Category: Society

by Dave Mindeman

Halftime in America.

See that ad during the Super Bowl? Were you offended? Karl Rove was. Somehow the idea that America has picked itself off the mat and is ready to take on all comers again...is now against some kind of Republican principle?

Clint Eastwood is probably dumbfounded. A devoted Republican fundraiser, Eastwood must be stunned that Republicans would criticize him for a "pro-Obama" message.

Let's get this straight without any spin.

This was a pro-American message. We have been through an economic fight and we have taken it on the chin. We have gotten pummelled and beaten, but we are coming back.

And the auto industry may have gotten some government help, but they are back as well. And don't give me any song and dance that the oil industry or the agricultural industry or the defense industry haven't gotten more than their share of government help either.

This idea of "government motors" is ludicrous on its face. And one only has to look at the banking industry to see which pot is calling the kettle black.

I thought is was an uplifting message for everyone to hear-- Republican and Democrat and Independent alike.

We are coming back and if the Republican Party is feeling threatened by that, then cower in your boots, because we aren't going backward anymore.

Category: DFL 2012

by Dave Mindeman

Those of you who read this blog know I'm a transparency guy. I'm not fond of money in politics and I'm not a big fan of lobbying as a profession. I want money to be public and those who give it to be public as well.

Don't get me wrong, lobbying on its face is not wrong. A lot of legislators depend on lobbyists to bring them up to speed on the issues of the day. But too often, they establish relationships that put legislators into awkward positions. Money is often involved. Either by direct contribution or contributions to opponents or threats of money being spent by independent expenditure.

As I said, I am not a big fan.

As I looked at the financial reports for the candidates in the South Metro, I found some problems in that regard.

In District 38, Senate candidate and Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire has a solid report. Over $15,600 in contributions and cash on hand of over $12,600. Pretty good for a challenger at this stage.

But his contributions contain $1,760 in lobbyist contributions. That seems like a lot for an early report. If you compare that to the District 38 campaigns of Jim Carlson ($180), Sandy Masion (38A) ($25.00), and Laurie Halvorson (38B) ($415), the total amounts in lobbyist money for Maguire pales in comparison.

Since no names are disclosed, it must mean that individual lobbyist contributions must not have exceeded the $100 limit. Which means that the Maguire campaign had at least 18 different lobbyists contribute to the campaign. An unusual circumstance for a first time legislative candidate. In an e-mail exchange with Mike Maguire, he states that they are just personal friends from previous campaigns and his work on the Freedom to Breathe campaign which he was heavily involved with. Nothing more than that.

Point taken. Still, the number involved hackles my transparency button.

Couple that with the fundraiser that Mike Maguire had late last year which lists 5 former or current lobbyists as hosts (Mike Erlandson, Mike Wilhelmi, Kathi Micheletti, Jonathan Bohn, and Frank Ongaro).

Frank Ongaro is particularly interesting as he represents mining interests for Mining Minnesota. He has been especially involved in the PolyMet lobbying operation.

OK, is there anything wrong with any of that? Absolutely not. Should there be a concern? Well, I think so.

It's transparency. If he knows so many of the lobbyists and receives money from them, then I would assume that he is being lobbied on these issues.

I would like to know exactly where Mike Maguire stands on the PolyMet issue. I would like to know who these lobbyists represent.

He is certainly under no obligation to make that information public. Nothing illegal about non-disclosure.

Yet, to me, transparency begs the question.

Category: Minnesota Politics

by Dave Mindeman

The Almanac couch was doing a candidate comparison for GOP voters by bringing in representatives from the 4 candidate campaigns. Kurt Bills, the state representative from District 37B (Apple Valley, Rosemount) was the chosen one for the Ron Paul campaign. He gets support from the Liberty Caucus, so it is not surprising. But, while on the couch, Kurt Bills said this....

"I have to look into the faces of children every day--teach them -- you know, seniors, 17 and 18 year olds...what these deficits mean...what this printing of money means. Ron Paul can bring that to people."

Something about that disturbs me. Kurt Bills is a public school teacher. He teaches economics at Rosemount High School. Exactly what is he "teaching" his students about "printing of money"? What kind of economics is he teaching? Is he promoting "end the Fed"?

We have had deficits for as long as I can remember (with a brief departure during Clinton's second term), but I have a tough time figuring out exactly what it all means. Dick Cheney said they don't matter. Ron Paul thinks it is armegeddon.

During recessions, we have always "printed money"....sometimes it can cause inflation. Sometimes it expands the economy. It has been a delicate balance to use it, but it is still considered a viable tool to help turn a recession around.

What it all means is not an economic absolute...so I would hope that Kurt Bills is not preaching his theory of what it all means to his students; but rather using text books that consider all the possibilities.

If Kurt Bills uses Ron Paul as his economic teaching model, we have a problem.