Check out my letter to the editor in the Star Tribune this morning.
In Minnesota, an unlevel playing field favors major parties
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Friday, March 28, 2014
Minnesota DFL Legislative "Survey"
Back in 2006 I posted a tirade about the Republican Senate Leadership Survey. The questions were more loaded than Toronto's Mayor. Not only were the questions poorly written, but they were merely policy statements with question marks at the end. I've seen several "surveys" since then, but not a single one was as bad as the 2006 survey . . . until today.
I just received a 2014 Legislative Survey from my State Representative JoAnn Ward. While I respect Representative Ward, this survey is nothing more than a Democratic Party excercise in smug self promotion.
Survey question 1, "In 2013, Minnesota employers added over 45,000 jobs and our state's unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent. Do you think Minnesota's economy is heading in the right direction?" Yes
Based on evidence beyond the spoon fed Democratic statistics, I checked Yes. Like the statistics they presented, any proclamation that survey respondents credit the Democrats with this economic improvement would be incomplete and inaccurate.
Survey question 2. "Thanks to an honestly balanced state budget and a productive year from businesses and workers, Minnesota generated a $1.23 billion surplus. What are your top priorities for putting those funds to use?
1 Increase Minnesota's budget reserves
3 Conform state tax code to federal tax code
5 Make additional investments in education
4 Provide tax incentives for small businesses
2 Improve Minnesota's transportation system and expand access to mass transit"
I found this question so out of touch with reality that I edited it for accuracy. Here is what the question looks like now: Thanks to anhonestly balanced state budget and a productive year from businesses and workers, Minnesota generated a forecasted $1.23 billion surplus. What are your top priorities for putting those funds to use? As you know, the state budget was neither honest nor balanced. The surplus that both parties like to take credit for IS NOT a surplus. It is a forecasted surplus. It will not be a surplus until the end of the budget biennium, if it survives that long.
As for my rankings:
1 Increase Minnesota's budget reserves: While some believe our current budget reserves are adequate, the fact is that the current reserves dictated by statute have not been enough to cover a rainy day, let alone the torrential downpour of budget problems caused by partisan paralysis for more than a decade. For that reason, I believe that we need to strengthen our state's budget reserves.
2 Improve Minnesota's transportation system and expand access to mass transit: I do support improving Minnesota's transportation system and I support expanding mass transit. While I stand with Representative Ward in support of the Gateway Corridor, I do not support the question's assumption that if you don't support transit, then you don't support improving transportation. I have met many Minnesotan's who believe that we need to improve Minnesota's transportation system by expanding our existing highway system. While I disagree with them, for those Minnesotan's this question is a huge disservice. For the Democratic Party, this is just another policy statement with a question mark at the end of it.
3 Conform state tax code to federal tax code: My wife does our taxes and she insisted that this be ranked high.
4 Provide tax incentives for small businesses: I support government aid to small businesses. I support low interest loans and even grants in the correct situations. I will not support more tax loopholes or tax breaks for businesses until our business tax code is simplified and the loopholes are patched. Businesses are taxed at such a high rate in Minnesota because so much of the assessed tax passes through the loopholes and back into the businesses coffers. Business taxes need to be high enough to cover the cost of services, low enough to encourage business growth and fair for every business owner regardless of the size.
5 Make additional investments in education: As number 3 exposed, my wife and I completed this survey together. My wife is a life long Democrat. My wife and I unanimously agreed to put education at number 5. We aren't anti-education. We are pro-results. We want to see what the schools do with the additional hundreds of millions of dollars the Democrats have thrown at school districts before we advocate for another massive spending increase. If Minnesota's education system shows a positive return for the taxpayer's investment, we will both advocate for additional funding. If the school districts fail to spend the public's money in a fair and responsible manner, we will not support throwing more good money after bad results. We all know that we need more than money to fix education. We need to work on the rest of the solution now.
Survey question 3. "State lawmakers made historic investments in education last year, including all-day kindergarten, preschool scholarships, and a tuition freeze for college students. In addition, the "school shift" was repaid in full (LATE!). What is your top priority for education going forward?
1 Expand access to early childhood education programs
X Reduce class sizes in K-12 schools
X Reduce tuition for college students
X Strengthen anti-bullying policies and ensure safe school climate for all students and staff
Early childhood education has proven results for the students and their communities. We fully support early childhood education.
Reducing class sizes is a battle cry that rings hollow now. For decades, reduced class sizes, has been the promise of most school funding referendums, bonds and budget decisions. Decades later, it seems our investments have been for nothing. As class sizes shrank in the past, many parents were told that there were not enough students to keep that school open. Schools closed and class sizes rose. The message, like your shampoo, seems to be to work the taxpayers into a lather, rinse the legislators of any responsibility and then repeat.
Reducing tuition for college students sounds good, but there is more to this question than just a simple tuition reduction. I have entertained supporting public funding for post secondary education. On the other hand, I do not support state funding of post-secondary sports. We need to examine the entire funding picture before we spend state money to augment the income of universities or their millionaire coaches.
Bullying is a terrible thing for any kid to have to live through. I know. I did. Because I did, I know that bullies respond better to the expectations of teachers, principals, peers and staff than they will to a statute passed by some legislators in Saint Paul. Handling bullying should be a priority for every member of the school community. The behavior of young kids is rarely legislated with success.
Survey question 4. _________________________________________________________________
There was no question 4. The legislature paid to ask me to support their policy position on 3 questions, and only one real issue, education. Yep, that sounds like par for the Democratic course.
Now, these three questions were not enough to surpass the Republican survey from 8 years earlier. What really made this survey stand out was the absolute idiocy of it's construction. The 3 questions took a mere 17% of the 2 sided page. A full 50% of the "survey" was dedicated to promoting the Representative and legislative accomplishments during the last session (property tax refund). The rest of the page was for mailing to the voter and returning to the legislator. Here is where the next audacity comes in.
What is more, the text was laid out so that when the page is folded for return to the legislator's office, your answers are showing on the exposed fold of the page. You take only 17% of the page for the survey, and you can't format the page to protect the privacy of my answers? Well not MY answers, I posted mine in a blog. But many people are going to think twice, or thrice, before returning the survey with their answers showing on one fold and their return address on the other.
Please help end smug political self promotion by electing strong third party candidates who are more interested in finding out what you think and less likely to dictate what you should think in the form of a survey.
I just received a 2014 Legislative Survey from my State Representative JoAnn Ward. While I respect Representative Ward, this survey is nothing more than a Democratic Party excercise in smug self promotion.
Survey question 1, "In 2013, Minnesota employers added over 45,000 jobs and our state's unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent. Do you think Minnesota's economy is heading in the right direction?" Yes
Based on evidence beyond the spoon fed Democratic statistics, I checked Yes. Like the statistics they presented, any proclamation that survey respondents credit the Democrats with this economic improvement would be incomplete and inaccurate.
Survey question 2. "Thanks to an honestly balanced state budget and a productive year from businesses and workers, Minnesota generated a $1.23 billion surplus. What are your top priorities for putting those funds to use?
1 Increase Minnesota's budget reserves
3 Conform state tax code to federal tax code
5 Make additional investments in education
4 Provide tax incentives for small businesses
2 Improve Minnesota's transportation system and expand access to mass transit"
I found this question so out of touch with reality that I edited it for accuracy. Here is what the question looks like now: Thanks to an
As for my rankings:
1 Increase Minnesota's budget reserves: While some believe our current budget reserves are adequate, the fact is that the current reserves dictated by statute have not been enough to cover a rainy day, let alone the torrential downpour of budget problems caused by partisan paralysis for more than a decade. For that reason, I believe that we need to strengthen our state's budget reserves.
2 Improve Minnesota's transportation system and expand access to mass transit: I do support improving Minnesota's transportation system and I support expanding mass transit. While I stand with Representative Ward in support of the Gateway Corridor, I do not support the question's assumption that if you don't support transit, then you don't support improving transportation. I have met many Minnesotan's who believe that we need to improve Minnesota's transportation system by expanding our existing highway system. While I disagree with them, for those Minnesotan's this question is a huge disservice. For the Democratic Party, this is just another policy statement with a question mark at the end of it.
3 Conform state tax code to federal tax code: My wife does our taxes and she insisted that this be ranked high.
4 Provide tax incentives for small businesses: I support government aid to small businesses. I support low interest loans and even grants in the correct situations. I will not support more tax loopholes or tax breaks for businesses until our business tax code is simplified and the loopholes are patched. Businesses are taxed at such a high rate in Minnesota because so much of the assessed tax passes through the loopholes and back into the businesses coffers. Business taxes need to be high enough to cover the cost of services, low enough to encourage business growth and fair for every business owner regardless of the size.
5 Make additional investments in education: As number 3 exposed, my wife and I completed this survey together. My wife is a life long Democrat. My wife and I unanimously agreed to put education at number 5. We aren't anti-education. We are pro-results. We want to see what the schools do with the additional hundreds of millions of dollars the Democrats have thrown at school districts before we advocate for another massive spending increase. If Minnesota's education system shows a positive return for the taxpayer's investment, we will both advocate for additional funding. If the school districts fail to spend the public's money in a fair and responsible manner, we will not support throwing more good money after bad results. We all know that we need more than money to fix education. We need to work on the rest of the solution now.
Survey question 3. "State lawmakers made historic investments in education last year, including all-day kindergarten, preschool scholarships, and a tuition freeze for college students. In addition, the "school shift" was repaid in full (LATE!). What is your top priority for education going forward?
1 Expand access to early childhood education programs
X Reduce class sizes in K-12 schools
X Reduce tuition for college students
X Strengthen anti-bullying policies and ensure safe school climate for all students and staff
Early childhood education has proven results for the students and their communities. We fully support early childhood education.
Reducing class sizes is a battle cry that rings hollow now. For decades, reduced class sizes, has been the promise of most school funding referendums, bonds and budget decisions. Decades later, it seems our investments have been for nothing. As class sizes shrank in the past, many parents were told that there were not enough students to keep that school open. Schools closed and class sizes rose. The message, like your shampoo, seems to be to work the taxpayers into a lather, rinse the legislators of any responsibility and then repeat.
Reducing tuition for college students sounds good, but there is more to this question than just a simple tuition reduction. I have entertained supporting public funding for post secondary education. On the other hand, I do not support state funding of post-secondary sports. We need to examine the entire funding picture before we spend state money to augment the income of universities or their millionaire coaches.
Bullying is a terrible thing for any kid to have to live through. I know. I did. Because I did, I know that bullies respond better to the expectations of teachers, principals, peers and staff than they will to a statute passed by some legislators in Saint Paul. Handling bullying should be a priority for every member of the school community. The behavior of young kids is rarely legislated with success.
Survey question 4. _________________________________________________________________
There was no question 4. The legislature paid to ask me to support their policy position on 3 questions, and only one real issue, education. Yep, that sounds like par for the Democratic course.
Now, these three questions were not enough to surpass the Republican survey from 8 years earlier. What really made this survey stand out was the absolute idiocy of it's construction. The 3 questions took a mere 17% of the 2 sided page. A full 50% of the "survey" was dedicated to promoting the Representative and legislative accomplishments during the last session (property tax refund). The rest of the page was for mailing to the voter and returning to the legislator. Here is where the next audacity comes in.
What is more, the text was laid out so that when the page is folded for return to the legislator's office, your answers are showing on the exposed fold of the page. You take only 17% of the page for the survey, and you can't format the page to protect the privacy of my answers? Well not MY answers, I posted mine in a blog. But many people are going to think twice, or thrice, before returning the survey with their answers showing on one fold and their return address on the other.
Please help end smug political self promotion by electing strong third party candidates who are more interested in finding out what you think and less likely to dictate what you should think in the form of a survey.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
RCV is Dangerous for the IP and We Still Support It
NOTE: This was originally posted on the Independence Party of Minnesota website in May of 2012.
Ranked Choice Voting and the Independence Party of Minnesota
MYTH: Ranked choice voting is an easy shortcut to successful elections for the Independence Party and its candidates.
So many people I speak with assume that our support for RCV is because of the lift it would give us in the voting booth. The fact is that the very benefit of RCV that most people believe would help us is a real and dangerous challenge to the IP. Let me explain. It is absolutely true that RCV will make it easier for the public to vote for the best candidate. That helps the IP. At the same time, RCV allows practical progressives and reasonable Republicans to run practical and reasonable campaigns without having to seek shelter in the Independence Party. Under RCV, you can have libertarians, tea-partiers, evangelicals and moderates on the same ballot, and all of them with the letter R next to their name. Heck, RCV even opens up the opportunity for fiscally responsible Democrats to get onto the ballot.
FACT: With RCV, Minnesota’s moderate mainstream voter may find reasonable representation in any of the three major parties.
So, if RCV is so dangerous for the Independence Party, why are we so outspoken in our support for it? Because it is the right thing for Minnesota. While our short term goal is to get Independence Party candidates elected to the State Legislature, the Party’s long term goal has always been to provide ALL Minnesotans a voice in state government. Until RCV is incorporated into state elections, the IP will continue to fight for representation for the majority of Minnesotans whose voices are ignored by the other two major parties. And when RCV is the voting method for all state races, the Independence Party will remain the centrist voice in Minnesota politics.
Sometimes doing what is right requires us to do something dangerous.
Mark Jenkins
Chair
Independence Party of Minnesota
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
It is Time to Reboot Our Government
What do you do when your computer freezes up and stops working for you? You reboot it, right?
It is time to reboot our government.
So how do you reboot government? You do it with the same three steps you use to reboot your computer, Ctrl-Alt-Del.
Ctrl: Control political campaign spending. Pass legislation that will make public office a noble, and attainable, goal for all citizens instead of a repulsive partisan media storm that only serves to elevate extremists and embitter citizens to the whole political process.
Alt: Create the political Alternative you wish to see. Too few individuals control who runs for office, who gets elected, and what issues are brought before the American public. YOU can change that. We need every mainstream Minnesotan to flood the political caucuses in February. We need a flood of mainstream candidates to step forward and take back our government for all Minnesotans, not just the loudmouthed extremists to our right and left. And lastly, we need a flood of effort and money to be targeted at the candidates that are brave enough to stand against partisan paralysis and stand up for all Minnesotans of all social, economic and political backgrounds.
Del: Delete your fear that change is not possible. Change is possible, if, and only if, YOU take action. Delete your fear that your one voice can't change opinions or outcomes. You will be surprised how few voices control politics in Minnesota already. Delete your fear that new political vision won't work. You have seen what is, or isn't, done under the old standard for many, many years. Lastly, delete your belief that our political problems will eventually get better, somehow. Until YOU take action to create the political system you want, you have to accept responsibility for the system you have. Delete your doubt in the impact that YOU will have when you fight for a better state and country.
It is time to Ctrl-Alt-Del our government.
Join me and the Independence Party of Minnesota in the fight to reboot government and get our state working for all Minnesotans again.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Why I am supporting Slawik, Juenemann and Abrams for Maplewood
Since 2009, I have attended literally hundreds of Maplewood city
meetings and events. I have done so as a citizen, local business owner
and a representative of Maplewood residents and businesses on several city and
regional advisory groups. Five years of city engagement and plenty of
work in state politics have proven what I suspected. If you want to
understand how our state government works, you need to study it where the
rubber meets the road; at the city and county levels.
I support Nora Slawik for Mayor of Maplewood. I don’t support her because we are from the
same political party, we are not. I don’t
support her because we agree on all of the issues, we do not. I support Nora Slawik because despite our differences,
she is responsive, respectful and honestly listens to citizens who have a
different perspective on an issue. Disrespectful
disagreement has been a constant in Maplewood’s City Council chambers for too
many years. First it was between council
members, then it was between council members and visitors. I support Nora Slawik because I believe she
will be a respectful advocate for the citizens, businesses and visitors in
Maplewood.
My support for Kathleen Juenemann began at some of my
earliest city council meetings. She is the true independent on the
council. Too many elected officials think their vote on an issue is the
only thing that is important. Kathleen Juenemann
is one of the few city council members I have observed in the east metro that states
her position and then actually tries to sway her fellow council members before
the vote. Her advocacy and independence are
backed by a long history on the council and even longer history of support for
Maplewood.
My second choice for city council is Marylee Abrams. The reason I have chosen to support Marylee
Abrams is because of her interview with the Saint Paul Area Chamber of
Commerce. I was invited as a Maplewood business owner to sit in on the
Chamber's candidate interviews and share my insight with the panel.
Marylee did a good job addressing Maplewood's business opportunities and
sharing her enthusiasm for a revived council focus on Maplewood
businesses. I believe that Rebecca Cave deserves consideration as well,
unfortunately, she chose not to attend the Chamber screening process. With the Chamber as a powerful and willing
partner in supporting Maplewood businesses, Rebecca’s absence and Marylee’s responses
were deciding factors in my support for Marylee Abrams.
In the end, it came as no surprise that the Chamber's endorsements mirror my own. Please join me and the Saint Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce in supporting Nora Slawik for Mayor, Kathleen Juenemann for
City Council and Marylee Abrams for City Council. I truly believe that
all three will work well with Council Members Bob Cardinal and Marv Koppen to
make Maplewood a better city for its residents, its businesses and its
visitors.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Minnesota's Unbalanced Budget for 2014-2015
I am just spending a quiet Saturday night at home . . . reading Governor Dayton's proposed budget for the State of Minnesota. The Governor's January proposal looked pretty good from a distance. I started to believe that he may have actually taken notes on Tom Horner's budget strategies. Tonight I took a closer look. The Governor's "Budget for a Better Minnesota" claims to be:
"Honest - A balanced budget with no one-time fixes, borrowing or gimmicks
Invest - In early learning, education and job creation
Fair - Everyone pays their fair share
Reform - A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar
Sustainable - Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity"
Yup, sure sounds good to me. Now let me share what I discovered as I read more.
Honest (A balanced budget) - Not even close. I'll address this a bit later.
Honest (no one-time fixes) - The Governor does not have any big one-time fixes in his budget. The House on the other hand does. The House is proposing a one-time 4% surcharge on taxable income over $500,000. Lets see what the negotiations produce here.
Honest (no borrowing) - The Governor's January budget proposed to "repay the state's obligation to schools by restoring funding to the 90:10 ratio established in law by 2017." This one sentence raises two obscenely scary propositions. 1) The state will NOT pay the schools back in the 2014-15 budget. Instead the Governor is proposing to kick the can down the road to a different legislature and potentially a different Governor. In fact, the Governor's January budget proposal doesn't allocate ANY funds to repay the state's debt to schools in his 2014-15 budget.
While this is inexcusable, the Governor's March budget proposal shows NO repayment of the school shift in the 2014-15 or the 2016-17 bienniums. Hey Governor, why kick the can to the next budget when you can just ignore it all together. Come on!
Honest (no gimmicks) - The Governor's budget is much better than last session's budget when it comes to gimmicks. Unfortunately, it is not gimmick-free. One such gimmick is the shifting of several health and human services budget items (roughly $400 million) from the General Fund to the Health Care Access Fund. The problem here is that the Health Care Access Fund is funded by a provider tax which is slated to expire in 2019. Good luck legislators and Governor in 2019.
Invest (In early learning, education and job creation) - The Governor has budgeted significant increases in all three of these areas.
Reform (A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar) - Boy, this sounds good, but it really isn't all that it is cracked up to be. The Governor's January budget proposal contained some "innovative" reforms to the Minnesota tax system. The Governor's proposals for broadening the tax base by taxing on-line sales, clothing and consumer services felt like a flashback to the Tom Horner campaign for Governor. Of course, Tom Horner did not propose taxing business services like the Governor did. Still, the Governor's brave move increased my respect for him. Then I dug deeper. While the Governor's budget broadened the tax base and lowered the tax rate, it still would have increased sales tax revenue by over $2 billion. Tom Horner, and the IP, believe that a broader tax base certainly stabilizes tax revenues, but neither has ever promoted the plan as a way to increase sales tax revenue (read: raise your sales taxes) by more than 28%. The Governor's proposed sales tax changes would have raised Minnesota's sales tax revenues by 28.5%.
Don't worry though, by March the Governor had revised his budget proposal and had dropped all of the sales tax reform he had proposed in January. The Governor's idea of tax reform in his March budget proposal returned to his tired old argument of tax the rich. Now, he has even suggested that he would veto any legislation that included the proposals he advocated for just 60 days earlier.
Fair (Everyone pays their fair share) - So, the Governor thinks that increasing the income tax rate on Minnesota's top earners is fairer. There is little disagreement that the top earners in Minnesota pay a smaller percentage of their tax assessment than most Minnesotans, but it isn't because of their tax rate, its because of tax deductions and loopholes. Without closing tax loopholes and eliminating frivolous tax deductions, Minnesota's highest earners will still have the tools, that some of them abuse, to reduce their actual taxes paid to a ridiculously low sum. Let me use an analogy here. Instead of picturing the taxpayer paying in dollars, picture that person paying in sand and gravel. When the state comes to collect the tax, they have the same large bucket with the same (loop)holes in it that it had last year. The state asks the taxpayer to put even more of their sand and gravel in the bucket this year than last (the higher tax assessment). The sand still sifts through the holes. Now there is a possibility that the state captured a bit more "revenue" from this taxpayer, but patching the holes would be a much more efficient way of fixing the system. In the end, the increased tax rate looks more fair, but in reality it does very little to make the tax collections more fair.
Sustainable (Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity) - I have already addressed the Governor's intent to kick the school debt can down the road past his current term, and then past his second term, should he get re-elected. There are other unsustainable changes in the Governor's budget that I want to address here.
First, the Governor proposes reducing state and local property taxes by 9.7%. Good luck with that. The Governor has no say in a local jurisdiction's choice to raise or lower property taxes. For more than a decade, local governments have been consistently denied promised state aid. Now the Governor believes that $80 million dollars in new state aid will motivate cities to reduce their property taxes in response. I can speak confidently from hundreds of hours in city council meetings in several cities that the backlog of projects that have built up over the past decade will not be delayed any longer if cities get an influx of state aid. I believe many cities may continue to hold city tax rates at current levels, but I doubt many, if any, cities will actually reduce their tax rates.
Second, You can't spend your way out of debt. As cliche as that sounds, the Governor is proposing a 7.6% increase in spending over the last biennium. Of course an 8.5% increase in revenue can help you dig out of debt. The question is this, is it sustainable. That type of revenue and spending growth is absolutely NOT sustainable. And remember, all of this increased taxing and spending does not include the state's debt to our schools.
I need to address one more budget injustice. Justice. The Governor's budget proposal includes "$36 million for the Court systems to maintain current service levels." Current service levels are appalling. If there was one area that I would celebrate increasing revenues to support, it would be funding a person's right to "a speedy and public trial" as dictated by the United States Constitution. Minnesota's legal system is so overburdened that it is impossible to refer to almost any trial as "speedy" today. This is an issue that needs more than just maintenance. It needs reform.
Conservatives love to use the phrase "tax and spend." They often misuse it. If the Governor's budget proposal makes for the bulk of our 2014-15 budget, all Minnesotans will have the right to use that phrase in regards to Minnesota's Governor and Legislature. And yet, they probably won't tax, or spend, our way out of our indebtedness to our schools. What a shame.
"Honest - A balanced budget with no one-time fixes, borrowing or gimmicks
Invest - In early learning, education and job creation
Fair - Everyone pays their fair share
Reform - A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar
Sustainable - Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity"
Yup, sure sounds good to me. Now let me share what I discovered as I read more.
Honest (A balanced budget) - Not even close. I'll address this a bit later.
Honest (no one-time fixes) - The Governor does not have any big one-time fixes in his budget. The House on the other hand does. The House is proposing a one-time 4% surcharge on taxable income over $500,000. Lets see what the negotiations produce here.
Honest (no borrowing) - The Governor's January budget proposed to "repay the state's obligation to schools by restoring funding to the 90:10 ratio established in law by 2017." This one sentence raises two obscenely scary propositions. 1) The state will NOT pay the schools back in the 2014-15 budget. Instead the Governor is proposing to kick the can down the road to a different legislature and potentially a different Governor. In fact, the Governor's January budget proposal doesn't allocate ANY funds to repay the state's debt to schools in his 2014-15 budget.
While this is inexcusable, the Governor's March budget proposal shows NO repayment of the school shift in the 2014-15 or the 2016-17 bienniums. Hey Governor, why kick the can to the next budget when you can just ignore it all together. Come on!
Honest (no gimmicks) - The Governor's budget is much better than last session's budget when it comes to gimmicks. Unfortunately, it is not gimmick-free. One such gimmick is the shifting of several health and human services budget items (roughly $400 million) from the General Fund to the Health Care Access Fund. The problem here is that the Health Care Access Fund is funded by a provider tax which is slated to expire in 2019. Good luck legislators and Governor in 2019.
Invest (In early learning, education and job creation) - The Governor has budgeted significant increases in all three of these areas.
Reform (A fair, modern tax system and public services that give Minnesotans the best value for their dollar) - Boy, this sounds good, but it really isn't all that it is cracked up to be. The Governor's January budget proposal contained some "innovative" reforms to the Minnesota tax system. The Governor's proposals for broadening the tax base by taxing on-line sales, clothing and consumer services felt like a flashback to the Tom Horner campaign for Governor. Of course, Tom Horner did not propose taxing business services like the Governor did. Still, the Governor's brave move increased my respect for him. Then I dug deeper. While the Governor's budget broadened the tax base and lowered the tax rate, it still would have increased sales tax revenue by over $2 billion. Tom Horner, and the IP, believe that a broader tax base certainly stabilizes tax revenues, but neither has ever promoted the plan as a way to increase sales tax revenue (read: raise your sales taxes) by more than 28%. The Governor's proposed sales tax changes would have raised Minnesota's sales tax revenues by 28.5%.
Don't worry though, by March the Governor had revised his budget proposal and had dropped all of the sales tax reform he had proposed in January. The Governor's idea of tax reform in his March budget proposal returned to his tired old argument of tax the rich. Now, he has even suggested that he would veto any legislation that included the proposals he advocated for just 60 days earlier.
Fair (Everyone pays their fair share) - So, the Governor thinks that increasing the income tax rate on Minnesota's top earners is fairer. There is little disagreement that the top earners in Minnesota pay a smaller percentage of their tax assessment than most Minnesotans, but it isn't because of their tax rate, its because of tax deductions and loopholes. Without closing tax loopholes and eliminating frivolous tax deductions, Minnesota's highest earners will still have the tools, that some of them abuse, to reduce their actual taxes paid to a ridiculously low sum. Let me use an analogy here. Instead of picturing the taxpayer paying in dollars, picture that person paying in sand and gravel. When the state comes to collect the tax, they have the same large bucket with the same (loop)holes in it that it had last year. The state asks the taxpayer to put even more of their sand and gravel in the bucket this year than last (the higher tax assessment). The sand still sifts through the holes. Now there is a possibility that the state captured a bit more "revenue" from this taxpayer, but patching the holes would be a much more efficient way of fixing the system. In the end, the increased tax rate looks more fair, but in reality it does very little to make the tax collections more fair.
Sustainable (Settles our debt with schools and positions Minnesota for long-term economic prosperity) - I have already addressed the Governor's intent to kick the school debt can down the road past his current term, and then past his second term, should he get re-elected. There are other unsustainable changes in the Governor's budget that I want to address here.
First, the Governor proposes reducing state and local property taxes by 9.7%. Good luck with that. The Governor has no say in a local jurisdiction's choice to raise or lower property taxes. For more than a decade, local governments have been consistently denied promised state aid. Now the Governor believes that $80 million dollars in new state aid will motivate cities to reduce their property taxes in response. I can speak confidently from hundreds of hours in city council meetings in several cities that the backlog of projects that have built up over the past decade will not be delayed any longer if cities get an influx of state aid. I believe many cities may continue to hold city tax rates at current levels, but I doubt many, if any, cities will actually reduce their tax rates.
Second, You can't spend your way out of debt. As cliche as that sounds, the Governor is proposing a 7.6% increase in spending over the last biennium. Of course an 8.5% increase in revenue can help you dig out of debt. The question is this, is it sustainable. That type of revenue and spending growth is absolutely NOT sustainable. And remember, all of this increased taxing and spending does not include the state's debt to our schools.
I need to address one more budget injustice. Justice. The Governor's budget proposal includes "$36 million for the Court systems to maintain current service levels." Current service levels are appalling. If there was one area that I would celebrate increasing revenues to support, it would be funding a person's right to "a speedy and public trial" as dictated by the United States Constitution. Minnesota's legal system is so overburdened that it is impossible to refer to almost any trial as "speedy" today. This is an issue that needs more than just maintenance. It needs reform.
Conservatives love to use the phrase "tax and spend." They often misuse it. If the Governor's budget proposal makes for the bulk of our 2014-15 budget, all Minnesotans will have the right to use that phrase in regards to Minnesota's Governor and Legislature. And yet, they probably won't tax, or spend, our way out of our indebtedness to our schools. What a shame.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Why I support marriage equality legislation in Minnesota
In my perfect world, the sacrament of marriage would only be
defined by churches, synagogues, mosques and other faith communities. It certainly would not be defined by
Republicans, Democrats or any party.
Unfortunately, politicians decided in 1977 to change Minnesota law to
define marriage as between one man and one woman. Now the political battle over the definition
of marriage rages again.
In my perfect world, all human beings would be treated
equally under the law. Unfortunately,
politicians have tied that equal treatment to the legal definition of marriage
over 500 times in Minnesota law alone. For
this reason, it is the legal definition of marriage that determines over 500
individual rights in Minnesota statutes alone.
Obviously, none of us live in our own perfect world. We live in a world of opposing opinions and
conflicting goals. I, like many of my
friends in the Independence Party of Minnesota, am conflicted between a
political definition of marriage and protecting the rights of all
Minnesotans. After a lot of research and
long consideration, I have decided where I stand as an individual on this
issue.
I support legislation to remove language from Minnesota
statutes that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. I support the legislation presented by
Representative Karen Clark and Senator Scott Dibble for two reasons.
My first reason for supporting this legislation is because
it doesn't expand the definition of marriage as much as it removes the
limitations installed in 1977. It also
adds language that protects religious organizations’ rights to define and
recognize marriage as they wish.
My second reason for supporting this legislation is because
I support the Independence Party of Minnesota’s core values. One of those core values is our support for
“a society that is inclusive, embraces diversity, and protects everyone’s
rights.” Everyone’s rights are not
protected under current Minnesota law.
This legislation removes one of the barriers to equal rights for all.
Please put the rights of every Minnesotan first. Please join me in supporting every
Minnesotan’s individual rights by supporting this important legislation.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Repeal Republican Rhetoric on Obamacare
Dear Republican Senators and Representatives,
Congress passed it.
The President signed it.
The Supreme Court upheld it.
And you still talk about repealing it?
What does this say about your respect for the three branches of government and the inherent checks and balances that our founding fathers handed down to us? I understand that the ACA is not perfect. Heck, I am sure there are parts of it that downright suck. That doesn't mean we should tear down legislation that survived the scrutiny of all three branches of our government.
The battle over Obamacare is over. Instead of retreading old, and obviously ineffective, arguments against health care reform, show us how Obamacare can be made better. Give us something to support instead of something to oppose. I know for fact that moderates support solutions a lot more than your endless stream of anti-Obama rhetoric.
If you want the moderate vote in November, I suggest you give us solutions worth supporting. If you want four more years of President Obama and a do nothing Congress, continue to oppose health care reform, and the system of government that approved it.
Congress passed it.
The President signed it.
The Supreme Court upheld it.
And you still talk about repealing it?
What does this say about your respect for the three branches of government and the inherent checks and balances that our founding fathers handed down to us? I understand that the ACA is not perfect. Heck, I am sure there are parts of it that downright suck. That doesn't mean we should tear down legislation that survived the scrutiny of all three branches of our government.
The battle over Obamacare is over. Instead of retreading old, and obviously ineffective, arguments against health care reform, show us how Obamacare can be made better. Give us something to support instead of something to oppose. I know for fact that moderates support solutions a lot more than your endless stream of anti-Obama rhetoric.
If you want the moderate vote in November, I suggest you give us solutions worth supporting. If you want four more years of President Obama and a do nothing Congress, continue to oppose health care reform, and the system of government that approved it.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
“Typical” day in D.C.?
April 25, 2012. It's a beautiful day in Washington, D. C.. This morning, I stopped by the offices of many members of Minnesota's Congressional delegation. I had a great conversation with Congressman Tim Walz. After my visit to "the hill" I decided to walk past the Supreme Court to see what issue was being considered by the Justices. Judging by the signs outside, it was apparent that the court was hearing arguments regarding Arizona's immigration law. As I approached, I observed two large, loud, and passionate groups proselytizing their support or opposition for the law. The signs and the speech from both camps were simplistic and polarizing. I began to leave with the consolation that the Justices would be giving this complex issue the thorough, in-depth, examination it required.
As I was walking away, a gentleman shouted to an American of Hispanic descent, "no one invited you to come to this country!" I tapped the gentleman on the shoulder and mentioned that there was a lady with a torch in New York City who would disagree with him. This began a fairly impassioned, yet civil, discussion. I agreed that current immigration laws are not being enforced to the extent that they could be. The gentleman agreed that even the most recent legal immigrants have the same rights that he and I inherited from ancestors who emigrated here generations ago. Maybe it was the impassioned civility, or the fact that protestors from both camps began to circle us like it was a street fight, but the media began to shoot video and take photos of our discussion. Eventually, the gentleman I was talking with was engaged in conversation with another protestor. As I began to leave, one of the photographers asked me for my name. At that point I realized that my brief conversation had become news-worthy.
A couple hours later I realized how news-worthy my walk past the Supreme Court had been. When I Googled my name I discovered that a couple different photos of the event had been spreading across the online news media. The Daily Mail, Voice of America, and Yahoo News were just a few of the outlets that had posted my name and photo with their coverage of the Supreme Court hearing. Now this is where I could do a little proselytizing of my own about immigration reform, but I have to say that immigration is not the thing I keep thinking about today.
Mark Jenkins (L), an opponent of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and Blake Sutherland (R), a supporter of the bill, discuss their opposite viewpoints outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, April 25, 2012.
First, I question the thought process used to caption the photos of me showing up all over the internet. Any photo that had my name associated with it had me labeled as an opponent of the Arizona immigration law. No one asked me my position. At no time in my discussion with the gentleman at the Supreme Court did I say I supported or opposed any position. I merely questioned this gentleman's argument. I could have just as easily encountered an opponent of the law and asked him to make his argument in English. Too many of the opponents were preaching to the choir, and were not trying to persuade their opponents or even the undecided.
Mark Jenkins (L), an opponent of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and Blake Sutherland (R), a supporter of the bill, discuss their opposite viewpoints outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, April 25, 2012.
Second, I keep going back to my college speech classes and remembering how important body language is in a discussion. The reason for this is that I have seen two different photos of the discussion on the web. In one photo I am leaning back listening to the gentleman make his argument. Of course, that is how I see it since I was there and I know what I was thinking. With more objective eyes, I see myself shrinking from a strong forceful argument. In the other photo I am in a more aggressive posture, with my finger in the other gentleman's face. In my memory, I was pointing at him when I was referring to him or his argument. While I know that both photos were mere slivers from a longer moment, I will be working on using more open handed, and less aggressive, hand gestures in my face to face communications.
If you want to see how I am doing with my gestures, just ask me about immigration reform the next time we are face to face.
As I was walking away, a gentleman shouted to an American of Hispanic descent, "no one invited you to come to this country!" I tapped the gentleman on the shoulder and mentioned that there was a lady with a torch in New York City who would disagree with him. This began a fairly impassioned, yet civil, discussion. I agreed that current immigration laws are not being enforced to the extent that they could be. The gentleman agreed that even the most recent legal immigrants have the same rights that he and I inherited from ancestors who emigrated here generations ago. Maybe it was the impassioned civility, or the fact that protestors from both camps began to circle us like it was a street fight, but the media began to shoot video and take photos of our discussion. Eventually, the gentleman I was talking with was engaged in conversation with another protestor. As I began to leave, one of the photographers asked me for my name. At that point I realized that my brief conversation had become news-worthy.
A couple hours later I realized how news-worthy my walk past the Supreme Court had been. When I Googled my name I discovered that a couple different photos of the event had been spreading across the online news media. The Daily Mail, Voice of America, and Yahoo News were just a few of the outlets that had posted my name and photo with their coverage of the Supreme Court hearing. Now this is where I could do a little proselytizing of my own about immigration reform, but I have to say that immigration is not the thing I keep thinking about today.
First, I question the thought process used to caption the photos of me showing up all over the internet. Any photo that had my name associated with it had me labeled as an opponent of the Arizona immigration law. No one asked me my position. At no time in my discussion with the gentleman at the Supreme Court did I say I supported or opposed any position. I merely questioned this gentleman's argument. I could have just as easily encountered an opponent of the law and asked him to make his argument in English. Too many of the opponents were preaching to the choir, and were not trying to persuade their opponents or even the undecided.
Second, I keep going back to my college speech classes and remembering how important body language is in a discussion. The reason for this is that I have seen two different photos of the discussion on the web. In one photo I am leaning back listening to the gentleman make his argument. Of course, that is how I see it since I was there and I know what I was thinking. With more objective eyes, I see myself shrinking from a strong forceful argument. In the other photo I am in a more aggressive posture, with my finger in the other gentleman's face. In my memory, I was pointing at him when I was referring to him or his argument. While I know that both photos were mere slivers from a longer moment, I will be working on using more open handed, and less aggressive, hand gestures in my face to face communications.
If you want to see how I am doing with my gestures, just ask me about immigration reform the next time we are face to face.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Cynthia Kafut Hagen Demonstrates True Independence
If you have been following the special election for State Representative in Legislative District 5B, you have certainly heard all of the important issues. You have heard from the state Republican Party that DFL endorsed candidate Carly Melin may not meet the residency requirements to qualify as a candidate. This would be an important issue if it were true, but the state Republican Party has chosen to contest her residency in the media, instead of with the courts. You have heard the state Democratic Party attack a controversial piece of campaign literature distributed by the state Republican Party. Just as the Republicans showed complete disregard for their candidate by issuing the piece without their candidate’s knowledge or approval, the Democrats showed the same level of disregard by issuing the condemnation of the piece from the state party instead of through their candidate.
These are the issues that the state Republican and Democratic Parties have been pushing and publicizing. These are the issues that they want you to base your decision on.
I attended the debate on Wednesday night. What I saw was telling, and troubling. The good news is that I saw three candidates who each had the work experience and civic involvement needed to represent the citizens of the Iron Range effectively at the State Capitol. The bad news is that I saw two candidates who were visibly uncomfortable with the position their respective parties had put them in.
Paul Jacobson, the Republican, was in the most obvious distress over the actions of his party. The Republican Party created and distributed a controversial piece of campaign literature without his approval, or even his knowledge. When asked, by the Democratic candidate, to condemn the piece, Jacobson replied that “Miss Melin does not know what my discussions have been with the party since then.” Unfortunately, neither do the voters.
When the candidates were asked what they would like the campaign to be focused on, Carly Melin stated very pointedly, “the issues”. She lamented that other things had stolen the spotlight. Unfortunately for Melin, her state party’s response to the Republican attacks has also played a role in keeping the focus off of “the issues”. Melin never took the opportunity herself to criticize her own party’s actions in this regard.
This leaves us with Independence Party endorsed candidate, Cynthia Kafut Hagen. She stated very clearly that “the law should be changed so that nobody can put out information that the candidate doesn't want. If the Independence Party did that to me, I would not be happy or with them still." As the incoming state party Chair, I was proud of her willingness to make that stand in front of me and the voters. That is a brave stand that her opponents have both shied away from.
Earlier that day, I was asked what the word Independence stood for in our party’s name. We are not a loose knit group of independent voters. We are a political party. We have a platform of issues that we expect our candidates to support. We believe that the word Independence means that members and candidates can support that platform in a manner that suites them and their constituents best. It means Independence from state party manipulation as a candidate and as an elected official. For voters, it means that the only dependence an Independence Party candidate has is on your support and your vote.
Cynthia Kafut Hagen demonstrates Independence perfectly.
These are the issues that the state Republican and Democratic Parties have been pushing and publicizing. These are the issues that they want you to base your decision on.
I attended the debate on Wednesday night. What I saw was telling, and troubling. The good news is that I saw three candidates who each had the work experience and civic involvement needed to represent the citizens of the Iron Range effectively at the State Capitol. The bad news is that I saw two candidates who were visibly uncomfortable with the position their respective parties had put them in.
Paul Jacobson, the Republican, was in the most obvious distress over the actions of his party. The Republican Party created and distributed a controversial piece of campaign literature without his approval, or even his knowledge. When asked, by the Democratic candidate, to condemn the piece, Jacobson replied that “Miss Melin does not know what my discussions have been with the party since then.” Unfortunately, neither do the voters.
When the candidates were asked what they would like the campaign to be focused on, Carly Melin stated very pointedly, “the issues”. She lamented that other things had stolen the spotlight. Unfortunately for Melin, her state party’s response to the Republican attacks has also played a role in keeping the focus off of “the issues”. Melin never took the opportunity herself to criticize her own party’s actions in this regard.
This leaves us with Independence Party endorsed candidate, Cynthia Kafut Hagen. She stated very clearly that “the law should be changed so that nobody can put out information that the candidate doesn't want. If the Independence Party did that to me, I would not be happy or with them still." As the incoming state party Chair, I was proud of her willingness to make that stand in front of me and the voters. That is a brave stand that her opponents have both shied away from.
Earlier that day, I was asked what the word Independence stood for in our party’s name. We are not a loose knit group of independent voters. We are a political party. We have a platform of issues that we expect our candidates to support. We believe that the word Independence means that members and candidates can support that platform in a manner that suites them and their constituents best. It means Independence from state party manipulation as a candidate and as an elected official. For voters, it means that the only dependence an Independence Party candidate has is on your support and your vote.
Cynthia Kafut Hagen demonstrates Independence perfectly.
The Real Reason We Should Support Bonding for Roads and Bridges throughout Minnesota
Wednesday, I drove from Maplewood to Hibbing to attend a debate between the 3 major party candidates for State Representative in Legislative District 5b. The road conditions on Interstate 35 were appallingly bad. It appeared that every seam in the concrete had separated and degraded into crevasses measuring four to six inches across. Of course, this being the heart of winter, there were also numerous potholes ranging in size from divots to open pit mines. If my driveway looked that bad, the City of Maplewood would be justified in issuing me a citation for an unsightly and unsafe driveway.
The Democrats argue that the infrastructure projects needed to improve these roads create jobs. The Democrats go on to explain that more people on a payroll will lead to more spending which will lead to greater economic activity. Then the Republicans respond with their arguments that real job growth needs to come from business. They go on to explain how burdensome taxes are keeping our business community from expanding and hiring more people. We end up in a traditional disagreement between government spending and lower taxes. But spending and taxes are not the point of the original argument.
And that IS the point of this article. Partisan posturing by the two other major parties often causes us to lose sight of the real issues. Regardless of your stand on government spending and tax policy, the fact remains that our roads and bridges are falling apart and they need to be repaired or replaced sooner than later.
Because infrastructure projects are being bid at amazingly low prices, and because today’s investments in infrastructure will benefit the comfort and commerce of at least the next two generations, and because we still have a highly skilled construction workforce, we should support strong bonding measures to finance these critical infrastructure improvement projects.
The Democrats argue that the infrastructure projects needed to improve these roads create jobs. The Democrats go on to explain that more people on a payroll will lead to more spending which will lead to greater economic activity. Then the Republicans respond with their arguments that real job growth needs to come from business. They go on to explain how burdensome taxes are keeping our business community from expanding and hiring more people. We end up in a traditional disagreement between government spending and lower taxes. But spending and taxes are not the point of the original argument.
And that IS the point of this article. Partisan posturing by the two other major parties often causes us to lose sight of the real issues. Regardless of your stand on government spending and tax policy, the fact remains that our roads and bridges are falling apart and they need to be repaired or replaced sooner than later.
Because infrastructure projects are being bid at amazingly low prices, and because today’s investments in infrastructure will benefit the comfort and commerce of at least the next two generations, and because we still have a highly skilled construction workforce, we should support strong bonding measures to finance these critical infrastructure improvement projects.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Good Idea, Bad Timing
Federal Highway Administration Is Ordering Local Governments to Buy New Street Signs That They Say Are Easier to Read
While I support the need to update traffic signs, this is a prime example of an unfunded federal mandate. The regulations require cities and counties to replace signs with 4" lettering with signs with 6" lettering by 2012 and that all signs must use reflective lettering by 2018. If the FHA wants any functional signs replaced by 2012, they can pay for the replacements themselves. In these tough economic times, if they expect cities and counties to pay the bill, they better relax the timing. I would support consolidating the lettering size and reflexivity requirements with the 2018 deadline. This would give communities one target date for all sign replacements and would allow them to spread the cost over several years. It would also make sense for communities to start following the regulations immediately when installing new signs or replacing damaged signs.
This means that cities and counties would still need to start budgeting and planning for the sign replacements now. Even though I support spreading the cost over several years, it is not intended to have communities wait until the last minute in hopes that they will be able to better afford the cost down the road.
While I support the need to update traffic signs, this is a prime example of an unfunded federal mandate. The regulations require cities and counties to replace signs with 4" lettering with signs with 6" lettering by 2012 and that all signs must use reflective lettering by 2018. If the FHA wants any functional signs replaced by 2012, they can pay for the replacements themselves. In these tough economic times, if they expect cities and counties to pay the bill, they better relax the timing. I would support consolidating the lettering size and reflexivity requirements with the 2018 deadline. This would give communities one target date for all sign replacements and would allow them to spread the cost over several years. It would also make sense for communities to start following the regulations immediately when installing new signs or replacing damaged signs.
This means that cities and counties would still need to start budgeting and planning for the sign replacements now. Even though I support spreading the cost over several years, it is not intended to have communities wait until the last minute in hopes that they will be able to better afford the cost down the road.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Minnesota Conservatives attack Senator Wiger, and miss the mark.
The Minnesota Conservatives blog that elicited this posting
Minnesota Conservatives, instead of demeaning Senator Wiger and his newsletter, why don't you (and the rest of the Republican Party for that matter) address the actual issues instead. The MN Conservatives blog argues that dropouts aren't worth the time or effort to save. Wow, that paints a positive picture of education as viewed through conservative eyes.
Instead of the thoughtless slander, do some research and point out that the current law has mandatory attendance through age 15 and that 16 and 17 year olds who do wish to withdraw must attend a meeting with their parents or guardians and school personnel. They must also sign a written election to withdraw form. In other words, it isn't easy for a 16 or 17 year old to withdraw under the current laws. At the same point, high school dropouts are at their lowest rate ever. The U.S. dropout rate for the 2007-2008 school year was 8.0%. That rate has fallen consistantly since 1980 (14.1%). Minnesota's rate is much lower and also falling with rates of 5.86% in 2007, 5.79 in 2008, and 5.54 in 2009.
I believe that Senator Wiger's goals are noble. I just find the legislation to be a safe way to demonstrate support for education without any real risk of being called out for poor results. Despite what the Minnesota Conservatives blog says, this law will require minimal change to current documents and procedures in schools. Cross out 16, insert 18, apply law as usual. My concern is that dropout rates are already falling to their lowest rates EVER. If rates continue to fall, is it because of the new mandatory attendance age or is it just a continuation of the trend? If the rates level off, or even rise, will people blame Senator Wiger's legislation? Of course not. This bill is an easy Win-Win for Senator Wiger, while having a minimal impact on current high school attendance in Minnesota. I would rather see the Senator quit playing it safe and tackle some real issues facing our schools and our district. I would start, as I proposed in my campaign, with pushing for more consistent funding from the State. If the State "certifies" funds to school districts, those funds should be off limits for any future budget shifts. I would also start working with school districts to find areas that can be scaled back, or temporarily discontinued in preparation for Republican funding cuts. Where possible, also work with them to find alternate funding for some programs.
I absolutely despise the Republican's knee jerk response to belittle the legislator with a D behind their names without even attempting to address the issues in front of them. Quit telling me Democrats are crazy out of touch liberals who want to turn our country into the next socialist republic. Tell me how you would do it different and how your results will be better than the Democrats.
Minnesota Conservatives, instead of demeaning Senator Wiger and his newsletter, why don't you (and the rest of the Republican Party for that matter) address the actual issues instead. The MN Conservatives blog argues that dropouts aren't worth the time or effort to save. Wow, that paints a positive picture of education as viewed through conservative eyes.
Instead of the thoughtless slander, do some research and point out that the current law has mandatory attendance through age 15 and that 16 and 17 year olds who do wish to withdraw must attend a meeting with their parents or guardians and school personnel. They must also sign a written election to withdraw form. In other words, it isn't easy for a 16 or 17 year old to withdraw under the current laws. At the same point, high school dropouts are at their lowest rate ever. The U.S. dropout rate for the 2007-2008 school year was 8.0%. That rate has fallen consistantly since 1980 (14.1%). Minnesota's rate is much lower and also falling with rates of 5.86% in 2007, 5.79 in 2008, and 5.54 in 2009.
I believe that Senator Wiger's goals are noble. I just find the legislation to be a safe way to demonstrate support for education without any real risk of being called out for poor results. Despite what the Minnesota Conservatives blog says, this law will require minimal change to current documents and procedures in schools. Cross out 16, insert 18, apply law as usual. My concern is that dropout rates are already falling to their lowest rates EVER. If rates continue to fall, is it because of the new mandatory attendance age or is it just a continuation of the trend? If the rates level off, or even rise, will people blame Senator Wiger's legislation? Of course not. This bill is an easy Win-Win for Senator Wiger, while having a minimal impact on current high school attendance in Minnesota. I would rather see the Senator quit playing it safe and tackle some real issues facing our schools and our district. I would start, as I proposed in my campaign, with pushing for more consistent funding from the State. If the State "certifies" funds to school districts, those funds should be off limits for any future budget shifts. I would also start working with school districts to find areas that can be scaled back, or temporarily discontinued in preparation for Republican funding cuts. Where possible, also work with them to find alternate funding for some programs.
I absolutely despise the Republican's knee jerk response to belittle the legislator with a D behind their names without even attempting to address the issues in front of them. Quit telling me Democrats are crazy out of touch liberals who want to turn our country into the next socialist republic. Tell me how you would do it different and how your results will be better than the Democrats.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Political Integrity and PACs
Let me begin with an unusual confession. I have never been drunk. Honest! The initial reason for this is that I don't like the taste of beer and as a college student I couldn't afford anything harder. The continuing reason is more important. I quickly learned that my sobriety earned immense rewards in college. I was the guy that the girls trusted to walk them home after a night of drinking. I was the guy who never had to fight a friend for his keys in order to drive him home. I was the guy my friends could count on when their own judgement was a bit clouded. That trust was worth more than any buzz a few too many beers could give me.
Political integrity is much the same in my eyes. While I don't believe that taking money from political action committees is bad. I do think that too much of it can cloud a candidate's judgement. Recent campaign finance reports show that more than 66% of Senator Wiger's 2010 fundraising has come from lobbyists and political action committees. While the Senator has every right to accept those funds, I have made the commitment to the citizen's of Minnesota that I will not accept any contributions from PACs. This means that at the end of a long campaign season funded from the well of political action committees, you can trust that my judgement will be clear and my political commitment will be focused on the concerns of our citizens and not with the narrower interests of any political action committee.
Your trust is worth more to me.
Political integrity is much the same in my eyes. While I don't believe that taking money from political action committees is bad. I do think that too much of it can cloud a candidate's judgement. Recent campaign finance reports show that more than 66% of Senator Wiger's 2010 fundraising has come from lobbyists and political action committees. While the Senator has every right to accept those funds, I have made the commitment to the citizen's of Minnesota that I will not accept any contributions from PACs. This means that at the end of a long campaign season funded from the well of political action committees, you can trust that my judgement will be clear and my political commitment will be focused on the concerns of our citizens and not with the narrower interests of any political action committee.
Your trust is worth more to me.
Friday, January 15, 2010
New Years Resolutions
Senator Wiger posted a nice article on his Senate site on December 22. As a student of success, and someone who is constantly challenging myself to improve, I appreciate his article. Here is an excerpt with some personal observations added.
What will you focus on in 2010? A recent article at successmagazine.com offers forty-four ideas on what you can do to “kick-start” your 2010. Here are some highlights from that list that could improve your year:
• Find a volunteer opportunity at www.volunteer.org.
MEJ - I volunteered for, and was appointed by the Maplewood City Council to the Maplewood Business and Economic Development Commission. I am looking forward to promoting economic opportunity in the great city of Maplewood.
• Sign up for a birthday/anniversary reminder service.
MEJ - I have kept every birthday and anniversary in my BlackBerry or PDA for over 10 years.
• Write a personal mission statement or mantra.
MEJ - This year's mission is to bring the citizens of Maplewood, Oakdale, North Saint Paul, and the rest of Minnesota an independent perspective on elections and service in state government.
• Get a whole new hairstyle or haircut.
MEJ - Well, I did promise my wife I would get haircuts more often this year. I tend to go too long between appointments, so just keeping my hair a consistant length will be a worthy goal.
• Do something that scares you.
MEJ - Most of my friends (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) think I should be scared of my State Senate race. I actually am excited by the challenge. I am scared of losing this race because of the prospect of continued partisan failure in Saint Paul and scared that I may let down the people who invest their time and effort in supporting my campaign. But at the end of the day, it is the fear of failure that drives me to work a bit harder and smarter to minimize the possibility.
• Take a dance or fitness class.
MEJ - I have scheduled a 10 month fitness regiment that consists of lots of walking and, well, lots of walking. I don't think door knocking and shaking hands can really be considered physical fitness.
• Schedule a regular date night on your calendar with your spouse.
MEJ - This hasn't been a challenge in the past, but with the rigors of a political campaign and launching a new city commission, this is a great idea for maintaining personal perspective and balance.
Remember, you cannot achieve all of your goals overnight. Many goals will take considerable time and effort, and they can evolve over time. Stay flexible, expect bumps along the way and above all, never give up.
As Ben Franklin once said, “Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each New Year find you a better man.” The New Year gives us all a chance to start over. Make 2010 a year to remember!
Now for a quotation that lies at the heart of my new year and my campaign:
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that our aim is too low and we reach it."
Michelangelo
What will you focus on in 2010? A recent article at successmagazine.com offers forty-four ideas on what you can do to “kick-start” your 2010. Here are some highlights from that list that could improve your year:
• Find a volunteer opportunity at www.volunteer.org.
MEJ - I volunteered for, and was appointed by the Maplewood City Council to the Maplewood Business and Economic Development Commission. I am looking forward to promoting economic opportunity in the great city of Maplewood.
• Sign up for a birthday/anniversary reminder service.
MEJ - I have kept every birthday and anniversary in my BlackBerry or PDA for over 10 years.
• Write a personal mission statement or mantra.
MEJ - This year's mission is to bring the citizens of Maplewood, Oakdale, North Saint Paul, and the rest of Minnesota an independent perspective on elections and service in state government.
• Get a whole new hairstyle or haircut.
MEJ - Well, I did promise my wife I would get haircuts more often this year. I tend to go too long between appointments, so just keeping my hair a consistant length will be a worthy goal.
• Do something that scares you.
MEJ - Most of my friends (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) think I should be scared of my State Senate race. I actually am excited by the challenge. I am scared of losing this race because of the prospect of continued partisan failure in Saint Paul and scared that I may let down the people who invest their time and effort in supporting my campaign. But at the end of the day, it is the fear of failure that drives me to work a bit harder and smarter to minimize the possibility.
• Take a dance or fitness class.
MEJ - I have scheduled a 10 month fitness regiment that consists of lots of walking and, well, lots of walking. I don't think door knocking and shaking hands can really be considered physical fitness.
• Schedule a regular date night on your calendar with your spouse.
MEJ - This hasn't been a challenge in the past, but with the rigors of a political campaign and launching a new city commission, this is a great idea for maintaining personal perspective and balance.
Remember, you cannot achieve all of your goals overnight. Many goals will take considerable time and effort, and they can evolve over time. Stay flexible, expect bumps along the way and above all, never give up.
As Ben Franklin once said, “Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each New Year find you a better man.” The New Year gives us all a chance to start over. Make 2010 a year to remember!
Now for a quotation that lies at the heart of my new year and my campaign:
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that our aim is too low and we reach it."
Michelangelo
Friday, October 02, 2009
Letter to the Editor of the Maplewood Review
Here is a letter I wrote to the Editor of the Maplewood Review. It is response to an article where I was quoted as the only citizen at a Maplewood City Council meeting to speak in support of Maplewood setting a maximum tax levy limit of 7%. As it was written, it sounded as if I supported an actual increase of 7%. I can't say today what level of increase I would support until the budget requests have been made and analysed. Read the letter for more.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your coverage of the recent Maplewood city council meeting where the maximum tax levy for 2010 was set. As reported early in the article, this is the amount that the city can levy in taxes in 2010. This is not necessarily the amount that the city must levy. As the City Manager pointed out “It can be scaled back.” I also want to thank you for including my comments from that meeting in your article. As you quoted, I did support the City Manager’s recommendation to “keep their options open” and report a 7% maximum levy increase. I do want to clarify my overall stand on the city’s taxes though. While I did support reporting a 7% tax levy increase, I believe that even the smallest tax increase needs serious consideration and sound justification to the public before passage.
I am asking for this clarification because I am not just a “Maplewood resident”, I am a Maplewood resident who is running for the Minnesota Senate in 2010. I am running for the senate because I believe that the state has thrust too much of its budget mess into the hands of our cities and counties. Our cities are now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side they have had significant funding cuts from the state and on the other side they have citizens who are tired of a government that thinks it can tax its way out of any problem. Between these two truths, we have a city that has to figure out how to provide adequate services with inadequate revenue. While I am sure that there are areas of the budget that can still stand another trim, the state has been withholding revenue from our cities for many years, and most of the fat was trimmed from city budgets over the past four or five years. While I am not a fan of raising taxes on the whole, this year’s city budget will probably require a reduction in services to prevent an increase in the tax levy.
As you watch Maplewood’s budget process unfold over the next 2 months, citizens have every right to hold the city council responsible for how they address the budget challenges before them. At the same time, we all need to hold our legislators and our Governor responsible for making cities pay for the state’s ongoing budget problems.
Thank you,
Mark Jenkins
Candidate for the Minnesota Senate in 2010
www.MarkJenkins2010.com
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your coverage of the recent Maplewood city council meeting where the maximum tax levy for 2010 was set. As reported early in the article, this is the amount that the city can levy in taxes in 2010. This is not necessarily the amount that the city must levy. As the City Manager pointed out “It can be scaled back.” I also want to thank you for including my comments from that meeting in your article. As you quoted, I did support the City Manager’s recommendation to “keep their options open” and report a 7% maximum levy increase. I do want to clarify my overall stand on the city’s taxes though. While I did support reporting a 7% tax levy increase, I believe that even the smallest tax increase needs serious consideration and sound justification to the public before passage.
I am asking for this clarification because I am not just a “Maplewood resident”, I am a Maplewood resident who is running for the Minnesota Senate in 2010. I am running for the senate because I believe that the state has thrust too much of its budget mess into the hands of our cities and counties. Our cities are now caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side they have had significant funding cuts from the state and on the other side they have citizens who are tired of a government that thinks it can tax its way out of any problem. Between these two truths, we have a city that has to figure out how to provide adequate services with inadequate revenue. While I am sure that there are areas of the budget that can still stand another trim, the state has been withholding revenue from our cities for many years, and most of the fat was trimmed from city budgets over the past four or five years. While I am not a fan of raising taxes on the whole, this year’s city budget will probably require a reduction in services to prevent an increase in the tax levy.
As you watch Maplewood’s budget process unfold over the next 2 months, citizens have every right to hold the city council responsible for how they address the budget challenges before them. At the same time, we all need to hold our legislators and our Governor responsible for making cities pay for the state’s ongoing budget problems.
Thank you,
Mark Jenkins
Candidate for the Minnesota Senate in 2010
www.MarkJenkins2010.com
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Independence Party of Minnesota 4th CD special meeting
On Thursday, September 24th, the Independence Party held a special meeting in the 4th Congressional District to fill a couple vacant leadership positions. We had an impressive turnout with about a dozen delegates and several guests in attendance. State party Director Kari Johnson-Robinson, who rose to her state position through her involvement in the 4th CD, ran a very smooth meeting, even with the political theater near the end of the meeting.
Several former delegates were in attendance. As the party is always happy to welcome back old friends, a motion was passed to seat the former delegates as current delegates so they could have a say in the meeting. The delegate's first order of business (after the requisite procedural stuff) was to elect individuals for the vacant Chair and Vice Chair positions.
The new Chair of the Independence Party's 4th CD is Earl Johnson. Earl has been one of those party members who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes without ever seeking recognition for his efforts. I am excited to see him get some well deserved recognition for his work, and the opportunity to take on greater responsibility within the party. Earl seems genuinely excited about the opportunity before him.
Tom Klas, a longtime leader in the 4th CD, was elected as Vice Chair. I had the honor to serve as Tom's Vice Chair when he was Chair a couple years ago. Earl's fresh perspectives and enthusiasm in concert with Tom's years of experience will serve the district and the party well.
The Secretary position was vacated when Tom Klas, the sitting Secretary was elected Vice Chair. (I'm wondering if there is a CD 4 position that Tom hasn't served the party in.) That position is still open if there are any readers who want to have a voice in the leadership of the Independence Party's 4th CD.
I was honored to address the meeting for a few minutes to share my enthusiasm for the future of the 4th CD and my campaign. I really do believe that the district, the party and our campaign are poised for growth and success in 2010.
The meeting ended after a savvy show of political gamesmanship and a bit of political theater. Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie and a number of her supporters attended our meeting. Several of her supporters were former IP delegates and had been seated today as current delegates. Under New Business, delegate Margaret Behrens introduced her friend, Mayor Longrie, to those in attendance and asked the Mayor to say a few words. After the Mayor's campaign speech, Margaret asked for a resolution of support for the Mayor. After some discussion to clarify that we could not "endorse" her, it was agreed that we could pass a resolution of support if a motion was made and passed by the delegates present. A motion was made and seconded. I saw this as a politically gutsy move. The political theater began when the floor was opened to questions for the Mayor. One by one, her supporters tossed out softball questions to the Mayor as if it wasn't obvious to the rest of us what was taking place. I did take the opportunity to ask her how she planned to end the acrimony between members of the Maplewood City Council. She answered by saying that she thought it was more important to identify the cause. While she made a case for what (or who) she thought was the cause, in my eyes, she did not give any plan on how to solve the problem. After one more question, the resolution of support was put to a vote. The Mayor's supporters all voted in favor of the resolution as did 2 or 3 other delegates. That brought the number of delegates in favor of the resolution to 7 out of 12 votes, and the resolution passed. I did not support the resolution for several reasons. The first reason, and the one I explained to the Mayor, was that I have not made up my mind on who I will support in the Mayor's race. Another reason is that I have very strict criteria for cross endorsing (or supporting) any candidate who is not a member of the Independence Party. She had not been vetted as to her standing on the party's platform, and I could not support the resolution for that reason.
Before this meeting, I had already seen the footage of Mayor Longrie seeking a resolution of support and then an endorsement from the DFL. She did not get either. Friends of mine in the Republican Party say that she used to be active in the party up until 2008 when she ran for the Minnesota House as a Democrat. To the best of their knowledge, she has not sought the support of the Republican Party in the current election.
I am very interested in how the Mayor will use the IP's resolution of support in her campaign. While I feel that the party was taken advantage of, I respect the fact that she pulled this off completely within the rules of the party and the meeting. The Mayor's move does show me that the Independence Party carries enough influence that a candidate from another party (whichever one that may be) would seek our support for their campaign.
Before I wrap this up, I want to send special thanks to Sally Paulson and Brian Faas from the state party Executive Committee for all of their work to make the evening a success. You two are true leaders in the party, not just by your titles, but by the example you set for others in the party. Thank you, and thanks to all of the people who attended the meeting.
Several former delegates were in attendance. As the party is always happy to welcome back old friends, a motion was passed to seat the former delegates as current delegates so they could have a say in the meeting. The delegate's first order of business (after the requisite procedural stuff) was to elect individuals for the vacant Chair and Vice Chair positions.
The new Chair of the Independence Party's 4th CD is Earl Johnson. Earl has been one of those party members who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes without ever seeking recognition for his efforts. I am excited to see him get some well deserved recognition for his work, and the opportunity to take on greater responsibility within the party. Earl seems genuinely excited about the opportunity before him.
Tom Klas, a longtime leader in the 4th CD, was elected as Vice Chair. I had the honor to serve as Tom's Vice Chair when he was Chair a couple years ago. Earl's fresh perspectives and enthusiasm in concert with Tom's years of experience will serve the district and the party well.
The Secretary position was vacated when Tom Klas, the sitting Secretary was elected Vice Chair. (I'm wondering if there is a CD 4 position that Tom hasn't served the party in.) That position is still open if there are any readers who want to have a voice in the leadership of the Independence Party's 4th CD.
I was honored to address the meeting for a few minutes to share my enthusiasm for the future of the 4th CD and my campaign. I really do believe that the district, the party and our campaign are poised for growth and success in 2010.
The meeting ended after a savvy show of political gamesmanship and a bit of political theater. Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie and a number of her supporters attended our meeting. Several of her supporters were former IP delegates and had been seated today as current delegates. Under New Business, delegate Margaret Behrens introduced her friend, Mayor Longrie, to those in attendance and asked the Mayor to say a few words. After the Mayor's campaign speech, Margaret asked for a resolution of support for the Mayor. After some discussion to clarify that we could not "endorse" her, it was agreed that we could pass a resolution of support if a motion was made and passed by the delegates present. A motion was made and seconded. I saw this as a politically gutsy move. The political theater began when the floor was opened to questions for the Mayor. One by one, her supporters tossed out softball questions to the Mayor as if it wasn't obvious to the rest of us what was taking place. I did take the opportunity to ask her how she planned to end the acrimony between members of the Maplewood City Council. She answered by saying that she thought it was more important to identify the cause. While she made a case for what (or who) she thought was the cause, in my eyes, she did not give any plan on how to solve the problem. After one more question, the resolution of support was put to a vote. The Mayor's supporters all voted in favor of the resolution as did 2 or 3 other delegates. That brought the number of delegates in favor of the resolution to 7 out of 12 votes, and the resolution passed. I did not support the resolution for several reasons. The first reason, and the one I explained to the Mayor, was that I have not made up my mind on who I will support in the Mayor's race. Another reason is that I have very strict criteria for cross endorsing (or supporting) any candidate who is not a member of the Independence Party. She had not been vetted as to her standing on the party's platform, and I could not support the resolution for that reason.
Before this meeting, I had already seen the footage of Mayor Longrie seeking a resolution of support and then an endorsement from the DFL. She did not get either. Friends of mine in the Republican Party say that she used to be active in the party up until 2008 when she ran for the Minnesota House as a Democrat. To the best of their knowledge, she has not sought the support of the Republican Party in the current election.
I am very interested in how the Mayor will use the IP's resolution of support in her campaign. While I feel that the party was taken advantage of, I respect the fact that she pulled this off completely within the rules of the party and the meeting. The Mayor's move does show me that the Independence Party carries enough influence that a candidate from another party (whichever one that may be) would seek our support for their campaign.
Before I wrap this up, I want to send special thanks to Sally Paulson and Brian Faas from the state party Executive Committee for all of their work to make the evening a success. You two are true leaders in the party, not just by your titles, but by the example you set for others in the party. Thank you, and thanks to all of the people who attended the meeting.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Maplewood Primary Election Results
Well, round one of the Maplewood city elections are done and the result appears to be 7 weeks of acrimony and vitriol. While there were a few candidates who seemed to be neutral parties to the ongoing council wars, none of them survived the first round.
For City Council:
We have 2 council candidates whose politics I don't exactly line up with and 2 council members whose political maturity I seriously question. Right now, I am leaning strongly towards voting for Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas. While they are more willing to tax and spend than I am usually comfortable with, they are also articulate, reasoned and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner appear to focus more on attacking the opponent than defending a reasoned policy or proposal. With Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas placing first and second in the primary, it appears to be their race to lose in November. Unfortunately, I fear their perceived lead will only generate more attack ads and slander from Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner.
Note: I said that I was "leaning strongly". I did not say that I had made a firm decision. If Rebecca Cave or Dave Hafner run professional, issues-based, campaigns and abandon personal attacks, I could be swayed to vote for one or both of them. Likewise, some of the Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas joint campaign collateral was thinly veiled attack ads themselves. If either of them lowers their campaign standards much further, they too could influence a shift in my vote.
For Mayor:
Where the Council race has strong potential for controversy, the Mayor's race is guaranteed to be ugly and embarrassing for all involved. This means that I am now forced to make a choice between two exceptionally qualified and flawed candidates for Mayor.
Mayor Diana Longrie:
Before I attended my first Maplewood City Council meeting, I envisioned Mayor Longrie to be petty and amateurish. This perspective was based on media reports of Council dysfunction and her own writing in the Maplewood Monthly. After attending many city council meetings, I actually find her to be intelligent and diligent in her duties as Mayor. She is also a pro at "working a room". She tries to introduce herself to everyone in the council chambers and tries hard to make everyone feel welcome. With all of these skills, I am still disappointed that she and her supporters spend so much effort on tearing down their opponents instead of trying to sell their vision to the citizens.
Council Member Will Rossbach:
My first impression of Mr. Rossbach was an intelligent and concerned council member. We spoke at several forums that he held in Maplewood's "south leg". We didn't always agree on issues, but he listened and defended his view without attacking mine. I was also impressed with his ability to stay out of the political mudslinging that took place in several Council Member's columns in the Maplewood Monthly. He focused on topics that concerned citizens daily lives, not the political acrimony at City Hall. My attendance at City Council meetings also shed new light on Council Member Rossbach's behavior in the council chambers. I soon found Mr. Rossbach to be a bit thin skinned and quick to point out when he feels slighted by another member of the council. Now, I'm not justifying Mr. Rossbach's behavior in the chambers, but there is at least one council member and a number of citizens who seem to have made it their life's mission to make Mr. Rossbach's life a living hell. Unfortunately, it appears to be working. I think that Council Member Rossbach has been slowly dragged into the political mud by the incessant attacks he is subjected to.
With that, I can not support either candidate for Mayor at this time. I am going to wait and see which Mayoral candidate focuses on what is the right vision for Maplewood, not what is wrong with the other candidate. There is no question that Mayor Longrie has been more aggressive in her attacks on Council Member Rossbach than he has been towards her. Yet Mr. Rossbach's veiled attack ads and council chamber acrimony still exceed my comfort level. I am also worried about the direction the city will take if the entire City Council is comprised of just one political vision. I would prefer reasoned debate and discussion of multiple visions over a 4 to 0 majority. Unfortunately I don't believe the players left on the field are capable of reasoned debate or discussion with members of the "other team". Please prove me wrong or I'm thinking that my decision for Mayor may take until November.
For City Council:
We have 2 council candidates whose politics I don't exactly line up with and 2 council members whose political maturity I seriously question. Right now, I am leaning strongly towards voting for Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas. While they are more willing to tax and spend than I am usually comfortable with, they are also articulate, reasoned and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner appear to focus more on attacking the opponent than defending a reasoned policy or proposal. With Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas placing first and second in the primary, it appears to be their race to lose in November. Unfortunately, I fear their perceived lead will only generate more attack ads and slander from Rebecca Cave and Dave Hafner.
Note: I said that I was "leaning strongly". I did not say that I had made a firm decision. If Rebecca Cave or Dave Hafner run professional, issues-based, campaigns and abandon personal attacks, I could be swayed to vote for one or both of them. Likewise, some of the Kathleen Juenemann and James Llanas joint campaign collateral was thinly veiled attack ads themselves. If either of them lowers their campaign standards much further, they too could influence a shift in my vote.
For Mayor:
Where the Council race has strong potential for controversy, the Mayor's race is guaranteed to be ugly and embarrassing for all involved. This means that I am now forced to make a choice between two exceptionally qualified and flawed candidates for Mayor.
Mayor Diana Longrie:
Before I attended my first Maplewood City Council meeting, I envisioned Mayor Longrie to be petty and amateurish. This perspective was based on media reports of Council dysfunction and her own writing in the Maplewood Monthly. After attending many city council meetings, I actually find her to be intelligent and diligent in her duties as Mayor. She is also a pro at "working a room". She tries to introduce herself to everyone in the council chambers and tries hard to make everyone feel welcome. With all of these skills, I am still disappointed that she and her supporters spend so much effort on tearing down their opponents instead of trying to sell their vision to the citizens.
Council Member Will Rossbach:
My first impression of Mr. Rossbach was an intelligent and concerned council member. We spoke at several forums that he held in Maplewood's "south leg". We didn't always agree on issues, but he listened and defended his view without attacking mine. I was also impressed with his ability to stay out of the political mudslinging that took place in several Council Member's columns in the Maplewood Monthly. He focused on topics that concerned citizens daily lives, not the political acrimony at City Hall. My attendance at City Council meetings also shed new light on Council Member Rossbach's behavior in the council chambers. I soon found Mr. Rossbach to be a bit thin skinned and quick to point out when he feels slighted by another member of the council. Now, I'm not justifying Mr. Rossbach's behavior in the chambers, but there is at least one council member and a number of citizens who seem to have made it their life's mission to make Mr. Rossbach's life a living hell. Unfortunately, it appears to be working. I think that Council Member Rossbach has been slowly dragged into the political mud by the incessant attacks he is subjected to.
With that, I can not support either candidate for Mayor at this time. I am going to wait and see which Mayoral candidate focuses on what is the right vision for Maplewood, not what is wrong with the other candidate. There is no question that Mayor Longrie has been more aggressive in her attacks on Council Member Rossbach than he has been towards her. Yet Mr. Rossbach's veiled attack ads and council chamber acrimony still exceed my comfort level. I am also worried about the direction the city will take if the entire City Council is comprised of just one political vision. I would prefer reasoned debate and discussion of multiple visions over a 4 to 0 majority. Unfortunately I don't believe the players left on the field are capable of reasoned debate or discussion with members of the "other team". Please prove me wrong or I'm thinking that my decision for Mayor may take until November.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Governor Pawlenty signs Senator Wiger's Three Strikes and You Graduate Bill.
The next 5 graduating classes from Minnesota's High School's have been sent a clear message from the Governor and the Legislature: Failure IS an option. As the Star Tribune put it,
I have written about this specific piece of legislation several times. I continue to address it because a respected State Senator who has built his legislative reputation on the education of our students drafted the legislation. I was appalled that Senator Wiger would just suspend math testing requirements for half a decade because the test is too hard.
From my research, it sounds like there are several people who agree with the Senator that our students aren't prepared for this test. If that is the case, we need to find ways to prepare our students to succeed instead of telling them they will be allowed to fail. While I am not an expert on education, when I am elected, I will work with fellow legislators to shorten Senator Wiger's 5 year achievement gap by focusing on providing education instead of just testing it.
The solution passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, however, could raise a few eyebrows: Students either have to pass the test once, or fail it three times, to graduate.
I have written about this specific piece of legislation several times. I continue to address it because a respected State Senator who has built his legislative reputation on the education of our students drafted the legislation. I was appalled that Senator Wiger would just suspend math testing requirements for half a decade because the test is too hard.
From my research, it sounds like there are several people who agree with the Senator that our students aren't prepared for this test. If that is the case, we need to find ways to prepare our students to succeed instead of telling them they will be allowed to fail. While I am not an expert on education, when I am elected, I will work with fellow legislators to shorten Senator Wiger's 5 year achievement gap by focusing on providing education instead of just testing it.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Update on Senator Wiger's Three Strikes and You Graduate Bill
The Three Strikes bill is moving through the Senate and getting more press. Unfortunately, most people are missing a key point.
Passing the GRAD Math exam is not required to earn your diploma. In fact, the GRAD "Parents Brochure" found on the Minnesota Department of Education website list 4 ways to meet the diploma requirement:
While the GRAD Math exam is "embedded" in the MCA-II exam, the GRAD Math is only part of the total math portion of the MCA-II. This means that a student could fall short on the GRAD math questions, but do well enough on the remaining math questions to pass the MCA-II without meeting the GRAD requirement. In that case, and this has been confirmed by the department, the student would still earn a diploma because they met one of the "4 ways to meet the diploma requirement."
Understanding this reaffirms my opposition to Senator Wiger's bill. I don't doubt that the math test may be difficult. I don't doubt that some of our students aren't prepared for the GRAD math testing. But, I actually believe that the state has adequate options for our students in this regard. Even if they fail the GRAD Math test when it is administered in their Junior year of high school, they still have 2 paths to graduation open to them. They could pass the MCA-II exam and still graduate or they can retake the GRAD math exam until they do pass it. There are several opportunities to retake, and pass, the GRAD before graduation.
The real issue that should be addressed is whether the GRAD math exam is too dificult, our math programs are too weak, or both. If the GRAD requirements are excessive, we definitely should have them reviewed and reworked. If the GRAD requirements are found to be appropriate, then we need to find ways to improve our mathematics curiculums. Lets not dismiss the importance of mathmatics proficiency while we work on the root of the problem.
Passing the GRAD Math exam is not required to earn your diploma. In fact, the GRAD "Parents Brochure" found on the Minnesota Department of Education website list 4 ways to meet the diploma requirement:
How do students meet the graduation requirement?
There are a number of ways to meet the diploma requirement, including
• Receiving a proficient score on the MCA-II
• Receiving a passing score on the GRAD
• Receiving a Pass Individual (for students on IEP or 504 Plans)
OR
• Receiving a passing score on a GRAD retest
While the GRAD Math exam is "embedded" in the MCA-II exam, the GRAD Math is only part of the total math portion of the MCA-II. This means that a student could fall short on the GRAD math questions, but do well enough on the remaining math questions to pass the MCA-II without meeting the GRAD requirement. In that case, and this has been confirmed by the department, the student would still earn a diploma because they met one of the "4 ways to meet the diploma requirement."
Understanding this reaffirms my opposition to Senator Wiger's bill. I don't doubt that the math test may be difficult. I don't doubt that some of our students aren't prepared for the GRAD math testing. But, I actually believe that the state has adequate options for our students in this regard. Even if they fail the GRAD Math test when it is administered in their Junior year of high school, they still have 2 paths to graduation open to them. They could pass the MCA-II exam and still graduate or they can retake the GRAD math exam until they do pass it. There are several opportunities to retake, and pass, the GRAD before graduation.
The real issue that should be addressed is whether the GRAD math exam is too dificult, our math programs are too weak, or both. If the GRAD requirements are excessive, we definitely should have them reviewed and reworked. If the GRAD requirements are found to be appropriate, then we need to find ways to improve our mathematics curiculums. Lets not dismiss the importance of mathmatics proficiency while we work on the root of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)