Hired Guns, Part 5

Yesterday, controversial political reporter Shawn Towle fired back at his critics on his blog Checks & Balances. 

This post is the fifth part of a series [1, 2, 3 and 4] on the payments by state senate Democrats ($40,000) and state Republicans ($5,250) to the accredited member of the senate press corps for “research” and “consulting.”

For his part, Mr. Towle posted an open letter yesterday [one of two] defending his conduct in accepting payments from political parties.

Hired Guns, Part 4

A while back, I wrote a series of posts [1, 2 and 3] on the state senate Democrats’ hiring of accredited member of the senate press corps, Shawn Towle, to do “research.”

Credit should go to Star Tribune reporter Baird Helgeson, who picks up the story today and liberal blogger Sally Jo Sorenson, who wrote her own Hired Guns, Part IV post this evening.

[Update: the Citypages' Aaron Rupar has a more in-depth story up at his blog this morning.]

Interested readers should take a look at all three pieces, and I won’t cover the ground they cover.  But I do have a few points to make that I’ve not seen elsewhere,

The Star Tribune’s Helgeson reports,

Towle said he actually got his Senate credentials when the Republicans controlled the body and [now Senate Minority Leader David] Hann was an assistant leader.

Around that time, Towle was also on the payroll of the Republican Party of Minnesota’s payroll [sic].  The state GOP paid Towle a combined $15,000 in 2010 and 2011, records show.

Yes, the Republican Party of Minnesota paid Towle’s company, Key Strategies, $9,750 in 2010, all of which went for advertising.

Redundancies and all, Helgeson’s reporting that advertising represents a “payroll” position demonstrates the age-old adage that unclear thinking produces unclear writing.

More seriously, the Republican Party paid Towle’s company $5,250 in 2011 for “political consulting.”

But it’s also true that the state Republican Party does not accredit journalists, which state senate Democrats do.

The same argument should have held in 2011: a paid political consultant in the employ of a political party (any party) should not have received press credentials.  Tu quoque (“you did it, too”) defenses should not be accepted, regardless of the party making them.

The questions that remain are these:

Should a reporter in the employ of a political party (for research, consulting, or similar purposes) receive official press credentials?

What role did current Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk in hiring Towle?

What research did Towle provide to senate Democrats in exchange for $40,000 of payments?

Charlie Quimby Responds to “Start-Up Minnesota”

Last week, I wrote a blog post ("Start-Up Minnesota"), proposing 10-year tax breaks to encourage new company formation.  Author Charlie Quimby responded with the post below.  He actually wrote it last week, but I am only now getting to posting his response.  Quimby wrote,

Bill, I'm sorry, but this proposal is nonsense.  It is so far off, I would almost support it just to show how little impact it would have.  As someone who has started barely profitable as well as successful businesses, I can assure you taxes were not a factor in either case.

Without reading how the [Joel Kotkin] study came up with its [business formation] rankings, I'd say these are all reasons more important than tax policy:

1)   lower than average unemployment rate (a lot of business starts come from people who   haven't found work; these are also likely to evaporate when better opportunity comes along);

2)   higher than average net income (people who're comfortable are less likely to take entrepreneurial risks);
3)   presence of significant angel investment capital (this could perhaps be impacted by tax policy, but the coasts will still have biggest bucks);
4)   general decline of university-funded research here;
5)   large employer base (those Fortune 500s) that is more likely to source nationally than just locally;
6)   competing metro areas that have better positioned themselves in high-tech growth markets.

Management and technical skills, access to customers, available workforce with right skills, access to capital and even family ties are all more important than tax policy when an entrepreneur thinks about where to start a business.  Most start-ups won't have a tax problem in the early years.  It's not to say there aren't reasons why businesses start elsewhere—I expect North Dakota has a high rate right now—it's just that they aren't going there because of the tax system.

A better measure (and I say this without the number at my fingertips) is business survival rates.  Start-ups don't necessarily produce good jobs over time.  You could look at Nevada a few years back. I think it probably led the nation in job creation and start-ups, but a lot of that was illusory, based on investing in a building cheap housing that is now vacant or produced big losses for people.

I always appreciate Charlie’s responses to my proposals.

1600 University Avenue

The Geography of Politics

If the 2014 election in Minnesota follows the form of the elections of 2012 and 2010, the contest will be decided in a non-descript suite of offices located at 1600 University Avenue in St. Paul.  There is no political party, candidate, or large donor headquartered there, but, rather an interlocking series of nonprofit organizations centered on the Democrat-front-group Alliance for a Better Minnesota.

On the 4^th floor of this office building, the state’s leading progressive political groups share an office suite and staff, coordinate polling and messaging, and raise millions of dollars to elect Democrat candidates.

Start-Up Minnesota

Perhaps the most-cited statistic in Minnesota is that the state is home to 19 Fortune 500 corporations, the 2^nd most, per capita, behind Connecticut.  Minnesota rightly takes pride in its place within the corporate pantheon.   Despite high profile departures, like Northwest Airlines, the number has remained around 19 (plus or minus one or two) for the past decade.

However, every time I hear about the 19, I get a little more uneasy.  Scanning the horizon, it’s tough to see where the next 3M or Medtronic is coming from.  Perusing the Fortune 500 list, you see companies that have been around for decades, some more than a century.

This Makes for A Better Minnesota?

As the 2014 election campaign heats up, a drearily familiar pattern is repeating itself.  Flush with big dollars from out-of-state donors, Democrat-front group Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) is attacking Republican candidates under the theme Wrong for Minnesota.

Although stymied for the moment by the fact that Republicans have yet to choose candidates for the marquee races, ABM’s 2014 operation has been underway for more than a year.

Back in the dim mists of time—when dinosaurs still trod upon the earth—I was taught that arguing against the person (ad hominem) rather than what the person was saying, defied the laws of logic.

I was taught in classical Greek rhetoric that a message that relied exclusively on raw emotion (pathos)—rather than reason (logos) or an appeal to values (ethos)—was considered the lowest form of communication.

Ad hominem and pathos are the only form of expressions ABM is capable of.  The reason why ABM relies on these tactics is because they work.  The object is not to engage in debate, but to end debate by surpressing voter turnout.  ABM is not trying to convince you that you should vote for Democrats, they are trying to convince you that no Republican possesses the personal character worthy of your vote.

As a thought experiment, consider how ABM would have operated in past years.  Would we have seen Gandhi’s mug shots from his arrests by colonial authorities?  Would the business acumen of Mother Teresa been called into question?  You see, everyone is human and thus, flawed.  ABM’s poll-tested methodology involves exaggerating whatever flaws a Republican candidate may have, or, in a pinch, just make something up.

ABM serves as the shock troops for the state’s Democrat Party candidates:  doing the dirty work so that the candidates themselves can keep their hands clean.

[Update:  One of my Twitter compatriots points out that these tactics come straight out of Saul Alinksy's 1971 progressive playbook Rules for Radicals.  In fact, it's rule No. 13, "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  Progressives won't argue that a Republican has proposed a bad policy, they will argue he is a bad person.  It makes for effective politics, but has the side effect (not unintended) of destroying social cohesion.]

Should a Republican whisper about the health of our current governor or the temperament of our junior senator, they are immediately shouted down by local media.

Either because of personal relationships or broad sympathy with the aims of ABM, these tactics are never questioned by local media.  ABM’s increasingly fantastic and desperate claims against Republicans are never subjected to the “fact-check” apparatus.

The self-appointed guardians of our state’s political culture will praise ABM’s tactics as innovative and clever but will not permit those same tactics to be used on the right.  Over the next six months I plan on exposing some of this “game behind the game” and the local media that enables it.

Geronimo!

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has on its website a fawning profile of Edina-based wind and solar power company Geronimo Energy.  The company is set to make a fortune from developing a large solar power project for electric utility giant Xcel Energy.

The Star Tribune would have you believe that Geronimo's success is attributable to the company's clever business plan and savvy marketing.  In fact, renewable power in Minnesota would be nowhere without round after round of mandates imposed by the state government on electric utilities.

What the Star Tribune also doesn't mention is that Geronimo's director of solar power, Nathan Franzen, is married to Edina Democrat state senator Melisa Franzen.  In 2013, Sen. Franzen voted for the latest round of solar power mandates that benefit her husband's industry.

Beyond state mandates, renewable energy is also dependent on Federal tax breaks and favorable regulatory treatment.  You and I pay the difference, in higher taxes and/or higher electricity prices, that makes wind and solar power appear viable.

I'm having a hard time seeing the public purpose served by increasing the personal wealth of Sen. Franzen and her spouse.  It sure looks like classic crony capitalism, of the variety more often seen in places like Chicago and Louisiana.

The Consent of the Governed

Yesterday, I posted on this site an essay by my friend and neighbor John Snyder, ruminating on the topic of The Consent of the Governed.  It turns out to be a rather timely topic.

The words come from The Declaration of Independence, contained within the phrase,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The public opinion firm Rasmussen Reports conducts polls on the question every few months.  This month Rasmussen found that only 19 percent of American voters believe that the Federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

In the several years Rasmussen has polled on the question of consent, the result has hovered at or below the 20 percent mark.  It’s remarkable that, nearly 240 years into our republic, fewer than 1 in 5 voters think our current Federal regime is worthy of their consent.

In a column this week, George Will takes on the topic, writing,

The fundamental division in U.S. politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom, and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.

These days you don’t have to be a Nevada cattle rancher to see that these two visions are becoming less and less compatible.  Reasonable people can question why every Federal agency needs its own SWAT team.

Ok, but what to do about it?  To date, the most notable reaction is people voting with their feet.  I find it more than interesting that fastest growing states are the ones that place more value on individual freedom (North Dakota, Texas, Utah, etc.).  The slowest growing states seem to be those that value the power of government more (Rhode Island, Vermont, Illinois, etc.).

As a practical matter, however, it won’t be possible to sort all 314 million of us into geographic areas the either honor freedom or like making rules.  In the interim, I think it would help everyone to either create, or strengthen, institutions that provide an alternative to government.  By creating some competition, government will need to become more responsive to the needs of its citizens.

A few examples would include school vouchers in education, San Francisco’s Patrol Special Police, and private mutual-aid societies like the Odd Fellows and Sons of Norway.  The modern Bismarckian welfare state did not invent concepts like health insurance and old age pensions—it merely monopolized them under government control.

Only by giving people a meaningful way of "opting out" can we hope to keep everyone together.

Disclosure, Part 4

In a series of posts earlier this year [1, 2, and 3] I wrote harshly of the inner workings of and motivations behind the pro-same sex marriage political action committee MN United, founded by Democrat Party insider Richard Carlbom.  It turns out, based on more recent results, that I was not harsh enough.

Perusing the 1^st Quarter 2014 filing made by the MN United PAC at the state Campaign Finance Board makes for surprisingly interesting reading.

The Shape of the Playing Field, Part 5

“Shut Up!” They Explained

Writer Mark Steyn has documented the slow decline of free speech (for conservatives, anyway) around the globe.  Unfortunately, Minnesota is busily manufacturing fresh examples to add to Steyn’s sad tally.

Nearly 200 U of M professors object to Condoleezza Rice's speech.  Yes, professors at Minnesota’s flagship public university—and temple of free inquiry—object to hosting a speech this week by George Bush’s Secretary of State.

The WIN Minnesota Money Machine

I forgive those readers whose eyes glaze over when the discussion turns to the legal subtleties distinguishing a 501(c)(3) from a 527 from a 501(c)(4).  It all sounds like tax accounting and what could be more deathly dull than that?

Unfortunately, the boredom factor is exceeded only by the importance of the subject.  Clever manipulation of these mind-numbing corporate entities is the reason why Democrats win elections in Minnesota and Republicans lose.

I applaud my friends on the right who are working hard to re-establish Republicans as the party of ideas and reaching out to constituencies too long ignored.  But it will all go for naught if we keep losing election campaigns before they even begin.

The Indonesian Connection, Part 2

Our favorite mysterious Indonesian businessman is back in the public eye, showing up on yet another campaign donor list.

On March 28, 2014, Johannes Marliem donated $20,000 to the Minnesota state Democrat Party, apparently not scared off by a little bad publicity over his previous donations.

He still has a way to go to catch No. 1 Democrat donor [and Mark Dayton ex-wife] Alida Rockefeller Messinger, who kicked in $150,000 to state Democrats in the first quarter of 2014.

Hired Guns, Part 3

Longtime readers will know that I’ve been skeptical of the ability of Minnesota Democrats to create jobs in this economy. 

Thanks to a timely tip from Sally Jo Sorensen, I can report that accredited journalist Shawn Towle is back on the payroll of the state senate Democrats.  According to their First Quarter 2014 filing at the state Campaign Finance Board, the senate Democrats (Minnesota DFL Senate Caucus) paid Towle’s Enlighten Enterprise company $1,000 on January 7, 2014.

A grand may not sound like a lot, but Towle was able to restart his dormant website, Checks & Balances, and up his Twitter output in recent weeks.

Although I understood that with checkbook journalism the money is supposed to move in the other direction, as a Minnesota taxpayer, I’m just happy that senate Democrats are putting money back into the private economy.

Connections

The anti-corporate left points to the phenomenon of interlocking boards of directors as prima facie evidence of how big business perpetuates its political power.  At a minimum, such links are seen as evidence of something highly suspicious.

Of course, something of the same phenomenon exists in the progressive nonprofit corporate world.  Consider these interlocking memberships between progressive political charities Alliance for a Better Minnesota, WIN Minnesota, TakeAction Minnesota, and NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

Alliance for a Better Money Laundry

As Minnesotans scramble to file their tax returns in time for the April 15^th deadline, no doubt many are searching high and low for last year’s charitable donation receipts.

Now seems as good a time as any to take a fresh look at my favorite progressive political charity, the Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM).  As long-time readers will recall, the ABM empire boasts a wide range of non-profit, tax-exempt entities.  Among them is the Alliance for a Better Minnesota Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.

The ABM Education Fund offers its donors both anonymity and the possibility of an income tax deduction on their personal income tax liabilities.  As an IRS approved, tax-exempt charity, the Education Fund must operate a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, right?

1 Minnesota

If you receive your news from local media than you believe that Democrats in the Minnesota state legislature have been going from triumph to triumph:  raising pay for the poor, ending economic inequality, and showering free health care upon a grateful populace.

Truth be told, although a legislature can do much to hold back economic growth, they cannot lift the fortunes of any one group or class (short of mailing out checks) any more than King Canute could command the tides to recede.

A False Flag Rises in Central Virginia

During my annual visit to the ancestral homestead in the Commonwealth of Virginia last week, my brother told me an incredible story about the area’s politics.  It appears that local Democrats have succeeded in taking over the County’s Republican Party.  Yes, you read that correctly.

After some independent investigation, I largely confirmed by brother’s account of events, with some important context added.

Good Enough For Government Work

The Minneapolis Star Tribune committed a random act of journalism over the weekend, publishing an extensive post-mortem of the MNsure debacle.  The state’s newspaper of record published a detailed account of what went wrong and who did what in the rollout of Minnesota’s Obamacare health insurance exchange.  It is must reading for anyone interested in state government or health care.

One thing made clear by the Star Tribune’s reporting is that the senior members of state government—from Governor Mark Dayton on down—were aware that MNsure’s rollout would be a disaster, decided to press ahead anyway, and were indifferent, at best, to the ensuing carnage.

It’s the cliché “good enough for government work” come to life.  Having twice served as a government bureaucrat, I’ve always found the phrase to be mildly insulting.  Mark Dayton seems to wear the insult as a badge of honor.

Gov. Dayton gives away the game in this quote published by the Star Tribune,

“I don’t know of anybody who wasn’t operating with good intentions and trying their utmost to make this as good as possible.”

Hey, they tried their best and they meant well.  With Gov. Dayton, good intentions always trump actual results.  He’d rather have his people mean well, and fail, than succeed for the wrong reasons.

Which explains why Dayton has held no one—not the hapless Commissioner of Human Services nor the “hear no evil, see no evil” MNsure board of directors responsible for this debacle.