GJR News Box Test

Foley council decides to put cops back on the beat

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:15:19 +0000

Officials in Foley have been noodling for months about what to do for police patrol protection in the central Minnesota city of 2,300.

A deal with the Benton County Sheriff's office was deemed too expensive, and a plan to hire a private security firm didn't work out.

But on Tuesday the city council voted to re-establish its own police department and hire a part-time police chief to get things going, reports the St. Cloud Times.

Mayor Gary Gruba was the only no vote, saying: “There are a lot of issues of having our own police department. I am concerned about biting into that again. We’re jumping out of one fire into another.”

The city had disbanded its police force in 2003 but had been contracting with the county for patrol services until the agreement couldn't be renegotiated. Even during the past few months, when there's been no patrol agreement, the sheriff's office has provided emergency services.

The paper said a committee will decide what a new police department should look like:

"...whether to use full- or part-time community service officers, full- or part-time licensed peace officers or full- or part-time private security community service officers. The decision to buy or lease a squad car and equipment would also be taken into consideration."

McCaskill launches first TV ad, Huckabee backs Akin

jmannies@stlbeacon.org — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:15:00 +0000

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., has launched her first campaign spot – an early move that highlights how this year’s Senate contest is heating up fast.

McCaskill’s campaign won’t say where her ad is running, or how much is being spent. But the markets do include broadcast and cable stations in the St. Louis.

Her new ad – which touts the senator as “a strong, independent voice” – comes after months of a barrage of TV and radio attack ads by independent groups, including Crossroads GPS (with ties to former Bush advisor Karl Rove) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those groups have spent close to $4 million to air such ads so far, according to analysts and the McCaskill campaign.

Claire McCaskill

Several of her Republican opponents also have been on TV for months, notably St. Louis businessman John Brunner, who already has spent $1 million on TV spots.

The parade of ads contrasts with 2010, when the candidates generally held off running any TV ads until summer.

Candidates usually prefer to wait until the public is paying closer attention, and to preserve their campaign cash. McCaskill's latest campaign report showed her with about $4.8 million in the bank.

McCaskill’s campaign says her ad highlights "a stark choice between Claire McCaskill, fighting as Missouri’s senator, and the outside special interests trying to buy the outcome of this election and consolidate power in Washington."

That's the theme in her ad as well, as the announcer says ominously that the attacks against McCaskill are "nothing compared to what their special interest agenda will do to you."

The ad portrays McCaskil as a senator "protecting Medicare, fighting to close tax loopholes for big oil companies and multi-millionaires, cutting taxes for middle class families, creating jobs here at home and cracking down on unfair trade practices."

Said campaign manager Adrianne Marsh: “Claire’s stepped on a lot of big toes in Washington and now these corporate special interests are spending a lot of money on vicious attacks in a desperate effort to get rid of her.”

UPDATE: The Missouri Republican Party asserted that the senator was misleading the public about her record.

“Chameleon Claire McCaskill is at it again—doing one thing in Washington and saying another in Missouri," said state GOP executive director Lloyd Smith. "Regardless of what she claims in her misleading political ads, the truth is McCaskill has voted with Barack Obama 95% of the time since 2010. Missourians will not forget that she cast the deciding vote for Obamacare, she supports Obama’s job-killing rules and regulations, she voted for the failed stimulus, and she has pushed the national debt over $15 trillion. The Obama-McCaskill record could not possibly be more out of touch with the people of Missouri.”

End update

HUCKABEE ENDORSES AKIN

There’s also news in the three-way Republican contest for the GOP Senate nomination. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a commentator, has endorsed U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood.

Todd Akin

Akin is competing against Brunner and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman.

The former governor’s political action committee is called "Huck PAC." Huckabee is slated to join Akin at a March 3 rally in Joplin, Mo.

Huckabee said in a statement that Akin is "has become known as a strong, independent conservative voice."

"Always placing principles over politics, Congressman Akin has remained true to our conservative ideals, especially his belief in the sanctity of human life," Huckabee said. "During his time in public office, Todd has been an ardent supporter and champion of pro-life legislation to protect the unborn. A strong fiscal conservative, as well as social conservative, Todd shares our values and has been a long time champion of tax reform - he also recognizes that the key to changing our economy around is job creation and will go to Washington to fight for what is best for all of Missouri."

From GOP debate: Why Obamacare is really Santorum's fault

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:53:43 +0000

The punditocracy is mostly convinced that Rick Santorum blew it in last night’s debate and that (pending confirmation from the next round of polling and the from next Tuesday’s primaries in Michigan and Arizona) his new status as a frontrunner is in jeopardy.

They are relying heavily on the Bob Dole precedent. According to conventional wisdom, among the reasons that Dole got clobbered by Bill Clinton in the 1996 election is that Dole had been in the Senate so long he couldn’t talk about issues without relying on a kind of insiderspeak that ordinary Americans can’t follow and inherently distrust. If there is a pundit playbook, the Dolespeak analysis is in there and they are relying on it to explain Santorum’s night.

There were at least three big areas in which Santorum had to give complicated explanations for doing things that not only violated his principles but especially, in retrospect, violated the Tea Partyish version of pure conservatism:

Earmark spending (Santorum defends the earmark system; Romney attacks it even though he sought earmarks);

No Child Left Behind (Santorum voted for it even though he acknowledges it violated his principles because it was proposed by a Repub president and sometimes you have to take one for the team but now he would repeal it), and

His support for former pro-choice moderate Repub Sen. Arlen Specter’s reelection in 2004.

Earmarks was the longest and got the most attention. Santorum defends the practice, which is either stupid or a profile in courage. But I’ll spend my pixels on the Specter business because it was so hilariously convoluted.

Obamacare and Santorum

Romney, as you know, has been under the shadow of Romneycare/Obamacare all year. No one has done a better job than Santorum of arguing that Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan (which was once Romney’s proudest accomplishment) is highly similar to the Obama bill that – according to righties – ended freedom in America. And Romney has turned himself into various pretzel shapes trying to emphasize the differences between the two (one is a state program and one is a national program) and de-emphasize the similarities (individual mandate and many more) always ending with a pledge to repeal Obamacare.

Last night, Romney came prepared with a theory, which I had not heard before, about why Obamacare was really all Santorum’s fault.

Santorum, who was defeated in 2006 after two terms in the Senate, was gone from Washington before Obama became president, which seems like a pretty good start to an excuse. And he has said or done almost nothing that suggests support or sympathy for the principles of Obamacare.

But, as Romney pointed out last night, Santorum did support his fellow Pennsylvanian Specter for reelection in 2004 when he was challenged for renomination by the much more conservative congressman Pat Toomey.

Specter was pro-choice on abortion and was one of the last of the raging Republican moderates, which is the beginning of Santorum’s problem on this one. With Santorum’s support providing cover from his right flank, Specter beat Toomey and then was reelected and then Specter did indeed provide the last crucial vote needed to pass Obamacare in 2010.

So, Romney argued last night: “…If you had not supported him, if we had said, no to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obama Care. So don't look at me. Take a look in the mirror.”

Why Santorum did it

Generally, if a state has two senators from the same party, they will cover each other’s backs. Santorum and Specter parted company on a lot of votes. But it would have been a big deal if Santorum had supported a primary challenger to his colleague. But Santorum had an explanation that I didn’t see coming. Thus:

Why I supported Arlen Specter. Number one: Because Arlen Specter was a Senator who was going to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at a time when the most important issue that was coming up in the next session of Congress was two to three Supreme Court nominees that were going to be available. And one, and maybe two of them, or maybe all three were going to be out of the conservative block. And Arlen Specter was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We had a conversation.

He asked me to support him. I said: ‘Will you support the president's nominees?’ We had a 51/49 majority in the Senate. He said I'll support the president's nominees as chairman. Every nominee Arlen Specter supported from the time he -- he took on Judge Bork and saved Justice Thomas. Every nominee he supported passed. Why? Because it gave Democrats cover to vote for it and it gave Republican moderates cover to vote for it.

(Romney breaks in here to suggest that the ultraconservative Toomey would surely have voted for all those conservative Bush nominees to the Supreme Court, but Santorum had an answer that may or not be true but surely reflected an insiders’ thinking.)

SANTORUM: "No, because he wouldn't have been able to give the moderate Republicans and the conservative Democrats the -- the leeway to then support that nominee, which is exactly what Arlen Specter did. He defended Roberts, defended Alito. We have a 5/4 majority on the court that struck down that case that you just talked about and is there as a guardian of liberty. And I did the right thing for our country.”

I have long felt that Santorum is more factual, logical and consistent than Romney or Newt Gingrich in the debates. I have no idea whether Santorum really helped Specter in 2004 because Specter had promised to support Bush’s Supreme Court nominees or what weight to assign to the only-Specter-could-provide-cover piece of the story. But the known facts check out and the logic holds up. If so, Santorum turns out to be the reason we have Obamacare and the reason we have Justices Roberts and Alito and perhaps, it will turn out when it is all properly explained, the reason Osama bin Laden is dead but also the reason Mullah Omar is still alive.

The trouble with Santorum’s tale is that it reflects a quality of Washington insiderish thinking that could cause some Tea Party types to throw up (their hands, of course. Throw up their hands.)

This was the (omg) 20^th debate of the season thus far. No more are currently scheduled.

Here's Molly Ball of The Atlantic arguing that that was not the debate Santorum needed.

Here's Andrew Sullivan on Daily Beast with a contrarian view that Santorum was "on his game," followed by a conventional view, that the real winner of the Repub nominating contest is Pres. Obama.

A full transcript of last night’s debate is available here.

‘Welfare Reform 2.0’ moves ahead, but met with anger at Legislature

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:41:57 +0000

Supporters call it necessary. Opponents call it harmful. And the poor call the human services legislation making its way through the Legislature plain wrong.

“This is basically criminalizing being poor,’’ Ebony Harris, a mother of four from North Minneapolis hotly declared to the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee Wednesday about proposed legislation that would significantly change the lives of Minnesota’s poor but save taxpayers money.

Though mostly calm voices -- legislators and the folks who’ve spent their careers advocating for those without -- dominated the session, by the time the two-hour hearing on the clutch of proposals dubbed “Welfare Reform 2.0’’ wound down, the words “mean-spirited,” “offensive,” “demeaning,’’ “stereotyping” and “poor-bashing” hung in the air.

And then, after DFL Rep. Larry Hosch from St. Joseph tried unsuccessfully to table proposals that would restrict needs benefits on several fronts, frustration ignited.

Voices rose in anger. A loud half-dozen people from more than 100 present echoed the polemic chants of Deb Konechne from the Minnesota Coalition for a People’s Bail Out, shouting, “Stop attacks on the poor, make the rich pay more and we are the 99 percent.’’

Nearly drowned out by the ruckus, committee Chairman Steve Gottwalt, a Republican from St. Cloud, called for a voice vote and the umbrella bill passed out of his committee, despite dissents from DFLers. A few minutes later, the sergeant at arms and law enforcement ushered agitators from the room.

The wide-ranging bill is headed for the House Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy and Finance Committee, still a trek from the House floor. Senate authors have penned similar bills.

MinnPost photo by James NordDeb Konechne of the Minnesota Coalition for a People's Bailout leads other protestors in a chant against the committee.

It’s unclear if Gov. Mark Dayton would sign the legislation if were to reach his desk, but advocates for the poor recall that last legislative session Dayton held the line on cutting direct aid to people.

The proposed legislation runs the gamut from requiring law enforcement to report persons possessing multiple benefits cards (presented by Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth) to probably the most stringent measure: assorted reductions of benefits proposed by House Assistant Majority Leader Kurt Daudt, a Republican from Crown.

Poverty guidelines

A key measure would tie benefits strictly to the federal poverty guidelines. For instance, a family of three that makes even a dollar more than $19,090, which is 100 percent of the federal poverty guideline, would lose benefits.

Other states toe that cutoff line, but Minnesota law currently allows families to earn up to 115 percent of poverty and still receive cash benefits through the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) with the idea being that extra support helps families stabilize their housing and living situations.

Additional proposals offered would: institute drug screening and disqualify from benefits those families with a family member having a drug offense dating back 10 years or permanently disqualify anyone who uses an EBT card to buy tobacco or alcohol even once.

Residency requirements would increase from 30 days to 60 days before some benefits would be available. A string of other proposals include geographical limits on the use of EBT cards, the modern-day version of food stamps.

In a brief interview before the hearing, Gottwalt told me the bills are “intended to tighten up those programs so money is being directed in the way it is intended. This is really about the integrity of dollars for people in need.

“Minnesotans want to help the people truly in need,’’ Gottwalt explained.

But is there a problem?

Jessica Webster, staff attorney for the Legal Services Advocacy Project, doesn’t think so. “All these proposals taken together suggest that our program is riddled with fraud and abuse and it is not true,’’ argues Webster. “The Minnesota Department of Human Services can really be proud of the low rates of fraud and abuse in our public programs.

MinnPost photo by James NordGOP Rep. Kurt Daudt introducing his welfare legislation, which would reduce public assistance, to the committee.

“It also suggests that legislators don’t really understand what is happening to families in the state and what poverty really looks like,’’ Webster says.

“We’re trying to educate legislators and the public that this is not reform… People in the poverty community see true reform as ending poverty, not increasing it,’’ she says, suggesting some proposals would inflate the numbers of poor people.

Waste and fraud

At the hearing, Republican Glenn Gruenhagen of Glencoe suggested everybody, including the poor, should support bills that eliminate waste and fraud because that means more money for the poor.

But Kim Norton, DFL-Rochester, took issue with proposed laws that would penalize children, such as a family’s permanent disqualification from benefits because an adult family member once used drugs.

“Every time we try to bring a hammer down on a parent, we bring it down on the child,’’ Webster told the committee.

Dan Kitzberger, policy director for the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless, pointed out that 66 percent of MFIP enrollees are children.

Joe Soss, a University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs professor and co-author of the book “Disciplining the Poor,’’ testified that asking the poor to pay up front for a criminal background check is “a kind of poll tax” for those applying for social service supports.

The legislation would require applicants for benefits to pay for background checks when there is a “suspicion” of drug use.

Soss called drug testing proposals a waste of taxpayer’s money, given the low incidence of drug usage among “welfare applicants and clients” elsewhere.

Amanda Koonjbharry, an employment counselor with Employment Action Center, spoke for the working poor. She talked about a client called Kelly, a young mom who works 30 hours a week making $8.50 an hour and receives $300 in monthly food and cash benefits through the state as well as child-care benefits while going to school.

Kelly’s income is 105 percent of poverty level, Koonjbharry said, but under the proposed law, the mother would be faced with giving up her job, losing her benefits or dropping out of school.

As legislators headed off to another meeting, Brian Rusche, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Council, lamented legislators’ actions, taken, he said, without lawmakers considering social-science research on the poor and their needs.

Instead of an anti-poverty program designed to help people up and out of poverty, Minnesota’s program is “becoming a poverty stipend,’’ Rusche said.

Senate panel adopts new boundaries with dramatic changes for St. Louis area

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:00 +0000

The St. Louis area’s state Senate delegation is in for a significant shakeup under a new statewide boundary map adopted early Thursday morning.

A commission tasked with redrawing the state’s Senate districts agreed to a tentative map by an 8-2 vote, a margin that satisfies the constitutional requirement.

The agreement came after hours of closed-doors deliberations and counter-proposals between the five Democrats and five Republicans on the commission. The panel recently had been appointed by the governor after an earlier map had been rejected by the state Supreme Court.

The new map now is subject to a 15-day public-comment period, before its boundaries become final.

Jane Cunningham

One upshot of the new map: Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, is now in the same district as Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Washington. And the 7th District – which Cunningham currently represents – is relocated to the Kansas City area.

The 10th District – currently represented by Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City – now encompasses Lincoln, Warren, Audrain, Monroe, Callaway and Montgomery Counties. Currently, nobody in the Missouri Senate lives in any of those counties.

Update:

John Lamping

Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, said in a telephone interview on Thursday morning that he was "extremely disappointed for Cunningham."

"She's represented that part of St. Louis County for a very long time, I think she fits her district very well," Lamping said. "Frankly, I'm shocked that she doesn't have a race to run in in 2012. ... She's so good at what she does - she'll find a way to represent the people. I never thought this would happen and I'm really disappointed."

He also said that the new map is a blow to St. Louis area as it results in fewer senators representing the region.

"It's a dramatic thing," Lamping said. "To get down to a point where we're now represented by seven state senators for the next decade, our ability to be represented and to have our voices heard - and most importantly to have a sheer a number of votes - that's a disappointing thing."

End update

Some other takeaways from the new map:

Jim Lembke Maria Chappelle-Nadal

The 1st District – currently represented by Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay -- now encompasses portions of Webster Groves, Maplewood and Brentwood. It would appear that the district is more Democratic-leaning than Lembke’s current district.
The 14th District – which is represented now by Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City – now includes portions of Clayton, Hazelwood and Bridgeton. The 24th District – represented by Lamping – appears to get more Republican with the addition of Town & Country and portions of Manchester.
Jefferson County is split roughly the same, with the northern portion in the 22nd District represented by Sen. Ryan McKenna, D-Crystal City, and the southern part in the 3rd District represented by Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington.
Elsewhere, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, now resides in a district that includes Boone and Cooper counties. Since Cooper is Republican-leaning, it may provide a boost for the Senate Appropriations chairman’s re-election chances against state Rep. Mary Still, D-Columbia.

The commissioners seemed to have resolved a disagreement over Clay County by putting one part into the 17th District now represented by Sen. Luann Ridgeway, D-Smithville, and the rest in Sen. Brad Lager’s 12th District.

An initial Democratic map split the county into three districts, which prompted pushback from Republicans who claimed such division was unconstitutional.

Minneapolis Council Member Diane Hofstede intrigued by stadium’s construction jobs

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:14:07 +0000

Council Member
Diane Hofstede

She appeared with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and Council President Barb Johnson to voice support for the construction jobs that would be created, but Council Member Diane Hofstede still has questions about what might be in the final Vikings stadium package.

Hofstede represents Ward 3, which includes two neighborhoods in north, northeast and southeast Minneapolis. Before joining the council, she was president of the Minneapolis Library Board.

This is another in my continuing series of interviews with council members about the city’s stadium plan.

MinnPost: You were at the mayor’s news conference talking about construction jobs. What else do you want in the final stadium package?

Diane Hofstede: I think we have a number of issues, the Convention Center being one of them, but another concern is the cost of the Target Center and the ongoing drain and impact that has on our budget and our resources.

MP: You sit on the Way and Means/Budget Committee so you see those costs firsthand. How important are the Convention Center and Target Center as part of the stadium package?

DH: We need to look at the entire package as it develops and so we would evaluate that in relationship to the entire package. I think those assets that we have in the City of Minneapolis are actually state assets and contribute to the state resources. The ongoing expense of them [to Minneapolis] really needs to be examined by the state as part of this decision package.

MP: How important are the jobs?

DHd: Jobs are really critical. I was co-chair and led the Referendum Committee of the downtown Minneapolis Library and the Community Library Referendum.

In that process, I learned that when we were building during a recession how critically important it was to not only have living-wage jobs but to tie those jobs with minority business goals that needed to be met. We exceeded those goals.

What we also did was we teamed a very well-known construction company, Mortenson Construction, with a new struggling construction company called Fore Construction and were able to develop -- not only meeting our minority and women hiring goals -- but were also able to spin off other companies that in turn were able to develop and to hire and train more individuals.

The project manager on the library, was able to take those same hiring and job goals and incorporate them into the Twins stadium.

MP: What kind of reaction have you gotten to your support of the stadium proposal?

DH: People are giving feedback which, I think, is appropriate. And I think they understand that we don’t have a final proposal in place and that it is fluid. They are weighing in.

MP: But you have made a decision to support the stadium?

DH: We haven’t had a vote at the City Council, so until we have a vote, I’m supportive of moving ahead. … We don’t have a final proposal before us. So when and if we do, then we’ll have, I’m certain, more discussion, as we do with any major project.

If any developer comes to us, we would certainly analyze the proposal and determine what our participation would be in that. That’s just how we do business in the city. We would debate and discuss and evaluate.

MP: Do you see more council members coming on board to support a stadium proposal?

DH: Oh sure. Absolutely.

Two Cities blog, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul City Halls, is made possible in part by grants from The Saint Paul Foundation and the Carolyn Foundation.

Last year's redistricting of St. Paul's wards didn't change much

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:49:21 +0000

All the fuss this week about political redistricting and changed boundaries for politicians around the state reminded me that St. Paul actually changed its ward boundaries last year, before the City Council election.

It was relatively civilized, with some minor tweaks in Wards 1, 2, 3 and 5, made by the St. Paul Charter Commission.

New legislative and congressional districts were released this week by a court panel after the Legislature and governor were unable to reach an agreement on the maps.

The City Council doesn't get involved in ward redistricting, which, in theory, takes some of the political maneuvering out of the equation.

"It was much tamer than what happened at the state level," said Noel Nix, legislative aide to Ward 1 Council Member Melvin Carter III, who picked up a slice of new territory in the North End.

"It wasn't a major change in St. Paul, and I don't think it made a lot of difference in the election," Nix said. "The council member did some outreach and door-knocking to introduce himself to new constituents."

Council Member Dave Thune's Ward 2 picked up a little chunk of the West End called "Kip's Glen" and lost the Railroad Island neighborhood to Ward 5, said Pat Lindgren, Thune's aide.

The new map "makes it a little easier to be the council member from Ward 2," Lindgren said, because the West End addition blends in nicely with the rest of the ward.

Thune, a seven-term veteran, used to have the Kip's Glen area in his ward in an earlier redistricted life, so it wasn't new territory for him.

Many of the people are new, but there are still some familiar faces there," Lindgren said. "There are a few artist friends living down there in Kip's Glen. It was in some ways a reunion."

To reacquaint himself with the neighborhood, Thune door-knocked in the new area and visited the senior high-rise.

But that's standard operating procedure for all St. Paul politicians.

Two Cities blog, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul City Halls, is made possible in part by grants from The Saint Paul Foundation and the Carolyn Foundation.