A Bluestem Prairie

Rothenberg Report drops Minnesota First from competitive races list

A kind reader just sent us news (via MN Indy) that the Rothenberg Report has dropped Minnesota First from its Competitive Races list.

At the MN Indy, Paul Demko writes:

The Rothenberg Political Report has dropped Minnesota’s First Congressional District from its list of competitive House races. This means it believes freshman Democratic Rep. Tim Walz is in little danger of losing his re-election bid. Previously Rothenberg had assessed the contest as favoring the incumbent, who is being challenged by medical doctor Brian Davis.

Guess it must have been Walz's fade in his rival's polling that did the trick. Another good reason for a little more cover music from The Boss to celebrate:

Caution: it's easy for news like this to create the apathy that Minnesota Central warns against. Help persuade other political race handicappers to move their predictions for this race more toward Congressman Walz's favor by making a contribution by midnight tonight, then volunteer for voter contact and GOTV for Walz.

Give now: FEC reporting period ends

Yesterday, we took up an invitation from a friend in Rochester's medical community to attend a house party for Congressman Walz. For those of us who love farmland and wetlands, there's little more lovely than the drive we took on the back roads to Rochester.

Sure, we had to pause occasionally for a behemoth combine to move out of the way, but we'd worked some extra time for implement dodging in our schedule since guys are harvesting beans.

Some of the best food ever at a fundraiser, in a home surrounded by a moat of hostas. Those I talked to were appreciative of the congressman's positive ads and approach to the campaign, as well as his work in Washington. We're told that the bulk of the individual contributions to Walz's re-election comes in at such gatherings in middle class homes.

Those who want to keep Congressman Walz fighting for Main Street and the middle class (and the aspirations of those citizens who hope to join it) should consider contributing by midnight today, the last day of the October quarterly reporting period. Due October 15, the next report will detail giving and spending from August 21 through September 30.

The other great part of a road trip is singing along to the shuffle. Here's one great tune of many served up yesterday on the dark drive home, dedicated to all those who work together to make this country better for their children and grandchildren--especially to Leah on this holy day:

Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce Walz-Davis debate to be re-scheduled

Since the House will be reconvening on October 2 at noon Eastern time and Congressman Walz will be in Washington, the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce will be rescheduling Thursday's debate, the RACC confirmed in a phone call.

Those who have registered will be notified of the new day and time via email. If we understand arrangements correctly, the good people at The Uptake will be live at the debate.

Given the interesting business climate, this should prove worth watching. We recommend that those who can should attend the event.

Update: The kind and professional people at the RACoC have posted the following note on the chamber's web site:

Due to Congress being called back to Washington D.C. on Thursday to address the United States financial crisis the debate between Brian Davis and Tim Walz scheduled for this Thursday at noon has been postponed.

The Chamber will announce a new debate date as soon as it has been rescheduled.

Fail-out news coverage round-up: Walz votes no on bailout

The Strib reports A bitter pill draws a bipartisan refusal. The PiPress examines at How they voted and takes statements. Ed Felker at the Post Bulletin notes Walz votes against bailout proposal Monday; Kline votes in favor.

The Worthington Globe says Bailout splits Minnesota lawmakers.  Walz quote:

“The bill we voted on today passes the buck when it comes to recouping the losses taxpayers might suffer,” Walz said. “I also regret that this bill does not do enough to help average homeowners, or provide sufficient oversight of Wall Street.”

The Winona Daily News reports Walz, Davis oppose bailout.  The Mankato Free Press provides more details on why Walz, Davis oppose bailout plan. We look at Davis's fable here. The MFP editorial board says Bailout has little Main Street support.

House defeats bailout; Dow drops in the Albert Lea Tribune. The Austin Herald runs Walz's statement in Rep. Walz votes no on bailout.

ECM Publishers, which owns the Caledonia Argus, reports Minnesota congressional delegation forms unusual grouping in vote on financial bailout.

KEYC-TV  broadcast Walz Discusses Vote on Bailout. KAAL-TV covered the vote in Tim Walz on Bailout Plan. SW Minnesota viewers heard about it via KSFY in Why They Voted "No". Walz's vote lined up withthat of South Dakota's Herseth and Iowa's Steve King.

MinnPost looks at the split. Its Daily Glean provides a fine wrap up of Twin Cities coverage in A trillion little pieces: why Minnesota partisans splintered on bailout. The MN Indy reports House rejects bailout package; Minnesota delegation splits its votes.

 

Economic know-nothingism: Davis blames CRA for market woes

Representatives Bachmann and Ellison have already engaged in a call and response about the alleged role of the Community Reinvestment Act in shaping the current financial climate.

Turns out that Bachmann's statement was a dog whistle for her BFF Brian Davis, the GOP candidate in MN-01. He supplied the reprise to the Mankato Free Press:

Walz’s Republican opponent agreed with the vote, but placed most of the blame for the financial crisis on government — including actions by the Clinton administration to promote low-income home ownership — rather than Wall Street.

“I’m pleased to see the bailout was rejected,” said Brian Davis, R-Rochester, not faulting Walz’s vote. “I imagine he and I propose a different solution to all this.”

Davis said large amounts of taxpayer money should not be risked on a bailout plan until underlying causes of the subprime mortgage mess are identified and fixed.

Davis focused first on the Community Reinvestment Act, originally passed in 1977 to prohibit lenders from avoiding offering loans in low-income areas. The administration of President Bill Clinton became aggressive in enforcing the act, pressuring banks to offer mortgages to risky applicants, Davis said.

“That’s what started it,” he said.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, came under criticism last week when she also placed blame on the Community Reinvestment Act. Bachmann said during a congressional hearing that the Clinton administration pushed the issuance of home loans “on the basis of race and little else,” according to the newspaper Roll Call.

The comment prompted the Congressional Black Caucus to write a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner rejecting the “assertion that ‘minorities’ caused the current financial crisis.”

Davis said he doesn’t oppose the idea of promoting responsible lending to low-income groups but believes the Clinton administration was too aggressive in pushing the idea.

“The goals of the program are laudable,” he said.

We'll have more debunking this new article of right wing faith, but let's start with Business Week's Aaron Pressman in Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis. We post the entirety for our click-impaired readers:

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:

It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

Enough said.The Free Press article, Walz, Davis oppose bailout plan, reports on Walz's reasons for his no vote as well.

Photo: Brian Davis and his financial advisor, Rep. Michele Bachmann.  She's back in the news today--this time for deflating a bubbling GOP talking point about yesterday's failied vote. See Roll Call's Bachmann Inadvertently Knocks Down GOP Explanation. My, my. 

Walz statement on bailout vote

From the congressional office:

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Congressman Tim Walz voted against the revised Wall Street bailout plan released yesterday by Congressional leadership.  Walz made the following remarks about the proposed bailout:

“Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic negotiators deserve credit for the progress they made on this bill.  This extensive rescue package has many more protections for taxpayers than the 3-page bailout proposal put forth by the White House last week. 

“In the last week, I’ve personally called over 100 constituents, bankers and business leaders in southern Minnesota to sound them out about this bailout package.  The message I’ve heard from them is clear: despite the many and significant improvements made by Democratic negotiators, this bill still falls short. 

“The bill we voted on today passes the buck when it comes to recouping the losses taxpayers might suffer.  I also regret that this bill does not do enough to help average homeowners, or provide sufficient oversight of Wall Street.

“Wall Street got us into this mess and I hope that the Congressional leadership will go back to the drawing board and write a bill that holds Wall Street accountable, both through sensible regulation and oversight and by restricting the excessive golden parachutes for CEOs who got themselves in trouble. 

“My job is to protect the American taxpayer and this plan doesn't go far enough in looking out for the middle class. It doesn't go far enough in holding Wall Street accountable. If Wall Street is going to get our money, we need to have some protections in place, and this plan doesn't go far enough. Finally, it does not do enough to help address the real cause of our economic crisis: the tidal wave of foreclosures that are hurting families and neighborhoods all around the country.

“I voted against this bill because it wasn't a good deal for taxpayers. Lawmakers need to go back to the table immediately and come up with a much better deal for taxpayers and the middle class.”

Update Sept 30: The Mankato Free Press takes a look at why Walz, Davis oppose bailout plan. We look at Davis's fable here.

Walz votes no on bailout

We've been informed that Congressman Walz voted against the bailout.

Update: Here's the Roll Call vote. Walz and Collin Peterson joined  Jim Ramstad, Michele Bachmann and John Kline in voting against the bill; Kline, McCollum, Ellison and Oberstar voted in favor.

For those who click through and wonder about the seem unrelated nature of the bill, the Library of Congress's Thomas provides this note:

Note: According to the House Majority Leader, H.R.3997 will be used as the vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. See documents on the House Financial Services Committee website and H.Res.1517 on the House Rules Committee website.

Thanks to he-who-cannot-be-named in NW Minnesota for the correction.

Update Sept 30: The Mankato Free Press takes a look at why Walz, Davis oppose bailout plan. We look at Davis's fable here.
 

Bailout vote likely today

Update: In Why Bail? The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger, Dean Baker can't find a single real reason to support the bill.[end update]

The Pioneer Press reports in  Minnesota delegation gives tepid support to the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:

Members of Minnesota's delegation to Congress scrambled Sunday to digest details of the multibillion-dollar Wall Street rescue package. They weren't alone — so many people tried to download copies of the measure Sunday that the congressional computer servers crashed.

Members of Congress didn't have much time. The House is slated to vote on it perhaps as soon as today; the Senate vote is expected in a few days. . . .

The article relates the positions of McCollum, Coleman, Oberstar and Bachmann. Finally:

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Mankato, said the measure, which he was still studying Sunday night, made progress over the version proposed earlier, but he still was unsure about his support.

"I remain skeptical and am working with my colleagues to get answers to my questions about exactly how this plan will work," he said. "We must move fast to bring stability to the financial markets, but we must get it right."

The Washington Post has put a pdf of the bill online.

The New York Times says that House minority leader John Boehner is encouraging Republicans to support the bill:

On Sunday evening, both parties convened closed-door sessions in the House to review the plan, and conservative House Republicans remained a potential impediment.

But the party leadership was circulating information aimed at refuting some of the main criticisms of the bailout, indicating they were poised to support it. “I am encouraging every member of our conference whose conscience will allow them to support this bill,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.

The Washington Post says in Broad Authority, Lots of Money And Uncertainty:

Congress is on the verge of granting Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. sweeping powers to stabilize the nation's financial system. He would stand largely unfettered by traditional rules, largely unrestricted in his ability to spend $700 billion of federal money. . . .

And in Dr. Paulson's Tough Medicine, In a Pill the Public Can Swallow (yeah,right):

But nobody should view even this effort as sufficient to keep the U.S. economy out of recession, stabilize housing markets or prevent the failure of additional banks, investment houses, insurers and hedge funds. Although more than $600 billion in private-sector credit losses have already been posted, a number of private and public-sector analysts now estimate that won't be even half the final tab from the bursting of the greatest credit bubble the world has seen.

The National Post (Canada) reminds us that hopes of profits to taxpayers from past bailouts were not realized:

But, if history is any guide, taxpayers may end up losing a substantial chunk of the US$700-billion.

A report by the International Monetary Fund found that in past bailouts, the average recovery rate had been only 18%.

We hope that Congressman Walz acts on his skepticism. This bill doesn't look to have strong enough safeguards for the taxpayers and it's important to get it right.

First District residents should let him know what they want.

Sunday early afternoon digest: home in the valley edition

Update: we've read that servers on the Hill are getting slammed, so here's a mirror provided by the helpful good people at the Sunlight Foundation (pdf); embedded version here. end update.

News reports say that negotiators in Washington have reached an agreement on proposals to aid Wall Street. The final language has yet to be released to the public (and may indeed still be incomplete). When done, the deal will be posted here: http://financialservices.house.gov/.  (Isn't Michele Bachmann on that committee?)

From what we're reading in the papers, we're inclined to say  that Minnesota's congressional delegation should say no, but we withhold final judgment until the written details are made public.  Congressman Walz's constituents should let him know what they think. Contact information here.

It's times like this that we are grateful for once having dated a bank examiner for the FDIC.  Who knew that pillow talk would come in handy?

The Albert Lea Tribune reports in People using absentees can vote next week:

In Minnesota, people can vote absentee if they will be absent from the precinct the day of the election, if they have an illness or disability that disables them from coming out to vote or if they are serving as an election judge in another precinct.

Another reason people can vote via absentee is because of a religious discipline, religious holiday or observance. The last reason is if there is an eligible emergency declared by the governor or a quarantine declared by the federal or state government.

Martinson said a large number of people who vote with absentee ballots in this area are absent from the precinct and are in other states at the time of the actual election. There’s also a fair share of college students and others with disabilities that vote via absentee.

For more information on absentee voting, check out the details at the Minnesota Secretary of State's Voter Information page. Be very wary of requests for absentee ballots sent to you in mass mailings by a campaign or political party, as mischief has been reported elsewhere in the country in such devices.

Walz supporter Ron Yezzi writes the Mankato Free Press to say Walz not too liberal, concluding:

I strongly support Walz’s reelection. He’s an amazingly gifted person totally dedicated to serving the public interest with openness and fairness. His outstanding first term shows he can work effectively on the nation’s problems and he has the potential to attain national political stature. But if he ever gets derailed, it should not be because voters make the mistake of thinking he’s too liberal for the 1st District.

The Rochester Democrat notes that Walz Hails Passage of Second Economic Stimulus Package. Go read the details there.

Just across the river from the LaCrescent area, Sen. Obama stopping by La Crosse on Wednesday.

A little ditty to lighten up the day, from Minnesota's most prominent songbird:

Farewell, Paul Newman

Paul Newman, one of Hollywood's icons, has passed away. In his memory, a traditional folk hymn:

And this more reverent folk tune, sung by Harry Dean Stanton:

Helping the Post Bulletin figure it out about campaign fundraising

In today's Post Bulletin, staff writer Heather Carlson writes in Rochester donors favor Walz, Coleman:

While voters might gripe about members of Congress, one thing is sure -- these incumbents are raking in big money from Rochester donors.

Democrat Rep. Tim Walz is a prime example. The former teacher from Mankato has dominated the donation race, raising more than $85,000 from Rochester alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[link added] That is more than twice as much collected by his Republican opponent, Dr. Brian Davis. The gap in total donations remains significant, with Walz claiming $2.3 million in donations compared to $838,000 for Davis.

And later in the article, this remarkable paragraph:

Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that donations under $200 are not recorded with the Federal Election Commission. That means a candidate could be doing much better when it comes to small donors, but campaign finance records would not show that.

Um, Ms. Carlson and Jay Furst, can we talk?  We think you mean well--we certainly hope so--as does the Post Bulletin.  Unfortunately, that's a misleading snapshot of giving in this race.

We'll break out of the natural order of the article itself and take on that second paragraph first. It's breathtaking in the way sloppy writing combines with the potential to mislead readers.

Small contributions (we like to use the precise word for political giving) are indeed reported to the FEC. They are reported in a lump sum, and thus the reports indicate the total giving by small contributors, but not the names of the individuals. In FEC reports, this lump sum is call "unitemized

To write, as Carlson did, that

a candidate could be doing much better when it comes to small donors, but campaign finance records would not show that.

is simply wrong.  We will no doubt be seeing Davis supporters repeating this line, and they will be as equally misinformed as Ms. Carlson seems to be.

How does the giving from small contributors to each candidate compare?  Since campaign finance records really do include information about contributions from small givers, here goes. We'll be looking at Line 11, Section a(ii) on the detailed summary reports online with the Federal Election Commission; Line 11, Section a(ii) provides lump sum figures of small contributions under $200.

Here's part of Davis's latest filing, drawn from his committee's  pre-primary report's detailed summary report in which we highlight the "unitemized" contributions in red:

11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	67039.00
(ii) Unitemized	21759.00
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	88798.00

And the same lines from the Walz for Congress report:

11. Contributions (other than loans) From:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees
(i) Itemized	95587.95
(ii) Unitemized	62076.50
(iii) Total Of Contributions From Individuals	157664.45

Once again, Carlson is simply wrong. Campaign records show that for the period from July 1-August 20, small contributors gave Congressman Walz's campaign committee $62,076.50 versus the $21,759 Davis's committee took in from simliar contributors.

That's not quite three times as much in one short period, but the Post Bulletin readers don't know that. Instead, they have been told there's no way of knowing.

Since Ms. Carlson proved herself incapable of mining this data from the FEC reports, we'll do it now for each of the reporting periods in which Davis has filed a report. We'll cut Line 11, Section a (ii) and paste the data here.

From the beginning:

July 2007 quarterly report
Davis
(ii) Unitemized          $500.00

Walz
  (ii) Unitemized  $63,457.64

October 2007 quarterly report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized $3,269.00

Walz
(ii) Unitemized  $65,063.00

2007 year end report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized     $8,982.50

Walz
(ii) Unitemized  $45,064.50

April 2008 quarterly report:
Davis
(ii) Unitemized     $3.993.00

Walz
(ii) Unitemized  $88,537.33

July 2008 quarterly report:
Davis
ii) Unitemized     $29,709.55
Walz
(ii) Unitemized   $97,617.24

Those pre-primary report figures again from the most recent reports (a shorter reporting period than the quarterly reports)? Davis had $21,759 v. $62,076.50 for Walz.

Update: Since Davis jumped in the race, total dollar amount in small unitemized small contributions for Walz? $421,814. For  Davis? $ 68,212. (Both figures are rounded off).

Walz's  huge edge among small contributors is clear. Any questions?  Walz did receive other small unitemized contributions before Davis started fundraising, but we think our point is made. There's no good journalistic reason for the Post Bulletin to neglect reporting these figures. [end update].

The story--which the Post Bulletin couldn't report--is that Walz has continued to wallop Davis in the small individual contributor category after Davis secured his party's endorsement. Another part of the story is the very small amount of given Davis received from small contributors prior to gaining the endorsement.

Given the actually data the FEC reports provide, a paragraph in Carlson's story takes on added meaning:

"If there is a big difference (in fundraising) between the candidates, that really does indicate that one candidate has a much better base in the district than another," Schier said.

The difference in small contributor giving to Walz compared to Davis' anemic base is breathtaking. But the Post Bulletin didn't tell--or didn't know how to tell--its readers that.  (And by not telling the full story,  Ms. Carlson allows Davis apologists to fall back on their line of bull about Davis's grassroots support. Nice work if you can get it).

Finally, we must take issue with the Post Bulletin's presentation of overall fundraising as well, given how it stirs together all categories, including loans.

Brian Davis's "donations" (his favored word for "contributions") do not total $838,000. On the latest FEC fundraising report from his committee, from which we presume you took the data (given that the Open Secrets summary page lists a different figure), the general term for income is "receipts."

Contributions are listed as a separate category from loans and other receipts. It doesn't serve any public purpose for the Post Bulletin to report loans as receipts. Does it?

The most recent fundraising report indicates Dr. Davis has loaned--not "donated" $248,000 to his campaign--he paid $124,000 back, but then loaned it to himself when his fundraising sputtered out in August.

Take away the $248,000 he loaned to his campaign--loans, that is, and not contributions--his total take in all types of contributions plummets to $590,190.81. 

We're also just petty enough to point out that the FEC divides total contributions into several types. One catergory is labeled "Contributions from the Candidate." In this category, Doctor Davis has done quite well, giving his campaign $63,363.76 across the cycle. That reduces giving from others to $526,827.05 from individuals, party committees and PACs.

We hope that our readers will call attention to the deep flaws in this article. The comments at the Post Bulletin online are a good place to start, but letters to the editor and emails as well might help set the record straight.

And this sort of misleading reporting is yet another reason why it's important to contribute to Tim Walz's campaign committee.  Help Congressman Walz get his message out by contributing here. And yes: volunteer to help door knock, phone banks and all the other crucial GOTV activity necessary to keep Walz working for Southern Minnesota.

KEYC-TV: Southern Minnesotans get loud about bailout plan

KEYC-TV reports in Southern Minnesotans Weigh in On  Bailout Plan (video at link)

. . .News 12's Erick Lind found out that southern Minnesotans are weighing in on their thoughts at the proposed bail out.The United States government is trying to figure out a way to help the struggles on Wall Street, but that doesn't seem to be sitting well with southern Minnesotans.

Whether it's Republicans or Democrats the message is overwhelmingly clear, that no one in this area is convinced the current proposal is the right one.Congressman Tim Walz's office has received around 750 e-mails and phone calls regarding the matter, expecting to see that number climb to 1000 by the end of today.Only about a half dozen of those are in support.

Congressman Tim Walz's District and Communication Director Meredith Salsbery says, "The vast majority are either against or very skeptical, but are saying if you have to do it to fix the economy, do it with these caveats. Make sure nobody gets rich off of this. Make sure those CEO's don't go home with our money."

It's not just the first district either.Constituents from the 2nd district have told congressman John Kline's office 'No Deal' around 93 percent of the 800 calls they've received.In district 7, Congressman Collin Peterson's office was already at 500 calls earlier this week, and the majority of those are opposed.

The offices of both Senators Coleman and Klobachar would not disclose the volume of contact they've had from constituents.

Congressman Walz is taking note of his constituents concerns and is looking for answers before acting. Salsbery adds, "He sent a letter to Secretary Paulson this week with a list of questions that he had, that constituents had. He's looking for answers before he's willing to put that kind of money into Wall Street."

By the sounds of it, that is where the rest of the area stands as well.

Walz campaign: Owatonna residents oppose Davis intent to privatize social Security

Another press release from the Walz campaign:

Owatonna Citizens Oppose Dr. Brian Davis’ Plan to Gamble Social Security on the Stock Market

In light of recent turmoil in the U.S. stock market, a group of Owatonna citizens held a press conference today to oppose 1^st District Congressional candidate Dr. Brian Davis’ plans to gamble Social Security on the stock market.

“As a retiree, I depend on Social Security to make ends meet,” said Sondra Von Arb, an Owatonna senior. “I don’t want Social Security gambled away on the stock market. Dr. Brian Davis’ plan to privatize Social Security is wrong for southern Minnesotans like me.”

Dr. Davis has routinely expressed support for some privatization of Social Security and has pledged to follow the MN Republican Party platform, which promotes privatization of Social Security for Americans of all ages.

“In this economy, we can’t afford Dr. Brian Davis’ plan to risk Social Security on the stock market,” said Lisa Heggedahl, a farmer in Hayfield. “I am paying into the system and will be paying for years to come. I want to know that when I retire, Social Security will be there for me.”

“Ordinary, middle-class Americans rely on Social Security to make ends meet,” said Richard Hackerson, a semi-retired Owatonna resident. “Dr. Davis’ willingness to gamble that away in the stock market shows that he is the wrong person for southern Minnesota . We need Tim Walz in Congress because he will oppose any attempt to privatize Social Security.”

Davis Said He Supported The Privatization Of Social Security. Davis said, “I do believe that people below a certain age should have the option to invest some of their Social Security in the private market.” [Winona Youth GOP Debate, 2/23/08, full transcription available on request]

Davis Said If You Want to Know Where He Stood on an Issue to Look at the Republican Party Platform. Davis said, “I want to reassure you that I’m a conservative platform republican I will cast those votes and I will advocate on behalf of our causes. I think our Republican Party platform in this state is great. Do you want to know where I stand; you can start with that document.” [Fillmore Co GOP Convention, full transcription available on request]

Republican Party Platform of MN (http://www.mngop.com/Roots/8a6031ab-af02-4ff7-b4375db06581aaea/Documents/2008%20RPM%20Platform.pdf)

Republican Party Platform Section 1, Letter P (Page 2): Allowing all Americans to invest some or all of their Social Security payments, continuing to fulfill our obligations to older Americans, and prohibiting Congress from using Social Security funds for any other purpose.

We would also like to draw our readers' attention to a long comment retired accountant  McPherson Hall on Minnesota Central left at our post, Does Matt Stolle of the Post Bulletin want voters in the dark about Davis's positions?:

Mr. Stolle:

Have you heard (or read) the September 24 story on KAAL ? The discussion concerned Social Security and Davis says privatizing, or allowing some of the payroll taxes to be invested, would be one way to help.
"So let's say 40% or 50% of payroll taxes could be included into a secure type of even a 403B plan, which would be bonds and securities that are very stable," says Davis.

  Yes, some citizens are concerned ... rightfully ... and they may support Congressman Walz, but KAAL asked the question.

I am concerned with your paragraph "The program's trustees have projected that Social Security will begin paying out more benefits than receipts in 2017. It will be financially exhausted in 2041."

Are you aware that the in August, the Congressional Budget Office issued an updated report on the Social Security funding requirements. The report, which forecasts out 75 years, finds that while the accumulating surpluses in the trust fund will be exhausted in 2049, ongoing revenues will still be sufficient to fund about 81% of promised benefits at the end of the 75-year period (in 2082). Further, the CBO report says, “future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement…than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation.”

Dr. Davis may be taking a preemptive strike since he knows that one way to increase funding for the reserve is to increase the taxable cap rate. Interesting that Dr. Davis, who is capped on how much he contributes to Social Security (currently set at $102,000 and in 2007, Davis was paid $411,780), is willing to allow workers to accept some risk.

Also I am confused with Davis comment "the Democrats have been taking money out of that". To my understanding Social Security reserve is still being funded ... and the Government's overall balance sheet is not in as bad a position because of the positive balance in the SS reserve. This has been the case forever ... and some of your readers will recall the Bush/Gore debate over how to whether a "lockbox" should be established so that the Government does not imply a better fiscal year statement by not recognizing the positive impact of Social Security overfunding. The overall fiscal balance sheet would look worse if the reserve for Social Security payments weren't used to offset other funding (such as Iraq). Why is Davis blaming the Democrats when President Bush and Congressional Republicans share some of the blame ?

But the good thing is that these citizens that prompted your article are addressing a concern. Let's not be so quick to minimize their concerns ... if Davis is elected, at least voters know what his plans are.

New Walz ad: "Enough is Enough"

Meanwhile, GOP challenger tells the Owatonna People's Press that Walz is to blame for the country's economic woes, while taking a page from Congresswoman's widely ridiculed remarks that expanded drilling will solve the perceived crisis on Wall Street:

. . .To boost the economy, Davis would propose expanding domestic drilling and promoting nuclear, coal and alternative forms of energy. . .

The ever-articulate Walz campaign manager Chris Schmitter dismisses his rattlings:

. . .Walz campaign manager Chris Schmitter issued a statement Thursday saying that Walz remains skeptical of the bailout and doesn’t want Wall Street investors to run away with taxpayer money.

On energy, Schmitter said Walz helped write a “bipartisan, common-sense energy plan” extending offshore drilling and investing $1 trillion to transition into new, clean fuels. He also voted this week to allow the ban of offshore drilling to expire.

“As usual, Dr. Davis is distorting Tim Walz’s record of fighting for middle-class families,” he said.

Walz is running for re-election for the First District. Although he is considered vulnerable in this election, Walz is ahead of Davis in internal polls conducted by the Davis campaign.

Any wonder why Davis's primary win isn't garnering any serious second look from the national electoral forecasters?

Walz provisions pass in Veterans' Mental Health Improvement Act

In Veterans Mental Health bill passes, the Austin Post Bulletin's Karen Colbenson reports:

A veterans health care legislative package authored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walz passed Wednesday, one month after he announced the bill at the Mower County Courthouse in Austin.

Walz lauded the final passage of the Veterans' Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008, which includes two provisions: increasing the mileage rate for veterans who travel to receive care at Veterans Administration clinics, and the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2008, also authored by Walz. . . .

The article concludes:

During his first year in Congress, Walz has pushed for additional support for veterans, including the largest funding increase for the Veterans Administration in its 77-year history.

In February, Walz announced a significant increase in mileage rates for more than 1 million veterans traveling to VA medical facilities. Through the appropriations act, the reimbursement rate increased from 11 cents per mile to 28.5 cents per mile.

Read the whole thing at the Austin edition of the Post Bulletin.

Cook Political Report: no change in Minnesota First ranking

The Cook Political Report has posted its competitive races chart. MN-01 remains "likely Democratic."

"Likely" is defined as:

Likely: These seats are not considered competitive at this point but have the potential to become engaged.

One way to keep this race from becoming "engaged" is to contribute to Tim Walz's re-election campaign before September 30. The money will help the Walz campaign get its message out via ads and through grassroots voter contact.

There's an added reason to give just now. Political handicappers will be looking at fundraising totals and cash-in-hand from the pre-primary and October quarterly reports (due October 15 for the period August 21-September 30).

In the pre-primary reports, Davis's committee reported taking in $95,397.50 in contributions, of which $2,749.50 came from the candidate himself. After the good doctor loaned his campaign $124,000, his cash in hand total was $311.084.63. He faced a primary since.

Congressman Walz's committee took in just under $250,000 in contributions from supporters. The committee's cash-in-hand was $1,263,829.22. That money lead may seem insurmountable, but a weak half-quarter (especially comparatively) will demonstrate the apathy that Minnesota Central frets about.

Another factor to consider is the district's voter volatily; see the Twin Cities Daily Liberal's post about this factor from mid-August.

Even now, NRCC head Tom Cole didn't include Brian Davis in yesterday's email about "Fresh Faces." Help keep the race off the front burner by giving to Walz now and signing up for a little volunteering.

Here's the sort of positive ad Tim Walz's campaign likes to run:

Does Matt Stolle of the Post Bulletin want voters in the dark about Davis's positions?

In Walz hits Davis on Social Security, the Post Bulletin's Matt Stolle writes today:

With Wall Street and the stock market in turmoil, almost no one these days is talking about privatizing Social Security.

Well, almost nobody. When there is a discussion, it is usually about how the other guy or gal wants to privatize the system. Such was the case when supporters of DFL Congressman Tim Walz held a press conference this week to highlight and criticize his GOP challenger, Mayo Clinic doctor Brian Davis, for supporting such a concept.

In his article about Davis's release of a poll showing the Republican trailing 50-32, Stolle reported:

Davis said his campaign sees room for growth in those numbers. That's because while Walz is a known quantity to the district, Davis says he is a candidate still introducing himself to voters and thus has the potential for improvement.

We're curious. Does Matt Stolle think it's better for voters to be ignorant of Davis's ideas about Social Security as he introduces himself? How is the reading public served by having Stolle only write about the signature issue Davis selects?

Really, Mr. Stolle, what was your point in implying that silence about a candidate's position is somehow healthy for the political process? Perhaps the Post Bulletin could publish a memo outlining which issues are on the table for reporting in the Walz-Davis contest.

After all, with Americans worried about their investments and nest eggs, it's not as if we should be talking about retirement programs now, right?

Image: Is the new Post Bulletin policy "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" about Brian Davis? Will readers be getting a list of the Republican candidate's positions that are acceptable to be brought to the voters'  attention?

Nitey-nite: a lullaby for the gold diggers of 2008

The recent economic news has made us pensive about American history, with all its panics and downturns. The politics of the bailout bring us to recall days when presidential candidates made the sort of speeches from which Hollywood would draw its inspiration:

Joan Blondell is simply fabulous, as is Etta Moten. Hat tip to TSDOLA.  Enjoy the tune and sweet dreams to everyone on a crisp prairie evening.

Winona citizens oppose Dr. Brian Davis’s Social Security gamble

Another press release from the Walz campaign:

Winona Citizens Oppose Dr. Brian Davis’ Plan to Gamble Social Security on the Stock Market

( Winona , Minn. ) – In light of recent turmoil in the U.S. stock market, a group of Winona citizens held a press conference today to oppose 1^st District Congressional candidate Dr. Brian Davis’ plans to gamble Social Security on the stock market.

“When I retire in a few years, Social Security will be my only source of income,” said Valerie Clarke, a single mother. “I don’t want Social Security gambled away on the stock market. Dr. Brian Davis’ plan to privatize Social Security is wrong for southern Minnesotans like me.”

Dr. Davis has routinely expressed support for some privatization of Social Security and has pledged to follow the MN Republican Party platform, which promotes privatization of Social Security.

“In this economy, we can’t afford Dr. Brian Davis’ plan to gamble away Social Security on the stock market,” said Lisa Maloney, a college student. “My generation is paying in to Social Security; we need to make sure it’s there for us when we retire. Dr. Davis’ plan to privatize Social Security will hurt young people like me.”

“Everyday, hardworking Americans rely on Social Security to make ends meet and build a future,” said Eric Bartleson, a retired school superintendent from southeastern Minnesota. “Dr. Davis’ willingness to gamble that away shows that he is the wrong person for southern Minnesota . We need Tim Walz in Congress because he will oppose any attempt to privatize Social Security.”

Davis Said He Supported The Privatization Of Social Security. Davis said, “I do believe that people below a certain age should have the option to invest some of their Social Security in the private market.” [Winona Youth GOP Debate, 2/23/08, full transcription available on request]

Davis Said If You Want to Know Where He Stood on an Issue to Look at the Republican Party Platform. Davis  said, “I want to reassure you that I’m a conservative platform Republican. I will cast those votes and I will advocate on behalf of our causes. I think our Republican Party platform in this state is great. Do you want to know where I stand; you can start with that document.” [Fillmore Co GOP Convention, full transcription available on request]

Republican Party Platform of MN (http://www.mngop.com/Roots/8a6031ab-af02-4ff7-b4375db06581aaea/Documents/2008%20RPM%20Platform.pdf)

Republican Party Platform Section 1, Letter P (Page 2): Allowing all Americans to invest some or all of their Social Security payments, continuing to fulfill our obligations to older Americans, and prohibiting Congress from using Social Security funds for any other purpose.

Volunteer here and contribute (before September 30 if you can) to Congressman Walz's campaign.  Contributions will help Walz continue to protect Americans' retirement security, survivor benefits and disability compensation.

Why we love Minnesota Central: Walz and fiscal responsibility

While we were digging up old posts about how the new head of the Minnesota Medical Association had been a panelist on Congressman Walz's summits in Austin and Owatonna, MacPherson Hall at Minnesota Central was working up a new post for the day: MN-01 : Walz Should Teach a Class in Fiscal Responsibility.

He begins:

Before Congress could have an opportunity to weigh in adding $700 billion to our national debt, they had a vote to add $70 billion for the next year.  So how did the self-identified fiscal conservatives - John Kline (R-MN-02) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) – vote ? They voted for it. In opposition were Tim Walz (D-MN-01) and Collin Peterson (D-MN-07). The bill passed by a large majority with only 30 Democrats standing in opposition (or in support of fiscal responsibility.) It was the easy political choice … it wasn’t fiscally prudent but being fiscally prudent won’t get you as many votes if it means that voters might be told by their opponent that the vote would be classified as a tax increase. . . .

Go over and read the rest of the retired accountant and fiscal moderate's fine analysis. Just do it.