in special interests:
Dayton recently awarded his commissioners salary increases as large as $30,000 each. He gave the chair of the Met Council an $86,000 increase, and the beneficiary just happens to be married to the governor’s chief of staff. One of Dayton’s deputy chiefs is married to a top official at Education Minnesota, the teachers union. Another Dayton staffer is married to the chair of the DFL Party.
Why should I believe that the DFL is the party of the little guy? The DFL sold out Iron Range families in exchange for hefty campaign contributions from environmental activists. The DFL sold out in-home child care providers in exchange for hefty campaign contributions from public employee unions.
Worst of all, Gov. Dayton’s administration is filled with the DFL’s biggest special interest allies.
Elizabeth Warren loves telling her audiences that the game is rigged. She’s right and she’s wrong. She insists that it’s rigged by Wall Street fat cats. The truth is that it’s rigged by the Democrats’ special interest allies. The truth is that Big Government is just as corrupt as Wall Street.
Technorati: Jeff Hayden, Community Action, Mike Nelson, AFSCME Council 5, DFL Senate Campaign Committee, Campaign Coordination, Special Interests, Education Minnesota, Environmental Activists, Met Council, Ken Martin, DFL Culture of Corruption, Election 2012, Campaign Finance Disclosure Board