Overview:
Tim
Penny, former state senator, former member of Congress, and currently
president, Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation contends that the
Governor and Legislature shouldn't feel they are violating mandates
from voters if they choose compromise on the budget. He thinks they
should consider a new proposal from Jim Mulder on settling the budget
for the biennium and that a blue ribbon commission should be created
to tackle redesign of major state services. He believes a decline in
political party participation is a major reason for the greater
intransigence evidenced today by competing lawmakers.
For the complete
interview summary see:
http://bit.ly/q8gTwa
Response Summary:
Readers have been asked to rate, on a scale of (0) most disagreement,
to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, the following points discussed
by Penny.
Average response ratings shown below are simply the mean of all
readers’ zero-to-ten responses to the ideas proposed and should not be
considered an accurate reflection of a scientifically structured poll.
1. Mandates.
(8.2
average response) If
they choose to compromise their respective positions on the state
budget, the Governor and Legislature should not feel they are
violating mandates from their voters.
2. Mulder plan.
(7.3
average response)
The Governor and
Legislature should enact a plan advanced by Jim Mulder in the Star
Tribune that would limit the increase in state spending to three
percent, along with ending selective tax loopholes and tax breaks.
3. Blue ribbon
commission.
(8.4
average response)
The Governor and
Legislature should create a blue ribbon commission for longer term
redesign of major state services such as education and health care.
4. Political
parties.
(7.5
average response)
A decline in
political party participation is a significant reason for greater
intransigence today between opposing lawmakers than was present many
years ago.
Response
Distribution: |
Strongly
disagree |
Moderately
disagree |
Neutral |
Moderately
agree |
Strongly agree |
Total
Responses |
1. Mandates |
9% |
5% |
2% |
21% |
63% |
43 |
2. Mulder plan |
5% |
7% |
7% |
56% |
26% |
43 |
3. Blue ribbon
commission |
2% |
5% |
7% |
35% |
51% |
43 |
4. Political
parties |
2% |
2% |
14% |
56% |
26% |
43 |
Individual
Responses:
Ray
Ayotte (7.5) (7.5) (10) (7.5)
Robert Freeman (10) (5) (5) (7.5)
3. Blue ribbon
commission. Study away, but if the parties don't like the results
they just ignore them.
R. C.
Angevine (7.5) (2.5) (7.5) (7.5)
1. Mandates. I
have trouble with the word "mandate" because I feel that neither side
has a real mandate. In many cases the current legislators were
elected only because the voters did not want to re-elect the
incumbent.
2. Mulder plan.
Seems like another simple plan with no real basis in reality. Let's
figure out what needs to be done for the betterment of all of
Minnesota, define the costs for that, and then budget accordingly. If
that means tax hikes or tax cuts then so be it. I'm tired of
solutions that say we should do something like "reduce the size of
government" or tax the "top 2%" without any real connection to what is
best for all of us.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. While I have only limited faith in committees it seems
clear that the governor and the legislature will never get the job
done on their own.
W. D.
(Bill) Hamm (2.5) (7.5) (2.5) (7.5)
1. Mandates. First
of all only the legislature had any mandate, as Dayton was 6 points
from a simple majority of voters. While good governors are in a
position that requires this kind of thinking, legislators must be the
enforcers of the public will, as that is what they are elected for.
Having worked with Mr. Penny in the Independence Party, I have in the
past found it hard to find much I could agree with in his words. Yet
his progressive spin is less obvious than usual.
2. Mulder plan.
The principle of this is an effective give-and-take that Minnesotans
could get their arms around. The big question is, which loopholes? Who
wins this loophole war rather than really fixing the tax system?
Sidestep and punt.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. (Bypass) the legislature; this is clearly a Governor’s
job. This is leadership and could matter of factly undermine the
people’s will. The problem is we have a Governor so committed to
special interests that he would never appoint an honest commission.
4. Political
parties. The problem with Tim's progressive views is that he still has
trouble being honest about the DFL purges that pushed so many pro-life
and religious DFLers into the ranks of the Republican Party. Both
parties have been negatively affected by these aggressive attack
strategies of the ruling elements of Minnesota’s DFL. The present
illegitimate leadership of the DFL needs to die or disappear so the
Party can be remade.
Pat
Melvin (10) (7.5) (10) (7.5)
John
Crosby (10) (10) (10) (7.5)
Paul
Ritter (0) (0) (5) (7.5)
3. Blue ribbon
commission. As long as they are not all government employees or union
affiliated.
John
R. Klinger (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (2.5)
1. Mandates. The
legislators were elected to study the issues and based upon their
findings, vote as best suits their constituents. The average voter
does not know enough of the issues, in depth, to make an informed
decision.
2. Mulder plan.
They should not be limited to 3% but base the percentage upon the
current situation whether it be economical or societal. Setting a
limit, or lack thereof, does not allow one to consider the current
situation at hand. It’s very much like the "no new tax pledge."
Loopholes are looked for and found, making the law or pledge
ridiculous.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. If the blue ribbon commission were staffed by ultra
conservative legislators, unwilling to compromise, then I would be
against it.
4. Political
parties. I believe money is the root of the intransigence we see
today. We have bought and paid for what we have and the media has a
vested interest in keeping our "ire" up. Considering the recent
supreme court decision considering corporations as people, I think we
are in for even more intransigence than we see today.
Ray
Schmitz (10) (10) (10) (7.5)
1. Mandates. Seems
as if the definition of mandate needs to change; as Tim says the
electorate is bigger than your voters, and this is particularly (true)
when the percentage win is close.
2. Mulder plan.
Good ideas.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. Of course, Pawlenty did it, and it is gathering dust.
4. Political
parties. Interesting idea; he is right about the decline but is that
the cause of the decline?
Bruce
A. Lundeen (7.5) (10) (7.5) (5)
1. Mandates. In
view of the exigency of the situation, exercising representational
government prerogatives is not unreasonable - and I think many voters
would understand.
2. Mulder plan.
Because Tim Penny said so.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. It is not only education and health care that deserve
"redesign", and it is sad education and health care so spiral out of
control. The demographics that drive education and health care are
real. I believe that in any State government direction in which you
look, redesign is possible. There are many, many "small knobs to
turn". I wish most that the overpowering influence of the State labor
unions be lessened.
Peter
Hennessey (0) (2.5) (7.5) (5)
1. Mandates. The
biggest problem with politics is that politicians feel (1) they can
say anything on the campaign trail to get elected, and (2) they can do
anything they want after they are elected, the dumb rabble be damned.
Then they wonder why voters are apathetic and cynical. Apparently the
voters of the great state of MN had the good sense to elect a divided
government. At least a government fighting with itself will do little
additional harm. But real reforms will have to wait until you get the
big government types out of office at all levels.
2. Mulder plan. I
wonder if this Mulder also has a sultry sidekick named Scully. What he
is proposing sounds like business as usual. Just give us what we want,
even if a bit less than what we want. Tinker with the tax code to
increase revenues -- then spend that, too. Why cap the increase in
spending at 3%? Why not 5 or 10? Or zero, or minus 10 or 20? Why not
end all the social engineering via tinkering with the tax code? In
state after state the solution is not to increase the budget but to
decrease the spending, to cut the oppressive and expensive
bureaucratic overhead so you'll have money for the essentials. In
state after state the status quo crowd is dedicated to keeping the
failed policies going no matter what. We want to keep living high on
the hog (and) let future generations pay for it.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. I hope this means reexamining the fundamentals,
reevaluating everything the state does -- what, why, how and at what
cost -- and to look for every opportunity to privatize government
operations. There is no reason why government should run schools and
colleges, hospitals and clinics, utilities and civil engineering
projects, charities, pensions, etc. Government is supposed to serve;
that is, provide politically neutral services such as security,
justice and safekeeping of important records. Just about everything
else can and should be contracted out by competitive bidding.
4. Political
parties. The decline in participation is the result of apathy. Apathy
is the result of being told one thing during the campaign and seeing
something else done in the legislative session; an insulting slap in
the face that our self-anointed political class considers us to be no
more than morons and peons who exist only to serve them. How long can
anyone stay motivated to participate in political parties under these
conditions? The "intransigence" is the result of the realization
that (1) you can't act without guiding principles or "ideology," and
(2) you can't compromise between diametrically opposed ideologies. We
tried the "mixed economy" which for a while used to mean a free market
with some government participation as safeguards against some more or
less accurately perceived shortcomings. And we've seen it degenerate
into "crony capitalism" with government control of the minutest
details of our lives, which is just a polite word for fascism and
socialism. But you can't have a healthy political, economic, social,
cultural system based on contradictory principles; a house divided
against itself cannot stand. Fortunately, we have also seen in country
after country that a system built on socialism also cannot stand. This
leaves as the only possible solution the system that our Founders gave
us and enshrined for us in the Constitution: a severely limited
government with few specifically enumerated powers, and maximum
liberty for the individual citizen. Unfortunately we have one
establishment political party whose ideology is based on fervently
ignoring, dismissing and subverting the Constitution; another
establishment party whose leadership is dedicated to going along but
at a slower pace; and an establishment media who relish ridiculing,
smearing and maligning anyone who dares speak up for the original
intent of our Constitution. But a decline in participation in the
establishment parties is not the same as apathy for politics. Has Mr.
Penny not heard (that) there was a Tea Party revolt in November 2010?
Several hundred legislative seats across the nation have changed
hands. Let the establishment continue in its arrogant ways,
"compromising" with themselves to the detriment of the people, and the
revolution will continue in 2012.
David
Dillon (0) (10) (10) (10)
4. Political
parties. This is precisely the catch 22 that is at the bottom of both
this standoff and the reason more able and accomplished individuals,
who refuse to pander to the extremes of either side, decline to
participate in the process. Such a pity the independent approach is
pointless. Now we watch as the wing nuts hold court.
John
Branstad (10) (7.5) (10) (7.5)
1. Mandates. I
agree strongly that the word "mandate" is terribly overused, often by
people that either don't understand what it means, or mistakenly
believe they actually have a mandate. With divided government,
compromise is essential. Unfortunately, the commitment to compromise
is coming primarily from the Governor while the Republican Legislature
gives only lip service to the idea and their party leaders explicitly
speak against compromise.
2. Mulder plan.
That plan is a reasonable starting point, but I don't believe cuts to
education are a wise long-term approach.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. Definitely a good idea, but can be easily rendered moot as
when our previous Governor completely ignored his own blue ribbon
commissions when their solutions weren't in a position to advance his
political ambitions.
4. Political
parties. There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg question here: did lower
participation lead to greater intransigence, or did highly divisive
politics drive people away from participating? Either way, we need to
find a way to break that cycle.
Don
Anderson (10) (5) (7.5) (7.5)
1. Mandates. They
may be violating the "mandates" of their party, but not the "mandates"
of the total voting public who I feel want compromise at this time.
2. Mulder plan. It
may have merit, but is it necessarily three percent and who would pick
the selective tax loopholes and breaks?
4. Political
parties. Why participate in caucuses when the money that controls the
outcome comes from out-of-state sources?
Jason
Just (10) (7.5) (7.5) (7.5)
3. Blue ribbon
commission. Agree that we should have a new method of funding K-12,
including dealing with inequity via different local levy funds. The
state constitution guarantees education; fund it.
Debby
Frenzel (10) (10) (7.5) (10)
Grant
Abbott (7.5) (7.5) (7.5) (10)
1. Mandates. There
is a very important difference between a rigid principled position and
principled pragmatism. I don't think the majority in any of the major
political parties voted for candidates they hoped would be ideologues.
They voted for people of principle who would do their best for a
Minnesota with difficult problems that is seriously divided over
political philosophy. In order to do the best for Minnesota in this
situation they have to be able to work out a compromise. I don't think
most Minnesotans would reject their legislators and the governor, if
they felt both sides were making compromises. (Even though I am
outraged that the Republican party would balance the budget by taking
more away from the poor and holding the rich harmless.)
2. Mulder plan. In
the abstract I like Mr. Mulder's ideas. However, I think the right
place to start is get agreement on where Minnesota needs to be to
compete very successfully in the technologically-driven, increasingly
dynamic global economy and on the constraints that have to accepted
and those that need to be overcome. Then, we need to strive for
consensus on the government's role in getting us there within the
resources Minnesotans are willing and wise to provide for the
operation of government.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. I am skeptical of efforts to create seeming efficiencies
that too often turn out not be effective. So, I hope for more
effective education and health care systems.
4. Political
parties. As Alvin Toffler pointed out in Future Shock in the 1970's,
information was becoming much more diversified, as the magazine rack
demonstrated. Now, with the internet, it is even more fragmented. I
don't think it's a great leap to suggest that similar fragmentation is
happening in politics. We may be headed the way of Europe with
multiple parties and the need to organize coalitions to be able to
govern. Look at the fissures in the current national Republican Party
or our own state Republican Party that ostracizes two of its former
governors. They are looking more like the Democrats everyday.
Dennis L. Johnson (2.5) (7.5) (2.5) (0)
1. Mandates.
Elected officials should know more than ever before about what their
voters think thanks to mail, e-mail, Facebook, etc. Minnesota voters
continue to be strongly divided (and) tell their political officials,
and they are in turn divided.
2. Mulder plan.
This makes sense if nothing else can be agreed on.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. Blue Ribbon commissions take a lot of time, cost quite a
bit of money, and their conclusions are seldom enacted as policy. Keep
a cap on expenses and let the politicians with the administrators
figure out how to be more efficient. That is what they are already
paid for.
4. Political
parties. I do not think there is any decline in political party
participation. The media and communications are more pervasive than
ever, resulting in many divided and varying opinions. Overwhelming
media bias in favor of progressivism clouds the capacity of many to
think clearly and hold principled opinions, but people do let their
opinions be known more than ever to their politicians.
Dave
Broden (10) (10) (10) (10)
1. Mandates.
Mandates are most often not good government. Good government comes
from dialogue, discussion, debate and compromise--perhaps the word
compromise needs to change to negotiated legislation or some other
term. In this age of special interest control compromise sounds like
one or more sides lost-- we need a term that addresses the results of
good government by negotiation.
2. Mulder plan.
The Mulder plan has many strong points and certainly should be a solid
base for resolution. One problem with the plan is this: is there time
to sort out the loopholes and breaks or is this for the future?
3. Blue ribbon
commission. This approach is only valid if the general public from
across the state are included and there are some new thought leaders—a
blue ribbon commission with the same cast of foundation and study
group participants would be (a) rehash of many topics. There must be a
solid balance of experienced and new and professionals and general
public to get this to be an effective body and one that the public
will listen to and support.
4. Political
parties. The statement is far too simplistic. The decline is coupled
with rise of special interest groups that have very strong positions.
Many people who might have previously participated either went to the
special interest groups or dropped out because the parties are
themselves now a special interest group. The real problem is that
special interests including the parties themselves have so much single
topic interest that they cannot move on the good government process.
There needs to be a strong way to separate the special interests
including parties from the working of the legislature without limiting
freedom of expression. For example no party official should serve on
the staff of the legislature.
Will
Shapira (7.5) (5) (0) (10)
1. Mandates. Their
first job is to keep the machinery running for state government to
continue.
2. Mulder plan.
Too deep for me.
3. Blue ribbon
commission. No, this is their job, what we pay them to do; let them do
it and take the consequences from voters.
4. Political
parties. No one trusts political parties any more because they often
have their own agendas and (not) those of us taxpayers.
Wayne
Jennings (10) (8) (10) (8)
Chuck
Slocum (10) (7) (10) (8)
I enjoy learning
more of Tim Penny’s always-thoughtful perspective. Politics and
policymaking is all about compromise. Jim Mulder’s 3% solution
suggestions are specific and very helpful. The Commission idea is
sound, if not new; key is the selection of members and the leadership
of policymakers asked to implement the recommendations.
These are difficult and very important times.
Jackie Underferth (10) (10) (10) (6)
Chuck
Lutz (10) (9) (9) (7)
George Pillsbury (10) (10) (10) (5)
Daniel Schultz (10) (8) (10) (9)
The opposing sides
need to get an agreement before the deadline to protect vulnerable
citizens who are helped through Health and Human Services.
Alan
Miller (8) (7) (9) (8)
Tom
Spitznagle (5) (7) (10) (6)
Rick
Bishop (10) (8) (10) (8)
Malcolm McDonald (10) (8) (10) (10)
I very much agree
with Tim Penney's comments - agree on each point that you reported he
made. In particular I believe that Governor Dayton should appoint a
blue ribbon commission on governmental reform - both at the state
level and at the county level into which so much state money flows for
various uses. I also recommend that Governor Dayton appoint a
separate blue ribbon commission to make recommendations on state
dollars that flow into each level of education from pre-K through
university level, to look at how those receiving state dollars
actually spend their time, (make) recommendations on having a higher
value from time spent, (a higher) return on time spent more
productively, where productivity concentrates on the student's
development of the life the student wants to have for her or himself
in terms of becoming a productive member of society. Yes, this is a
long-standing subject, whose time has come. We are short on qualified
workers at all levels in all skills, especially in the trades. We
need each child to be part of the work force in what ever is the
child's special interest, particularly in creativity and innovation.
John
Adams (9) (10) (8) (10)
Mike
Germain (na) (na) (na) (na)
Tim Penny is one
of the most self-serving, if self-effacing, political figures in our
state. He comes out of the closet to pontificate on matters he is not
involved in, (and) then goes back to his consulting business. I would
put more stock in what he has to say if he would have made more of an
effort while he actually held elective office. There is one reason
and one reason only our state is in a financial mess: Tim Pawlenty and
the Republican Party wanted a budget crisis. This (is) entirely about
corporatization of our government and our society. When self-serving
individuals like Tim Penny use the tired old canard of blaming both
sides, it does nothing to help the situation.
Unless or until the Civic Caucus can figure out (that) our budget
situation is the result of intentional financial mismanagement on the
part of an ambitious, narcissistic political hack and a power hungry
and fascistic political party (the GOP), it will be irrelevant.
Amy
Wilde (10) (9) (9) (10)
Robert J. Brown (10) (10) (10) (10)
The rising power
and money of single-issue groups has undermined the role of political
parties as broad based organizations that are tolerant of diverse
ideas.
Bert
Press (10) (10) (10) (5)
Ruth
Hauge (10) (7) (8) (7)
Jim Mulder's plan
seems to generally make sense but should have come earlier in the
session.
Carolyn Ring (10) (4) (8) (8)
Both items 2. and
3. need more specifics. In the 30+ years I was involved in politics we
always talked of closing loopholes and eliminating some tax breaks,
but until those are identified, it is just talk. In item 3, who is
going to define the Blue Ribbon Committee and it's goal? Is this just
a "cop out" for the governor and legislature?
Ted
Kolderie (na) (na) (na) (na)
I continue to
think the "blue-ribbon commission" is not nearly as good at getting
solutions as the broad community participated in by a number of
standing organizations. The 'blue-ribbon commission' dies; has no
follow-through. Think back to what worked on the question of
metropolitan organization.
Larry
Schluter (9) (8) (9) (8)
A blue ribbon
commission would be a good idea but if the same as at the federal
level, the legislature or congress will ignore it.
Al
Quie (10) (7) (10) (10)
1. Mandates.
Governor and legislators must face the fact that what they perceive as
a mandate from the voters who supported them in 2010 may not be the
best decision in this crisis. Nobody anticipated that the Governor
would resort to a shut down of state government to get his way. Now
they must think of what is needed for education, infrastructure,
safety, and people in dire need of continued help from government till
they get back in session again. Governor needs to give up his
tax-the-rich idea and legislature needs to look favorably at some
"revenue enhancement" without the easy out of "sin" taxes.
Terry
Stone (0) (0) (5) (10)
When revisionist
Penny says that Dayton has “the support of a strong plurality of
Minnesotans that wanted him to be in the governor's office” he is
flatly disingenuous or irretrievably inattentive. The recorded truth
is that our governor won a squeaker by 8,770 votes after a protracted
recount, a margin of less than 1%--and a bit short of a strong
plurality.
It’s useful to
remember that the DFL endorsed Kelliher, not Dayton, and only settled
for Dayton as a concession to political reality after the primary of
2010. He is hardly (beholden) to the DFL out of any loyalty.
Finally, I
observed no grassroots wave that supported Dayton for Governor.
Instead, I saw Dayton dynasty money coupled to big special interest
money; and campaign finance records confirm this observation of a
largely purchased governorship.
The governor’s tenuous victory is hardly the governance mandate
equivalent of the national GOP populist wave, of which the Minnesota
legislature is an artifact, as Penny improperly implies.
Penny’s statement
that one of the nation’s biggest legislative sweeps is a mandate “only
in part and in a very nuanced way” simply defies sensible
interpretation.
Penny’s statement that the budget problem “in part is driven by
demographics” is grossly misleading. Demographics are responsible for
a 57% increase, of the 7200% increase in Dayton’s $36 billion plan,
over the 1960 biennial budget. Inflation accounts for another 737%
increase. To be clear, over the past 50 years, corrected for
population (57%) and inflation (737%), Minnesota government has bulked
up 600% for no reason related to demographics.
While mentioning
the need for Minnesota to deal with structural deficit problems, Penny
passes up the opportunity to mention our greatest structural problem;
government on autopilot in the form of dedicated funding than consumes
nearly half the total budget. A good deal of politically unpalatable,
financially unsustainable, poorly accounted and currently
unfashionable spending slips by enabled by Minnesota’s dedicated
funding schemes. These schemes need to fall victim to short-cycle
sunset provisions of reform legislation.
Penny makes an
extraordinary comment based upon his dangerous indulgence in an
intellectual fallacy. He opines that, (for) the Republicans, they say
we're going to hold spending to no more than what's coming in the
door. But this belies the fact that because of increases in
demographics we cannot do that either; since the programs are tied to
demographics and we are tied in to federal programs, spending cannot
simply be cut to some arbitrary figure. "So both sides are essentially
lying to us."
Since, by definition, demographics cannot increase (only shift in
character), while population can and does increase; one must conclude
that Penny is using demographics as an academic euphemism for
population.
When the
demographic of population increases, every one of Minnesota’s 37 taxes
renders more revenue through increased earnings, business activity and
consumption. This automatically increases the state budget in a
directly proportional, but non-linear, manner. The increase in revenue
does not track population in an exactly linear manner due to the
economies of scale, i.e., twice as many people do not need twice as
many governors—or any other government service.
Tim Penny’s claim
that new revenue sources must be found to service a population
increase is flatly incorrect and a formula for government bloat.
Likewise, inflation need not be serviced by new revenue because taxes
are based upon a percentage of the inflated biennium.
Penny’s postulate
regarding the Republican budget that spending cannot simply be cut to
some arbitrary figure, suffers two problems. First, the budget is not
a cut; it’s the largest budget in state history. Second, that $34
billion budget number isn’t arbitrary; it’s all the money we have and
all that we are projected to collect for the next two years—while
leaving the state without a dime of reserve funds.
Penny alleges that
the GOP legislative leadership is under the spell of an “intransigent
caucus that is not willing to compromise.” Were that the case, the
budget would be $30 billion, the first $4 billion in surplus would
fund a 90-day state reserve fund and subsequent surplus revenue would
be returned directly to the income tax payers who actually paid them.
Penny seems to
completely miss that this impasse is as much about size of government
and freedom from nanny-state nonsense as it is an accounting problem.
We arrived at this juncture through excesses in governance. These
excesses include environmental standards and spending. Environmental
policy has an effectively undefined policy intent and open-ended
funding; the environmental lobby simply grabs as much as it can—and
argues about how to spend the windfall.
The stated policy
intent of the environmental lobby is to return the environment to the
“reference condition” (little or no anthropogenic perturbation). This
unrealistic goal leaves the question, “How much is enough?” completely
unanswered. Environmental excess is now costing us jobs and impairing
competitiveness.
Likewise, policies
regarding public employees beg to benefit from answering, “How much is
enough?” Accrued unfunded pension liabilities for public employees are
estimated to now have reached between $25 billion and $55 billion.
An entire poverty
industry has arisen with open-ended goals and a wholly undefined
policy intent. Each money grab establishes a new baseline from which
biennial increases are the expected norm. The Minnesota poverty
industry is a demonstrated enabler of poverty, with no evidence of
reducing the number of poor.
The intrusions of
state government have a synergistic effect when combined with
burgeoning federal intrusion into our day-to-day lives. Ever eager to
please, legislators seek government problems to things that are well
outside the scope and authority of state government.
Nothing exceeds
like excess, and the antics of state government out of control simply
had to eventually stop.
That conservative
tsunami that stranded dozens of Republicans upon the shores of Lake
Legislature is one for which Penny has palpable disdain.
Penny mentions a
larval idea with great potential: “campaign spending reform that gets
us collecting money only from voters that are from our state”. If this
idea includes races for both houses of Congress, the change would be
welcome. Since PACs are not voters, they would ostensibly be banned
(which would be) another welcome improvement. Penny needs to add that
both parties have house and senate caucuses with a conflict of
interest. These caucuses can and do contaminate local legislative
elections to the detriment of local voters.
Senator John
Carlson (Sen. 4) won his seat in 2010 by accepting only money from
individuals, only from his district and never more than $100 per
individual. His self-engineered and self-imposed campaign restrictions
are a model of election reform.
While Penny has a number of good ideas, picking them out of the DFL
talking points leaves a bitter aftertaste.
Fred
Senn (10) (7) (10) (6)
Tom
Swain (10) (8) (10) (9)
Ellen
T Brown (10) (6) (10) (8)
1. Mandates. I
feel the Governor has already compromised far more than the
Republicans. I also agree with Tim that there will be no real change
in outcomes until we change the system in terms of campaign financing,
ranked voting, redistricting.
Steve
O'Neil (10) (8) (10) (5) |