6.2 average response
Competitive position: Minnesota is well-positioned among the 50
states because of its diversified economy, clusters of businesses, and
a strong work force.
5.2 average response
The state's economy is much better than
negative impressions in the media would indicate.
Health Care: Allowing the growth in health care expenses is a
top-priority need for strengthening Minnesota's economy.
5.9 average response
Energy: Alternative energy sources offer great potential for future
economic growth in Minnesota.
like McElroy, but this interview struck me as rather superficial.
I.e., #12 (McElroy's "plan") is no plan at all, just some platitudes.
Why did you let him off so easily? The utility costs issue is not
going away - it's gonna stay cold in the winters. Recruiting
individuals and/or businesses face big challenges. Our entitlement
obligations continue to grow, but the share of Minnesotans paying IN
doesn't grow. This is not a sustainable picture.
Donald H Anderson (8) (5) (5) (8)
Press (5) (5) (5) (10)
Spitznagle (8) (5) (6) (6)
Arvonne Fraser (7) (8) (5) (8)
Cox (6) (7) (10) (5)
only will work in Minnesota if it isn't 'regulated to death' and is
allowed to work and be successful. Minnesota cannot sit back and look
what we did during the past 50 years and pat ourselves on the back. We
have to boldly look forward and create systems and plans that are
workable and sustainable into the next generations.
Sorry -- Don't
have time for one of Pawlenty's fantasy-spinners. I already know the
answer: NO NEW TAXES. Stan Holmquist, Elmer Andersen, and Nick
Coleman would be flipping in their graves. Why don't you get someone
like John Gunyou or Jay Kiedrowski?
William Kuisle (7) (5) (9) (3)
Charles & Hertha Lutz (9) (8) (8) (10)
Comment: In Point
5, what is “the glass cluster”?
Senn (5) (6) (10) (6)
Thank you. Good
interview. I learned a lot.
Prest (5) (4) (5) ( )
Slowing the growth
in health care can be an incentive or disincentive -- depending on the
price we pay to do that. I have known Dan a long time and respect him
but one must remember that he operates at the pleasure of a no-tax
governor. Nothing too biased or new in this interview.
Clarence Shallbetter (6) (5) (4) (3)
Quie ( ) (1) (3) (0)
# 1 families first
in education will close the achievement gap and produce sought after
employees, # 2 eliminate the corporate income tax will prove we mean
business, #3 build natural community empowerment and responsibility.
Donald Mark Ritchie
Hamm (4) (5) (4) (6)
1. Our position is
clearly tied to the next election, if we get a DFL Governor and the
DFL holds control in the legislature, we will clearly decrease
Minnesota's standings via tax increases.
2. This may or may
not be true and is also tied to the election outcome. Blaming the
media for our negative business rating is quite lame.
3. Just how are
you going to do that? This is going to be even more difficult rural
areas considering the "Brain Drain" that is escalating in out state
Minnesota thanks to you central planners.
alternative energy sources have great potential, I don't believe for a
second that Minnesota's legislature or bureaucrats have any idea of
how to help.
While I do support
your speakers chastising of Tom Dooher and Educate Minnesota, he stops
short of asking the important question, where are they getting more
money than a political party to hammer us with pro union propaganda?
He is also dead wrong on how we feel about schools, we do want them to
change back to local control and decision making.
Jennings (5) (4) (10) (8)
Stone (4) (5) (8) (2)
While Minnesota is
not without economic assets, it is disadvantaged in a number of ways:
* The Metro
area is a conduit for costly social planning schemes that are
endlessly arriving from the liberal east and west coasts. The Metro
area is a cistern of social deficiency, academic failure and criminal
behavior. It is no coincidence that the only two states with a budget
surplus in 2009 were Wyoming and North Dakota; neither state suffers
the burden of a large metropolitan area.
* Minnesota is
not among the 22 Right To Work states while, North Dakota, South
Dakota and Iowa are; we have a handicap.
* Large tracks
of Minnesota land are sequestered in three federal entities. This land
is of little economic value to the state of Minnesota.
* The 40,000
jobs of the Minnesota forest industry what is left of a far more
productive period that saw less bureaucracy and a more sensible
balance between environmental and economics interests in the state.
cost of delivering public services is considerably more expensive that
Wisconsin, Iowa South Dakota and North Dakota. This is an artifact of
ineffective, inefficient and bloated state government.
Minnesota has kicked the budgetary deficit down the road for two
consecutive years, many other states have eliminated taxes on
businesses and made real and substantial gains to provide a
sustainable balance between wants, needs, income and expenditures.
Environmental interests, their MPCA copilots and their DFL legislative
copilots are successfully blocking the development of the Duluth
Complex-- the worlds largest undeveloped copper, nickel and platinum
group metals (PGM) deposit. Projects in the
Polymet and Nokomis, but five years of bureaucratic stonewalling has
created a poor world-wide reputation in mining capital markets.
Media reports of
state economic problems are consistently understated. The generally
liberal media supports LRT, publicly financed stadiums, innumerable
social welfare programs funded by the roughly half of productive
Minnesotans who put more into the state budget than they receive. In
general, the media have not taken a responsible leadership role in
providing budgetary adult supervision to a state engaged in a
protracted spending binge. Trends in state spending are not
sustainable and until this fact becomes part of the media paradigm the
spending problem will be worse than commonly portrayed. Minnesota is
in worse shape than we think.
portray alternative energy as a job juggernaut are badly misdirected.
Diffused, subsidized, inefficient and intermittent energy sources are
ultimately less efficient than free-market centralized continuous
power sources. At best, alternative energy shifts jobs from
traditional energy employment patterns. Any actual increase in the
number of jobs adds to the cost of alternative energy. Higher energy
costs from any source has the same impact as a tax increase on
economic activity; it's a job killer.
characterization of Minnesota's economy varies with the vicissitudes
of the political wind. It is to the advantage of the minority party to
blame the majority party for all ills and it is best that those be
both large and plentiful. The majority party has no one to blame but
themselves; unless the Governor happens to be from a different party.
An objective inventory of the state's economic assets require more
than a casual appraisal.
and Ruth Hauge (6) (6) (8) (8)
your recent insights on Minnesota’s economy offered to the Civic
Caucus. You have served Minnesota well in a number of capacities.
The next years of management of our state government will be
challenging and most important.
Eklund (5) (5) (8) (8)
I really don't
know how we compare to other states. There seems to be a very mixed
set of indicators, but I don't know how much they are caused by the
national turmoil and how much they are specific to Minnesota. We are
more integrated into the national and global markets than even 10
years ago. It sometimes makes me wonder if it makes any sense at all
of use the phrase, "the Minnesota economy"?
Bright Dornblaser (8) (8) (10) (10)
Halstead (7.5) (5) (10) (2.5)
position: We may be over relying upon medical device firms as health
care and payment is reformed.
conservation would better serve Minnesota.
Merrill Anderson (7.5) (5) (10) (10)
Travis Bunch (7.5) (5) (10) (10)
position: MN is positioned well because of a strong workforce, quality
of life and diverse clusters, but factors that impact the bottom line
(costs of doing business / permitting and regulations) are making it
more difficult to attract and retain businesses.
Energy: The green
economy is a ever-growing industry and MN should be in a strong
position to capitalize on this growth. Especially in the metro, its
great to see Mayors Rybak and Coleman work together to develop a
marketing effort around it. I believe there leadership on this issue
Joos (2.5) (2.5) (5) (2.5)
economy has seen not only loss of jobs. But loss of companies. These
jobs will not comeback, they need to be replaced. Health care
expenses: Health care is one of our growth industries. Creating more
jobs will not happen without expansion of benefits.
technologies have to be approached with skepticism. They have not
proved anything yet. I would urge caution. We need to do our due
Brown (7.5) (10) (10) (10)
Malcolm Mc Donald (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5)
position: Workforce faces tough times due to k - 12 failing to
encourage students to want careers in technology, engineering, machine
tool, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and carpenter careers. We
suffer from too many young people not in school and political leaders
turning the other way.
many wealthy people who could invest in Minnesota have given up
residency and focused on expanding the economy of other states.
expenses: We fail to understand the need to look at how employees in
health care actually spend their time. Is it really necessary? Is
there a better way? Do we focus on the patient?
Energy: We focus
on the short run and not on the long run. We need to make long term
investments, decades in length, not months.
Hayes (7.5) (5) (10) (7.5)
Broden (10) (10) (5) (7.5)
Competitive position: I strongly agree with the statement and the
rationale; however the communication of this status is not done well
by either government or business. Far too many businesses leave Mn,
far too many expand elsewhere, and there is almost no leadership
expression of why companies should come to Mn or stay in Mn. If we
have advantages let's use them not ride on the wind of success.
Impressions: True; but who is the cause--politics yes--business yes
perhaps not selling why Mn--labor --yes for variety of reasons. There
is also a strange sense in the media recently that Mn economy is only
metro and perhaps a bit of Rochester to St.
Cloud. Duluth and the iron range is our 3rd largest city--or has the
media forgotten the largest inland seaport etc. And agriculture and
derivatives remain real economic engines but there seems to be little
comment. In fact some say ag is no longer a significant component--I
ask since when.?
Health care expenses: This statement is true but not unique to Mn.
This is a national problem and issue. Yes we can move ahead with
health care but almost a independent variable in the equation of
business and economic growth for any one individual state.
Energy: Alternate and Renewable energy certainly is one of the growth
areas. We need to seek to maintain the diversity of high tech and
Anonymous (2.5) (0) (10) (0)
Competitive position: Taxes and unfriendly laws are driving business
from MN. There is a growing portion of the population that does not
Impressions: Real wealth is down and this will hurt job creation in
the future. Taxes are rising. Government is the only growth
engine.....that should scare you. Look at the new buildings,
government or non-profit.
Health care expenses: Allow small businesses to pool together. Allow
competition amongst carriers. Repeal Obamacare before too late.
Energy: Are you kidding. Even with a 90% gov't subsidy, solar still
takes 5 years to reach a payback. Wind power is worse. Nuclear would
Dennis L. Johnson (7.5) (7.5) (10) (5)
Baerg (7.5) (2.5) (10) (10)
Oshiro (10) (10) (10) (10)
Becker (7.5) (0) (10) (5)
Competitive position: We are better off than a lot of states because
of a diverse economic base.
Impressions: It is brutal out there and the media seems to be
reflecting it pretty accurately.
Health care expenses: One of the things that bugs me is that no one
makes a connection between the Mayo Clinic's strong ability to control
health care costs and creating a viable economic climate. Controlled
health care costs could be one of our advantages if we could take what
Mayo does and apply it throughout the rest of the state.
Johnson (2.5) (0) (10) (0)
Impressions: As long as Minnesota remains a top dispenser and
disperser of welfare and other assistance we will not have a a viable
economy. Individuals and families relocate to Minnesota to take
advantage of the giveaways, draining the economy rather than
contributing to it.
Energy: Wind energy is not the answer for Minnesota, there are too
many issues that the public is not being made aware of in the realm of
human and livestock health risks. One need only look at studies from
Europe that demonstrate the adverse impact of blade flash, noise, and
Hennessey (5) (5) (0) (0)
Competitive position: I have very little knowledge about the business
climate in MN.
Impressions: I have very little knowledge about the business climate
in MN. But I doubt
the Obama Kool Aid drinking media would do much in the way of
bad-mouthing His Majesty's miraculous recovery.
Health care expenses: Substitute anything -- cost of food, shelter,
fuel, iPads or antiques -- to see how stupid this line of argument is.
Health care expenses are rising in proportion to the amount of money
being thrown at the problem. There is a principle in marketing, "don't
leave money on the table." It means that you accept whatever more the
customer is willing to you. So now we MANDATE that everyone throw even
more money at the health care and health insurance industries. PLUS we
establish multitudes of new State and federal bureauracies to enforce
all the new regulations. What, you expect them to do all that for
free? Direct and indirect costs will skyrocket, due to decreased
competition, increased taxes, and runaway inflation. God help us all,
this bunch of loonies will destroy the country, not by incompetence
but by design.
Energy: WHAT alternatives? In the absence of government subsidies
(that is, money extorted from one class of taxpayers and given to
another class), ALL solar, wind and whatever else sources of
"alternate" or "green" energy sources are LOSERS, they don't make
economic or environmental sense. The ROI is measured in decades, not
years or months. Windmills wipe out the birds, solar panels cover
precious land. We have HUGE oil and gas reserves in the Rockies, but
the feds won't let us tap them. We could go nuclear (no "greenhouse"
gases, no mountains of poisonous wastes), and have abundant clean
energy forever, but the enviro-nazis won't let us proceed. They
ridicule "clean coal," totally ignoring the technology that can scrub
the smoke clean if done at the source. They have us classify CO2 as a
pollutant, totally ignoring the biological fact that plants need CO2
in the air to grow and make food for all creatures farther up the food
chain. And they force us into ever more repressive, destructive
reductions in living standards in the name of "saving" the planet,
totally ignoring the fact that one good volcanic eruption wipes out
decades of gains in reducing pollutants released by human activity.
So going green will be good for the economy? Look at Spain, where each
new green job has cost two jobs elsewhere.
Robert Freeman (0) (7.5) (10) (7.5)
Competitive position: Yes, if it does more to both attract business
and then to keep it here.
Impressions: Depends what you read.
Health care expenses: Strongly, strongly agree. The first state that
manages to get control of health care costs is going to enjoy an
insurmountable advantage over its neighbors. Minnesota should be that
state - we need to strive for it as a goal and business needs to stay
engaged to keep policymakers focused on that goal. Energy: Nuclear
should be part of this equation.
Energy costs are beginning to become as important as health care
costs, especially to manufacturing and other heavy industry.
Smart (7.5) (10) (7.5) (7.5)
Competitive position: I would put emphasis on PRODUCTIVE work force
more than strong. The truth is that Minnesota workers employed by
non-government entities tend
produce more work per day than many other states - this is true for
both hourly and professional workers. Unfortunately, the same does
not hold true for government workers so I strongly support the goal of
reducing the states cost of delivering services on a per unit basis.
Impressions: Minnesota consistently has a lower unemployment rate
lower than the national average. We have a much higher Fortune 500
base per capita than other states. Our standard of living is much
higher than national average. Yet most woiuld think that Minnesota is
an economic laggard based on media reports.
Health care expenses: This is all relative - and an issue for all
Energy: Minnesota is better positioned as a supplier to alternative
energy providers more so than being a source of alternative energy.
Our climate is not nearly as conducive as other states in providing
wind, solar or wave power.
Sievert (7.5) (7.5 ) (5) (5)
Competitive position: I'm in the tech business - in semiconductors.
We've found that many companies have been bought or closed and there
has been little to replace them. In point of fact, I don't think it's
been years since a notable startup began in MN in the electronics
industry. From the place that is the birthplace of the supercomputer,
Honeywell, Sperry/Unisys, and others - our tech economy is shell of
what it once was. These are all high paying, high value, white collar
jobs. The loss of this represents a significant cause of the lose of
real income for
Anonymous (2.5) (5) (10) (2.5)
Anonymous (2.5) (0) (2.5) (5)
White (7.5) (7.5) (10) (7.5)
Anonymous (5) (5) (7.5) (7.5)
Anonymous (10) (0) (10) (0)
Dahl (10) (7.5) (10) (10)
Warren Strandell (2.5) (0) (7.5) (0)
Energy: With only from 3 to 6 percent of all CO2 entering the
atmosphere attributed to human activity (based on 2 different studies)
and with only 1/3 of that from coal-fired power plants our focus is
all wrong. Sure, keep the heat on coal-burning power plants to reduce
and control emissions but don't try to lay all of the blame on the on
them for the almost insignificant 1 to 2 percent of the CO2 going into
the atmosphere that they generate. To make any headway on global
warming (if indeed it is not cyclical), we need to plant trees and
grow crops, etc. Higher cost green power won't generate economic