Minnesota Central

MN-03 : Paulsen Loud and Silent on who should get H1N1 Vaccine

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:49:00 +0000

Erik Paulen (R-MN-03) update his blog on Tuesday, November 3rd, to protest that it was “Entirely Unacceptable” to provide vaccines to Guantanamo Detainees.

By making this a post on his blog, it is a statement of political outrage that many may feel. But the protest must be put in context. Why this emotional knee jerk reaction to GITMO detainees and not to Wall Street bankers ?

Just the previous day, Business Week reported that “Citigroup has been supplied with 1,200 units” plus an additional 12 large employers have received vaccines while 16 more are in the pipeline to get vaccines.

Why does Big Business get vaccines ? Well, companies like Goldman Sachs have onsite health clinics (and have received vaccines already) as part of their employee-provided benefit package. Goldman’s 400 or so managing directors and its top executive officers participate in the bank’s executive medical and dental program as part of their benefits at an annual cost of $40,543 which is substantially above the national average (which is about $13,000 for a family of four).

While we wait for Blogger Paulsen to comment on the BW article, let’s evaluate the knee jerk reaction to the GITMO detainee vaccine situation.
A responsible Congressman should review the situtation carefully, put the situtation in context and consider the ramifications. The current number of detainees in GITMO is approxiamately 215 – a relatively low number. As Blogger Paulsen complains “it is entirely unacceptable to make this vaccine available to detainees”, the key word is “available” … unlike in 2003 when the Bush Administration reaction to a potential flu outbreak when detainees were tackled and shackled so prison camp staff could "forcefully" administer the shots -- today these detainees can refuse the vaccines. Will they ? Maybe, they will decline as many will probably be concerned of being experimented on with some sort of truth serum or other drugs. This leads to other problem, if they detainees die without the US Government providing the “availability” of the vaccine, which could be a cause for outrage and complaints of prisoner negligence.
The other obvious question is : do these detainees possess information that if they died would be detrimental to our intelligence efforts ?
Considering this, the outrage is “Entirely Unacceptable” as it is entirely possible that no vaccines may actually be given to GITMO detainees.

Representative Paulsen may have a better case for his district in getting vaccines, if he was more supportive before. In his blog, he acknowledges “vaccine shortages widespread in Minnesota and throughout the nation” yet fails to acknowledge that he voted against HR 2346 which provided $1.85 billion for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency fund to prepare for an influenza pandemic H1N1 influenza (swine flu) which included $350 million earmarked for state and local government preparation.

Negative Politics Wins, America Loses in NY-23

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:10:00 +0000

It must be a wonderful day in New York’s Congressional District 23 … for after months of political television ads , their sets are finally returning to normal programming --- pharmaceutical commercials.

Although it might be easy to have empathy for the good folks of NY-23, Americans should be disappointed that they really rejected their role in representative democracy.
Voters did not show up !
While the final tallies are still being determined, what is known is that with a population of over 600,000 only an estimated 135,000 decided to cast ballots. To put that in perspective, in 2002 – an off-year election, John McHugh ran unopposed but still generated 124,682 votes.

For this special election, which was timed to run with local elections on a normal voting day, maximum media attention was given to this contest. Outside influence was prominent. The Club For Growth's television ad spots numbered 1,597 and in total it generated contributions of $1,022,040 for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (roughly about $15 per vote he received).

The National Republican Congressional Committee spent on the Dede Scozzafava campaign, is estimated to be close to a million dollars. That figure may be less if some of some of the anticipated $200,000 and $300,000 for TV ads scheduled to be broadcast in the final days of the campaign, were stopped after she terminated her campaign.

Bill Owens, the Democratic and Working Families candidate, received just about as many votes as McHugh’s previous Democrat challengers in the past three elections (roughly in the mid-60,000s).

As of April 1, voter registration in the district was 43 percent Republican, 31 percent Democrat and just 1 percent Conservative Party.
So, who did not show up and why ?

Clearly negative advertising worked.
Voters can get tired of hearing countless attacks on the candidates. Negative advertising is designed to reduce voter euthisiasm for the opposition in hopes of dissuading those voters from participating. Looking at the 60,000 or so regular Republican voters who did not participate, they opted to reject the Republican/Conservative candidates … but also to reject representative government.

These attack ads have other consequences.
Late in Minnesota’s 2008 US Senate race, Norm Coleman, recognizing the damage caused by negative ads, called a halt to his personal attack ads saying "I want folks to vote for me, and not against the other folks." However the RNC and outside groups keep their ads running. The damage was done … and still paying the price is Senator Al Franken and former Senator Coleman as both candidate’s overall image have been badly damaged. Coleman’s may have been hit harder as 63,203 McCain supporters decided not to vote for him and most likely opted for Dean Barkley.

Politics should not just be about winning elections, but instead be about building the trust of their constituents in their ability to serve our needs.
Negative ads may seem to work … but they don’t foster a better government.
No doubt if you frequent any of the political party websites, you will be requested to donate money. Considering how the parties are ineffectively using these funds and actually destroying representative government, I suggest that you tell them NO to monetary contributions and offer your time instead.

As a footnote, anyone who watches the AMC television series Mad Men are aware that the current time period is the assassination of President Kennedy. The characters were "crying and praying so hard there wasn't room for anyone else to feel anything." It makes you wonder when negative advertising is used so citically to “brand” an opponent, if we as a country can ever feel good about our elected leaders – regardless of the political party.

GINO Pawlenty is New (Ulm) In Town

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:02:00 +0000

Like the movie character Lucy Hill who was seeking career advancement, Tim Pawlenty came to New Ulm to talk business. In the film, New In Town , Lucy Hill had never been to Minnesota before so she had a lot to learn … yet somehow Tim Pawlenty seems to want to ignore that he has been Governor of the state since January 6, 2003 and that things have not gone well on his watch.

GINO Pawlenty is how many Minnesotans think of him today … Governor In Name Only … ignoring Minnesota while traveling around the country, and planning trips to Sao Paulo, Brazil and Santiago, Chile in December after a trip to Mexico in November.

Pawlenty took the time to visit New Ulm as part of the Job Growth Summit tour. His visit, like his Apple Valley session, was Chamber of Commerce event. Somehow a visit to the New Ulm Country Club is not the same as a walking the factory floor but that’s what a GINO would do.

Unlike his out of state travels where Pawlenty’s audience is interested in his Presidential ambitions, these Minnesota events prompt questions about Minnesota problems.
The questions can lead to some rather enlightening answers.
In Apple Valley, Pawlenty addressed the increase in minimum wage by advocating “a credit to hospitality businesses where employees earn tips.” Minnesota does not have a tip credit … for those states that allow it, a reduced pay rate for tipped employees can be as low as $2.13 under federal law.
In New Ulm, he faced questions regarding agriculture regulations which he responded requesting “farmers to write down specific examples” … gosh, for somebody that has been Governor this long, he sounds like this is the first he is hearing of the problems.
Then there was the complaint from a construction company owner that "The highway department doesn't bid work, and there is no incentive to change" … gosh, for somebody that has been Governor this long, he should have address this issue a long time ago. At least since his MN-DOT awarded the I-35 Bridge to a foreign-owned company over Burnsville-based Ames Construction and C.S. McCrossan of Maple Grove, one would have thought he would be senstive to local construction business concerns.

Yet, he did take time to join in the complaining by proclaiming that “too many public employees get paid for doing nothing” … gosh, for somebody that has been Governor this long, he sounds like he is complaining about his own failings.

But the best was when Pawlenty fielded a complaint from a New Ulm dentist about Minnesota's health care provider tax. “Pawlenty said he adamantly opposed the tax but couldn't get it replaced.”
WOW … now that’s an answer.
First, Pawlenty failed to acknowledge how essential that program was to his unallotment process in balancing the state budget. The Dental Access Alliance protested in advance of his unallotment due to past cuts. As Dr. Lee Jess, president of the Minnesota Dental Association explained “The state has already cut funding for oral health care by $18 million, or about 20 percent of the state’s total dental spending, during this past legislative session. This is enough. Further cuts to the remaining adult dental benefits of the Critical Access Dental Provider Program will be devastating, and in fact increase state health care spending in the long run.” Pawlenty’s response was to cut “$6.2 million to the Critical Access Dental Provider Program, which funds clinics that treat low-income and rural patients, as well as those with special needs. These cuts may force some clinics to close and force patients to visit hospital emergency rooms for treatment of their oral pain rather than the more cost effective use of dental offices. Statewide, there are currently more than 20,000 emergency room visits for dental care each year.”
Second, it has been stated repeatedly that businesses do not pay the tax … the tax gets added on the bill and paid by the consumer. In this case, since I write my check to the dentist who asked the question, I am paying the tax.
Third, ironically I have praised this dentist’s staff for being one of the 2,500 volunteer dental professionals that participate in the annual Give Kids a Smile outreach effort provided 5,200 needy children with free dental care.
Fourth, it is surprising that the dentist stated that the “Minnesota's health care provider tax drives dentists to other states where there is no such tax”. It’s possible that could be correct, but how well compensated are dental professionals in our state ? According to May 2008 US Labor Bureau statistics, Minnesota ranked third highest in the nation … and easily surpassing our bordering states (Wisconsin being the most competitive with Minnesota dental professionals earning a 23% premium and Nebraska being the lowest at a 38% lower wage). So, Doctor please stop complaining about an insignificant 2% Health Care Provider tax (which I pay) and address why your payroll is so high !

This event is supposed to be a Job Growth Summit, but the New In Town movie is an example of Minnesota’s failed job opportunity … at one time, it seemed that Minnesota had a vibrant film industry and although the movie was fictionally set in the real city of New Ulm, it was filmed in Winnipeg Canada . And the future does not look good for this industry, as Governor Pawlenty used his line item veto to the Economic Development and Housing Budget bill cut funds.

For the viewers of the film that invested 97 minutes of their time probably got what they expected … nothing special … no life altering revelations … no deep thoughts … just an opportunity to take a mental break with a mindless romantic comedy set in Minnesota.

For the invited luncheon guests that invested an equivalent amount got something entirely different. What should have been heartfelt and frank business discussion of how to grow jobs seemed to be nothing more than a social event for Governor Pawlenty, House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers of Maple Grove (32-B), Senate Republican leader Dave Senjem (29), and Representative Paul Torkelson of St. James (21-B) to glad-hand with potential donors and supporters.

For the working people – either currently employed or seeking work – this was another show that makes one wonder why it was called a Job Growth Summit since they were not invited … it should have been called a Republican Self-Promotion Job-Preservation Political Summit.

When the cities were announced for the Jobs Tour (St. Cloud, Apple Valley, Red Wing, Sauk Centre, Minnetonka, Rochester, Blaine, New Ulm, Faribault, Shoreview, Bemidji, Eagan, Woodbury, Princeton, La Crescent, Monticello, Chisago City, Fergus Falls and Willmar), the list seemed to be slanted toward cities where Republicans have elected officials …. where’s Bemidji, Brainerd, Duluth, Hibbing, Mankato, St. Paul and other cities that are experiencing high unemployment ?

Fortunately for Minnesota, other leaders are looking at jobs also. Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher has established a Jobs Task Force … what is different about this is that it is bi-partisan … and interesting that the members come from a more varied group of cities. The first meeting included State Economist Tom Stinson, State Demographer Tom Gillaspy, Art Rolnick from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and others, who described Minnesota's economic situation and the challenges in creating jobs, workforce development, worker retraining programs and how to help speed Minnesota’s economic recovery.

I won’t spoil the plot ending for anyone who has not seen the New In Town movie by telling you whether Lucy Hill was able to save the New Ulm small business … but
Pawlenty’s show is getting old to Minnesotans … he seems to be only interested in his next job and not taking the responsibilities of his current job seriously.

MN-03 : Guest Blogger Erik Paulsen Misses Free Trade Opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:00 +0000

Using old data, Representative Erik Paulsen becomes a guest blogger on The Heritage Foundation website to advocate for free trade agreements.
Why, he didn’t included a copy on his personal blog is for others to question (but my guess would be that your collection basket will grow when you preach to the choir.)

Reading his piece, there are three immediate observations.

First, he cites “a Peterson Institute study, the average American household is about $9,000 per year richer as a result of the country’s integration with the world economy since World War II."
Call me skeptical, but why does Paulsen go back to WWII as his starting point ? First, Representative Paulsen fails to mention that the report was written in 2004 … which begs the question, is that comment still current today. The report was criticized for its selective use of data … and if the time frame was from ”1982 to the present (a time that saw the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the passage of permanent normal trading relations with China) added only $9 per U.S. household, not $9,000.” Reading the study cited, speaks significantly about the impact of China … somewhat making the WWII reference point inappropriate when the focus should be on the future and not the past. Also, Paulsen fails to acknowledge other comments cited in the Peterson study related to job and/or wage losses : “Manufacturing workers dislocated in trade-impacted industries also experience average wage declines of about 13 percent in their new jobs, losses that may be offset only partially by the lower prices they pay for imports.”
Representative Paulsen should be embarrassed for using a report that misleads the reader.

Second, Representative Paulsen promotes the benefits of free trade on “countless businesses, small and large, ” mentioning ONLY one company in his district -- ”Bloomington-based Donaldson Incorporated, a leading manufacturer of air filtration systems and other industrial products.” No doubt that Donaldson is a great company … as testified by its global reach with 40 manufacturing facilities worldwide and an employee base in the 10,000 range …. hardly a small business. Paulsen fails to mention that one of business segments of Donaldson that was hit hard … “Sales decreased in the United States by 56.6 percent primarily as a result of a 50 percent decrease in Class 8 truck build rates and a 53 percent decrease in medium duty truck build rates by the Company's Customers over the prior year quarter.” … somehow the necessity to stabilize the automotive industry was not deemed appropriate to be acknowledged.

Third, Representative Paulsen calls for “Opening the South Korean market.” It’s not open ? --- Look around your house for items that are currently imported into America and no doubt you find some Korean built products. Year to date, South Korea has exported $25,747 million while American producers have sent $17,700 million to South Korea … repeatedly over time, America has been on the unfavorable side of the trade balance.

Summing it up, free trade is not necessarily fair trade.

All that stated, Representative Paulsen goal of generating jobs through foreign trade makes sense … but he has not identified a clear opportunity that would directly benefit Minnesota --- Cuba !

Opening export opportunities to Cuba is not a subject that Representative Paulsen should be unfamiliar. Prior to being elected to Congress, then State Representative Paulsen had the opportunity to vote on resolution in 2008 to that effect. The opportunity was stated that “under an ideal trade scenario, Minnesota farmers could enjoy at least $45 million in new exports annually; the state's total economic benefit would be nearly $92 million, including 900 new jobs.” These are opportunity dollars …. as “Minnesota is ideally positioned to benefit from the market opportunities that free trade with Cuba would provide, as trade restrictions succeed only in driving sales to competitors in other countries that have no such restrictions”.
When it came down to the vote, it was passed in the House by a vote of 86-9 … but State Representative Paulsen declined to state his opinion and abstained.
It must be noted that not only did Paulsen not want to confront this issue, but Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) vetoed despite having met with representatives of the Cuban government in Minnesota’s state capital and expressing to them that "he supported free trade and friendship with Cuba." …. Ah, that was before Presidential politics came in to Pawlenty’s mindset.

Today, the opportunity is more desperate for Minnesota’s agricultural industry. Minnesota Congressmen John Kline (R), Jim Oberstar(D), Collin Peterson (D) and Tim Walz (D) along with 60 other representatives have requested that the US Trade Representative to open export markets closed to US pork producers.

Additionally, Representative Paulsen has not joined 179 other co-sponsors of Representatives Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to support HR 874. The legislation would lift travel restrictions to Cuba for all Americans, restoring our right as citizens of the United States to travel freely.

Representative Paulsen, if you want to create new jobs in Minnesota, start with supporting your fellow Congressmen’s efforts to open Cuba for American business opportunities. Cuba could be a rare opportunity for America to actually have a trade surplus with net job gains.

MN-03 : Paulsen Joins Minority to Oppose Workers

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Country First !
That was the message at the Republican National Convention held in Erik Paulsen’s back yard … yet, he seems to have rejected that idea.
The concept was simply expressed as putting the good of the Country ahead of personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

No doubt that there many stark difference between the political parties and those differences are on display when roll call votes reflect party line votes.
But it’s the measure of “Country First” when a majority of both parties approve legislation.
But what stands out is when somebody stays in the minority to their party.
Increasingly, that is where voters will find Erik Paulsen.

Case in point … on Roll Call Vote 722 : Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 a majority of Republicans (104) voted in favor of the legislation while sitting in the minority was Erik Paulsen.
A year earlier, when similar legislation was being considered (Roll Call 683 :Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008) , Minnesota’s Third District was represented by someone else … Republican Jim Ramstad … who joined with 141 other Republicans to approve it.

Representative Paulsen is well aware of the national employment situation as he wrote on his 10/2/09 blog entry : “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report of an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent – a 26-year high – is bad news for American workers and their families. The U.S. lost another 263,000 jobs in September and 5.4 million workers have now been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.”

Looking at our state, about 120,300 Minnesotans lost jobs and went on unemployment from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31 while an estimated 1,000 people currently exhaust unemployment benefits each week, said Dan McElroy, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). State figures show that for every job vacancy, there are 7.7 people looking for work.

Representative Paulsen knows the problem exists.
Representative Paulsen believes that jobs must be created.
Representative Paulsen misses the point that to create jobs, demand … customer demand must be there … but too many people are curtailing demands because they are working less hours, are in fear of losing their jobs, or do not have jobs. The simple fact is that businesses want customers ... and after they get customers, then they will rehire.
The need is now … people want to work … but if there is an oversupply of workers, does the Country want to encourage more foreclosures, more people scrimping on healthcare needs, and draining food shelves ?

When the question of extended unemployment benefits was being voted on in 2008, it was cited that “Extending unemployment benefits has the potential to help the entire American economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.”
Denying extension of benefits actually hurts the country.
At that time, the complaint was about Republicans John Kline (MN-02) and Michelle Bachmann (MN-06)] and their failure to support this increase … now Erik Paulsen has joined the minority.
As pointed out in that commentary, the Federal Unemployment Tax Trust Fund is over-funded … these funds were saved for this rainy day. Business paid into the fund, so that if there would be a downturn, that their workers could get some money to pay for basic needs … and keep local businesses going.

In the past, Representative John Kline has said federal unemployment benefits are needed only when there are desperate economic conditions … well, Represenative Kline acknowledged on February 13, 2009 that “our nation facing economic distress” as evident by Le Sueur County unemployment rising to 10.1 percent. Yep, in case you were wondering, Representatives Kline and Bachmann voted again against this extension.

Why ?

Let’s look at what Country First is supposed to preclude : personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

First, Representative Paulsen voices a personal ideology of government spending needs to be curtailed … okay, but these funds are coming from an overfunded FUT Trust Fund. Representative Paulson can fall on the old line that “such assistance threatens to stem the economic upturn” if businesses have to pay higher taxes, but since the monies are already in the FUT Trust Fund, that argument is invalid. Representative Paulsen’s opposition may please a segment of the Republican faithful, thus his opposition may be more to ensure that he does not have a primary challenger from within his party.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his personal ideology (and self-interest) over Country First.

Second, it is true that “today”, only 22 states will benefit from this extension and Minnesota is not one. And that is why this is good legislation … there is a high threshold … helping only those states that really need it now … but the forecast is that Minnesota will soon be in that group. Also, when Federal benefits cease, there is an impact on state resources.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his state over Country First.

Third, partisan interests does not apply as a majority of Republicans supported these extensions.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test.

In my view, Representative Paulsen is not putting Country First … much less his constituents and makes me appreciate more how great a Congressman Jim Ramstad was.

MN-02 : Why Isn’t Kline Condemning Increased Federal Role in Education ?

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:44:00 +0000

From MinnPost, Representative John Kline (R-MN) speaks about his new legislation : “The Teacher Incentive Fund puts states and local communities firmly in control of efforts to improve teacher quality. This is precisely the type of reform we should be embracing - models that allow parents, teachers, and local school leaders to work together to develop systems that meet each community’s unique needs.

Does it do that ?

My reading of HR 3683 doesn’t indicate that.
Parents are not mentioned in the legislation but the Secretary of Education is given the authority to distribute the funds as deemed worthy. There is a requirement for matching funds from “State, local, or philanthropic funds which should be sufficient to “sustain the activities at the end of the grant period”. Those eligible to apply for the grants include charter schools and depending upon the interpretation possibly religious-based schools … not necessarily the theoretical “troubled inner city school”. Funding is not required to be spent and may not exceed 3% of the budget.

IF Representative Kline really wanted to enact legislation, then where are the co-sponsors ? Where is the companion bill in the Senate. 96 members (82 Representatives and 14 Senators) have worked as educators, as a teacher, professor, and/or school administrator … but do the legislation’s prime authors, Representatives Kline and Tom Price M.D. (R-GA) have any real world experience teaching in elementary or secondary schools ?

Most surprising is that the legislation is being offered by two Representatives that warn of the “takeover by the federal government”.
The question should be coming straight from the Heritage Foundation playbook : Only the federal government can handle national defense, international relations, and the administration of federal laws. But why should politicians in Washington decide how education dollars are spent in Lakeville, Minnesota or Marietta, Georgia ?
Typically, the message from Conservatives is to shutdown the Department of Education and allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs, but this gives more authority to the federal government !

So why is Representative Kline offering a bill that gives greater authority to the federal government while creating an unfunded program that states would be stuck with the bill if the program ends ?
I don’t know, but I do know if a Democrat offered the same plan, Representative Kline would be the first to condemn it.

MN-01 GOP Blind to NICE

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:15:00 +0000

In The Republican Party of Minnesota's First Congressional District blog, Bruce Kaskubar warns about Eye Care in the UK.

I don’t know if Mr. Kaskubar is an ophthalmologist and I do not think that his intention was to scare us, but instead was to express concerns about healthcare legislation – specifically a “rationing board”.

Mr. Kaskubar cites an OpEd that was printed in the Wall Street Journal concerning the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – the UK board that promotes "best practices" in medicine.

One might think that if it is printed in the WSJ, that it is current and factually correct, but be warned it can also be misleading and ill-informed.

Mr. Kaskubar accurately cites “In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers."

OK, blindness is scary … but shouldn’t the question be asked : Why did NICE restrict use of these drugs?

On January 2, 2007, Genentech Inc., the manufacturer of Avastin™ (bevacizumab) and Lucentis™ (ranibizumab), informed ophthalmologists that the ongoing SAILOR clinical study revealed a higher incidence of stroke in the 0.5-mg Lucentis™ dose group. When Lucentis™ was initially approved for use, the warning label expressed concerns of the theoretical risk of thromboembolic events with intravitreal inhibitors of VEgf,3 a drug class that also includes Macugen™ and Avastin™.

Ah, that poses an interesting question --- is the risk of a stroke worth preserving the patient’s vision ?

There is also the question of cost. In the US, Lucentis™ runs close to $2,000 per monthly shot (and if the coverage is through Medicare, the co-pay is $400). By contrast, Avastin™ — a close biochemical cousin to Lucentis™ — is priced for use in far larger doses as a cancer treatment, so the tiny amount needed for injections into the eye costs only about $40 a shot. Genentech makes both medicines and has been under pressure for the pricing of Lucentis™ when Avastin™ is apparently effective in treating wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) … as it is in treating colon, lung and breast cancer.

Those two reasons would seem to be valid justification for NICE to restrict usage while it studies the drug.

In the US, the FDA is involved in the CATT Study which has the primary aim to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of treatment of subfoveal AMD with both Avastin™ and Lucentis™, determine an appropriate dosing schedule and, to see if there is any clinical difference between the two drugs.
I wonder if the FDA had issued the same ruling as NICE did, would Mr. Kaskubar or the WSJ writer complain that the motivation was due to rationing ?

Incidentally, Mr. Kaskubar and the WSJ writer failed to update the status from NICE’s 2007 instructions. NICE in August 2008 issued a report authorizing the use of Lucentis™ with the UK government paying for the first 14 injections in each eye being treated. If people need more than 14 injections per eye, the manufacturer has agreed to provide the drug at no additional cost.

The obvious question is : What is the price of Lucentis™ in the US versus what it is in the UK ?

Now, I am not an ophthalmologist … and that’s the point … the concept of a second opinion is always beneficial … and NICE seems to be contributing to that goal.

Common folks, like me, rely on the medical community to know what to do … but that may be idyllic.

Governor Tim Pawlenty has complained about direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising resulting in increased number of patients asking physicians for treatments because they heard about it on TV or a friend told them about it. Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry pays physicians to give “educational” seminars on their products creating a potential conflict of interests. Eli Lilly was fined $1.4 billion dollars in January to settle a lawsuit by the federal government that it illegally promoted drugs while Pfizer paid $2.3 billion fine in September for the same activity. Recently, Schering-Plough offered a variety of psychiatrists around the country up to $1,600 a day and $170,000 total to talk about Saphris, a new psychiatric drug.
Clearly, costs are being impacted ... and that's where the issue should be --- not "rationing".

Let’s not be blind to misleading stories … it is a fact that “rationing” occurs today when insurance companies decide if they will cover a drug or procedure.

Let’s not promote fear.

Mr. Kaskubar is concerned about a “rationing board” but fails to acknowledge that the Obama Administration's proposal for a Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research does not have the same authority as NICE does.
IMO, that is a mistake.

Let’s enact reforms that promote “best practices”. Controlling costs and ensuring best practices can best be achieved when government is involved protecting consumers and patients.

Walz Calls for Town Hall Meetings - So should Kline

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:43:00 +0000

Being honest with the public is the best policy. Sometimes the subject can be contentious and the public ill-informed … that’s why members of Congress need to reach out to their constituents and educate them.

First District Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) has never shied away from engaging with his constituents … long before this summer’s Town Hall hysterics, Representative Walz had open forums discussing Veterans issues, Senior issues, Agriculture issues, etc. … issues that directly affected his constituents. During the current health care debate, Representative Walz has held private meetings with interested groups as well as tele-town hall meetings and open meetings in Mankato and Rochester.

Second District Congressman John Kline (R-MN) has shied away from open meetings only holding one during his first three terms and finally after the August recess, Representative Kline held his only public meeting to present his opposition to the HR 3200 healthcare legislation at Lakeville South High School on September 18th.

Healthcare reform is not the only critical question facing the country … and not the only one that has long-term financial impacts.

Representative Walz appeared on MPR’s Midday program stating that Americans should be as engaged in the discussion about the war in Afghanistan as they are in health care reform.
Further Representative Walz put it in perspective of dollars, families and our future : “We spent $900 billion in the last eight years, we've sent over 4,000 of our warriors that didn't return, we've got another 20,000 severely wounded and this is a choice that this nation's going to have to think very carefully about."

Representative Walz wants to hold a Town Hall meeting to discuss Afghanistan … possibly in Winona in October.
That’s why I like Congressman Walz. He wants our input.

Representative Walz will not be coming into the meeting as a partisian blind supporter of the Department of Defense’s viewpoint. Walz has had on-the-ground vantage of seeing operations in action (and without a kelvar vest). At the invitation of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Walz, who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee, inspected Special Forces training operations in Mali, Kenya, Djibouti, and Afghanistan, from August 27 to September 3rd.
Representative Walz will be able to educate us and also be able to react to our concerns.

Regardless of the party of the President, this time it is not going to be a partisain issue. Now that Bush’s War has turned into Obama’s War, I suspect that some of the fiscal conservatives that opposed the military involvement in Kosova during the Clinton Administration, will take a harder look today. Former Congressman Gil Gutknecht opposed Kosova and after his visit to Iraq expressed concern of that mission. Columnist George Will has called to pull out of Afghanistan. (On that suggestion, I agree with Representative Walz who has expressed doubt that anti-terrorist operations can be conducted solely by remote controlled Predator drones and spy planes.)

Let’s commend Congressman Walz … but he is not the only member of the Minnesota delegation that has responsibility for military oversight.

According to his bio, Representative Kline considers himself to have “established himself as one of Congress’s foremost experts on defense and veterans issues.” Representative Kline serves on the House Armed Services Committee and in April, 2009, he made his third trip to Afghanistan.

While Representative Walz has maintained an open mind, Representative Kline, in a radio interview on the AM 1170 KOWZ, expressed his staunch commitment for the engagement in Afghanistan. But Representative Kline has failed to address the financial impacts of the ongoing war. On a previous program, Representative Kline defended his support for an earmark for funding additional F-22A planes as a “jobs program” … without acknowledging that the plane has not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan conflict … and that the Department of Defense does not feel any more need to be built.
Representative Kline has been a vocal critic of earmarks … but his words do not match his vote. The DOD authorization is chockfull of projects that DOD does not want … including VH-71 presidential helicopter, an alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, a missile defense program.

It’s time that Representative Kline holds a Town Hall meeting to discuss Afghanistan and why he voted for these earmarks. Kline needs to educate the voters and get his constituents’ input.

Tim Pawlenty Heeds Advice from Don Draper

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:52:00 +0000

” If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation.”
~ Don Draper - Mad Men- Episode 29 “Love Among the Ruins”

The tide has turned in the emails that I get from people outside of Minnesota asking about Minnesota politicians.

No longer do I have to explain that nothing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) says surprises me. From her days in the Minnesota State Legislature when she effectively shutdown the Senate by inciting people to demonstrate at Senators’ legislative offices until there would be a vote on same-sex legislation, to her caucus packing to get the Republican nomination for Congress and her election victories with the assistance of Minnesota’s Independence Party, Bachmann’s history is well known.

No, the current questions are about our Minnesota Governor. Typically, they want to know what happened to him with such comments as “he seemed to be someone that seemed normal”.
The latest questions are a result of Pawlenty’s comments about President Obama’s address to students which Pawlenty states that it could be disruptive and raises concerns "about the content and the motive." The Republican governor also said on his WCCO radio program that the speech is "uninvited."

While some may view Pawlenty’s remarks as just another Republican politician taking a potshot at the President, my view is that Pawlenty is listening to Don Draper. Draper has worked on behalf of Republican candidates for President before (pro bono work with Nixon. Draper says: "Kennedy? Nouveau riche, a recent immigrant who bought his way into Harvard. Nixon is from nothing. Abe Lincoln of California, a self-made man. Kennedy, I see a silver spoon. Nixon, I see myself.")
Draper’s 2012 campaign would pit Harvard Obama versus Pawlenty "the son of a truck driver and a housewife from a meatpacking town who wants to provide a better quality of life for ordinary folks without growing government." … a PR dream candidate … and Pawlenty plays hockey !

Draper knows PR.
When a prospective client from Madison Square Garden expressed concerns of what is termed a “vocal minority” opposed to tearing down Penn Station to build the new arena, Draper’s advice was to ”change the conversation”.

Pawlenty’s goal is to promote a national profile for himself while hiding his Minnesota performance. It’s the Minnesota problems that ”If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation” lead to his attack on Obama for speaking to children.

On Tuesday, when Obama is addressing schoolchildren, Pawlenty will be facing a “leadership” question.
On that day, three former governors, nine former leaders of the state House and Senate, the state economist and state demographer will hold a Leadership Summit. The meeting was a suggested by former Governor Arne Carlson, a Republican, and former Congressman Tim Penny (D-MN) to consider balanced-budget solutions which will be necessary after Pawlenty unilaterally cut important state programs and pushed a $6-7 billion budget deficit off onto the next period.

Pawlenty’s radio attack on Obama was less than 48 hours after Carlson was on Minnesota Public Radio previewing the Summit. Carlson was blunt in his comments – Pawlenty has reduced reserves and relied on borrowing to push the problems beyond his term. Carlson faulted Pawlenty on his leadership.

And as far as the summit goes, Pawlenty has declined to participate. Instead he will join other Republicans at Eaton Corp. in Eden Prairie to discuss GOP strategy.

Carlson comments are not new … similar concerns have been expressed by former Republican Governor Al Quie … both who experienced significant budget problems during their tenures. But both engaged with the legislature and showed leadership … leadership that they still exhibit today.

Too much commentary will be made about Pawlenty’s comments that parents don’t have to submit their children to Obama’s message, but the parents should be more concerned about Pawlenty’s message to schools … telling them “see ya next year” … as he is shifting school payments from one year to the next --- a move that Pawlenty says will save $1.8 billion on the current budget. This “accounting shift” will result in school boards having to take unwise financial actions … such as the Bemidji School Board which has authorized the borrowing of $9 million to cover the funding shift. The School District will also have to pay interest fees from the borrowed money.

Don Draper is a fictional character; Tim Pawlenty is playing with our real money and leaving Minnesota in a financial mess.
So, I will respond to those emails telling them that Pawlenty may make a nice appearance on television, but he is not a leader. Rather Pawlenty is someone, like Bachmann, who can attribute his election victories to the impact of the three party system in Minnesota where minority rules.

In closing, another quote from Don Draper may be appropriate for the wannabe Presidential candidate Pawlenty. Followers of Mad Men know that Don Draper is the persona assumed by Dick Whitman ... who throughout his new life preaches that whatever failings that may be attributed with the past, can be ignored ... so Governor Pawlenty wants to ignore the financial implications of his tenure.

"Get out of here and move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened."

What would Thomas Jefferson think of Bachmann and Coburn comments ?

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:58:00 +0000

Revolution talk is in the air.

Last week, the Tulsa Beacon reported that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said “I like the idea of tea parties and a real revolution.”
During the same interview, Coburn was asked about The Freedom of Choice Act and how people should react if it was enacted.
Dr. Coburn’s answer? "Civil disobedience.”
Coburn went on to say “The battle in Washington, D.C. is real. Every day in the Senate without Al Franken is a great day. ”

Saturday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN:06) told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country.

Would the Founding Father recognize – Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous – as the political discourse prevalent in our nation 220 years after the Constution was approved ? Hardly.

Thomas Jefferson would not appreciate having his words mangled and taken out of context. Jefferson never said or wrote 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,'; Jefferson did write to Abigail Adams in 1787 (Note : Jefferson was in France during 1787) “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
So a number of thoughts.
First, it was written before the US Constitution was approved, and the Congress or President elected. America was still in its development.
Second, he clearly stated that “resistance” is based on “certain occasions” … in other words, a limited application. A “little rebellion” which is a vast difference from a “revolution” to overthrow the government. Today, peace protest marches have replaced armed rebellions.
Third, Jefferson eventually saw that the elective form of government was working and in 1806 wrote “In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority.”
In other words, voters should use the ballot box for protest … not insurrection.

The common denominator for Coburn and Bachmann is their opposition to abortion and a proposed “cap and trade” legislation.
Jefferson may have an opinion here also. After his presidency was over, Jefferson wrote in 1816 “Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."
So Jefferson was in essence suggestion that the Constitution was not a fixed document, but that new generations may look at issues differently.
A March 2009, Zogby Poll found that nearly 42 percent of the respondents said they "strongly agree" while another 16.5 percent who reported that they "somewhat agree" with the president’s proposal "that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
A January 2009, ABCNews/Washington Post Poll found that over 80% approved of abortion which involved saving a woman’s life, health or in the case of rape or incest. Further, 57% considered it should be legal in most cases.
My point is not to debate “cap and trade” or abortion, but just to point out that if Jefferson’s concept of a new constitution every generation may produce – over time – a country that addresses gay rights, health care reform, gun restrictions, etc in an entirely different approach than today … and that Coburn and Bachmann may not like what the “people” would enact a new constitution.

Using terms like Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous is totally inappropriate by someone elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The words inspire Anarchy.
According to a Bachmann spokesman, her remarks about Revolution were Metaphorical.
That response is insufficient.
These comments could easily be denounced by Democrats, but it really must come from Republicans. No doubt that “Cap and Trade” is a contentious issue … after all, Bachmann was unable to get the RNC Platform Committee to included any amendments to oppose cap-and-trade. This is understandable considering that Senator John McCain was a proponent of the legislation. McCain was not alone. Norm Coleman was a co-sponsor of John Warner and Joe Liebermann legislation. Although Coleman is not presently a member of the Senate, he could exercise great leadership by denouncing both Coburn’s and Bachmann’s choice of words.
Another Minnesota Republican that should denounce these words is Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty approved the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 which addresses a multi-sector cap-and-trade program.

The country has too many problems that need addressing that require reasoned discussions, not rhetoric that is designed to incite a radical emotion.

Overwhelming Support for Lily Except for House GOP Women

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:54:00 +0000

Today, President Obama has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ... his first piece of legislation.
Legislation that was driven by a woman, so do women support this legislation ?
Let’s look at the scorecard : Senate 100 % approval (16 yes and Zero No votes) while the House approved 59 to 16 with two not voting.

So who are these House Nay-Sayers ?
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Judy Biggert (R-IL)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Mary Fallin (R-OK)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Note : Kay Granger (R-TX) did not vote on the initial version ( Roll Call 9 ) but did vote NO on the final version ( Roll Call 37 ).

That’s right, every NO vote in the House came from Republican women !
Yet in the Senate, EVERY Republican Woman voted FOR this legislation.
WHY the difference ?
Congresswoman Bachmann defended her vote on her blog entry .
Time will tell if the Congresswoman’s concerns are valid. She writes ”This would likely increase the number of frivolous pay-discrimination claims in future years, since older claims are more subject to faded memories, missing documents, unfound witnesses, and businesses that have changed hands or no longer exist. In the Fall of 2010, it would be a fair question to ask the Congresswoman how many “ frivolous pay-discrimination claims” have been filed … my gut tells me that she won’t have a significant number to report.
Republicans have not fared well in the past two elections. Women elected under the Democrat banner far exceed the Republican women. Somehow, this vote may not help their future cause.

Of course, this is only the women in Congress. The men had a say in this vote (the House male vote was 186 to 155 in favor). I wonder about some of those men. While I am sure that Hope Walz is proud of her poppa (that would be First District Democrat Tim Walz) for supporting this legislation, I wonder how Sixth District Congressman Erik Paulsen (R-MN) will explain his vote to Cassie, Briana, Tayler, and Liesl Paulsen. That may be a difficult conversation especially when President Obama cited protecting his two daughters from future wage discrimination while recognizing the employment of his maternal grandmother.

Although the 111th Congress is just starting, there is already a too strong partisan bent. There are some issues that should be above party ranker … yet the Republican women in the House would rather follow their Party Managers instructions than stand up as the Republican women in the Senate did.
Change needs to start in the House.

GOP Not Serious About Earmarks; Dems Not Serious About Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:19:00 +0000

Congress is back !
While some things stay the same, other things change … and not for the better.

Oh, sure there are plenty of new faces --- each with unbridled optimism and good intentions. Alas, their first reaction must be … did you guys run last November ?
For those voters that thought that change would be in order, must now be seriously disappointed. In Minnesota, all the House incumbents were re-elected … but what changes will really happen ?

In the House on Republican side, Minnesota has returned John Kline and Michele Bachmann.
Kline’s major theme of his re-election was Stop the Pork while Bachmann is also on a pork-free diet. So, did the Republicans heed their campaign motto ? NO.
Pork can be best controlled through the Appropriations Committee which directs all federal discretionary spending. I have never heard Kline or Bachmann openly campaign for assignment to this committee. With Democrats increasing their overall numbers in the House, the Appropriations Committee ratio changed from 37-29 in the 110th Congress to 37-23 in the 111th, leaving Republicans with only two seats to fill after accounting for retirements and election losses. Of course, they could have re-assigned existing members including dishonored Jerry Lewis (R-CA) but that change is rarely made. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who is an outspoken critic of wasteful government spending openly campaigned for a seat last session and for this new session. IF the Republicans wanted to stop the pork, they would have made sure that Flake got that assignment. Alas, the new members will be Tom Cole (R-OK) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH). Word is that Cole was promised the assignment in exchange for stepping down as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (no Blagojevich buy-out here).
Minnesota’s newly elected Erik Paulsen (MN-06) has been assigned to the House Financial Services Committee where Bachmann has served.
So, on the Republican side, Minnesota has lost its voice in the powerful Ways and Means Committee with the retirement of Jim Ramstad. Republicans filled six slots - Charles Boustany Jr. (LA); Ginny Brown-Waite (FL); Geoff Davis (KY); Dean Heller (NV); Dave Reichert (WA); and Peter Roskam (IL).
Voters were sold a “pig in the poke” with Kline and Bachmann’s ranting … they have started off this session exhibiting their failures to motivate their colleagues … all the while the grandstanding continues for voter’s obfuscation. Kline issues press releases while Bachmann editorializes about limestone sidewalks, skateboard parks and bike lanes. No doubt we will hear about these “earmarks” thoughout the session, yet they have failed to take the necessary action by making real change in committee assignments.
The GOP is playing us for suckers again.

And the Democrats are not starting out well either.
In the House, the Rules have been changed. Term limits on committee chairs have been changed while the “Pay-go” rules which required spending proposals to be balanced with revenue or cuts, have been gutted.

While Kline and Bachmann are pseudo-deficit spending and "anti-pork-barrel" politicians, Minnesotans in the First District remember a true fiscal conservative – Tim Penny. When Penny was in the House, he formed the Democratic Budget Group and when his party failed to reduce the federal deficit, he did not seek re-election. Penny saw the hypocrisy and excessive partisanship first hand. He wrote a book entitled Common Cents: A Retiring Six-Term Congressman Reveals How Congress Really Works--And What We Must Do to Fix it which he denounces the rules that make chairmen too powerful. Penny was right then and the Republicans changed those rules under the guise of the "Contract With America”. After the lessons of Tom Delay, Duke Cunnningham, John Doolittle, Jerry Lewis, and Rick Renzi just to name a few dishonored Republicans, the Democrats are reverting to the old rules just when Charlie Rangel (D-NY) ethics problems are being investigated. Rangel chairs the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. It was a good move when Henry Waxman (D-CA) took over for John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce. Failure to allow younger members like Tim Walz (D-MN-01) and Keith Ellison (D-MN-05) to assume responsibilities opposes the opportunities for change.

Walz should be angered by the relaxing of Pay-go rules as his votes last session clearly embraced that philosophy, and was a major theme in his election campaigns.

Somehow, I suspect that Penny, who must still be smarting over the over half a million in federal funds that was slipped into the 1991 budget at the last moment to preserve and enshrine Lawrence Welk's boyhood home in Strasburg, N D (pop. 623), must see that nothing has changed has changed in over a decade since he left Congress.

{NOTE : on the Senate side, the major committees that will impact spending include : Appropriations Committee - Minnesota does not currently have a member and the Democrats have a four seat advantage. On the Senate Budge Committee, Minnesota does not currently have a member and the Democrats have a three seat advantage. Franken may be in-line for a seat on the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee where the Democrats have a one seat advantage. The Coleman legal challenge is impacting Minnesotans from having input on shaping our fiscal future.}

Paulsen should seek Gutknecht’s seat

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:46:00 +0000

This is a big week that will decide whether Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03 Elect) has an impact for Minnesota in the 111th Congress. Paulsen will make his first votes on the leadership of his caucus and press his case for which committees he would like to serve.

When Tim Walz (D-MN-01) was faced with the same opportunity, he saw the openings left by Gil Gutknecht and Mark Kennedy who would not be returning to be part of the 110th Congress. Walz hit a home run on committee assignments … taking Gutknecht’s spot on Agriculture and Kennedy’s spot on Transportation … plus Veterans Affairs and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. His resounding re-election proved that the District approved of his work on those committees.

Paulsen has expressed a desire to assume Jim Ramstad’s seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Arguably that is one of the most powerful committees in the House, and as such many other experienced legislators will be vying for that assignment.

Unfortunately, one of Gutknecht’s committees no longer has a Minnesotan assigned. In fact there has been a vacancy that the Republicans did not fill during the 110th session. Interestingly, the ranking Republican, Ralph Hall (TX-04) was elected as a Democrat in 1980 and did not switch parties until 2004.

If Paulsen wants to serve Minnesota’s interests, he should aggressively seek an assignment to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By now the chants of “Drill, Baby Drill” have died down, but the energy crisis has not … even as the credit crisis has expanded.
The Science and Technology committee can have a major impact on America’s future … and Minnesota needs to part of it. The future of energy may be created by the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. Much like the Defense Department’s DARPA program which developed the Internet as well as GPS, ARPA-E may be the answer to our energy needs.
DOE and private-sector research can easily produce long lists of energy technology projects, but what Congress needs to do is to separate the “wheat from the chaff”. With programs like Automotive and Manufacturing Engineering and Technology (AMET) at Minnesota State University- Mankato, the University of Minnesota’s Department of Forestry’s woody biomass project, or the use of biomass gasifier at the University of Minnesota-Morris, Minnesota has plenty of “ideas” that just need a “champion”.

The Bush Administration requested no funds for ARPA-E in FY2009 while candidate Obama proposed $150 billion in spending on advanced energy technologies. This will be an important assignment that Paulsen should seek out.

While some may say that the private sector should pay for their own research, that “Pollyanna” idea will be seriously challenged as businesses go through their own evaluation of their financial outlook where too often the first things that are cut is Research and Development funding.
There is no doubt that the national debt should cause some serious funding questions be asked … including Bush’s human missions to Mars and other NASA programs. For that matter, I would hope that Congress takes a good hard look at the Bush’s funding of such programs as $13 million for Iraq Cultural Heritage Project (ICHP) which will train new professionals to preserve Iraq's historic treasures and to protect archaeological sites in Iraq … as well as the $300 million for "information/psychological operations" in Iraq (also known as propaganda) ... and $45 million for polls and focus groups to monitor Iraqi attitudes. The Department of State estimates it will spend $5.6 million on public diplomacy in Iraq in fiscal 2008.
A good chunk of that money should be re-assigned to Science and Technology projects.

Coach Walz Call a Time-out !

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:00 +0000

Good news, Coach Walz … the Scarlets of Mankato West are returning to the Minnesota State High School League Championship Game. This will be the school’s fourth appearance, and is vying for their third championship, winning Prep Bowl titles in 1999 and 2002.

Obviously, this is a great source of pride for the student-athletes, school officials and the community at large. But everything must be kept in perspective. You’ll recall when you were involved with the team that the key was to keep focused on the job at hand … not dream about the future.

It’s easy to project that high school star going to NCAA Division I-FCS college and to dream of a professional career. But the let’s keep everything in perspective. Does it happen – sure – my high school never lost a football game in four years and every senior was offered a college scholarship … one of my classmates went on to become a QB at Purdue and was drafted by the Colts … but my high school may be the exception (even though there are not many that can claim a Heisman Trophy winner and Super Bowl MVP as their alumni.) But my high school coaches were smart … they recognized that not everybody could get to the highest level so most of the schools were not Big Ten but smaller schools … some declined the opportunity to play football … but they had an offer if they wanted it.
Sometimes it’s just nice to be considered as their talents might lead them to another career … as another kid from my high school went on to serve as a member of Congress and even visited Minnesota as a guest of then-Congressman Tim Penny.
Sometimes a multi-talented individual has a talent but that actually is bested developed and expanded upon, and not switching to other areas.

So Coach, it’s time for Congressman Walz to call a time-out and squelch these stories that he is being urged “to consider running for Governor in 2010.”

Congressman Walz, I voted for you to represent the First District in Congress. That’s the job that needs your full focus … and a job that you are good at. Politics and policy can be at crossroads … they sometimes connect but too often, people like to speculate about “who should run for this job” … and obviously, it’s nice to be recognized … but your talents are needed in Congress.
At the Federal level, Congress can impact our lives significantly --- positively as well as negatively.
At the State level, the impact is small as a balance budget prohibits making major policy changes … hence as Governor Pawlenty’s $86 million "Green Jobs Investment Initiative" may be a “good idea”, it will face the question of balancing “financial resources”. As will his 21st Century Tax Reform Committee … as will his Teacher Quality proposal, or his plan to revamp health care by permitting access to online personal health portfolios.
Sure some aspect of these programs may be implemented, but it’s like playing football at NCAA Division III … the opportunities are limited by the budget. Congress is NCAA Division I-FCS … it’s the game you want to play in.

The players are different … and there are plenty of “candidates” in the state legislature that appear to be willing to step up. Let them play … stay in Washington and provide them the assistance the Federal Government should provide. That’s the best way to serve the people of Minnesota. Please stay focused on the job at hand … let others dream about the future.

Durenberger goes Country First suggesting Walz for Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:56:00 +0000

There’s a growth that can be seen in many politicians that is rarely exhibited while in office. When first elected, it seems to be Party First but after they are out of office, or face a defeat, the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship produces a Country First veiwpoint. Nationally, look at John McCain after his 2000 Presidential defeat or Trent Lott after losing his Majority Leader position.

In Minnesota, former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger has been an underappreciated Country First voice of reason. In a 2006 commentary, Durenberger’s efforts on behalf of Minnesota Citizens Forum on Health Care Costs was cited. Durenberger continues to nudge our state’s elected leaders on health care writing recently “Governor Tim Pawlenty, like most Republican legislators, believed the key to improving value was getting working families to "put more financial skin in the game" by making them buy high deductible indemnity insurance outside the employer market. What he has apparently come to understand is that is putting the cart before the horse - making people pay for stuff they don't really understand. That may work in cosmetic surgery, or lasik surgery for your golf game, or to create markets for retail clinics and urgi-centers. It doesn't for the 15% of the chronic or potentially terminally ill cases that currently generate 82% of the healthcare costs in Minnesota.

Durenberger expressed his support of Barack Obama for President and suggested that Coleman is pushing health care reform that we need - and can pass in giving his endorsement in this year’s Senate race.

Today, Amy Klobuchar and Durenberger discussed the 2008 election results and their implications, at an event sponsored by the Minneapolis Club and the Minneapolis Foundation.

Durenberger praised Klobuchar for her first 22 months in office which wasn’t a surprise since he written in his e-newsletter that “she has a record of performance both with Democrats and Republicans which make her a most successful and influential Democrat from Minnesota. He stated that Norm Coleman shared his assessment.

Durenberger was not as kind to candidate Al Franken who he describes as a totally committed liberal Democrat that we don’t know how he would perform in the US Senate. Durenberger went on to state that the DFL had not offered their strongest challenger and suggested First District Congressman Tim Walz.
That’s an assessment that I shared after hearing Walz in a debate and realized that he would be a more effective voice in the Senate than Senator Coleman. For the record, this election was too important for me to “waste my vote” on someone who couldn’t win … so Mr. Franken got my vote, but it was certainly reinforcing to hear that somebody that puts Country First recognizes Congressman Walz’s potential.
After all, with Country First people, we don’t ask about political party.
Minnesota and the country need more people like Dave Durenberger.

Bachmann misses Television Appearance

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:38:00 +0000

It is common knowledge that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN:06) has pledged to never to vote for a new tax or tax increase , as well as pledged to not pursue earmarks, and even a pledge against legislation involving climate change, but has she made a pledge not to appear on television ?

Heaven forbid that after appearing 23 times over seven weeks starting in September, I would hate to think that one minor setback on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews would stop her from appearing on the only television worth viewing … CSPAN.

On Wednesday, November 12, Bachmann’s House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing on Mortgage Modifications. Considering that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called the current situation “a once-in-a-century credit tsunami” one would have hoped that Congresswoman Bachmann would be there to represent Minnesota.
Sadly, it was broadcast on CSPAN and no Bachmann in attendance.
I hope that the Congresswoman has not gotten camera-shy.

Republicans were well represented by Spencer Bachus (AL-06), Tom Price (GA-06), Randy Neugebauer (TX-19), Judy Biggert (IL-13) and others.
Bachus spoke with concern not only about the foreclosure problems, but also about the automobile industry since he has two plants in his district.
But the best comments came from Steven LaTourette (OH-14) who expressed outrage at the potential tax benefits used by banks to acquire each other. “When you have a handful of people picking winning and losing banks and deciding how to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, transparency must be required,” LaTourette has stated. Describing the PNC buyout of National City Bank, “This was no ordinary bank acquisition once the government stepped in with billions of dollars. We need to shine a light on this and see if it was on the up and up.”
Further, LaTourette expressed grave concerns with the slowness in $300 billion "Hope for Homeowners" program which is intended to keep homeowners in their homes yet has only received only 42 applications in the first two weeks, a dismal fraction of the 400,000 homeowners it was intended to help. Congressman LaTourette said the current financial situation in the U.S. "is a mess."
Additionally, the New York Times has reported there is a lobbying frenzy by an army of hired guns for banks, savings and loan associations and insurers for access to the Treasury program; making citizens ponder if government is the biggest friend of corruption..

It should be pointed out that Congressman LaTourette, as Congresswoman Bachmann, voted against the bailout bill … yet his concern did not end with his vote.

And if Bachmann thought they she could skip this hearing because she had a “tough election”, that wasn’t any acceptable excuse to Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA-11) who had a come-from-behind re-election victory. Kanjorski expressed Instead of placing blame, we must work together toward a solution.
In fact, there was a great degree of bi-partisan spirit by the members in attendance.

At a news briefing yesterday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson emphasized that the consumer credit market "has for all practical purposes ground to a halt," which is "raising the cost and reducing the availability of car loans, student loans, and credit cards."

Next week, Congresswoman Bachmann has two more opportunities to participate in hearings Oversight of the bailout and aid for the auto industry . These are critical hearings and Congresswoman Bachmann would be advised to skip her announced “basic educational Israel trip”.

The election is long over but time for attention to her Congressional duties is now. Bachmann is campaigning for a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee … based on her lack of participation in Financial Service hearings (she also missed the October 21st hearing on the shadowy banking practice of credit default swaps), she has not earned it.

Is one Minnesota Congresswoman going too far to say Thank You ?

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:41:00 +0000

Following Tim Walz election victory in November, 2006, he launched a “Thank You” tour of cities – large and small -- throughout the First District. The New Ulm Journal wrote : “The common-sense, pragmatic people of southern Minnesota are ones you should look to on what they’re going to do so I’m honored to be your representative there,” Walz told a gathering of about 60 in the Grand Hotel. “We won, and for that I’m incredibly proud. So, it was a great day the other night. Electoral politics still works in America. This is still the best democracy in the world. It doesn’t matter what you were up against. The people here in this country decided they wanted to see a change, and each and every one of you did everything possible to make that change. It wasn’t for yourselves; it was for those future generations.”

That tour wasn’t the last time that voters would see Congressman Walz … sure he was there when there was a natural disaster … but he was also there at Hy-Vee groceries stores throughout the District – talking with citizens regardless if they voted for him. He also held hearings in the District on the Farm Bill, legislation for seniors and legislation for Veterans. That’s why Walz was overwhelmingly re-elected winning every county and taking 678 out of 749 precincts.

There is another member of Congress who is about to go on her own “Thank You” tour.
The Star-Tribune reports : Sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council, the trip will be what a Bachmann staffer referred to as “just your basic educational Israel trip.” The excursion will last for all of next week, but she isn’t expected to meet with any VIPs while there.
So, why is Congresswoman Bachmann taking another trip to Israel ?

Could it be to make a formal “Thank You” to her contributors … which have earned Bachmann a slot in the Top Ten of PAC Contributions in 2008.

Taking junkets to Israel to develop some future business for Minnesota firms is cited by Governor Tim Pawlenty as his reason for taking a Jewish Community Relations Council trip. Considering Israel and America have been active trading partners, it may not be an earth shattering event … as would be a Pawlenty mission to Cuba (which Govenor Ventura did and considering a new Obama Administration, it is more likely to develop new Minnesota businesses opportunties first.)

But Bachmann’s reasoning - “just your basic educational Israel trip” - just doesn’t make sense … . In August of 2007 Bachmann went on a privately funded trip sponsored by the America Israel Education Federation (AIEF) to Israel. On that trip, she met with foreign leaders.
How many trips does the Congresswoman need to take to get “just your basic education”?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she hopes Congress can return this month to approve spending measures to stimulate the depressed economy. The election campaign may be an excuse for Congresswoman Bachman to miss Congressional hearings regarding the roll of Congress in the failure to regulate credit default swaps. But there is no excuse for not being there after the election. Of course, if Bachmann had attended the hearing, she may have learned that her misguided blaming of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as being the driving force for the credit crisis with her allegation that "loans started being made on the basis of race, and often on little else" was refuted. There are three reasons to exonerate the Community Reinvestment Act in the mortgage meltdown:
• The CRA applies to banks. Most subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks -- so the CRA did not cover them.
• The nonbank lenders made more reckless lending decisions than banks did.
• Regulations didn't drive the subprime lending boom. The pursuit of profits did.
But then again, we don’t know what “Thank You" tour, Congresswoman Bachmann has for her contributors from the Banking Industries.

When voters went to the polls last week, the message was loud and clear --- we want action … and Bachmann is enjoying junkets.

Will Republican Minnesota Congressman Words Be Heard and Proven Correct ?

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:39:00 +0000

"People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing."

In America, we have a representative democracy whereby voters select representatives to make their decisions. Obviously, it would be impractical otherwise as voters would have to decide via a referendum process all collective actions for the peoples common good.

The quote above is from Walter H. Judd who represented Minnesota’s Fifth District and the real question is who will participate. Potentially, 3,199,307 could participate.

It’s the people that participate that will decide these elections. The Republicans will be motivated especially in the three key Congressional Districts where they have incumbents. The Second ( Kline – Sarvi ), the Third ( Paulsen – Madia ) and the Sixth ( Bachmann – Tinklenberg ) will have strong turnout. Unfortunately, the districts represented by the Democrats will only turnover if there is low voter turnout.

Playing into a low turnout is the Electoral College in which Minnesota is not considered to be competitive.

Voters please don’t be dissuaded from participating in process. Remember that every House seat in the Minnesota Legislature is on the ballot.

Get out, VOTE and BE HEARD !

In MN, House more important than US Senate vote

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:20:00 +0000

Last year when I wrote a Vote 60 commentary, my assessment that Minnesota will not be a factor in the Electoral College this time is proven to be correct.
However, I have come to change what part of this year’s ballot is most important.
It's not the US Senate, but the House.

Although I am still concerned with the rules of the Senate that allow for Holds and Filibusters, I believe the next Senate will be more bi-partisan. The 2008 elections put a number of Senators, like Norm Coleman, in a position of trying to work with the Democrats and the 2010 class looks like the Republicans will be in a similar position. Of the seats up for election, 19 are held by Republicans and 15 by Democrats. Of the Democrat seats, none may be lost while Arizona (McCain), Iowa (Grassley), Kentucky (Bunning), Louisana (Vitter), and Ohio (Voinovich) could have challenges. Of those, McCain, Grassley and Voinovich are most likely to join Maine’s Senators Collins and Snowe on select issues (job creation, climate change, etc.)

No, the most important choice Minnesota voters will make on Tuesday is who will represent you in the House.
The critical issue is the economy and what will government do to improve it?
What tax policy will be put in place?
Will some be asked to pay more or will services be cut?

These are critical questions with unemployment hovering in the 6% range, consumers not spending resulting in lower sales tax revenues, and a housing and stock market collapse. The result is a budget shortfall approaching $2 billion dollars (although some project it could be $4 billion.)

Obviously, I am referring to the Minnesota House.

Who does your next representative want to support ?
Being in southern Minnesota, my focus has been on the 24B (Tony Cornish and John Branstad) although the candidates in the 21B (Paul Torkelson and Bob Skillings) and 24A (Bob Gunther and Dale Hansen) seem to have the same approach to the issue.

Cornish approach is clear.
"What it is, is a problem when - if the state has less money coming in - we have to find some place to cut," Cornish told the Fairmont Sentinel. "Just like the county is going to have less money coming in. They're going to have to disappoint people. In the lack of the state's ability to print money, when we get shorted in our revenue ... what other choice do we have to cut? As far as transportation, we just passed a gas tax. The last thing in the world we're going to look at is more revenue for transportation."

Branstad, agrees that finding a funding solution will be difficult but has a more realistic, long-term view telling the Mankato Free Press “Cuts aren’t made without repercussions. It is going to be a very challenging environment. When you have limited pie, any increase or decrease for one piece has an impact on another piece.”

Well said, Mr. Branstad … it’s how the pie will be cut.
And Mr. Cornish, what a cavalier attitude that embraces "going to have to disappoint people" instead of how to serve people.

Governor Pawlenty has tipped his hand as to how he wants the pie cut when he established the 21st Century Tax Reform Commission which is reviewing how to improve Minnesota business competitiveness. Pawlenty has already asked all state agencies to submit budgets cutting expense 5% which equates to $2 billion.
Anyone willing to take the bet that Representatives Cornish, Torkelson and Gunther would follow the party line and give tax cuts for business and cut existing state programs ?
[I wish the slogan “Country First” was more evident in Minnesota where it appears to be “Party First”.]

As Minnesota faces the implications of this financial crisis, the next Congress will be asked to support the states. In fact, even though this is campaign season, the US House of Representatives has held a number of hearings and may bring forward a $100 billion economic stimulus package to the floor during a lame-duck session the week of Nov. 17. Democratic leadership indicate that it might include "federal matching funds for state Medicaid programs, an extension of unemployment benefits, expanded food stamp spending and money for infrastructure projects" in the package.
An October 2008 survey of public transportation agencies by the American Public Transportation Association identified 559 ready-to-go transit projects at a total cost of $8.03 billion meaning construction jobs starting within 90 to 120 days.

That’s the key. The federal government will want the states to participate.
When I heard Congressman Tim Walz on the radio endorsing John Branstad for 24-B, it was evident that Congressman Walz knows the problems facing Minnesotans and wants members in the state legislature that will work with Congress.

A vote for Branstad and Walz is not a vote for party politics, but for progress for Minnesota.

(Note: The next US House of Representatives will have a dominate Democrat slant including the possibility of an increase in Minnesota delegation. Voters in Minnesota’s Second District and Sixth District have a choice of embracing Republicans John Kline and Michele Bachmann who have not supported the earmark process that determine those ready-to-go transit projects or Democrats Steve Sarvi and El Tinklenberg who will address jobs and infrastructure improvents.)

Club For Growth TV Ad for Doctor in the First District

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:54:00 +0000

I bet you haven’t seen the Club for Growth PAC television ads which portray the Democrat as someone who “is trying to present himself as a moderate, but it is clear from his positions that he is far outside the mainstream. His support for universal health care and his relationship with Big Labor is out-of-touch with voters in First Congressional District” while encouraging support for the Republican challenger who is a medical doctor and will fight “for lower taxes and less government spending. He will be the kind of representative taxpayers can count on.”

As a matter of fact, have you noticed that unlike last election where there were a number of independent groups (such as Chamber of Commerce) running television ads in the First District supporting Gil Gutknecht, that this year they are absent ? Where are the illegal immigration ads ? Heck, remember the Freedom's Watch ads attacking Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN-01) over FISA or when the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care and the American Health Association attacked Walz for his vote on the CHAMP Act ?
This year … very quiet … too quiet … its spooky.
My guess is that those interest groups have learned that these attack ads don’t work in southern Minnesota. Walz didn’t change his views as his office was inundated with letters and calls supporting him.

The Club for Growth PAC commercials are real but are not being run in Minnesota’s First District, but instead in Maryland’s First District. The similarities between the candidates … a perceived Moderate Democrat against a Medical Doctor Republican … is eerie … yet the money that the PAC is spending in Minnesota is going to the Sixth District to defend Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Why ?
Could it be that Bachmann is in serious trouble and the Club for Growth does not want to lose one of its minions ?
Or, could it be that the Club for Growth feel that its advertisement could be detrimental to Dr. Brian Davis in his bid against Congressman Walz ?
Both are probably correct.

For Davis to win, he needs a low voter turnout. The evaluation of the District’s newspaper editorial boards is that Moderate Everyman Tim is deserving of a second term and that the unabashedly conservative, political novice Dr. Davis is the one that is out of sync with the district.

So is the election is over, right … hardly.
Unlike other states, Minnesota does not have an early election period … as the media continues to report that Obama will win Minnesota’s electoral college votes and voters see long lines at the polling booths, there is the temptation to turn back when the lines begin to expand. Apathy is Walz’s main challenger … and the lack of independent expenditures lulls the voter into a state of complacency.

MN-01 : Davis needs more time to Study Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Dr. Brian Davis, the Republican candidate in Minnesota’s First Congressional District responded to an inquiry from KEYC-TV regarding a national sales tax : “It’s a good idea in principle” adding that he needed to “study it more”.
That comment is just another example that Dr. Davis is too inexperienced to be trusted to represent the district in these critical economic times.

So what would a national sales tax do?
Representative John Linder (R-GA) first introduced a version of the Fair Tax in 1999 and each session thereafter including most recently H.R. 25, the “The FairTax Act of 2007.” Former First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht (R) was a co-sponsor and strong advocate. Currently, John Kline (R-02) is the most recent cosponsor. During the Republican primary, Governor Mike Huckabee was a strong supporter while Senator John McCain distanced himself from it although he spoke favorably about it earlier.

Here are the highlights of the legislation :
---- Imposes a national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
---- Sets the sales tax rate at 23 percent in 2009, with adjustments to the rate in subsequent years.
--- Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate sales tax revenues among: (1) the general revenue; (2) the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund; (3) the disability insurance trust fund; (4) the hospital insurance trust fund; and (5) the federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund.

In short, payroll taxes including funding for Social Security and Medicare are eliminated … as are income taxes and estate taxes.

If this was such a good idea, why didn’t the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress move this legislation beyond simply introducing it ?
Obviously, it is too radical of a change.
Social Security and Medicare would be at risk if revenues from sales tax collection slowed up.
This would be a repeal of the progressive nature of income taxes; replaced entirely by a consumption tax. In these iffy economic times, where many families are delaying purchases, now is not the time to rely exclusively on a national consumption tax.

This would be a major change in America’s economic activity. There is no home mortgage deduction (which is cited in the Fairmont Sentinel’s endorsement of Dr. Davis) nor deductions for local property taxes, medical expenses, or charitable contributions. All the tax deductions that taxpayers have been accustomed to are gone.

All that said, it is incomprehensible that a candidate that has spent virtually a year campaigning for this office, cannot definitively tell voters if he favors a national sales tax.
Davis has voiced his skepticism of climate change, denounced mandates for automobile efficiencies and extolled that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, yet he cannot comment on a tax policy change that has been written about for almost a decade.

The next session of Congress will have to address the national debt and operational budget imbalance while putting in place tax policies that are equitable and foster job growth. For Fiscal Year 2009, without the recent Wall Street bailout package, the federal deficit was $562 billion including the borrowing for the war. The national debt will have virtually doubled during the Bush years. Now is not the time for radical changes to our tax system.

The simple answer that Dr. Davis should have said was “No” to a national sales tax and a “YES” to PAYGO … but that would have meant that current Congressman Tim Walz is correct.

MN-01 : Davis Endorsement – The End of Mortgage Tax Deduction

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:38:00 +0000

As the newspapers are issuing their endorsements in the First District, Congressman Tim Walz (D-01) has converted the New Ulm Journal to a supporter (after endorsing Republican Gil Gutknecht in 2006) as well as earning the support of Rochester Post-Bulletin (which withheld an endorsement in 2006.)

However, the Fairmont Sentinel found that the Republican challenger Dr. Brian “Davis has a better grasp of the key issues.”
To voters who have heard Dr. Davis in the debates might disagree, but maybe the Sentinel had the opportunity for extended interviews to glean information that may not have been widely disseminated to the public. It should be noted that Dr. Davis has failed to provide questionnaire answers regarding ethanol subsidies, illegal immigration, agricultural trade policy, environmental quality issues, and senior citizens issues but the Sentinel was able to discern that he “has a better grasp of the key issues.”

The endorsement is clearly hinged on tax policy. One aspect that is mentioned is mortgage-interest tax deductibility, which Congressman Walz supports, but the Sentinel cites as part of the problem with the housing debacle. Did Dr. Davis tell the Sentinel that he wants to end the tax deduction for mortgage-interest ?
The most important deduction for most itemizing individuals is the mortgage-interest deduction. While many will defend this deduction as encouraging home ownership; it is not all that unthinkable that it could be eliminated since the deduction disappears under the Flat Tax. Previously, First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht was a major proponent of the Flat Tax. The Flat Tax has been supported by many Republicans including John McCain who in response to a question during an October 29,1999 debate, stated : “Sure, I’m for a flat tax. I’m for a tax system where average Americans can fill out their tax return on a postcard and send it in and not have the fear of an audit.” Today, McCain may be not so inclined since there could be problems with implementing a flat tax that might be resolved by grandfathering pre-existing mortgages; but with (initially) higher tax rates.
One of the major concerns is what the sales tax rate would be ? Projections range from 23 to 30 %.

Now, there is an advantage to a Flat Tax as payments are collected at the sales tax level. No doubt the current system is ripe for underreporting. For example, Forbes reports that “the rich are different when it comes to paying taxes: They hide more of their income. The previously unreported study estimates that taxpayers whose true income was between $500,000 and $1 million a year understated their adjusted gross incomes by 21% overall in 2001, compared to an 8% underreporting rate for those earning $50,000 to $100,000 and even lower rates for those earning less. ”
Since Dr. Davis has not released his tax returns, voters have no idea if Dr. Davis has reported all his income, but voters do know that Dr. Davis has repeatedly not paid his property taxes on time.

For this voter, I would rather have a Congressman supporting IRS’ efforts to collect all taxes including from the “rich” who probably won’t like losing their mortgage-interest deduction either.

Dr. Davis needs to explain if he had any discussions with the Sentinel concerning any changes in tax policies other than retaining the Bush tax cuts and what he would advocate that the federal government do to resolve the housing crisis. Until he responds, voters may not agree that “Davis has a better grasp of the key issues.”

Should I vote for a Minnesota maverick for US Senate ?

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:08:00 +0000

It’s just a few day until Election Day and I am still not sure who to vote for in the US Senate race.
I’ve listened to the candidates, watched the debates, and read a lot, but my mind is not made up.
Should I go with an experienced candidate? … or, the person that most closely adheres to my view on the issues? … or waste my vote on somebody who won’t win? Actually, the odds are pretty good that I will vote for the loser … so maybe “waste my vote” isn’t that off-base.

Norm Coleman has been endorsed by the Star-Tribune calling him “the Minnesota maverick”. Frankly, I have to wonder if Coleman would be just like “the Arizona maverick” John McCain … there are similiarities and that should be a concern. McCain started out as a dye-hard Republican and then showed some individualism and voted against his party elders, only to return to Party when it needed him. McCain’s pattern could be Coleman’s in the next term.

Let’s look at McCain’s “Maverick Claim to Fame” --- campaign finance reform. It’s true that McCain bucked his party and joined the Democrats to vote for a campaign finance reform, but the legislation was vetoed by George HW Bush (aka 41). Clinton said that he would sign that legislation, but McCain joined the Republicans to filabuster the legislation. When George W Bush (aka 43) became President, McCain joined with Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and enacted legislation that was agreeable to the Republican majority. The result was a reduction in influence by labor unions that would make large contributions, and produce the rise in 527 independent groups. Today it would be hard to say that the campaign finance system is better under the new rules, but it is easy to say that McCain was not a maverick.

That would be the concern with Maverick Coleman. Would he revert to his 2002-2006 “Protect the Republican Party” persona, or would he be what the Star-Tribune considers to be a compromiser ? Frankly, I think the Star-Tribune is giving Coleman more credit than he is due. They cite the funding for I-35 reconstruction … well, do you think that after Katrina and film footage being shown globally, that any Senator would have gotten any different support … plus didn’t Senator Klobuchar have any impact?
IF Coleman has been the compromiser that the Star-Tribune thinks that he has been, he has been late and ineffective. His support for biofuels is mentioned, yet the Farm Bill was not completed on time, and Senator Chambliss (R-GA) probably had more to getting Republican support than Coleman. Also, Coleman missed an excellent opportunity to promote biofuels and show his compromise skills if he had joined Sens. Chambliss, Conrad (D-ND), Issakson (R-GA), and Thune (R-SD) when they established the Gang of 10 to address energy legislation … plus he could have joined with Senator Graham who joined the group to promote the nuclear industry (something that Coleman supports). Now, Coleman is joining to be part of a Gang of 20 … better late than never … however the legislation is not as good as the bi-partisian legislation (which included those sources but also wind) supported in the House (notable Minnesotans Tim Walz (D-01), John Kline (R-02) and Michele Bachmann (R-06).
Yes, Coleman did support SCHIP, but he knew that Bush’s vetos would stand … and isn’t that one of Franken’s main positive points. Coleman has been steadfast in his support for maintaining the current tax policies while others like Congressman Walz want to lower taxes for the middle class.
Based on current polls, it appears that the Democrats will gain seats in the Senate relegating Coleman to a lower influence … in fact, Senators Snowe and Collins (R-ME) are more likely to have influence on legislation since for years they have supported Democrats proposals.
Coleman is hardly a maverick … more of an opportunist than anything else. He stood strong with Bush on issues ranging from FISA to the recent bailout.

Oh, I could vote for Al Franken as I am encouraged by the comment in the Pioneer Press endorsement “We initially took Franken for a hard-core partisan, and that gave us pause. But we sense that he is learning to fight for a "progressive" agenda with less rancor and more reason.” Although I have concerns that Franken could become a showman on cable television (taking Congresswoman Bachmann’s slot since I have hunch she will be declining those YouTube opportunities in the future), he would be restrained the next President’s desire for a second term. It’s safe to assume that there will not be any middle class tax increase or major expansion of government managed health care regardless of who is elected … maybe in a second term but not the first term.

Dean Barkley appeals to my fiscal conservatism and may be the true “the Minnesota maverick” that the Star-Tribune desires. Barkley has been consistent in the polls at 18 % … so he would need to virtually double his poll numbers to be elected. If he was rising in the polls, that might be possible, but he has stayed where he is at since the primary election. Historically, as voters realize that a third party candidate is not going to win, they switch to one of the two major party candidates. Voting for Barkley may be wasting my vote.

Somehow I must balance “wasting a vote” with voting for the candidate that best matches my issues. A maverick may be a good vote … but if I want somebody that supported funding for I-35, the Farm bill, a new energy policy featuring wind, SCHIP, a tax policy that benefits the middle class, opposes FISA and the bailout, my maverick vote would be a write-in vote for Tim Walz who would be part of the new Democratic majority.

OK, so since you took the time to read this, tell me why I should vote for someone else other that a write-in for Walz ?

Credit Crisis : Walz –v- Bachmann : Engaged –v- ill-informed

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:40:00 +0000

Do you remember the 60’s question “What if they gave a war and nobody came ?” …
well ”What if America had a crisis and only ONE Republican showed up ?”
or “What if American had a crisis, would your Representative report for duty ?”

When the Bush Administration stated it wanted a bailout package totaling $700 billion giving unlimited powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, Congress – Republicans and Democrats – were alarmed.

The vote was actually the easy part … either you accept this legislation or continue to redefine it until acceptable legislation is created. Eventually, a package was approved at a higher amount but with curtailed powers … with notable NO Votes from Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN-01), Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) and Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN-07).

After approval, it would be easy for Congress to let the Bush Administration work out its plan during this period prior to the November elections.
That would be wrong.
With America’s financial future changed by government intervention and partial nationalization of the nation’s largest banks, it’s clear that we want our Representatives involved. The key question is what new regulations would be enacted — and how can Congress ensure that the regulations will work.

Peterson in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture was concerned about the failure of American International Group (AIG), Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Washington Mutual, among others and the impact of shadowy banking practice of credit default swaps (CDS) and other derivatives. The Ag Committee has oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with the obvious implications of the Commodity Exchange Act in this crisis.

Congressman Peterson responded to the crisis by scheduling a hearing despite this being “campaign season”.
After the hearing, Chairman Peterson offered this scary warning “There is an estimated $55 trillion in credit default swaps somewhere out there, but no one knows for sure if any of these swaps offset each other, exactly who is on the hook for these swaps, who is trading with who and on what terms; and worst of all, no one has any idea who is solvent and who is upside down. The first step we need to take is to shed some light on just how the unwinding of these obligations will take place.”
Congressman Walz went off the campaign trail, participated in the hearing, and offered his assessment.
Sadly, as important as this issue is, only ONE Republican participated in the hearing … Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

While Peterson did his job, he wasn’t alone. The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, October 21st “to examine our failure to regulate credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and their derivatives, and the other fruits of their deregulatory push from 1995-2006. The results of that effort are now in—a crisis that is sweeping the global economy and threatening tens of millions of working families. The committee’s job is to see that this never happens again and that is the purpose of the hearing.” The hearing was broadcast via C-SPAN and offered expert opinion and suggestions from a panel of witnesses.

Sadly, Minnesota’s member of the committee, Representative Bachmann was not there to participate.
$55 trillion in credit default swaps problem and Bachmann is a no show.
IF Bachmann has problems with the course the Committee Chairman is pursuing, by skipping the hearing as a means of protest, she is doing a disservice to the process.
Rather than listen to solutions, Bachmann blames the Community Reinvestment Act for the problem, yet the CRA’s impact has been wildly exaggerated.
Where was Bachmann ? At a Rotary meeting !

If you are a regular viewer of CSPAN you have noticed the lack of Republican participation as well as there use of procedural tactics to delay votes.
Enough is enough.
Members of Congress will often cite the number of roll call votes they participate in as a symbol of their involvement; I suggest that they also tell voters how many Committee hearings they missed and to provide a reason why they were not there.

From my vantage point, none of these Members of Congress liked the bailout bill but Congressmen Peterson and Walz are actively working to ensure taxpayers interests are properly considered while Congresswoman Bachmann’s absence is inexcusable. During the August recess, Bachmann was expending Congressional funds to fly back and forth to Washington (and blogging ) that the House should be called “back immediately so we can debate and vote on the legislation that has been offered to deal with rising energy costs.” Drilling was her issue, not the housing crisis even though her district has a higher foreclosure rate than the rest of Minnesota and the rest of the country.

Minnesota voters need to know whose working for them (Peterson and Walz) while Bachmann may be more concerned with her relationship with her number one campaign contributor --TCF Bank, which is also one of the top-ten mortgage lenders in the state.

MN-01 : Davis Endorsements Highlight Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Minnesota Central) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:21:00 +0000

The Debate Minnesota event held in Mankato on Monday, October 13 between Congressman Tim Walz (D MN-01) and Republican challenger Dr. Brian Davis revealed a difference between the two candidates that projected who each would work for next session.

This debate followed a typical format --- opening remarks by each participant, questions from the moderators and audience, and closing comments. Obviously, the opening and closing comments were scripted such that each candidate could shape their messages for the audience.

Dr. Davis introduced himself and explained that he was running because of a concern that Congress was becoming a liberal branch of the government. He then recounted a story that concluded with his daughter stating that she would not vote for him … my spouse reaction was that it was a “cute” story … I thought she displayed remarkable insight for such a young age.

The questions were unscripted but Davis answers were enlightening for their lack of having a vision … especially regarding education but that is for another post.

It was Davis closing comments that were most insightful.
He talked about his endorsements.
Naturally, he cited his endorsement by the Republican Party (interesting that he does not have that printed on his yard signs, etc.), but also FREEDOM CLUB FEDERAL PAC , Associated Builders and Contractors of Minnesota (ABC), Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Federal PAC , and Minnesota Medical Association MEDPAC .

It was a stark contrast to Congressman Walz closing comments. He repeated that he never thought he would be a member of Congress and that he was working for everybody.

Davis seemed to be cueing that these special interest groups would get his special interest.
So, who are they ?
Freedom of America would seem to be an impressive sounding group, but it is an “organization of conservative Republican contributors” which is based in New Hope Minnesota and has contributed most of its money to Davis, Congressman John Kline (R-MN-02) and candidate Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03) and John McCain.
The Associated Builders and Contractors of Minnesota (ABC) was the first business group to endorse Presidential candidate John McCain and has access to President Bush --- most recently on August 12, 2008 when the President hosted members from the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) Executive Committee.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) is a well-known advocacy group regarding pro-life and same-sex marriage issues. The MCCL commonly advertises on television based on “issues” and not “candidates”, so their ads are not authorized by the candidate.
Minnesota Medical Association, as previously
stated, would be advocating for doctors (protecting tax rates and objecting to medical malpractice rates).

Wow !
The special interests have their guy and Davis is proud to have their support.

Surprisingly, Davis fails to mention other endorsements.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund endorsed Walz for 2008 after being a supporter of Gil Gutknecht in 2006.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee endorsed Walz for re-election. Apparently, Veterans realize their Congressman can make a difference as Disabled American Veterans rated Gutknecht a “F” in 2006.

While the National Farmers Union PAC endorsed for the second time Walz, Kevin Paap said that the Minnesota Farm Bureau's PAC would not be endorsing in this year’s congressional race although they had endorsed Gutknecht in 2006.

One slightly humorous line from the debate that should be noted. In May of 2007, Dr. Davis went to Washington to lobby on behalf of a bill stating "Excuse me Congressman. I would really like your support on this project. By the way, I would also like your job."
Interesting because the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, whose mission is to advance the practice of radiation oncology by promoting excellence in patient care, providing opportunities for educational and professional development, promoting research and disseminating research results and representing radiation oncology in a rapidly evolving healthcare environment, have rated Congressman Walz at 100 % meeting their goals.

The message is obvious. Walz is willing to work for everyone … regardless if they support him (or supported his opponent in the past … or even are represented by his opponent).

FYI : If you care about Walz’ endorsements they range from Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association to the Human Rights Campaign. No doubt, Walz’s list will grow.

The question for the voters is : Who will you endorse on November 4 with your vote… someone who will represent “special interests” or everybody ?