I first became interested in Melissa Hortman’s legislative history during the Transportation Bill veto override debate. Since then, I’ve learned alot about Rep. Hortman. When Margaret Anderson-Kelliher declared that the House DFL caucus was a “fiscally moderate caucus”, many of us in the Right Blogosphere didn’t accept her at her word. Today, I’d submit that Melissa Hortman is the poster child of that Kelliher quote.

In 15 months since Kelliher’s quote, we’ve seen the DFL take an approach that’s anything but moderate. Rep. Hortman has played a significant role in the DFL’s immoderation, voting for all the major tax increases and attempted veto overrides.

This isn’t a shocking new development, either, based on this article from February, 2006:

While campaigning for her seat in 2004, Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, listened to several former Minnesota Finance commissioners complain about the state budget’s volatile mood swings.

The complaint, she’s since decided, has merit. Since joining the House in 2005, Hortman has watched the state’s budget bounce from deficit to surplus and back to deficit again. And Thursday, Finance Department officials will release the latest economic forecast that could show a general fund shortfall of as much as $1 billion.

“We definitely have been on a budget rollercoaster,” Hortman said.

Hortman has introduced a bill that addresses a primary cause of that budget volatility: the state sales tax.

Reforming the tax is a favorite subject of both John Gunyou, finance commissioner in GOP Gov. Arne Carlson’s administration, and Jay Kiedrowski, the same under DFL Gov. Rudy Perpich.

Hortman’s bill would broaden the sales tax by including goods and services that ren’t taxed. Her proposal would be “revenue neutral” because it would lower the 6.5 percent sales tax rate to 4.5 percent for purchases made after June 30.

Why does Rep. Hortman think that a bill that’s truly “revenue neutral” will stop the budgetary roller coaster ride Minnesota has experienced? If it’s truly revenue neutral, how does that help at all? I don’t have proof of this but I strongly suspect that the bill isn’t revenue neutral. Notice, too, that Rep. Hortman is solely focused on the revenue side of the budgetary equation. There isn’t proof that she focused on the spending side of the equation.

That’s hardly the only manifestation of her liberal views. HF 863 is more proof that Rep. Hortman is a liberal masquerading as a moderate. Here’s the portion of the bill that should raise tons of red flags:

2.3 (b) The Pollution Control Agency shall adopt rules, as authorized under the federal
2.4Clean Air Act, United States Code, title 42, section 7507, to regulate emission standards
2.5of motor vehicles sold in this state. The rules:
2.6 (1) must be adopted under section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause (3);
2.7 (2) except as provided in clause (3), must be identical to and must incorporate by
2.8reference the California low emission vehicle regulations adopted by the California Air
2.9Resources Board under the California Code of Regulations, title 13;
2.10 (3) must not include the zero emission vehicle standards contained in California
2.11Code of Regulations, title 13, section 1962;
2.12 (4) the 15-year or 150,000-mile extended warranty specified in California Code of
2.13Regulations, title 13, section 1962, for partial zero emission vehicles shall not be included
2.14as a requirement of the rules provided that partial zero emission vehicles delivered for
2.15sale to Minnesota are equipped with the same quality components as partial zero emission
2.16vehicles supplied to areas where the full 15-year or 150,000-mile warranty remains in
2.17effect. This section does not amend the requirements of California Code of Regulations,
2.18title 13, section 1962, that indicate the warranty period for a zero emission energy storage
2.19device used for traction power will be ten years; and
2.20 (5) must be amended as necessary in a timely fashion to minimize the time during
2.21which Minnesota’s rules are not identical with California’s regulations, as required under
2.22United States Code, title 42, section 7507. Amendments under this clause must be made
2.23under section 14.388, subdivision 1, clause (3).
2.24Any portion of California’s regulations requiring a federal waiver under the Clean
2.25Air Act in order to become effective may not be enforced in Minnesota unless and until
2.26California receives the requisite federal waiver.

What that language means is that Minnesota wouldn’t control their emission standards. They’d turn that over to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which oversees California’s emissions standards. As is my habit, I did a little digging into CARB. Here’s what I found:

The Air Resources Board (Board) consists of 11 members appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. All members serve “at the pleasure” of the Governor. The Board members serve part time, except the Chairperson, who serves full time.
Members must meet qualifications specified in the law. Five members must be chosen from the boards of local air quality management districts:
One Each from the:

• San Diego Air Pollution Control District
• San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (Greater Los Angeles Region)
• and One from Any Other District.

Three other members fill specific categories:

• One must have expertise in automotive engineering or a closely related field.
• One must have expertise in science, agriculture, or law.
• One must be a physician and surgeon, or health effects expert.

One of the three remaining members must have expertise in air pollution control, or must meet the qualifications of one of the three categories mentioned above. The remaining two members are public members.

One of the things Rep. Hortman likely doesn’t want people to know is that the bill requires the MPCA to adopt emissions standards that “must be identical to and must incorporate by reference” California’s emissions regulations and that it requires the MPCA to adopt California’s future regulations as well. I’d love hearing why Rep. Hortman would cede this much responsibility and jurisdiction to an unaccountable California regulatory commission.

I’d further love hearing Rep. Hortman explain why she thinks the MPCA isn’t capable of carrying out its regulatory responsibilities. Does Rep. Hortman think that the MPCA won’t impose strict enough rules? Rep. Hortman’s constituents should ask her that the next time she holds a townhall meeting.

Here’s some other things that Rep. Hortman isn’t telling her constituents:

California’s emissions standards don’t support Minnesota’s commitment to E85 because manufacturers would have to provide proof that that the vehicles are operating exclusively on E85.

Rep. Hortman also isn’t highlighting the fact that the only way to meet California’s emission standards is by all but eliminating trucks, minivans and SUV’s from showroom floors. Minnesota currently sells more trucks than cars by a 55% to 45% margin.

As scary as that is, it gets worse. Here’s what Section 2 says:

ADOPTION.
4.17 The rules under section 1 must be adopted and made effective by September 30,
4.18 2008, and shall be effective for motor vehicles with a model year of 2012 and later.
4.19 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

It isn’t reasonable to make these regulations mandatory in just 3 years. Reasonable legislators wouldn’t push for such harsh standards that quickly. I’d submit that that’s proof that Rep. Hortman isn’t a reasonable legislator.

Technorati: Melissa Hortman, MPCA, Environment, Regulatory Agency, California, Flex Fuels, SUV