Bluestem Prairie

SD18: a brief look at some of Scott Newman's positions on spending

  I'll be looking later this week at Scott Newman's legislative and campaign record, but thought it might be worthwhile to check out some of the statements he made on the road to his endorsement by Republican delegates on Saturday.

One of the most readily accessible sources for statements for all four candidates who sought the Republican endorsement is a series of questions posed by conservative activist and GOP delegate Ford Peterson at MNPatriots. 

Here's a sample of Newman's stands:

Do you support the elimination of the “Prevailing Wage” rules designed to inflate the cost of payroll on state projects?

Newman: Yes. Prevailing wage rules hold costs artificially high on state contracts. They are based on a theory that because someone in a different geographical location has a higher wage therefore that wage is due on all government projects. This is something you would not see in the private sector because it is not based on sound business principles. In the past I routinely voted against minimum wage bills for the same reason.

Thus Newman not only opposes prevailing wages for taxpayer funded projects, but opposes the minimum wage as well. For a much different take on prevailing wages, check out the links at the Minnesota Building and Trades Council.

And then there's Newman's really curious statement about Minnesota's spending on education and welfare, that comes in answer to a question about government spending and employment:

5)      Are you prepared to support methods of reducing the overhead at the state level by eliminating services and the jobs related to these services?  An effective cost-cutting approach entails the elimination of tens of thousands of state jobs.  Are you prepared to lead that charge in an environment where the media and liberals in general are calling for the state to greatly expand its payroll?

Newman: Without equivocation, Yes and this question really gets to the heart of our spending problem. MN is the number one employer in this state involving thousands of government employees working for various agencies. As an attorney I have been involved in many cases of the government versus individuals and private businesses. I have been witness to the adverse effect of rules and regulation on our citizens and their ability to succeed in business. First we cut off the revenue because no bureaucracy can survive without taxpayer funding. I believe with the current budget problems, we have the best opportunity in a generation to do just that. Second, we systematically begin a program to repeal the thousands of pages of rules state agencies and departments thrive under. I have attached a budget handout to illustrate this problem. Note, in total dollars we spend more on welfare than we do on educating our kids. Built into that welfare budget are the salaries for the thousands social service employees throughout the state. Rhetorical question: Who’s on welfare?  [emphasis added]

The sentence in bold was especially interesting to me and I wish that Peterson had posted Newman's handout, because I can't find any source online that says that says Minnesota now spends more on "welfare" than on education, even when "welfare" is generously defined.

According to the Minnesota Management and Budget Office, an agency which is part of the Pawlenty administration, 29.3% of the state's budget goes to health and human services, while 37.1% goes to K-12 education and 9.1% goes to higher education. A trifling goes to agriculture and vets' services, the latter of which might be considered "welfare."

I'm not being snide about the last point, and it's not my own. MPR published an AP report last fall, Minnesota among leaders in welfare spending:

Welfare spending in Minnesota is among the highest in the nation, according to new census figures, and it's been growing steadily for more than 10 years due to the rising cost of providing health care for the needy.

Nearly 23 percent of all state and local government spending in Minnesota during fiscal 2007 went toward services that fall under the Census Bureau's broad definition of welfare, according to the 2007 Census of Government Finances. Among states, that ranked behind only Maine at 24.3 percent and Rhode Island at 23.7 percent. . . .

. . .The bureau's definition of public welfare includes direct payments to people and payments to groups that serve the poor, but it also includes expensive health care programs, including Medicaid and medical assistance.

The bureau counts as welfare state payments for the Medicaid program, prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D program and many other health care programs for the poor. Public nursing homes, veterans homes and other institutions for the needy also are included. . . .

Perhaps Mr. Newman will post his handout on his campaign web site so we can all figure out why he has come up with such a different set of figures than the Pawlenty administration or the census estimate. 

The MN Patriots' site contains a couple more gems, which I'll look at in future posts.

Scott Newman endorsed by SD 18 Republicans

Unless Glencoe mayor Randy Wilson makes good on his pre-convention plans to primary the endorsed Republican candidate in Senate District 18, the DFL and Republican field is set to battle over the open seat created by the retirement of popular state senator Steve Dille.

The Hutchinson Leader reports that former state representative and attorney Scott Newman was endorsed yesterday after the third ballot:

Newman won on the third official ballot. On the first ballot, he captured 105 votes, while Dean Mahlstedt received 96, Randy Wilson got 27, and Tim Benoit, 12. Wilson and Benoit dropped out after the first ballot.

To win the endorsement, a candidate needed 60 percent of the votes from the 236 total ballots cast.

On the second ballot, Newman received 131 votes, and Mahlstedt, 105.

On the third ballot, Newman received 139 votes and Mahlsted received 95 votes. Mahlstedt conceded to Newman after the third ballot.

Many observers had thought that Mahlstedt was the "Emmer candidate" in the race since the GOP gubernatorial candidate had appeared at a least one Mahlstedt meet and greets. Mahlstedt posted the following statement on his website:

Scott Newman of Hutchinson won the Republican endorsement on Saturday with enthusiastic support from the SD 18 delegates and alternates. Although the morning agenda stretched well into the afternoon, I believe the time spent and the outcome to be good for McLeod, Meeker and Wright. Newman has very clearly stated his principles and his determination to turn Minnesota back to constitutional government and to cut state spending. These are welcome aims as many of his constituents are suffering from past government actions.

Newman will be our freedom fighter at St Paul. You can count on him to follow through on what he has run on thus far. Congratulations to Mr Newman on his solid campaign and endorsement!

Newman was first elected to the Minnesota House in a December 2003 special election; he retired from the Minnesota House in 2006 to run for judge. He received the Republican endorsement for the judge seat in a sparsely attended convention (27 of 300 delegates) and was defeated in the polls.

SD18 DFLers had earlier endorsed moderate Cokato Democrat Hal Kimball. Kimball issued the following statement about the Newman endorsement:

Hal Kimball, the DFL-endorsed candidate in Senate District 18, released the following statement Saturday evening after the Republican Party endorsed Scott Newman for this fall’s Senate election:

“I congratulate Scott Newman on his victory in the Republican endorsement race and welcome him to this campaign,” Kimball said. “I look forward to a substantive, issues-based conversation about who’s best-suited to carry-on the legacy of constituent-based service Steve Dille provided over the last 24 years.”

I'll post more about this pairing later in the week.

Photos: Former state representative Scott Newman (top); Dori and Hal Kimball (bottom).

Exhuming Victoria: Schmidt and Bachmann tout radical eugenist Woodhull on House floor

A fairly common criticism levied against Planned Parenthood by anti-choice advocates is that the organization was founded by a proponent of negative eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and thus pursues a eugenic agenda today.

Minnesota's conservative representative Michele Bachmann, for instance, cited Sanger as "a woman who promoted eugenics" in a 2008 speech on the House floor ( see .52-1.00 in this YouTube).

Imagine my surprise, then, to stumble across a pair of YouTube in which Ohio's own Michele, Rep. Jean Schmidt, and our own resident thimblewit, salute American feminist, socialist, free-love advocate, stockbroker and eugenics pioneer, Victoria Woodhull, the first American woman to run for President?

Such are the acrobatics of those using Women's History Month to play politics, rather than seek a deeper understanding of women's history. Here's Bachmann including Woodhull in a litany of foremothers whose names she can barely pronounce:

Schmidt admits that she didn't learn much about women's history when she majored in history in college. Her remarks on Woodhull:

Perhaps Bachmann, Schmidt and Feminists for Life--which appears to be the chief source for the quote-out-of-context approach to women's history, do indeed need to know more about Victoria Woodhull. I first ran across her while majoring in American Studies at Hamline, and later had the fortunate opportunity to romp through her writings when I was employed by the Library Company of Philadelphia (the library Ben Franklin founded), which includes Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly in its holdings, among other Woodhull titles.

Woodhull is a complex figure, worthy of study. However, I suspect that if Schmidt and Bachmann studied her life--especially her writings about reproductive rights--a bit more carefully, they'd talk about her a lot less on the floor of the U.S. House Representatives, regardless of which month it might be. There's also the little matter of Woodhull being the first to publish the Communist Manifesto in the United States, as well as her early career with her sister as a spiritualist healer.

And then, there's her advocacy of negative eugenics, explored in Lady Eugenist: Feminist Eugenics in the Speeches and Writings of Victoria Woodhull, published by Inklings Press, the outlet for the explorations of conservative Christian author Michael Perry. The the name of his press would suggest, Perry is a C.S. Lewis devotee; as an editor, he's deeply fond of Chesterson.

Like Sanger, Woodhull opposed abortion. Like Sanger, Woodhull promoted eugenics.

As Perry's collection of essays and speeches by the latter points out, Woodhull hoped to be thought a pioneering promoter of eugenics. Following the now-notorious Buck v. Bell decision by the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of forced sterilization laws in 1927, Woodhull told a reporter for the Associated Press:

Mrs. Martin [Woodhull had remarried in England], who wrote and lectured for thirty years on eugenics, remarked that she was pleased to read that the Virginia Eugenics law had succeeded in establishing the right to sterilize the feeble-minded.*

"I advocated that fifty years ago in my book, Marriage of the Unfit." she said. "I am also glad that parents are now beginning to instruct their adolescent children in the facts of life. . . . " (Perry, Lady Eugenist, p. 9)

Perry explains that he came across the AP report, published in the New York Times, while looking at popular coverage of the eugenics movement for an earlier book that he published about Sanger. Intrigued, but skeptical of the self-promoting Woodhull, he later searched her early writings to so ee if she had been straight with the AP reporter:

I wondered at the time if she was being honest or just playing her usual "I was the first woman to..." game. I have since discovered she was right (Perry, p. 9)

Whether one sides with Perry's analysis or not, his book reproduces the full-text of relevant texts by Woodhull, and after reading them, I'm come to the conclusion that anyone damning Sanger for her support of eugenic principles ought to do the same for Woodhull.

Indeed, given that she advocated extreme intrusion by the state into family life and individual reproductive rights--and held racist notions about "fitness"--anyone seeking a dead "pro-life" ally in the pioneering feminist should probably apologize to the House of Representatives for digging up Woodhull's corpse.

Let's look at some choice tidbits from the body of her writings, readily accessible in Perry's anthology, available online as a pdf.  To prove Woodhull's anti-choice position, Schmidt reads off a passage from the Dec. 24, 1870 Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly,

"The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus."

The passage is cited online by Feminists for Life, but the article from which it is drawn isn't available outside of libraries.

Perry's anthology reprints "Children--Their Right and Privileges," the text of a September 1871 speech by Woodhull,  printed in  the October 7, 1871 Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly. This document includes a sentence strikingly similar to the one Schmidt recited on the House floor. Woodhull said:

The rights of children, then, as individuals, begin while yet they are in foetal life.( Perry, p.33)

In the speech, first delivered to a Spiritualist convention, Woodhull also said:

So also is abortion a practice which spreads damnation world-wide. Not so much, perhaps, in those case where it is accomplished, but in those much more numerous cases where it is desired and attempted, but not reached. When a woman becomes conscious that she is pregnant, and a desire come up in her heart to shirk the duties it involves, that moment the foetal life is the unloved, the unwished child. Is it to be wondered that there are so many undutiful children--so many who instinctively feel that hey are "encumbrances" rather than the beautiful necessities of the home? (Perry, p. 39)

Given this notion of maternal influences in utero, it's not surprising that Woodhull strongly believed in teaching sex education; she also believed that women should be in charge of determining when they should get pregnant, and do so only when certain of their fitness for parenthood and the fitness of their male partner.

However, in the same speech, she advocated the "right" of children to be reared to fulfill their duties as citizens, and this "right" was more important than that of parents:

The fact that children are born and grown to be citizens, and not to remain children of the parents simply, is overlooked.

. . .For ourselves we make the distinction assertion that we are thoroughly convinced that fully one half the whole number of children now living between the ages of ten and fifteen, would have been in a superior condition--physically, mentally, and morally--to what they are, had they been early entrusted to the care of the proper kind of industrial institutions. (Perry, p. 40)

This is not the last time Woodhull would recommendation state intrusion in the life of individuals. Perry's anthology includes her 1890 essay, "Humanitarian Government," an exercise in extreme nanny-statism.

In her 1891 essay, "The Rapid Multiplication of the Unfit," Woodhull advocates even more interference with marriage and child-bearing. "Unfitness" for whites is largely defined by class and disability, while other races are "less developed" by definition.

Tim Walz conducts virtual hearing on district earmark proposals

It's been an interesting two days for those who enjoy watching federal politics in Minnesota's First Congressional District.

The most fascinating development has been the response to Congressman Walz's virtual hearing on the 99 earmark proposals he's taken in for review. A cross-partisan site, Techpresident, reports in Minnesota's First District Has a Homework Assignment: Judging Earmarks:

. . .Walz is putting a little bit of that creativity and collaborative thinking to work on Capitol Hill. Last Friday, Walz, who represents Minnesota's 1st District as a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, posted online the 98 different applications for earmarks received by his office.

For one week, he's asking the people of his district to help him vet the applications, running the gamut from a "new aerial port facility" for the 934th Airlift Wing, worth $7.7 million, to half a million dollars for dental care for the underserved and uninsured people of southern Minnesota. He's asking that they judge the projects based on accountability, impact, and the level of public support they would receive.

"We cannot fund all of these projects," reads a Walz press release, "so I am counting on southern Minnesotans to take some ownership of the important decisions I will soon be making on their behalf." . . .

The official comment period closed at 5 p.m. today, though responses can still be submitted. However, late reactions have no guarantee of being read. From the sounds of news reports, Walz and his staff will have a lot of reading to do. The Winona Daily News reports in Walz listening on earmark requests:

One of Congress' most vocal proponents of transparency in the earmark process, Walz invited residents to submit online comments at walz.house.gov on the proposed earmarks in what he called a "virtual hearing." He had received more than 700 responses as of 4 p.m. Wednesday, Severs said, and comments submitted through 5 p.m. today will be considered as Walz determines which projects to submit to the appropriations committee.

The congressman submitted 44 projects from his district last year, and his selections this year will be posted March 19 on his Web site.

"He is looking for projects whose requesters share his commitment to transparency and accountability," Severs said.

The Rochester Post Bulletin noted Tuesday in Deadline near to comment on federal appropriations:

Now's the time to sound off about which projects deserve federal funding in southeast Minnesota.

Rep. Tim Walz is soliciting public comments through his Web site, where he has listed 99 projects sent to him with funding requests.

Projects range from a $198 million project to replace the Interstate 90 bridge over the Mississippi River to a $600,000 funding request to launch a municipal pet-licensing program.

So far, more than 500 comments have poured in to Walz's office. The deadline is 5 p.m. Thursday.

The congressional office will continue to accept comments past the deadline, but can't guarantee Walz will read them before a March 19 deadline to submit a project list to the House Appropriations Committee.

It's the first year Walz's office has conducted appropriations in this "transparent" fashion, said an office spokeswoman.

"As far as we know, we're the only member of Congress to be doing this," said spokeswoman Sara Severs.

The Post Bulletin article reports that the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce urged its members to comment:

The Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce sent an electronic message to members on Tuesday asking them to send Walz their comments supporting five requests in particular.

Those included a $2 million request to help build a Rochester railroad bypass; $2 million to help build a high-speed rail route to the Twin Cities; $15 million to build a U.S. 52 interchange at 65th Street in Rochester; $5 million to help build a U.S. 52 interchange near the proposed Elk Run biobusiness park; and $7 million to extend 55th Street in rural north Rochester.

Not every group in the area supports the railroad bypass; I'm an active member of the Minnesota Farmers Union, which opposes the project because county locals in the area have come out against the RACC-promoted concept. Walz will likely be reading comments from both sides. (I'm also not a fan of Winona's PRT proposal, for reasons pointed out on this blog).

Yesterday, KEYC-TV reported in City Of Fairmont Works To Persuade Cong. Walz To Give Them Funding:

When Fairmont's new water treatment facility opens in 2012, residents could be paying twice as much as they did in 2008.To keep the costs lower, the city has applied for federal funding to pay for half of the cost.News 12's Erick Lind tells us that the city is now asking for as many people to show the plant is worthy of Washington's help.Fairmont knows the water treatment facility needs to be replaced.The plant has stood for over 80 years and is scheduled for an update in 2012.

But it's a 30 million dollar update.The city requested 15 million dollars of federal funding from Congressman Tim Walz.Now city leaders are hoping for more voices to help the Congressman decide.

Fairmont Public Works Director Troy Nemmers says, "He's put together this virtual meeting on his website for the public to provide comments on all the applications he's received. Then he takes that information into consideration when he's selecting the projects he want to request federal dollars for."

Nemmers says that any citizen can go online to ask for the funding for the new plant.

Business leaders in the community have already done that.Fairmont Chamber of Commerce President Bob Wallace says, "We've got quite a few responses out of the business community because they really how important this is, and how much this impacts us and the community, and we'd like to reach the general populace too."

Wallace says the federal help won't just keep taxes lower.He says with so many in the city relying on water, keeping the water costs lower can keep businesses coming to town.

But, Nemmers knows Fairmont's project is one of 99 applications that Congressman Walz is considering for funding.He just hopes it will help Walz's decision if enough constituents voice the need.Nemmers says, "We ask everybody to get out and provide some comment on the project. The more the better."

Then citizens may have a better chance of upgrading their water without downgrading their wallets.In Fairmont, Erick Lind, News 12.

The virtual meeting has been running since the end of last week and will close Thursday afternoon at 5.

The response by Walz's Republican challengers to the issue of earmarks has been predictably confused.

Texas Republicans reject Quist ally on state board of education

Before he broke into the limelight as the frontrunner for endorsement by Minnesota's First Congressional District Republican, Allen Quist last turn as a media darling was

The Texas Freedom Network looked at the controversy in McLeroy Backs Fringe Social Studies ‘Expert’:

How can he possibly be serious? Not satisfied with the two absurdly unqualified ideologues already appointed to a so-called “expert” review panel for new public school social studies curriculum standards, Texas State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy wants another that could be even worse. And he has been lobbying other board members hard to make that appointment.

TFN Insider has learned that McLeroy wants to appoint to the panel Allen Quist, a Minnesotan whose politics are so extreme that he suffered a humiliating landslide defeat in his bid for the Republican nomination for governor of his home state in 1994. If Quist is an “expert” in anything, it’s not in social studies. It’s in promoting the nation’s divisive “culture wars” . . .

. . . But Quist’s agenda extends far beyond pushing creationism in socials studies classrooms. For example, he compares the International Baccalaureate program to Marxism, calling it “un-American” and criticizing President Bush’s support for the highly respected academic program. And during his campaign for Minnesota governor, Quist let folks know about his views of the role of women in family and society:

In marriage, there is a political arrangement between the man and a wife, and in the political arrangement the man should be the head of the house. I think it’s instinctive. I know it’s true. You look in the animal world versus the human and it’s virtually universal in the animal world.

As we said, how can Chairman McLeroy possibly be serious here? Fortunately, he so far hasn’t found another board member to join him in appointing Quist to the “expert” panel. (It takes two board members to make an appointment.) Of course, Texas has many, many far more qualified academics in the social sciences, any one of whom could serve as a real expert in place of Quist. But McLeroy wants someone who shares his fringe views on politics, education and the “culture wars” — yet more evidence that the Texas Senate should reject his confirmation as state board chairman.

Because McElroy was unable to get a second for the Quist nomination, the Nicollet County conservative never served on the expert panel. The incident contributed to the Texas Senate's refusing to confirm McElroy's renomination by Gov. Rick Perry for a second term as the Lone Star state's Board of Education chair.

Now  Texas Republicans have rejected McElroy's bid to remain on the board. Talking Point Memo's Muckraker reports in Creationist-Cum-McCarthy-Booster Incumbent Rejected By Texas Republicans:

The top conservative activist on the powerful Texas Board of Education, who rejects evolution and has pushed for a revisionist right-wing U.S. history curriculum, is on the way out, after a moderate candidate defeated him in a tight primary last week.

For months now, TPMmuckraker has been covering Don McLeroy as a major player in the battle over the drafting of nationally influential history textbook standards by the Texas board.

Lobbyist Thomas Ratliff edged out McLeroy 50.4%-49.6% in a GOP primary for the seat McLeroy has held since 1999.

Close as it was, Ratliff's win is significant because he represented a clear alternative to McLeroy, and he pulled through in a deeply conservative district. McLeroy's home county went 64-35 for McCain in '08, and no Democrat is even running for the board seat.

Ratliff is younger, moderate, and emphasized listening "to teachers and superintendents in determining what students should know," according to the endorsement column of the Dallas Morning News. . . .

The Austin edition reported in Hopeful Walz challengers make their case to Mower Republicans:

Candidates Jim Hagedorn, of Blue Earth, and Allen Quist fought to a draw over who was the most conservative.

Why do I get the sense that Quist--too conservative for Texas--will win that contest? Maybe it's the flow of fundraising dollars from conservatives. Hagedorn tells people in his county convention stump speech that he decided to enter the race in August, but his $5150 is a pittance compared to Quist's dollars (which--at under $40,000--are nothing special themselves).

However, Quist isn't the only candidate with a ultra-conservative Texas connection to the Texas State Board of Education. Jim Engstrand's primary campaign worker, Cythnia "CJ" Werner (or Newman) was an unsuccessful candidate for the state board in 2008.

 It's ironic to see folks deemed too conservative for Texas trying to set themselves up as arbiters of Southern Minnesota's values.

No wonder this race isn't budging in the national rankings, and the NRCC neglected to include MN01 on its "Code Red" target list on the attack campaign's web site --however many emails Congressman John Kline might send to the Strib's Kevin Diaz or press releases to the rest of the media. Curious thing about that robocall campaign: it seems as if more press releases have been sent out to Minnesota's First than phone numbers called.

Images: Allen Quist, drawing by Ken Avidor (top);  screen shot, NRCC Code Red target list, first version (bottom right), second version (bottom left).

Clown car update: right-wing Republicans rip Representative Demmer as RINO from the rear

As their mid-April endorsing convention grows nearer for Republicans in Minnesota's First Congressional District, two of the also-rans have decided to break Ronald Reagan's so-called 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

The attacks look desperate.

Jim Hagedorn raised $5150 last year, mostly from five contributors, according to his FEC report. His social media effort has gathered 108 fans for his Facebook page and 11 followers on Twitter. In a brief position paper on energy policy, he takes this swipe at fellow Republican Rep. Randy Demmer:

. . . I am also concerned that Minnesota’s “Next Generation of Energy Act,” passed in 2007 with the support of one of my Republican competitors, will increase energy costs and harm our State’s economy. For all intents and purposes, the statute is a micro-version of the national Cap and Trade legislation. . . 

This is a curious position for someone seeking Republican endorsement to take, since Demmer wasn't alone in his vote for the legislation (all but nine House members voted for the bill that came out of conference committee, while only five state senators voted against it. Fairmont Republican Julie Rosen, a leader in Southern Minnesota, served on the conference committee)

Nonetheless, self-proclaimed Reagan conservative Hagedorn is a model of constraint in Faribault County, compared to the rhetoric deployed by an Engstrand supporter.

To the east, Stan Gudmundson--who half-heartedly considered running himself, but made no formal announcement nor filed any paperwork with the FEC--has sent a remarkable letter to the Winona Daily News touting Engstrand and slamming Walz in rather generic talking points. More specific spleen is reserved for Demmer:

Mike Huckabee once said that if a person didn't want to see his own blood on the floor, then he or she shouldn't enter politics. Unfortunately, it's time to draw blood, in spite of the fact that I like the fellow who is one of Jim Engstrand's primary competitors.

That would be Rep. Randy Demmer of District 29A.

Demmer is running as and has been telling us that he is a staunch conservative.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. In 2009, The Taxpayer's League Foundation gave Demmer a rating of 64 out of a possible 100.

His overall rating for his time in the Minnesota Legislature is just a bit better at 74. That is not conservative, nor is it what most Republicans expect of the representative.

Also during one of our forums, Demmer appeared not to support a promise by the candidates to not use earmarks, though I could be wrong and hope I am. We cannot balance the budget by getting rid of earmarks. The practice, however, is just plainly corrupt.

Earmarks should be considered nothing short of white color crime. Support for earmark legislation also indicates a dismissive attitude toward being a good steward of our tax dollars.

It further indicates a willingness to step over or ignore important principles for the sake of "politics as usual," for self-aggrandizement and/or trading dollars for votes. That is wrong and in my view should be considered criminal as well.

This willingness to smear the affable Demmer is remarkable stuff, in light of Reagan's 11th commandment.

Moreover, one has to wonder which of the earmarks Walz has sponsored involved "white collar crime."  Dollars for anti-crime efforts to fight child sexual abuse? Public works for drinking water in Southwest Minnesota? Highway 14 dollars? Money for National Guard facilities?

Gudmundson believes earmarks are evidence of "white collar crime." Does Jim Engstrand agree? Does he really believe asking for an earmark for the Minnesota Beyond Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program is evidence of white collar crime?

Is Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen a "white collar" criminal for requesting this earmark along with Amy Klobuchar in the Senate, and Keith Ellison, Jim Oberstar, Collin Peterson and Walz in the House?

With friends like Gudmundson, no wonder Engstrand has fewer than 100 Facebook fans and 11 people (few from Minnesota) following his campaign on Twitter. 

I'm hearing that Allen Quist is doing well from Mankato westward. The Gustavus Adolphus College Republicans' blog reports that Quist did well in his home county, while the post suggests that Quist did well in Blue Earth County. The copyreading goof (see screenshot) to right) is charming; presumably the blogger means "Engstrand" rather than "Engbrecht." 

In a tweet, Hagedorn claims to have done well in Faribault County, where he moved late last year after spending years living in Washington DC.

Truthiness and urban legends: are editors who forget fake history doomed to reprint it?

On his Facebook page, my friend Dale Moerke posted a link to The progression of democracy, ostensibly a letter to the editor of the Jackson County Pilot, written by Les Opheim. It begins:

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, A Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier. . .

Ah yes, a truncated version of the "Fall of the Athenian Republic," determined to be "Mostly False" by the Snopes Urban Legends Reference Pages. The LTE leaves off material falsely attributed to a Hamline University Law School professor and references to the Bush/Gore election, but what remains is still an urban legend.

There was no Alexander Tyler at the University of Edinburgh, and he didn't write a book about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Snopes links to Loren Collins' The Truth About Tytler. According to Collins, the first known citation of the quotation is 1951. It's a fascinating piece of research.

More entertaining, however, is the fact that this is the second time the Jackson County Pilot has published a Les Opheim epistle using the "Fall of the Athenian Republic" urban legend. While the paper's archive doesn't seem to still include Les Opheim's letter from April 2008, the text is included in a Bluestem 1.0 post, Jackson County Pilot publishes urban legend--with a twist.

Recently, I've spotted the apocyphal "Tyler" quotation cited in newspaper comment sections. The email of the urban legend must be making the rounds of the right's inboxes again. I noted back in 2008:

As the contemporary American philosopher Stephen Colbert said:

"We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist."

A verbatim press release: "Fact Check: NRCC Health-Care Robo Calls"

Over at Minnpost, Eric Black posted A verbatim press release: "Code Red: NRCC Launches Targeted Calls Against Tim Walz Alerting Minnesota Families to the Democrats’ Dangerous Healthcare Takeover - And How to Stop It".

That being the case, here's a verbatim press release from the DFL responding to the NRCC robocalls:

Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party

For immediate release

[contact info redacted] 

Fact Check: NRCC Health-Care Robo Calls

St. Paul (March 4, 2010) — The DFL Party released this fact-check on the NRCC’s anti-health-insurance reform robo calls that began running in Minnesota’s first Congressional District this week:

NRCC Claim	Fact
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are planning to ram their dangerous, out-of-control health care spending bill through Congress...”	The Democratic Bill "Covers 12 Times As Many People And Saves $36 Billion More Than The Republican Plan."  The Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote: "According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan." [Washington Post, 11/5/09]
“…a bill that will kill jobs…	Health-Care Reform Will Create Up To 4 Million American Jobs In The Next Decade.  According to the Center for American Progress, "Relative to baseline employment forecasts from the Employment Projections Program at the U.S. Department of Labor, we estimate that moderate medical savings from health care modernization as envisioned under the legislation now before Congress would lead to an average of 250,000 additional jobs created annually. Under the larger assumption about savings due to health care reform, 400,000 new jobs a year would be created on average." [Center for American Progress, New Jobs Through Better Health Care, January 2010]
“…raise the costs of health care and increase taxes.”	Democratic health-insurance reform will lower costs for families. PolitiFact: "For Most People, Premiums Would Stay About The Same, Or Slightly Decrease."  According to PolitiFact.com: "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop." [PolitiFact.com, 1/27/10] CBO: House Bill Will Result In Lower Costs For American Families.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2016, premiums will be $5,300 for an individual and $15,000 for a family of four in the Exchange.  Without reform, the average family premium is expected to grow to $24,000. [CBO, 11/2/09; House Education and Labor Committee, 11/2/09] Gruber: Senate Bill Lowers Premiums And Improves Coverage.  In his analysis of the Senate health care bill, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wrote: "It is worth noting that these savings are all in addition to the more generous benefits that these groups will receive through the exchange compared to the non-group market...So not only does the Senate proposal lower premiums, it does so while also improving coverage."  [Gruber, "The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates," 11/27/09, via Politico; emphasis added] Senate Bill Will Cause Premiums For Low Income Americans To Drop Thousands Of Dollars.  Politico reported that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber found "that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500." [, 11/28/09]
“Tim Walz should be focusing on creating jobs.”	Health-insurance reform will create jobs and benefit our nation’s long-term fiscal health by cutting the deficit by over $130 billion. Health-Care Reform Will Create Up To 4 Million American Jobs In The Next Decade. According to the Center for American Progress, "Relative to baseline employment forecasts from the Employment Projections Program at the U.S. Department of Labor, we estimate that moderate medical savings from health care modernization as envisioned under the legislation now before Congress would lead to an average of 250,000 additional jobs created annually. Under the larger assumption about savings due to health care reform, 400,000 new jobs a year would be created on average." [Center for American Progress, New Jobs Through Better Health Care, January 2010] CBO: Democratic Bill Would Cost $1 Trillion, Cut Deficit By $132 Billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Democratic health care plan: CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period. [Congressional Budget Office, 12/19/09] The Democratic Bill "Covers 12 Times As Many People And Saves $36 Billion More Than The Republican Plan."  The Washington Post's Ezra Klein wrote: "According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan." [WashingtonPost, 11/5/09]

-30-
Chair Brian Melendez, Associate Chair Donna Cassutt
255 East Plato Blvd., St. Paul , MN 55107 www.dfl.org

Disclosure: I have a contract with the DFL advising the state party with social media issues. It did not involve the production of the press release above. For more details, see the "Important Information" on the right hand column of this page.

It's back!! Demmer's $131,000 campaign debt returns in amended FEC reports

On February 19, the Demmer for Congress campaign commitee filed amended quarterly reports with the FEC in which a $131,000 campaign debt from the Hayfield representative's 2008 is back on the books.

The debt had vanished without explanation in earlier amended reports filed at the end of 2009. The absence of the debt--unpaid loans made by the Hayfield Republican to his committee during his unsuccessful 2007-2008 cycle bid for endorsement in Minnesota's First Congressional District--had made his second attempt at gaining the GOP nod appear to be in the black.

Amended reports for the April 2009 (Q1 09), July 2009 (Q209), October 2009 (Q309) and Year-end 2009 (Q409) can be viewed by clicking on the links above.

Bluestem had noted the issue in earlier posts. On January 8, I published How much cash did state Rep. Randy Demmer's congressional committee have on hand in 2009? and, on January 29, Do these reports add up? Demmer's year-end quarterly FEC report posted. The discrepancy was not examined elsewhere, as other media venues overlooked the error. 

Why does this matter?  No candidate seeking the Republican endorsement in the First had raised the money in the off year to fund a viable campaign.

Since fundraising frontrunner Allen Quist pocketed a mere $37,103 in receipts, including $4000 from the candidate himself, and retained $30,781.37 cash on hand, Demmer's balance sheet of $19,200.00 for the quarter ($10,176.52 COH) didn't look as anemic in the absence of the lingering debt. I doubt the Demmer committee had any intent to deceive, thought missing debt made things seem rosier.

The only other contender, Jim Hagedorn, trailed Quist and Demmer with a meager $5150 raised.

Demmer, former state representative and social conservative Quist, DC-insider Hagedorn, insurance salesman and National Guard Lt. Col. Jim Engstrand and retired veteran Frank McKinzie are seeking the Republican endorsement to challenge Congressman Tim Walz.

Update 3/5: the Engstrand team seems to have realized there's a problem as well, and has filed amended documents which were posted today.. Let's hope that addresses the problems noted below. [end update]

Now if only the legacy media would take a look at another candidate's peculiar committee structure that Bluestem examined in MN01 candidates: the case of Engstrand's unauthorized committee. The disclaimer on the bottom of Engstrand's campaign website is listed as "Paid for by Jim Engstrand for US Congress - EJ Paul, Treasurer - 9304 105th St NW - Pine Island, MN 55963." However, no paperwork for  "Jim Engstrand for US Congress" has been filed with the FEC.

Rather, the only paperwork related to Engstrand's bid is for the Committee To Draft Jim Engstrand For US Congress District 1 MN. This is neither a candidate nor authorized committee, and i understand federal campaign finance regulations correctly, any money raised by this vehicle can not be used by the candidate's committee in the event paperwork for one is eventually filed with the FEC.

An unathorized committee does not seem to meet the definition of an exploratory committee as defined on pages 2-3 of this FEC candidates' guide. Moreover, while it is unclear to me so far as to whether money contributed to the unauthorized committee may be transferred to a to-be-formed "Jim Engstrand for Congress" committee, FEC documents do make it clear that contributions to the existing single-candidate "Draft" committee will be applied to aggregate limits on contributions by individuals and other committees.

Those who click on the "Donate" button on Engstrand's "Contributing" page are led to a Paypal screen (see screenshot to the right) where it's unclear whether the money is going to the Committee to Draft Jim Engstrand for U.S. Congress, the name displayed at the top of the account, or to the Jim Engstrand for Congress, to the left of the account box near the middle of the screen.

To learn where the money would go, I threw in my two cents; the receipt Paypal provided said the Committee to Draft Jim Engstrand for U.S. Congress, and the contact number* is that of Cynthia"CJ" Werner, the same as the office number listed for Werner by the Duncanville Board of School Trustees.  Is Engstrand's entire website paid by this committee?

Images: Randy Demmer (above); Paypal page linked to Engstrand for Congress website.

*This Texas number also appears in a tweet from Jim Engstrand twitter made by a CJ Newman to Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX8). Bluestem posted an in-depth look at Werner/Newman in Eyes of Texas are upon us; or, Werner comes from Lone Star to North Star for Engstrand.

"Dangerous": Looking out my back door at the Senate District 18 race

Both Outstate Politics and MnPublius have looked at a swipe GOP hopeful Tim Benoit took at DFL-endorsed SD18 candidate Hal Kimball. Eric Austin and Jeff Rosenberg ask that Mr. Benoit fill in the details about why Mr. Kimball is "a dangerous guy."

I live in Senate District 18 and Hal Kimball is a friend, so I was puzzled by the Hutchinson Republican's remark. Hal looked more lucky than dangerous at his 2008 wedding to the incomparable Dori Erickson, and he's never provoked calls to the local authorities at any of the other gatherings where our paths have crossed. Mostly, he's a regular guy, into the Vikes and his golf game.

His political beliefs? An editorial in the same issue of the McLeod County Chronicle notes:

He portrays himself as a fiscally conservative DFLer, which is wise since Senate District 18 is pretty conservative, and quite Republican. He admires Dille's approach to legislating. Kimball provided ample evidence of that admiration last year when he defended Sen.  Dille in a letter to the same Glencoe paper, Dille works so hard to find the middle ground, build consensus:

Although the letter that followed my name in the '06 race differed from Senator Dille, I have grown to respect him in a manner most political opponents never reach.

Over the past few years, I have met with Senator Dille on numerous occasions, talking mostly about higher education and veterans issues, specifically related towards the use of depleted uranium munitions and our servicemen and women's exposure. It's been a pleasure working with him on these and other issues.

What I find so refreshing about Senator Dille is that he works so hard to find common ground and build consensus, while maintaining principles in which he believes in. . . .

Benoit clearly disagrees with this approach. In an interview with the Hutchinson Leader in January, he said

:. . . “Other people in the race talk about compromising across the aisle,” Benoit said. “Boy, every time you compromise, the taxpayer loses.”

Benoit is among four area Republicans who’ve formally or informally announced they’re seeking the GOP endorsement. Democrat Hal Kimball is also running for the seat currently held by Republican Steve Dille, who isn’t running for re-election.

Dille often prided himself on reaching bipartisan agreements. “I would be a little less likely to do that,” Benoit said. “Not that what (Dille) did was bad, but the winds of change are starting to blow and we’re not getting a good legislative product anymore when we compromise.” . . .

The editor of the McLeod County Chronicle reflected on the SD18 GOP endorsement struggle in What's changed is the definition of a Republican; Our view: Not appealing to GOP moderates could be a mistake this election season

: . . .Dille has never lost an election as a state legislator, so why some members of the county GOP hierarchy wanted to remove him is baffling. Dille was an automatic Republican seat in the House and later the Senate.

Dille's sin, in some conservatives' minds, was his willingness to work with both sides of the aisle at the State Capitol. Apparently that is considered fraternizing with the enemy nowadays. In the old days that was called finding a solution. . . .

. . .Wilson, for example, likes Dille's approach to finding middle ground and a solution. The others follow the obstructionist approach and prefer gridlock in a DFL-dominated Legislature no matter how long it takes. . . .Wilson offers an alternative to the far-right wing that has been pushing the party farther to the right for years.

If the GOP plans to make gains, it needs to be more inclusive not more exclusive, as is the case now. They need moderate Republicans.

Some old style Republicans do not even recognize their party anymore because of its "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to dissent within the ranks. Dille is an example of what can happen. . . .

I'm hearing this from Republican friends in this area who could be characterized as Main Street conservatives, mostly small business owners and local officials who were very happy with legislators like Dille and former state Rep Bob Ness, who now works part-time in Blue Dog DFL Congressman Collin Peterson's Willmar office.

Glencoe Mayor Randy Wilson is a Republican in the Dille mode, but his hesitation to agree to abide by March endorsement is likely to cost him support. He sought the Republican endorsement for the HD18A open seat in 2006, but lost it to the more conservative GOP party activist Ron Shimanski.

So what are Senate District 18's three "My Way or the Highway" Republicans proposing?

The Uptake has posted a three-part  set of YouTube clips of a February forum sponsored by local conservative group, CampAmerica Grassroots, while local papers have covered the endorsement contest. Media coverage of SD 18 includes two newspaper groups that share ownership, as well as several independent papers; those mostly actively covering the open seat online include the Herald-Journal --Enterprise-Dispatch Group, the Hutchinson Leader and the McLeod County Chronicle.

First, a look at the Grassroots Forum. Here's part 1; readers can click through to view the other two linked videos.

Tim Benoit's statement opens the clip (I saw a brief ad before the actual event started); he talks about "dangerous" people in the legislature. After complaining about those who graduate from college and serve as LAs and interns before being elected to the legislature, and those Senators and Represnetatives who only list "legislator" as their occupation, Benoit includes the "dangerous" description in the segment that begins at 4:42:

. . .Two of these are community organizers or community activists, Frank Horstein and Shelley Madore, both of the Twin Cities. There are four others who are lobbyists or non-profits. These are dangerous people who are driven by power and will stop at nothing to remake our state into a bastion of socialism. They chair and serve on committees that can make or break us economically. This is the kind of information that needs to be made available to the public, to the voters so they too can make informed choices at the ballot box.

Benoit doesn't seem to have noticed that Shelly Madore was defeated by Tara Mack in 2008. Mack's occupation is listed as "Legislator" on her official House page. According to the local ECM newspaper, Mack was 24-year-old "legislative assistant for the Minnesota House of Representatives" when she announced her bid for the legislature. While Madore became an activist when she learned her two children were diagnosed with disabilities, she worked in marketing and business management for 15 years.

She's a peculiar choice for Benoit to use in a stump speech to illustrate the notion of those who go straight from college  to serving in the House with only a pit stop as a Legislative Assistant. Madore looks nothing like Tara Mack, so I don't understand his confusion.

The full clip:

Benoit told the Hutchinson Leader that he agrees with the ideas of the Constitution Party:

Benoit is glad to see the Republican Party moving to the right. He attended Meeker County Constitution Party meetings several years ago and loved what he saw. “There was nothing at those meetings that I disagreed with,” Benoit said.

Benoit formerly lived in Dassel, where he served on the school board and city council, according to the Herald-Journal newspaper group. His linked-in profile provides additional background. He does not appear to have a web site or social media presence.

Thought to be the local candidate favored by Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, Cokato Township board member Dean Mahlstedt keeps a campaign website, a twitter presence, and a Facebook page. Unlike Benoit, Mahlstedt is willing to criticize Republicans serving SD18 in the state legislature. Yesterday, he tweeted:

Check this video out -- Senator Hann applauds Responsible Bonding Bill http://youtu.be/0cwCrSQtbUU. Out of money, spend anyway. about 18 hours ago via web

MN Budget emergency and Senator Hann says good enough! Business as usual. We can do better than this everyone. Are you with me? about 18 hours ago via web

Hann blames democrats for the spending and yet in 18B our very own Republicans put a hockey arena in the negotiations. Blame rarely works. about 18 hours ago via web

Mahlstedt presumably means this bill sponsored by Rep Urdahl in the House and the companion bill Dille introduced in the state Senate. However, the Hann YouTube ( "Senator Hann applauds Responsible Bonding Bill". produced by the Republican Senate caucus) Mahlstedt references in the series of tweets addresses the bonding bill Governor Pawlenty signed in 2008.

Perhaps it doesn't matter that the candidate mixes legislation from 2008 and 2010; after all, Mahlstedt stresses that he is the sort to stand on principles.

After gaining office in a special election on December 30, 2003, former State Representative Scott Newman was relected in 2004 to serve one full term until retiring from the house to run for judge against a Pawlenty appointee in McLeod County. While he was endorsed by the local Republican party, Newman lost the November 2006 contest for judge. Newman has a campaign website, though it's just one page. Local scuttlebutt is that some Republicans fear that Newman will use the state senate seat to pursue his ambition to become a judge.

Like Benoit and Mahlstedt, Newman fears having Democrats in power, telling the Hutchinson Leader

: . . . He’s returning to politics in part, he said, “because the next two election cycles are going to be key moments in history.”

“We’re either going to become a European socialist style country or we’re not,” he said. . . .

One additional source for looking at the Republican contenders' ideas is Minnesota Patriots a blog by Ford Peterson, a Republican delegate from Dassel. Peterson posed ten questions to the candidates and has posted their responses. Dassel Enterprise Dispatch Editor Lynda Jensen looks at the questions in a post at the paper's blog, Questions, answers from District 18 Republicans. MnPublius readers are already drawing from this series of documents and posting excerpts in the comment section.

I live in an interesting district, in interesting times.

Photo: "Dangerous" Hal Kimball, with his wife Dori, on their scary honeymoon.