Some 24 community leaders received their community leadership "diplomas" Tuesday night in Mankato as part of Blandin Community Leadership Program that has not been in Mankato for over 10 years.
The Grand Rapids-based Blandin had been conducting community leadership training programs for a couple decades and some 5,500 community leaders in Minnesota have been trained by Blandin.
The Blandin Foundation pays all expenses for the leaders and conduct what amounts to eight days of training, beginning with five in a retreat in Grand Rapids in the fall.
I was part of the Mankato group, that also included such community leaders as MSU Provost Scott Olson, Business owner Todd Snell, YMCA Director John Kind, Voyageur Web owner Yvonne Cariveau, Barb Embacher, from GMG, Anna Thill from the convention and visitors bureau as well as leaders from local government and other nonprofits.
It was an amazing coming together in one room of a lot of people who help make Mankato what it is, and the conversation about the area's strengths and weaknesses was fascinating. I expect great things will be achieved by this simple but important meeting of some of the brightest minds in the community.
The aim of the Blandin program is to help leaders identify the relative "health" of their community, as measured by eight dimensions of a healthy community, and to do something to improve the health of the community and solve problems.
It's a program I found to be extremely helpful and worthwhile.
Blandin typically focuses on communities in rural Minnesota smaller than Mankato. But in a partnership with the Bush Foundation, Blandin has been able to offer the program to Mankato, and in fact, is looking to organize two more such leadership programs this fall.
It's an unusual opportunity for Mankato, and Blandin is looking for 48 more leaders to recruit into two separate retreats. That will bring the number of Mankato leaders going through the program up to 72, a critical mass that Blandin feels helps get things done. A similar program was established in Duluth a few years ago that gave birth to many success stories.
There is more information on the program at blandinfoundation.org.
The group of leaders who graduated Tuesday have identified three community issues to mobilize on: Community physical health and childhood obesity: Self-esteem of young girls, and getting more people of diverse backgrounds more involved in community decisionmaking bodies.
I'll be updating the progress of each group on this blog as well as in the print edition of The Free Press as we make progress.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The distortion begins in politics
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
I don't want to seem partisan because I believe Democrats and Republicans both have good ideas to better govern our state and country, but I have not seen such blatant distortion of an issue as I read the story of "Spin" in Wednesday's Free Press.
Republicans like Sen. Dave Senjem, R-Rochester, and gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, are, in my view, way out of line in describing the bipartisan agreement to tap $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion in federal dollars to help poor people get health care as so called government takeover of health care.
They've suggested this deal, which Gov. Tim Pawlenty agreed to, is leading the path to government making medical decisions.
The Medicaid program we're tapping was actually started under George W. Bush's administration. Many of Republicans, and all of the state's Republican members of Congress, actually voted to stop Bush from cutting the Medicaid funding in this vote in 2008
In fact, many hospitals including ISJ-Mayo based in Senjem's neck of the woods, favored the deal because it would at least go farther in making up the costs they must pay to service these poor people. Don't forget, it has long been a law that hospitals are required to serve people whether they have health insurance or not.
I'm surprised at Senjem, he used to seem like such a reasonable guy.
One Republican legislator told me confidentially, that they're doing this to make the election all about a referendum on so called "Obamacare" hoping to repeat the success of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown.
I hope the Republicans drop that strategy. It is just intellectually dishonest, and their raising it is an insult to all Minnesota voters.
Come on guys, debate the issues honestly.
Free Press Editor
I don't want to seem partisan because I believe Democrats and Republicans both have good ideas to better govern our state and country, but I have not seen such blatant distortion of an issue as I read the story of "Spin" in Wednesday's Free Press.
Republicans like Sen. Dave Senjem, R-Rochester, and gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, are, in my view, way out of line in describing the bipartisan agreement to tap $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion in federal dollars to help poor people get health care as so called government takeover of health care.
They've suggested this deal, which Gov. Tim Pawlenty agreed to, is leading the path to government making medical decisions.
The Medicaid program we're tapping was actually started under George W. Bush's administration. Many of Republicans, and all of the state's Republican members of Congress, actually voted to stop Bush from cutting the Medicaid funding in this vote in 2008
In fact, many hospitals including ISJ-Mayo based in Senjem's neck of the woods, favored the deal because it would at least go farther in making up the costs they must pay to service these poor people. Don't forget, it has long been a law that hospitals are required to serve people whether they have health insurance or not.
I'm surprised at Senjem, he used to seem like such a reasonable guy.
One Republican legislator told me confidentially, that they're doing this to make the election all about a referendum on so called "Obamacare" hoping to repeat the success of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown.
I hope the Republicans drop that strategy. It is just intellectually dishonest, and their raising it is an insult to all Minnesota voters.
Come on guys, debate the issues honestly.
Monday, May 17, 2010
How Mankato affected by legislative session
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
While Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the DFL Legislature offered a somewhat muted victory party on resolving the state's $3 billion budget deficit, there were plenty of things even members weren't too happy about.
Here's how they play out for the average Mankato area resident.
The state budget deficit wasn't really solved, we borrowed about $2 billion of the $3 billion from schools, and are somewhat required to pay it back. My guess is small schools, mostly in rural areas, are harder hit than bigger suburban schools just because small school enrollment is declining, reserves are tight and many may have to borrow to get through.
Both parties seemed to have an agreement on spending $188 million or so, to get a federal match of $1.4 billion to cover health care for poor people, but the deal seemed to fall apart in the end, with the agreement being the next governor had the unilateral right, without legislative approval, to take or leave the $1.4 billion.
Hard to see why one would "leave it" but the thinking goes a Republican governor taking over would "leave it" so as not to appear to endorse the idea of Obama health plan after criticizing it earlier.
Principles come at a high price these days.
If the next governor doesn't take it, there appears to be some deal struck that would allow us to go back to bipartisan plan for GAMC, with rural hospitals getting more to encourage them to participate.
Almost none of them were willing to do so because their rates under the "reform" plan would not come close to covering their costs.
On the GAMC compromise, we gave the Legislature and the governor our first ever "bipartisan award." We won't take it back, even though the deal kind of fell apart. It was nice while it lasted.
The whole health care issue isn't really one of choosing more spending over less spending. We are required by federal law to provide health care, expensive emergency room health care, to people without insurance. (That's been on the books for decades, not Obama plan)
So, it's more a question of all taxpayers paying upfront to maybe save some catastrophic emergency room costs, or those who have health insurance paying through higher premiums. That includes state employees, who collectively can bargain for the taxpayer to pay more of those higher health care costs.
It's not if we're going to pay for health care for the poor, it's who pays and how are we going to share the burden.
Income taxes on wealthy won't happen. DFL tried again, governor vetoed again. Property taxes however, will likely continue their climb and local services will likely be cut. Look for schools to try to approve more operating levies (i.e. property taxes), and voters to approve them because they don't want to lose their neighborhood school and don't want to cut music and art and athletics and teachers.
Hope the next governor is creative at solving financial crises, because it sure looks like we'll have one.
Free Press Editor
While Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the DFL Legislature offered a somewhat muted victory party on resolving the state's $3 billion budget deficit, there were plenty of things even members weren't too happy about.
Here's how they play out for the average Mankato area resident.
The state budget deficit wasn't really solved, we borrowed about $2 billion of the $3 billion from schools, and are somewhat required to pay it back. My guess is small schools, mostly in rural areas, are harder hit than bigger suburban schools just because small school enrollment is declining, reserves are tight and many may have to borrow to get through.
Both parties seemed to have an agreement on spending $188 million or so, to get a federal match of $1.4 billion to cover health care for poor people, but the deal seemed to fall apart in the end, with the agreement being the next governor had the unilateral right, without legislative approval, to take or leave the $1.4 billion.
Hard to see why one would "leave it" but the thinking goes a Republican governor taking over would "leave it" so as not to appear to endorse the idea of Obama health plan after criticizing it earlier.
Principles come at a high price these days.
If the next governor doesn't take it, there appears to be some deal struck that would allow us to go back to bipartisan plan for GAMC, with rural hospitals getting more to encourage them to participate.
Almost none of them were willing to do so because their rates under the "reform" plan would not come close to covering their costs.
On the GAMC compromise, we gave the Legislature and the governor our first ever "bipartisan award." We won't take it back, even though the deal kind of fell apart. It was nice while it lasted.
The whole health care issue isn't really one of choosing more spending over less spending. We are required by federal law to provide health care, expensive emergency room health care, to people without insurance. (That's been on the books for decades, not Obama plan)
So, it's more a question of all taxpayers paying upfront to maybe save some catastrophic emergency room costs, or those who have health insurance paying through higher premiums. That includes state employees, who collectively can bargain for the taxpayer to pay more of those higher health care costs.
It's not if we're going to pay for health care for the poor, it's who pays and how are we going to share the burden.
Income taxes on wealthy won't happen. DFL tried again, governor vetoed again. Property taxes however, will likely continue their climb and local services will likely be cut. Look for schools to try to approve more operating levies (i.e. property taxes), and voters to approve them because they don't want to lose their neighborhood school and don't want to cut music and art and athletics and teachers.
Hope the next governor is creative at solving financial crises, because it sure looks like we'll have one.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Joe Sixpack and the Legislature
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
By Sunday, there is likely to be a deal to balance the state budget with the hope the feds will come through with about $400 million and once again our representatives will have become creative with some of the accounting.
How does this all play out for Joe Sixpack? Well, his income taxes are not likely to increase, but he will continue to pay higher property taxes, $3 billion more by some estimates over the last few years. The governor doesn't directly raise property taxes, and you can scream at City Hall all you want, but most cities aren't the ones on a spending spree. Property taxes go up because: 1. cities can't reduce costs at the same rate they lose state aid, and 2. property values are down in a recession.
Joe Sixpack might find himself paying more sales tax - cities may be given authority to do it based on previously mentioned cuts in their state aid - so he pays one way or another. JS may be paying more liquor tax as Republican legislators appear to be open to that, though the governor is still not.
They might be willing override - House would need only three votes - and they may feel a little more confident since the guv wouldn't be around to exact retribution on anybody.
Repub legislators, especially in rural areas, may be more open to liquor or sales taxes because the alternative of cutting health care for poor and MinnCare would fall disproportionately on outstate residents and outstate hospitals.
The $400 million from the feds is key and would come as part of the Health and Human Services bill. Minnesota would still need to pony up $188 million to get that, and Dems point to assessments on hospitals, who - in an kind of odd twist of logic - aren't against it because it brings them more federal money eventually, later.
But guv doesn't like that option, says it raises health care costs when we're trying to cut them. We think he might be thinking about, as he has suggested in past, taking surplus in MinnesotaCare fund, that comes from current so called "sick tax" providers are already paying. At one time there was about $200 million in the fund.
So in the end, Joe Sixpack will pay more somewhere, though if tax Dems proposed on high income earners would've passed, he probably wouldn't have been affected at all, -- not even his sixpack -- unless of course you believe high earners would cut Joe Sixpack's $30,000 a year job after getting hit with an $5,000 increase in tax bill. Logic escapes me there.
One legislator told me added tax on people earning $200,000 plus would affect 0.8 percent and 0.6 percent of filers in their rural district. MinnCare and health care program for poor affect around 2 to 3 percent of people in outstate Minnesota counties. More are on general assistance medical care.
As an example of who wins and who loses, (Joe Sixpack always likes competitive games), 485 people in Blue Earth County would've paid the higher income tax on wealthy people. Eliminating GAMC would have removed 375 people from health care. About 1,200 people in county on MinnCare.
Dems half of win-win budget deal might be expanded health care coverage through federal Medicaid, would cover 83,000 -- 39,000 on GAMC and 43,000 people on MnCare.
But then again, that's more federal spending, that folks seem to be rallying against.
Free Press Editor
By Sunday, there is likely to be a deal to balance the state budget with the hope the feds will come through with about $400 million and once again our representatives will have become creative with some of the accounting.
How does this all play out for Joe Sixpack? Well, his income taxes are not likely to increase, but he will continue to pay higher property taxes, $3 billion more by some estimates over the last few years. The governor doesn't directly raise property taxes, and you can scream at City Hall all you want, but most cities aren't the ones on a spending spree. Property taxes go up because: 1. cities can't reduce costs at the same rate they lose state aid, and 2. property values are down in a recession.
Joe Sixpack might find himself paying more sales tax - cities may be given authority to do it based on previously mentioned cuts in their state aid - so he pays one way or another. JS may be paying more liquor tax as Republican legislators appear to be open to that, though the governor is still not.
They might be willing override - House would need only three votes - and they may feel a little more confident since the guv wouldn't be around to exact retribution on anybody.
Repub legislators, especially in rural areas, may be more open to liquor or sales taxes because the alternative of cutting health care for poor and MinnCare would fall disproportionately on outstate residents and outstate hospitals.
The $400 million from the feds is key and would come as part of the Health and Human Services bill. Minnesota would still need to pony up $188 million to get that, and Dems point to assessments on hospitals, who - in an kind of odd twist of logic - aren't against it because it brings them more federal money eventually, later.
But guv doesn't like that option, says it raises health care costs when we're trying to cut them. We think he might be thinking about, as he has suggested in past, taking surplus in MinnesotaCare fund, that comes from current so called "sick tax" providers are already paying. At one time there was about $200 million in the fund.
So in the end, Joe Sixpack will pay more somewhere, though if tax Dems proposed on high income earners would've passed, he probably wouldn't have been affected at all, -- not even his sixpack -- unless of course you believe high earners would cut Joe Sixpack's $30,000 a year job after getting hit with an $5,000 increase in tax bill. Logic escapes me there.
One legislator told me added tax on people earning $200,000 plus would affect 0.8 percent and 0.6 percent of filers in their rural district. MinnCare and health care program for poor affect around 2 to 3 percent of people in outstate Minnesota counties. More are on general assistance medical care.
As an example of who wins and who loses, (Joe Sixpack always likes competitive games), 485 people in Blue Earth County would've paid the higher income tax on wealthy people. Eliminating GAMC would have removed 375 people from health care. About 1,200 people in county on MinnCare.
Dems half of win-win budget deal might be expanded health care coverage through federal Medicaid, would cover 83,000 -- 39,000 on GAMC and 43,000 people on MnCare.
But then again, that's more federal spending, that folks seem to be rallying against.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Countdown at Legislature, health, liquor tax
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
House Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher told reporters in a Thursday morning conference call she was confident DFLers and the governor would come to a budget solution before the end of the session on Monday.
That may have been the most surprising news coming out of the conference call between state reporters and editors and Kelliher and House Majority Leader Tony Sertich.
Second most important: House-Senate Health and Human Services bill to fix health care funding for the poor was sent to governor by an important midnight Wednesday deadline, requiring him to sign of veto by Saturday. And though all expectations are that the governor will veto, there was strong suggestion that a compromise would be worked out there as well.
The HHS bill doesn't have direct implications for helping solve the budget but it may have indirect implications.
It is aimed at putting assessments and/or surcharges on health care providers so $188 million in state money can be leveraged to get $1.4 billion in federal money through early enrollment in Medicaid for the state under new federal health care legislation.
The governor does not appear to be opposing this in huge, public ways, which leads us to believe he will accept the major premises of it.
This will solve the problem of the GAMC fix passed earlier that was a good bipartisan compromise, but cut payments to hospitals so much, many, including ISJ Mankato, said they would not be able to participate.
Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, was on the conference committee that sent the bill to the governor. She sees the early option for moving GAMC people over to Medicaid a big success.
While hospitals pay a surcharge to leverage this money, the Minnesota Hospital Association favored it because they know it will bring them a better reimbursement rate with federal money than they were going to get with the state GAMC.
Sheran also seems to hold out hope that the Mankato mental health crisis center that had to close on April 30 in Mankato may be re-opened, or its funding may in some way be saved.
Speaker Kelliher said the HHS bill will cover 39,000 people on GAMC plus about 43,000 people on MinnesotaCare all the while leveraging $1.4 billion in federal money. Sheran noted the shift will also help hospitals rehire or employ some 20,000 workers.
Pawlenty told the StarTribune the bill was problematic because it would cost the state $900 million. DFLers assessed the cost at about $200 million.
DFLers have said the earlier GAMC bill favored metro hospitals at the expense of rural hospitals, a key reason Sheran did not vote for the earlier compromise.
Finally, the Strib quoted Rep. Bob Gunther, R-Fairmont, saying he might be open to a liquor tax to help balance the budget, and House leader Sertich suggested there may be other Republicans in the House willing to consider that in light of the dire need to put the state's fiscal House in order.
As always, stay tuned.
Free Press Editor
House Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher told reporters in a Thursday morning conference call she was confident DFLers and the governor would come to a budget solution before the end of the session on Monday.
That may have been the most surprising news coming out of the conference call between state reporters and editors and Kelliher and House Majority Leader Tony Sertich.
Second most important: House-Senate Health and Human Services bill to fix health care funding for the poor was sent to governor by an important midnight Wednesday deadline, requiring him to sign of veto by Saturday. And though all expectations are that the governor will veto, there was strong suggestion that a compromise would be worked out there as well.
The HHS bill doesn't have direct implications for helping solve the budget but it may have indirect implications.
It is aimed at putting assessments and/or surcharges on health care providers so $188 million in state money can be leveraged to get $1.4 billion in federal money through early enrollment in Medicaid for the state under new federal health care legislation.
The governor does not appear to be opposing this in huge, public ways, which leads us to believe he will accept the major premises of it.
This will solve the problem of the GAMC fix passed earlier that was a good bipartisan compromise, but cut payments to hospitals so much, many, including ISJ Mankato, said they would not be able to participate.
Sen. Kathy Sheran, DFL-Mankato, was on the conference committee that sent the bill to the governor. She sees the early option for moving GAMC people over to Medicaid a big success.
While hospitals pay a surcharge to leverage this money, the Minnesota Hospital Association favored it because they know it will bring them a better reimbursement rate with federal money than they were going to get with the state GAMC.
Sheran also seems to hold out hope that the Mankato mental health crisis center that had to close on April 30 in Mankato may be re-opened, or its funding may in some way be saved.
Speaker Kelliher said the HHS bill will cover 39,000 people on GAMC plus about 43,000 people on MinnesotaCare all the while leveraging $1.4 billion in federal money. Sheran noted the shift will also help hospitals rehire or employ some 20,000 workers.
Pawlenty told the StarTribune the bill was problematic because it would cost the state $900 million. DFLers assessed the cost at about $200 million.
DFLers have said the earlier GAMC bill favored metro hospitals at the expense of rural hospitals, a key reason Sheran did not vote for the earlier compromise.
Finally, the Strib quoted Rep. Bob Gunther, R-Fairmont, saying he might be open to a liquor tax to help balance the budget, and House leader Sertich suggested there may be other Republicans in the House willing to consider that in light of the dire need to put the state's fiscal House in order.
As always, stay tuned.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Raging politics, your job, your economy
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
It has not been a quiet day in Lake Wobegon. The Minnesota State Capitol is teaming with back and forth on the blistering issues of solving a $3 billion state deficit by Monday or so.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed the DFL's budget solution that contained $730 plus million in cuts and $430 million plus in tax increases on well-off folks.
He said he would and he made good.
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said Pawlenty must negotiate, and for them it was him coming up with a plan for revenue that would pay schools back for the $1.7 billion the state is borrowing from them to balance the budget.
Given Pawlenty does not appear likely to negotiate anything, could there be a government shutdown?
The Star Tribune quoted Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, saying that few Minnesotans wanted a budget fix that relied entirely on tax increases -- or budget cuts -- and instead wanted a "blend" of both.
"That's common sense," Simon said. "That's what I think Mr. and Mrs. Minnesota want. But we have this cult-like devotion to 'no-new-taxes.'"
If you look at recent Free Press polls, the one online and previous polls, that has been the case. People voting for how to solve the problem say they'd like to see spending cut and taxes raised.
Actually 29 percent say raise revenue and or taxes and another 11 percent say cuts spending and raise revenue. The scarier part is 25 percent say "shutdown government to save money."
I'm not sure what that would look like, but it wouldn't be good, especially for Blue Earth and Nicollet County who have over 6.5 percent of all jobs tied to state government, for a total of about 3,500 jobs, while payroll is about 10 percent, or $170 million out of total wages of $1.7 billion.
Doing the math, cutting jobs 10 percent let's say, is 350 jobs, $17 million in wages.
Free Press Editor
It has not been a quiet day in Lake Wobegon. The Minnesota State Capitol is teaming with back and forth on the blistering issues of solving a $3 billion state deficit by Monday or so.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed the DFL's budget solution that contained $730 plus million in cuts and $430 million plus in tax increases on well-off folks.
He said he would and he made good.
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said Pawlenty must negotiate, and for them it was him coming up with a plan for revenue that would pay schools back for the $1.7 billion the state is borrowing from them to balance the budget.
Given Pawlenty does not appear likely to negotiate anything, could there be a government shutdown?
The Star Tribune quoted Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, saying that few Minnesotans wanted a budget fix that relied entirely on tax increases -- or budget cuts -- and instead wanted a "blend" of both.
"That's common sense," Simon said. "That's what I think Mr. and Mrs. Minnesota want. But we have this cult-like devotion to 'no-new-taxes.'"
If you look at recent Free Press polls, the one online and previous polls, that has been the case. People voting for how to solve the problem say they'd like to see spending cut and taxes raised.
Actually 29 percent say raise revenue and or taxes and another 11 percent say cuts spending and raise revenue. The scarier part is 25 percent say "shutdown government to save money."
I'm not sure what that would look like, but it wouldn't be good, especially for Blue Earth and Nicollet County who have over 6.5 percent of all jobs tied to state government, for a total of about 3,500 jobs, while payroll is about 10 percent, or $170 million out of total wages of $1.7 billion.
Doing the math, cutting jobs 10 percent let's say, is 350 jobs, $17 million in wages.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Minnesota Legislature and your money
Video: Senate debates budget balancing bill
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
Watching the Minnesota Senate debate a budget balancing bill might seem like watching grass grow, but I say it's more like watching toast burn.
You know they're trying to cook up something we can all swallow but in the end it might just be an unappetizing piece of burnt toast and you'll have to start all over.
OK, enough bad food analogies.
I'll try to whittle this debate down and do what journalists are supposed to do in the day of the incessantly long and winded bloggers.
DFL-lead Senate pushed a bill they say is not a 50-50 compromise with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Rather, they say they give 85 percent and the governor needs to give 15 percent.
The planned they passed Monday 34-33 called for $736 million in cuts, $433 million in tax hikes on those with incomes over $200,000 and delaying $1.75 billion in school payments.
They get that by taking things they don't like, cutting programs, and doing it to the tune of 85 percent of the solution.
The new taxes, something we know the governor doesn't like, makes up 15 percent of the solution.
The governor of course has said he will veto the bill because of the taxes. No surprise there. They way he said it shouldn't make us too proud of him.
Here is the Pawlenty's statement: "The DFL's proposed tax increase is like Jason on Friday the 13th - it's scary and it keeps coming back....I look forward to vetoing this DFL tax increase."
But the whole compromise issue is worth debate. If you don't want to do something - is it compromising to do it only 15 percent of the way?
The DFL says the governor's solution, having them ratify his unallotment of last year that was rejected by the Supreme Court, has already been defeated with many Republicans in the House joining DFLers in that vote to reject ratifying the cuts.
The governor's spokesman Brian McClung said those Republican votes in the House were a sign of Republicans good faith gesture to show they were willing to work with the DFL "on a plan that doesn't raise taxes."
I can't figure out what the DFL strategy is unless they think they can get some Republican votes for an override since Pawlenty won't be around to carry out any kind of retribution.
Stay tuned.
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
Watching the Minnesota Senate debate a budget balancing bill might seem like watching grass grow, but I say it's more like watching toast burn.
You know they're trying to cook up something we can all swallow but in the end it might just be an unappetizing piece of burnt toast and you'll have to start all over.
OK, enough bad food analogies.
I'll try to whittle this debate down and do what journalists are supposed to do in the day of the incessantly long and winded bloggers.
DFL-lead Senate pushed a bill they say is not a 50-50 compromise with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Rather, they say they give 85 percent and the governor needs to give 15 percent.
The planned they passed Monday 34-33 called for $736 million in cuts, $433 million in tax hikes on those with incomes over $200,000 and delaying $1.75 billion in school payments.
They get that by taking things they don't like, cutting programs, and doing it to the tune of 85 percent of the solution.
The new taxes, something we know the governor doesn't like, makes up 15 percent of the solution.
The governor of course has said he will veto the bill because of the taxes. No surprise there. They way he said it shouldn't make us too proud of him.
Here is the Pawlenty's statement: "The DFL's proposed tax increase is like Jason on Friday the 13th - it's scary and it keeps coming back....I look forward to vetoing this DFL tax increase."
But the whole compromise issue is worth debate. If you don't want to do something - is it compromising to do it only 15 percent of the way?
The DFL says the governor's solution, having them ratify his unallotment of last year that was rejected by the Supreme Court, has already been defeated with many Republicans in the House joining DFLers in that vote to reject ratifying the cuts.
The governor's spokesman Brian McClung said those Republican votes in the House were a sign of Republicans good faith gesture to show they were willing to work with the DFL "on a plan that doesn't raise taxes."
I can't figure out what the DFL strategy is unless they think they can get some Republican votes for an override since Pawlenty won't be around to carry out any kind of retribution.
Stay tuned.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Oil spill/Obama drilling/gas prices
By Joe Spear
Free Press Editor
The oil explosion/spill in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be much more serious than at first thought.
The latest Washington Post story is instructive. BP will try to "capture leaking oil" in huge 74-ton metal boxes being welded together right now. Idea is to capture oil and pump it to the surface.
They are also still trying to cap it with underwater submarines.
The problem they say this is like trying to do open heart surgery 5,000 feet below the surface.
I'm thinking this will have ramifications for future offshore drilling as it is turning out to be the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The day oil washes up on the Florida beaches is the day you are going to have one hell of a political firestorm in D.C.
Though Obama has said the offshore policy he opened up last year would not change, but qualified that we must ensure safeguards are in place, so this doesn't happen again. There will be momentum from all sides to figure out safeguards for this kind of event and that will take a while.
It appears local gas prices are headed higher, but maybe more psychology than fundamental supply and demand. Here's the latest crude oil market commentary from the New York Mercantile Exchange.
"Oil firmed last week for several reasons unrelated to the normal drivers that have been acting as catalysts to help maintain the upward price trend. Global equities were lower while the US dollar was mostly firm...both negative for oil prices. In addition the current fundamentals could not have been much more bearish than they were last week as total commercial stocks of crude oil and refined products built by almost 13 million barrels. The combination of positive economic data coupled with concerns that the huge oil spill in the US Gulf of Mexico could impact imports was enough to send oil prices surging the second half of the week. WTI is now within a $1/bbl of the 2010 high made in early April while trading in a price range not seen since the first half of October, 2008. For all of the reasons I have discussed many times in this newsletter the price of oil is overvalued with little likelihood of a shortage anytime soon.
Make of that what you will.
But this disaster is going to occupy a lot of news cycles. Drilling another well could take months. Let's hope the containment method works as a temporary stopgap.
Free Press Editor
The oil explosion/spill in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be much more serious than at first thought.
The latest Washington Post story is instructive. BP will try to "capture leaking oil" in huge 74-ton metal boxes being welded together right now. Idea is to capture oil and pump it to the surface.
They are also still trying to cap it with underwater submarines.
The problem they say this is like trying to do open heart surgery 5,000 feet below the surface.
I'm thinking this will have ramifications for future offshore drilling as it is turning out to be the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The day oil washes up on the Florida beaches is the day you are going to have one hell of a political firestorm in D.C.
Though Obama has said the offshore policy he opened up last year would not change, but qualified that we must ensure safeguards are in place, so this doesn't happen again. There will be momentum from all sides to figure out safeguards for this kind of event and that will take a while.
It appears local gas prices are headed higher, but maybe more psychology than fundamental supply and demand. Here's the latest crude oil market commentary from the New York Mercantile Exchange.
"Oil firmed last week for several reasons unrelated to the normal drivers that have been acting as catalysts to help maintain the upward price trend. Global equities were lower while the US dollar was mostly firm...both negative for oil prices. In addition the current fundamentals could not have been much more bearish than they were last week as total commercial stocks of crude oil and refined products built by almost 13 million barrels. The combination of positive economic data coupled with concerns that the huge oil spill in the US Gulf of Mexico could impact imports was enough to send oil prices surging the second half of the week. WTI is now within a $1/bbl of the 2010 high made in early April while trading in a price range not seen since the first half of October, 2008. For all of the reasons I have discussed many times in this newsletter the price of oil is overvalued with little likelihood of a shortage anytime soon.
Make of that what you will.
But this disaster is going to occupy a lot of news cycles. Drilling another well could take months. Let's hope the containment method works as a temporary stopgap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)