I have friends who often joke that I'm just "smart enough to be dangerous."
They know, of course, that I have a master's degree in economics, a sort of odd or at least unusual combination with an undergraduate degree in journalism.
Of course, many economists are just smart enough to be dangerous, and most of them get on CNN or Fox because they have something newsworthy to say coming from a discipline that often is not exciting. A report on the GDP, for example, will not be able to compete with American idol.
Still, there are certain economists who offer intriguing ideas or are interesting people at the very least.
Louis Johnston, associate professor of economics at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, fits the bill.
He spoke to a roomful of journalists at the Minnesota Newspaper Association convention Friday in Minneapolis.
While he was obliged to clarify some of the mysteries of economics to those whose job is to be short and simple in their writing, he had a number of interesting things to say about economic life in Minnesota.
He is currently involved in researching the history of the state's economy.
Some surprising facts: Per capita income in Minnesota has been rising and rising faster than any other states that are said to be in competition with Minnesota for business and jobs. Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota don't beat us in either overall per capita income or the trendline since the 1970s.
Another surprising fact: even when you take into account, Minnesota's relatively higher taxes, we still beat all the other states. We also beat Texas. Only two other states have shown continued per capita income growth over the years: Virginia and New Hampshire.
Johnston explains those: Virginia includes Washington D.C, and southern New Hampshire has become a suburb of Boston.
Johnston is working on research that suggests the reason Minnesota has had higher per capita income growth since the 1970s is that there was a bipartisan political coalition that agreed to invest in infrastructure, education and transportation.
Political leaders actually set up state programs to fund water and sewer projects in every city in Minnesota that didn't have them or didn't have adequate systems. That allowed businesses to locate in any town in the state. The infrastructure was already there.
Of course, now, that infrastructure must be maintained, and the funds for it are decreasing. That could come back to haunt us. Without those infrastructure investments, Johnston says, it may be difficult to maintain the state's manufacturing base.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Legislative committee menu: chides on the side
Watching two House of Representatives committee hearings the last couple days showed me a Legislature that is going to have its moments of confrontation and personality conflicts.
You can watch many of the important committee hearings online as they happen or later if you don't have the time. Since I wasn't doing anything the other night, I tuned in. (At this point you're thinking I don't have enough to do, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but in the name of promoting public affairs journalism, I ventured into the hearing room abyss.)
First up, the important Ways and Means Committee in the House that was moving rather quickly on a bill to reduce state spending by $1 billion, about $200 million before June 30 and another $800 million over the next two years.
The Republicans who control the committee moved forward explaining the cuts and a state employee wage freeze that would reduce wages to state employees by $63 million compared to what they would have received. This, by the way, comes on top of another proposal moving through that would actually cut the state work force by 15 percent.
Rep. Bob Gunther, R, Fairmont, and chairman of the House jobs committee had the unpleasant duty of explaining to Democrats on the committee how freezing wages actually saves jobs. It's a reasonable position, argument being if you don't stop wage spending, in the end you'll have to cut jobs to save money.
Iron ranger Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL, had first crack at Gunther, asking if he, Gunther, is now the main negotiator for the state of Minnesota with regard to its unions.
If so, quipped Rukavina, Gunther should get a bump in pay.
Gunther remained polite.
Interestingly enough, Rukavina was pointing out that there may be legal consequences for freezing pay of collective bargaining units instead of letting them bargain for the wage freeze. Not really sure how that helps state employees, but it was an argument nonetheless.
Actually, Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained and the final party line vote, telling me afterward he was concerned about the legal implications of a union contract and that the bill could have legal troubles that way. Cornish didn't chime in about these concerns at the hearing, but he seems knowledgeable given he was a former union negotiator when he was with the DNR.
Rukavina continued with his sucker punches. He wondered if this bill would conflict with the other bill that would actually cut state jobs, and as Jobs committee chairman, would Gunther fight his Republican opponents on that bill.
The gist of Rukavina's statement was something to the effect: "Cause if you do, I want to see that fight."
Gunther said he had no intention of holding up another Republican's bill.
Most of the other Democrats argued that bill should get more of a public hearing. Ways and Means Chair Rep. Mary Liz Holberg said she just thinks they need to move quickly. The more time they have, the more time they have to come up with other solutions.
All in all, the hearing gets a 7 or 8 for civility on my scale of 10 being very civil. I cut a few points regards a subtle but poignant sarcastic attitude on the part of a few member and a few chides on the side.
You can watch many of the important committee hearings online as they happen or later if you don't have the time. Since I wasn't doing anything the other night, I tuned in. (At this point you're thinking I don't have enough to do, and I wouldn't blame you if you did, but in the name of promoting public affairs journalism, I ventured into the hearing room abyss.)
First up, the important Ways and Means Committee in the House that was moving rather quickly on a bill to reduce state spending by $1 billion, about $200 million before June 30 and another $800 million over the next two years.
The Republicans who control the committee moved forward explaining the cuts and a state employee wage freeze that would reduce wages to state employees by $63 million compared to what they would have received. This, by the way, comes on top of another proposal moving through that would actually cut the state work force by 15 percent.
Rep. Bob Gunther, R, Fairmont, and chairman of the House jobs committee had the unpleasant duty of explaining to Democrats on the committee how freezing wages actually saves jobs. It's a reasonable position, argument being if you don't stop wage spending, in the end you'll have to cut jobs to save money.
Iron ranger Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL, had first crack at Gunther, asking if he, Gunther, is now the main negotiator for the state of Minnesota with regard to its unions.
If so, quipped Rukavina, Gunther should get a bump in pay.
Gunther remained polite.
Interestingly enough, Rukavina was pointing out that there may be legal consequences for freezing pay of collective bargaining units instead of letting them bargain for the wage freeze. Not really sure how that helps state employees, but it was an argument nonetheless.
Actually, Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained and the final party line vote, telling me afterward he was concerned about the legal implications of a union contract and that the bill could have legal troubles that way. Cornish didn't chime in about these concerns at the hearing, but he seems knowledgeable given he was a former union negotiator when he was with the DNR.
Rukavina continued with his sucker punches. He wondered if this bill would conflict with the other bill that would actually cut state jobs, and as Jobs committee chairman, would Gunther fight his Republican opponents on that bill.
The gist of Rukavina's statement was something to the effect: "Cause if you do, I want to see that fight."
Gunther said he had no intention of holding up another Republican's bill.
Most of the other Democrats argued that bill should get more of a public hearing. Ways and Means Chair Rep. Mary Liz Holberg said she just thinks they need to move quickly. The more time they have, the more time they have to come up with other solutions.
All in all, the hearing gets a 7 or 8 for civility on my scale of 10 being very civil. I cut a few points regards a subtle but poignant sarcastic attitude on the part of a few member and a few chides on the side.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Legislature moving fast on cuts
The Minnesota House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee moved quickly again Monday to forward a bill to impose some $1 billion in cuts to the state budget.
The pace of all this does seem unusually fast. Not much time for committee testimony. I guess that can be good because it gets us to the final negotiations with the governor earlier in the process. Time will tell.
The plans was apparently modified a bit to make some $400 million in cuts to local government aid temporary, and levels of funding would spring back to higher levels in 2013 unless lawmakers made the cuts permanent at that time.
Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained from voting on the bill which passed the committee on what appeared to be a party line vote of 18-13. The bill is headed to the House floor for a vote.
Cornish told me he abstained because as a former union negotiator he was concerned the bill might have legal issues if it portends to cut raises for people in the future that were already negotiated.
The bill cuts $181 million in current biennium and calls for $819 million more in next two year budget cycle that starts July 1.
The bill would extend temporary cuts made last year including $566 million to property tax relief, 185 million to higher education and $72 million from health and human services. The bill also freezes wages to state workers and asks Gov. Mark Dayton to hold back about $200 million in unspent funds in the current biennium.
Rep.Kathy Brynaert spoke against the bill saying there has not been enough time for colleges in her district to determine how the cuts to colleges would impact them. She called the proposal serious and noted MSU already cut 100 staff, $6.4 million in spending as well as adjunct and grad assistants at a time teaching loads are heavier due to budget cuts.
She said several students who she speaks with regularly say they don't know how they will finish in four years because of budget cuts have changed availability of some classes.
Democrats on the committee say it raises tuition and property taxes without much public input.
Here's the story from the Legislative news service on the committee hearing with links to a video of the meeting.
Here's the video of the hearing. It's 1 hour 30 plus minutes
The pace of all this does seem unusually fast. Not much time for committee testimony. I guess that can be good because it gets us to the final negotiations with the governor earlier in the process. Time will tell.
The plans was apparently modified a bit to make some $400 million in cuts to local government aid temporary, and levels of funding would spring back to higher levels in 2013 unless lawmakers made the cuts permanent at that time.
Rep. Tony Cornish, R, Good Thunder, abstained from voting on the bill which passed the committee on what appeared to be a party line vote of 18-13. The bill is headed to the House floor for a vote.
Cornish told me he abstained because as a former union negotiator he was concerned the bill might have legal issues if it portends to cut raises for people in the future that were already negotiated.
The bill cuts $181 million in current biennium and calls for $819 million more in next two year budget cycle that starts July 1.
The bill would extend temporary cuts made last year including $566 million to property tax relief, 185 million to higher education and $72 million from health and human services. The bill also freezes wages to state workers and asks Gov. Mark Dayton to hold back about $200 million in unspent funds in the current biennium.
Rep.Kathy Brynaert spoke against the bill saying there has not been enough time for colleges in her district to determine how the cuts to colleges would impact them. She called the proposal serious and noted MSU already cut 100 staff, $6.4 million in spending as well as adjunct and grad assistants at a time teaching loads are heavier due to budget cuts.
She said several students who she speaks with regularly say they don't know how they will finish in four years because of budget cuts have changed availability of some classes.
Democrats on the committee say it raises tuition and property taxes without much public input.
Here's the story from the Legislative news service on the committee hearing with links to a video of the meeting.
Here's the video of the hearing. It's 1 hour 30 plus minutes
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Budget watchdog: health reform was fiscally responsible: Repeal could hurt finances
The conservative budget watchdog group Concord Coalition is concerned the health care repeal efforts will be removing unpopular provisions, keeping popular ones and thereby creating more fiscal problems.
Read what they have to say:
"The law that was passed last year had the fiscally responsible goals of controlling long-term health care costs and of seeking to pay for its new benefits, particularly expanded coverage. Those goals should not be abandoned in any attempt to repeal, replace or amend the legislation.
Furthermore, simply repealing unpopular elements of the law while keeping the popular ones would likely leave fiscal policy in even worse shape.
Even if the law provides the promised amount of deficit reduction, it would hardly make a dent in total projected deficits over the coming decades. Much more work would remain to achieve a sustainable fiscal policy."
Here's the full issue brief.
Read what they have to say:
"The law that was passed last year had the fiscally responsible goals of controlling long-term health care costs and of seeking to pay for its new benefits, particularly expanded coverage. Those goals should not be abandoned in any attempt to repeal, replace or amend the legislation.
Furthermore, simply repealing unpopular elements of the law while keeping the popular ones would likely leave fiscal policy in even worse shape.
Even if the law provides the promised amount of deficit reduction, it would hardly make a dent in total projected deficits over the coming decades. Much more work would remain to achieve a sustainable fiscal policy."
Here's the full issue brief.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Mankato event in New York Times
The "Congress on Your Corner" event held by Rep. Tim Walz, D, 1st District, at Mocol's Super Market in Mankato Friday made The New York Times.
You can read the article here.
I was alerted to this rather unusual situation as The Times, I'm sure, does not have a Mankato correspondent, by our photographer John Cross, who was at the event, with five or six television station reporters and local reporters like KTOE's Pete Steiner.
Cross said he was trying to get a good photograph in a rather cramped spice aisle at Mocol's and he asked a young lady if she could move aside. She willingly obliged, but he later determined she was The New York Times reporter.
Steiner also told me as he chuckled that he didn't recognize this new reporter as one who shows up at the typical Mankato events, and extended a friendly greeting, somewhat taken aback when she told him she was there for The New York Times.
Cross's photo was distributed on the national wire as their appeared to be great interest in these events across that country that several Members of Congress held in honor of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D, Ariz., who is recovering from last Saturday's shooting.
The times saw fit to dispatch correspondents in Las Vegas, Connecticut and Mankato.
You can read the article here.
I was alerted to this rather unusual situation as The Times, I'm sure, does not have a Mankato correspondent, by our photographer John Cross, who was at the event, with five or six television station reporters and local reporters like KTOE's Pete Steiner.
Cross said he was trying to get a good photograph in a rather cramped spice aisle at Mocol's and he asked a young lady if she could move aside. She willingly obliged, but he later determined she was The New York Times reporter.
Steiner also told me as he chuckled that he didn't recognize this new reporter as one who shows up at the typical Mankato events, and extended a friendly greeting, somewhat taken aback when she told him she was there for The New York Times.
Cross's photo was distributed on the national wire as their appeared to be great interest in these events across that country that several Members of Congress held in honor of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D, Ariz., who is recovering from last Saturday's shooting.
The times saw fit to dispatch correspondents in Las Vegas, Connecticut and Mankato.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
New House rules path to higher deficit
I don't often just republish what another group or person has written on a subject, but I'm going to make an exception.
The Concord Coalition is a longtime nonpartisan budget watchdog group with both Democrats and Republicans as its founding members. It's analysis is always right on, in my opinion, very detailed and backed up with sources they're willing to share.
Here's what that group is saying about new rules adopted by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in Washington. D.C.
Reading this stuff, I cannot imagine how this will not create, and probably should create, tremendous disagreement between the tea party and the Republican Party.
If we asked voters if this was part of their "message" in congressional elections last fall -- to implement rules like this -- I don't believe they would say "yes."
Here's what the Concord Coalition had to say on Jan. 11, 2011.
"New House Rules Will Clear Path for New Deficits"
Last week the House adopted budget enforcement rules that restrict spending but exempt tax cuts. Included are rules that weaken PAYGO by excluding revenues, allow reconciliation to be used for deficit-financed tax cuts, permit the chairman of the Budget Committee to unilaterally impose budget allocations, and establish spending reduction accounts in appropriations bills.
Spending restraint is certainly important. But the House approach of ignoring the budgetary effects of tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible and abandons the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles that were successful in the 1990s. Several fiscal commissions have recommended a wide range of options for reducing budget deficits, saying that everything should be on the table. The House should heed this advice and pay for any proposal that would significantly add to deficits over the long term.
Read more with New House Rules Clear Path for New Deficits
The Concord Coalition is a longtime nonpartisan budget watchdog group with both Democrats and Republicans as its founding members. It's analysis is always right on, in my opinion, very detailed and backed up with sources they're willing to share.
Here's what that group is saying about new rules adopted by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in Washington. D.C.
Reading this stuff, I cannot imagine how this will not create, and probably should create, tremendous disagreement between the tea party and the Republican Party.
If we asked voters if this was part of their "message" in congressional elections last fall -- to implement rules like this -- I don't believe they would say "yes."
Here's what the Concord Coalition had to say on Jan. 11, 2011.
"New House Rules Will Clear Path for New Deficits"
Last week the House adopted budget enforcement rules that restrict spending but exempt tax cuts. Included are rules that weaken PAYGO by excluding revenues, allow reconciliation to be used for deficit-financed tax cuts, permit the chairman of the Budget Committee to unilaterally impose budget allocations, and establish spending reduction accounts in appropriations bills.Spending restraint is certainly important. But the House approach of ignoring the budgetary effects of tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible and abandons the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles that were successful in the 1990s. Several fiscal commissions have recommended a wide range of options for reducing budget deficits, saying that everything should be on the table. The House should heed this advice and pay for any proposal that would significantly add to deficits over the long term.
Read more with New House Rules Clear Path for New Deficits
Related Links
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Palin comments on crosshairs and Giffords shooting
Sarah Palin has put up a video on her Facebook page giving a 7 minute statement partly defending her use of cross hairs of a gun on Gabrielle Giffords Congressional district as one where people should "reload" on the healthcare debate.
Several stories in major news outlets are detailing the statement and going more in-depth.
The Washington Post story had some relevant links, including the video, to previous stories if you want to follow the evolution of the coverage on this, which appears to be growing, and in my opinion, in a negative way for Palin. Her polls must be showing as much as there is great risk to her political future the more she responds to this.
Typically, p.r. types will tell public officials to stay away from a controversy and avoid being implicated by involvement in the discussion, but if the polls start showing its very negative, the strategy has to be to try to combat that.
Cross hair map below. At one point, an aid to Palin said they were not intending it be cross hairs at all, but that seemed to be refuted by Palin who earlier described the markers as "bull's-eyes"
There were apparently 10,000 comments on her Facebook page, not all of them positive.
Most interesting is the risk former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty took in implicitly criticizing the Palin cross hair map, which he says wouldn't be his "style," and he wouldn't have done it. His statement is here in the New York Times political blog.
His statement to them "“It’s not a device I would have chosen to do. Everybody has got their own style or different approaches,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “But I don’t want to have anyone infer that there’s evidence in this case that it caused or was a contributing factor. We don’t know that.”
In the most Minnesota nice way possible, he took a chance at gaining some ground on Palin politically. He could have defended her to the max, and he did defend here, but in a sort of damning with faint praise sort of way.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if there is a connection or not, if there is, it's even worse for Palin, but the fact that she has been part of the debate, no matter how much she tries to distance herself will be part of the narrative that develops.
And as much as the mainstream media has been very responsible and clear in not connecting her to the killer, people will think what they want to think, and they won't always listen to the mainstream media.
Several stories in major news outlets are detailing the statement and going more in-depth.
The Washington Post story had some relevant links, including the video, to previous stories if you want to follow the evolution of the coverage on this, which appears to be growing, and in my opinion, in a negative way for Palin. Her polls must be showing as much as there is great risk to her political future the more she responds to this.
Typically, p.r. types will tell public officials to stay away from a controversy and avoid being implicated by involvement in the discussion, but if the polls start showing its very negative, the strategy has to be to try to combat that.
Cross hair map below. At one point, an aid to Palin said they were not intending it be cross hairs at all, but that seemed to be refuted by Palin who earlier described the markers as "bull's-eyes"
Most interesting is the risk former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty took in implicitly criticizing the Palin cross hair map, which he says wouldn't be his "style," and he wouldn't have done it. His statement is here in the New York Times political blog.
His statement to them "“It’s not a device I would have chosen to do. Everybody has got their own style or different approaches,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “But I don’t want to have anyone infer that there’s evidence in this case that it caused or was a contributing factor. We don’t know that.”
In the most Minnesota nice way possible, he took a chance at gaining some ground on Palin politically. He could have defended her to the max, and he did defend here, but in a sort of damning with faint praise sort of way.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if there is a connection or not, if there is, it's even worse for Palin, but the fact that she has been part of the debate, no matter how much she tries to distance herself will be part of the narrative that develops.
And as much as the mainstream media has been very responsible and clear in not connecting her to the killer, people will think what they want to think, and they won't always listen to the mainstream media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)