Ideas should be based on facts
Aug 25, 2004 News
“Ideas should be based on facts.” I could not agree more. A recent letter writer took me to task for suggesting that our country was founded on principles of equality. He accuses me of misrepresenting history and claims my statement that “This country was formed in resistance to rule by a privileged elite, and I believe we must return to our fundamental principles” is false, and offers his opinion that the fact that 
George Washington 
and Thomas Jefferson were privileged elite as proof of my ‘error’.
He also offers his opinion that the true principles of the revolution shaped a nation “formed in resistance to the idea that a foreign government ought to rule over and levy taxes against a population that had no representation in that government.” I don’t dispute the revolution had something to do with “taxation without representation” but until the revolution was over, Americans, like Canadians at the time, were British citizens and King George and Parliament were not a foreign government but were ‘our’ government and the law of the land. An equal number of citizens in the colonies supported the King, the country was divided in its view of elite rule as it is now. The rebellious colonists saw the King as an unjust ruler who governed by abuses and oppression, and they resisted his rule. Their notions of independence were stimulated by a philosophical movement which argued that the existing established order erroneously believed its rule was mandated by ‘divine will’ putting some men above others, insisting that only a certain few were fit for rule. John Locke, at the center of this movement, argued that men could rule themselves.
Perhaps the letter writer is unaware of Tom Paine’s writings, “To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not. If such a case could be proved, it would equally prove that those who govern are not fit to govern them, for they are a part of the same national mass.” (The Rights of Man, 1792). Paine’s argument is, that as Jefferson said, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The letter writer should have picked up that I believe that we are ruled by an increasingly powerful elite that is pushing the tax burden on to the middle class, expecting the wage earners “to be loaded with taxes” and reducing the investment in the public good in order to further enrich themselves. We need a change in direction, and today, as then, some of the elite see the need for the change just as Washington and Jefferson did in their day.
Or perhaps the letter writer is unaware that George Washington refused to be named King because he believed the revolution should found a government based on laws, not men. Perhaps the letter writer believes that when the constitution framers established the new law of the land they really meant “We the Few” instead of, “We the People of the United States.” Perhaps he believes they did not really mean, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Maybe they didn’t really mean to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, or promote the general welfare.” Today our government, state and federal, seem to have forgotten that constitutional mandate to promote the general welfare, to rule for the many, not the few.
The fact that Jefferson and Washington were elites does not mean they could not see the wisdom of establishing a government that would serve the interests of its people. 
Perhaps the letter writer believes the founding fathers rolled in their graves at the election of Abraham Lincoln, who born into absolute poverty rose to the Presidency and wrote “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal . . . that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
Does the letter writer believe that Lincoln, by describing the people, really meant the privileged few? Did Lincoln mean that the working people should survive on low wages and by their labor pay the taxes that increased the privilege of those who had wealth? Did he mean government should be small and preserve the rights of the elite and that’s what men have fought and died for?
The nature of our Republic, in case the letter writer missed it, has been under debate for over 200 years, but the framers were explicit in their language. I do not believe it has been established that our government’s primary function is to protect the rights and expand the wealth of the privileged few at the expense of the rest of us. That is why we have elections instead of inherited seats of government. As to the intellectual and historical sources of my ideas, they blossom from fertile American soil.
Why did King George feel his subjects in America should be taxed? It was his contention that because he was liberating them from his old enemy the French, American colonists should be grateful and be willing to pay for his protection. The problem was that many Americans saw the French and Indian war for what it was, a land grab that benefited the Empire and did not benefit them. They would have preferred peaceful relations with their neighbors. The colonists did not dance in the streets or throw roses to liberating British troops. Instead, they resented the militarization of their life, a war forced upon them without their consent, and King George’s demands that they pay for a war they did not ask for. Perhaps Republicans have difficulty with this scenario because it hits a little too close to home?
Community Issues Candidate Forum – Part I
Aug 22, 2004 News
“Where are we headed?” That is the most important question I rhetorically asked voters attending the Community issues forum at Carleton College’s AGH on Thursday night (see Ray’s blog). The biggest issue facing us in the coming legislative session is, once again, a large looming deficit. The State economist’s rosiest prediction is that we face a $1.5 billion deficit, and it likely will be worse. State agencies, schools and state-funded non-profits are all bracing for another round of cuts. Governor Pawlenty’s ‘no tax’ solution is no solution because it did not solve our budget woes, it only camouflaged the depth of the problem and shifted responsibilities from state to local governments, from the wealthiest of the wealthy to the middle class. Pawlenty is the first Governor in history to try to solve a budget downturn with cuts and spending shifts alone. Even former Governors from his own party object to this strategy, wanting a more balanced approach.
How is it that Rep. Ray Cox can say with confidence that things are just fine, there are no problems and the taxes that working people pay will bring us out of the budget crisis? When do the taxes of loophole finding corporations, passive income recipients, personal property taxes of utilities too often exempted, sin taxes, or gas taxes come into the equation. I think he’s out of touch with the impacts of the economic downturn, budget cuts and Republican policies on working people, and it’s not reasonable that working people bear this burden.
Misrepresentation – Ray Cox voted AGAINST JOBZ, he did NOT support it
Ray Cox is making misrepresentations about his voting record. At the forum, Ray was touting the JOBZ program. In his blog about the forum, he says:
When people are working they are not using or requiring high levels of state social programs, they feel good about their lives and they are working to support their families and lifestyle. With more Minnesotans working now than any other time in history more people are funding their own family and personal needs. Creating good jobs, through programs like the Job Opportunity Building Zone program, is the best type of social support system we can have.(raycox.net 8/20/04
His blog earlier featured other positive words about JOBZ, implying his support:
I totally agree with Governor Pawlenty about the impact of JOB Zone businesses. The potential for more and better jobs is unlimited. And many of these businesses will grow and expand, requiring new facilities to be constructed creating additional construction and maintenance jobs into the future. As long as Minnesota remains friendly to business and doesn’t create a difficult climate to do business we can hope to see more job growth raycox.net 8/11/04.
And two days before that, on August 9, 2004, he blogged this statement:
As one would expect, particular issues commented on range from farming and taxes to schools and jobs. I had several people thank me for my support of the JOBZ and Racino legislation. As one constituent pointed out, it is important for the Lonsdale area to keep Canterbury Park financially healthy to continue sales of hay, vet services, feed, etc. to the horses. Racino is one way to keep people coming to Canterbury.
But the most striking example of misrepresentation of his JOBZ position is found in his “2004 Legislative Report,” where Rep. Cox has this to say about jobs:
JOBS
Representative Cox supported Governor Tim Pawlenty’s Job Opportunity Building Zone (JOBZ)Program, which is already showing dramatic results – 300 jobs at a turkey processing plant in Marshall, 200 jobs in Albert Lea at a pork processing plant, and 150 jobs in Luverne at a card processing facility. In April, more than 1,500 additional jobs were projected as a result of JOBZ zones. Northfield, Lonsdale, and Faribault also have land designated under this initiative. Cox also supported policies that allow more businesses and entrepreneurs to start up companies and grow jobs in Minnesota.
Ray Cox’s statement that he supported JOBZ is false. He voted against the Bill.
Here’s the JOBZ bill cite:
Here’s the House Research Summary (it’s one long bill)
Here’s the Roll Call Vote (scroll way down, at the very bottom) that shows that Ray Cox voted against JOBZ:
So do Ray Cox’s votes show efforts to protect workers, provide training, good wages and stimulate job growth? How has Ray Cox voted on employment issues? Here are a few examples:
HF 748 House Jobs and Economic Finance Bill (2003) Ray Cox voted to cut 15.5% out of budget – $334 million v. $393 million.
Ray voted for it – I would not vote for this unamended.
- Mahoney amendment – in an effort to fund the Apprenticeship Program by not hiring assistant and deputy Commissioners and using those funds for program Mahoney moved to amend HF 748.
Ray voted against the amendment, and I would have voted for it.
HF 967 Jobs, Ag & Environment Finance Bill (2003) In the ultimate budget bill, Ray Cox voted for the bill that cuts 17% out of the base, including $53 million from job-training, housing and community development.
Ray Cox, and also Jeff Anderson in 27B, another district at risk for Steve Sviggum, voted against it, but there were enough Republican votes to pass. I would not have voted for this unamended.
HF 749, which became SS HF1 – State Government Finance Omnibus Budget Bill – Ray Cox voted for this bill, which included a wage freeze for state workers, declaration of 3.400 health care non-professionals as “essential employees” and thereby prohibited them from striking, put entire 18% increase of cost of employee health care coverage on state employees, and removed requirement that state must look within state employees prior to going outside and contracting for services.
I would not have voted for it unamended.
Ray did vote on an amendment to HF 749 bill that would have had an impact on jobs, well, a few legislators’ jobs at least.
Lenczewski attempted to limit influence peddling by offering an amendment banning legislators from becoming lobbyists until 12 months had passed since they left office. If this bill were in place in 2002, it would have had a local impact, because John Tuma would not have been able to go through the revolving door, leaving the legislature to become Chief Lobbyist for Minnesota Environmental Partnership.
Ray voted against this amendment, and I would have voted for it.
Training and educational opportunities were decreased under Republican leadership. HF 1568 (in Conference see HF 772)- Omnibus Higher Education Finance Bill. This bill cut the University’s budget by $191.5 million and the MnSCU budget by $176 million, an average of approximately 15%.
Ray voted for these severe reductions that resulted in another round of double digit tuition increases. I would have opposed this bill.
There were more educational and training cuts.
HF 2028 – Senate Supplementary Budget Balancing Bill. In this bill, the House considered Senate proposals to add, among other things, funding for grants for nursing students, National Guard reenlistment bonuses, National Guard tuition reimbursement and supplements for K-12 Education and Higher Education.
Ray voted against this bill, and I would have voted for it.
This one is hard to believe.
HF 102 – Minimum Wage Increase (2004) This bill would have raised the minimum wage to $6.65 on July 1, 2005. Someone working full time at this wage would gross $1,143.80 per month.
Ray voted against this increase in minimum wage, and I would have voted for it.
Like many of his fellow Republicans, Ray talks about supporting job growth, supporting economic development, but as noted above, he has voted against many simple but necessary methods of providing good jobs – through training and education, higher wages, insurance benefits. That list does not even address the many cuts to job training programs, post secondary education, failed attempts to hire Workers’ Compensation judges, to name a few. We have experienced two very harsh legislative sessions that I’ll explore in greater depth in future blogs.
Ray and I were asked about recent test results for Charter schools and Rep. Cox, who has promoted state tests, which reduce school district local control, said he felt using the tests at Charter schools is not appropriate. I responded by explaining that the tests and the No Child Left Behind initiative unfairly judge schools and mislead the public about a school’s performance. The StarTribune recently had and interesting article on this topic. (Lagging schools list may double) Ray Cox was a strong supporter of standards (www.minnesotavotes.org – p. 20 of 25) and was a co-author of HF 2 to replace the Profile of Learning with standards that comply with NCLB. Unfortunately, Ray did not include any allowance for his belief that the tests were not appropriate for charter schools in the bill, and he did not include a provision for different standards for schools that operate differently than traditional schools, such as charter schools and alternative schools. Because he promoted the testing without exemptions, charter schools and alternative schools are subject to the standards tests. I would work to include such a provision because they are a different type of school by definition, and I support Minnesota withdrawing from participation in NCLB.
What about the well-being of our well-being? Two years ago Minnesota was ranked the most livable state. We earned that ranking by hard work and decades of consistent investment in our ‘common wealth’. It represents a tradition of working together for the common good, reflected in our Health and Human Services priorities. Like many of his fellow Republicans, Ray talks about supporting human services but he actively participated in funding shifts, cuts and elimination of funding for programs that help people in need.
At the forum, Ray spoke of his support for human services programs, saying if there is a need for them they should be funded but failed to say how he would fund them. He also spoke of support for private programs and provision of social services by “the community” If he is not one of those ‘no new taxes stereotypes,’ he should step forward and clarify how these needed services will be provided and funded, or explain what programs will be cut or eliminated so that these services will be provided. He claimed to have voted against Health and Human services Budget (Special Session HF6. the final 2003 bill that so severely cut the Health and Human Services budget but a check of the “recorded roll call floor votes” indicates other wise – Ray Cox did vote for Special Session HF6).
According to the House Journal (page no. Ss771), Ray supported the 2003 Health and Human services bill that the St. Paul Pioneer Press said contained, “the deepest cuts to health and human services in state history and will substantially affect thousands of Minnesotans from the womb to the grave.” Direct state payments to hospitals are reduced by $38 million that will trigger an additional loss of $24 million in federal funding. The bill increases the state nursing home surcharge that is used to generate additional federal funding; triggering a $2,025 increase in the annual rates charged to private pay nursing facilities. Also state Medical Assistance payments are reduced, costing nursing homes $100 million in lost revenue. The bill repeals an expansion of the Minnesota Senior Drug Program that would have allowed more seniors to purchase drugs at a reduced rate. He also voted for a 15% reduction in funding for Senior Nutrition Programs resulting in 135,000 fewer meals for seniors.
In the 2004 session, it was more of the same, where Ray Cox co-authored the Health and Human Services Omnibus bill (HF 1681 Journal of the House p. 6418) that slashed beyond 2003.
In a recent Faribault Daily News letter to the editor, Ray Cox has been touted by a supporter as being a “friend of nursing homes,” which is true, in that he co-authored a number of bills that provided benefits to nursing homes – but that hurt nursing home residents — bills that limited damages an injured resident or patient could received from a long-term care provider (HF 2471), co-authored bills to revise apportionment of joint and several liability as discussed at the nursing home forum in 2002 (HF 429) and to limit civil actions against nursing homes, prohibit use of government data, non-economic damages and shorten statute of limitation for suits (HF 610); co-authored a bill making standards and regulatory requirements more favorable to nursing facilities (HF 491). This is another case of using high nursing home insurance payments as justification to limit civil actions by injured parties, not mindful that insurance premiums are increasing primarily because consumers are bearing the brunt of the market downturn, that insurance companies are not making as much on their market investments as they used to, just like the rest of us, but now we’re paying for it. “Tort Reform” is a very important Republican agenda item, and these bills fall right in step.
I stressed that we have to look at other than wage earners, working people struggling to get by, and three of the options I outlined are:
1) Closing corporate loopholes, which Ray did vote for in the Hilty amendment to HF 749, a good vote. Corporate profits are up, but revenue from corporations to state coffers is down. Rep. Ron Abrams, chair of tax committee has said that this is something that urgently needs to be fixed. I would make this a very high priority, because these loopholes have to be closed so that we know where we are. After that is fixed, we look to other means of increasing revenue.2) Turn back the tax cuts given to the wealthiest Minnesotans in recent years so that they pay their fair share.
3) Reverse the shift in school funding from the state to local governments, who then have no option other than to scramble and chase levy referendums in search of unexpected holes in their budgets. Look at what happened with school finance when the state assumed responsibility for school funding. At a recent forum, Rep. Rukavina said that the adjustments made resulted in wealthy School Districts like Edina, that had not previously relied on State funding because of their strong tax base, were now given money that would have gone to needy districts under the old scheme. And we know what is happening in the Minneapolis Public Schools. This should be fixed.
Another topic was the cost of healthcare. Again, generally, both Ray and I agreed that this is a major problem facing citizens. It affects budgets everywhere from small businesses to schools and state, local governments and the budgets in each of our homes .
The Minnesota Department of planning now under Administration estimates that health care costs Minnesotans $19 billion per year. The average Minnesota household currently pays $11,000 per year in premiums, out-of-pocket costs and taxes for health care. Health care costs affect the cost of goods in this country too. Automakers pay $1400 for each car they make to provide health insurance to their employees (Health&Medicine Week 6/21/2004 p.2) and as with most businesses those costs are passed on to consumers.
A recent Dartmouth study (Health&Medicine Week 6/21/2004) showed that nearly a third of the $1.6 trillion spent on health care in America fails to improve health or goes to duplicative care.
Minnesota has been a leader in trying to offer healthcare insurance to citizens and yet 38,000 lost coverage as a result of the cuts in the health and human services budget. More and more folks are choosing to go without health coverage because it costs too much for the coverage they get and yet they pay three times as much for services because insurance companies negotiate for a better price.
Why do Americans pay so much more for health care than citizens in other countries? Perhaps it’s related to the outrageous salaries some top executives are paid. United Health Care pays their top executive $92 million and the six top executives a total of $200 million annually. Pharmaceuticals get 18% of the health care dollars and have hired 650 lobbyists and spent $450 million on lobbying, campaign contributions and public relations. How much more do we pay because the drug companies spend more on advertising than on research and development? Thirty cents of every health care dollar goes to administration, and that is by far too much. Medica and Blue Cross made too much profit last year and was required to give some back, and yet raised their premiums again anyway. One way Minnesota could change this equation by limiting the types of expenses that could be deducted as “normal operating expenses,” for example those expenses that, as the Allina case came to light, made everyone groan.
Governor Pawlenty set up the Health Care Task Force of eminently qualified people to look at what could be done to hold back the rising cost of health care, but he forbade them from considering Universal coverage. Why?
At the forum Ray said that he opposed Education Minnesota’s proposal to put all teachers into one pooled health plan, which would have helped many districts ease the cost of health care coverage, and that he opposed it not because it was the wrong concept, but that it seemed unfair to those employed by the state, who wouldn’t be included. I don’t understand this reasoning. Although some districts with above-average coverage would lose comparatively, it seems to me that if we support the concept of employee pools, we have to start somewhere. We need to take steps that move us in that direction and expand to other groups as time and political will allowed.
Or is political will the problem? Inaction and ineffective or exacerbating action on big issues like healthcare and insurance coverage that affect nearly everyone is one reason voters are discouraged. We need to enact bold solutions to the problems we face.
Another questioner at Thursday’s Forum asked about our position on purchasing of drugs from Canada, and we both agreed that it is at best a short term fix but should be allowed because it helps those who are forced to make tough decisions based on the high cost of their prescription drugs in this country. Because I support universal health care, under which this prescription drug quandary would be addressed. I think it’s time to take decisive steps.
Something I intended to cover, but did not get to in my two minute introduction, was campaign practices, campaign finance, and fair and clean political campaigns. Once more, for the record, I signed the Fair and Clean Elections Pledge (FACE) in July, 2002 and distributed copies of that document at the Granny D and FACE rally, and I pledge to abide by the League of Women Voters Compact. There is no “pledge” to sign, but I firmly agree to abide by the principles of the Compact planks. The terms are available on their website. Disclaimer: When I pledge to abide by the LWV Compact planks, it is in no way an endorsement by the LWV, a non-partisan organization.
There are many election related issues that Ray and I differ on. I strongly support same-day registration and he has gone on record opposing it. Regarding election issues contained or proposed in the 2003 Secretary of State Elections Bill (HF 1119), I strongly oppose requiring college students to have a student ID when registering to vote. Ray voted for this requirement. I strongly support the right of someone who does not (cannot, will not) answer an election judge’s questions and who leaves the voting site, and then returning willing and able to answer, to not be denied the right to vote, as they are now. I also strongly support excusing high school students to vote, deeming election judges as notaries for purposes of making complaints under the Help America Vote Act, and I strongly want to assure that someone whose absentee ballot arrives late is not removed from the voter registration list, and most importantly, I strongly support limitation of the Secretary of State’s authority to remove names from the voter registration list, as was and is being done in Florida. Ray was against all of these amendments to HF119.
In the 2004 State Government Supplemental Finance Bill (HF 2684), which passed the House but did not become law, there were other amendments where I would vote differently than Ray. I strongly oppose Speaker Sviggum’s amendment to ban tribes from making political contributions. Ray Cox supported the Speaker’s position rather than his Republican cohort Dempsey who offered the amendment to delete. And for the record, and which my campaign reports reveal, I have not received tribal PAC contributions (For the record, I also do not support the Racino as a state revenue source, but that’s another blog). I strongly support the Goodwin amendment lowering the reporting threshold for political contributions from $500 to $100, and that the campaign finance public subsidy statutory appropriation be fully funded, both of which promote openness and fairness. Ray Cox voted against both of these amendments.
And speaking of push polling, Rep. Mariani offered an amendment requiring push pollers to disclose entity that commissioned the poll and whether candidate authorized the poll. It’s odd, but Speaker Sviggum, Ray Cox and Lynda Boudreau all voted against this amendment. Jeff Anderson, the 27B Republican incumbent voted FOR it! District 27B is the other district that Speaker Sviggum is concerned about, he sent the threatening letter to Jeanne Poppe about her “Popsicles in the Park” and had a dump press conference there just like the one he had here! If they were so concerned about push polls, if they really believed that the DFL would do that, wouldn’t they demand disclosure up front and vote for Rep. Mariani’s amendment?
Family Reunion
Aug 16, 2004 News
It may well have been planning too much to host a family reunion in the midst of my hectic campaign, but I agreed to host it three years ago and I did not want to disappoint my cousins. So last week, I spent what ever time I could spare and then some visiting with relatives at the Willows on the River resort in Lake City. I heard very good things about the resort and the exceptional view of Lake Pepin, but the weather did not cooperate until the last few days when we finally had some comfortable weather and sunny skies. 
My relatives were interested in my campaign, and I filled them in on my progress and even gave them a lesson in the etiquette of door knocking and how to deal with a threatening dog. They got a look at my campaign lit and a “no obligations” stump speech. My cousin, David Bly, as you might imagine was the most interested and wanted everything from t-shirts to buttons and bumper stickers to show his friends in Seattle. I wondered how he will explain the State of Minnesota shadow behind the ‘B’ in my logo. Oh well, I’m sure he’ll think of something, we’re a creative family. It was good to be with them and talk about what issues concern them, and although many of them are Republicans, they indicated they have a lot of concerns about the direction our country is headed in.
My busy week was topped off by the visit of Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards to Marion Fogarty‘s home. 
Marion is one of my strongest supporters in Belle Plaine. It was great to see her so excited about the visit, and I could tell she was proud of the attention. Throughout the day, she kept repeating, “It’s amazing” with the broadest grin, and was the best hostess that Edwards could hope for. I hope she can adjust to mailings and duties as my Belle Plaine sign organizer after all the excitement.
I did make it back for a farewell to the relatives and Lake Pepin at least for Summer ’04.
Economic Debate
Aug 3, 2004 News
Ray Cox responded to my economic blog in a roundabout way, saying he is, “very optimistic about the national economy and our state economy as well. Some folks are out there with the same old “doom and gloom” rhetoric but I don’t buy into that message at all….in fact, it is a very pessimistic, stale message. Our economy IS improving with every month that goes by.”
Apparently Ray’s missing the point of my blog, which I thought was pretty clear — that although the economy is doing very well for some folks, for many it is not doing so well. Ray quotes an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, entitled “Manufacturing up again.” He makes the article and the report sound better than it is.
I checked the data the article quotes from The Institute for Supply Management, and although it indicates manufacturing is showing some gain, employment is down from June to July. What can this mean? As I pointed out, gains in the economy for management, for supply manufacturers, are not gains for working people. We know the part that outsourcing is playing in our economic recovery and how that alone can “show” that things are “improving” but that really productivity is up and employment is down. Here’s another example, where one person’s improvement is another’s uncertainty or worse.
The article Ray quotes interestingly relates a downturn in Construction spending, something he should be paying attention to. It says,
In Washington, meanwhile, the Commerce Department reported that construction spending slipped 0.3 percent in June to a seasonally adjusted $985.2 billion after expanding a revised 0.1 percent in May. The industry is particularly sensitive to interest rates, which have been on the rise since spring. The construction report was weaker than economists expected and represented another sign that the economy hit a rough patch early in the summer. The construction figures were further evidence that the nation’s economic expansion appeared to slow at the end of the second quarter as interest rates rose and fuel costs climbed higher.
Among voters I talk to, I am not hearing the optimism that Ray claims to hear. Among voters I talk to, I hear concerns about health care costs (38,000 lost coverage as a result of legislative cuts to Minnesota Care), deep cuts to local schools, loss in wages and fear of loss of their jobs, outsourcing good Minnesota jobs, and disproportionate tax and fee increases. But Ray reports, “The message I heard from so many people last night was that Minnesota is moving ahead in a proper direction. People want to see family values protected, see good jobs available, have access to quality schools, and know that the state is taking care of fragile and vulnerable individuals.”
I agree those are things Minnesotans want, but I am hearing constituents say they are not getting them in today’s economy nor are they getting any help from state government, and they are very concerned about their future.
On the National level Michael Kinsley offers some insight about why Minnesotans are not getting what they want and need:
Michael Kinsley: Do the math: Democratic presidents shine
Michael Kinsley
Los Angeles Times
Published August 4, 2004It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. (The underlying data can be downloaded at www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html.)
Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33 percent under Democrats.
The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of the gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 percent for the Democrats, 14.97 percent for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74 percent of GDP versus 1.21 percent).
Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12 percent of GDP, compared with 18.39 percent. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year-2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
Our Economic Outlook
Aug 2, 2004 News
Robert Reich recently presented an audio essay on NPR’s Marketplace in which he talked about dividing up the economic pie. “The American Economic Pie is growing,” he says, “at a solid pace, the odd thing is how it is sliced — a portion going to profits and a portion going to wages. The wage slice is smaller than it’s been 38 years and the corporate profit slice is larger than it has ever been.” He goes on to explain that this is not likely to change because workers have lost bargaining power and large corporations have at their disposal many tools to keep their profits high. And those things that keep the profits high are things that keep wages down or eliminate jobs. They continue to ship jobs overseas, not just manufacturing but now also white collar jobs, to search for the lowest labor cost, and because they have so much control in the economy due to their size and vertical and horizontal integration, they have inordinate influence. But Reich says wage earners are not likely to stand by for this obvious inequity forever. To rectify the problem, he recommends a reversal of tax policy; specifically lower taxes on wages and higher taxes on corporate profits and passive income.
A recent letter writer in the Northfield News attempted to explain the difference between my views and those of the extremist Republicans setting economic policy today. His primary error is his taking issue with my premise that the pie that is ‘economics’ is limited, because, as Galbraith notes in ‘Economics and the Public Purpose,’ any definition of economics addresses the scarcity of resources that confers value and the distribution of those resources. He is absolutely correct that it is government’s responsibility to provide the ‘ingredients,’ the resources, for each of us to build our own pies, and yet today, the government is taking these ‘ingredients’ away from many people and giving them to just a few. Many do not have the most basic resources, such as a good education, necessary to get that good job, health coverage necessary to provide basic care and protect against economic devastation brought on by illness. One of the most important ingredients that economic conservatives want the government to provide, along with unfettered access to natural resources, is cheap labor. This is provided in a number of ways, and the value of cheap labor should not be lost on voters, nor the tremendous economic influence that large corporations have had on government’s transfer of these ingredients and the immense gains they’ve realized. The current administration has steadfastly refused to raise the minimum wage; it allows corporations to outsource jobs to the lowest bidder no matter what corner of the world they are in, and have made it increasingly harder for unions to organize and have an influence on wage and bargaining issues.
Responsible corporations have a place in our economy, as do small businesses and public and non-profit ventures, but today many corporations have undue influence in our economy and on our government. Many have, as Attorney General Mike Hatch pointed out, lost touch with their public purpose. They often pursue the short-term interest of top management and the largest shareholders and do so to such an extreme that they ignore the interests of employees, small investors, community and our nation.
I believe that under the influence of the most powerful and privileged class, our government has been helping to divide the pie in favor of the richest few by providing tax cuts and policies that favor their interests and which are against the public interest. Our government is ignoring its responsibility to protect the people and the resources we all need, the ingredients we must have in order to have a sound and hopeful future. Is recognition of this truth divisive, as the letter writer claims? Is the divisive act the division of the pie? I believe it is time we recognized and reversed the trend of our current administration bestowing tremendous benefits on a privileged few.
This country was formed in resistance to rule by a privileged elite. I am motivated toward a return to our fundamental principles, seeking this end out of a sense of fairness and equity. We will not all be wealthy, of course, but we should live in a society where wealth can be accumulated. The question, however, is whether the government should allow or foster manipulation of that wealth to be used to lift up the powerful at the expense of every one else – and to that question, I answer that the wealth mutually gained must be used in a way that benefits all. By mutually gained wealth, I mean, it is an illusion that the wealthy are solely responsible for their wealth. Wealth is often conferred by inheritance or birthright, and is procured by investment of capital, labor and can be fertilized by government policies. Too often in recent times, the importance of labor as a multiplier of wealth has been undervalued. A quick study of wage decrease and job losses under the Bush administrations provides proof, and since the late nineties, Minnesota has been moving toward a similar regressive type of government. It is time for a change.
See:
Americans’ incomes fell for two years
IRS data shows first-ever consecutive-year drop; loss of jobs blamed.
July 29, 2004: 12:59 PM EDTNEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Americans’ overall income shrank for two consecutive years after stocks plunged in 2000, the first time that has effectively happened since the current tax system was put in place during World War II, according to a published report Thursday.
The New York Times, reporting data from the Internal Revenue Service, said gross income reported to the agency fell 5.1 percent to $6.0 trillion in 2002, the most recent year for which data is available, down from $6.35 trillion in 2000. Because of population growth, average income fell even more, by 5.7 percent, and adjusted for inflation the decline was 9.2 percent.
The paper said the decline was due to a combination of the big fall in the stock market and the loss of jobs and wages in well-paying industries as the recession started in 2001.
The paper said before the recent drop the last decline posted for even one year was 1953.
The drop in income has hit government tax collections — the paper said individual income taxes declined 18.8 percent between 2000 and 2002. Part of that was due to tax cuts passed in 2001.
The report said the sharpest drops were in both the number and the earnings of people with the highest incomes. Those with incomes of $10 million or more saw average income fall 22 percent, while the number of returns reporting incomes at that level fell 53 percent during the two year period.
Meanwhile the average income of those filing returns with incomes between $25,000 and $500,000 saw the average income little changed, somewhere between a 0.1 percent decline and a 0.2 percent gain, depending upon the income category, the Times said.
Middle class folks, which includes small business owners, small manufacturers, wage earners, farmers and many professionals, are hard working people who in general believe that given a good start in life, if we work hard and are careful we will succeed. The ‘given’ is a difficult part — they know a good education is important, for themselves and for society at large, but other than that, they don’t necessarily believe government intervention is a good thing. However, those who have the power to influence government through their lobbyists and their money know that government intervention can be used to benefit them. Whatever expenses they can get the government (each of us as taxpayers) to lower or to pay for them means an increase in their profits. With their influence, they have been able to reduce the share of taxes they pay and have shifted their burden to wage earners. It is no wonder that many voters are concerned when tax increases are in the air. For middle class folks, they are already being squeezed by low wages and the taxes and fees they already pay, and the thought of adding more to their burden is frightening. But the burdens can be reallocated and we can be far more progressive in our taxation formulas. It need not fall on the overburdened middle and lower classes.
When Ray Cox and other defenders of the ‘no new taxes policy’ say that the economy is getting better and that we are beyond the ’9/11 down turn’ they miss a very important point. The fact is that the economy was taking a down turn even before 9/11, long before then, and was showing the same inequality Robert Reich talks about now. Our economic problems were not caused by 9/11, instead, the already serious and growing economic inequities were exacerbated by that tragedy. This is a consistent theme of my blog and of my campaign: If the economy is not improving for all of us, how can we claim there is an ‘improvement’ in the economy? If the economy is only improving for the most well off, and is severely hurting those least well off, how can we claim it is an ‘improvement?’ The economy is ‘ours,’ second only to the people as the foundation of our democracy – the economy must work for us all, and not just for a few.
Minnesotans want good jobs and they know the key to good jobs is good schools. They also know the tremendous bite health care costs are taking out of their wages. An improvement in the economic numbers will not improve our economic situation, will not provide more good jobs, good schools or health care unless we are willing to make some policy changes to correct past errors.
Some facts to consider about how Minnesota got in this mess:
1) The way the state funds our schools was changed so that the state general fund is paying for school budgets that were not part of its budget in the past. This was a major factor in the ’03 -’04 budget deficit that was not widely discussed. The stated goal of this change was to relieve property taxes, but in making this switch, and having to pay more for districts like Edina than it had in the past, the state forced counties and school districts to raise property taxes to make up for cuts the State imposed to pay for its deficit. Reversing this policy change alone could help provide funding to restore many cuts to healthcare recipients and nursing home residents who have unfairly borne the brunt of the deficit fix.
2) The health insurance rate increases we are seeing that are crippling our wage earner economy is not caused by overuse or misuse of the system, but is instead the result of an effort of insurance companies to recoup market losses from investments made by the health insurance company. It is not our responsibility to cover those losses – those losses should come out of the record high profits reported by these companies.
3) Reversing tax cuts given to the most wealthy in the years before the down turn would have more than made up for the losses in services to the most vulnerable and offered schools the funding they need to maintain necessary programs.
If we are serious about a positive vision for our state, if we really want to provide good jobs, good schools and good healthcare to all, we need to get serious about what we tell the voters. We need to lay out a plan to get us on the right track and we need to have the strength to stand behind it and do the work that will make it happen. I’m running for the legislature because I believe we can meet these basic needs, but only by, right now, making the right choices and making our economy work for both big and small business, for wage earners and managers, for every working person.
My opponent says, “I continue to have a positive outlook on the Minnesota economy and our Nation’s economy. We seem to be working hard producing goods and services—-and the workers are sending in taxes through their payrolls and through their personal spending. There are still some areas that need to be worked on, but as a whole, I believe we have turned the corner on the economic downturn brought on by the terrorist actions of September 11th.” Ray Cox is showing that he is out of touch with what most Minnesotans are experiencing and is misplacing blame for our economic mess on ‘September 11th’ when our economic problems are rooted in more fundamental causes. Adjusting the clutch and putting the top down to enjoy the breeze doesn’t help when you’re running out of gas and only 3 of 6 cylinders are firing.
I have been reading some great articles:
John Gunyou: A movement for rest of us
Published July 30, 2004
Moderate policies and rational discourse in the halls of government are rare. No moderates ever seem to write to the editor or call in to the ubiquitous talk shows … until now.
So listen up, all you pandering politicians. Set down your Ann Coulter coffee mugs and Al Franken falafel pans, and pay attention to a calm voice of reason. Here are three things we moderates want from you:
First of all, we want you to stop trying to solve all of our problems. If you can protect our jobs, we can pretty much take care of ourselves. We do not want to dismantle government like Rush does, but neither do we want a slew of new programs. We expect you to fix the ones we’re already paying for.
Second, we want our government to work well. We expect you to look after our health and safety, educate our children, and responsibly manage the price of our services. We know that taxes are not inherently evil, but we don’t want to pay for waste and mismanagement. We want to be able to trust you, feel good about what you’re doing, and get our money’s worth for our tax dollars.
And finally, we believe in equity. We want people to pay their fair share for the government services and privileges they receive. We do not want undeserving people to get a free ride, but we do want the truly needy to be cared for. We’re not really as heartless as Michael Moore makes us out to be.
© Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Corporate taxes/Do something about dodgers
Published April 22, 2004
When corporate profits hit a record high, yet state corporate income tax receipts miss the forecasted mark by more than 13 percent in the last two months alone, something’s amiss in the way Minnesota taxes business.
Discovering what it is, and correcting this fundamental problem, must be high on the Legislature’s list this next year. The corporate income tax loopholes must be closed, and corporate taxes must produce revenue at the expected level, and taxes owed must be collected otherwise, the state will be in deeper fiscal water as the current budget period draws to a close next year. We cannot afford to give away tax revenue.
Top state officials puzzled over drop in business tax revenue
The Associated Press
ST. PAUL – Revenue from corporate taxes is surging in many other states as business after business reports improved earnings, but not in Minnesota and the state’s top moneymen want to know why.
It could be that Minnesota businesses are electronically sending hundreds of millions of dollars through shell corporations to Caribbean countries before instantly sending it back.
Or it could be that the companies are moving money through low-tax states to avoid corporate income taxes in Minnesota.
Legislative gridlock leaves cities guessing at budgets time
6/28/2004
ST. PAUL (AP) – Setting budgets is never easy for the leaders of more than 640 Minnesota cities, but writing one for 2005 is especially difficult because the Legislature has failed to fix a simple glitch in a spending law.
Depending on how it eventually works out, $38.9 million that the 2003 Legislature intended for Minneapolis, St. Paul and hundreds of other cities statewide could go instead to 187 other municipalities, most of them suburbs. Or maybe not.
Lawmakers say property taxes on Range up 4.8%
Candi Walz
Mesabi Daily News
Last Updated: Thursday, April 15th, 2004 12:17:08 AM
ST. PAUL – Increasing property taxes, or funding city services with Local Government Aid? The day before the tax-filing deadline of April 15, Republicans and Democrats weighed in with their answers and thoughts on taxes.
Chairman of US Federal Reserve assures Congress wages will be kept low
By Joseph Kay and Barry Grey
26 July 2004
In his July 20 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan revealed the ruthless class strategy of American big business, which is based on an unrelenting offensive against the wages and living standards of workers.
Signaling the central banking institution’s determination to head off any tendency toward significant wage increases for American workers, Greenspan downplayed the importance of soaring gas prices, which are taking an enormous toll on workers’ paychecks, while making it clear he was prepared to raise interest rates more sharply if signs emerged that unit labor costs were rising significantly.
The Fed chairman did not spell out the consequences of such a move for the jobs and living standards of American workers. He did not have to. It was well understood by the politicians seated across from him, and the Wall Street firms, corporate bosses and large investors to whom he was indirectly speaking. It would mean a new round of plant closures and layoffs-a development calculated to undermine any movement by workers to reverse an ongoing decline in overall family income.
That this was precisely what Corporate America wanted to hear was reflected in the surge in share values on Wall Street that followed Greenspan’s testimony.
———————————————
So how do we get out of this mess? There some people with a lot of expertise who have been working on this and who have some specific ideas. I’ve blogged about a few of these before, and will get into this in greater detail in my next economic installment. In the meantime, you may want to look at Growth & Justice.
