America's Mail in your Inbox: Sign up Now!!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Where The Mayor's Syndicated

Look True North

MinnPost

America's Small City Mayor

The MN Organization of Blogs

Pawlenty Outboxes DFL On Deficit Plan PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 17 May 2010 12:52


Written by Ed Morrissey   
Monday, 17 May 2010 10:14
 

For some reason, Tim Pawlenty has a reputation outside of Minnesota as too friendly and nice to fight for conservative causes.  Late last night, he demonstrated once again why Minnesotans know better — and why taxpayers in this state will miss him once his term ends in December:

The Minnesota Legislature adjorned [sic] its regular session only to begin a special session in the early morning hours Monday at the Capitol to take final action on a proposed budget balancing deal.

The special session is expected to last only a few hours and be limited to ratifying or rejecting the budget deal cut by DFL and GOP leaders and Gov. Tim Pawlenty just minutes before midnight Sunday.

“”We were able to resolve a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes,” Pawlenty told reporters outside his office. “That’s really important.”

Pawlenty stood firm on most of his budget demands and the DFL acquiesced to a large degree.

A three-billion-dollar gap may not sound as dramatic as the huge gaps faced by California and other states, but with a population of six million people, it was dramatic enough.  The DFL — our version of the Democratic Party — had demanded tax hikes as part of any budget deal.  They had passed a $400 million tax hike last week, which Pawlenty vetoed.  On Saturday, when we were supposed to interview Pawlenty for the NARN show, he had to cancel and fly back to the capital when it looked as though the DFL might try pushing through yet another tax hike.

Instead, Pawlenty insisted on cutting government spending.  The final version of those cuts won’t be fully known until after the vote today, but it appears that they mainly avoid hitting health services and schools.  Pawlenty also managed to keep the DFL from passing “surcharges” — the latest Democratic nomenclature for taxes — on hospitals, clinics, and health insurers in the state.

State spending had exploded in Minnesota over the last twenty years, thanks to the profligate nature of both parties during that time.  While Democrats want to continue that profligacy, the state’s Republicans have finally rediscovered their fiscal conservatism, pressed by Tea Party activists and led by a Governor who has kept his promise to stop increasing the burden on Minnesota families.  He may come across as Minnesota Nice, but Pawlenty didn’t win battle after battle with a DFL-led legislature over the last four years by being Mr. Nice Guy.

Cross-posted at Hot Air.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Technorati! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! Ma.gnolia! BlogRolling! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
 
Margaret’s Moment is Emmer’s Gift PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 05 May 2010 15:20

Let me admit that I was way off with my analysis on how the GOP Convention would ultimately end.  In having taken a step back with direct involvement on state political campaigns for a few years.  I realize my reading of the grass roots political pulse is not what it used to be.

Emmer won in quick and convincing fashion.  I think it surprised most seasoned politico’s, including, this small city mayor.  Given the connections Seifert had serving as MN House Minority Leader conventional thinking was everyone was in for a long process; but, conventional thinking was wrong.

What was even more surprising was watching how Margaret Anderson-Kelliher won her party’s endorsement.  A good friend of mine, and long-time DFL activist, (blue dog by own admission) was perplexed in attending the DFL Convention in Duluth.  He did not see anyone coming out with a legitimate shot at winning except Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, yet, she continued to move left on controversial issues.  Issues, in his opinion, that did not need to be addressed.    

The political tide that has benefitted Democrats for multiple elections has changed.  The outcomes this November will show if Democrats are now underestimating the political backlash that caught Republican’s by surprise for the last two cycles.  My guess at this point: Yes! 

The issue that created this political change is undisputable: Universal Health Care.  The first hand reports I have is Kelliher used Universal Health Care to sew up her nomination and it would remain a central plank of her campaign.  This was to win over Sen. John Marty's supporters.  In my opinion: Margaret’s Moment using Universal Health Care is Tom Emmer’s Gift.

My last two articles pointed to the fact that Tom Emmer has a lot of work to do in attracting rural conservative voters.  It is my opinion that he is losing to Margaret Anderson-Kelliher currently, and if this trend were to continue in Todd County: Emmer would lose just like Mark Kennedy did to Amy Klobuchar.

However, there is one issue that drives rural conservative voters crazy.  It is still a topic of coffee house conversation though the US Congress passed it into law long ago.  The topic: Universal Health Care, Out of Control Spending, and Deficits.  If Tom Emmer can frame this one issue correctly he doesn’t need to know what sound a cow makes.  (The answer for those not animal-ically inclined is: Mooo)

Emmer will hand DFLers another disappointing loss and will continue their exile when it comes to holding The Minnesota Governorship.  The Kelliher campaign will have been viewed as finished before it ever got off the ground because it got stuck on the left, and no amount of Universal Health Care will be able to breathe any source of life back into a poorly themed campaign.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Technorati! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! Ma.gnolia! BlogRolling! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
 
Emmer & Seifert: Continued PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 10:41

Walter I'm curious. What are some examples of issues relevant to rural Minnesota that those of us from the metro do not understand? I'm particularily interested to know if there is something you perceive Seifert will do for rural Minnesotans that Emmer will not.

The real purpose of my article is public perception which is important in winning an election.  I am limited in my response space in the comments section so I hope Walter does not mind me putting up his comment as it reflected many emails coming in today.

Here are a few specific examples I think illustrate the difference between Emmer & Seifert.  If you read the two websites of the candidates Emmer has the correct macro viewpoint on Agriculture and certainly hits the right notes.  It is five paragraphs and broad.  When Tom Emmer made his way out to Todd County this past winter I can tell you the conservative farmers were impressed with his speaking ability and he certainly said the right things. The same farmers were a little disappointed at the lack of specifics and inability to discuss Agriculture in any real detail beyond Green Acres.  Agriculture is a big issue here in West Central Minnesota and one of the largest pieces of our Minnesota economy.

 

If you look at the Seifert website he shows a depth of knowledge on very specific issues within Agriculture.  He can sit and talk with that farmer about specific issues that affect farming today. Sure green acres is important but so are issues in dairy, livestock issues, open and free trade, ethanol, etc.

 

The perception right now when I hear people talk in our area is that Seifert can represent the causes of rural areas because he shows a natural understanding and comfort with the issue.

 

I am not saying that Emmer needs to have milked a cow in order to win rural votes.  However, I am saying his continued campaign style combined with his regional location means he has to show that he is a student of the issue and has a knowledge of it that gets beyond macro policy and talking points.  

 

Mayor Norm Coleman of St. Paul did a fantastic job in his first campaign at studying and proving he understood the issues like Agriculture in depth.  In fact, Franken still has shown nothing in this area when comparing him to Coleman at the same points in their term.

 

Another issue: If you have read my blog regarding the LGA system I have supported reductions in it. Ideally, I would scrap the current process all together. I have never been popular with special interest groups loyal to cities or many of my elected counterparts.  However, there is a group of us working within the system and the reductions in LGA treat the City of Minneapolis just like the city with a population of a few hundred residents. We also treat that same small rural city, with one part-time employee, to do a job just like the big cities by keeping pace with all the unfunded mandates and paperwork that are way out of control.  It is becoming an impossible task which means a loss of local control and losing that control to a state agency. 

 

A number of small city mayors have tried to meet with the candidates for Governor at different times during this legislative session.  The two candidates that met outstate representatives every time were Seifert & Kelliher.  Seifert went, as far as, to offer the same LGA cuts as the Governor but in a way that makes sense given the size of cities.  Emmer was never able to meet with groups of Mayors from rural MN that I am aware of, even, the small conservative groups that are trying to reform local governments. Emmer, continued to try and make an issue out of the Seifert amendment on LGA without even hearing why it was proposed in the fashion it was.

 

The purose of my article can be summed up this way.  We know that Emmer is a conservative.  We know after the Meek's pick that Emmer is conservative.  The pick of Meeks shows nothing about Emmer that we didn't already know and for Emmer out here he has a problem.

 

Seifert's pick showed something much different and gives us a multi-dimensional view of what a Seifert administration will look like.  Again, a small city perspective fee and tax free.  Full disclosure I am a Seifert supporter, but that is because he has been responsive to groups around this state, like small city mayors, long before he ever started running for Governor. 



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Technorati! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! Ma.gnolia! BlogRolling! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
 
Tom Emmer's Inside The Beltway Choice PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 13:55

Tom Emmer's choice of Annette Meeks shows a strange decision making process that gives Marty Seifert an advantage.  

Seifert has gone out of his way to show a balance during this campaign for the nomination.  It is a philosophy that shows understanding between metro and rural interests here in Minnesota. His campaign focus during the past year, combined with, his choice of a Lt. Governor reflect a finely tuned campaign message that can win in Minnesota.  He wants to be a Governor that understands and represents all of Minnesota.

Emmer's choice, today, only reinforces a concern that many non-metro voters have, in that, Tom Emmer does not understand issues in the outlying areas of our great state.  His focus and campaign are about macro political philosophies with no understanding of nuance or balance. The choice of Meeks only reinforces what we already thought and brings nothing new to the table.

However, serving as a conservative small city mayor some finesse on different issues and perspectives are required.  It is one strength Tim Pawlenty had and my personal experience advocating down at the legislature over several years is that Marty Seifert is the only GOPer left in this race who has shown a grasp of this important ability.

I have followed and agree with a lot of the recommendations that Annette Meeks had brought forward. In fact, I think her ideas and focus would have made her an interesting choice for Governor during the primary.  However, she is a former Washington insider serving for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and her service here in Minnesota have largely been Twin Cities focused.

Does Meeks help Emmer get the nomination?  I'm not sure to be honest.  It has already started to spark concerns here among voters in Todd County I meet at the local coffee shops.  Todd County is a county GOPers have to win by a good margin.  Minnesota House Speaker Maragret Anderson-Kelliher will be a formidable candidate here in Todd County and has worked at crafting a metro & rural campaign focus.

In the Mayor's opinion Seifert is the only candidate that will be able to bridge the gap with the right campaign focus.  If you think I'm wrong please review the results of the Kennedy & Klobuchar race here in Todd County.  

Emmer's choice of Meeks shows what should be a concern to those in the Republican Party wanting a win, and that is what the GOP faces here in West Central Minnesota if the Emmer Campaign does not address what has become a big weak spot in their campaign.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Technorati! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! Ma.gnolia! BlogRolling! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
 
Please Don’t Drink The Kool-Aid PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 09 April 2010 17:00

Years ago I had the opportunity to sit down with Chairman Joel Godding over dinner.  I had just been elected Mayor and was excited about the possibilities for this area.  Contrary to pessimistic opinion the area I am proud to call home is not dying.  We are expecting slow, steady, positive growth.  It’s just one fact that presents a fantastic opportunity for those willing to plan. 

We discussed Eagle Valley.  He told me to get anything done, given the dynamics of the two cities, was critical and he hoped they could count on my support.  I was warmly invited to be involved on what has become a long journey.  The goal: a district on strong financial footing that can attract families into the area because we can continue to offer a first class education. 

After several years, uncountable meetings, three principals, and two superintendants the board approved a solution.  Close the Eagle Bend facility and move everything to Clarissa.  It was defiantly controversial, but ultimately it would save the district $200,000+ per year, give us the newest facility in the area, and allow us to add critical classes necessary for a 21st century education.  All while being good stewards of taxpayer money because of huge operational savings that can be reinvested back into our children.

The first organizational “Vote Yes” meeting is where my call for Jay Eckel to resign stems from.

It was my opinion, at the meeting, it would be impossible to pass anything if board members from either city were going to start taking shots at it publically.  Voters elect representatives to carry out the peoples business, and if those representatives begin dissenting then why would anyone Vote YES.  With a large number of board members present we were all told that ALL board members were going to defer speaking in public to Mr. Madsen. 

They went further explaining everyone understood we needed to pull this community together and try to work at getting this done to save the district.  There would be no letters to the editor or fundamental changes of position at town hall meetings.  The board was agreeing to give this an honest shot at passing and they asked all of us to do the same including other locally elected officials. 

So I drank the Kool-Aid.  I took everyone at their word. 

Forward to Independent Herald: March 17th 2010.  In an editorial published by Board Member Jay Eckel.  (Click to read and have your own opinion)  Jay was the only elected official that came out publically, as most know, against the bond.  He wrote he understood his letter would be viewed as counter productive to passing the bond.  I told the First Lady that afternoon I regretted drinking the Kool-Aid and the rest, as they say, is history. 

Without that editorial I am absolutely certain it would have passed.

So here are my positions on moving forward.  I understand I am not an Eagle Valley Board member, but I do have a responsibility to those who elected me here in Clarissa to look out for the long term health of this city. 

·         First, recount paperwork as been filed.  I do not have any reason to suspect anything is wrong, but having an independent review of the ballots and process will help clear the air on at least one issue.  The review will be independent, organized, respectful, and will simply confirm to each person their votes were counted correctly by a great group of dedicated election judges.  I want to be clear our election judges are some of the finest people I know.  They are committed to a foundational principle in our country, and is a reason why we live in the greatest country on the face of this earth.

·         Second, we need to reject any new proposals or referendums (except one: see below) that certain members of this board now seem to be throwing out.  Allowing them to pass any operating levy or other bond before the next election should be viewed as rash and irresponsible.    

·         Third demand the board offer up the same bond vote a second time.  Leadership is believing in something and not giving up just because it fails once.  The time and money invested in this project demand another vote.  We need this exact same bond, with an increase of 5%, so a new vote can be taken in a few months rather than half a year.  Lets give students, teachers, staff, and residents the satisfaction of knowing we are moving quickly to give them a clear sense of direction.

·         Lastly, Jay Eckel’s resignation (in my opinion) would benefit the area, and be another step in helping to clear the air.  It is my opinion it would go a long way in helping to restore trust and move us forward quickly too an operationally sound school that is the envy of the area.

In closing, I understand that there were a good percentage of voters here in the Clarissa that voted no.  In fact, as I went door to door on the final weekend passing out literature and talking too many of you.  A few said my support will give them some pause on voting for me again should I run for reelection.  I do understand their point and position.

However, it is my firm belief that the long term health of our area is enhanced by having Eagle Valley.  I am committed to working to ensure this occurs during my time in office.  If that means it would cost me my job as Mayor this November I can respect that and will sleep well knowing I did what I said I would do. 



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Technorati! StumbleUpon! Newsvine! Ma.gnolia! BlogRolling! Free Joomla PHP extensions, software, information and tutorials.
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 2 of 13