The Morning After

Posted on by
Reply

After yesterday’s enactment of Minnesota’s gay marriage law, I was pleased to wake up this morning to see that:

1)   The sun rose, Armageddon had not arrived, and fire, brimstone and locusts appeared to be in short supply;

2)   I was still married, despite the unsuccessful defense of my marriage;

3)   Thousands of Minnesotans had not converted to gayism, as per the alleged “Gay Agenda.”

This had to come as a relief to opponents of same-sex marriage, who had long feared the aforementioned.  With those concerns allayed, I hope they’ll now be less stressed out about marriage equality.   If you’re a gay marriage supporter, today’s a new day.  If you’re not, life goes on.

Symmetrical Couples and Asymmetrical Stadiums

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was a tough day for traditionalists.  If you like your weddings square and your stadiums oval, it was not your day.

The Minnesota Senate passed a law extending the freedom to marry to gay people.  A few hours later the Minnesota Vikings presented a stadium design that is more likely to be featured in the Hirshorn Museum than the Football Hall of Fame.

I feel for my conservative friends, who are hopelessly nostalgic for the glory days of their youth, when Ward and June were prototypical couples and football was played in Met Stadium’s glorious mud, wind and ice.  Yesterday, they were served a heapin’ helpin’ of contemporary change, and I know it was jarring for them.  As of this post, shrapnel from Joe Soucheray’s head reportedly has been found in three neighboring states.

Yesterday, my conservative friends were told that some married couples will look like Ward and Ward, and June and June.  That does take some getting used to.  But as one who had to get used to the idea myself, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there is a lot to admire about this new brand of married couple, such as a love so strong it has survived waves of ignorance, bigotry and hate.

On the same day that the legal definition of marriage was broadened by the Legislature, my conservative friends were also told that they would not be able to watch football the way they say it was meant to be watched — in crappy weather in a traditional stadium whose architecture has only slightly evolved since the Flavian Amphitheatre.  Call it Lambeau envy.

Admittedly, the new Vikings stadium design is “different,” a word that passive aggressive Minnesotans tend to use when they actually are meaning “sucky,” but, little known fact, is actually defined as “not the same as others.”

The new Vikings stadium definitely is “not the same as others.”   It looks a bit like a football field grown inside of Reverend Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral, or a hog confinement building after a tornado, or a half-assed green house constructed of scrap materials, or the Walker Art Museum on bovine growth hormones.

That does take some getting used to. But as one who crinkled my nose the first time I saw the asymmetrical design, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there are a lot of things to admire about this new brand of stadium — stunning skyline views from inside, sunshine to replace the Metrodome’s perpetual dinge, windows that crank open on the rare nice day, a blissfully clear path to spacious bathrooms, and climate control in a land of mostly “different” climate.

Yes, change takes some getting used to, and we won’t all love these changes right away.  But if we keep an open mind, I bet we will adjust to symmetrical couples and asymmetrical stadiums quicker than we think.  Onward.

- Loveland

If the DFL Wants To Impress, Leave Early

Posted on by
Reply

The new DFL majority in the Minnesota State Legislature is anxious to prove to voters that it is better equipped to lead than the previous Republican majority.  The DFL agenda has essentially been the polar opposite of the Republican agenda.  Whatever Republicans did, DFLers are undoing.  Republicans used Minnesota schools as their personal ATM to “balance” their budget.  DFLers are rushing to pay school kids back. Republicans used budget gimmicks instead of fixing the long-term structural deficit.  DFLers are increasing taxes and cutting spending to close the long-term structural deficit. Republicans tried to restrict the freedom to marry.  DFLers are expanding it.

Those are all good and important changes.  But of all the things that DFLers could do to impress Minnesota the swing voters who will determine in 2014 which party remains in control of the Legislature, I submit that the most memorable and impressive achievement would be to adjourn early.

I’m serious.  Declare victory and vamoose early.  Voters would adore legislators for it.

While  complex policymaking is sometimes difficult for voters with busy lives to appreciate, all voters appreciate the keeping of deadlines. We had deadlines in school.  We have them at work.  We have them for our taxes and fees.  Our spouses give us deadlines.  We have them for our household bills.   Every Minnesotans has to relentlessly meet deadlines throughout our lifetime, or we will face serious punishment.  Like it or not, deadlines shackle our lives.

Regular citizens appreciate deadline-making at a gut level.  For this reason, it makes us absolutely bananas when the Legislature regularly and cavalierly blows deadlines.  At school meetings, church gatherings, youth sporting events and backyard barbeques, I hear more complaints about this legislative habit than any other substantive issue.  Missed deadlines, or even nearly missed deadlines, make incumbents look like irresponsible and incompetent children.

I understand why pushing policymaking decisions to the last moment or beyond can be an advantageous move for a legislative strategist.  They employ brinksmanship to achieve their policy goals.  “Nothing focuses the mind like a deadline,” the saying goes.

This makes perfect sense inside the walls of the State Capitol, but leaders need to understand the optics outside the walls of the Capitol.  Voters get punished for missing deadlines, so they have a visceral feeling that legislators should as well.

Imagine how surprised and delighted Minnesotans would be to awake next weekend to news headlines like this:

“Legislature Surprisingly Finishes Work A Day Early.”

This news would be a stunner, one of those unlikely “man bites dog” type stories that voters never see.   Such a headline would disarm the perennial political challenger critique: “Legislators spent all their time on X, which prevented them from getting their  work done on time.”  It would send a signal that the grown-ups had arrived in Saint Paul at long last.

With the news this weekend that legislative leaders have reached agreement about the broad outlines of the fiscal end-game, finishing on time might seem more feasible than usual.  Still, legislative leaders are refusing to let go of pet initiatives that fall outside the agreement, so it still seems likely that negotiations will go right up to the deadline abyss.  Legislators probably will finish on-time, but just barely.  Just as they do nearly every year, they will look like children turning in half-assed assignments at the very last minute, and swing voters’ eyes will collectively roll.

If DFL legislators want to survive difficult mid-term elections in 2014, they should heed the sage advice of Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Bobby Womack about when to exit the stage:  “Leave them wanting more and you know they’ll call you back.”

- Loveland

The Real Heroes Of The Gay Marriage Debate

Posted on by
2

As the Minnesota House debates legislation to extend the freedom to marry to gay people, I’ve been reflecting on my own journey on this issue.  I suspect I’m not alone.

My first exposure to homosexuality was being called a “fag,” “queer,” “homo” or “mo” on the playground of my Catholic elementary school.  Before I alarm people, this isn’t a confession, at least not the kind you may be thinking.

I was never accused of having romantic or sexual interests in boys.  In the 1970s, those epithets were liberally used by boys on the playground to describe general displeasure for wide variety of sins, such as when a classmate had poor performance in kickball.   In the language of the playground, those slurs, in that place in time, translated roughly to “you suck,” in the non-sexual sense.

At that tender age, there was nothing sexual about the anti-gay slurs. But there was nothing positive about them either.  The lesson we were teaching each other, and passing on down the grades, was clear:  Being called a homo was an insult, so being a homo obviously must be a really horrific thing.

I can’t begin to imagine how hearing that barrage of slurs must have felt to gay kids, and how many young straight minds it warped, like mine.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

 Through my childhood, I honestly never really thought that gay people existed in my home state of South Dakota.  I’m not joking or exaggerating.  I literally thought gay and lesbian people only existed in a few isolated parts of the world.  Maybe those people were in Paris and San Francisco, but not in the “normal” parts of America, and certainly not in my circle of family, friends and neighbors.  For that reason, I was indifferent about how gay people were being mistreated.

This wasn’t as parochial and mean as it sounds now.   Gay people in my life weren’t coming out of the closet, and I was neither a mind reader nor socialized in a way that would give me even a rudimentary “gaydar.”  So, out of sight, out of mind.

The Power of Personal Connection

That mindset slowly began to change when two astoundingly courageous guys in my hometown went to the senior prom in 1979.  This was big national news, a highly unlikely first to come out of a place like Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  I don’t remember making cruel jokes about it, but I’m quite sure I did.  I didn’t hate the brave gay couple.  But I certainly didn’t stick up for them either.

But this teen couple’s coming out did slowly start to shift my thinking.   I remember thinking:  “Could there be a few more gay people in South Dakota that I don’t know about?”

Not too long after that in a college psychology class, I read that as many as 10% of humans were homosexual.  The fact that it might even be half true rocked my worldview a bit.  But even knowing that, as incredible as it seems now, it still never really dawned on me that there were gay people in my midst.

When I moved to Washington, DC after college, gay culture was more prominent.  There was a neighborhood that straight people made snarky jokes about. There was the AIDS crisis, which struck me as horrible, but in an impersonal way.  Again, no one in my immediate circle of friends was saying they were gay, so I didn’t get too concerned about issues impacting “those people.”

Until I had a close friend who was gay, I didn’t once stick up for gay people.  I’d like to come up with even one heroic story for you, but I have none.  The golden rule was sitting right there to guide me, but I ignored it.

But again, part of the reason I couldn’t get sufficiently motivated about the injustice all around me was that the issue wasn’t close and personal to me. When that changed, I changed.  When some of my favorite people had the courage to tell me and the rest of the world that they were gay, I suddenly cared a lot about how American society was treating gay people.

Quite suddenly, it was no longer about gay rights.  It was about friends’ rights, co-workers’ rights, parents’ rights, and relatives’ rights.  Then, after a little flirtation with the notion of civil unions, it all became very clear what needed to happen.  My friends, co-workers, and relatives obviously needed to be treated equally and fairly.

The important point here is that I didn’t change myself.  My gay friends’ courage changed me.

The Real Heroes of the Marriage Movement

As the freedom to marry legislation is debated at the State Legislature this week, a lot of straight people will be congratulating ourselves about how righteous and courageous we are for fighting for LGBT freedom and equality.

We need to get over ourselves.   Heterosexuals clearly wouldn’t be where we are today if gay people hadn’t had the unfathomable courage to stand up and tell a hostile world who they were.  Straight people like me failed the courage test for decades, and it took dauntless gay people to finally get us to change.

Straight leaders, activists and constiuents are playing a role in the history being made at the State Capitol this month.  Good for us.  Finally.  Good for us.

But let’s be honest with ourselves, heterosexuals.  We are playing a small supporting role in this freedom to marry movement.  The real heros are not the heteros.  The real heros are the people who had the courage to speak truth to power when it was difficult and dangerous:  “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.”  That, much more than straight people’s belated courage, is at the core of what is changing America.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Conflicted About the Tobacco Tax? Listen to the Tobacco Lobby

Posted on by
Reply

The debate at the State Capitol over increasing the tax on tobacco has played out the same way year after year.   It goes like this:

Public Health Claims.  Public health advocates point to price elasticity research showing that taxing cigarettes, and thereby increasing the cost of cigarettes, is the most effective way to motivate smokers to quit and prevent teens and young adults from starting down the path to addiction.  Consequently, increasing the tax on tobacco is the single most effective way to reduce tobacco-related death and suffering, and the related costs.

Smokers’ and Political Reporters’ Claims.  But smokers, and political reporters, portray the tobacco tax very differently.  They describe the tobacco tax as nothing more than a politically expedient way to raise money.  Because only about 19% of Minnesotans smoke, they say politicians are just picking on an oppressed minority.  Moreover, smokers’ rights advocates scoff at arguments about the tobacco tax reducing tobacco use, saying “people will continue to smoke regardless of the tax.”

What About The Tobacco Industry Experts?

 But what about  tobacco industry officials themselves?  In their private unguarded moments, what do they say about the impact of the tobacco tax on smoking behaviors?  After all, probably no one has studied this issue more carefully and thoroughly than them.

Fortunately, we don’t have to speculate.  We know.  The answer can be found in an office park in north Minneapolis.  As absurd as that sounds, I’m not kidding. To be precise, the answer is at 980 East Hennepin Avenue.  This is the entirely underwhelming home of something called the “Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository.”

A little background might be helpful.  A few years back, you may recall that Minnesota went after the tobacco industry over violations of Minnesota consumer fraud and anti-trust laws.  As a result of that action, the tobacco industry agreed to pay Minnesota a $6.1 billion settlement.

Unfortunately, Minnesota state legislators have shamelessly frittered away most of the lawsuit proceeds like drunken sailors.  However, we do have something left over from that lawsuit settlement — a mountain of internal tobacco industry documents that tell us precisely what the tobacco industry has learned about a wide variety of subjects.

So, I looked back at some of those documents.  It turns out that tobacco industry experts  know a lot about the impact of tobacco taxation on smoking behavior, probably more than anyone in the Minnesota Legislature could ever know.

So, let’s let the industry experts speak for themselves:

“When the tax goes up, industry loses volume and profits as many smokers cut back.” – Philip Morris, 1994

“Of all the concerns, there is one – taxation – that alarms us the most. While marketing restrictions and public and passive smoking [restrictions] do depress volume, in our experience taxation depresses it much more severely…” – Phillip Morris, 1985

“If prices were 10% higher, 12-17 incidence [youth smokng] would be 11.9% lower.” – RJ Reynolds, 1982

“It is clear that price has a pronounced effect on the smoking prevalence of teenagers, and that the goals of reducing teenage smoking and balancing the budget would both be served by increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes.” – Philip Morris, 1981

“A high cigarette price, more than any other cigarette attribute, has the most dramatic impact on the share of the quitting population…price, not tar level, is the main driving force for quitting.” – Philip Morris, 1993

There you have it.  If Minnesota legislators want to motivate more smokers to quit and discourage young people from starting, increasing the tobacco tax works like a charm.

On the other hand, if  legislators want to keep the price of cigarettes lower — in the name of gallantly “protecting smokers” — more Minnesotans will remain smoking, become addicted to smoking, and ultimately suffer and die from smoking-related diseases.

That’s not some public health do-gooder’s earnest claim.  That’s not some political reporters’ cynical analysis of legislative gamesmanship.  That’s straight from the camel’s mouth.

Loveland

Note:  The author was the communications director for the Minnesota Attorney General’s office during part of the tobacco lawsuit referenced in this post.

Note:  This post was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Is Chris Klewe Getting A Same-Sex Divorce?

Posted on by
Reply

Statistically speaking, Chris Klewe is the best punter in Minnesota Vikings history, according to KFAN Vikings analyst Paul Allen.

Yet this weekend, the Vikings used a high draft pick — high for a punter anyway, a fifth rounder — to potentially replace Klewe. The Vikings say this move is strictly about Mr. Klewe’s on-the-field performance, and has nothing to do with any off-the-field issues.

As noted, Klewe’s punting career statistics just don’t warrant a firing.  Moreover, Klewe is not trending downward.  He is coming off his best statistical year of his eight year NFL career, averaging a net 39.7 yards per punt.

Still, Klewe may be in trouble because of other non-performance issues:

It could be about money, as it so often is in the NFL.  After all, the Vikings replaced placekicker Ryan Longwell last year, in part because his veteran salary was higher than a rookie salary.  But remember, Longwell’s on-the-field statistics had also started to slip.  Longwell was becoming both expensive and mediocre.  If Longwell had been on top of his game, as Klewe currently is, he likely would not have been replaced with a rookie.

This could be about age.  At 31-years old, Klewe’s age clearly isn’t hurting his punting now, but it could be in the next five years.  So, the the theory goes, why not preemptively replace Klewe, before age-related degradation of skills begins.  Then again, it isn’t unusual  for punters to remain viable in the NFL well into the second half of their thirties.    Of all the positions, punters and kickers have the longest careers.  And remember, Klewe is a full six years younger than Longwell was when he was replaced by the Vikings.

Given all of that, I’m just not convinced this isn’t at least partially about something other than the usual reasons for getting rid of an NFL player — performance, age and money.

Mr. Klewe, a libertarian, has been a highly visible champion for extending the freedom to marry to gay people.  That’s not the sole reason this highly accomplished professional is suddenly fighting for his job, but it, along with money, is part of the reason.

The NFL has a macho player culture.  It’s locker rooms are famously homophobic.  It also has a macho fan base, and team owners don’t like players sullying their brand with politically divisive issues — particularly, you know, THAT issue.  They especially don’t want to hear it from punters, the least macho position on the field.  Star running back Adrian Peterson could say virtually whatever he wanted about a political issue.  But a punter, come on?  Punters don’t sell a lot of tickets or jerseys for the owners.

Klewe is the best punter in Vikings history, with good years of punting ahead of him.  But he is probably going to lose his job with the Vikings to an unproven NFL punter, unless the rookie  puts on a shank-fest during his tryout.  You can’t convince me that Mr. Klewe’s gay rights advocacy doesn’t have something to do with that.

- Loveland

Note:  Photo from www.gaygamer.net.

Are All Higher Education Sabbaticals Worth the Taxpayer Cost?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m a huge higher education booster.   Minnesota under-invests in education at all levels, including higher education.  Higher education is an economic engine for our state, and it is also, in many ways, a quality-of-life engine.

But I’m also a parent who is one-third of the way into a grueling 12-year a college tuition march that will cost well into the six figures.  I don’t want to get melodramatic, but higher education officials need to understand how difficult the tuition burden has become for many families.  As we say in our household, “tuition is the new retirement.”  It is a statement of fact, not a joke.

Still, I have no regrets about my decision to prioritize paying for my kids’ higher education.  “Teach a man to fish,” and all that.  When I die, one of the things I will be most proud of is that I have been able to get my kids through college, so they can start their adult lives with a relatively full brain and empty credit report.  It will be among my most treasured gifts to them.

But while I’m truly proud to be do my part, I do expect higher education institutions to do their part, on the cost-containment front.  I agree that “you get what you pay for” when it comes to facilities and faculty, so I’m not a skin flint when it comes to higher education funding.  Still, there are some financial decisions in academia that just don’t pass the smell test to this beleaguered tuition payer.

For instance, a Wry Wing Politics reader recently shared a newsletter from the Dean of a University of Minnesota College.  Before I whine about something in that newsletter, I want to say that Minnesota would be a worse place if we didn’t have this College doing tremendous work, with all too little fanfare.  Rah, rah, rah for ski u mah.  Keep doing amazing work, College Who Shall Not be Named.

BUT, back to the Dean’s newsletter.  Among many other news items, the newsletter notes, without a hint of self-consciousness:

X and Y will be on sabbatical next year and then return to their respective departments.

It goes without saying that a paid year off is pretty much unheard of in other lines of work.  I’m a sole proprietor consultant, so I don’t get paid for years, months, weeks, days, hours or minutes off.   I’ve worked in other positions in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and there are no sabbaticals in those worlds either.

There is a good reason why sabbaticals are so rare outside of academia.  They are mega-expensive.  It is an enormous investment for any organization to make, so, like any large investment, it should be thoroughly evaluated.    If University administrators can make the case that a paid year-off will lead to significantly better research and/or teaching for many years to come, I could be persuaded.  I’m guessing that some sabbaticals are worth the investment, and some are not.  My point is simply that I hope that something that expensive is being used sparingly and thoughtfully.

However, this is where the Dean  loses me:  The reader who shared the newsletter tells me that one of the two professors is taking their paid sabbatical preceding an upcoming retirement.

A pre-retirement sabbatical isn’t a sound investment in education, because whatever benefit comes from the sabbatical will not be realized by the University for very long.  A pre-retirement sabbatical sounds a lot like a platinum parachute, not unlike the kind that University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler has, to his credit, promised to limit in the case of University executives,  because they “may have hurt the public’s trust in our stewardship of this great university.”

At a time when scores of  families are forgoing retirement to pay skyrocketing college costs, I can’t see a case for allowing university officials to use taxpayer-funded sabbaticals to significantly enrich their own retirement.

So again, higher education administrators, I’m willing to hold up my end of the higher education finance bargain.  Are you willing to hold up your end on the cost-containment front?  How about a comprehensive and fully transparent audit of how University of Minnesota sabbaticals are being used?  As a follow-up to the audit, how about a set of standards for identifying when sabbaticals are, and are not, worth the substantial taxpayer investment they require?

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.  It has also been republished in MinnPost.

Fighting Terrorism With A Stiff Upper Lip

Posted on by
Reply

Days after the bombings at the Boston Marathon finish line, Facebook, Twitter and the news media are still awash in borderline hysterical outcries.  I understand the sentiment.  The video of the acts is seared into our memories, and we feel the need to show support for our Bostonian neighbors.  Those are good and natural instincts.

Still, some of it gets a little maudlin and over-the-top.  It’s worth noting that the ultimate point of terrorism isn’t actually killing.  It is terror.  Terrorists want their killing and maiming to get blown out of proportion by the news media and our leaders, so that it dominates our psyches and disrupts our freedom and pursuit of happiness.

In other words, the only thing terrorists have to fear is the inability to promote fear itself.

Which is why I pose this question:  Should Americans be afraid about what happened in Boston?  We definitely should feel outrage, compassion and commitment to prevent future attacks.  But fear?  Terror?

Is Fear Of Terrorism Rational?

The Reason Foundation did an interesting analysis about the odds of suffering various calamities, which helps us understand what is most logical for us to fear.

  • Chances of dying in a car accident:  1 in 19,000.
  • Chances of drowning in a bathtub:  1 in 800,000.
  • Chances of dying in a fire:  1 in 99,000.
  • Chances of being struck by lightning: 1 in 5,500,000.
  • Chances of being killed by a terrorist:  1 in 20,000,000.

I don’t know anyone who is enjoying life less because of their consuming fear of getting hit by lightning.   But many Americans are enjoying life less because of their consuming fear about terrorism, something that is four times less likely to happen than a lightning strike.  With them, the terrorists are winning, because they are giving terror way too much cognitive real estate.

According to researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Newcastle (Australia), we’ve spent well over a TRILLION dollars trying to prevent terrorists attacks since 2001.  We’ve stopped a lot of attacks, but even that Herculean effort can’t stop them all.  So that leaves us to ponder, how do we react when terrorist acts still happen?

Is Fear of Terrorism Helpful?

President George W. Bush was criticized for counseling Americans to go shopping after the 9-11 attacks.  Though President Bush never actually said those precise words, I frankly would endorse anyone who counsels us to get on with our lives in the wake of terrorist attacks.  Just as the British propaganda campaign urged British citizens to “Keep Calm and Carry On” during massive Nazi air attacks on their homes, I wish our leaders would do more to quiet citizens’ irrational levels of fear.

“Go shopping,” if Bush had actually said that, would have been a little too trivial a rallying cry.  But “go on living and loving” is sound advice. It’s a cliche, but life truly is way too short to spend it consumed by fear. We need to support our neighbors in Boston who are hurting, but we also need to keep it all in the proper perspective and move on with our lives.

Standing on the rubble pile in the wake of the horrific 9-11 attacks in New York City, President Bush famously cried into his bullhorn:

“I can hear you.  The American people can hear you.  And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

That little bit of sabre rattling was cathartic for a mourning nation, and great political theater.  But for the deranged terrorist who packed those pressure cookers with nails and ball bearings, I have a feeling that the reaction that would be most discouraging is not cries of retribution, but the murmur of a courageous nation being calm, and carrying on.

- Loveland

Will Guards in Schools Protect Kids, Or Jail Them?

Posted on by
Reply

In neighboring  South Dakota, a law has been enacted to authorize school teachers to arm themselves, as the NRA has been promoting.  Readin’, writin’, ‘rithmatic and revolvers.

In Minnesota, Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) has been beating that drum as well:

You can’t afford to completely encase your schools with bulletproof windows and steel locked doors — but you can afford to share the cost of an officer with the city or county, as some districts are doing.

Sometimes schools use armed guards to protect students, rather than allowing the headmaster to wield a Bushmaster.  Last week, a New York Times reporter looked into how that whole armed guard thing is going:

… the most striking impact of school police officers so far, critics say, has been a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially nonviolent behavior — including scuffles, truancy and cursing at teachers — that sends children into the criminal courts.

“There is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety,” said Denise C. Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland who is an expert in school violence. “And it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.”

Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are arrested or given criminal citations at schools each year. A large share are sent to court for relatively minor offenses, with black and Hispanic students and those with disabilities disproportionately affected, according to recent reports from civil rights groups, including the Advancement Project, in Washington, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in New York.

There are serious safety concerns associated with mixing guns into chaotic, emotional school environments.  But beyond safety, this analysis shows that armed guards also tend to escalate punishment much faster than principals do.  Therefore, if we put more armed guards in schools, we better be prepared to put more tax dollars into state and local government budgets for more law enforcement, courts, and jails.

Damn you, Law of Unintended Consequences.

The DFL’s Outrageous Tacky Tax

Posted on by
Reply

When Governor Dayton proposed to charge a sales tax on clothing items costing more than $100, fashion-challenged Minnesotans like me shrugged.  In fact, until the Governor made that proposal, I personally was not even aware that clothing items costing more than $100 existed.

But Senate DFLers are going a step further, and it’s a step too far.  They’re proposing to charge a sales tax on clothing items under $100.  I’m fine with their “soak the rich” income tax proposal, but this “soak the kitsch” tax is an outrage.

This would be a devastating blow to those of us who have found that one can build a kick ass wardrobe at Mennards and Fleet Farm, and never exceed a $20 per item threshold, much less a $100 per item threshhold.  Truthfully, my Carhartt ensembles looks better than the pretentious crap the swells buy at Nordstrums and Nieman Mark-up.  I swear, NO ONE can tell the difference.

If the DFL’s Tacky Tax goes into effect, I will be forced to join millions of Minnesotans who will surely be flocking to New York, New Jersey, Vermont, or Pennsylvania to avoid paying a crippling 90 cent tax on my next pair of $14.99 grandpa jeans.

What has happened to my party of the common people?

Note:  This post also was featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Sanford CEO Needs To Look In The Mirror

Posted on by
Reply

In the blink of an eye, the Fairview-Sanford merger talks started and ended.  In case you missed it, here is a fast-forward screenplay of how the Fairview-Sanford merger talks played out.

(Dark stage)

Fairview and Sanford CEOs:   (Unintelligible whispers)

(Stage lights come on)

Minnesota Attorney General :  Hey guys, I heard you’re talking about a merger that impacts lots of Minnesotans.  What’s in it for them?

Sanford CEO:   It’s our destiny to be big and go east.

Fairview CEO:  Mumble, mumble, the talks are only in the early stages.

Minnesota Attorney General:  But what’s in it for Minnesotans?  They paid for that University Medical Center.

Sanford: We’re not feeling welcome.  I declare these merger negotiations  over.

(Curtain falls abruptly)

Okay, so it was a little more extensive than that, but not much.  Take a look at how Sanford Health’s CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft was selling the merger:

“The Twin Cities is the economic engine for the entire Upper Midwest.  Eventually, Sanford’s evolution, Sanford’s growth, was going to engage somebody from the Twin Cities.”

“Nothing’s been this big before and affords us this opportunity. Between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains, I don’t think anything’s been this big as a transaction.”

“I think we would find ourselves in the top 10 nationally just on raw profile of what we would create.”

Krabbenhoft’s manifest destiny vision sounds good for his ego and financial bottom line, but, again, what’s in it for Minnesotan patients and taxpayers?

The drama might have turned out differently for Sanford’s tin eared CEO if he at least pretended to care as much about benefiting Minnesotans, and being responsive to Minnesotans, as he did about being bigger:

(Stage lights on.)

Fairview and Sanford CEOs at a news conference:  We wanted to let Minnesotans know that we’re going to be starting some detailed discussions about whether a merger makes sense.

We’re going to be discussing how we can do these 10 things on our handout to benefit Minnesota patients and taxpayers.  We’ll be consulting with the Minnesota Attorney General about legal issues.  We’ll be issuing a public update every week to tell you about how our conversations are going.

If we find that a merger could actually do these 10 things to benefit Minnesotans, we’ll present our ideas to Minnesotans in listening sessions throughout the Fairview service area.

We obviously don’t have details to share today, because the negotiations are just beginning, but we wanted to be very transparent that the exploratory discussions are happening, because we recognize this could potentially have a big impact on Minnesotans.

I promise we’ll tell you more as soon as we know more.  But for now all we really can say is that talks are starting, and these are the 10 things we are trying to do to benefit Minnesotans.

Minnesota Attorney General:  Will Sanford live by the same standards we demand of  other Minnesota health care providers?

Sanford CEO:  Absolutely.  If we can’t play by the same regulatory rules as our competitors and improve things for Minnesota patients and taxpayers, we obviously don’t belong here.

Minnesota Attorney General:  Will the taxpayers who pay for the University of Minnesota Medical Center have their interests preserved?

Sanford CEO:  That’s a must.  Obviously, the devil will be in the details, and that’s what these discussions are for, to hammer out details.  I promise you this:  If the details don’t make sense to Minnesotans, this merger will not happen.  But we think it’s worth a conversation.  We think it’s possible that we might be able to find a way to make the Minnesota health care and medical research environment even better than it already is.  We’ll see.  Stay tuned.

Minnesota Attorney General:  Okay, we’ll be checking in with you to make sure all of that happens.

Minnesota public:  Interesting.  Okay, we’re listening.

(End of Act 1)

The point:  Put the spotlight on benefiting Minnesota patients and taxpayers, not bigness for the sake of bigness.

I’m disappointed that the drama ended the way it did.  Like many Minnesotans I had concerns, but I also had interest.  I wanted to see if there was a way a merger could improve things for Minnesota patients and taxpayers.   But Mr. Krabbenhoft didn’t appear to be interested in engaging in that topic.

Krabbenhoft may be blaming the collapse of the merger talks on Minnesota’s hostile regulatory environment.  To be sure, Swanson proved in the audits of Fairview, Health Partners and Allina that she can be a vigorous regulator.  But compared to those past actions, Swanson was tip-toeing through Sanford’s tulips the last two weeks.  If Krabbenhoft couldn’t tolerate even that initial questioning, this was never going to be a happy home for him.

Rather than blaming Attorney General Swanson, Mr. Krabbenhoft should look in the mirror, because his public relations and government relations was embarrassingly bad.  That, not Attorney General Swanson, is the biggest reason why these merger talks never went far enough to be able to fairly evaluated.

Note:  This post also appeared in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Who is the MN GOP Representing on Gun Background Checks?

Posted on by
Reply

In politics, presidential candidates who win the support of over 60% of Americans are said to have won overwhelming “landslide” victories.  Harding’s 60.3% in 1920. FDR’s 60.8% in 1936. Johnson’s 61.1% in 1964. and Nixon’s 60.7% in 1972.  Landslides!

It is so difficult to get 60% of Americans to agree on politics, that such “landslide victories” are considered highly unusual indications of a historically overwhelming level of public sentiment.

In Minnesota right now, Minnesotans of all walks of life, including Republicans, Independents, gun owners and Greater Minnesota citizens, are giving a landslide victory to gun background checks:

The Minnesota Republicans’ point person on this issue, State Representative Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) shrugs off this Star Tribune Minnesota Poll with a cavalier “nobody really believes those polls.”

  • Or this poll — CNN/ORC (89% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Quinnipiac (91% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Morning Joe/Marist (87% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — CBS (90% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Fox News (85% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — ABC/Washington Post (90% support support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Pew/USA Today (83% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — University of Connecticut (69% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Gallup (91% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Associated Press-GfK (84% support background checks)?

For those who quibble about question wording, these polls all asked the question a bit differently.

For those who argue methodology, these polls all reached a different randomized sample of respondents, and relied on different methodologies.

For those who worry about sponsorship bias, these polls were sponsored by a wide variety of news outlets and academic institutions.

For those who stress that polls are blunt instruments, these polls did not find slim margins that conceivably could be slightly off.  They found support levels that are between 10 and 30 points higher than “landslide” threshold of support.

Make no mistake, on the issue of universal gun background checks, Minnesota Republicans are choosing to represent the will of NRA lobbyists over the will of the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans, including gun owners, Republicans, Independents and Greater Minnesota citizens.

Frankly, Minnesotans, Republicans just aren’t just not that into you.

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Fairview-Sanford Merger: The Right and Wrong Questions to Ask

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson is right to scrutinize the proposed merger of Fairview Health System and Sanford Health System.  It could have a big impact on Minnesota taxpayers, and it shouldn’t only be discussed by Sanford and Fairview C-suiters.  The discussion should be out in the open.

So now that Attorney General Swanson has moved the Fairview-Sanford merger issue into the sunshine, what questions should Minnesotans be asking about it? So far, some of the questions have been excellent, and some have been silly.

Wrong Questions

Minne-xenophobia.  “Should we allow marauding invaders from the west to rape and pillage our Minnesota health care motherland?”

  • Okay, so those aren’t the precise words that have been used, but there has been some of that tone coming from Minnesota elected officials looking to score political points.  There are plenty of relevant questions that Minnesotans should be posing about this merger, but this one is grounded more in delusional Minnesota Exceptionalism than good public policy.  There may be reasons why this dance partner turns out to be wrong for Minnesota patients and taxpayers, but state of origin is not one of them, at least not as a stand alone issue.  So Minnesota, let’s leave the xenophobia and ego trips out of this.

Loan Sharkism.  “Should we allow someone who made billions loan-sharking vulnerable consumers with 36% interest rate credit cards to control our medical bills?”

  • It’s true that South Dakota’s lack of usury laws did allow Sanford Health’s dominant benefactor T. Denny Sanford to make billions charging breathtakingly high interest rates and fees to the  nation’s most vulnerable consumers.  It’s true that South Dakota lawmakers should be ashamed about the damage they have allowed bankers to do to consumers.  Moreover, it appears Mr.  Sanford may be much more involved in Sanford Health’s strategic decision-making than Sanford Health has admitted.    But until someone can show that there is a tangible connection between Sanford’s loan-sharking and Sandford Health’s patient care, these two regulatory issues need to be considered separately.  The usury discussion isn’t relevant to the merger discussion.

Quid Pro Quo.  “Is the University secretly planning to trade away a $1.2 billion hospital and clinic system so that it can receive a few million dollars in donations for  Sanford-financed athletic practice facilities?”

  • If Mr. Sanford gave the University a few million for new basketball and football facilities right now, that would be an extremely destructive PR move.   Merger advocates understand this.  It would look very much like billionaire bribery, which is why the University was more than willing yesterday to pledge that no such donations would be accepted during the merger discussions.  That promise makes this a non-issue.

Right Questions

Taxpayer Stewardship.  “Should health company executives who are not directly accountable to Minnesota taxpayers be given day-to-day control over a world class medical gem – the University of Minnesota Medical Center and related health sciences assets at the University – that was financed by Minnesota taxpayers?”

  • This is a very important question.  Much has been written about Mr. Sanford’s admirable $600 million in gifts to Sanford Health.  But Minnesota taxpayers have given even larger gifts to the University of Minnesota over many decades.  Given that, Minnesota taxpayers deserve to have ironclad guarantees that their interests – not Fairview’s or Sanford Health’s interests – will drive University-related decision making into the future.

Equal Regulatory Playing Field.  “Is Sanford as lean, transparent and efficient as the Minnesota Attorney General’s office has demanded other Minnesota health care non-profits to be?”

  • Former Attorney General Mike Hatch, with current Attorney General Lori Swanson heavily involved, famously audited Minnesota’s major health care companies – Allina, Fairview and HealthPartners.  Swanson and Hatch demanded, in a very public way, that these Minnesota-based non-profits be more lean and transparent.   Is Sanford Health going to be held to the same regulatory scrutiny and standards as Allina, HeathPartners and Fairview were?   I can promise you, Sanford was not subject to a Hatch-esque level of regulatory oversight in the conservative laissez-faire Dakotas. Therefore, will Attorney General Swanson audit Sanford Health’s salaries, perks and overhead, which would level the playing field between Sanford Health and it’s already audited and reformed Minnesota competitors?

Upside.  “What are the specific financial, research and patient care benefits associated with the Fairview-Sanford merger, as compared with the status quo or the University taking over Fairview?”

  • All mergers have both costs and benefits.  Minnesotans need to be sure they have a clear picture of what benefits Sanford Health would bring to the University.  So far, most of what we hear from Sanford Health’s CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft is that it is Sanford Health’s manifest destiny to be large and go east, young man.  For Minnesota taxpayers who have  invested heavily in the University of Minnesota over many decades, bigness for bigness’s sake is just not a good enough reason to merge.  Minnesota taxpayers need guarantees of specific benefits, or we shouldn’t risk a change.

It’s critically important for Minnesotans to debate the proposed Fairview-Sanford merger.  But it needs to be the right kind of debate.

- Loveland

Disclosure:  In the past, I have worked for Allina and HealthPartners, but have not done so in many years.  I currently do work for the University of Minnesota, but on transportation-related issues, not health care issues.  I also have worked for the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, but not during the Hatch- and Swanson-eras.

Note:  An earlier version of this post listed the cost of new basketball and football practice facilities at $25 million.  That was an error.  To the best of my knowledge, the cost of those potential new facilities is not yet known.

Note:  This post was also published in MinnPost and featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Bachmann Accuser: Congresswoman “Hijacked by Mercenaries”

Posted on by
Reply

The following was submitted to Wry Wing Politics via an April 6, 2013 email written by Peter E. Waldron, the former National Faith Outreach Director for the 2012 Michele Bachmann for President campaign organization.  Dr. Waldron’s post-election allegations that Bachmann violated election finance laws are currently being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) in Washington, DC.  He also says that Bachmann has asked him to sign a confidentiality agreement that he says would bar him from discussing the Bachmann campaign’s “unethical, illegal, or immoral activity.”

Dr. Waldron, who has an interesting personal history, was responding to a January 16, 2013 Wry Wing Politics post.

Your January 16, 2013 analysis  of the Bachmann Campaign troubles  (The Battle of the Bachmanniacs: Mercenaries versus Missionaries) is fair.  Another difference, I respectfully submit, is that the “missionary” represents a large constituency.  For example, I carry into every campaign a responsibility to present the candidate in good faith to each pastor, priest, and values-based voter that I either enlist for an endorsement or recruit to vote for our candidate.

On the other hand, I tender with respect that a “Mercenary” is in it for himself/herself and believes that the end justifies the means without regard for the local people, reputations of endorsers, or good name of volunteers and supporters.  Victims are scattered across the landscape of early primary and caucus states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The democratic process in our nation is broke because “mercenaries” are too often in control of campaigns and candidates.  It must change.

Permit me, please, to borrow your language for a moment, I allege that the Bachmann campaign was hijacked by “Mercenaries” after the Straw Poll on August 13, 2011 until now.  The “Mercenaries”, I allege, removed as much money as possible from the campaign and in the end, I allege, sought refuge behind the Congresswoman’s position as a Member of Congress.

I believe that the results of the Heki v Bachmann lawsuit and four investigations into Rep. Bachmann’s senior campaign advisors will bear me out.

Blessings, Peter Waldron

The following is the original Wry Wing Politics post that Dr. Waldron references:

The Battle of the Bachmanniacs: Mercenaries versus Missionaries

Posted on

The Star Tribune’s Kevin Diaz is covering an interesting story about an ugly battle happening inside Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s 2012 presidential campaign circles.  The coverage details allegations made by an evangelical leader named Peter Waldron who worked as a national field coordinator for the Bachmann-for-President staff.

Mr. Waldron is accusing Bachmann of several things, including complex and serious violations of Federal Election Commission (FEC) spending laws.  But at the visceral core of Waldron’s allegations, he is also blowing the whistle on the fact that Bachmann refused to pay Waldron and his campaign allies, at the same time she was paying a lot of money to a political consultant, Guy Short, and an Iowa Republican party official, Kent Sorenson.  This as much about the IOU as the FEC.

This skirmish shines a spotlight on a type of tension that is very common with just about all modern political campaign staffs.  The campaign staff battle lines fall out this way:

  • MISSIONARIES.  Some campaign staffers are missionaries.  They are zealous believers in a particular ideology and/or theology.  Missionaries are motivated by policy purity.  They want to convert others to their way of thinking, at any cost. Mr. Waldron seems to have been a leader of the missionary camp on the Bachmann campaign.
  • MERCENARIES.  Then there are the mercenaries.  These are the professional political soldiers who are paid handsomely to swoop in to do battle for the candidate during the campaign.  Mercenaries are motivated by the profit motive and winning, because winning leads to jobs and future profit-making opportunities.  The hired guns are working to win the election, at any cost. Mr. Short seems to have been in the mercenary camp of the Bachmann campaign. Continue reading →

Obamacare Demystified

Posted on by
Reply

“Clear,” “concise,” “simple” and “depoliticized” are not words you ever hear associated with the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” as both friends and foes have come to call the national health reform bill passed in 2010.

But the Minnesota Council of Health Plans (MCHP), with an assist from the Children’s Defense Fund and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, managed to build a web-based tool that provides customized health reform basics in just a couple of minutes.

Take it for a quick test-drive, and/or recommend it to someone else who is struggling to understand the changes that are, like them or not, coming soon.

As any clear, concise and simple communications tool must do, this one leaves a lot unsaid and undersaid.  But it starts the conversation in a simple, non-political and non-intimidating way, something that neither the political left nor right have managed to do in the three years since the reform passed.

- Loveland