A conservative advocacy group is targeting Rochester GOP Sen. Carla Nelson for supporting a hike in the state's cigarette tax.
Americans for Prosperity sent a direct-mail piece this week that
states "Carla Nelson wants to raise our taxes … even more than Mark
Dayton!" It goes on to state that "Not even Mark Dayton supports such a
massive tax hike" and urges people to call Nelson to tell her to "stop
raising sales taxes on Minnesotans."
Nowhere on the mailer does it use the term "cigarette
taxes." A footnote in small print cites a bill Nelson introduced that
would increase taxes on cigarettes by $1.29 a pack, to the same tax
level as in Wisconsin, and use that money to help reduce the statewide
business property tax . . .
Nelson is one of three state lawmakers who support various tax increases
being targeted by the group, which was founded by conservative
billionaires Charles and David Koch. The others are both Democrats from
Edina — Rep. Ron Erhardt and Sen. Paul Rosenthal. . . .
Van Guilder declined to say how much is being spent on the mailers but
said it is "significant." He said the group also plans to use social
media to urge its supporters to speak out against these tax proposals.
It's likely that most progressive observers will focus on the Koch Brothers connection with AFP, and chuckle at the Koch money being used against Nelson, but there's more than just Koch change rattling in AFP's cup.
Politically active non-profit organizations like Americans For Prosperity (and its state wings) are not required under
current law to disclose the names of businesses, organizations and
individuals who
provide their funds. But groups like the Center for Responsive
Politics and Greenpeace have unearthed other sources, including the secretive Donors Trust.
Receipts reported to IRS by Contributing Organizations since 2010
Organization
Date Filed
Amount
Recipient
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
11/19/10
$354,725
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
EL Craig Foundation
01/01/11
$100,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Issue
08/08/11
$10,000
Americans for Prosperity (c4)
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
11/21/11
$150,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$50,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$300,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$580,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
National Christian Charitable Foundation
11/10/11
$22,500
Americans for Prosperity (c3)
Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation
11/18/11
$20,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation
11/18/11
$500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
John William Pope Foundation
11/21/11
$500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
John William Pope Foundation
11/15/10
$25,000
Americans for Prosperity (c4)
John William Pope Foundation
11/15/10
$50,000
Americans for Prosperity (c4)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$1,500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$4,500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$1,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Donors Trust
11/14/11
$1,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Center to Protect Patients' Rights
12/13/11
$1,924,000
Americans for Prosperity (c4)
John William Pope Foundation
11/21/11
$250,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
John William Pope Foundation
11/21/11
$500,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
John William Pope Foundation
11/21/11
$100,000
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (c3)
Cmnty Fndtn Serving Richmond/Central VA
11/16/10
$350,250
Americans for Prosperity (c3)
Cornerstone Action
11/14/11
$148,000
Americans for Prosperity (c4)
Who's funding this particular attack against Nelson and two suburban Democrats? We'll probably never know--- but it's likely Van Guilder's not stretching it when he says "significant" money is available.
For more on the Donor's Trust, check out DeSmogBlog's Who is Donors Trust?. There does seem to be a lot of money to follow.
Photo: Senator Carla Nelson, R-Rochester.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
A certain Minnesota conservative friend was lamenting via the twitter that he had just heard the breaking news that "Sen. David Hann & Brad Biers chartered a plane to fly around MN to "message?" Really? Anyone hear of this before now?"
Since Bluestem has discovered the miracle of Google Alerts, we had been charting the news of Senate Minority Leader Hann tour through northern Minnesota, a progress swelled as it were by the presence of his attendant lord Mr. Biers.
In a clever divide and conquer strategy, House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt headed off to conquer southern and western Minnesota with the charming Susan Closmore, who is still pulling at the oars, whatever awful rowing her party has faced.
Republicans say they spend time this week making a case against the
DFL budget approach. House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, said he
plans to travel throughout the state pointing out the problems he sees
with the proposals.
"Minnesota's economy is recovery and Minnesota's economy is creating
jobs, and it's happening because we didn't raise taxes over the last
couple of years,," Daudt said. "So, our case is if we raise taxes, we're
going to stop that from happening, and it's going to be bad for
Minnesota's economy and it's bad for hard working Minnesota families."
Minnesota House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt said Monday he thinks the
DFL budget proposal presented last week will hurt the state’s economy
and essentially tax job creators. . . .
. . . Instead, he said, legislators need to continue to let the economy grow and naturally recover.
“Just have more patience and we’ll get there,” Daudt said.
Economy: heal thyself. Daudt also doesn't sound like he's into the balm of bipartisan LGA, either:
Daudt said he thinks with the Legislature freezing local government
aid at 2010 levels, the answer to helping local governments will come
with cutting some of the unfunded mandates.
That way city and county leaders will know what to expect of local government aid in the future.
A team of the House Minority leadership toured southern Minnesota today,
angling for a balanced budget without the additional revenue of a tax
hike on the rich.
Asst. Minority Leader Rep. Kurt Daudt (R-31A)
says, "Throwing more money at a problem doesn't always fix it. Frankly,
we think we can handle the problem in that way rather than taxing middle
class Minnesotans and job creators."
St. Rep. Kurt Daudt, MN House Minority Leader says, "The state will see
more revenue and it will be a win for all Minnesotans. Unfortunately the
Governor's budget picks winners and losers and frankly it will be a
setback for Minnesota's economy and it will hurt job growth in
Minnesota."
That's all we can find so far, though more is likely as the weekly papers publish and tomorrow's dailies hit the street. One legislator tweeted about a meeting with the Rochester Post Bulletin editorial board, but no article has emerged that we can find.
Lending a Hann in Duluth and Brainerd
David Hann's pilgrimage turns up on television in Duluth and print in Brainerd. Northland News, Duluth's NBC affiliate, reports in MN GOP Leaders: Less Spending, Less Taxes:
. . .Senate Minority Leader David Hann is traveling across the state during
the legislature's spring break this week to talk about the budget. . . .
Sen. Hann says the budget proposals from the Governor, the House and
Senate focus too heavily on revenue increases by the way of nearly $2
billion in taxes.
"We think that is excessive, we think that is over reach and
we don't think it's necessary," Sen. Hann said. "So what we're trying to
do is propose to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we
should focus on trying to manage the spending down within the revenues
that we have and see if we can find bipartisan ways to bring reform to
that spending ." . . .
During the spring break, House and Senate leaders are touring the state to talk about the budget.
David Hann, the Senate Minority Leader, stopped in Duluth Monday
afternoon. Commenting on the DFLs proposal, he called it a surprise.
"I've talked to a lot of people in the long term care industry that are
very concerned about it. So, it is a little surprising to us that they
have chosen that particular area to do some reductions."
Apparently, Hann wants to cut spending, but just not on health and human services spending. Perhaps it lost its joy when his party cut millions when it controlled the legislature in the last session.
. . .“How does raising tax rates help grow Minnesota’s economy?” he asked Monday.
The Eden Prairie Republican, traveled to Brainerd Monday to offer the
GOP perspective on a legislative session that is roughly at the halfway
point. Earlier in the day, he was spreading a similar messsage in St.
Cloud and planned to continue on to Duluth later in the day. . . .
Turning to the efforts at gun control at the state Capitol, Hann said
he signed on to the gun control bill authored by Sen. Julianne Ortmann,
R-Chanassen, which addresses the issue of straw purchasing where one
person buys a gun for another person’s use. Hann said he wasn’t sure if
that bill would pass, even though it’s backed by the National Rifle
Association.
Hann said he doesn’t favor a bonding bill this year, citing the
tradition of bonding bills generally being passed in even-numbered
years.
He also opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, a topic he
said that won’t likely come up for a vote until late in the session.
“We think that’s an over-reach and a misreading of the last election,” Hann said.
In November of 2012 voters rejected an effort by conservatives to change the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages.
Hann, who was first elected to the Legislature in 2003, said Rep.
Kurt Daudt, the House minority leader, was traveling in southern
Minnesota discussing Republican priorities. . . .
Although news reports said Hann had traveled to St. Cloud, we couldn't find anything about the visit in the St. Cloud Times. Perhaps other news reports will trickle in as the weeklies and biweekly papers hit the street.
These guys are on message--but if that message is spoken like silence, and GOP leaders repeat quotations and draw conclusions on infographs, Bluestem is left to conclude that there's no success like failure and that failure’s no success at all.
Image: This infographic is the tip of the iceberg of a media tour . . . messaging as underwater as an Occupy Homes MN mortgage.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
The Rochester Post Bulletin reports in Dayton not ready to impose statewide ban on silica sand mining that the governor isn't siding with citizen demands for a one-year moratorium while a statewide Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) is conducted.
Instead, he murmurs sweet sentiments about grassroots citizen opposition to the mammoth St. Charles project. Rural Minnesotans are so cute when we're mad.
PB political reporter Heather Carlson writes:
FL Gov. Mark Dayton said Tuesday he does
not support a statewide moratorium on silica sand mining at this time
but does back tougher regulations.
"If the industry starts to spiral out of control, then I wouldn't
hesitate to call for a moratorium. But I don't think we've reached that
point," he said.
The governor also praised St. Charles officials for their recent
decision not to move ahead with a silica-sand processing and
transportation project.
"The actions the citizens of St. Charles took are
really courageous and compelling," he said, "and it says to the
Legislature that there are a lot of people in that area affected by this
who are very concerned."
Courageous, compelling--and not on the legislative priority lists of most of the state's NGO environmental groups, regardless of how many people mobilize regionally on this issue. That should help out the industry dismiss those grassroots citizens' concerns.
Perhaps Dayton could signal which "tougher regulations" he wants--after all, he was able to write a new sand tax into his budget.
Meanwhile, the industrial sand corporations were crying poor mouth at the hearing for the proposed tax. Carlson reports:
The silica sand mining industry is fiercely opposed to a moratorium,
arguing that companies already spend millions of dollars on required
environmental reviews. Mine owners are also upset at the idea of
additional taxes. On Tuesday, the House Taxes Committee held a hearing
on a bill sponsored by Hansen to impose a $1 per ton tax on the
extraction of silica sand. The bill would also allow counties to impose
an aggregate tax of up to 30 cents per ton of material and add a tax on
the processing of silica sand equal to 3 percent of the sand's market
value. Money raised from the tax would be used to help cover
transportation costs related to mining, acquire land to protect
environmentally sensitive areas from mining and acquire permanent
easements to protect drinking water.
Mike Wallenius, vice president of operations for
Unimin, told committee members the legislation would increase the
Mankato mining company's taxes anywhere from $16 million to $27 million
per year.
. . . House Taxes Committee member Greg Davids, R-Preston,
said this level of taxation would serve as a de facto moratorium by
"pricing folks out of the market."
Hansen emphasized that the bill is not aimed at
stopping silica sand mining in the state. Instead, it is geared towards
protecting residents.
"I don't want to have something happen where we have a
mine and all of a sudden we have a town that has run out of drinking
water because we have impacted the wellhead drinking area," he said.
Hansen's not aiming for a stealth moratorium--and he doesn't support a statewide GEIS. We'd talked one-on-one about the issue last November at the Minnesota Farmers Union convention, and he'd shared the concepts that have worked their way into his bills.
The bill was laid on the table for future consideration as part of a larger tax bill.
What lesson from Wisconsin and Minnesota rules?
A Minnesota Public Radio report from Elizabeth Dunbar, How Minnesota and Wisconsin's frac sand mining rules differ, is likely to be cited by pro-Walker and pro-industry sources as proof that we need to leave this poor little profitable industry alone, but the details suggest that the concerns of the courageous peasants of St. Charles are well-grounded:
Reclamation: Reclamation is
the plan a mining company makes with the government to shut down the
mine and reclaim the land for another use. Wisconsin state law requires
all mining companies to have a plan ahead of time and to provide
financial assurance in case the company goes belly up. Minnesota has no
state law requiring reclamation plans, but many local governments
require it.
State Resources: Wisconsin's
Department of Natural Resources has had a designated point-person for
frac sand mining since August 2011. Sand mining companies can field
questions and permit requests through that staff person. Minnesota has
no designated sand mining staff, and companies must fulfill permit
requirements through two different state agencies: the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
Inspections: Neither state
has designated inspectors to monitor the silica sand mining industry.
State inspections of air, water and other permits are done periodically
across industries.
Reclamation, state resources and inspection are issues citizens have raised locally and at the state capitol--while mining companies push the notion that they can monitor themselves.
Dunbar notes that the two states have much different use levels for triggering a water use permit:
Water Appropriation: Silica sand processing uses a lot of water.
Mines in both states must have water appropriation permits if they plan
on pumping more than a certain number of gallons. The volume of water
that triggers the permit requirement is different in each state:
Minnesota requires the permit for pumping more than 10,000 gallons/day,
and Wisconsin requires it for pumping 70 gallons/minute. (If you pump
water at 70 gallons/minute over a 24-hour period it calculates out to
about 100,800 gallons.
Readers are left to connect another dot on their own with that one. Minnesota's water use has been much in the news of late--and those water permit inspections frequently show that users exceed permit levels.
At a time when drought threatens state water supplies, scores of
water permit holders in Minnesota are illegally using billions of
gallons more water then they're entitled to.
Over the last six years, hundreds of
individuals, businesses and even state government agencies have pumped
more than their permit allows, according to state Department of Natural
Resources records. But violators face few consequences for these
misdemeanor violations. Even in a two-year drought, DNR officials admit
they don't spend much time enforcing permit limits.
Steil points out that the DNR's resources are focused on processing new permits and discovering unpermited wells, rather than enforcement.
In the world of bureaucracy, inspection and enforcement are two different creatures, and so a cautionary lesson emerges from recent coverage of the industry in Wisconsin, Frac sand industry faces DNR violations, warnings.
The much-cited report notes:
Usually, [Air Program officer Marty] Sellers said, the DNR expects 90 percent of companies in a
regulated industry to comply with rules on their own. But in his visits
to a dozen frac sand facilities, Sellers encountered the opposite
pattern, and he sent letters of noncompliance to 80 to 90 percent of the
sites.
DNR compliance officials acknowledged they have been stretched thin
monitoring the sand industry, which has grown from a handful of sites
five years ago to more than 100 permitted mining, processing or
transport facilities today.
. . . Gov. Scott Walker has proposed two new DNR positions in his budget to monitor the sand industry, by shifting $223,000 from other parts of the budget.
Bluestem was pretty curious about that anecdote and we've put in a public documents request for Sellers' letters of noncompliance. In talking to Sellers and his supervisors, we've learned that since the state of Wisconsin assigns Air Program staff by region rather than industry--and all of the frac industry is in Sellers' region, he's the only staffer visiting the industry.
The two new positions will help with permitting and compliance--while (if we read Walker's budget correctly) the "other parts of the budget" seem to two enforcement positions.
As the lackadaisical enforcement of the state's water permits suggest, Minnesota must think through not only permitting and compliance issues, but enforcement as well. Hansen's silica tax provides for funding to repair roads and to fund preventative measures to protect wellheads and acquire sensitive natural areas.
All are laudable goals--and given the return on this industry (all poor mouthing aside), it's not unreasonable to ask an extractive industry to pay for the consequences of its activity. What the silica sand tax bill doesn't fund are inspections and enforcement.
Photo: Aerial view of a Wisconsin silica sand mine. Photo by Jim Tittle. Used with permission.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
HF1608, a bill introduced by Moorhead freshman Democrat Ben Lien, has received bipartisan support from his colleagues in the house and praise from greater Minnesota.
Cities in the Twin Cities
metro and rural Minnesota have signed on to a bill that would change the
way local government aid is distributed.
Proponents say the proposal simplifies the funding formula,
making it more stable for cities and easier for people to understand. It
also makes sure more money goes to cities that have a greater need for
property tax relief. Older, inner-ring suburbs would benefit the most.
These cities are fully developed and can't easily generate new revenue
in the way that growing suburbs do.
The proposed simplification of the Local Government Aid (LGA)
distribution formula is supported by leaders in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area and in rural Minnesota. Rep. Ben Lien, DFL-Moorhead,
is the bill's chief author. Lien said cities of all sizes are backing
the proposal because it would make LGA more predictable from year to
year by factoring in inflation.
"It's not just a one-size-fits-all formula for LGA," Lien said. "It
takes into account different need factors based on different size
cities. So it's going to be much more customizable, I guess, to
different size cities."
Lien said his bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday in the House Property Tax Division.
Forum Communications Capitol Chatter political reporter Don Davis writes:
With the support of urban, suburban and greater Minnesota cities, the
bill by Rep. Ben Lien, DFL-Moorhead, removes arcane sections of the LGA
formula such as how many accidents occur in a city. Backers of the Lien
bill also say it would make it easier for cities to predict how much
money they can expect.
The simplified formula is separate from a Gov. Mark Dayton proposal to add $80 million to the aid the state pays to cities.
“Over
the last several years the underfunding of the LGA program has hobbled
its effectiveness in delivering property tax relief to communities
across the state,” said President Bruce Ahlgren of the Coalition of
Greater Minnesota Cities and Cloquet mayor.
Ahlgren said legislators should notice the support from cities of all types.
“Everyone
had to come in with realistic expectations,” the mayor said. “While no
one walked away with everything they wanted, everyone is pleased that we
have a framework for a stable and predictable program into the future.” . . .
Rep. Ben Lien (DFL-Moorhead) introduced the bill Monday, along with
numerous co-authors that including Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska) and
Rep. Clark Johnson (DFL-N. Mankato). . . .
The City of New Ulm is poised to receive a modest LGA increase that
will be followed by slow, small increases over the subsequent year.
City
Manager Brian Gramentz said the City still approves of the proposal,
even if it was hoping for more funding to offset years of cuts.
"The key is it makes our funding stable," said Gramentz, "Staying flat is always better than going down."
At the PiPress, Boldt notes Torkelson's reasons for signing on:
But Rep. Paul Torkelson,
R-Hanska, said local government aid is supposed to help cities that
typically would have a difficult time providing essential services to
residents at a reasonable cost. He represents 22 cities, and almost all
rely on local government aid.
"At first blush, it's much better than what the governor
originally proposed," Torkelson said. "It really does make it more fair
and equitable."
Rep. Greg Davids, R-Preston, said he signed on as a co-author to the
bill because he believes it will begin a much needed debate.
"The way the bill is written right now, is that the way it stays? I
really don't know," Davids said. "But I do think we need this debate,
and having metro Democrats, rural Republicans, I think, is very
significant. Because everyone that looks at the LGA formula, as I did as
tax chair the last two years, knows that we need to try and update it,
modernize it and make it more efficient for today's use."
[O]n Monday, LGA got another important boost, as a team of lawmakers announced a bipartisan plan to simplify and restructure LGA.
Good
news for Local Government Aid, of course, is good news for northwestern
Minnesota, where a significant share of many cities’ budgets comes from
the program. Rep. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston, is among the region’s
lawmakers who recognize this importance and have signed on to the new
reform.
“Today at the Minnesota State Capitol, legislation was
introduced which outlines an agreement between Minneapolis, St. Paul,
suburban and Greater Minnesota cities on a distribution formula for
Local Government Aid, long a contentious issue between metro and rural
interest groups at the Capitol,” the Coalition of Greater Minnesota
Cities announced Monday.. . .
But the past decade’s budget deficits meant LGA took shocking hits.
The result has been higher property taxes, weaker services — and,
probably not coincidentally, Democratic majorities in the Legislature,
as voters rebelled against Republicans’ seeming hostility to
good-government programs such as LGA.
Now, the announcement that a
bipartisan group of metro and rural lawmakers has reached agreement
suggests LGA is coming back. That’s great news. Since the 1970s, LGA has
helped rural Minnesota communities keep their attractiveness and charm.
Here’s hoping the Legislature acknowledges this role, recognizes LGA’s
usefulness and returns to Minnesota’s traditionally strong support.
With this bill, Lien joins the ranks of freshman legislators--Matt Schmit comes to mind in the Senate--who are introducing strong legislative relief for vexsome issues.
Photo: Representative Ben Lien.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
As the Minnesota legislature mulls over bills to regulate and tax industrial sand mining in the gopher state, the Rochester Post Bulletin reports (with an unintentionally misleading headline) that For townships, silica not a hot issue at their annual meetings coming up Tuesday.
Read the article, however, and you'll learn why that discussion has cooled:
Silica-sand mines could hit some townships hard with dust, noise
and road damage, but what to do about the mines might not be a major
issue at the township annual meetings planned across the area on
Tuesday.
Most townships are waiting for counties or the state to give them
more information and to act on moratoriums, or to decide how to collect
money to repair roads from heavy mining traffic, county township
officer association officials said. . . .
Instead, it's a hot issue at the state capitol. In an earlier issue of the Red Wing Republican Eagle, state representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) took some heat when a reader perceived that he wasn't being pro-active on the issues. Kelly fights back with Be part of a silica sand mining legislative solution:
Make no mistake, one of the most important issues of this area, at
this time, is silica sand mining. Sen. Matt Schmit and I have been
working with many individuals and agencies to ensure that we have a say
in the standards that need to be met if mining occurs here.
In
any situation, there will be different opinions and strategies. I
commend Jim and Jody McIlrath on their approach and I look forward to
working with them in helping to resolve this issue.
Mr. Sonnek
is completely wrong in his statement that there is no legislation in the
House. In fact, we will all be working off of that legislation as we
move forward.
Kelly introduced HF1367 on March 7, a bill to provide ilica sand project regulation assistance to local governments; Schmit introduced the senate companion bill, SF1257.
A similar bill--HF0906, the companion bill to Schmit's SF1018- includes the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in the mix was introduced by Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul), who also introduced a bill for an aggregate tax, HF1336, that would go toward protecting wellhead and scientific and natural areas. An earier piece of the puzzle, HF0425, defines how the areas for preservation would be defined, while authorizing bonding.
Although Hansen represents a suburb, he grew up in Southeastern Minnesota, where he still owns farm and hunting land in Fillmore and Freeborn Counties.
in an email alert, Land Stewardship Project urged support of HF906, but also wants it strengthened to become the companion bill for SF786. From an email:
MN House to hold first hearing on the issue. House File 906,
authored by Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-Mendota Heights), will be heard
Wednesday, March 13, in the House Environment Policy Committee. House
File 906 calls for the Environmental Quality Board to develop standards
for frac sand ordinances that can be used by local units of government
and to create a technical assistance team to help local units of
government. We must work to strengthen this bill by making sure it
contains the key elements of Senate File 786.
Two senate committees have heard Senator Schmit's SF0786, which creates Southeastern Minnesota sand board, authorizes a Generic Environmental Impact Statement to be completed in a year, and imposes a one-year moratorium.
The bill has been sent to the Finance committee. No hearing has yet been set for the bill.
Photo: A frac sand mine in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Senator Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls) has introduced SF 587, a bill that would allow Schell's Brewery and other medium-small brewers to qualify for the brewer tax credit qualification modification.
This is the second pass Dahms has made at securing the change.
A bill in the Minnesota Legislature expanding the qualification for a
brewery tax credit will allow Schell's Brewery to maintain regular
production without losing out on thousands of dollars each year.
. . . [the bill would] change the qualification for
the tax credit from breweries producing less than 100,000 barrels of
fermented malt beverage per year to breweries producing less than
250,000 barrels. The credit itself provides $4.60 per barrel for the
first 25,000 barrels sold by a qualified brewery, with a maximum of
$115,000 awarded. The maximum payout for the credit does not change with
the qualification expansion.
Sen. Gary Dahms (R-Redwood Falls),
who is an author on the Senate bill, said the bill is a perfect way to
grow business at no cost. He said the expanded qualification doesn't
have a big impact on all breweries, but it prevents the definition from
being a hurdle as a brewery grows.
"The only real problem is when a brewery reaches that 100,000-barrel
mark. If they lose that credit, they have to produce a lot more barrels
to make up the difference. If they stick to just 99,999 barrels to stay
profitable, that's not good for business or Minnesota," said Dahms.
Schell's
Brewery President Ted Marti said Schell's and Summit Brewing Company
spearheaded the push for the expanded definition. Schell's currently
doesn't qualify for the credit because it produces 130,000 barrels a
year. . . .
"Small (for breweries) isn't as small as it used to
be. It's bigger for all breweries. At the moment, only about two
Minnesota breweries will fall under this credit. But, it will matter to
others in the future," said Marti. . . .
So far there's no House companion bill; Bluestem hopes that one will be introduced soon.
Dahms is joined in sponsoring the bill by Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul), Jim Metzen (DFL-S. St. Paul), Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) and Lyle Koenen (DFL-Clara City).
Helping out Schell's and Summit unites rural and urban Minnesotans, and the legislative team backing this bill is bipartisan, gender and geographical balanced, bringing into rural, suburban and urban over sacred local brew.
Bluestem can think of no more honorable goal for Minnesota's lawmakers than passing this bill and sending it to Governor Dayton's desk.
Photo: One of the peacocks at Schell's.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
A St. Cloud Times reader noticed something amiss with a passage in former "Doctor No" state representative and Taxpayers League of Minnesota president Phil Krinkie's commentary Your turn: Government must curb spending:
With the Christmas of 2012 behind us and the “fiscal cliff” of 2013 narrowly avoided, it’s time to pause and consider what lies ahead for our country and our state.
In “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens, the stodgy accountant Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by three ghosts. ... The last ghost to a visit is the “Ghost of Christmas yet to Come.” This spirit appears only in a black hooded robe. It never speaks but only gestures with one hand. He presents Scrooge with an ominous picture of the future to persuade him to change his ways. . . .
In “A Christmas Carol,” Scrooge’s former partner, Jacob Marley, who died seven years before, appears bound in heavy chains.
Every day that Congress fails to enact true spending reform adds another link in a chain of debt for future generations. . . .
As in the picture portrayed by the “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come,” there is a bleak and gloomy future ahead unless our elected officials at every level of government tighten their belts and reduce the level of government spending. . . .
I just finished reading the Jan. 12 Your Turn “Government must curb
spending,” by Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League of
Minnesota.
Now I’m not a literary scholar,
mind you, but it seems to me the gentleman sort of missed the point of
Charles Dickens’ “Christmas Carol.”
Wasn’t
the whole reason that Marley was in chains was because he was a greedy,
selfish businessman who never wanted to help anybody, certainly not
because he spent too much?
Of
course, I guess maybe the opinion was referring to the government
charity businesses receive in various forms. My guess that’s not what
was meant. Well, maybe the writer needs to see “Christmas Carol” a few
more times to get its real message.
It's available on DVD.
So why was Marley in chains? And what did the Ghost of Christmas bring to Scrooge?
Vick may be no scholar, but his memory of Marley is close to Dickens' text:
"I have none to give," the Ghost replied. "It comes from other
regions, Ebenezer Scrooge, and is conveyed by other ministers, to other
kinds of men. Nor can I tell you what I would. A very little more, is
all permitted to me. I cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger
anywhere. My spirit never walked beyond our counting-house -- mark me!
-- in life my spirit never roved beyond the narrow limits of our
money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before me!" . . .
"But you were always a good man of business, Jacob," faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.
"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind
was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy,
forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of
my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" . . .
"At this time of the rolling year," the spectre said "I suffer
most. Why did I walk through crowds of fellow-beings with my eyes
turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star which led the
Wise Men to a poor abode! Were there no poor homes to which its light
would have conducted me!" . . .
"That is no light part of my penance," pursued the Ghost. "I am here
to-night to warn you, that you have yet a chance and hope of escaping my
fate. A chance and hope of my procuring, Ebenezer."
But perhaps Krinkie exercises the most literary license in chaining the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come to the spirit of austerity. Dicken's Final Ghost may not speak, but he reveals only a tomb for Scrooge should the merchant cleave to his tight-fisted ways. Scrooge vows to abandon his tight-fisted ways and honor the spirit of Christmas:
"Spirit!" he cried, tight clutching at its robe, "hear me. I am not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for this intercourse. Why show me this, if I am past all hope?"
For the first time the hand appeared to shake.
"Good Spirit," he pursued, as down upon the ground he fell before it: "Your nature intercedes for me, and pities me. Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life."
The kind hand trembled.
"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!"
The stone was that on his own grave. Dickens writes of the transformation Scrooge experienced upon his waking:
"Now, I'll tell you what, my friend," said Scrooge, "I am not going to stand this sort of thing any longer. And therefore," he continued, leaping from his stool, and giving Bob such a dig in the waistcoat that he staggered back into the Tank again; "and therefore I am about to raise your salary."
Bob trembled, and got a little nearer to the ruler. He had a momentary idea of knocking Scrooge down with it, holding him, and calling to the people in the court for help and a strait-waistcoat.
"A merry Christmas, Bob," said Scrooge, with an earnestness that could not be mistaken, as he clapped him on the back. "A merrier Christmas, Bob, my good fellow, than I have given you for many a year. I'll raise your salary, and endeavour to assist your struggling family, and we will discuss your affairs this very afternoon, over a Christmas bowl of smoking bishop, Bob. Make up the fires, and buy another coal-scuttle before you dot another i, Bob Cratchit!"
Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. . . .
Poor Doctor No! The lessons in Christmas Carol is not belt-tightening nor are the chains that Marley rattles the chains of debt. And as a corrective allusion, it's a major fail--for who would root for the death of Tiny Tim in further belt-tightening? Other than Doctor No?
George Bernard Shaw remarked that Dickens' vision in Great Expectations was more seditious than Marx's Das Kapital; while Dickens created compelling storylines and memorable characters, his works addressed social inequity and class oppression.
One suspects that were he living today, Dickens would have skewered the likes of Krinkie and the West Metro One-Percent Club that funds the TP League, as well as their gospel of Grover Norquist. Krinkie can certainly have his opinions, but perhaps he'd best stick to Ayn Rand for literary allusions.
Images: Ghost of Christmas Present revealing Ignorance and Want (top); Marley's Ghost (middle); the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come and Scrooge at his grave (bottom).
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
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.
In Sunday's Star Tribune, general assignment reporter Curt Brown weaves a colorful narrative of envy in Sand mining creates wealth and friction (what appears to be his first frac sand mining story), while failing to note that neighbors of a farm couple who collected $550,000 for their place might have more powerful reasons not to wave when they pass by.
There's more to this story than the green-eyed monster angle Brown selected.
Curiously, envy never seem to be on the list of the factor mentioned in their public testimony.
In his report, Brown doesn't hint at information that reveals the payment to the farm couple is nickel-and-dime stuff in the frac sand drama playing out in Wisconsin. Instead, that half-million dollar check is a grain in the unit train hauling what Winn Bay Sand got when they sold out to one of the largest frac sand mining corporations in North America in January: $200 million.
Brown's usually better than this: his look back at Little Crow in August as part of the 150 anniversary of the 1862 US Dakota War is superlative. This piece isn't.
Brown: Half-millionaires get "envious looks"
In Sand mining creates wealth and friction, Brown sets up a tale of poor dirt farmers suddenly coming into wealth, and with that wealth, "envious glares" from their former neighbors:
Lou Ellen and Jim Frei spent 40 years as hardscrabble dairy farmers,
cussing the sandy soil that gave them and their tractor such fits.
Today they are finally breathing easy, thanks to that same gritty
land. They just moved into a new one-story house on Sjuggerud Coulee
Road. Now they don't have to worry about climbing their old farmhouse
stairs on knees made sore by milking cows.
Once so poor they couldn't afford new shoes when their daughter started school, they now have more than $550,000 in the bank.
"We've even got a Jacuzzi tub now," said Jim, 66, chuckling about their sudden change of fortune. . . .
While they count themselves fortunate, the Freis acknowledge some
heartache. They get envious glares from neighbors who were hay-baling
partners for years. Some neighbors won't wave anymore as they pass on
country roads.
"This has become a very divisive local issue, with some people
becoming quite wealthy in what used to be a tough rural farming area,"
said Tom Woletz, who tracks frac sand mines for the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources.
"It's certainly big money and a big change,'' he added. "And if
you're not in, you're out. So you've got families and neighbors that
aren't going to talk to each other for the rest of their lives and
hillsides you looked over your whole life now cut wide open. Who could
have imagined it?"
And Brown reports that the couple just didn't anticipate this resentment from their neighbors:
When the sale went through, Jim expected his neighbors to say, "Well,
good going, Jim, good for you, you deserve it after all those lean
years."
But Lou Ellen said, "It's been war. I'll tell you, it was bad."
There's a paragraph mentioning objections and one family on a small plot next door is interviewed:
Amy and Jeff Swanson have lived on 12 acres adjacent to the Freis' old
place for seven years, raising 10-year-old Rayna and 8-year-old Jaren.
They grow some crops and run landscaping, hauling, can-recycling and
dog-breeding businesses. Unlike the Freis, says Amy, "our security is
gone.
It's clear Brown is sympathetic to the older couple. That's not necessarily bad journalism, but the rest of what happened in Blair with Winn Bay Sand is a story--or so a search of Nexis's All News database tells us--that the Star Tribune has never told.
Those stories certainly are not the tales the flacks from WISC would bring up in pitching how to cover sand mining--but then, we don't know if one from the industrial sands pr group reached out and touched Brown.
From the record: beekeepers, dairy farmers and parents speak
Since Brown does characterize the neighbors' looks as "envious glares," Bluestem will go into what the neigthbors said when they heard about the Larkin Valley project. Once we read the testimony, we came to believe that there's a lot more to the former neighbors' dirty looks than mere envy.
Brown reports that the Freis sold the land in 2010 and that "When the sale went through, Jim expected his neighbors to say, 'Well,
good going, Jim, good for you, you deserve it after all those lean
years.'"
But even before the sale went through, the neighbors objected, so the half-millionaire is fudging a bit on the surprise he recalls for Brown. The Blair Press--Taylor reported on December 24, 2009, in Group forms to oppose sand mine in Larkin Valley:
Residents of Larkin Valley, Snake Coulee, and Schansberg Road, and the
City of Blair met to form a formal opposition group to the proposed
"Larkin Valley Project", a silica sand mine operation proposed by a
Canadian firm called Winn Bay Sand Limited Partnership.
Winn Bay has proposed a silica sand mine about a half-mile northwest of Blair, north of Schansberg Road. . ..
It's quite likely that the deals were in place by the end of December, but material on the group's website doesn't really suggest envy. But then, Brown only mentions hearings and petitions in Wisconsin in very general terms. Readers aren't told the name of the opposition group that was formed: The Larkin Valley No Winn Project, though we're told about "envious glares."
Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – Non-metallic Mining - Jonas and Katherine Neuenschwander, James and Lou Ellen Frei, Phineas R. Schrock and Carl and Lucy Axness, Property Owners, Blair, WI and Winn Bay Sand, LP Sand, LP Operator, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada – Town of Preston.
Brown writes that the Freis sold their cows "several years ago" but the last dairy program payment that they received, according to information in the EWG farm subsidies database was 1995, when they received $296 in a milk marketing program. Overall, the farmer received $73,573 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2011, largely from conservation programs, or around $4598 per year.
Frac sand opponents have packed meeting halls and circulated petitions,
worrying about increased dust getting into their lungs, heightened truck
traffic pummeling their roads and all that water the mines would suck
from the aquifers.
Judt Haase-Hardie – Testify in opposition – Haase-Hardie lives on Schansberg Road with husband,
Arden and three daughters. Their farm was purchased by Don and Doris Hardie (Arden’s parents) in
March of 1941 and in those 68 years a way of life has been established and currently they are an organic
dairy farm. Their seventeen year old house is in close proximity to the railroad crossing which is a
concern. They presently farm 8.3 acres of one of the farms included in this proposal; therefore they
would be losing that land. She felt it doesn’t take a sand mine to improve our local economy, in this area
it takes friends of rural life – people who intentionally purchase items and services of our local
community. People who pray, play and work together. She questions, do we want our young people to
return home to the farmland or their homestead? On their neighborhood road alone, they have several
friends and their own two daughters who are active on the family farms. It used to be considered that
farming was solely a “man’s world” and that has really never been true as farming as been a family role
but many times the women have not been given credit for what they have done. We have been hearing
that the land will be reclaimed and it will become better Ag land after the mining is over with. Who is
going to want to buy our organic beef after it has been raised on reclaimed mining land after a sand mine
that has flocculant in the soil. It is her opinion that you can never, ever return the land to its original form,
Ag land can never be made better than what God has given. She has attended all the meetings and a
comment was made by a Winn Bay Sand, LP representative, at the initial public meeting, that if the
community doesn’t want us here, we will not come. Haase-Hardie questioned how many petitions, how
many more signs does Winn Bay Sand, LP need to indicate that we do not want a sand mine in our
neighborhood. Haase-Hardie suggested the matter be tabled so that more information can be sought out
and her prayer for the Committee – wisdom of God be always with you at work in you.
Shannon Leer – Registered to testify in opposition - Leer lives on Larkin Valley Road and is a small
business owner. He is a beekeeper. Leer was told specifically by William Vachon that his business
would be affected. Leer stated that Harold Derkson stated it would be best to mitigate with everyone so
that they are happy. Leer added there has been no mitigation other than “we’re not interested”. Leer
leases 65 acres of land for recreation for himself and his family, which is adjacent to the north property
line of where the processing center will be. The conveyor that Winn Bay Sand, LP will put in for the
movement of the sand is going to eliminate the movement of the wildlife. The reason that Leer leases the
land is for the wildlife movement and he feels that will be eliminated if the mine is allowed.
Tracey Leer – Registered to testify in opposition – Leer is not opposed to mining. Leer is opposed to a
mine coming within 480 yards of her home and the other homes that are in area. Everyone has children.
Leers’ children are eight and eleven and they rides horses. What is going to happen when blasting
occurs? How will blasting feel on horse’s feet? Horses can go crazy at any little difference. Yes, a person
can get injured walking across the street but that is a responsibility we take upon ourselves. With this
situation it doesn’t feel like we’re being thought of as much because Winn Bay Sand, LP has made it feel
like they are coming in regardless. Jamie Puent and Bill Vachon had a meeting with landowners and Bill
Vachon told Leers’ that they would be negatively impacted. Shannon Leer runs his bee business from
their home because it is just like any other farming and a big portion of the bee business is spent in the
bee yard. Their daughters are also able to spend time in the bee yard, not only to learn the business for the
future, but it is good family time. When James Kalny said that their mission statement had integrity, Leer
didn’t find it very responsible for them to come into an area and affect so many families. They are not
looking at the full picture. They are looking at the mining industry and they want it and they want to start
making money right now. Leer stated that Jamie Puent had said that Winn Bay Sand, LP would run
numbers to help buy Leer’s house. Two weeks later, Leer stated Puent had stated Winn Bay Sand, LP
was not interested whatsoever in buying their house whether Leers are affected or not. On Winn Bay
Sand, LP’s slide presentation, Leers were not one of the businesses that were listed as being negatively
impacted. Leer continued that Winn Bay Sand, LP knows Leers’ business will be negatively impacted
and Winn Bay Sand, LP does not want to compensate for that. Winn Bay Sand, LP suggested that Leers
take their bees and move miles down the road which will impact their family quality time. If the mine
comes in and does not compensate Leers for what they are losing, what is the world coming to. Leers are
here for the duration and will lose their livelihood for the mining people coming in for twenty years and
then leaving. Leer expressed her wish that this issue be tabled for now.
Diane Carlson – Registered to testify in opposition. Carlson and her husband have been faced with a
unique situation. They own property along Schansberg Road that is located directly across the road from
the rail spur site. Winn Bay Sand, LP has respectfully met with the Carlson’s’ and have acknowledged
that the Carlson’s will be negatively impacted. Winn Bay Sand, LP has offered them an “Option to
Purchase” on their property. Carlson stated that doesn’t mean that they feel they have been placed in a
win/win situation....
Cathy Buresh – Registered to testify in opposition – It has been a very difficult past few days trying to
get information together as we are facing a giant, but David is on our side. Buresh read a letter that she
submitted on May 5th to the Township of Preston. The proposed silica sand mine in Larkin Valley is of
great concern to my family. Buresh relocated to beautiful, pastoral Trempealeau County from the suburbs
of Milwaukee for the express purpose of raising our family in the serene countryside of Blair. It is most
disturbing to hear of the Winn Bay Sand, LP limited partnership vigorous attempt to begin mining within
a mile of their home. The detrimental affects of a mining venture within proximity of family, friends and
neighbors pose very serious health risks. Cumulative impacts from dust and diesel fumes and fugitive
dust from multiple sources degrade air quality. Traffic congestion, safety hazards and public nuisances
such as noise and chronic dusting issues and loss of aesthetic views are a very few of the substantial
losses our community will suffer. Buresh shares the consternation of her neighbors with regard in which
Winn Bay Sand, LP is pressing forward with this proposal and the lack of support and unbiased protection
apparent in the editorials of our local newspaper. It is with trepidation that Buresh must share this
information so that you may consider what is in the best interest of the people Buresh is a wife and
mother of ten children, a registered nurse and she has lived in Larkin Valley, Town of Preston for the past
18 years. . . .
Sharon L. Sweno – Registered in opposition but not testify. The Committee granted Sweno the
opportunity to comment. Sweno has health issues and the silica mine could affect her. The mine will
affect her home, friends and her family. Sweno spends time on the family farm. Sweno doesn’t want the
mine. Why do the people that don’t want the mine seem to be fighting a battle that they probably won’t
win? Sweno stated that everything the people have said here is true. It is possible that the people that
will be affected by the sale of their land are thinking more of what they will be getting in money rather
than the people who are being affected by the mine. Are these people planning to move out because they
sold their land? It is a moral issue also.
Andrew Wengerd – Registered to testify in opposition. Wengerd’s property line and buildings are about
900 feet from the proposed Winn Bay Sand, LP property. Wengerd’s concern is that he does adult/family
home care on his property and he has a ward of the state living in his home that is an epileptic and
autistic. People talk about how the air pressure, etc. might affect this person if the mine goes in.
Wengerd has lived on this property for 18 years and cannot afford to relocate. Wengerd is concerned.
Calvin Lebakken – Registered to testify in opposition. Lebakken thanked the Committee for the
opportunity to speak. Lebakken and his wife have owned and operated an accounting business in the rural
Blair area for the last 21 years. Lebakken’s home and business are located right next to the area of the
proposed mine. Lebakken’s have made every attempt to remain neutral regarding this project, but now it
is vital to stand up for their son’s well being. Their son is a very active, vital, 10 year old with a zest for
life. He suffers from low muscle tone . The low muscle tone prevents him from normal walking and
speaking and in addition he also has hyper-sensitive hearing. A great example of this is when the train
blows its horn in Whitehall, 7 miles away, he can sense that. Their son knows that within 15 minutes that
train will pass Lebakken’s house. At this point, they hold their hands over their son’s ears to help cut
down the extreme sound that the whistle has at the crossing near their home. Currently, the train travels
past their house two times per day. The mining plan talks of three railroad spurs going in roughly ¾ of a
mile from their house. Winn Bay Sand, LP is looking at loading 1 car every 20 minutes and have the cars
in groups of 10. This extra noise could affect their son. Currently, their son does sleep thru the train at
night 95% of the time. With the new proposed train activity the time of hooking and unhooking could
increase from 10-15 minutes to 45 minutes to an hour. Is the movement during the day/night going to be
an all day process? Lebakken inquired about the dynamite blasting? It going to be where it startles him
too much? Lebakkens are not sure how far their son can hear, but he might possibly hear the grinding
over the hill. Lebakken suggested perhaps the decision could be tabled to do more research.
Dan Lee – Registered to testify in opposition. Lee also has two letters from other people to read. The
first letter is from Audrey Lee. Audrey Lee is 94 years old and lives at Grandview Health Care Center in
Blair. A. Lee moved to the Pleasantville area in 1949 and raised 6 children, was a dairy wife and a retired
elementary school teacher. A. Lee is concerned about the negative health effects from this sand mine
proposal. She has breathing problems and is on oxygen. Adding any air pollutants would adversely
affect her health. Most, if not all, of the residents at Grandview have breathing and/or heart problems and
would also suffer from this silica dust. Grandview is down wind one mile from this proposed site. A.
Lee urged the Committee to consider the most vulnerable of residents at this time
Dan Lee was also asked to read a letter submitted by Albert Przybylla, Sr. Przybylla lives across the
road from the proposed mine site entrance. Przybylla was told by mine representatives that the current
access road across from his driveway will be the worker’s entrance. Przybylla bought the place in 1948
and currently farms 392 acres with his two sons. Przybylla is against this proposal for the following
reasons: Water Quality – a few years Ago AMPI started to spread whey on the property that is now
proposed to be a mining site. Not long after that he started to see brown flakes of matter in his water.
Przybylla contacted AMPI and they stopped immediately. Not long after that the brown flakes went
away. Przybylla feels this mine will cause a serious water quality and health risk. Noise , dust, light
pollution – Przybylla is only a quarter of a mile from the site. That distance is the same as three city
blocks. The mine site is also higher in elevation and flanked by rolling hills. This will channel all noise,
dust and lights right to his operation and home. Blasting will not be good to the home foundations, water
wells and various animals. Traffic increase – often Przybylla is on Snake Coulee and Larkin Valley road
with farm machinery. . . .
Amy Swanson – Swanson stated this has been a really emotional issue for all involved. As adjoining property owners and on behalf of her husband and two children, one of which has asthma, she asked the Committee to consider that inhalable crystalline silica is not currently regulated by the DNR. This means that her family and her neighbors have no protection. Since the DNR is currently in the process of working on this study, Swanson asked that the Committee please not allow a mine of this nature, this one or others, without those standards and a way to enforce those standards in place.
Other than that, perhaps it's just envy for neighbors becoming half-millionaires.
Preferred Sands has acquired substantially all the assets of Winn Bay Sand, including mining locations in Blair, Wisconsin and Hanson Lake, Saskatchewan, for an excess of $200 million. Preferred is now the largest frac sand producer in Canada and one of the top three in the U.S.
The acquisition will benefit Preferred Sands' customers by allowing the company to increase its current capacity. Both the Blair and Hanson Lake locations are in close proximity to existing Preferred Sands operations. The access to rail in both locations will streamline and shorten the length of time for transport.
As a part of this acquisition, Preferred Sands has offered employment to the existing 110 Winn Bay Sand employees and will take over supply of Winn Bay Sand's current customers. Preferred Sands will expand both of the newly acquired plants in 2012 further to further increase capacity.
Preferred Sands did not disclose how it will finance the deal. Mergers
& Acquisitions Journal reported in November that the company was
seeking a $430 million senior secured credit facility to pay for an
acquisition, buy out minority investors, and refinance existing debt.
Preferred Sands recently acquired Winn Bay Sand in conjunction with a
$376 million debt offering. The debt offering was secured through J.P.
Morgan and the transaction was led and managed by Barclays Capital and
KeyBanc Capital Markets. The transaction was finalized on December 15,
2011.
Annexation: Goodbye, good neighbor policy
Brown mentions in passing that an annexation took away some of the conditions that mitigated some of the worst aspects of mining that the neighbors would face, but he doesn't tell readers much of that story, either, so intent is he on spinning the tale of his chump-change Jed Clampett:
Jeff Swanson, 38, said they were ready to live with the mine under the
original rules that shut down operations at 8 p.m. and left a ridge line
of trees as a buffer. After the mine was recently annexed to a nearby
town, many of those safeguards are gone.
Seeing dollars signs in increased property tax
revenue, the Blair City Council recently reversed its decision on
preventing the annexation of a sand mine operation into the city.
The Trempealeau County Times reports the second time around the vote was
4 to 1, with one abstention, to allow the annexation of the Preferred
Sands Mining operation into the city. The council had voted 3 to 2 in
early July, with one abstention, against allowing the annexation.
What swayed their minds this time, according to the paper, was an
additional almost $191,000 in property tax revenue the operation would
provide to the city. The city's planning commission must now finalize
guidelines for a conditional use permit before the annexation becomes
official.
And so the safeguards from the original CUP approved for a different corporation by a different unit of government vanished.
But let's call those looks on the neighbors' faces "envious glares," and chalk failure to wave up to a green-eyed monster.
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.
Straight from his stint as Field Director for ProtectMyVote, the recent St. Thomas grad sees a really, really scary example of a DFL emboldened by its capture of both houses of the Minnesota legislature in the November 2012 elections.
In Green...It's the New Red?, a November 30, 2012 blog post up at conservative group home True North, Rouleau writes:
Shortly after the DFL took control of the majorities in the legislature,
Governor Dayton issued Executive Order 11-32 on November 16 mandating
an Environmental Congress be called and forums around the state be
hosted. Now, if I was a betting man, I would wager that this is the
first hint of overreach that we will see come from the DFL. [emphasis added]
That's pretty scary, especially since Governor Dayton issued Executive Order 11-32 on November 16, 2011.
Update: The wankerific Mr. Rouleau has tweeted that he "used a wrong word." As if his intent were somehow not clear in claiming that EO-11-32 and the Citizen Forum were a consequence of the November 2012 election and "the first hint of overreach," rather than something planned for months--or that the executive order had been issued nearly a year before the election.
This, dear friends, is why we save screenshots. And why we're pleased that the rhetorical brilliance that worked so well at ProtectMyVote is being brought into service in Mr. Rouleau's Holy War Against The Dirty Hippies at the EQB [end update]
Check it out, making sure to scroll to the second page:
Bluestem was aware that Alida Messinger's money could buy many things, but we had no idea that time travel was on the Dayton shopping list.
Think about it. On November 16, 2011, Tony Sutton had not yet renounced the throne of MNGOP and the horrific financial condition of the party was not yet public. Michael Brodkorb still worked at the Republican Senate Majority and Senator Amy Koch still led the Minnesota Senate; their affair wasn't yet widely known nor publicly.
The second session of the 2011-2012 legislature had yet to happen.
And yet Governor Dayton still knew to get the ball rolling for some world-class overreach. Some way, somehow, the Governor knew what no one else knew in November 2011: that the DFL would gain control of the legislature on November 6, 2012. Too bad John Rouleau wasn't let in on that dirty little secret as he might have found a different job when he graduated from college in the spring of 2012.
Rouleau continues:
While this seems like an innocent enough endeavor to
find out what the people of Minnesota have in mind, this was far from a
balanced audience. As I do more research, it appears to have been
selectively promoted with groups in attendance from The Sierra Club,
Environment Minnesota, citizens opposed to the Wolf Hunt and the
Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
Why is this important? Given the upcoming Environmental
Congress, it is very important for the environmentalists to be able to
point back at this data saying “this is what Minnesotan’s want” — while
pushing extreme environmental policies to the Environmental Congress and
through the legislature following that.
Ellen Anderson, senior adviser to the governor on energy and
environment, said Drazkowski's assertion that notification about the
meetings has been limited is "completely false." She said the board has
sent out hundreds of email invitations to various stakeholders including
farm groups, chambers of commerce, mining groups, environmental groups
and energy groups — just to name a few.
That was pretty much what we found, and given the membership of the Environmental Quality Board--commissioners from the departments of commerce, transportation, DEED and agricultures, as well as those divisions that might seem "environmental," along with citizen members from pro-industry groups like the Agri-Growth Council--it's hard to believe that there's selective recruitment of the audience.
Rouleau describes the horrific experience of participating in the forum (for a dirty hippie's counterpoint, check out LeftMN's Aaron Klemz in Citizen environmental forum provides a ray of hope, which suggests, when paired with Rouleau's account, that the Messinger-Dayton alliance can also purchase and install parallel universes).
Curiously, Rouleau notes that citizen participants are quarreling with the information the EBQ is providing:
At what point will people begin to realize that businesses are being
forced out of our state, that existing jobs are being eliminated and new
jobs are not being created. That is the point though, when radicals
(who put the environment above all else), claim that the data provided
by the Governors office and the EQB is faulty and express desires to
kill jobs and participate in social planning.
Jeepers, John, perhaps at other forums in exotic locales like Worthington and Moorhead.
Or maybe it's just you.
Image: Screenshot of the Rouleau post at True North.
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.
Cheap as in low-cost and not really raising much coin.
Today's entry trashes a statement Governor Dayton made yesterday at the Humphrey Institute:
Can you believe that? Governor Dayton
actually said our “unwillingness to pay (more) taxes...is going to be
the death of this country [if] it's not corrected."
This
statement couldn’t be more bizarre or plain wrong. In fact, the exact
opposite is true: our country and others have prospered the most when
the people have experienced more freedom and less government overreach
into their lives.
One only
has to look to the Reagan years, where a bipartisan Congressional
majorities cut taxes, reduced job killing regulations, and gave the
American people more freedom.
Ronald Reagan left the White House more than two decades ago, but he
remains a giant -- and sometimes polarizing -- figure in American
politics. In honor of the recent centennial of Reagan’s birth, we’ve
collected a dozen fact-checks we’ve published over the last three years
that judge the late president and his legacy.
Findings related to today's MNGOP fundraising appeal:
We found that Reagan signed two major tax increases in 1982 that took
back much of the break he'd provided in his 1981 tax bill. After a
Social Security tax increase in 1983, Reagan approved further tax
increases — in one form or another — in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. On
the other hand, taxes as a share of GDP continued to decline until 1984,
when they bottomed out at 18.4 percent, before rising back to 19.2
percent by the time Reagan left office in 1989. That rate was lower than
during Reagan's first year in the White House. On balance, we rated the
statement Barely True.
. . .Loughlin is echoing a popular Republican theme: If you want to grow the
economy, cut taxes. The favorite example is Reagan, who was a big
proponent of cutting taxes and reducing government spending. In his ad,
Loughlin's unstated implication is that Reagan cut taxes and the economy
grew explosively as a result.
But is it really that simple?
First, Reagan alone didn't cut taxes. He did it in conjunction with
Congress. Having said that, let's look at the Reagan era of taxation.
There's no debate that Reagan dramatically reduced taxes in 1981, his
first year in office. That $38-billion cut would equal $90 billion in
today's dollars. At the time, it represented 1.91 percent of the gross
domestic product, which is the total value of goods and services
produced in the United States during a given year.
But the following year, Reagan raised taxes dramatically and other increases followed.
The 1982 hike alone, which applied to corporations and individuals, increased taxes by about $17 billion, according to a 2006 U.S. Treasury report. The increase represented 0.8 percent of the GDP. That's why it is sometimes billed as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That same year he also raised the gasoline tax.
In 1983, Reagan hiked taxes again. This time it was the passage of the
Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which increased payroll taxes to
provide long-term funding for Medicare and Social Security. According to
liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a June 8, 2004, commentary in The
New York Times, "this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr.
Reagan's income tax cuts" for many middle- and low-income families.
Reagan also significantly increased taxes through the Deficit Reduction
Act of 1984, the Tax Reform of 1986 and the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987. . . .
And job growth following that tax cut?
The other question is, did the original tax cut spark "exponential growth," as Loughlin contended.
Taken literally, "exponential" refers to growth at an ever-increasing
rate, as when something doubles, then triples, then quadruples. The
economy during the Reagan years did no such thing.
When we talked to Loughlin about that part of his statement, he said:
"We experienced additional growth after Ronald Reagan cut taxes and that
might be a bit of hyperbole to say 'exponentially.'"
In fact, immediately after the 1981 cuts, the country went into a recession. The GDP dropped by nearly 2 percent. The unemployment rate jumped more than two full percentage points, spiking to 9.7 percent.
Then things got better. The GDP rose 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2
percent in 1984. Those are substantial jumps. The increases returned to a
fairly typical 3 percent and 4 percent during the rest of his tenure.
Unemployment barely declined in 1983, but then began a steady fall to
5.3 percent in 1989, when Reagan left office.
So things got better during the Reagan era, sorta, but "tax cuts" as most people would understand them so did not happen. And job growth? Not as rosy as Shortage and company remember.
Judging from Mower’s GOP goes grassroots, coverage in the Austin Herald by staff writer Kevin Coss, the gathering of 60 party faithful, party leaders and local candidates at the annual Lincoln-Reagan Picnic enjoyed awkward moments of their very own. Coss reports:
Senjem called the upcoming election the most important in modern history.
“If you’re a Republican and you can’t get upset about this, you don’t have a pulse,” he said.
Coss writes that the Mower County chair has heard that people are unhappy with Republicans and suggested voting for Allen Quist to solve that problem:
Mower GOP Chairman Dennis Schminke said a major obstacle for Minnesota GOP supporters is putting aside discontent.
“One of the things I get from people is how upset they are with the Republican Party,” he said.
The picnic was first held last year to a packed house, with retiring one-term representative John Kriesel as the party unit's special guest. Times seemed rosier for the MNGOP, despite "the elephant in the room" of the state shutdown. That fact didn't stop the July 2011 party for the elephants.
Schminke
added Republicans need to unite, especially behind 1st U.S.
Congressional District candidate Allen Quist, who beat Mike Parry in the
primary.
“If you want to see President Romney do well in office, you have to get behind Allen Quist,” Schminke said.
Given how few Republicans in the First were motivated to vote in the primary, Schminke may be on to something.
Primary winner Allen Quist was in Tampa, looking for to make contacts at the RNC. Although his wife and campaign manager Julie Quist told Minnpost that his candidacy will be focusing on the national debt, AP reporter Brian Bakst tweeted that the couple were consorting with the social issues wing of the party:
But have no fear! Local legislative candidates blamed spending on poor people for America's problems and suggested that we turn our attention to job creators. And taxes? At the annual Lincoln-Reagan Picnic, Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem said:
Senjem echoed [senate candidate Linden Anderson's] sentiment, saying high taxes placed on businesses
was dissuading companies from setting up in Minnesota. That, he said,
results in fewer jobs for Minnesotans.
“We’re not going to tax our way to prosperity,” he said.
The Reagan tax hike legacy of prosperity
Sadly, Senjem doesn't remember the lesson from the era of one of the picnic's namesakes. As Steve Benen wrote back in January's Cantor can’t handle the truth about Reagan in the Washington Monthly:
Unfortunately for Cantor and his press secretary, reality is stubborn.
The facts are indisputable: in Ronald Reagan’s first term, he signed off
on a series of tax increases — even when unemployment was nearing 11% —
and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in
office. The truth is, “no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people” as Reagan. . .
Why do Cantor, his press secretary, and Republicans everywhere deny what
is plainly true? Because reality is terribly inconvenient: the GOP
demi-god rejected the right-wing line on always opposing tax increases;
he willingly compromised with Democrats on revenue; and the economy
soared after Reagan raised taxes, disproving the Republican assumption
that tax increases always push the nation towards recessions.
Down the ballot, Mary Reider beat Gil Gutknecht in Mower County in 2000 and Mark Dayton bested Grams; DFLers won the parts of the old pre-2002 SD/HD 27 in Mower County, while losing both in SD 31. In 2004, DFL state senate and house candidates won in Mower, if not their races, and MNCD1 DFL candidate Leigh Pomeroy performed much better than in most of the rest of the district. In 2008, DFL candidates triumphed, from Franken and Walz to Robin Brown and Jeanne Poppe.
Mower County isn't elephant territory in the best of times, either. In the GOP-friendly elections of 2002 and 2010, DFLers did well. In tumult following the 2002 Wellstone plane crash, Mower County voted 58.60 percent for Walter Mondale, chose Independence Party standard bearer (and former DFL CD1 Congressman) Tim Penny for Governor, filled in circles for DFLers in the rest of the down-ballot constitutional officers, and picked Gil Gutknecht over an under-funded Steve Andreasen. For the state legislature, voters split the difference in the House reces, but picked Dan Sparks, providing the edge for his seven-voter squeaker of a win.
A lot of Republicans will have to swallow their discontent and turn out
as reliable Republican votes in Mower County--and they'll have to get
all of their friends all of their friends to be less upset as well to lose with Mower County with their usual verve.
Photos: Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem and Mower GOP Chair Dennis Schminke at the Mower County Lincoln-Reagan Picnic last night. Maybe people would be less upset with the Republican Party if Dave toned down the shirt. Cropped from Austin Daily Herald photo by Kevin Coss.(above); Congressman Walz (below).
A certain left-leaning blogger in Minnesota likes to excuse his rhetorical lapses by appeals to the device of hyperbole. Perhaps conservative John Hinderaker will evoke the same literary license for a passage in An Evening With Mitt Romney:
Rounding the corner to pull into the Lafayette Club’s parking lot,
security was tight. Across the road, a pathetic, ragtag group of
left-wing protesters were chanting, as usual, “We are the 99 percent.”
There were conservative counter-protesters too; I couldn’t tell which
group was more numerous. The largest sign said “Romney Creates Jobs.” I
wanted to park my car, get out and confront the leftists, but
unfortunately the security arrangements didn’t permit that. Otherwise, I
would have approached some of them and taped interviews. The question I
always want to ask is, “If you are the 99 percent, why are there only
11 of you?”
Close observer that he is, Hindraker doesn't report all of what's written on the white and red sign: "Romney Creates Jobs In China." (cropped and scaled here)
It was late in the day, so perhaps his arithmetric skills were impaired as well. Schoemer and Bauman report:
As presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney prepared to descend on the
Lake Minnetonka area Thursday evening, an estimated 50 to 75 protesters
began to assemble at one of the prime spots for his visit, Lake
Minnetonka's prestigious Lafayette Club.
With Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan still a questionable arrival, demonstrators made sure his presence was known with cardboard masks.
St. Louis Park resident Ilo Madden attended the protest rally because
she's "worried about democracy." She said she's saved $300 so far under
the new health care plan.
"I love 'Obamacare.' I don't like Bush tax cuts," she said. Her
personal slogan, she said, is "keep your 'mitts' off my healthcare."
And the counter-protesters?
While protestors and others waited for the motorcade, a few people on
bicycles stopped because they said they couldn't believe the size of
the crowd.
They crossed the street and began yelling at the protestors.
When protestors yelled, "minimum wage is poverty, we demand our
dignity," Robin Mackell of Mound countered with "minimum wage is too
high!"
Creating a potential headache for his campaign, Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney said big businesses in the U.S. were
“doing fine” in part because they get advantages from offshore tax
havens.
His comments echoed similar assertions about the state of big
business by President Barack Obama which Romney has criticized. They’re
also a reminder that the GOP candidate has kept some of his personal
fortune in low tax foreign accounts.
“Big business is doing fine in many places,” Romney said during a
campaign fundraiser Thursday. “They get the loans they need, they can
deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through
the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where
there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses.”
Perhaps the Romney campaign asked Mike Parry for advice on creating a communications thunderstorm.
Update: KTSP 5's Tom Hauser reports that over 100 protests were outside the fundraiser. Those who might want to attribute "liberal media bias" to Hauser's larger number should be advised that station owner and Hubbard Communications media mogul Stan Hubbard was one of the sponsors for the fundraiser. Clip below:
Photo: Lisa Bauman, Minnetonka Patch.
Update: I missed this nearly unreadable post by Two Putt Tommy about the Powerline item. Had Bluestem know about the post--which was published first--before reading Powerline's article in PIM's morning report, I would't have written about it. Bluestem isn't remotely interested in being anyone's echo chamber, whether Johnson figured this one out on his own or had it pitched to him by one of the organizations sponsoring the protest.
Bluestem apologizes to our audience for this oversight.
Why has @mikeparry not signed ATR tax pledge? Said he would.
We tweeted back, asking for a date and documentation for this Parry campaign promise. Mrs. Quist tweeted back the URL for a Mankato Free Press article from July 12, Quist, Parry engage in tax spat. Free Press staff writer Mark Fischenich reported:
Both candidates have agreed to take the pledge of tax opponent Grover Norquist to never support a tax increase of any kind.
But Parry, too, has changed his position on taxes — and on the wisdom of no-new-tax pledges — although it might have been one of the quickest flip-flops in political history.
It happened on Nov. 4 in Mankato when the Waseca restaurant owner was taking audience questions during his campaign kick-off tour. Asked if he supported Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, Parry responded: “I think that’s irresponsible.”
After talking about the importance of first eliminating waste and abuse in government spending, Parry said he would be open to revenue increases to maintain core services.
“At that point in time, if we say, ‘Here’s where we need to be and in order to maintain that, there has to be some income adjustments,’ then that’s where I’m at,” Parry said.
Parry recalled how he reluctantly made large investments in new technology for KTOE radio when he managed the station: “Did we want to do it? No. Did we have to do it to maintain our competitiveness? That’s what’s happening to America today, folks. ... We’re losing our competitiveness around the world.”
Virtually every Republican candidate for federal office now takes Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, and Parry changed his answer a few minutes after the Q & A ended.
“Well, let me clarify that,” he told The Free Press after the crowd had departed. “I am going to take the pledge. ... I was overanalyzing. I was thinking, ‘OK, as a business guy, blah, blah, blah, how did I handle spending money?’
“Well, I know it’s broken. I know we’re spending way too much. I am not going to raise taxes, I can guarantee that. In this economy, I would flatly dig my heals in. I just won’t do it.”
The Parry Campaign has attacked Quist for voting to raise gas taxes in the 1980s; Quist has replied that the increase was balanced by a net tax cut, and that such balancing is acceptable to ATR and GRover Norquist.
Scroll to Minnesota in the embedded document below:
As we tune in to the latest episode of Emo Senator, Southern Minnesota's most watched telenovela, we find the ink-stained wretches of the First District's daily newspapers reporting the hair-pulling and name-calling battle of the title of King of Conservatives with what looks like downright professional glee.
The sauna-like weather that characterized Independence Day parades is forecast to return Monday, when high temperatures are expected to reach 97 degrees in south-central Minnesota. . . .
The hottest stretch of the race between Quist and Parry, though, probably came with the tax spat this week. Both the retired farmer from St. Peter and the pizza restaurant owner from Waseca gave and received shots related to their willingness to occasionally support additional revenue for the government.
The last blast came Thursday morning when the Parry campaign went back to a 1982 Free Press voters guide to find Quist support for making a temporary sales tax increase permanent.
Unless records are uncovered on student council votes by Quist or Parry, the tax tiff may have run its course — considering that the campaigns have now apparently scoured every record going back 30 years. [emphasis added]
Bluestem looks forward to reading Q2 FEC reports from all three candidates. One intriguing rumor? Quist reportedly told Republicans at a meeting that all contributions would be matched by an anonymous donor. Federal campaign finance laws being what they are--with limits on the amount individuals other than the candidate himself can contribute/loan to campaign committees, Bluestem suspects that Quist himself is the mystery contributor if the rumor is indeed true.
Quist characterized the second-quarter report as “extremely important” in a June 27 request for donations.
“In addition, we have a donor who will match any new contribution made prior to July 1, 2012, up to $10,000 total! So your contribution of $75, for instance, will actually bring in $150. Please use this very unusual opportunity to help us be successful!”
The unnamed donor, by the way, has to be Quist himself under FEC rules. Individuals can’t contribute more than $2,500 to a congressional campaign, so a $10,000 contribution matching the donations of others would be illegal.
There are no limits, however, on how much a candidate can contribute to himself. And Quist told Republican activists at the 1st District Republican Convention in Mankato on April 21 that he would devote as much as $1 million of his savings to his campaign. . . .
For people guessing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a supporter of Quist’s run, might be the mystery donor — that’s not possible either. Federal candidates can’t send more than $2,000 from their campaign treasury to another candidate’s campaign.
What started off as a mild summer of campaigning for 1st District Republican candidates Mike Parry and Allen Quist is turning into a scorcher, with each candidate assailing the other's conservative credentials. . . .
The attacks offer a glimpse of each campaign's strategy. The Parry campaign repeatedly calls Quist a “perennial candidate” and a “career politician” who hasn't won an election in more than 20 years. Meanwhile, the Quist campaign has labeled Parry “a desperate candidate running behind.” Each candidate accuses the other of starting the political mud slinging.
Carlson asks for a second opinion from Carleton College political scientist Steven Schier. Go read his discussion at the Post Bulletin. Spoiler alert! Here's Schier's opinion about who the winner will be:
So who is the big winner in this latest Republican feud? Walz, according to Schier.
"They are spending money destroying each other and all Tim Walz has to do is stay out of the way." he said.
Until recently, Parry remained focused on the three-term Democrat. Then, on Thursday, Parry’s campaign went on Twitter and claimed Quist supported a gas and sales tax increase, referencing a 1982 article by the Mankato Free Press.
“As I campaign, people are asking me, ‘What are the differences between you and Allen,’ and I say look at our voting records. In my short time (in the state Senate), I have stood up for veterans. I have voted against tax increases,” Parry said Friday. “Allen is a lifelong politician, and I tell people to look at his voting record. He was called, ‘the green candidate,’ when he unsuccessfully ran for governor.”
Quist, who ran for Minnesota governor in 1994 and 1998, said Parry's tweet did not go unnoticed. He added that he feels his campaign must be doing well if Parry feels the need to attack his record.
“Parry is attacking me, and that’s what candidates do when they know they are behind,” Quist said. “They know they are losing, and they are trying to do something about it. That’s the real message of the attacks.
“He wants to sound more conservative than me. It’s a joke.”
Stan Gudmundson, in his letter that appeared in Thursday’s Daily News, made a good point in evaluating a Republican 1st District candidate for Congress. Gudmundson is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and frequent contributor to the Winona-area newspapers.
His point is that a true conservative holds to the four key values of fiscal, social, national defense and constitutional conservatism. When Republicans stray too far from the party platform, we call these people RINOs (Republican in Name Only).
Coming from Rochester, Minn., I am all too familiar with RINOs. We had an incumbent state senator change her party affiliation from Republican to Independent and finally changed it to Democrat. What do you get when you cross an elephant and a RINO? The result was not pretty; it involved more than just hurt feelings. . .
Elshoff has already signed up for the private reception for Bachmann that's part of the coming fundraiser. Quist must have been mighty impressed by the March letter to hire him as a consultant.
What will Q2 2012 fundraising and spending look like for our hero Mike Parry, the Belle of Waseca County? Tune in tomorrow, when the FEC reports are due.
Photoshopped image: Will Mike Parry have to wear the drapes in parades to pay his bills? We'll know tomorrow or thereabouts. Image by Tild (above); Allen Quist crowdsurfs in this cartoon but mostly self-funds his campaign in the tradition of earlier Walz opponents Brian Davis and Randy Demmer. Drawing by Ken Avidor (below).
July 2012 Sixth Anniversary Bleg Notice: Like what you're reading on this blog? Help support an independent voice from Greater Minnesota:
As we return to another thrilling episode of Emo Senator, Southern Minnesota's most watched telenovela, fans are captivated as they watch our hero Mike Parry and his archrival Allen Quist quarrel over who is the most loyal to the ideals of Grover Norquist.
Meanwhile, the Veteran Skills to Jobs Act, Congressman Tim Walz's bill to aid veterans' employment as they transition from active duty into the civilian workforce, has passed in the House and Senate.
While Republicans nationally devoted Wednesday to criticizing the Democratic Affordable Care Act, characterizing the health care overhaul as a tax increase, the two Republicans running for Congress in south-central Minnesota were hammering each other as tax hikers. . . .
Fischenich calls the blow-by-blow action that started Monday; go follow the diva rasslin' drama there. He also recalls a bit of Norquist suitor fickleness on Parry's part (emphasis added):
But Parry, too, has changed his position on taxes — and on the wisdom of no-new-tax pledges — although it might have been one of the quickest flip-flops in political history.
It happened on Nov. 4 in Mankato when the Waseca restaurant owner was taking audience questions during his campaign kick-off tour. Asked if he supported Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, Parry responded: “I think that’s irresponsible.”
After the questions ended and the crowd left, Parry changed his answer, Fischenich reports:
Virtually every Republican candidate for federal office now takes Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, and Parry changed his answer a few minutes after the Q & A ended.
“Well, let me clarify that,” he told The Free Press after the crowd had departed. “I am going to take the pledge. ... I was overanalyzing. I was thinking, ‘OK, as a business guy, blah, blah, blah, how did I handle spending money?’
March 2011: Parry tells Owatonna crowd he'd tax services
With the redesign of the Owatonna People's Press, GOP bills leave Parry in hot seat, the original OPP article seems to have disappeared from the database, though the link remains as a google ghost and excerpts in Bluestem.
According to the excerpt, Parry said (emphasis added):
In response, Parry promised that he and other Republicans planned to deep six certain tax exemptions as well, to “spread out the pain,” in spite of criticism he would likely face.
“If we do that, the other side is going to say, you’re raising taxes, and they want to beat us up for that,” Parry said. “There are some unbelievable tax exemptions here that we should all be paying. I was just looking at one today and I’ll be highly criticized but I think we should do it — tax on services.”
The Quist campaign has yet to bring that up--Heather Carlson writes that he spent his time at last night's Town Hall attacking Walz--but the Emo campaign isn't wasting anytime inoculating itself.
Parry faults Quist for agreeing to extend a sales tax in 1982
Today, the campaign emailed an attack on Quist for a sales tax position in a 1982 Mankato Free Press voters' guide:
Revelation comes on heels of news about Quist's support for gas tax increase
Ben Golnik, Advisor for Parry for Congress: "Allen Quist likes to talk like a fiscal conservative but supported extending a temporary sales tax increase when he ran for the legislature. Coupled with his vote for a gas tax increase, it is clear Quist is out of step with hard working Minnesotans. All the slick TV ads in the world can't obscure the fact that Quist is out of touch with taxpayers."
Source: The Free Press, Mankato, page 13A (Voters'Guide), October 21, 1982
Perhaps Mike Parry, the Belle of Waseca County, and Allen Quist can arm wrestle to see which is worse, extending a temporary sales tax increase or extending the sales tax to areas not already taxed.
Walz interrupts this feud with a moment of bipartisan action
As the election has drawn nearer and nearer, there have been more show votes and less lawmaking on Capitol Hill. But one measure that is headed to President Obama's desk this week pushed by DFL U.S. Rep. Tim Walz attempts to ease the transition from military to civilian life.. . .
The legislation ensures that vets don't have to acquire costly state-mandated professional certifications for jobs they already learned how to do while serving in the military. Walz mentioned emergency medical technicians and many technical fields as areas affected by the legislation.
"We spend $140 billion a year training soldiers," said Walz. "Let's capitalize on that investment by making sure we don't send them back to school on the GI Bill and spend more money when they're already qualified for those jobs."
A companion bill introduced by Walz and Republican Steve Stivers of Ohio that would affect certifications for nurses, nursing assistants, EMTs and commercial drivers received approval from the House Veterans Affairs Committee Wednesday.
Tune in for our next thrilling episode.
Photoshopped image: Mike Parry, the Emo Senator, by Tild.
July 2012 Sixth Anniversary Bleg Notice: Like what you're reading on this blog? Help support an independent voice from Greater Minnesota:
The cat fight on the right in Minnesota's First Congressional suggests that Mike Parry's campaign has abandoned an earlier talking point about appealing to "Reagan Democrats" in favor of wooing the base for the primary.
In late September 1982, Ronald Reagan was asked whether he would support a hike in the federal gas tax. “Unless there’s a palace coup and I’m overtaken or overthrown, no, I don’t see the necessity for that,” Reagan quipped. Yet a few months later, Democrats had posted big gains in the midterm elections, and an exultant Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, delivered a speech in Washington arguing that the gas tax needed to go up — from 4 cents per gallon to 9 cents per gallon — in order to bankroll a “massive reparation of the nation’s bridges and roads.”
By December, Reagan had relented. The new gas tax would fund highways, bridges, and mass transit and was predicted to create 320,000 jobs. Reagan argued that it wasn’t really a tax, anyhow, but a “user’s fee.” [emphasis added] What’s more, Reagan told reporters, “we’d be doing this if there were no recession at all.” Better not to think of the new five-year, $27.5 billion bill as a jobs program, Reagan explained in his weekly radio address: “We simply cannot allow this magnificent system to deteriorate beyond repair.” . . .
Quist has a point when he explains his 1986 vote in the context of the times. The attempt of the Parry campaign to paint him as a tax-and-spend liberal feels absurdly desperate. Parry's frame also sets up both candidates to run from the hard right in the general election--without the freedom to appeal to those "Reagan Democrats" who, like Quist, might linger in the district.
So, if a gas tax vote in the 1980s isn't evidence of secret Pelosi fetishes, and the Taxpayers League is--as Golnik's press release insisted--a hopelessly corrupt special interest financially beholden to tribal gaming, what standard are starched conservatives to use?
One measure is the Legislative Evaluation Assembly of Minnesota, a hard right crew operating since 1972. Bluestem's sniffing around them in revealed a whiff of Moonie influence, but that seems no barrier to our friends on the right.
Bearing in mind that we're comparing different decades of apples--but measured by the same fruits--how do Quist and Parry compare using the LEA's scoring?
Weighted for time served, Parry received a 56 percent ranking in the 2010 scorecard (p. 7 in online pdf). In 2011, he did better, garnering an "Honorable Mention" (p. 1) and score of 88, for a career average of 74.
The only way to get an accurate picture of a legislator’s record is to look at a broad range of votes that describe the pattern showing who a legislator is. The organization that best does this in Minnesota is the Legislative Evaluation Assembly, or LEA.
"LEA bases its evaluation on the traditional American principles of constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise, legal and moral order with justice and individual liberty and dignity."
Based on this guideline, Allen Quist was given the top LEA rating as one of its "Honorees" each of the six years he was in the Minnesota Legislature. He has six Honoree plaques from the LEA.
Only 4% of Minnesota legislators were awarded the top LEA rating in 2011. Most legislators never receive a top LEA rating. Allen Quist received the top LEA rating every year he served in the Minnesota House.
Honoree is the top level.
Does this make Quist the most conservative of all, winner of the precious ring both men fight to possess?
Bluestem draws a different lesson from the Republican infighting: both men are out of touch with the independent and moderate voters who form the bulk of the voters--swing voters especially--in Southern Minnesota. The elephant pissing contest offers them little--and the extremes that Quist and Parry now go to win it only make both men less appealing to voters.
It's great blogger fodder--and Bluestem is grateful for the content--but campaign killing politics. Congressman Walz, on the other hand, was the point man in moving the House conferees to get it done on the Transportation Bill. The Hill reported in House votes to instruct highway conferees to finish by Friday:
Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) introduced the motion to instruct this week, and urged support as a way to recognize that Congress as a whole needs to do its job better. The resolution was debated Tuesday.
Republicans have hinted for weeks that the conferees might not make their June 30 deadline, when current authorization for federal highway spending expires. In that case, Congress will likely agree to another short-term extension to allow the talks to continue.
President Barack Obama signed on Friday a transportation funding and student loan bill which passed Congress last week in a rare election-year compromise between Republicans and Democrats.
In an unusual show of bipartisanship, members of both parties were on hand for the White House ceremony, including members of the administration, Congress, as well as state and local governments.
"This is an outstanding piece of business. And I'm very appreciative of the hard work that Congress has done on it. My hope is that this bipartisan spirit spills over into the next phase," Obama said, encouraging members to pass larger infrastructure measures and "start doing more to reduce the debt burden that our young people are experiencing."
As for raising the federal gas tax in the 21st Century? That's a different debate, although the job-creator haters and commie dirty hippies over at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sound like tax-and-spenders on a federal gas tax increase:
“These guys and gals are all doing this because they’re afraid to face the fundamental issues of where we get the revenue," [President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber Tom] Donohue said. "We haven’t had an increase in the federal fuel tax in 18 years.”
The federal gas tax is a primary means of funding highway construction and maintenance. The problem is that it is not indexed for inflation, so while road repair costs creep upward, the gas tax stays the same. The tax was last increased in 1993 to $0.184, meaning that drivers are paying more than a third less into the Highway Trust Fund than they were at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
Donohue warned that fuel taxes alone can no longer fund the nation's long-term infrastructure needs. "The bigger challenge lies ahead—devising a predictable, sustainable, and growing source of dedicated, user-fee-based funding to ensure we have adequate resources to maintain the world's greatest infrastructure system for decades to come," he said.
It's truly startling: building infrastructure costs money, regardless of what the Republican dead-enders quarrel about in their primary kerfuffle.
Photo: Ronald Reagan, gas tax raiser.
July 2012 Sixth Anniversary Bleg Notice: Like what you're reading on this blog? Help support an independent voice from Greater Minnesota:
As we return to the latest episode of Emo Senator, Southern Minnesota's most watched telenovela, fans of our hero, Mike Parry, the Belle of Waseca County, will be dismayed to observe the disrespectful tone that has dragged its rude self into the Republican primary in Minnesota's First Congressional District.
And we were all so looking forward to watching both Parry and Quist live up to their promises to amicably campaign for the hearts and minds of Republican voters as they attacked their mortal enemy, incumbent Tim Walz.
claimed that the increase Quist voted for would have made Minnesota the fourth highest gas tax in the country. Parry also boasted that he had never voted for a tax increase while in the Minnesota Legislature.
Mike Parry wants you to believe that he would never raise taxes, but, in fact, he authored a bill this past year to dramatically increase taxes on new Casino gambling in order to fund a new Vikings Stadium. As usual, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying it’s not a new tax. The Taxpayers League, however, says it was a huge new tax and a tax increase, as well. They charged him with breaking his No New Taxes pledge.
So, who to believe: Mike Parry or the Minnesota Taxpayers League?
This is not just a difference of opinion between them. What the Taxpayers League is saying is obviously true. What Mike Parry is saying is obviously false. Misleading people is a habit for Mike Parry. There he goes again. You cannot trust anything he says.
The Taxpayers League of Minnesota called on its members to contact seven Republican lawmakers for violating their anti-tax pledge. The group includes former Taxpayers League President Linda Runbeck and Sen. Mike Parry, R-Waseca, who is running for Congress in Minnesota's 1st District.
The lawmakers sponsored legislation that would allow the state's horse tracks to install slot machines, said Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie. He said the state would take a share of the money raised from the machines, which he argues is a tax hike. Krinkie said he is surprised that lawmakers who called for holding the line on spending are now backing an expansion of gambling in Minnesota.
"There was a call from some of these very same people of 'Not a penny more.' So how do you go with the math in a few months from 'Not a penny more' to a couple a hundred million more?"
After Quist ripped into Parry earlier today, this evening the Parry campaign savaged Quist in an email forwarded to Bluestem by a friend, "Fact Check on Quist Vote to Raise Gas Tax," saying in part
It is no surprise that the special-interest group that Quist references, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, was critical of Mike's support of breaking up the monopoly for tribes. The Taxpayers League receives financial support from the deep-pocketed tribal interests in Minnesota.
And with that, Bluestem can forgive readers if they feel that we have left the melodramatic stylings of Emo Senator and wandered off on to the backlot of The Walking Dead, where everyone is either gnawing face or so infected with zombie cooties that they're just waiting for the chance.
For not only do they attack each other, but now Parry surrogate Ben Golnik has ripped the face off the Taxpayers League, the very group that brought Grover Norquist "No New Tax" pledge to Minnesota. Now they're just another special interest group.
Although no-new-tax pledge icon Grover Norquist speaks of a politician who betray the Americans for Tax Reform tax pledge as a rat’s head in a bottle of Coke — an affront to the Republican brand and subject to corrective action — such strident rhetoric is not voiced by Taxpayers League of Minnesota President Phil Krinkie.
Indeed, unlike Americans for Tax Reform, which considers a pledge signer pledged for as long as that individual holds a given elective office, beginning last election the Taxpayers League shifted its policy away from Norquist’s and now only expects its pledge signers to hold true to their pledge during their current term in office.
After that, the league hopes lawmakers “re-up” for another pledge if they run again.
Parry was one of only 12 state senators out of 67 to sign the Taxpayers League pledge, a voluntary action.The group could not have been an evil special interest or our hero simply would not have signed on the dotted line.
And so we leave this episode with Mike Parry, Emo Senator, suffering from another bout of amnesia, at a loss to explain what he signed a pledge to a special interest group. This latest spell comes at the very moment when he needs all his wits about him, or be eaten alive.
Tune in to our next exciting episode.
Photoshopped images: Mike Parry, by Tild.
July 2012 Sixth Anniversary Bleg Notice: Like what you're reading on this blog? Help support an independent voice from Greater Minnesota:
The field-test was Wisconsin and the numbers for the voter contact micro-targeting campaign that Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition contracted out to "Millennium Marketing, a division of Century Strategies, a political consulting firm whose CEO happens to be Ralph Reed," Stan reports.
The Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition is committed to educating voters on how new tax increases would impact family budgets as well as the bottom-line of small businesses. Minnesota FFC seeks to empower voters to express their views about what is best for Minnesota families at every level of government. The Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition believes strongly that Minnesota state legislators should hear from their constituents who are closest to the grassroots; not from the bullhorns of special interest groups and public employee unions.
Field tested blessings in Wisconsin
According to the Stan article, much of the education field tested in the Wisconsin recall deployed social media tools, though the "voter education" went far beyond taxation:
Furr explained how he targeted somewhere between 17,000 - 20,000 conservative Wisconsin voters for text messages on the recall that included a link to the Faith and Freedom Coalition voter guide -- a link that was opened by 30 percent of those who received the text message. (See graphic, taken from Millennium Marketing's promotional packet, here.) Like the Christian Coalition voter guides of yore, the FFC guides list a number of deceptively framed issues in a table format, with the name and photo of its preferred candidate (in this case, Scott Walker) topping a red column noting whether the candidate "SUPPORTS" or "OPPOSES" those rhetorically presented positions. A photo of the opposition's candidate (Tom Barrett, of course) tops a blue column.
Faith and Freedom Coalition's guide for the gubernatorial recall election listed six issues: "abortion on demand," "parental choice in education," "taxpayer-funded abortion," "same-sex marriage," "eliminating the death tax," and "opposes any new taxes on Wisconsin families."
Text messages, Furr explained, are an especially effective means of communicating in elections, because, unlike e-mails or snail-mail appeals, they are almost always opened by recipients.
Nonetheless, Furr also ran an e-mail program for FFC in Wisconsin. One effort of which he is most proud is the targeting of conservative small-business executives. Furr said his firm collected more than 51,000 e-mail addresses in that target group, and of those targeted, only 43 individuals opted out of receiving future e-mails.
Furr also lauded the fundraising effectiveness of text messaging, especially when combined with micro-targeting. As an example, he said he could reach into databases and filter for Catholics who gave to particular charities or causes. Then he could solicit donations for the Faith and Freedom Coalition by text message through a link that immediately generated a thank-you message to the donor -- all for a mere 50-cent transaction fee. If an organization that raised funds this way wanted to do follow-up thank-you calls, that could be added to the package for a low rate of 7.5 percent of the donation, and a call center would handle the task.
While the state of Minnesota seems solidly in the Obama column--and already buried by the avalanche coming in Senator Klobuchar's timid landslide--it might seem that investing in the Emmer-chaired operation would offer little return on investment of fat-cat dollars.
Except for those two amendments to the state constitution and the security of the Brodkorbian holy grail, control of both houses of the Minnesota legislature. And while Bordkorb, like Lancelot, may have lost his luster by porking the lady of the castle, the cup of control is no doubt still prized by the faith and freedom crowd. After all, there's that union-busting amendment waiting, sword in hand, beneath the 10,000 lakes.
For Reed, there's the green, as well as the grail. Stan writes:
For Reed, however, there's likely another prize to collect, win or lose. It may be wrapped up in the old Red, White and Blue, but this prize comes in a distinctive shade of green. AlterNet learned that, in order to identify and make its 600,000 voter contacts in Wisconsin -- many of them by text messaging and e-mail subscriptions -- Faith and Freedom Coalition contracted with Millennium Marketing, a division of Century Strategies, a political consulting firm whose CEO happens to be Ralph Reed.
AlterNet contacted Billy Kirkland, FFC's national field director, by phone on June 29 to inquire about FFC's use of Millennium. "We did use them and they were a big help in Wisconsin," Kirkland said. "It was one of those things where any time you can use a new technology to reach voters and educate voters on issues that are important to them -- we're trying to be on the forefront of that, so I'd be more than happy to respond by e-mail, but I've got a 4:00 [meeting] I've got to walk into."
So I e-mailed him a few questions, including: "How much did FFC pay Millennium Marketing for what appears to be a broad array of services provided in the campaign against the Wisconsin recall?" At press time, he had yet to respond.
How much was spent? The national Faith and Freedom Coalition doesn't have to disclose its spending, Stan reports:
To billionaires willing to stake nice little chunks of their fortunes on the outcome of the 2012 races -- presidential, Senate and gubernatorial -- a little greasing of Ralph Reed's palm could be deemed a small price to pay, especially when they can launder their contributions, without fear of disclosure, through Faith and Freedom Coalition, a 501(c)(4) non-profit under the U.S. tax code. This type of organization is not required to disclose its donors to the general public. However untoward, none of this is illegal -- not the contracting of Reed's own for-profit firm by the non-profit he runs, not the undisclosed sums from undisclosed donors that help to get carefully profiled voters to the polls.
Faith and freedom isn't free but the price may be undisclosed
How much will Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition spend on voter education?
Photo: Dramatization of Faith and Freedom voter education for workers in the cheese caves near Faribault or some place like that (above). Cartoon: Emmer told the Kandiyohi Tea Party "if he was now the Governor in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, Minnesota would 'make Wisconsin look like the poor ugly step-child that they are.' ” Cartoon by Ken Avidor; quote from the West Central Tribune.
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