Jack of All Trades

During this Monday’s League of Women Voters Forum,  Terri Bonoff and her Republican challenger Norann Dillon were asked what was the most important issue facing their constituents.

Terri quickly and emphatically responded,  “the environment! “.  She then went on to spout some drivel that all of our problems would be solved if we just did a better job protecting the environment.

In a poll from 2009, respondents were asked to list their most important issues.  Jobs and the economy were at the top of the list. Environmental concerns including Global Warming were at the bottom.

My question to Terri is :  What planet do you live on, and what form of carbon neutral transportation do you use to make the commute?

A short post just ’cause I haven’t posted in a while.
Expression on Terri Bonoff’s face when she loses her SD43  senate seat to Norann Dillon.

From the Washington Post

Former Alaska Gov. Walter J. Hickel, who served as Interior secretary under President Nixon until he was dismissed for objecting to the treatment of Vietnam War protesters, has died at age 90.

I volunteered briefly on his endorsement campaign while I was in high chool back in 1978.   Met him a few times during that campaign. He was a small stocky guy and very outgoing.  He was Alaska’s second governor in 1966,  and again in 1990 when he ran on the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) ticket although he was never a supporter of succession and he rejoined the Republican party after the election.    Hickel supported Sarah Palin’s bid to become governor in 2006.  Outside of politics, Hickel was a real estate developer and was credited with building the first high rise building (5 stories I believe) in Fairbanks.

Nationally,  Walter Hickel served as Nixon’s Interior Secretary until he was fired over an anti-war letter that he wrote to the President.

Economic issues dominate the headlines as the Tea Party movement gathers the forces of fiscal conservatism to push back against the policies of the Obama administration.    This Tea Party movement consists of many viewpoints united by fiscal issues.    But, are there some underlying tensions that could cause disunity among the fiscal conservative movement.

Ben Smith at Politico.com writes

A reeling economy and the massive bank bailout and stimulus plan were the triggers for a resurgence in support for the Republican Party and the rise of the tea party movement. But they’ve also banished the social issues that are the focus of many evangelical Christians to the background.

Social conservatives who are perhaps willing to put aside issues that were previously important to them, namely abortion, and same sex marriage, are growing increasingly wary of what they see as a libertarian streak to the Tea Party movement.

… a new Contract From America, has become an article of concern on the social right.
The contract, sponsored by the grass-roots Tea Party Patriots as well as Washington groups such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform, asks supporters to choose the 10 most important issues from a menu of 21 choices that makes no mention of socially conservative priorities such as gay marriage and abortion.

In my opinion, a focus on fiscal issues can continue to unite social conservatives and others of a more socially progressive viewpoint as long as social conservatives are not asked to eliminate or forsake their core beliefs. Attempts to eliminate strong pro-life statements or platforms especially will cause rifts between these groups. You can ask social conservatives to get to the back of the bus, for now, but don’t throw them under it.

On Monday, both Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer signed a pledge during the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota debate in Minnetonka.   You can read the content of the pledge here. It’s a fine pledge, with worthy goals, but I’m just not into asking candidates to sign pledges of any kind.  At best it’s political theater, at worse it’s bad governance.   Marty signed a similar pledge a few weeks ago for the Taxpayers League.  It got some press, maybe swayed some delegates votes, maybe not.    Tom Emmer however, didn’t sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.   In his words, “I won’t sign pledges, never have”.   I liked that.  It fit him, and his style.

I don’t understand why he didn’t stick to it.   I didn’t need to see him sign that pledge to believe that he really wants to reduce taxes, regulations, and reduce the size of government.  He’s repeated that every time I’ve heard him speak.  I believe him.   He had a great chance to impress me by both sticking to his principles and by distancing himself from the Libertarian side of his base by telling the RLCMN that he doesn’t sign pledges.    So I guess in the battle of pledges,  Emmer is down 2 to 1, and he can no longer stand behind his principle of not signing pledges.

I just wish I could have taken the subsidized train to the subsidized stadium

Did Maureen Hackett, 3rd CD Congressional candidate, really wear Paulsen orange to the DFL 3rd CD Convention?

The DFL dodged a bullet with this one.

Screen shot provided by the Uptake here

I borrowed the title from Craig Westover’s recent piece Craig Westover: An Unpopular Position on Welfare. In this piece Craig tries to explain the difference between the typical Republican approach to welface reform and his vision (and I assume the Libertarian vision) of what the governments legitimate roles is to solve the problem of “those who cannot help themselves: the elderly, disabled and those who have insurmountable challenges”.

After reading the first paragraph, I thought I’d find more agreement with Craig’s article, but I didn’t.   You see, the position Craig states in the opening paragraph “… Republicans have to stop denigrating welfare recipients for applause” is something that I’ve been saying for years.    But Westover seems to drop that thought to go after Marty Seifert’s position on welfare reform.

Marty’s plan, and the GOP position on welfare generally, is all about fixing the welfare system so it matches a traditional Republican portrait of virtue, but it does virtually nothing to define and clarify just what is government’s legitimate “welfare” role.” Between the lines Marty (and Republicans in general) desperately wants to say government has no role whatsoever in welfare, but he (they) just can’t bring himself to say it and accept the political fallout and responsibility for the inevitable real-world consequences.

Here’s where my divergence with Westover’s piece became apparent.   I don’t secretly believe that “government has no role whatsoever in welfare”, neither do I believe that is what a majority of Republicans believe.   I believe that there are certain individuals who do have insurmountable challenges, the mentally ill, the severely handicapped, the elderly poor.   I believe that government has a role in meeting the needs of these people.    But,  the government welfare system has ballooned beyond those bounds to include people who have the ability to meet their own needs.  The Republican verbalized position, as Craig initially proclaims, needs to move away from “denigrating welfare recipients” to describing how a well run welfare system can more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of people who are truly in need, and deserving of assistance.  This is not welfare elimination, but rather this is welfare reform.

It’s interesting that Westover uses the sword of pragmatism (probably a first for him) to slay Marty Seifert’s welfare reform proposals.

From a pragmatic perspective, getting all Marty’s proposals through the Legislature is as likely stopping the tingle in Chris Mathews’ leg whenever Obama walks on stage. Too much visceral reaction. Ain’t gonna happen.

But he sheaths that sword when describing his own vision.

From Politics in Minnesota about last night’s Emmer vs. Seifert gubernatorial debate.

Weirdly, Butler ventured off the roster of questions submitted by the audience to ask whether the candidates thought the Federal Reserve was constitutional and then, in a throwback to a debate that happened early in the Bush administration, whether the war in Iraq was constitutional.

Seifert’s answer was a ramble, but Emmer called Butler out: “I am not running for president.” The crowd, understandably, became quite unruly. Someone yelled, “State issues!” and the crowd worked into a chant of “Minnesota! Minnesota!”

Thank you very much….

If you’re interested in comparing the voting records of the two front runners for the GOP endorsement for Governor, Tom Emmer, and Marty Seifert,  you owe it to yourself to do much more than just look at the Tax Payer League scorecards.   While the Tax Payer League is a notable lobbying group, it’s positions on issues may or may not represent your positions, no matter how fiscally conservative you might be.   It’s perfectly reasonable to differ from the Tax Payer League on a vote here or there and still claim the mantle of fiscal conservative.    Neither Marty Seifert nor Tom Emmer have scored 100% over their career.  If you’re really interested in voting records, rather than just reading claims of higher scores, it would serve you well to look deeper at the issues and circumstances of each vote.

I’ve compiled a list of votes from the Tax Payer League scorecards, where Emmer and Seifert have voted differently.  I’ve included links to the House Journal page and also to the actual legislation or amendments under consideration.    Follow the link, look at the votes, and make an informed decision on each issue about which candidate closer matches your views on this issues.

2009

8)  FEDERAL TAX CONFORMITY  — HJ 5858 referring to H. F.  1298 (Bill passed 125-7)

Emmer No <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert Yes

2008

5) THE ECONOMIC WAR OF HOUSE FILE 1812 — HJ 12723 referring to H.F.  1812 (Bill passed 115-19)

Emmer No <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert Yes

9. A HEALTH CARE BILL IN NEED OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT — HJ 12431 referring to S.F. 3780 (Bill passed 127-7)

Emmer No <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert Yes

11. NOT PROPERTY TAX “REFORM,” PROPERTY TAX RELIEF — HJ 11303 Olson amendment to H.F. 3149 (Amendment failed 19-112)

Emmer Yes <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert No

2007

8)  REJECT HIGHER ENERGY COSTS — HJ 446 referring to S.F. 4 (bill passed 123-10)

Emmer No <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert Yes

2006

2) LET THEM VOTE!  –  HJ 7119 referring to  Lenczewski amendment to H.F. 2480 (failed 64-66)

Emmer No
Seifert  Yes <- Tax Payer League Position

5. Bonding Bill  –  HJ 8531 referring to H.F. 2959 (passed 111-21)

Emmer No <- Tax Payer League Position
Seifert Yes

2005

6. KILL NORTHSTAR RAIL. — HJ 592 referring to the Vandeveer amendment to H.F. 3 (failed 29-104)

Seifert Yes <- Tax Payer League Position
Emmer No

9. DON’T BAN SUDAFED. — HJ 2598 referring to Olson amendment to S.F. 51 (passed 115-19)

Emmer No <- Tax payer league Position
Seifert

10. NO CHEESEBURGER LAWSUITS. — HJ 4751 referring to H.F. 118 (passed 75-59)

Emmer No
Seifert Yes  <- Tax payer league Position

These 10 votes don’t represent all of the voting record differences between our two candidates, only those chosen by the Taxpayer League as important to their issues.  Please take some time to study these votes and the issues behind them.    But if you like to keep score, please note, that on issues where Tom Emmer and the Taxpayer League differed from Marty Seifert, the total votes were 828 – 102 against the Tax Payer league position.   On issues where Marty Seifert and the Taxpayer League differed from Tom Emmer the vote was  243 – 154 in favor the Tax Payer League position.    Some may read this as an indication of Tom Emmer’s abundance of fiscal conservatism, others might be concerned about how this lopsided voting record will hurt his electability.  Independents and moderates don’t value the Taxpayer League scorecard as a voting guide as much as conservatives.