Category: DFL Gov 2010

by Dave Mindeman

Note: Margaret Anderson Kelliher and R.T. Rybak will be joining mnpACT! on December 11th for our Governor Candidate Series. Instead of the short answer, 10 candidate forums we have seen, this is your chance for an in depth look at two of the top candidates for the DFL nomination. Details are on the side of the blog pages. Don't miss this opportunity!

It's the end of November and time for another look at the DFL Governor field. Little more movement this time....

10. Susan Gaertner (previously 10): The Ramsey County Attorney has not been able to find a breakout point for herself. The media attention has been lacking and she seems to be lagging behind Kelliher in support among women. Frankly she deserves better but it is difficult to gain any traction in a large field that shows no sign of any reduction.

9. Steve Kelley (previously 9): Kelley has a similar problem. He seems to be deep below the radar. Now, obviously, he has a loyal following from his last run, and that kind of experience can be a positive going into the caucuses. But can he beat expectations? A nice surprise in fundraising could go a long ways to reestablish his campaign -- just doesn't look like its happening.

8. John Marty (previously #6): Everybody talks about Marty's health care bill... at least when they are addressing a progressive crowd. Even Speaker Kelliher put in a good word about it, although JM had to point out that she was not on the sponsor list. Marty's ideas get usurped by the rest of the field to satisfy progressive leaning delegates, leaving John to wonder, "Where are these people when I need them?" It is hard to find a way for Marty to get a breakthrough boost.

7. Tom Rukavina (previously #8): Although "Refreshingly Honest" is a catchy campaign slogan, is what he's saying all that different from the rest of the candidates? There are some significant nuances, but Rukavina needs a bigger megaphone to get that message out. He has great passion and that is indeed a plus in a field that can lean to the boring side, but he needs to turn that passion into passionate support.

6. Tom Bakk (formerly #7): Frankly, Bakk has a pretty good working knowledge of how the state budget operates. And he knows where it needs to be fixed. He has ideas about how to get capital moving again to jump start the economy, but I haven't heard him get specific like that outside of some op-ed pieces. He could use a few condensed sound bites that would convey his broader message. That is a tough one, but that is how he could differentiate himself from the pack. Still he needs the big bucks to keep going and I don't hear much positive on that front.

5. Paul Thissen (formerly #5): Paul continues to work and work. Got a phone call from him on Sunday -- working the phones on Thanksgiving weekend. Wow. With the Nurses endorsement, he gets a lot of hard workers there as well. Thissen continues to exude an upbeat message that should keep him in the hunt. I still see him as one of the top 3 candidates to get the endorsement.

4. Matt Entenza (formerly #1): As the union endorsements started to go public, it was hard not to notice that Entenza's name was never called. Now certainly, an endorsement from a union is not a pre-requisite for becoming governor, but it makes it a lot easier on the DFL side of things. I'm also still trying to get a handle on why his wife, Lois Quam, has decide to join the campaign full time. Is it a sign that the campaign is lacking something?... or is it just a natural happenstance? In any event, the power couple seems to be doubling down on this campaign.

3. R.T. Rybak (formerly #3): Alright, Rybak is officially in the hunt and with his official entrance comes a lot of positives. Rybak is probably the best campaigner in the field, and anyone who has seen him in person is almost always impressed. I still have to be convinced that he is able to translate that into outstate support. I have also heard him say that he will abide by the endorsement. In his case, that might be a little bit premature,,, because if his finances are strong enough, he could certainly join a primary field if he doesn't get the endorsement. With a multiple candidate field, anything can happen.

2. Mark Dayton (formerly #4): Dayton's statewide name recognition is still translating into good polling. I thought that might diminish as we moved farther into this, but the numbers are still there. He should benefit from his past network and he still gets high marks in progressive and anti-war circles. It will be interesting to watch how he plays the convention. Will he go all out to compete for the endorsement or maybe pull back and save some capital for the inevitable primary campaign? Dayton has the option to play it either way.

1. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (formerly #2): With multiple union endorsements in hand, MAK is moving into a strong position for convention endorsement. Women's groups and Union support are golden and Kelliher is getting solid marks on those fronts. One more big endorsement by SEIU or Education MN and it could give her hard to beat momentum. Her biggest challenge going forward will be the legislative session. The success or failure of the 2010 version is squarely on her shoulders. Can she successfully challenge Pawlenty and push a Democratic agenda, via compromise or override? Or will she end up on the short end of more vetos? Her strength as a governor candidate is riding on the outcome.

OK -- 2 months to go to caucuses. Still no field reduction on the horizon. Everybody is in it to win it.

This is a high stakes race. Everybody needs to be informed, be involved, and make this the year of a Democratic Governor in Minnesota.

Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

MPR has an interesting take on the GOP governor candidates budget proposals. And as usual, its long on promises and short on specifics.

Let's take a look at each of the 4 major candidates left:

Tom Emmer: Ever the budget cutting optimist, Emmer begins:

"The sky's the limit," said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano. "We have got a government that is duplicating its efforts all over place."

Duplication, yes, but $6 billion in deficits worth?

He has suggested slashing public relations positions in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, merging the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services, and sitting down with public employees to determine which services are being done twice.

I'm sure MPCA has millions of dollars in public relations expenses. Come on, Emmer. And really, merging Health with Human Services? You may be able to get a few employees to add to their workload, eliminating a few positions, but big cuts? Not a chance.

And then he uses Colorado as his example? They got saddled with a Pawlenty buget amendment clone and have been suffering ever since. The voters voted themselves a reprieve from that disaster.

Pat Anderson: Anderson actually comes up with a few practical ideas. Expanding the sales tax to clothing and services has some revenue raising potential, although it should be modified somewhat to make allowances for the poor and lower middle class.

She would also provide health care vouchers for low income Minnesotans to buy health insurance in the private market rather than get their insurance through a subsidized system.

I'm not sure what that would save. Minnesota farms out a lot of its health care by directly paying premiums to Medica and Healthpartners already.....and even with subsidies, the poor will have trouble finding insurance in the private market. A lot of the people on state programs are already uninsurable and have pre-existing conditions.

But she has another decent idea:

She wants to eliminate the corporate income tax, but end all business tax breaks like the Research & Development credit and Gov. Tim Pawlenty's JOBZ initiative.

Huh....guess she's not expecting a Pawlenty endorsement.

Marty Seifert: Marty goes back to tried and true Marty....

Seifert said he would veto bills that contain what he calls waste. He would also eliminate departments and create a two year limit on new programs to ensure the legislation is meeting expectations. Seifert also said he would cut social service programs like welfare and subsidized health insurance.

You know, just once, somebody needs to define waste. If there is so much of it, why didn't Marty propose its elimination over the course of the last few disastrous budget cycles?

And a moratorium on new programs is fine, but how does that solve our problem NOW? And when you are going to eliminate departments, let's just say what they are, OK?

But Marty continues his war on the poor. Welfare is always the Seifert solution....even though it's actual impact is less than 4% of the entire Minnesota budget. You can eliminate all of it and we would still be in deficit.

David Hann: Hann gives us even less when it comes to specifics:

"If you look at where we spend the most money--which is the education areas and health and human services--that's where the money is," he said. "That's where we have to get structural reform."

No kidding, Sen. Hann? That's where the money is and that is where budget cuts deliver the most pain. I think Pawlenty has already beaten you to the punch on that one. If $1.6 billion form education and eliminating GAMC isn't enough, then Sen. Hann had better continue to be as vague as possible.

It gets pretty ridiculous when Gov. Pawlenty is the one who makes the most sense on the subject....

"I would hope that as the campaign matures and the agendas and the platforms of the candidates become more specific, that they not just say they can do more but show us specifically what they would do," Pawlenty said.

Oddly enough, I think that pretty much sums it all up.

Category: Transportation

by Dave Mindeman

On November 29th the "Letter of the Day" in the Star Tribune was a critique of the NorthStar Line as a "waste" of taxpayer money.

I beg to differ.

His letter offered this argument:

The Northstar Line cost the taxpayers $365 million. According to the Northstar website, anticipated ridership is expected to be just 3,400 riders a day, with a limited service of just five trips each way. If Northstar was a real business and had to pay back the millions borrowed to develop the line at a simple interest rate of 5 percent over 30 years, the ticket cost per passenger, excluding operating expenses, would be around $53 per round trip. With the average round-trip ticket costing $10, each commuter is being subsidized $43 per day. Who can we blame for such an incredible waste of taxpayer money?

Now first of all, the type of transit systems that are being proposed are not businesses. The same way roads are not. They are an updated measure of transportation that is part of government services. Government has furnished the building and maintenance of road systems for some time as a means of coordinating road building and interstate commerce.

No one has suggested that roads are a waste of taxpayer money. Quite the contrary, they are a necessity for businesses and individuals to participate in the economy. But why is the cost of roads acceptable, while rail costs are not?

The letter writer seems to think that NorthStar should operate as a profitable enterprise. Does he also think that roads and bridges should do the same?

He talks about the $365 million dollar cost of NorthStar as some outrageous sum that we can see no benefit from. But again, that is not true.

Light rail passengers take cars off the road. (Easing congestion on the highways). Rail offers reliable commutes for workers (as opposed to insufferable traffic jams). Rail is safer than vehicle traffic. And although most of rail costs are subsidized by the government, passengers do pay a fee to ride. How many cars are paying direct fees (outside of the few toll lanes) to use the roads?

And how about those costs? If you look at the MnDOT website you can see the proposed construction projects for 2009 (remember this is JUST 2009). These projects are just for maintenance, resurfacing, replacing overpasses, restructuring ramps, adding lanes, etc. The cost of this 2009 constructin season is over $415 million. In one year roads surpass the total construction cost of the NorthStar. And I am not including a $260 million revamp of the Crosstown to accomodate BRT -- since that is being done for transit and not roads.

Those projects are eating up the revenue that we, as taxpayers, are paying in gas taxes and license fees. If light rail can take cars off the road and lessen the road wear and ease congestion, that will actually lead to a savings to the taxpayer.

And, quite frankly, the full benefits of NorthStar will never be realized until we have a more complete light rail system for the entire metro. The benefits to other metro areas that have complete systems is definitely evident. Washington, DC would have to shut down without its metro rail system.

So, I would suggest the letter writer has not fully looked at all the facts when it comes to light rail.

If he did he would join the "All Aboard" call.