Republican chairman on leadership request: "illegal"

In another very surprising development, Rep. Bob Gunther told The Free Press in a story published Saturday that he was kind of forced by Republican leadership to submit his budget, which took $60 million from an Iron Range taconite fund that was collected instead of property taxes.

Gunther said the move was probably "illegal." This was raising Republican eyesbrows and ire, no doubt.

 Excerpt from our story:

As head of the Jobs and Economic Development Committee, the Fairmont Republican put together the budget bill that slashed several jobs and housing programs by 30 percent and took $60 million from an Iron Range fund, moving it to state coffers.

“Very upset,” Gunther said of the reaction by Iron Range lawmakers. “And they should be, and it’s probably going to be deemed illegal. What we did to them, I think it’s an illegal thing. It’s their property taxes.”

Read the full story.

Dayton lays out ground rules for negotiation.

Gov. Mark Dayton sent a letter to Republican House Speaker Kurt Zellers that laid out terms for negotiating a final budget deal that called for both to, above all, use the same objective numbers from the management and budget office.

In recent budget bills, Republicans have gone to  using private consultants who work for a fee, and rejected the management and budget numbers on fiscal notes for bill put together by them, a standard practice.

In the letter, of which I received a copy of Monday, Dayton says even Pawlenty used the nonpartisan, objective management and budget office. In fact, Mr. Showalter, who heads the office, worked for Pawlenty as well.

He said he doesn't even look at the analysis his assistants do. They put together their numbers with the aid of the agencies, those who should know the ins and outs.

Of course, the critics are saying Republicans can't balance the budget without revenue, and therefore are going elsewhere to "make up the numbers."

I can't say that's true because I haven't analyzed the numbers, but it seems if previous Democrat and Republican administrations have used management and budget office crew, there is no need to change up the facts now.

Tea Party: What taxes they should be against

Seems like the Tea Party should come up with some policy goals that would give people a chance to understand more clearly what they're about.

We've heard they're about "Tax Enough Already," but that doesn't get very specific for policymakers except to lower any and all taxes, or at the very least, keep them the same.

Going back to the historic event for which they are named, we can get some guidance as to what taxes they should be against, if they want to be true to the historic Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party was largely about what colonists considered an unfair tax on tea, and taxation without representation. They believed they shouldn't be taxed by a body, British Parliament, where they had no representation.

But today, these taxes without representation take subtle forms.

So if you're against taxation without representation, here's a few modern day taxes you should be against.

The property tax is the biggest one. Businesses, for example, cannot vote in proportion to the property they own. Assuming they live in the jurisdiction that taxes them, business owners paying $100,000 in property taxes have the same number of votes those with no property - 1.

If they don't live in the jurisdiction where they have a business, they have even less representation. They can't vote to remove members of the city council or county board who are responsible for levying the property tax. They have no ability to be represented in the body that levies the tax.

On the flip side, the tax with the most representation is the sales tax. For most goods, you can choose to pay it or not by your decision to purchase the product on which the tax is assessed.

So Tea Parties true to their historic principles of no taxation without representation should be against properties taxes and for sales taxes.

What does TEA stand for?

I'm the first guy to favor average citizens getting involved in their government.

And, if nothing else, the Tea Party followers cannot be blamed for sitting on the sidelines.

But I've never seen such a loosely knit organization get so much media attention, mostly national media attention.

I might be missing something, but I've not come across a Tea Party national leader or candidate, or for that matter, a Tea Party party platform.

So, I scratch my head sometimes trying to figure out just who the Tea Party might be.

While some Republicans elected to Congress are said to be "Tea Party favorites" I really don't know what that means since there really is no official "Tea Party" with membership and fundraising mailing lists.

It could be the most influential non-party there ever was. Maybe it's just waiting for a leader or to be molded into another party, the Republican Party being the obvious, but not only, choice.

In fact, a lot of Tea Party ideas, if there is such a thing as a group idea, seem more libertarian.

So what does T.E.A. stand for.

We've heard the "taxed enough already." That's as good a brand as any.

But what will the future hold. Will the Tea Party realize the value in joining one of the other parties?

Will T.E.A. stand for Tendency to Eventually Acquiesce?

How about Too Excitable for Assimilation?

Or will it be Tragic Ending All-around?

Or maybe Tough Enforcement and Accountability.

Or the Tea Party may continue on as a quasi political party that one can describe like a Supreme Court justice once described pornography: We can't describe it or even define it, but we can recognize it when we see it.

By the way, this is not to equate the Tea Party to pornography, we're just using a little journalistic license here.

Tea Party alert: laws with impact, under the radar

Here's a roundup of things I found that lawmakers are going forward with that are affecting people in serious ways but don't seem to be getting much publicity.

Tea Party fans might like this one. HF 88 eliminates a mandate by the state to make schools spend $3 per pupil on counselors, no matter the need.

Proponents say it's one mandate schools continually asked to be let out of. Opponents of the measure say it will make counselors even less available to kids in school who have various troubles. They note Minnesota is 49th nationwide in ratio of counselors to pupils.

But this plan passed the House with members of both parties. It must find a sponsor in the Senate.

It sounds like it could be dangerous and snipping more holes in the safety net. At the same time, schools and their taxpayers have usually favored local control. This doesn't prevent schools from funding counselors on their own, just takes that state mandate away.

It's important to note the bill did not cut the $30 Safe Schools levy, it just removed the $3 mandate on counseling services.

Here's the 75-54 vote.When you get here, you need to scroll down just a bit to see the vote on HF88. They don't have it up on the easy site yet.

Mankato area Democrats voted against. Republicans mostly vote in favor.

Tracking your interests: state deficit, oil prices, state workers

Good news: State's deficit is only $5 billion for year ended June 30, 2013.

That came yesterday in new state revenue forecast. Our local story mentioned legislators who seemed to be feeling a bit more optimistic yet noting $5 billion is still a big number.

FP editorial take for Wednesday edition: Political leaders: Be optimistic. It will be easier to compromise now, 20 percent easier in fact. But we believe the "mandate" if there was one from the last election is to "compromise, work together, to solve the problem."

It's hard to argue it wasn't some of that. The guy who advocated tax the rich got the most votes. It's a stretch of logic to say a lot of people think it should be all cuts.

State economist Tom Stinson makes relevant point about why we improved our situation. Income taxes made up by half of it, about $500 million, sales tax was ahead by $285 billion. He cites Obama/Republican tax extension and unemployment benefit extension.

Also. Corporate profits are up.

Again, I like Doug Grow's story from MinnPost on the issue as the best Minnesota story.

Oil prices threaten 

Oil prices seem likely to skyrocket this year, which Stinson says could hurt our revenue projection. The more we spend on gasoline, the less we spend on small town cafe's going out to eat, etc. We hit KFC instead of Olive Garden.

Only thing that could temper oil prices: We learned to cut back consumption in 2008. Can we do it again, as consumers?

Also, the willingness of U.S. and Europe to sort of secure Libya so immediately surprised me. This is not a negotiation. That may bring some stability to the oil market.

But as this commentary from Tom Reilly, SCS Commodities, (click on "energy" tab below video screen) at the CME reports, that tensions in the Middle East, which he says won't end any time soon, oil futures will continue their march to 100 a barrell, and possibly $110 by Memorial Day translating to $4 per gallon prices at the pump.

State worker risk

Another important story for the Mankato economy is that a recent Free Press story on state workers show Nicollet and Blue Earth County has a large number of state workers, 3,372 in all, and Nicollet County has the highest number of state workers per capita in the state.

Any drastic cuts to those numbers, will clearly influence consumer spending at the local level.

Who's right? Who's lying and Who's fibbing?

Two documents I came across today tell two very different stories of the state budget.

A letter from Senate Republicans to Gov. Mark Dayton outlying their "perfectly clear" opposition to taxes to helping balance the budget states his budget would be a 22 percent increase.

A Minnesota Taxpayers Association newsletter describes it as 4.5 percent increase: "The Governor’s budget for FY2012-13 proposes to spend $37.1 billion from the state’s General Fund: growing spending by about 4.5% from the last biennium if one adjusts for the effects of the K-12 education shift and the federal stimulus
dollars"

So who's right?

Well, the MTA says it is a "non-partisan, non-profit corporation founded in 1926 to advance economy and efficiency in government."

And the Senate Republicans, well, let's just say they're not non-partisan, or possibly not non-profit either.

Tea Party idea voted down: unruly Rules Committee

Conventional wisdom would suggest a Republican majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives would embrace some of the Tea Party-influenced Pledge to America.

One of those pledges called for posting proposed legislation on the Internet three days before it would be voted on so people could "read the bill."

But an interesting exchange in the House Rules Committee Jan. 24 had all Republicans of the committee voting against a proposal by a Democrat for posting bills online for three days, per the directive of the Pledge to America.

Rep. Debra Hilstrom, DFL, Brooklyn Center, proposed the amendment to the permanent rules of the House.

I supposed one could write this off to playing politics, but a vote is a vote. It's on the record. Why do I feel we haven't heard the last of this vote and this exchange. Seems ripe for campaign literature at some point.

It will be interesting to see how state Republicans would defend it, but a legitimate reason might be the Minnesota Republican Party has no real allegiance to the party in control of Congress.

Here's the exchange between Hilstrom and House Majority Leader Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, and the House Rules Committee chairman.

Said Hilstrom: "There will be no more hiding legislative language from the minority party from opponents and from the public. Given this is such a popular agenda. I believe that it’s proper to be in our rules as well. We do not want to hide it from the public or the minority, and so, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a roll call.” 

Dean asked for discussion. A deafening silence.

He asked for Discussion again. Nothing.

Dean, speaking against the amendement said: “I would echo representatives Hilstrom’s intent on this. I would say that is an excellent idea for our U.S. Congress, for 435 members, and for the predicament they find themselves in."

“However, we are at 134 members, we have a Minnesota way of doing things. We also have something we need to do in this state that they don’t have to do that I wish they had to do which is balance their budget.”

“And that requires us to do a  lot of heavy lifting in the last 48 hours of session in many instances, so I would speak against the Hilstrom amendment, and if there’s no further discussion I would ask the clerk take the roll.” 

The amendment was defeated 11-14 on a party line vote. Rod Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake, is the only Mankato area legislator on the Rules Committee.

Hilstrom's comments starts at 22 minutes, 30 seconds into the audio recording and the exchange goes for about two minutes.

Here are the meeting minutes. Scroll down to the vote on Amendment 20. All "Ayes" or yes votes favored putting bills online as in Pledge to America. Nays voted against putting bills online. All Democrats voted yes, and all Republicans voted no.