UPDATE: Dayton’s statement. Apparently she does have some record as commissioner, and it undercuts the GOP claims.

UPDATE 2

I just witnessed an act of partisan venality and political cowardice. This was science denial not even masquerading, but entirely skulking out of sight as best it could manage.

The State Senate just voted — along party lines, as if that wasn’t predictable — to remove Ellen Anderson as commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission. If you’re wondering what she must have done with her office to get Republicans so upset, the answer is nothing. They cited literally nothing in removing her. She has only just taken office and hasn’t yet built a record to be judged.

Readers must be wondering what reason the Republicans gave. Keep wondering. The only Republican to speak to the subject was Julie Rosen, who got stuck with reading the motion, which someone had to do, and it was clear from her demeanor she did this with dread. She read her speech, not daring to lift her face lest she catch her colleagues in the eye. She wouldn’t cite anything specific Anderson had done to be removed from office, but merely indicated that Anderson had failed to be strongly enough for fossil fuels. At a time when global warming is our worst environmental threat, maybe the worst issue we face overall, and while serving as a state senator for a state with no fossil fuels, Anderson dared to support other forms of energy. For this, the heretic must be punished. Rosen feebly tried to make Anderson the hypocrite, by citing votes Anderson had made against prior commissioners. Was there good reason to remove those commissioners? Apparently  that was immaterial, which suggests it would also be inconvenient to the Republican case, absent as it was.

What did other Republicans say? Nothing to the substance. When Sandy Pappas cited Rosen and new majority leader David Senjem for their hypocrisy based on their past actions and statements, Senjem objected to senators being mentioned by name. When Terri Bonhoff connected the impending action to the cutting of DFL staff while Republicans went untouched, one Republican objected this was off-topic. Senjem raised the objection to using names when John Marty tried to ask a question of Julie Ortman, who Marty wanted to ask about her quote calling Anderson controversial without explaining why. Marty asked if he should ask his question of, this is close to a quote but not exact, “that lady sitting next to that guy over there?” When Ortman, now unable to avoid answering, made an answer, did she say what she meant? No. Did she cite something Anderson had done? No. She said she was concerned utility rates might go up. Did she say how Anderson would be the cause of this? Of course not.
DFLer after DFLer did speak, defending Anderson, though against what charges they weren’t told, by citing her long record on energy issues and record of creating consensus across party lines. Barbara Goodwin pointed out that Anderson was sought nationally to address energy issues.

The Senate’s power to reject commissioners has been used only in rare circumstances, after the commissioners have built up a record on the job that calls for removal. Bonhoff and minority leader Tom Bakk brought up the two rejections of Pawlenty commissioners for a contrast. Education Commissioner Cheri Yecke, though easily Tim Pawlenty’s most controversial appointment, was given a year to show herself unsuited to the job, at which time she was rejected not for who she was before taking office, but for what she did in office. Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau, who doubled as transportation commissioner, was removed after five years and a terrible record on the job. Anderson, however, was removed before she had a chance to have a record on the job.

Yes, I was live tweeting the debate, saying things I assume Republicans won’t like “No MNGOPer would defend their action. Useless cowards”. However, I’m not on the Senate staff, unlike some GOP tweeters. When the debate ended, Scott Dibble said that in the last year and a half, Senate tradition had been thrown out, and the Senate turned into a “playground”, specifying that during the debate there were Republican staff sending tweets attacking Anderson. Great collegiality guys. These — people — can’t figure out they serve the state, not the conservative movement. They’re job is supposed to be more than just attacking Democrats. If majority leader Senjem meant the rhetoric about the Senate being a family, maybe it’s time he tell his children to stop throwing things at their cousins.

Note: I’ll update when/if I can find the tweets Dibble was referring to, and when/if I find video of the debate.

UPDATE: Gov. Dayton excoriates Senate Republicans in his statement on Anderson. Apparently Anderson had some record as commissioner. Why didn’t the Republicans bring it up? Because it completely undermines a charge of being extreme, supports the DFL senators’ claims she builds consensus:

You would think after their leadership scandals, which caused them to replace all of their leaders last month, they would behave themselves for at least a little while.  However, they seem incapable of doing so.  After it was disclosed that they had ignored a $2.6 million reduction in their own operating budget during the past six months, the Republican Caucus hired a new Communications Director at a salary $10,000 above his predecessor.  And they picked someone, a decent man, who now has a very serious conflict of interest as a University of Minnesota Regent, which he won’t acknowledge and they won’t deal with – thus sullying the good reputation of our great university.

Last week, their very first week back in session, the Senate Republican leaders addressed their deficit by cutting DFL Senators’ share of the budget almost half-a-million dollars, while cutting theirs…zero.  Zero.  They did it after their new Leader said the Senate was “like family.”  Some family.

Now, to begin their second week, they have smeared and rejected an outstanding public official.  They claim PUC Chair Anderson is “too extreme.”  Her record proves them wrong.  Since she joined the PUC, there have been 221 votes among the five commissioners, the other four of whom were all appointed by Governor Pawlenty.  Three of them are Republicans.

204 of those 221 votes were unanimous.  Of the 17 divided votes, only six times did Chair Anderson vote in the minority.  That’s less than 3% of all votes taken.  It also means that she voted with the majority on 215 of 221 votes, or 97% of the time.  How is that extreme?

UPDATE 2: Two things: first, The Uptake posted a couple clips.

Second, regarding my characterization of how short Anderson’s record as commissioner has been, I was mistakenly thinking she took office just a few months ago. She took office last March, so that’s nine months in office. It’s arguable if that’s long enough to evaluate her performance, but her performance, as Dayton’s statement explained it, shows GOP charges of being extreme or controversial to be bogus. I can’t see inside their heads, so maybe this was long-harbored resentment and payback for Yecke and Molnau, but based on what they said, I think this was just science denial and ideology. I take Rosen’s accusation that Anderson wasn’t supportive enough of “traditional” fuel sources to be the telling part.

Margaret Anderson Kelliher scored an impressive victory this past weekend in Duluth.  Importantly — so did the single-payer Minnesota Health Plan — and, therefore, all of us.  On Saturday morning, Ms. Kelliher delivered a written commitment to John Marty, the Plan’s architect and chief author, to do all she can to pass the legislation within two years.  The commitment significantly advances the already vibrant cause for single-payer health care in Minnesota, and substantial additional support for Margaret and her commitment to pass the MHP is being mobilized as we speak.

Benefits of the MHP.  The MHP will save money, save time, and save lives.  It will be a tremendous boost to the economy, as it frees up employers from the expense and hassle of health insurance, creates jobs as a result, and improves the housing market as we avoid foreclosures and short sales resulting from medical-related bankruptcies.  It will also put needed money in people’s pockets as described below.

The State Budget.  Critically, the MHP will, on balance, save the state, employers and families billions of dollars a year.  Only insurance companies will lose out, and as a result you can bet they will be doing their best to convince people otherwise.  For their part, Republicans will predictably argue that the MHP will increase the state budget and is therefore bad by their definition.  In any event, it won’t.  The MHP will be supported by a fund that is independent of the general state treasury — premiums will be routed through the Plan itself rather than through profit-taking insurance companies.  Describing this as an increase in the state budget would be a gross oversimplification of what’s really taking place.  And, our payments will be significantly less than our current total of premiums and out of pocket expenses.  Employers and working families will save hundreds and thousands a year, which would be equivalent to a sizeable tax break.

What happened in Duluth? A bit of clarification for those who like this sort of thing:  To her tremendous credit, having recognized smart public policy, Ms. Kelliher delivered the written commitment to pass the MHP to John Marty, and did so with no accompanying request or quid pro quo.  Marty later informed the convention of Margaret’s commitment to the issue, and then of his intent to vote for Margaret in furtherance of that issue.  He remained clear at all times that he expected his supporters to vote their conscience.  Following Marty’s statement, meaningful additional support then also swung to Margaret, all but shutting down any remaining chances for RT (whose health care positions were insufficient).  In other words, no Daly-esque smoky backroom ‘deal’.  No exchange of political posts or IOUs.  No horse-collaring delegates.  A partnership to pass crucial legislation, based on a statewide issue, was formed, and issue-based support moved accordingly.

Moving forward: Minnesota is among the top half-dozen states in the progress we have made on single-payer legislation, and this is a big additional boost.  Substantial support is being mobilized behind Margaret and her advancement of the MHP.  Single-payer in Minnesota is a big fight, but one that (a) will help get Margaret elected, and (b) could make Minnesota the first state in the country to engage real, needed, health care reform.

So count me among the growing list of people unifying behind Margaret Anderson Kelliher’s candidacy for governor.

While everyone else is offering their post-mortem of the 2010 endorsement process/convention, I’ll offer a few thoughts.  I liked all the candidates, I really did.  They all would have done a great job reaching out to voters in Minnesota.  John Marty will continue to nudge people along in the Senate.  Tom Rukavina is quite an inspirational person, and I admire the tenacity of the candidate and his campaign, I look forward to what his next step is.  Paul Thissen is a sharp person who will be back, he and his staff did a great job of getting him into the statewide spotlight, and I expect more great things from him in the future.  RT Rybak and his supporters did a great job as well, he’ll be back, I’m sure.

I want to extend a congratulations to Margaret Anderson Kelliher and her campaign team.  They did a great job mobilizing throughout the process and the convention.  I know for a fact that Jaime Tincher and the rest of her staff will make (and already have made) for a very formidable campaign.  (Plus the other candidates staffers are available to make our statewide campaign even more formidable).

Having people like Jaime and her staffers on board gives me great hope that this will be the year that the DFL endorsed candidate will not only survive the primary, but end up victorious in the general election.  I urge all Democratic minded supporters to help put Margaret in the Governor’s Mansion, and to send Mark Ritchie, Rebecca Otto, and Lori Swanson back to their respective offices as well.

A bio page for her just appeared on his web site

http://www.johnmarty.org/About…

Update:

The following was sent out just after 9:00 AM

Dear friend,

I am thrilled to introduce the accomplished woman I have asked to join me on the ticket to become the next Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota – Senator Patricia Torres Ray.

I have a bold vision for Minnesota, one that includes truly universal health care and smart investments in our state’s human and physical infrastructure, one that returns our state to a fiscally responsible budget, and one that stands up to corporate influence and special interest money.

In choosing a running mate, the criteria foremost on my mind were – first – someone who shares that vision for Minnesota. Second, someone who has the leadership skills and experience to work together in building a better future for all Minnesotans. And finally, a person who can engage people all around this state, particularly those who have traditionally been left out of the political process. I found that person in Patricia.

Patricia has over twenty years of experience in public service at the state level. Prior to entering the Senate, she worked at the Department of Human Services in child welfare.  Since entering the Senate, she has shown real leadership and has gained the respect and admiration from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.  I have been proud to have her serve as Vice Chair of the Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. Her skill and ability to work in a bipartisan manner earned her the honor of being among the first freshmen to chair a budget subcommittee. She also serves as a Majority Whip.

In 2008 Patricia was appointed Chair of Latinos for Obama and built an unprecedented effort galvanizing the Latino community, bringing Bill Richardson to Minnesota and raising over $100,000 dollars at a fundraiser for Barack Obama. In 2010 Patricia was appointed to the Democratic National Committee this year and was elected Chair for the Midwest Region by the Latino Caucus at the last DNC meeting in DC.

Beyond her credentials, however, what Minnesota voters will soon find is an exceptional woman with great warmth and humor and sensitivity to their concerns.

I have no doubt that she will win the hearts and minds of voters around this state.

Warmly,

John Marty

I’ve been thinking about the DFL endorsement battles, and the battle to get elected in general.  It’s what I do.  I think about elections, and how to win them, and how to organize to win them(among other things, I think about music, good books, and long walks on the beach).  We all know that it really is a battle sometimes, elections can be rough.

We, as members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party have the same general outlook on the issues.  We are a big tent, so there is a wide array of viewpoints, a wide array of ideas, and a wide array of how to implement those ideas that flow through the veins of the DFL.  It’s good to offer a strong  defense of one’s candidate.  It’s good to be excited about someone who you think can do all the things you want them to be able to do.  But what else do our candidates really need from us and us from them?

I believe, as supporters, our candidates need us to ask them the hard questions, and to tell them the truth rather than painting a rosy picture if the horizon is darkening.  Our candidates need us to ask them what they want from us, and we need them to ask for our help.  We need to trust our candidates and their staffers’ framework for the volunteer work that they ask of us.  We need to know that they need us, and remember that they need us so that they can know about that particular thing (issue), or that particular person (“Tiffany, the DFLer from down the road?” “Yeah, she’d be a great volunteer!  But don’t call her on Tuesday until after 3pm.”).

We’re the candidates’ local connection.  Our candidates need us to be a mouthpiece (or keyboard, as it were), but our candidates need us to represent them in an honorable and non-politically damaging ways.  I say this in particular to remind everyone that the internet can be unforgiving (there are snipers everywhere).  Our candidates need us to listen, and our candidates need to let us in on their strategic thinking at least a little bit, (if we can be trusted (how do we measure that? I’m not sure.)) so that we can understand.  We need to level with one another to understand what we want from each other.  They need to set our expectations, and we need them to surpass ours.  Our candidates need us to be able to think about the “big picture.”  Our candidates need us, uncommitted and committed alike, to tell our neighbors now why a DFLer is a better choice in a generic general election match-up in the fall.

After the endorsement/primary battle is over, our candidates need us all to work together again to make the phone calls, to walk and knock on those doors.  Our candidates need us to come together and drink the wine of a united front rather than sipping on our sour grape juice alone in the corner.  They need us, and the party needs us to go out and talk to our neighbors about why it is so important to vote in any election.  They need us to help drop “off-year” from the presidential/occasional voter’s vocabulary.

These are the things that we need from one another in order to ensure success.

It is great news that nine of the ten serious DFL gubernatorial candidates said they would sign the Minnesota Health Plan, if passed by the Legislature (Eric Black, Minnpost, Jan 13 2010  and MUHCC.org). Does that mean that each of the ten can be counted on, as Governor, to put passage of the Plan among their top priorities, so that the happy scenario of signing it becomes a reality? No, it does not. We, as advocates, should be very careful navigating these tricky waters.

Here is what I mean. If the Minnesota Health Plan is to become reality, we must have a Governor willing to risk political capital to make it a reality. For a Gubernatorial candidate to say they would sign a bill if the legislature has passed it or that they would work with the legislature to encourage passage, is a step forward but says nothing about putting real political capital on the line to make it happen. Think, for example, of the many meanings of “work with.”

How can we distinguish those who are willing to take the necessary political risks from those who will passively encourage? Probably our best indicator of future behavior, in this case, is past behavior. Of the nine DFL candidates who said they would sign the MnHP, if passed by the legislature, eight have recently held an elective office which gave them opportunity to publicly support single-payer, if not the Minnesota Health Plan itself. Only two of them actually took a meaningful step: Senator Bakk and Representative Rukavina became co-authors of the bill.

There are caveats, of course. The candidates served in different elective capacities at different times, so that an expression of support would differ among them. Second, a policy conversion during the heat of the campaign might actually be a thorough and meaningful one. Finally, we should not forget that promising to sign the bill is a step forward, however incremental.

My point, however, is that those of us who want a Governor who will be an active partner in the tough fight of making the Minnesota Health Plan a reality should seek out the candidate who has demonstrated  the willingness to take on that fight.

It happens that the chief author of the Minnesota Health Plan, Senator John Marty, is among those who answered “yes” to questions about working with the legislature and signing the bill if it passes. In the most literal sense, his answer necessarily appears to be the same as the others. In reality, however, there is a world of difference.

Joel Clemmer

(cross posted  here)

Ten of our DFL candidates for Minnesota governor attended the recent December 5, 2009, DFL Latino caucus forum.  While they talked, a packed room of my neighbors and fellow Minnesotans often nodded their heads in agreement and whispered to each other in both Spanish and English.

I read the forum questions and figured it would be the most informational forum of  this entire political season. We were going to hear about family values, living wage jobs, worker rights, discrimination, health care, immigration, education, the housing crisis, and the American Dream.

For the audio, separated into opening statements and questions, go to http://bit.ly/6gEmx9

We are actively looking for good articles from all campaigns, and would dearly love it if all campaigns posted in the diaries. All articles have to pass the promotion criteria test of an editor to be front paged. For me I want a story with news and substance, with a punchline with impact. A promotion does not mean, the editor agrees, just that it is a worthwhile story – promoted by Kelly

Job Creation Done Right
by Senator John Marty
June 26, 2009

As Minnesota and other states grasp for ways to create jobs and boost the economy, public officials need thoughtful, responsible plans for action. However, not every form of government stimulus is appropriate, and Minnesota has headed down some misguided paths.

One proposal that passed the Senate would spend $100 million for loan guarantees to unnamed private businesses. Some legislators said they had a list of projects benefiting from the subsidy, but they refused to make the list public because of trade secrets. In other words, we would spend $100 million of tax dollars on unknown businesses for unknown purposes. One apparent beneficiary was the developer of the Mall of America. As the state cuts health care and lays off teachers, we would spend $50 million of state funds to subsidize a shopping mall!

Other proposals were even worse. Lobbyists for a handful of national investment firms were peddling a snake-oil proposal wherein Minnesota would give $150 million to these investors, who would, through a complex financing scheme, allegedly invest the money in “venture capital.” Their initial proposal would have allowed the money to be invested in practically anything, including retail businesses. And, unlike other financial investments, the investment firms would get to keep the principal and the earnings. That’s as if you ask a stockbroker to invest your money, and then after it has been invested for several years, the stockbroker keeps your money.

The head of Colorado’s Office of Economic Development, which administered a similar program in Colorado, said, “I think this state would be hard pressed to design a program that cost the taxpayers more and delivered less.” This is hardly the way Minnesota should be creating jobs.

Finally, if state government is going to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it should first do no harm. Unfortunately, rather than create jobs, Governor Pawlenty’s budget and recent unallotments are making the unemployment lines even longer. In addition to thousands of teachers, police and firefighters, and many other state and local government employees, the state budget will lead to countless additional layoffs in the private sector. Just one budget cut – the governor’s veto of General Assistance Medical Care – may result in as many as 7600 job losses at hospitals, according to the MN Hospital Association. Even if Pawlenty’s tax breaks for business were successful in creating new jobs, it still wouldn’t come close to making up for all of the lay-offs that will result from his budget.

If Minnesota wants to use tax dollars to create construction jobs, these jobs should serve a public purpose, constructing public facilities, not jobs building shopping malls and other private businesses. Certainly there is no shortage of public needs.

Consequently, I proposed Senate File 2165 which would invest $200 million in Housing Finance Agency bonding for rehabilitation and repair of public housing for seniors and low income Minnesotans. Currently, there is more than a half billion dollar backlog of maintenance work on public housing in Minnesota. The failure to properly maintain this housing infrastructure will cost much more in the future if the buildings deteriorate to the point that they need to be demolished and replaced.

This legislation would also assist local governments and non-profits in aquiring vacant and foreclosed residential property and constructing or renovating affordable rental housing. For schools and other government facilities, funding would be available to significantly boost initiatives to make energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in those facilities.

SF 2165 would put thousands of construction workers to work, addressing the needs of one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy. And these jobs would provide several additional benefits: they would be green jobs, moving us to a sustainable energy economy; they would improve neighborhoods and communities, addressing blight and the problems caused by vacant property; and they would help address the crisis-level lack of affordable housing.

Good ideas from the past should not be forgotten. During the recession in the early 1980s Minnesota created the Minnesota Emergency Employment Development (MEED) program, perhaps the only “business subsidy” program that directly created jobs through a six-month wage subsidy to employers. To qualify, employers had to add new positions, hire people who were unemployed, and retain the employees after the wage subsidy ended. The program was locally administered and did not require businesses to jump through hoops of bureaucratic red tape, which enabled even very small employers to participate. The MEED program had great success in putting people back to work and keeping them employed, including many people of color and many who were from very low-income households. Senate File 2165 incorporates an updated version of the MEED program.

Minnesota is in a deep recession. We won’t solve anything by listening to snake-oil lobbyists and throwing money at the problem. Instead, we need thoughtful, effective strategies to put people back to work and help small businesses grow.

(content from email)

I’m active with the DFL in senate district 62, which is the southeastern part of south Minneapolis. We try to stay active outside of campaign season (what, campaign season isn’t permanent these days?) To that end we’re hosting an issue forum which we hope will be just our first, and we’re starting out with health insurance reform, focusing on single-payer.

Panelists include Rep. Keith Ellison, State Sen. John Marty, and single-payer advocates Elizabeth Frost and Kip Sullivan. Don’t know what “single-payer” means? Or you know, but don’t know what’s going on with reform efforts in Congress and the state legislature?

This is being held at the CWA hall at 35th Av. and Lake St. in Minneapolis on Saturday, February 21, from 2:00-4:00.

Forums on other issues are as yet a glimmer in our minds’ eyes, but we hope you’ll come and help us off to a good start, as well as educate yourself on one of the biggest issues of the day.

Feel free to contact me (Eric Ferguson, eric at celticfringe.net) for more info. Also check the SD62 web site, http://www.sd62dfl.org. Joe was nice enough to add it to the calendar, http://www.mnprogressiveprojec…