Category: Education

by Dave Mindeman

On the subject of alternative licensing, I want to relate a personal experience.

Back in the "old days" when I was in college, I had to take a "Business Law" course as a basic prerequisite. The quarter I was taking it, the university was trying an experiment. They brought in a local, prominent attorney to teach the class instead of the regular professor that normally taught it. I think the usual teacher was on a sabbatical and they must have gotten some special permission to do it this way.

This guy was a great attorney. Well respected in the community and extremely knowledgable in the subject. He knew everything about Business Law.....everything.... but how to teach it.

He came into class that first day; gave us a quick bio on himself and then opened up the textbook and simply began reading it out loud. Chapter 1....page 1.... Civil Liability.....blah, blah, blah.

He proceeded to do this at every session. No anecdotes. No further explanation. No examples. Just Chapter 2 - page 42, etc.

Soon, the students began to not show up. Most of them figured that they could read the textbook on their own. A few just took the back seats and slept off the party they had the night before. Others would do work for other classes.

I got an A in the class because I learned early on that the tests he would give would simply be sentences from the textbook with a word left blank. That was your answer.

Fortunately for me, Business Law is not something I deal with on a regular basis. It was just a background course for me. But other students needed to understand Business Law to get a framework for their field of study.

I didn't learn anything in that class. I could tell you basic rote concepts, but as to how they related to each other -- hey, no clue.

I think about that class everytime I hear this discussion about alternative licensing. And now some Minnesota business groups are targeting DFL legislators for not supporting this bogus solution to education.

Being able to teach is not just something you pick up with life experience. Oh, it certainly helps, but it does not make you a teacher. The ability to reach a kid and turn a light on is something that requires an immersion in how to educate. Not just the subject matter itself but how to make it relate in a fashion that makes it useful and relevant.

I'm not sure why this alternative licensing is so important. Obviously it is viewed as some kind of method of saving money or providing extra services. But looking for excuses to make up for our horrible methods of meeting the monetary education committment that we are Constitutionally directed to do is no reason to make teachers and the teacher's union a scapegoat.

We don't have a teacher shortage -- we have an education revenue shortage. Let's quit pretending it is anything other than that. We need to put real teachers in the classroom with proper resources and a manageable class size ....then we will have our solution.

Category: DFL Gov 2010

by Dave Mindeman

So we have a primary coming up in about 6 weeks. So let's talk a bit about the DFL side of the ledger. All signs point to an interesting race with 3 different sets of strategy....and a lot of it is dictated by the new August primary date.

September primaries were held at a time when voters would generally start to pay attention. The State Fair just ended and the kids were back at school. The cabins were close to be closed up for the year and summer vacations were completed.

All bets are off with August.

As I watch things unfold, here is what I perceive as the strategies of each of the three campaigns.....

Mark Dayton

Dayton is really a very methodical politician. He has had a long term plan to be Governor of Minnesota and he has been sticking to it. He avoided a crowded scrum for the endorsement by saying very early on that he would not seek it. And he realized early on that to be the candidate you have to win the primary first. That seems like an obvious statement but sometimes politicians can't establish a focus on primary or general when both are going to be heavily contested. Mark clearly is focused for the time being on winning a primary.

That strategy deals with a low turnout primary by focusing on key constituency groups and voters that can be counted on to turn out. Dayton tacked left very early with his Tax the Rich mantra. He has courted the progressive core of the party from the beginning. He also has been seeking support from the anti-war left and most importantly from Minnesota's reliable voting seniors. And in addition, he chose an Iron Range legislator (Yvonne Prettner-Solon) as his Lt. Governor candidate. A very traditional strategic use of the selection.

This is a good primary strategy but could complicate his general election messaging. It will be difficult to move to a more centrist policy message after a tough primary battle... especially when Tom Horner has planted his flag squarely in the middle. If Dayton only had to deal with Tom Emmer, the strategy would be much simpler.

Dayton is experienced enough to stick to the plan. Each step needs to be accomplished before you can move to the next.

Matt Entenza

Entenza is set on a much broader strategy. His campaign incorporates many bits and pieces that can attract a wide range of potential voters. He consistently emphasizes his green energy and green jobs policy. He chose as his running mate a popular and well known African-American celebrity. And he emphasizes his early outstate life and roots.

He has used a saturation type media campaign involving heavy TV and radio along with widespread mailings. Normally, this would be considered a very bad waste of limited resources. But, surprise, resources are't limited. Entenza is willing to invest heavily in every vote he can muster. He hopes to win by broadening his campaign statewide. He has resources that can reach the far flung areas and seek out votes everywhere in the state.

It is a very non-traditional type primary campaign, but when dealing with several unknowns, this will be a test for this type of strategy. Can it work in a mid-summer primary?

Margaret Anderson Kelliher

Kelliher is hoping that traditional DFL groups will turn out heavy for their endorsed candidate. And she hopes to do so without heavy monetary investments.

She is strategically backed by Labor groups and they will be tested as to how well they can turn out their vote for an August date. She has support of women's groups and the hope is that her gender can be a factor for pulling in undecided votes among women.

She has been looking ahead as well. She has already tried to position herself to the center moving into the general election. The selection of John Gunyou as her Lt. Governor conveys a seriousness about tackling budget issues. Although Minnesota Health Plan advocates assure me that her position on single payer is still solid, some of her language might be trying to negate any GOP attacks that may come on the topic. She qualifies her stance on tax issues....and defends her compromises with Pawlenty to get the budget passed on time.

That is probably a wise strategy if you are confident about winning the primary, but there is little evidence to point to Kelliher as a front runner.

Her limited resources may get overwhelmed by the larger cash boxes of her opponents. She needs the DFL organization to work.

*******************************************

Three different strategies. Three workable strategies. And three strategies that could win.

Although Dayton has lead in most polls and is the probable front runner at the moment, this is really anybody's ball game. We do not know who the August voter is yet; and we do not know what will motivate them to come to the polls.

Each of the 3 plans has merits and each depends on an assumption that is slightly different from the others.

We are in unknown territory and the end game is still in doubt.

Category: Vikings Stadium

by Dave Mindeman

I went to the Twins game tonight. As usual, when I go, they lose. Liriano continues the starting pitcher slump by giving up 4 runs in the first inning. The night wasn't a total loss though -- I got to see one of the rarest of baseball feats - a Jim Thome triple. It took a one in a million carom off the scoreboard to do it, but it happened. One thing I should point out -- Thome's speed in legging out a triple is exactly the same as his home run trot. Worth noting.

But as I sat there in Target Field on a picture perfect outdoor evening, my thoughts turned back to the debate that surrounded the discussion of how to pay for this field. And, by extrapolation, the debate that will surround the Vikings Stadium that is sure to heat up next year.

A good portion of public money built Target Field. Most of it being ponied up by the citizens of Hennepin County. And I suspect, that at least a good portion of the Vikings Stadium will be paid that way as well.

I think back to the polls that were taken prior to the Twins stadium legislative debate. The people said they were against public money for the Twins; by huge margins.

But it happened anyway.

And when the stadium was completed, talk of public money disappeared. The only adjectives used for the new stadium are glowing ones like "beautiful", "picturescque", or "in the old traditional style". Everybody flocks to the stadium for games and tickets are a hot commodity.

So what happened?

Well, first of all, my personal feelings about using public money to finance ballparks for billionaire owners and millionaire players still stands solidly against. It's not that I didn't want the stadium to be built; I just wanted it built by the people who stand to profit from it. The owners and business partners. The same holds true for the Vikings, at least to me.

But for the average person, I think the idea of public money financing is something to oppose as an abstract idea more than a real policy issue. The average person will be against it until its done. Then they don't care.

If we would be able to say to everyone, We can tear down Target Field and give everybody in Hennepin County back the dollars they put into building it -- they would say NO WAY. First, they love the field. Secondly, they would be surprised how little money they would actually get back when it is spread out over the population of the entire county.

Which brings me to my main point. I don't oppose the Twins Stadium financing because I am opposed to some "high" price tag. My objection is to utilize public money for a purpose that is not and should not be such a high priority.

The tax increases we could incur that would solve our budget issues, are not the huge cost prohibitive numbers that everyone speaks of in the aggregate. If we set up a fair tax system where we first get the wealthy Minnesotans to pay a more fair percentage and then spread penny or nickel increases around through other taxation means or add gambling revenue, we can fix our budget problems with about the same effects on the pocketbook as we have with Target Field in regards to one county.

As another example, we could include the nickel gas tax increase we had a few years ago.

Since gas prices have fluctuated to a far greater degree than any effects from a nickel gas tax, we really have not felt any negative effects. Think about it. When the tax was instituted with all the naysayers weighing in, gas was $4.00 a gallon. Now, with the tax increase fully implemented and regular economic forces involved, gas is around $2.70 a gallon.

The notions that Republicans want you to focus on are the tax increases that use the aggregate numbers. The total dollars we all contribute as a group. When, in reality, each individual portion is a very small dollar figure. A 1/2 cent sales tax can bring in millions of dollars in the aggregate. But each family portion may actually be less than a couple hundred dollars a year....maybe even less than $100.

I don't mean to minimize any impact, but it is certainly not going to be as devastating as the negative debaters try to make it sound. If a few hundred dollars would end the constant red ink and endless political bickering, don't you think it would be worth it?

Target Field and a Vikings Stadium are probably affordable to the citizens of the state. Target Field is already a fixture. But that is certainly NOT the priorities we should be dealing with. Education, health care, and transportation are far more important and need their own revenue streams.

If we can build a stadium with public money, then we can certainly balance the budget. I guess the problem is that Education doesn't hit .340 and know the strike zone.