A continuation of my take on the Cox/Neuville/Brod Town meetings held on Feb.28th first blogged on March 1st.
CREP/RIM CSP
At the town meetings a couple of weeks ago, Rep. Cox also talked about the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) bill he is carrying on behalf of the Governor. I asked him about the dispute that several farm organizations, such as Farm Bureau, have with the permanent set aside aspect of the bill. In particular, congressman Gutknecht’s concern that the permanent provision in the bill will make it unacceptable to the Dept. of Agriculture. Ray said that Rep. Gutknecht did not know what he was talking about and that the Governor had researched the proposal and was confident nothing was wrong with it. The last CREP agreement was signed by Gov. Carlson and a summary can be found on the FDA website. The goal of the agreement was to have the Minnesota River fishable and swimmable by the year 2002. That agreement does mention that CREP allows for 15 and 20 year contracts as well as permanent easements, that permanent easements are not the only option available, and instead is one of several. Why put a program at risk over an option that farmers could choose not to take?
Another Federal program that concerns Minnesota farmers is the CSP, and various groups encouraged citizens to call and comment on the new proposal. Here is what the Land Stewardship Project had to say: 
The Conservation Security Program (CSP) is in jeopardy. A new Bush Administration proposal would effectively gut the program. President Bush signed into law at the end of January 2004, Congress has restored full, uncapped funding to the CSP for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. A year ago, at the urging of the White House, Congress capped the program at just under $4 billion over ten years, but that funding cap has now been removed.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of January 2004, the Administration issued a “proposed rule” to guide implementation of the CSP that assumed the program would be limited to a capped, very low spending level each year. In fact, the proposed rule is so restrictive and proposes such low levels of financial assistance it is doubtful whether many farmers could qualify or if any would bother trying.
The rule should be modified by removing the restrictions limiting enrollment to certain watersheds, certain classes of farmers and ranchers, and to a limited set of resource concerns. The CSP should be a nationwide program available to all types of producers in all regions of the country with all types of conservation objectives, as provided for in the 2002 Farm Bill.
While we’re on the topic of Cleaning up Minnesota’s waters, here’s something from a recent City Pages article on Impaired Waters:
The lynchpin of the [clean-up and funding] plan was a proposal to raise at least $75 million annually for clean water initiatives. Essentially, households fee of $36, while businesses would have to pony up $150. The group settled on this funding scheme after considering and discarding more than 40 other means of paying for the initiative. ‘It was not necessarily the best option,’ concedes Craig Johnson, intergovernmental relations representative for the League of Minnesota Cities. ‘It was just the consensus option.’
‘Private businesses, private landowners, and especially local units of government will be paying for all of this, which means your taxes will be going up to do it,’ [Craig] Johnson argues. In other states, such as Florida and South Carolina, failure to provide state funding for restoring polluted waterways has resulted in costly lawsuits.
Republicans talk about cleaning up the waters but stop short of doing anything other than having the taxpayers foot the bill for cleanup. They could track down the cause of the pollution and send the bill to the polluters, or they could support and fund regulation to prevent pollution before it occurs, but instead allow polluters to go right on doing what they’re doing, and profit form destroying the environment, and they do this at everyone else’s expense. This is not sound environmental policy. We must focus on prevention and enforcement, while cleaning up what we must, and for that clean up, we must track down and assess the polluters. Only where the source cannot be identified should taxpayers foot the bill.
For information on the state of our waters locally, see my blog on the Clean Water Act.
The subject of development and local control came up at each town meeting. Here’s what 60 constituents (yes, SIXTY) have to say about local control and zoning and economic impacts of development in our area:
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Scratching heads
To the editor:
Faribault taxpayers have to be scratching their heads in wonder at the action of the County Commissioners who represent them.
In supporting highway commercial zoning at Highway 19 and 35W, and now apparently wanting to rezone an area at 35W and County Road 1 to highway commercial, Commissioners Minnick, Olson and Plaisance have put the city of Faribault in direct competition with the townships for what usually is the much-sought-after commercial tax base. Don Olson, in fact, was quoted in the Northfield News saying he sees a highway commercial zone running from County Road 1 to Highway 19. The fact that the supporting infrastructure (utilities, police, fire and emergency) exists and is much closer at hand in the city limits seems to have little or no affect on their thinking.
Faribault’s taxpayers would, however, share in the cost of providing these services to the townships. Lost in the mix is the possibility that existing businesses in the city of Faribault may find the area along 35W attractive enough for them to move there, further depleting Faribault’s tax base.
Myself and 59 other co-signers of this letter believe that the interests of the residents of Faribault would be better served trying to bring in more tax base, not giving it away.
Chuck Von Ruden
Northfield
City Pages also had another article, ‘IN COAL WE TRUST,’ by Mike Mosedale, on a topic that has appeared numerous times in this blog, the lobbyist boondoggle Excelsior Energy’s proposed Mesaba Energy Project, coal gasification plant, in northern Minnesota that Rep. Cox supports.
Late last year, a filibuster in the U.S. Senate appeared to have killed a controversial and, by everyone’s account, grievously pork-laden federal energy bill. But the tactic didn’t actually kill the bill. It merely sent the legislation back to committee, where some of the most outrageous provisions could be excised. Some, that is, but not all.
Here’s the link:
A boondoggle on the range lives another day
The subject of a Republican sponsored Constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage came up. Neuville said he is opposed to same-sex marriage and indicated he was upset with the courts for overstepping their duties and attempting to legislate. Rep. Cox agreed. Perhaps they do not believe in a state court’s responsibility or authority to interpret a given state’s Constitution? Rep. Cox read a quote he’d found in the paper from Sen. Wellstone, in which Wellstone stated his support for the Defense of Marriage act. One astute constituent pointed out that Wellstone said, in his book the “Conscience of a Liberal,” that he regretted that statement cited by Cox. Here’s what Wellstone said, starting on page 132:
I remember thinking to myself: The worst thing would be to lose your dignity, to vote against your convictions and then lose the election anyway.
Eventually, I was able to kid other senators that I had cast so many unpopular votes that the Republicans wouldn’t have enough money, even with their millions of dollars to run all the attack ads I’d given them. The ideal is to always vote your conviction. I try to do this.
One exception, though I’m still not sure, might be the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This legislation — which said that if one state (in the case at hand — Hawaii) permitted same-sex marriage, the decision could not be binding on other states — was basically an effort to prohibit same-sex marriage.
I felt that changing the definition of marriage went too far for me. The implications were too far-reaching. My own life and life-style made me very cautious and conservative in this regard. I had a perfect human rights record and had received awards or leading the fight for gay and lesbian Americans, but I was not prepared to go this far, I thought.
When I was asked about my position on DOMA on a talk-radio show, I stated my view. It was absolutely the worst forum to do so. And while I had told some friends in the community that I could not yet support same-sex marriage, I should never have publicly announced my position without first talking to many others. It was a matter of friendship and sensitivity to a community that had given me great support . I failed miserably on this count.
The gay and lesbian community was stunned what they heard the news. In fact, that day there happened to be a fund-raiser for me sponsored by leaders in the gay and lesbian community in down town Minneapolis. Some people were very angry. Many more were deeply hurt. It was painful to see my friends disappointed in me.
What troubles me is that I may not have cast the right vote on DOMA. I might have rationalized my vote making myself believe that my honest position was opposition. This vote was an obvious trap for a senator like me, who was up for re-election. Did I convince myself that I could gleefully deny Republicans this opportunity? After all the Supreme Court in Hawaii had not made a decision in its pending case, and there certainly was no danger that other states or the federal government were about to pass legislation supporting same-sex marriage . This was all political.
When Sheila and I attended a Minnesota memorial service for Mathew Shepard, I thought to myself, “Have I taken a position that contributed to a climate of hatred?” Of course, I never believed this when I voted for DOMA. But if you deny people who are in a stable, loving relationship the right to marry, do you deny them their humanity? I still wonder if I did the right thing.
To Cox and other objectors to the court decision, I am reminded of a quote. “Our courts are where all men are created equal,” said Atticus in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
RACINO
The question of expansion of gambling to allow gaming at Canterbury Downs came up, and Ray indicates he supports Racino because gambling is already there in that location. Senator Neuville, who has been consistently opposed to gambling, gave us advance notice of his plan — he said he would introduce a bill the following week to end all video gaming. Why? His plan is to outlaw video gaming to force the tribes back to the bargaining table.
There was an interesting article in the Tribune this week:
‘Hundreds of tribal members gather at Capitol to protest gambling bills’
The compacts were negotiated to last forever, the parties negotiating knew this and agreed to it. Now, suddenly, in the manner of too many treaties of whites with Indian nations, Neuville now wants to force a change in the terms of the deal! Neuville and Knobloch, authors of this bill S.F. 2553, want to throw out the negotiated compacts and start over. I would oppose such a move (and I have not received any donations from any Indian community) because I believe we should honor our agreements.
One final note here: Rep. Cox blogged about a recent meeting in Le Center where he reiterated his support for Education Commissioner Yecke and went on to say:
After Commissioner Yecke’s talk concluded Senator Neuville, Rep. Brod and I gave brief overviews of current Legislative activities, followed by a question and answer period. We talked about local government aid formulas, the taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR), spending caps, and of course, Racino. It was good to discuss these issues with elected leaders in a relaxed setting, and enjoy a steak dinner cooked by the American Legion staff. The excess funds raised at the dinner will be sent to the Le Center D.A.R.E. drug awareness, reduction and education program.
City Pages had a great article on the commissioner and NCLB this week, ‘Built to Fail‘ I recommend it.
I’ll have more to say about TABOR, which establishes spending and revenue limits for local governments, in a coming blog. I think this would be a disaster for Minnesota, because the state is cutting the funding to local governments on one hand and wants to eliminate other sources of revenue to pay for needed public services. This is something out of “Catch-22” or Ignatius Donnelly‘s “Caesar’s Column,” an 1890s dystopian novel about an ostentatious wealthy class that in 1988 brutally repressed the laboring classes.
I hope to see you on the campaign trail, and hope you’ll keep me posted on your ideas about policy. We have to keep an eye on what the Republicans are doing to our state. On November 2, we’ll tell them what we think!