Headlines during the bruising 2012 Republican Minnesota Congressional primary
contest between Allen Quist and Mike Parry revealed the rancor between
the two candidates.
Now Quist plans to bring a little ugly to tonight's Republican
endorsing contest for the open seat in Minnesota House District 19A.
Jim Golgart is a veteran and long-time officer with the Veterans
Affairs Office. He ran for the Nicollet County District 1 seat last
fall, but came in third.
He said he feels competitive because he is a common sense leader who wants to get the state's budget under control.
While working with veterans, Golgart also has an opportunity to make himself seen as a leader on veteran issues.
However,
Quist said he plans to bring up that Golgart's previous praise of 1st
District Rep. Tim Walz, the DFL congressman who defeated Quist in
2012. Golgart said he was unconcerned and was only praising Walz as a
function of his position as president of the Minnesota Association of
County Veteran Service Officers, which was awarding Walz the "Legislator
of the Year."
The award was actually from the National Association of
County Veteran Service Officers and Golgart was speaking as the state
president of the group. Bluestem had gotten a bland comment from a rader
about this in a post about Golgart's remarks This time, Quist himself
is bringing it up in the worst possible way.
Even as an old country blogger who has written a lot about Allen
Quist, we're dismayed by the Norseland farmer's lack of grace and
surfeit of partisanship about a relatively nonpartisan area of policy.
Good county veteran service officers are some of the most respected
members of rural committees, as they should be. They make sure that men
and women who served this country receive the services promised to
them.
And by all accounts, Golgart's been one of the best of them, untiring
in helping LeSueur County's veterans and speaking out to state and
federal legislators about what our country can do better. Golgart has
done this in a way that former congressional and senate staff for Walz
and Franken said they had no inkling of what his personal politics were.
Today at Soldier’s Field Veterans Memorial, Congressman Walz received
the Legislator of the Year Award from the National Association of
County Veterans Service Officers (NACVSO). . . .
. . . Rep. Walz received the award in recognition of his outstanding
record in Congress working on veterans’ legislation. Walz enlisted in
the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years
later as Command Sergeant Major. He is the highest ranking enlisted
soldier ever to serve in Congress and a member of the House Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs.
“Congressman Walz is a soldier’s soldier,” said Jim Golgart,
President of the Minnesota Association of County Veteran Service
Officers. “Whether he is fighting for a new GI bill, fighting to make
sure that MN National Guard gets the benefits they had been promised, or
fighting to increase the mileage rate for veterans traveling long
distances to VA hospitals, Congressman Walz’s passion for helping
veterans has been unwavering.”
“This award was established about 15 years ago to honor the
Congressman or woman who the National Association of County Veterans
Service Officers felt had worked the hardest for veterans. There have
been years where no award was given because we didn’t feel it was
merited,” said James Young, President of NACVSO. “However, this year
Congressman Walz’s work clearly deserved recognition as it will help us
fulfill the obligation proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln; ‘to care
for him, who shall have borne the battle and for his widows and
orphans.’”
Golgart was doing his job as the Minnesota state president for a
national association. Walz was doing his job--working with Republicans,
Democrats, independents and a host of veterans' groups--to get veterans
what they need. Did Quist expect Golgart to say at that moment, "Jeepers, this award means nothing because I'm a Republican, and Walz stinks"?
Imagine what it would be like if conservative bono fides were
challenged nationwide when Republican members of the House Veteran
Affairs committee went to home and heard remarks from ideologues--ala
Quist--scolding them for working with that Walz fellow in that swing
district the GOP so deserves to get back?
You don't hear that. Veterans thank Representatives for working together.
Back in the 1980s, Quist peeked into a Mankato bookstore, looking for
glory holes. Now he's taking on the reputation of a devoted public
servant. And this after proclaiming his own bipartisan abilities in his press release announcing his bid for endorsement in the 19A special election.
Let's hope that the Republican delegates have enough sense to retire this clown. Enough. Quist is unfit for duty.
Cartoon: Quist is trying to return to the state capitol. His
hyper-partisan remarks about a Republican opponent's conduct as leader
of a veterans services officers organization are unacceptable. Cartoon by Ken Avidor.
If you liked reading this post, consider throwing a donation our way:
Although critics of the NRA's stance on school safety--putting an armed police or security officer in every school building in the country as part of the --have been swift to criticize the gun rights organization's lucrative connections with the firearms industry, former Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson's business ties with the world's largest private employers of security officers have gone unnoticed in the media.
Public school systems in Tulsa, Detroit, Washington DC and other places have contracted with Securitas for school security guard personnel. News accounts suggest that some Securitas school security officers, like those in Tulsa, are or have been armed; in 2006, the Tulsa World reported that a guard shot at dogs that were attacking a student and teacher (Andrea Eger, "School's guard shoots at dogs," Tulsa World, March 30, 2006, Nexis All News, accessed 1/6/2013).
Director - W. Asa Hutchinson, a Senior Partner of AH Law
Group of Rogers, AR, Director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration and the first-ever Under Secretary for Border &
Transportation Security at the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, and U.S. Congressman from the Third District of
Arkansas. After the September 11 attacks, Congress created
the Department of Homeland Security. President George W.
Bush tapped Hutchinson to lead the Border and Transportation
Security Directorate, the largest division of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) with more than 110,000
employees. Hutchinson was confirmed by unanimous consent
by the U.S. Senate
Hutchinson also lobbied for Securitas while working for Venable LLC, a top Washington DC law firm whose work often requires staff to register with the Senate under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Hutchinson and his colleagues represented Securitas's interests in a number of bills related to airport security. The database states that the firm received $200,000 from Securitas for these services.
Here's the registration filing; for Hutchinson's name and the bills in which he lobbied Congress on behalf of the Swedish company, go to page 3:
Asa Hutchinson: National School Shield Emergency
Response Program not just volunteers anymore
In Hutchinson's first prepared statement during the remarks-only press conference on December 21, he spoke about creating a model school security template and training volunteer school security forces at each school in the country. Wayne LaPierre spoke of stationing a police office in each school building.
But in the weeks since, both men have modified their assertions, allowing that armed security officers, not just sworn police officers, might be part of the school shield solution.
. . . Yet another option, Hutchinson said, is the expansion of school
resource officers, on-duty armed police who perform a wide range of
tasks in schools that include interacting with students, teachers and
administrators and helping implement security measures.
Hutchinson estimated the cost of putting a resource officer in every
school at $2 billion to $3 billion a year, which he acknowledged would
be hard to fund in lean budgetary times.
In the 2009-2010 school year, there were 23,200 armed security
personnel in schools nationwide, 28 percent of all schools, according to
the National Center for Education Statistics. . . .
. . .I have recently been asked to
lead a comprehensive national effort to improve the safety of our
schools. A part of this solution will be the increased presence of
trained, armed and professional security officers in the schools.
Currently, about one third of our nation's schools have armed security.
. . .We have seen
several schools take steps to enhance safety by immediately increasing
the use of trained officers on their property. But not every school can
afford the costs, and not all armed officers are equally trained.
That
is why it is so critical to create an effective federal, state and
local sharing of costs, and, most importantly, to assure a high standard
of training and certification. The training of armed personnel to
protect our children should not be less than those who are trained to
protect our airlines or even the president.
Finally,
the safety of our children is more than just armed officers. It is
about access control, perimeter security, surveillance, architecture,
policies and drills. My school-safety task force will look into all of
these needs and offer the best practices and model security protocols to
our schools.
"Officer" isn't synonymous with "police officer." It can mean "security officer." Indeed, Bluestem's friends who work in security prefer the term; it's certainly better than the snide label,"rent-a-cop."
If the task force Hutchinson leads recommends armed security officers--and federal and state elected leaders decide to allocate resources to the findings, how big of a slice of the school security officer pie will go to Securitas?
The Administrator and the Lobbyist: Earlier Criticisms of Hutchinson's Ethics
This poor country blogger isn't the first to ask questions about Hutchinson's self-interest in his advocacy for corporations with which he has a working relationship. When he left the Department of Homeland Security to toil as a lobbyist at Venable LLC to work for clients with homeland security issues and contracts, the press raised its eyebrows.
When he unsuccessfully ran for Arkansas governor in 2006, the Democrats raised these criticisms again, expanding them when armed with the candidate's mandatory financial disclosure. Since Hutchinson is chatting to Arkansas newspapers about running for governor in 2014, it's possible that this potential new conflation of public policy with the private profits of a corporation in which Hutchinson has an interest might again raise questions.
Asa Hutchinson, who stepped down this week as a top administrator at
the Department of Homeland Security, has joined a law firm based in
Washington that represents major domestic security contractors and
companies regulated by the department.
Mr. Hutchinson, 54, who as
under secretary at the department oversaw transportation and border
security, will be barred for at least one year from interacting directly
with department officials. But he can advise companies that are
pursuing contracts with the agency or are subject to its regulatory
review. . . .
Mr. Hutchinson, a former congressman who may run for Arkansas governor
in 2006, would not say how much he was being paid or who some of his
probable clients would be.
This move played to Hutchinson's disadvantage in the 2006 race. Andrew DeMillo of the Associated Press reported in "Parties find attack lines for governor's race:"
Arkansas Republicans and Democrats have found similar lines of attack in the gubernatorial campaign.
For Democrats, it's focusing on Asa Hutchinson's former job. . .
. . . Democrats last week lobbed questions about Asa Hutchinson's
negotiation with a Washington law firm while he was employed at the
federal Department of Homeland Security. Hutchinson eventually took a
job with the firm, Venable LLP
Venable
had clients with business before Homeland Security, but Hutchinson said
he followed the law and, in writing, formally stepped aside from any
business involving the firm.
Criticism over
Hutchinson's past aren't new from Democrats, who have tried to peg
shortcomings in Homeland Security to Hutchinson's tenure as the
department's undersecretary.
But the lobbying
questions reveal a new line of criticism from Democrats after the state
GOP questioned whether Beebe has used his office to conduct political
business. . . .(February 11, 2006, Nexis All-News, accessed 1/6/2013).
Hutchinson's disclosure of his financial interests also drew fire when he amended it to include a $1 million return on a $2,800 investment in Fortress America. Demillo reported in "Beebe: Hutchinson potential $1 million windfall a sweetheart deal":
The chairman
of the Democratic Party of Arkansas and Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Mike Beebe on Wednesday questioned Republican rival Asa Hutchinson for turning an investment of $2,800 in a homeland-security related business into a potential $1 million windfall.
Hutchinson,
who before announcing his bid for governor was an undersecretary at the
federal Department of Homeland Security, was a founder and investor in Fortress America Acquistion Corp.
The
company, formed to buy an existing company involved in emergency
preparedness or a related field, conducted an initial public offering of
its stock, which raised $42 million.
Hutchinson
owns 200,000 shares in the company. Its shares were offered at $6 and
closed Tuesday at $5.40. The company founders, a group of ex-congressmen
and other insiders, initially put up $25,000. That investment is now
worth $9.5 million; Hutchinson's share is worth $1.08 million. . . .
. . .The holding was not listed on Hutchinson's May 4 financial disclosure form for his race for governor. The candidate amended the form on May 5 to include Fortress America.
Jason
Willett, chairman of the Democratic Party of Arkansas, questioned why
Hutchinson didn't originally report the investment on his form.
"I
think this definitely raises some serious questions about how Mr.
Hutchinson could forget to report a million dollar investment," Willett
said. "Most Arkansans would never forget about turning $2,800 into a
million dollars over twelve months."
Hutchinson
spokesman David Kinkade said Hutchinson made a "simple error" by
omitting the investment, but realized it and quickly amended his report. . . .(June 8, 2006, Nexis All-News, accessed 1/6/2013).
His work on a National Rifle Association initiative
to study school safety and push for armed guards in schools allows him
to tout his pro-gun credentials in a state where Democrats and
Republicans alike boast of their gun collections in political ads.
If Hutchinson's connections with the world's largest private security firm comes to be seen as a conflict of interest in that initiative, will Arkansas voters recall the old revolving door charges and see Hutchinson as less of a publicservant and more of a crony capitalist?
Photo: From Securitas's 2011 report, a school security officer by a classic yellow school bus.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
Blue Dog Collin Peterson is angry about the short shift farm programs got in the fiscal cliff deal. Minnesota's Land Stewardship Project, which works on local food, sustainable farming and economic justice issues in rural Minnesota, isn't pleased either.
That's a wide spectrum of ag grumpiness--although there's no sign yet that producers are ready to tractorade to DC. Yet.
Many farm groups sought changes that would have given farmers
protections, such as in the case of bad weather, while eliminating
controversial direct payments to farmers.
They didn't get them because the 2012 Farm Bill didn't get a vote in the House--although the Senate and the House Ag Committee approved it. Instead, Davis reports that the reset button was hit, and Congress has to work up a new bill. Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff deal cut out or didn't fund some important projects for conservation, new farmers and other pieces of the puzzle that help rural communities.
Farm policy takes a dramatic step backwards in the fiscal cliff deal
brokered in Congress and soon to be signed into law by President Barack
Obama. Rather than moving forward with much-needed financial and policy
reform Congress and the Administration prioritized continued excessive
commodity subsidies.
After expiration of the farm bill on October 1, 2012 and the
inability of the U.S. House to deliver a bill for conference, pressure
was on to include a farm bill extension in the ongoing fiscal cliff
deal. But along with a few other plums, what ended up being the center
point of the farm bill extension was continuation of the egregious
commodity program known as direct payments – subsidies provided to
producers with no regard for current production or market realities. The
fiscal cliff deal and all agriculture policy within it was initiated by
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Extending direct payments was unexpected since nearly everyone in
agriculture has recognized the $5 billion a year in subsidies for this
commodity program as outdated and in need of reform. There is no logical
explanation for the extension of direct payments other than it panders
to southern commodity growers in favor with Senator McConnell.
And while wasteful commodity spending was extended, frozen out of the
late-breaking deal was virtually any support for new farmers, rural
development and even disaster aid; despite the worst drought gripping
our country in decades.
Another major failure was the decision not to remedy a funding
hang-up that will prevent farmers from using the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) in the coming year. CSP is aimed at supporting
farmers who are maintaining and improving soil and water conservation
on their active farm land. The program has been popular in the Midwest
and nationally with 50 million acres now enrolled by farmers and
ranchers.
To add insult to injury, Congress gave the wealthiest Americans
increased exemption from estate taxes, a measure that is not only
fiscally imprudent, but will serve to keep more land locked up in the
hands of the heirs of large landowners and decrease new farming
opportunities.
All in all family farm agriculture loses in the fiscal cliff deal –
reverting to the policies of old and disregarding the growth areas in
this sector of our economy.
LSP continues to be committed to advancing a farm bill and
agriculture policy that provides for prosperous rural communities, a
healthy environment and more, not fewer opportunities in agriculture. In
the coming year we will renew efforts to demand reform and
accountability to wasteful and detrimental spending while supporting new
farmer and conservation provisions.
While Peterson and LSP don't always see eye-to-eye, clearly there's a lot of shared frustration over ag and rural America taking a back seat (or no seat at all) in Congress. When it comes to making cost-cutting elimination of programs like direct payments, the Senate and House Ag committees got that work done but had it disregarded, while far less costly but innovative programs that farmers and consumers want are cut or left without funding.
Urban readers: remember this the next time you blame Minnesota's farmers for direct payment subsidies. That's not what they've asked Peterson and Walz for in a farm bill.
And while Bluestem doesn't agree with all the cuts the House Ag committee made in the now-moribund 2012 Farm Bill, Peterson does have a point here:
The ag committee cut $35 billion in the bill it passed, but House
leaders never allowed the full body to consider. That cut was sought by
top Republicans, but Peterson said other committees did not comply by
finding cuts in their parts of the budget.
“The committees that were irresponsible and didn’t do their work got
what they wanted, and the Agriculture Committee got screwed,” Peterson
said. “It is a little hard for me to swallow.”
Hard not to be grumpy about that.
Photo: We're all Grumpy Cat now.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
National Farmers Union's government relations staff has posted a Fiscal Cliff/Farm Bill Extension Update that illustrates some of the reasons for the vulgar language flowing from the lips of MN Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
Turning to the ways in which the compromise will affect rural Minnesota, Bluestem is pleased with some provisions like the extension of the wind energy production tax credit, but not so happy to read about developments like these on the nine-month extension of the Farm Bill:
The provisions included in the fiscal cliff deal were not a straight
extension of the 2008 bill, and the legislation provides no mandatory
funding for the energy title, specialty crop and organic provisions, and
beginning farmer and rancher programs, among others.
Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farm Bureau have all worked for beginning farmer and rancher programs. With the aging of the state's farmers and high economic barriers to entering agriculture like the price of land and equipment (even for smaller operations), the programs are growing in importances for producers and consumers.
Late last night the House of Representatives passed Senate-negotiated fiscal cliff compromise legislation, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8 ),
sending the bill to the president’s desk and finally putting to rest
the negotiations that had dominated the lame duck session of the 112th
Congress. The Senate had previously passed the legislation in the early
morning hours of Jan. 1.
Included in the legislation was a one-year extension of the 2008 Farm
Bill, in addition to numerous provisions reauthorizing various expiring
tax rates and credits. The final extension was a great disappointment.
Congress had every opportunity to pass a new five-year farm bill by the
end of the year but chose instead to ignore its rural constituents. In
addition, the extension that was finally included in the fiscal cliff
bill was not the version drafted by the chairs of the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees, but one that was developed by Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., without input from agriculture leaders.
Lovely. Forum Communications' Ag Week has more in Bad step for ag?
Photo: Western Minnesota cattle farmer and LSP staffer Terry VanderPol explains dirt to new farmers. It's soil science, people.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
While Minnesota's U.S. Senators and the Democrats on the House Ag Committee argued throughout the summer and fall for the need to pass a new Farm Bill,many of Bluestem's friends didn't pay much attention to their warnings.
That is, until they realized one consequence might be outrageously priced milk.
It's not them, Bluestem must admit. It's the complexity of a bill that deals with food, from farm to fork, that got mired in what Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives thought was a winning message about SNAP, or food stamps. While that narrative of "takers" didn't pan out in November, the GOP still controls the House, and the bill, approved by the Senate and the House Ag Committee, languished without coming to the floor.
The deal only prolongs the 2012 saga over farm programs. The Senate
and House Agriculture committee in 2012 both passed five-year bills to
replace the 2008 farm bill. While differences remained over how southern
crops were treated and how much food-stamp benefits were to be cut, a
compromise long appeared at hand. The deal guarantees that those
five-year bills are dead and lawmakers will have to start over again
once the new Congress convenes Thursday.
The deal simply extends the 2008 farm bill, which expired Sept. 30, for one year.
Efforts
to craft a new farm bill will in turn be affected by the
debt-ceiling-sequester-continuing-resolution-tax-reform mess that is
coming in late winter and spring.
Extending the old bill--without reforms either the Senate or House versions--is more expensive than passing those versions, but would have left less for House Republicans to bicker about.
One proposed House Republican version on the dairy extension already causes the bickerfest to go on at the expense of farmers, Bloomberg Businessweek's Derek Wallbank reports in Budget Deal Add-On Would Stop U.S. Milk Prices Doubling:
House and Senate agriculture committee leaders said they backed a
different one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill. Representative
Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture
Committee, said he would oppose the short- term dairy-only bill if it’s
brought to the floor, calling a one-month extension measure a “cruel
joke” on American farmers.
The Senate "fiscal cliff" bill may be no gift for farmers in the Upper Midwest either, if David Rogers' report in Politico is to be believed.
The giant New Year’s tax package rushed through the Senate Tuesday
morning includes a nine-month farm bill extension that forestalls ill, even some of Bluestem's best informed friends didn't start paying attention.any
immediate spike in milk prices but also represents a bitter blow for
farmers who had hoped for long-sought changes in the dairy support
program.
In the final hours, Senate Agriculture Committee
Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) found herself pushed aside in favor
of legislative language generated by the office of Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a bit player and frequent “no” vote when the
Senate adopted a more comprehensive five-year farm bill last June.
The upshot is a victory for Southern agricultural interests with the
greatest stake in a costly system of direct cash payments to often
already profitable producers. In the dairy arena, giant processors like
Dean Foods Co. come out ahead while the outcome is a major blow for the
National Milk Producers Federation, which watched with disbelief from
the sidelines on New Year’s Eve.
“The deal is blatantly anti-reform,” said Ferd Hoefner, policy direct
for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Many smaller, targeted
programs to fund farm and food system reform and rural jobs…were left
out completely.”
“The message is unmistakable - direct commodity subsidies, despite
high market prices, are sacrosanct, while the rest of agriculture and
the rest of rural America can simply drop dead.”
The impact in the House is still unclear.
Coming into Tuesday, Republicans were scheduled to bring up their own
short-term solution to the milk crisis . . .
Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the top Democrat on the House
Agriculture Committee, had warned the White House that it must tread
carefully on the dairy and farm bills issues or risk a backlash. But at
this stage, given the size of the Senate vote, milk producers risk being
swept away with the tax cut surge.
Beyond dairy, the outcome is a wake-up call to the entire farm lobby
of its weakened political standing in Washington and need to avoid so
much infighting.
Update: The Politico story has been revised to include the reaction of Peterson to the passage of the bill, which he voted against:
“Upset is an understatement,” Peterson told POLITICO. “I’m not going
to talk with those guys. I’m done with them for the next four years.
They are on their own. They don’t give a sh-it. about me, anyway.”
“This is crazy, “ Peterson said of the tax package itself. “The farm
bill is one thing, but there’s just no way I’m going to add $4 trillion
to the deficit. … We’re not doing anything. We’re making it worse.”
In Minnesota, farm groups from across the production and political spectrum had urged the House to pass the 2012 Farm Bill (the Senate bill had already been approved) to no avail. However, a least one farm leader called for the passage of the nine-month extension so that farmers, processors and consumers would have some measure of certainty.
"With Congress at an impasse, a
nine-month extension may be the only path to a five-year farm bill in
the new Congress,” said Doug Peterson, MFU President. “An extension must
be responsible and protect baseline
funding and continue vital farm and consumer programs such as the Milk
Income Loss Contract Program (MILC), crop insurance, child and elderly
nutrition, and conservation.”
Since Minnesota has so far been spared the worst of the nation's drought, agriculture has remained a bright spot in the state's economy. In December, CBS Minnesota reported that Minnesota Agricultural Exports Hit Record $6.8B for 2011.
Photo: Farming in Minnesota.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
In Blues Cruise, New York magazine writer Joe Hagan writes up the National Review magazine’s Post Election Cruise 2012 that he enjoyed last month.
One of the featured guests on the Nieuw Amsterdam was Minnesota's own James Lileks, former Star Tribune columnist and current Bleat blogger. Apparently, Lileks was along as a comic. Hagen writes:
After dinner was a program called the “Light Side of the Right Side.” A frenetic, tightly wound man named James Lileks, a National Review
columnist from Minnesota, warmed up the crowd with one-liners: “If we
can put a man on the moon, we can put 50 million Democrats up there as
well!” . . .
Conservatives, they felt, needed their own cultural voice—a Letterman, a Leno, an SNL, a 30 Rock—to
compete with the overwhelming liberal dominance of the culture. As the
Republican image stood today, said Lileks, “we’re the stupid people,
we’re the yokels, we’re the dumb, we’re the racists, we’re the hicks,
we’re against everything that’s hip and cool.”
Please: leave us hicks and yokels out of your equation. Hagan's next reference illustrates a bit more of what the problem might be, an unrivaled tone deafness:
After a break for cookies came the 4 p.m. panel, “The Media: How Deep in
the Tank?” Lileks, the energetic Minnesotan, was apoplectic that the
mainstream media castigated Michele Bachmann for suggesting without
evidence that Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin’s had connections to
the Muslim Brotherhood.
The two top members of the U.S. House intelligence committee
disassociated themselves from the tone and substance of allegations by
Rep. Michele Bachmann, a panel member, that an investigation is
warranted in suspected efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate
the federal government.
"We are in a special situation as members
of the intelligence committee, and we get a lot of briefings and to deal
with the issue of terrorism and those types of thing," Rep. Dutch
Ruppersberger, D-Md., the committee's top Democrat, told USA TODAY.
"It's unfortunate that someone like Michele would make that kind of
comment without facts." . . .
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI
agent, said Bachmann's assertions about the Muslim Brotherhood's
infiltration efforts are false.
"That kind of assertion certainly
doesn't comport with the Intelligence Committee, and I can say that on
the record," he told USA TODAY, aligning himself with party leaders who
have defended Abedin. "I have no information in my committee that would
indicate that Huma is anything other than an American patriot.". . .
And then there were the other leaders who noted their disagreement:
. . .House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Bachmann's former campaign
manager Ed Rollins, among others, have all come to the defense of Huma
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Abedin is an American-born
Muslim whose family has alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood,
according to a conservative think-tank report that fueled Bachmann's
call for a full scale investigation.
Bachmann barely won re-election in November to political newbie Jim Graves. Poor Lileks must long for the old days, when news reporters in the Twin Cities media politely refrained from reporting the Gentlewoman from Minnesota's Sixth's cray-cray worldview. In the old days, by gum, that sort of thing was left for the folks at Dump Bachmann.
Bluestem wonders how Lileks reconciles his notion of a Bachmann-hostile press to the Associated Press's admission, via the Washington Post, AP editor cites Bachmann fact-checking ‘quota’:
Jim Drinkard, an Associated Press (AP) editor who oversees the wire
service’s fact-checking work, said, “We had to have a self-imposed
Michele Bachmann quota in some of those debates.”
After the session, Drinkard said that there wasn’t an actual
numerical quota on Bachmann at the AP. It’s just that if the AP had
gone back and vetted all her claims that looked dicey, the result would
“overload” the debate story. “Often she was just more prone to
statements that just didn’t add up,” said Drinkard.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
One of the persistent political folktales circulated by the likes of Mike Parry was that the EPA was going
to regulate farm field dust. With the agency's release of the final update on air quality standards, Bluestem doubts the anti-Obama faithful will stop trading this one in cafes and by beside campfires, since storytelling isn't grounded in the factual.
But we'll try once more to stand up for the facts of the matter.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) updated its national clean air standards today without
tightening “farm dust” standards.
"EPA's
final decision today on national clean air standards will have no
impact on farm dust from agricultural operations, as they have indicated
for more than a year,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in
response. “I commend EPA Administrator Jackson for her efforts to reach
out to the agricultural community and to make it clear that EPA had no
interest in regulating farm dust.”
Under
the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is required to review its air quality
standards every five years. According to EPA, a federal court required
the agency to issue a final standard by December 14, because it did not
meet its five-year legal deadline. In June, EPA proposed to retain
the coarse particulate matter (PM-10) standard, and several farm groups submitted comments encouraging EPA to make that proposal final. . . .
. . .National Farmers Union (NFU) Vice
President of Government Relations Chandler Goule said EPA’s announcement
will allow the agriculture sector to “finally put this issue to rest.”
“There
has been a lot of misinformation circulating about supposed regulatory
overreach so this final rule will hopefully put to rest any remaining
anxiety regarding ‘farm dust’ regulation by EPA,” he said. . . .
So no: the dirty hippies at "Obama's EPA" aren't planning to regulate farm dust. Find another dust-up.
Minnesota Farmers Union President and former state representative Doug Peterson sent out this statement about the decision today:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) finalized an update to its national air quality standards for
harmful fine particle pollution, and they ruled to not change the
regulations on dust from
farms and other sources.
“Minnesota Farmers Union and National Farmers Union
fought hard to make sure these dust regulations would not be changed
and so we are pleased that the EPA came down on the side of common sense
and decided to not regulate farm dust,” said
Doug Peterson, Minnesota Farmers Union President.
Other common sense regulatory issues that Farmers
Union fought for and won on the behalf of family farmers include:
allowing for farm kids to continue to work on the farm; and
country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) on food.
Photo: So not an EPA rule against this.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly "bleg" though Christmas.
Now the media is widely reporting a consequence of the Republican leadership's inability to bring the Farm Bill to the floor: the return of the Agricultural Act of 1949. This will be a disaster for both milk drinkers and producers. Back in September, Collin Peterson to Julie Rovner of National Public Radio:
"At that point, we'll have $38 milk," Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn.,
told a rally at the Capitol last week. "So what do you dairy farmers
think about that?" (That $38 refers to the price per 100 pound weight —
the wholesale pricing unit. Basically, it works out to nearly four times
what dairy farmers are guaranteed now.)
That's a temporary boon. As a Southeastern Minnesota dairy farmer told Winona Daily News reporter Nathan Hansen in US heading toward a ‘dairy cliff’:
Shelly DePestel, partner at Daley Farms near Lewiston, Minn., said
the increased price levels wouldn’t be good for dairy farmers if it
disproportionally impacts consumers.
“If the support price
doubles, consumers are going to feel the brunt of that,” she said.
“Consumption will go down and the price will also go down. It’s a
vicious circle, that won’t take care of itself.”
But farmers still shudder at the thought of any prospect, even
remote, of reverting to an old system under which milk could surge to $6
a gallon.
The Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic
provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a
new farm bill is passed, but if no new bill or extension is passed the
old act goes back into effect.
That law includes a mechanism
for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers’ costs. The
government guarantees to buy their milk products at that price, but
producers can usually do better selling on the consumer market. But if
the old mechanism were applied to current market conditions, the
government price could be double the current rate, industry officials
say. Farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead
of the private market and store prices would surge. Then prices might
collapse as the government eventually sold its dairy stockpiles.
“I certainly feel like I have been screaming into the wind for months
now,” said Rep. Tim Walz. “This thing has been done, passed out of the
Senate with almost a two-thirds majority. Just like so many other
things, it’s just kick the can down the road.”
It's hard to fault Walz for his anger. Passing a Farm Bill was a big issue in the First Congressional District contest between Walz and Republican opponent Allen Quist, who blamed the food assistance title in the bill for everything from America's divorce rate to single ladies voting for Democrats (seriously).
Voters and ag leaders rejected Quist, signaling they want Congress to quit dawdling. Sadly, it looks like Boehner, Cantor and company will continue to dawdle until the cows come home--and head to the auction barn as the dairy industry suffers.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Note: Bluestem has consistently been a gun rights supporter in the past. However, like Joe Scarborough,
the Sandy Hook school shootings have prompted us to rethink our
position on gun rights and gun violence. We're looking now at what
regulations would be most effective in preventing gun violence in
America. While we get up to speed on the research, we'll be posting
guest commentary. They are the opinions of the authors, not the editor of Bluestem.
Guest commentary by Samuel Twitchell
An earlier version of this post appeared on Twitchell's Facebook page
I've read a lot of Facebook posts on the subject of gun control since Friday's tragedy, and hearing about yet another senseless
shooting spree has made me pissed off and cantankerous, so I feel I should offer my fellow lefties a word
of caution. Advice is free, and you don't have to take it:
1. There are as many firearms in the United States as there are people. If for no other reason than
practicality, banning all guns in this country is impossible. You can't put this particular genie back into the
bottle, so don't waste your time/effort/breath trying.
2. Even if it was practical, banning guns is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on
the scope of the Second Amendment. Read that again: they already ruled. The same court that protects
the right to choose has decided that gun ownership is constitutionally protected. Don't be like those Tea
Party douches and say that only certain constitutional freedoms count.
3. Even if it were practical and constitutional, it would be stupid. A lot of studies point out that a) the
U.S. has a lot of guns, and b) the U.S. has a lot of violence. But that is correlation, not causation--which,
as you know, is a logical fallacy. Taking away guns would be the equivalent of treating a symptom and
not a disease. There are other developed countries with high percentage of gun ownership/possession-
-especially countries with compulsory military service--that have nowhere near a corresponding rate of
gun violence or deaths. We are violent, and we have a lot of guns, but these are not the same thing.
4. Focus on the real problems: our culture of violence that permeates every level of our society, our lack
of access to mental health care, and our absolute negligence in maintaining adequate regulation of gun
ownership and possession—including strong restrictions on assault weapons. We need a lot more of all
three, and these are politically feasible goals. There are a lot of people who will support these efforts, but
who will also reject you if you make it about banning guns.
5. Finally, put your efforts and political resources into addressing the real problems that contributed to
today's shootings. Don't point fingers at people you have decided not to like because they own firearms. There are twenty dead kids in Connecticut who don't care
how pure you are.
If we put half as much effort into getting results as we seem to maintaining political
orthodoxy, I'd be driving a hover car right now.
Samuel Twitchell grew up in Southern Minnesota. He has a Master’s degree in history, and is currently
pursuing a doctorate in History of Technology at Iowa State University. His wife teaches science in a Des Moines area school district.
Photos: A grieving resident of Newtown CT.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Note: Bluestem has consistently been a gun rights supporter. However, like Joe Scarborough, the Sandy Hook school shootings have prompted us to rethink our position on gun rights and gun violence. We're looking now at what regulations would be most effective in preventing gun violence in America. While we get up to speed on the research, we'll be posting guest opinion.
Guest post by Sean Olsen
Crossposted from Brick City Blog, Chaska
The elementary school massacre in Newton, Conn. Friday is apparently
going to prompt actual Congressional debate over potential new gun
control measures. Here’s a look at some of the options you might hear
about in the coming weeks, with some pros and cons of each:
Firearm registration:
Would require users to register all of their guns with the state.
Would facilitate tracking of guns used in crime, as well as discourage
ownership of prohibited weaponry. Would be relatively easy to avoid,
however, and viewed as a serious abridgment of Second Amendment rights.
Owner licensing and training: Would require gun
owners and purchasers to be licensed by the state. Most proposals tie
such licensing to requirements for successful completion of a gun safety
course including passing a proficiency exam. Process would likely
create additional expense for prospective gun owners.
Liability insurance: Would require gun owners to
purchase liability insurance that would cover any damages resulting from
illegal usage of the weapon. Presumably, this would discourage the
ownership of semi-automatic weapons because insurance rates would be
higher. Would make it much harder for lower-income folks to own
firearms.
Additional screening: Would subject current or
prospective gun owners to more intensive screening of their criminal and
mental health background. Would likely prevent more people with mental
health problems from obtaining weapons, but will never be 100%
successful. Also, could be considered a significant invasion of privacy
depending on what steps are involved.
Limits on magazine size: The Bushmaster .223
semi-automatic rifle used by the Connecticut shooter had a detachable
magazine that carried 30 rounds. Some have called for the limit to be
as low as six rounds, but most proposals place the number at 10 or 12
rounds as the maximum. Significant numbers of these large magazines
still exist today (and would continue to after a ban), and one could
expect a robust black market to develop.
Ban on detachable magazines: Some have called for a
ban on detachable magazines altogether, which would require rounds to
be loaded by hand instead of the quick change process facilitated by the
detachable magazine. Similar black market issues would exist with this
option.
Other limits on ammunition sales: Various options could be in play here, such as limits on the amount or type of ammunition that could be purchased.
Bans on certain types of weapons: Congressional Democrats have already indicated that they will be looking to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban
which expired in 2004 — this legislation primarily impacted
semi-automatic rifles with certain military features. Could be somewhat
effective — for instance, the AR-15 used by the Aurora, Colo. movie
theater shooter would have been banned by the law had it still been in
place. However, there were legal weapons available that provided
essentially the same function. As with some of the other options, a
robust black market would likely exist, unless the U.S. were to
undertake an effort like Australia did in the mid-1990s, spending
millions to buyback banned weapons.
The key thing to note about all of these options is that there’s no
provision here that’s going to be a magic wand. Guns are and always
will be a part of American culture. Mainstream debate (on both sides of
the political aisle) reflect the fact that no one wants to take away
the rights of law-abiding Americans to have a firearm for self-defense
and hunting. To reduce the number of tragedies like Newtown or Aurora
or Columbine or Virginia Tech is going to require changes across a
number of areas of American life — not just or not even primarily
changes in gun laws. It has to reflect that our system for treating
folks with mental illness isn’t working. It has to reflect that there
are some things very wrong with our culture. Bob Costas may have used
the wrong platform to talk about it, but we need to rethink our love
affair with firearms and begin to treat them with the respect that they
deserve. Ads like this don’t help the process along:
Photos: A grieving resident of Newtown (above); Bushmaster's man card campaign image. Bushmaster corporation website (below).
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
That's in the Rochester Post Bulletin, prompted by the shooting of a teen-aged girl by her grandfather in the home they shared. The board wrote in part:
. . .And now it's Rochester's turn. On Monday, a 61-year-old man mistook his 16-year-old granddaughter for a burglar and shot her with his handgun. Fortunately, she is expected to survive.
We're not going to use these tragedies as an opportunity to advocate for strict gun control, because that ship sailed a long time ago. The FBI estimates U.S. citizens own more than 200 million rifles, pistols and shotguns. While some restrictions have been placed on those who want to buy guns, people are buying firearms at a record pace this year, and the fact is if you're not a felon, those restrictions are little more than an inconvenience.
Furthermore, we'd suggest anyone who believes the U.S. government could, should or will ever attempt to take Americans' guns away from them is delusional. For better or for worse, guns and gun ownership are a part of our national heritage and culture, and that's not going to change. . . .
That was published Thursday; the paper has yet to post any editorial response to the Connecticut massacre. Part of this may be attributed as much to the paper's production schedule as to editorial reticence--nonetheless, it stands as a marker to the state of the discussion of gun control in the USA before Friday.
By three in the afternoon the next day, America's conversation had changed. Few signs of that shift are more stark than the headline on the top of the fairly conservative Owatonna People's Press editorial, Conversation on gun violence long overdue. The editors conclude:
. . .Before we jump head first
into such a debate, we should remember those people and their families.
But the discussion needs to happen. We cannot put this debate off any
longer. We, as Americans, need to sit down and have a serious discussion
about the role – and availability — of firearms in our society. As with
most important conversations, it will not be a pleasant one. It will be
divisive, it will be uncomfortable and it will most certainly be
heated. But it is necessary.
The one thing we can certainly all agree on is that none of
those 18 [sic] children deserved to die. How we move forward as a society from
this terrible tragedy, how we utilize the lessons that countless
similar tragedies have taught us, will define us a nation and as a
people.
Yes, earlier in the opinion, the editors caution how "voices on all sides of the political spectrum attempt to politicize the event in Newtown." They do not, however, ask that the debate be avoided.
Later on Friday night, the OPP's sister Huckle Media chain outlet, the Faribault Daily News, comes closer to that--though the editors stop short--with Take time to mourn the losses in Newtown, Conn.:
. . .
Tragedy is something that seems to be in abundance as of late in
America. Two people were randomly killed by a gunman at a mall in
Portland, Ore., earlier this week and sting of this past summer’s
Aurora, Colo., shooting still resonates. Dealing with a different kind
of pain, New York and the East Coast are still reeling from the
devastation of Superstorm Sandy.
As further details emerge about the shooting, definitive actions
will certainly be taken. School security plans will be reevaluated
nationwide and the long-standing gun control debate has already been
raised to a fever pitch in response to the shooting.
But before our attention is diverted to politics and rhetoric,
we ask that people take a moment to mourn the monumental losses suffered
in Connecticut. Feel sympathy and sadness for the family and friends
whose lives were forever damaged by the shooting. But most of all, take a
moment to call a loved one and tell them how much they mean to you
because in times of tragedy, they are what matter most. . .
While many on both ends of the spectrum of the gun control to gun rights debate may grow impatient with that call for mourning over action, it too is understandable, however little many of us might be inclined to soften the debate while the bodies are identified and gathered.
That impatience is captured more in the New Ulm Journal's headline: A day of horror. The Journal's board concludes:
We will hear debates about gun control in the weeks ahead. We need
the debate. Something has to be done about the vast number of guns in
this country, so many of them owned illegally, or unlicensed. Do we need
stronger laws, or stronger enforcement of our existing gun laws?
But in many cases like this, the shooters are often someone who
bought guns legally and had no prior history to indicate they should not
be allowed to own guns. Or they may steal the guns from somewhere.
As
a nation, we have gone through this experience too many times. And we
will go through it again, we fear, until we find the resolve to do
something substantive about it.
That suggests stronger action than the Bulletin editorial board--widely thought more liberal than the stolid burghers in New Ulm--would have admitted possible in the national debate two days before.
Late Saturday night, the Mankato Free Press posted Our View: School shooting is America's problem, which calls for political courage against the gun lobby. Perhaps the bolder call is simply a matter of time elapsed from the slap of the initial reports on Friday. The editorial begins:
School shootings in America should be difficult and rare, not easy and frequent.
But when most of us can name four or five of them off the top of our
heads, we should realize they have become too easy and frequent.
Jonesboro. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Now Newtown, Conn. Then add other
public places. Post offices, movie theaters, businesses, warehouses,
churches, NFL football fields. It's pretty sad when 28 dead in a school
shooting doesn't break the record. The Virginia Tech shooter claimed 32
lives.
Newtown, a city about the size of Mankato, was considered by one parent the "safest place in America."
Go read the middle at the Free Press. The editors conclude:
The [President's] politics reference was alluding to an ugly truth about our gun
violence debate in America. We seem afraid to have one at high levels of
power from state houses to the White House. . . .
Like any legitimate public affairs issue, we should debate the causes,
the effects and what makes mass shootings so easy and frequent. From
mental illness prevention to semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles,
all issues need to be on the table.
But we should also examine our own consciences. Can we continue to live
with these tragedies and be afraid of a gun lobby we know is very
powerful? Or is it time we had the courage, as Obama urges, to do
something "meaningful." . . .
The sufficient (and efficacious) grace of that word has been much contested among the tweeps, to the point that mere mortals have written, Obama, Fuck Your Tears, taking away a different meaning:
Plus, the benefit of not “capitalizing” on the tragedy is that, in a few
days, most of us will put this whole thing behind us. We have Christmas
presents to buy and trees to decorate—this is a very busy time of year!
So if you wait this one out, just kind of do the bare minimum of your
job, our outrage will probably pass, and you can avoid any of those
“usual Washington policy debates.” Those are such a yawn, amirite?
There's merit to that. The conservative Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Mark Roth dashed off Despite Obama's appeal for action, new gun control unlikely, experts say within hours of the President's speech, and many editorial boards across Greater Minnesota--notably those owned by the Forum Communications chain--have stayed silent.
For myself, I've always been a gun rights supporter as it seemed a civil liberty, but the cascade of spree shootings now makes me think that the "well-regulated" clause of the Second Amendment needs to be invoked to protect citizens from murder. As the Free Press board writes:
Like any legitimate public affairs issue, we should debate the causes,
the effects and what makes mass shootings so easy and frequent. From
mental illness prevention to semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles,
all issues need to be on the table.
Will this debate happen? And sound policy--not tears--be wrung from it? We must make it so.
Photo: A man outside of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a gunman opened fire, killing 26 people, including
20 children, Friday, Dec. 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Newtown Bee, Shannon
Hicks via Huffington Post).
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Politico reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has tapped Minnesota First District congressman Tim Walz to run its Frontline Program, "which provides support for vulnerable incumbents," but that nod of approval from DC isn't stopping him from loitering in local grocery stores with his constituents.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced Thursday
its leaders for the 2014 election cycle, handing top slots to Maryland
Rep. Donna Edwards and Minnesota Rep. Tim Walz.
DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) appointed Edwards to oversee
recruiting for House Democrats and Waltz [sic] to manage the Frontline
Program, which provides support for vulnerable incumbents.
Meanwhile, back in the pastoral winter wonderland of Southern Minnesota, Walz plans to hang out at a Hyvee grocery store in his hometown of Mankato tomorrow, the Owatonna People's Press reports:
[walz] will host a “Congress on Your Corner”
event 10:30 a.m. – noon. Friday, Dec. 14 at Hy-Vee – Hilltop, 2010 Adams
Street in Mankato to hear directly from southern Minnesotans.
“Hearing the thoughts and ideas of southern Minnesotans is the
cornerstone of our representative democracy. I am looking forward to the
opportunity to hear from folks,” said Walz.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Looking to break the “fiscal cliff” gridlock, House Democrats are attempting to use a “discharge petition,” a little-known procedural move, to get around Speaker John A. Boehner
and force a House vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone
except individuals making $200,000 and more and couples making $250,000.
Such a vote would give Republicans who want to abandon the speaker and the GOP “no-higher-tax-rates” position a chance to buck party leaders and cut their own deal with Democrats to avert the “fiscal cliff” — the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will take effect in January.
No Republicans have signed or said they would sign the petition, but Democrats are optimistic they can find more than two dozen GOP lawmakers needed to send the stalled bill to the floor for a vote — especially if negotiations between the president and Mr. Boehner remain stalled.
Walz asked his colleagues again today to sign the petition, and this time, he's really pissed--on behalf of Americans who are tired to watching what he calls "kabuki" while nothing gets done.
Here's his speech today (transcript followed by video):
“Mr. Speaker, my discharge petition at the desk is really an approach that the American people spoke loudly in. Every single one of us just came through an election and the message was abundantly clear to me. Why do you continue to bicker? Why do you continue to stand on the floor and make these ridiculous kabuki dance statements with one another, when it shouldn't be that difficult?
“We came out of a Constitutional Convention, and when they asked James Madison what the secret to this new government was; compromise, compromise, compromise. Mr. Speaker, to sit here and do what we're doing, not bringing this forward and releasing the tension on the middle class, making sure the economy knows there's stability amongst taxes, is holding our economy back, and to be very honest it's insulting to the American people.
“This is a nation that won two world wars. This is a nation that split the atom. This is a nation that put a man on the moon. This is a nation sending pictures back from mars and curiosity. You know what? Sign the discharge petition, bring it to the floor, get 435 votes, put it online for 24 hours, send it to the president and by three o’clock tomorrow a big chunk of the fiscal cliff is done.
“Don’t insult the people with things that aren't true, don't tell them that it's not about compromise, and don't sit here and pretend like we're working when we're not. They know better, they're smarter, they deserve better.
“Bring the discharge petition to the floor, allow Members to vote for it, give the American people what they want; stability and a Congress that works, and let's move on to other pressing issues. I yield back.”
Photo: Tim Walz.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Covering the pity party that was the first MNGOP state central committee meeting to come after the Republicans' disaster in Minnesota's 2012 elections, the Associated Press's Brian Bakst reports in Minn. Republicans look ahead after 2012 drubbing:
The other big electoral prize that year is the seat occupied by
first-term Democratic Sen. Al Franken. He won the spot in 2008 by 312
votes after a lengthy recount and court battle.
No one has
formally announced a challenge, though plenty of names are floating
around. Reps. John Kline and Erik Paulsen are considered possibilities,
as are some rooted in the private sector. Among them is Bill Guidera, an
attorney who has been the state Republican Party's finance chairman. He
attended Saturday's gathering but said he's undecided.
Bill Guidera is much more than a simple lawyer helping out the local Republicans. It's surprising that Bakst puts it this way, since last November, the AP reported in GOPer Guidera won't challenge Klobuchar for Senate:
A Minnesota-based executive with the
parent company of Fox News has decided not to run as a Republican
against U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar next year.
Bill Guidera is an attorney and a senior vice
president with News Corporation, and has been a prolific fundraiser
for the Minnesota Republican Party. He decided several months ago
not to challenge Democrat Klobuchar, but reconsidered in recent
weeks after further encouragement from some party leaders.
But Guidera isn't just a simple senior vice president for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. He's the one who works of public policy. His Linked In profile states:
As a public policy executive with Microsoft and with News Corporation, I
have managed legal matters and advocacy on some of the most significant
policy issues facing those companies: Antitrust; intellectual property;
Internet privacy, safety and security; tax and workforce development.
News Corporation announced
today the expansion of the Company’s Washington, DC office, adding Kathy
Ramsey and Kristopher Jones to the government affairs team and promoting
veterans Bill Guidera and David Fares. . . .
. . . Mr. Guidera has been with News Corporation since 2007, leading the Company’s
state public policy initiatives relating to the Company’s film, Internet,
print and television businesses. He works particularly closely on Internet
safety issues, where he is a national policy leader. He previously served as
an attorney and policy counsel with Microsoft Corporation, where he drove
state, federal and international policy development on safety and security.
What's more, Guidera is the fellow who shows up at corporate bill factory ALEC's meetings, fronting for Fox News and Murdoch. In May, PR Watch reported in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Is an ALEC Member:
At the meeting April 2010 meeting attended by Guidera, the task force
hosted a panel on the Federal Communications Commission's National
Broadband Plan. The Reason Foundation's Steve Titch, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's (NCTA's) Rick Cimerman, and AT&T's Hank Hultquist discussed the National Broadband Plan. Intuit's
Jim Ruda presented on and introduced a proposed "Resolution on
Government Tax Preparation & Electronic Filing." The resolution was
approved by the legislative and private sector members of the task
force. (Intuit subsequently dropped ALEC this spring in the wake of the
Trayvon Martin shooting and other controversial information about ALECs
agenda and operations, as documented by CMD/ALECexposed.) . . .
. . . News Corp. is a multinational, multi-platform media conglomerate. The ALEC Communications and Technology Task Force,
on which News Corp. has a seat, has long had a far-reaching agenda to
deregulate the communications industry and has opposed key protections
of the public's airwaves for ordinary citizens, such as "net neutrality"
and the "Fairness Doctrine." However, News Corp.'s particular business
interests in the jurisdiction of this ALEC task force are not fully
known.
“At times a bill is seen as the easy solution to a tough
problem, yet that bill may create even more problems. Todd (Kruse) and
his team cut through the puffery to reach the core issues with clear,
conservative policy solutions,” said Bill Guidera of News Corp, an ALEC
member based in Minnesota.
There's also the possibility that Guidera could run for governor as well. Rachel Stassen-Berger of the Star Tribune tweeted from the Republican SCC meeting:
Bill Guidera,current MN GOP finance chair,says he won't run for chair but didn't say no when asked if he would run for gov or sen in #mn2014
Photo: News Corp Group (above) An anti ALEC banner (below).
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Since his surprise upset of Gil Gutknecht in 2006, Congressman Tim Walz's candidate committee has filed post-election reports that show slender balances and some unpaid bills after vigorous campaigns in the swing district.
At the same time in the 2009-2010 cycle (amended report)--a Republican wave year during which the Mankato Democrat squeaked out a win over Hayfield's Randy Demmer--Walz enjoyed a cash balance of $23,083.12 with $35,976.83 in unpaid bills. These oblligations were paid by the end of June, 2011, when Walz had $397,556.54 cash on hand.
After Walz's freshman year, he blew Republican Brian Davis out of the water, but closed the campaign with $59,965.27 in bank and no debt, according to the committee's 2008 post-general report.
Walz went for broke in the 2006 upset, reporting $18,759.90 in debts and a $-17568.33 cash balance in an amended filing. All debts were paid and the committee had $452,881.45 by the end of June 2007 in anticipation of what was anticipated to be a close race in 2008.
Quist and Parry reports
Allen Quist's post-election report reveals that the Norseland farmer came nowhere living up to his endorsing convention promise to commit $1 million of his own money to the campaign. Quist gave $205,000.00 to his campaign during the cycle, while lending the committee $315,000.00. Outside of self-funding, the Quist for Congress committee raised $101,214.50 from individual, $4,100.00 from party committees and $14,600.00 from PACs for the cycle.
Quist's primary challenger Mike Parry--who jumped into the race last year with more fanfare and the assistance of then top Minnesota Republican operatives Michael Brodkorb and Ben Golnik--reports having $-1109.85 COH and no debt. The Parry for Congress raised a net $114,560.10 in contributions.
Photos: Tim Walz (top); Emo Senator Mike Parry (bottom; photoshop by Tild).
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
A friend and former student who had served under Congressman Tim Walz in the Minnesota National Guard once said that she never wanted to hear his reprimands again after he had chastized her unit for bad behavior.
As she explained it, he didn't really yell at the soldiers, but the tone in his voice made her and the rest to try to be better.
House Democrats on Tuesday filed a discharge petition that would force the House to vote on the Senate's bill to extend the Bush-era tax levels for the middle class, but allow rates to rise for the wealthy.
Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) filed the petition at noon, and it will need 218 signatures to take it out of committee and bring it to the House floor for a vote. Democrats won't reach that majority without help from a few dozen Republicans; despite this hurdle, several Democrats called on members of both parties to support it in order to avoid a tax hike on the middle class.
"Today, let's show the American people the politics of the possible," Walz said. "Let's focus on what we agree on, not what disagree on. Let's find common ground."
Republican leaders in the House have blocked the Senate bill until
now, but with tax hikes for all Americans looming, Walz believed some
Republicans might be tempted to sign on.
Such petitions are the only way for the minority party in the House
to get their bills onto the floor without the consent of the majority
party's leadership but require at least 218 signatures to work.
Democrats currently hold 190 House seats.
Past discharge petitions have rarely succeeded, though Walz was able
to use the threat of a petition earlier this year to get a floor vote on
a congressional ethics measure he supported. That bill, the Stop
Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act, was later signed into law by
President Obama.
Here's video of Walz's speech from the floor:
Walz's congressional office released this statement that included a transcript of the remarks:
Today,
Congressman Tim Walz filed a discharge petition to bring forward a bill
that would give certainty to millions of Americans by extending the
middle class tax cuts immediately. While the President and Congress
broker a big, balanced deal that will grow our economy, reduce the
deficit, and create jobs, Walz urged Republicans and Democrats to come
together to do what they already agree on—extending tax cuts for the
middle class. A transcript of his speech announcing the discharge
petition is below.
“Today
let’s show the American people the politics of the possible. Let’s
focus on what we agree on, not what we disagree on. Let’s find common
ground. We can accomplish this by extending the middle class tax cuts
immediately. Let’s have the people’s House break this ridiculous
stalemate. Let families all across the nation go into the holiday season
with certainly.
“Everyone
here agrees taxes should not go up on middle class families. Democrats
and Republicans can come together to make that happen. By extending the
tax cuts, every American will get a tax break on their first $250,000 of
income. Let me repeat that: one hundred percent of Americans will
receive a tax break on $250,000 of income. It also extends the child tax
credit, makes it easier for small businesses to expand, makes it
affordable to go to college, and fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax.
“If
we fail to act in the next 10 days, middle class families will see
their income taxes go up by $2,000 dollars. No one wants it, the economy
doesn’t need it. The Senate’s already passed a bill. The President said
he would sign it today. It can be done now.
“Please, stand up, sign the discharge petition, and make a difference for the American public.”
A
discharge petition requires the House to consider the legislation once a
majority (218) Members of Congress have signed it. This process was
successful in forcing action to get campaign finance and disabled
veterans benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Photo: Tim Walz.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
A friend passes along an undated letter on the Parry For Congress letterhead that he received in yesterday's mail. Here's the scanned image:
Mrs. Parry's honey-do list and all that complaining must have consumed a lot of time, since these activities pushed Parry's primary thank you letter back until the end of November. Parry lost the Republican primary in Minnesota's First Congressional district on August 14
And given the nature of those dismissed complaints (and dismissed appeals of the rejected complaints), it's curious that Mike Parry is applauding his activity in a letter for a federal campaign. Were those press conferences and complaints--which consumed state staff time--intended to gain approval and thus aid his federal fundraising?
If this activity was related to the amendments, ought Parry and Newman have created a committee to support their activities on the ballot questions' behalf? Parry asked such things of SOS Ritchie.
We'll leave assessments of his service to his constituents to residents of the district.
Also curious: Parry's closing postscript:
I also wanted to let you know that my campaign has a few outstanding debts and I would be so grateful if you could give me one last contribution to help me make sure they are paid.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to the tip jar.
If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on this page for a
snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly "bleg" though
Christmas.
Bluestem isn't sure that's a grand bargain for Greater Minnesota.
PB Political reporter Heather Carlson writes:
The fiscal cliff refers to a double whammy
of tax increases and hefty spending cuts that automatically take effect
on Jan. 1 unless Congress and President Barack Obama take action to stop
it. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that those cuts could
drive the country back into a recession.
Republicans have been making the case that entitlement reform needs to
be part of any fiscal cliff solution. But Walz said before he is willing
to consider changes to those programs, he wants Republicans to be open
to raising tax rates on higher-income individuals. He said he can make
the case that the lowered tax rates passed during President George W.
Bush's tenure played a role in driving up the national debt.
He asked "So they are going to ask us to take a look at Social Security
but they are unwilling to look at part of it that was part of the
problem in the first place?"
Is this "grand bargain" such a great idea? Earlier this month Michael Lind addressed the big picture at Salon in The case against a “grand bargain”:
According to news reports, President Obama wants a “grand bargain”
with the Republicans, who retain a majority in the House of
Representatives even though in this year’s election more Americans voted for Democrats than for Republicans for Congress.
The details of various “bipartisan” grand bargains vary, but most
proposals, like the one proposed by the right-wing Republican Alan
Simpson and the conservative Southern Democrat Erskine Bowles, the heads
of the president’s failed deficit reduction commission, would trade
modest Republican concessions on higher taxes on the rich for Democratic
support for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other
entitlements.
Any such grand bargain would be a bad deal for mainstream Americans.
Social
Security and Medicare have absolutely nothing to do with the short-term
U.S. fiscal problem. Middle-class entitlements do have long-term
problems, like inadequate payroll tax revenue for Social Security in the
2030s, and excessive medical prices in the U.S., which affect private
healthcare as well as Medicare and Medicaid. But these are unrelated
problems that deserve to be discussed in unrelated debates according to
unrelated timelines. . . .
Closer to home, the picture gets much worse. From a press release from the Minnesota AFL CIO:
According
to a new report released by the AFL-CIO yesterday:882,408 Minnesotans could be
negatively impacted if Congress attempts cuts to Social Security,
including 115,780
people with disabilities and 59,076 children. Of the
879,145 Minnesotans
who get their health care coverage from Medicaid, 422,219 children and
96,039 seniors could be affected if the lame duck Congress makes cuts to Medicaid benefits. Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid combined deliver $26 billion per year into Minnesota’s economy.
As
the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches, members of Congress have
suggested cuts to benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
even while calling for renewing
tax cuts for the richest 2%. If those tax cuts are renewed, the richest
2% in Minnesota would receive an average of
$29,690 in tax cuts, while the rest of Minnesotans would receive an average of
$1,370. The 2012 House Republican budget plan would cut federal support to Minnesota’s Medicaid program by at least $16.9 billion over 10 years.
Social Security Works for Minnesota’s Rural Communities
• Social Security is more important to rural Minnesotans than to other Minnesotans. One out of 5 (21.9 percent) rural Minnesotans received Social Security compared with 1 out of 7 (14.7 percent) non-rural Minnesotans in 2010.
• Social Security is more important to the local economies of Minnesota’s rural counties than to its non-rural counties. Total personal income in Minnesota’s 66 rural counties was $51 billion in 2010 of which $3.9 billion, or 7.6 percent, was from Social Security. By comparison, total personal income in the state’s 21 non-rural counties was $176 billion, of which $7.8 billion, or 4.5 percent, was from Social Security.
Broken down on the congressional district level, here's what that looks like:
To look at the county-by-county data, check out the report here:
Photo: The Grand Bargain looks like Garden Troll Zombies to Bluestem. Or that might be too much Netflix.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to the tip jar.
If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on this page for a
snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly "bleg" though
Christmas.
Tim Walz is at it again. He’s again saying we need to pass the farm bill now.
But during the latter part of the recent campaign, he said we needed to control federal spending.
So which is it?
The
last farm bill, in 2008, had a price tag of $286 billion. This farm
bill’s price tag is almost twice that at $500 billion — half a trillion.
You can’t control federal spending and double spending on the farm bill at the same time, obviously.
And
none of that spending increase is for farm programs. The increase is
entirely for food stamps — a program run so poorly that we have no way
of knowing if the benefits go to people who actually need them.
Actually
80 percent of the spending in the farm bill is for food stamps. It’s
not really a farm bill at all. It’s a food stamp bill with a farm bill
rider. . . . .
The
last farm bill, in 2008, had a price tag of $286 billion. This farm
bill’s price tag is almost twice that at $500 billion — half a trillion.
Nice try, dude. What the new price tag reflects are estimates created from program baseline spending--and the increased spending on food support that occurred because of the recession. In April the Congressional Budget Office reported:
On average, 45 million people received SNAP benefits each month in
fiscal year 2011, which represents a 70 percent increase over the
roughly 26 million people (or one of every 11) who received benefits in
2007. Outlays for SNAP benefits (not including administrative
costs) more than doubled during that period, from about $30 billion to
$72 billion.
Thus, the increased (and actual) expense creates the baseline for the new bill. Quist has never acknowledged provisions in the House version of the bill--which Walz helped craft as a member of the House Agriculture Committee-- that change eligibility rules and create other cost-saving measures.
Instead, Quist writes:
The increase is entirely for food stamps — a program run so poorly that
we have no way of knowing if the benefits go to people who actually need
them.
But Fraud, Which Is Declining, Accounts For 1 Percent Of All Benefits
Reuters: Fraud "Accounts For Just 1 Percent Of Food Stamp Benefits." From a February 6 Reuters article titled "U.S. targets food stamp fraud as election looms":
Kevin
Concannon, U.S. Department of Agriculture undersecretary for food,
nutrition and consumer services, said his agency was doubling efforts to
prevent fraud, which accounts for just 1 percent of food stamp
benefits, but equals about $750 million each year.
"This is $750
million that isn't being used to provide food to individuals and
families and that issue isn't lost on us," Concannon said in a recent
phone interview.
"We want to maintain the confidence of American
taxpayers because everyone is challenged in this economy - the payers as
well as the folks who are benefiting from the program," he said.
[Reuters, 2/6/12]
CBPP: "SNAP Payment Error Rates At All-Time Lows." The Center on Budget and Policy Report stated:
Despite
the recent rapid caseload growth, USDA reports that states achieved a
record-low SNAP error rate in fiscal year 2010 (see Figure 4.) Only 3
percent of all SNAP benefits represented overpayments, meaning they
either went to ineligible households or went to eligible households but
in excessive amounts, and more than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households.
Fiscal
Times: The USDA Has "Has Aggressively Implemented A Number Of Measures
To Reduce The Prevalence Of Trafficking ... From 4 Percent Down To 1
Percent." A May 24 article from The Fiscal Times reported that
the Obama administration "took steps to go after merchants and
beneficiaries" who illegally "traffic in food stamp debit cards." The
article continued:
Trafficking is an illegal
activity punishable by disqualification from the program, fines, and
even criminal prosecution. Over the last 15 years, the department has
aggressively implemented a number of measures to reduce the prevalence
of trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
as it is now called, from 4 percent down to 1 percent. [The Fiscal
Times, 5/24/12]
And the eligibility issues that Quist raise during the campaign? Changed in the House version of the bill. Bluestem took this up during the summer:
Nor is Quist honest about the status of "categorical eligiblity"
in the House version of the Farm Bill. Current law allows flexibility
on the asset test for families on food support, but the final House
version eliminates the problem Quist spend most of the interview venting
about.
. . .The bill, co-authored by Minnesota Democrat Rep. Collin Peterson and
eventually approved by the House Agriculture Committee, cuts $16.5
billion from the federal food stamps program over the next 10 years,
though Minnesota officials can’t yet say what effect such a cut would
have on the state’s 500,000 food stamp recipients.
. . .The brunt of the House bill’s savings come from
ending a program called “categorical eligibility,” which allows states
to deem individuals who qualify for state welfare programs also eligible
for food stamps. Forty states use the option, and in some cases,
including Minnesota’s, categorical eligibility increases the income
level at which individuals are able to receive food stamps.In
2010, the Minnesota Legislature expanded the state's food stamp
eligibility limits, opening the program up to anyone making less than
165 percent of the federal poverty level (or $38,032.50 for a family of
four) and removing a required review of an individual’s assets (such as a
savings account). The House’s bill would revert that standard to 130
percent of the poverty level and reinstate the asset test.
As President Barack Obama and
congressional leaders begin to negotiate over the series of automatic
spending cuts and tax hikes known as the fiscal cliff, some members of
Congress say a bill to extend food stamps and farm subsidy programs
could help bridge the impasse.
The farm bill expired earlier this
year because of House Republican infighting over how deeply to cut food
stamp spending.
But the House Agriculture Committee
approved a bill that cuts spending by more than $30 billion over the
next decade. . . .
The new farm bill would create a national eligibility standard for food
stamps, end direct payments to farmers and expand federally subsidized
crop insurance programs. . . .
. . .The farm bill and impending “fiscal cliff” are being linked because
new federal farm policy could produce billions of dollars in savings.
“There
is a growing recognition that this could be part of the puzzle,” said
Sen. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota Democrat who leads the Senate Budget
Committee and is a key player in fiscal cliff negotiations.
Added
U.S. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican: “I
think the farm bill can contribute to solving the fiscal cliff because
it can achieve savings.”
Washington insiders say the farm bill,
which really is 80 percent nutrition programs such as food stamps, could
save $23 billion to $50 billion over the next decade. While the
government faces a “fiscal cliff” problem topping $2 trillion, many
farm-state legislators say the farm bill would be a good down payment. . . .
The 2012 Farm Bill isn't seen as a problem in budget talks. It's seen a part of the solution, however much Allen Quist wants to fantasize about people on food assistance driving Rolls Royces to their divorce proceedings.
Quist should be encouraged to send out letters at least twice a week to remind First District residents why they so resoundingly rejected him on Election Day.
Cartoon: Allen Quist rides off into the sunset on his favorite cryptozoological steed. By Ken Avidor.
One of the issues Bluestem has followed since our inception is the need to complete the Lewis and Clark Regional Water system. Most local communities along the route have pre-paid for their share of the construction, but national politics have delayed completion in the three states that will share the system.
Even in the best of times, Southwestern Minnesota needs the water, since much of the available water isn't potable. Even when livestock might drink it, it's unhealthy for them.
. . .more than half a dozen rural residents in Nobles County are still on a waiting list to get rural water.
LPRW
CEO Dennis Healy said Friday that they’ve had an usually high number of
requests from rural residents in recent months to tap into the line,
which brings water from Osceola Rural Water into Nobles County.
“There
have been a few cases where the wells have basically quit pumping any
water,” said Healy, adding that in most instances, the water coming from
private wells just isn’t enough to meet the needs of the customer.
“The situation is getting worse rather than better,” he said. “They’re contacting us before they’re totally out of water.”
Rural
Bigelow dairy farmer Steve Dykstra had to get an emergency hook-up into
LPRW’s system a year ago already, and has relied on the water to
supplement three existing wells on the farm.
“I’ve been using it non-stop for a year now,” he said.
With
two shallower wells on his property, Dykstra looked into rural water
more than a decade ago, but ultimately decided to dig a new well. The
well, at 780 feet deep, was to be his backup water source.
The
water quality was so poor, however, that it rusted the pump. When it
finally was in operation, the dairy cows didn’t really like the water.
“My
cows have suffered in production since using that (deep) well,” Dykstra
said, adding that since hooking into the LPRW line, his dairy barn has
been utilizing the water non-stop.
Harlan Hanson, owner of
Hanson’s Well Drilling in Heron Lake, has been in the well business for
52 years. At age 72, he said he can’t recall a time when water shortages
have been more prevalent than they are today. . . .
Federal funding is barely a trickle, but the water itself is flowing. However, not everyone is reaping the benefits. . . .
The great majority of the member communities have paid their fair
share toward the project, but the federal government has not even come
close to fulfilling its promise for funding. Now, due to inflation and
interest, the federal government owes the project $200 million.
The 11 members receiving water include; Sioux Falls, Beresford,
Centerville, Harrisburg, Lennox, Parker, Tea, Lincoln County RWS,
Minnehaha Community Water Corporation, South Lincoln RWS and Rock
Rapids. For Minnehaha Community and Rock Rapids, service is only to one
of their two connections. The Rock Rapids connection is the one worked
out with Lyon and Sioux Rural Water to serve the Grand Falls Casino. The
Rock Rapids water supply will not actually see any Lewis and Clark
water until the pipeline gets to Rock Rapids.
In addition to the second connections for the Minnehaha system and
Rock Rapids, the members who are not yet connected include: Madison,
South Dakota; Hull, Sheldon, Sibley and Sioux Center, Iowa; Luverne, and
Worthington, Minnesota, and the Lincoln Pipestone and Rock County Rural
Water systems.
Photo: the operating Lewis and Clark water treatment facility, via KIWA-AM.
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments