Official reports list the upcoming budget deficit for the State of Minnesota as $1.1 billion. This according to the state economist and the fiscal forecast. Yet while $1.1 B is bad enough it is really worse than that, and could deteriorate.
Consider some basic facts.
When the 2011 government shutdown was averted $2.4 billion was borrowed from K-12 and the state also borrowed approximately $700 million from the tobacco endowment. These were both one time revenue sources that need to be paid back. Add these two obligations to the $1.1 and the real deficit is closer to $3.8 B.
Critics will say that the $3.8 B figure is wrong, asserting that the fiscal forecast does indicate that about $1.3 B will be shifted to pay back K-12 from current surplus. this is on top of $3.2 M already paid back (but for the sake of argument we will ignore this even though it should be counted toward a larger state obligation for revenue). But as my grandmother used to say money does not grow on trees and it comes from somewhere. That $1.3 is coming out of something,a present one time surplus in the current budget cycle that one cannot necessarily count on in the next cycle. This money represents an obligation to the state and therefore money is stilled owed and must be paid back. The same can be said about the tobacco bonds. Thus the $3.8 is a fair figure on the obligations owed by the state beyond current projected revenues to meet spending in the next budget cycle that is roughly the same as it is now in the current one.
It gets worse. The forecast also notes that the anticipated gaming proceeds to help finance the new Vikings stadium are significantly behind projections. If they do not pick up then the State (taxpayers) are also on the hook for this additional obligation which could potentially been a few hundred million dollars. This makes the bad deal for the state look even worse. Stay tuned on this.
But it gets even worse. If the fiscal cliff kicks in and hits the state or even if the economy simply slows down, revenues decrease and the deficit gets even worse. Even the fiscal forecast tells us that.
Thus, the $1.1 B deficit may very well really be one that is over $4 B. We are back to where we were two years ago. No surprise. The last budget was done with gimmicks and tricks.
We cannot continue to repeat the mistakes and tricks of the lack decade and continue to push the problem down the line. Yes tax increases may be needed to address the problems here but that is probably not enough. New revenue sources are needed but cuts may also be needed. The question will be who carries the burden or takes the cuts. Will it come from the poor? Healthcare? Education? Higher ed? Cities?
The issue now is how honest does the DFL want to be in confronting the reality of the budget. Will it use real numbers, eschew gimmicks, and base projections on realistic assumptions? This is the challenge for the Governor and the legislature.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A Republican Kübler-Ross Moment
Note: This essay appeared in the November 30, edition of Politics in Minnesota. Please consider subscribing to that publication. Also, for comparison, the December 3, 2012 "Talk of the Town" section of the New Yorker references a Kübler-Ross feeling among House of Representatives Republicans. I wrote this piece before seeing the New Yorker essay.
Republicans and conservatives in Minnesota and across the United States are having their Kübler-Ross moment with the 2012 election results and their aftermath. As they confront their political mortality, their reaction to their failures parallels that of the psychological state of individuals facing their own deaths.
Elizabeth Kübler-Ross was a Swiss doctor whose book Death and Dying outlined a seven stage process that patients often go through when confronting death. Her book became famous in the 1979 Bob Fosse movie All that Jazz, featuring Roy Scheider as Joe Gideon. The stages–shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, testing and acceptance–represent the psychological states that individuals go through as they confront their demise. Individuals move through these seven stages to acceptance, but often get s truck at a stage and never move on. Politically, Republicans and conservatives across the country are similarly facing their own mortality, psychologically traversing the same path, or worse, getting stuck in one stage and unable to move on.
Shock. Many Republicans have yet to accept the fact that they lost the 2012 elections fair and square. They were out-hustled, out-organized, and most importantly, out-voted. Obama received more votes than Romney, Democrats have more US Senate seats than Republicans, and for only the fourth time in American history, the minority party in the House received more votes than the majority. Democrats also made big gains in the state houses, including Minnesota, and here the two Republican-prized constitutional amendments failed. Romney, as it is now known, was so assured of victory that he did not write a concession speech. Karl Rove, similarly convinced of victory, had a meltdown on Fox news when that state was called Ohio for Obama on his beloved network.
Denial. We could not have loss had it been a fair election. But for the voter fraud we would have won. But for Obama giving gifts to minority voters we would have won. For Kurt Zellers, it was not the two amendments and the social issues, the government shutdown, or bad politics that cost them the control of the legislature. For Mary Kiffmeyer and Jason Lewis, were it not for the lies and distortions by their opponents, the Elections Amendment would have passed. For Dan McGrath of the Minnesota Majority, expect him to yell fraud, contending that were it not for the voter fraud that the Elections Amendment was meant to prevent, it would have passed. Of course, Romney did not lose because he was a bad candidate, with a bad message, appealing to an aging, white, party and demographic that is dying off and which is to the right of mainstream America. Of course Republicans did not lose Senate races in Missouri and Indiana because candidate remarks about rape and abortion turned off female voters. No, the problem is not the candidate, the message, or the messenger, it is simply we did not move far enough to the right or that we need to repackage the same ideas in a new way.
Anger. We just cannot live a country with Obama as president so we need to succeed from the union, so says those folks deep in the heart of Texas. Similarly conservatives and Republicans are lashing out against the biased media, lying liberals, and thuggish unions, all to blame for their losses. But as if anger and blame were not spread around far enough, turn inward. Blame moderates such as Romney, Christ Christie for doing his job in New Jersey, or Clint Eastwood for talking to an empty chair for squandering the chance to win.
Bargaining. The president wins, we lose. Democrats gain seats in Senate and House and Minnesota turns true blue in the legislature. What shall we do? Stand our ground and force Obama and the Democrats to bargain. John Boehner claims a mandate and says maybe we shall compromise, but we refuse to raise income taxes, we refuse to make the wealthy carry their fair share, we refuse to give to avoid the fiscal cliff. Best of all, Mary Kiffmeyer, after refusing to negotiate with the governor and the DFL on voter ID, now generously tells both that she willing to compromise on it.
Depression. Oh to have the Prozac concession for Fox News, AM talk radio, and in most of the south. Depression rings across the red parts of the United States now. The despondence of having lost a presidential race that should have been won, a US Senate ripe for the picking, or realization that Obama gets probably to pick several Supreme Court Justices or that same-sex marriage as a legal reality is near is enough to make any Conservative Republican depressed. How can one live four more years with a president whose middle name is Hussein, who is probably not a US citizen, and no doubt Muslim.
Testing. But just maybe there is a way to go on. Maybe there is a way to let taxes go up without raising taxes. Perhaps it is by letting the Bush era tax cuts expire and then vote for a tax cut for the middle class. That’s not raising taxes is it? Or perhaps eliminate tax loopholes or raise the rates on capital gains. That’s not raising taxes is it?
Acceptance. Ok, so Obama did win and the Democrats did take control of the Minnesota legislature. But the midterm elections are less than two years away and the next presidential race barely four. Maybe there is a way to survive, maybe we can obstruct some more, hold on to some old outdated ideas on gay rights and immigration, or maybe Obama and the Democrats will overreach. Yes we lost, but perhaps there is a silver lining. It will be purity of message and candidate in 2014 and 2016.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Fear and Panic, Minnesota Republican Style
Fear and panic may be the words for now to express how Republicans, conservatives, and business leaders such as Charlie Weaver view the coming 2013 Minnesota legislative session. The fear and panic is that with the DFL having control of the legislature and all of the constitutional offices, businesses and the affluent will face higher taxes, the economy will go to ruin, and the Chamber of Commerce will not be able to pursue objectives such as restructuring teacher tenure, public sector pensions, or state government in general.
Have no fear though, it is unlikely that the DFL control will live up to your anxieties for many reasons.
First, this is not the DFL Party of Humphrey, Mondale, Freeman, and Wellstone. This is a DFL party headed by a pro-business governor and a party firmly rooted in the Twin Cities suburbs such as Edina. These districts are business-orientated and affluent and it is unlikely that DFLers from areas such as Edina will stray far to the left. Democrats elected in these suburbs are not liberals, they won tight races in swing districts and any serious move to the left will cost them their seats and possibly a House majority in 2014.
Second, were the DFL majority moving to the left it would have made John Marty chair of Health and Human Services. Marty, who supports a single-payer health insurance program, has the seniority to receive this chair but was passed over for this position. Don’t look to see the DFL push real progressive positions.
Third, a DFL governor and coalition already demonstrated this year its pro-business attitude when it gave the Vikings and the business community a new stadium.
Fourth, the business community has already overreached and many of its goals are beyond what they should be addressing. Issues such as teacher tenure are beyond what the business community should worry about, especially if it concerned about the quality of K-12. If the latter is the issue, then lobby for early-childhood education, fully funding K-12, addressing racial disparities in schools, and providing teachers, parents, and students with the support they need for kids to succeed.
Finally, live in reality. Consider the last time the DFL controlled the governor’s office and both houses of the Minnesota legislature. It was from 1987 to 1990 when Rudy Perpich was governor. Wanting to make Minnesota the brainpower state, the governor pushed for reforms in K-12 that helped make sure the state’s schools were among the best in the country and students tested at or near the top in national performances. It was a time when Minnesotans and businesses were among the highest taxed in the country, and also a time when Minnesota had one of the highest median family incomes in the nation, lowest crime and incarceration rates, and a high concentration of Fortune 500 companies.
Additionally, consider the unemployment rate during those four years. While the national average was 5.7%, in Minnesota it was 4.7%. Compare that to October, 2012, with a Minnesota unemployment rate of 5.8%.
Unemployment Rates
Year USA MN
1987 6.2 5.1
1988 5.5 4.3
1989 5.3 4.4
1990 5.6 4.8
4 yr Avg 5.7 4.7
Oct 2012 7.9 5.8
Perpich opened up the International Trade Center in St Paul, and under him and the DFL control of the legislature, Dayton-Hudson Corporation (now Target) was able to pressure them to hold a special session in 1987 to change Minnesota corporate law to prevent them from being taken over by Dart Corporation.
The point? Minnesota and its businesses did not do so badly under the last time when the state was under DFL control. Now, 23 years later, a more moderate and business-friendly DFL is in charge. The evidence does not support the panic and fear the business community has and, in fact, it may find a supportive party willing to accommodate them in many situations.
Have no fear though, it is unlikely that the DFL control will live up to your anxieties for many reasons.
First, this is not the DFL Party of Humphrey, Mondale, Freeman, and Wellstone. This is a DFL party headed by a pro-business governor and a party firmly rooted in the Twin Cities suburbs such as Edina. These districts are business-orientated and affluent and it is unlikely that DFLers from areas such as Edina will stray far to the left. Democrats elected in these suburbs are not liberals, they won tight races in swing districts and any serious move to the left will cost them their seats and possibly a House majority in 2014.
Second, were the DFL majority moving to the left it would have made John Marty chair of Health and Human Services. Marty, who supports a single-payer health insurance program, has the seniority to receive this chair but was passed over for this position. Don’t look to see the DFL push real progressive positions.
Third, a DFL governor and coalition already demonstrated this year its pro-business attitude when it gave the Vikings and the business community a new stadium.
Fourth, the business community has already overreached and many of its goals are beyond what they should be addressing. Issues such as teacher tenure are beyond what the business community should worry about, especially if it concerned about the quality of K-12. If the latter is the issue, then lobby for early-childhood education, fully funding K-12, addressing racial disparities in schools, and providing teachers, parents, and students with the support they need for kids to succeed.
Finally, live in reality. Consider the last time the DFL controlled the governor’s office and both houses of the Minnesota legislature. It was from 1987 to 1990 when Rudy Perpich was governor. Wanting to make Minnesota the brainpower state, the governor pushed for reforms in K-12 that helped make sure the state’s schools were among the best in the country and students tested at or near the top in national performances. It was a time when Minnesotans and businesses were among the highest taxed in the country, and also a time when Minnesota had one of the highest median family incomes in the nation, lowest crime and incarceration rates, and a high concentration of Fortune 500 companies.
Additionally, consider the unemployment rate during those four years. While the national average was 5.7%, in Minnesota it was 4.7%. Compare that to October, 2012, with a Minnesota unemployment rate of 5.8%.
Unemployment Rates
Year USA MN
1987 6.2 5.1
1988 5.5 4.3
1989 5.3 4.4
1990 5.6 4.8
4 yr Avg 5.7 4.7
Oct 2012 7.9 5.8
Perpich opened up the International Trade Center in St Paul, and under him and the DFL control of the legislature, Dayton-Hudson Corporation (now Target) was able to pressure them to hold a special session in 1987 to change Minnesota corporate law to prevent them from being taken over by Dart Corporation.
The point? Minnesota and its businesses did not do so badly under the last time when the state was under DFL control. Now, 23 years later, a more moderate and business-friendly DFL is in charge. The evidence does not support the panic and fear the business community has and, in fact, it may find a supportive party willing to accommodate them in many situations.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
After the revolution? Recommendations for the Minnesota DFL
Note: This blog originally appeared in Politics in Minnesota on November 15, 2012. Please consider subscribing to that publication for news on state politics.
You say you want a revolution? Well it was not quite that, but November 6, gave Democrats control of the Minnesota legislature and governorship for the first time since 1990. In fact they occupy all the constitutional offices. Dayton can move his agenda and the DFL can push its priorities. But less one think that it is now Christmas time for the DFL, there should be some caution in the moves that the Democrats take.
Yes, the DFL should move an agenda that is Democrat. Single-payer health insurance, legalizing single-sex marriage, and commitments to education should guide what the DFL do. But the political revolution is less than meets the eye. It is less a mandate for the DFL than it was a rejection of the Republicans. Republicans overreached. Kurt Zellers and the Republicans promised that it would simply be jobs and the economy and they failed. They failed first to get the state’s fiscal house in order. Yes Republicans claim they balanced the state budget without taxes increases but that is wrong. To “balance” the budget they borrowed approximately two billion dollars from K-12 and another $700 million from the tobacco endowment. All this was one time revenue that must be repaid. The budget deal did nothing to solve a structural deficit problem and the State walks into the 2013 with a yet to be determined real deficit of several billion dollars. Moreover, the balance they claim came with a government shutdown and a loss of the state’s triple A rating.
But beyond failing at jobs and the economy, the Republicans overreached. They debated social issues and placed a Marriage Amendment on the ballot. They sought to rig elections in the future with a voter Id amendment. They also debated amendments on abortion, right-work laws similar to those enacted in Wisconsin, and taxes. The Republicans, hungry for power, saw their legislative majorities as the opportunity to pander to every one of their constituencies and enact every crackpot idea their supporters had. They foolishly thought 2010 was a mandate when it was simply a rejection of Democrats. The Republicans sought to take over the state for their own interest, not to govern or lead it for all of us. And they paid the price on November 6. Everyone can see this except for the outgoing Republican leadership who are still in denial about the election and their bad performance.
The Democrats need to avoid the same mistake. They need to lead and govern and not pander. They too will have pent up demand for many groups wanting it to be their turn now. The first advice is that Democrats must prove that they can be trusted with the taxpayer’s money. They must show they are better at handling the state’s finances and economy than were the Republicans. Given the last biennium, this is a low bar. But this is the time for the DFL to do the budget right, make the tough choices, and really clean up the budget without any shifts or gimmicks that have been the norm for over a decade. What might this include?
The first order of business is developing a honest budget process. Repeal the foolish 2002 law that counts inflation for the purposes of revenue but not obligations. Additionally, ban shifts and other short term or one time revenue fixes. These gimmicks hide the real structural deficit in Minnesota which is probably in excess of $4 billion. Part of creating a honest budget process may go so far as completely reforming it from scratch. Change the timing when the fiscal forecasts are issued so that budget work can start sooner. Set earlier committee deadlines or fiscal targets. Follow the practice of Wisconsin and create a joint legislative committee to do the budget. Or even change the budget from even to odd years to give legislators one year to learn their job before doing the budget. Right now we have too many rookies doing a major fiscal job in ignorance.
But other budget fixes could also include creating an automatic continuing resolution that keeps the current budget in place if no agreement is reached. This is what they do in Wisconsin and it will avert future government shutdowns. But reform to the governor’s unallotment authority is also needed to prevent future power grabs as seen under Pawlenty. Fiscal reform also means paying back the money to K-12 and on the tobacco endowment. If the Democrats can do all this, they have accomplished a lot.
But all this structural reform requires real budget choices too, while at the same time advancing DFL priorities that serve the interests of Minnesota. Governor Rudy Perpich got it right when he said it wanted Minnesota to be the brainpower state. He wanted Minnesotans to be the best educated state in the country. There are powerful correlations between education and economic development. The single best investment a state can make is in education. Thus, repaying money owed to K-12 makes sense, but it is not a blank check. Minnesota has horrible racial disparities in terms of graduation and learning outcomes. The racial disparity overlaps with class and poverty. Better education is not simply about class size, it is making sure that students come to school prepared to learn. This means healthy, clothed, and well-fed. Attend to the social service side of education. Attend also to funding early-childhood education and give students the head start they need.
But do not ignore workforce training for adults. The State needs better partnerships with business and higher education and community colleges to make it affordable for people already in the workforce to get new or additional training. Here is where adjustments to the Minnesota tax code make sense.
Minnesota also has an aging infrastructure. We already wasted money on a Vikings stadium that could have been better spent on roads and bridges. Do bonding to alleviate the increased congestion in the Twin Cities making commutes increasingly time consuming and commerce difficult. But bonding to improve the internet infrastructure in greater Minnesota is also essential. Level the playing field between brick businesses in Minnesota and Internet businesses by passing the Amazon.com bill that was debated last session.
What else should the DFL consider? It is inevitable that the wealth should pay more in taxes to fund the state. There is little empirical evidence that such taxes will hurt or deter job growth, and a lot of evidence that they are in the best position to help foot the bill for many amenities from which they benefit. The DFL should also move forward to fully implement the Affordable Care Act and perhaps even other reforms to provide more health care for all in Minnesota.
The advice for Democrats is thus simple: Do not confuse Republican rejection with Democrat mandate. Don’t overreach, attend to the economy and budget first, remember your principles, and use them to build a foundation for other changes once broad support has emerged.
You say you want a revolution? Well it was not quite that, but November 6, gave Democrats control of the Minnesota legislature and governorship for the first time since 1990. In fact they occupy all the constitutional offices. Dayton can move his agenda and the DFL can push its priorities. But less one think that it is now Christmas time for the DFL, there should be some caution in the moves that the Democrats take.
Yes, the DFL should move an agenda that is Democrat. Single-payer health insurance, legalizing single-sex marriage, and commitments to education should guide what the DFL do. But the political revolution is less than meets the eye. It is less a mandate for the DFL than it was a rejection of the Republicans. Republicans overreached. Kurt Zellers and the Republicans promised that it would simply be jobs and the economy and they failed. They failed first to get the state’s fiscal house in order. Yes Republicans claim they balanced the state budget without taxes increases but that is wrong. To “balance” the budget they borrowed approximately two billion dollars from K-12 and another $700 million from the tobacco endowment. All this was one time revenue that must be repaid. The budget deal did nothing to solve a structural deficit problem and the State walks into the 2013 with a yet to be determined real deficit of several billion dollars. Moreover, the balance they claim came with a government shutdown and a loss of the state’s triple A rating.
But beyond failing at jobs and the economy, the Republicans overreached. They debated social issues and placed a Marriage Amendment on the ballot. They sought to rig elections in the future with a voter Id amendment. They also debated amendments on abortion, right-work laws similar to those enacted in Wisconsin, and taxes. The Republicans, hungry for power, saw their legislative majorities as the opportunity to pander to every one of their constituencies and enact every crackpot idea their supporters had. They foolishly thought 2010 was a mandate when it was simply a rejection of Democrats. The Republicans sought to take over the state for their own interest, not to govern or lead it for all of us. And they paid the price on November 6. Everyone can see this except for the outgoing Republican leadership who are still in denial about the election and their bad performance.
The Democrats need to avoid the same mistake. They need to lead and govern and not pander. They too will have pent up demand for many groups wanting it to be their turn now. The first advice is that Democrats must prove that they can be trusted with the taxpayer’s money. They must show they are better at handling the state’s finances and economy than were the Republicans. Given the last biennium, this is a low bar. But this is the time for the DFL to do the budget right, make the tough choices, and really clean up the budget without any shifts or gimmicks that have been the norm for over a decade. What might this include?
The first order of business is developing a honest budget process. Repeal the foolish 2002 law that counts inflation for the purposes of revenue but not obligations. Additionally, ban shifts and other short term or one time revenue fixes. These gimmicks hide the real structural deficit in Minnesota which is probably in excess of $4 billion. Part of creating a honest budget process may go so far as completely reforming it from scratch. Change the timing when the fiscal forecasts are issued so that budget work can start sooner. Set earlier committee deadlines or fiscal targets. Follow the practice of Wisconsin and create a joint legislative committee to do the budget. Or even change the budget from even to odd years to give legislators one year to learn their job before doing the budget. Right now we have too many rookies doing a major fiscal job in ignorance.
But other budget fixes could also include creating an automatic continuing resolution that keeps the current budget in place if no agreement is reached. This is what they do in Wisconsin and it will avert future government shutdowns. But reform to the governor’s unallotment authority is also needed to prevent future power grabs as seen under Pawlenty. Fiscal reform also means paying back the money to K-12 and on the tobacco endowment. If the Democrats can do all this, they have accomplished a lot.
But all this structural reform requires real budget choices too, while at the same time advancing DFL priorities that serve the interests of Minnesota. Governor Rudy Perpich got it right when he said it wanted Minnesota to be the brainpower state. He wanted Minnesotans to be the best educated state in the country. There are powerful correlations between education and economic development. The single best investment a state can make is in education. Thus, repaying money owed to K-12 makes sense, but it is not a blank check. Minnesota has horrible racial disparities in terms of graduation and learning outcomes. The racial disparity overlaps with class and poverty. Better education is not simply about class size, it is making sure that students come to school prepared to learn. This means healthy, clothed, and well-fed. Attend to the social service side of education. Attend also to funding early-childhood education and give students the head start they need.
But do not ignore workforce training for adults. The State needs better partnerships with business and higher education and community colleges to make it affordable for people already in the workforce to get new or additional training. Here is where adjustments to the Minnesota tax code make sense.
Minnesota also has an aging infrastructure. We already wasted money on a Vikings stadium that could have been better spent on roads and bridges. Do bonding to alleviate the increased congestion in the Twin Cities making commutes increasingly time consuming and commerce difficult. But bonding to improve the internet infrastructure in greater Minnesota is also essential. Level the playing field between brick businesses in Minnesota and Internet businesses by passing the Amazon.com bill that was debated last session.
What else should the DFL consider? It is inevitable that the wealth should pay more in taxes to fund the state. There is little empirical evidence that such taxes will hurt or deter job growth, and a lot of evidence that they are in the best position to help foot the bill for many amenities from which they benefit. The DFL should also move forward to fully implement the Affordable Care Act and perhaps even other reforms to provide more health care for all in Minnesota.
The advice for Democrats is thus simple: Do not confuse Republican rejection with Democrat mandate. Don’t overreach, attend to the economy and budget first, remember your principles, and use them to build a foundation for other changes once broad support has emerged.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Beyond Citizens United: Fixing the American elections system
Note: Today's blog originally appeared in Minnpost on November13, 2012.
In post-election statements, both Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep.-elect Rick Nolan called for campaign finance reform. They singled out the role of big money and negative ads in campaigns, demanding among other things, an overturning of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Campaign-finance reform is needed, but the American election system is broken, demanding even broader changes beyond reversing Citizens United. These changes extend to the role of money in politics, voting, and the quality of political debate and information.
Money and politics
Citizens United is one of many Supreme Court decisions that try to define the role of money and speech in American elections. Concern that money corrupts the political process goes back to the 19th century. Beginning in 1907 with the Tillman Act, federal law made it illegal for corporations to make direct political contributions to candidates for federal office. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act did the same for labor unions.
Many states have similar laws. The concern, especially with corporations, as Chief Justice Rehnquist once stated in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) is that the government might reasonably fear that a "corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed." The task is now to prevent the conversion of resources amassed in the economic marketplace from corrupting the political marketplace.
What Citizens United actually did was to say that corporations (and unions) have a First Amendment right to make direct expenditures from their treasuries to make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. The decision did not overturn the ban on direct contributions to candidates, but it overturned laws that made it illegal for corporations to spend money independently to support a candidate for office.
Is Citizens United responsible for the $6-8 billion election cycle spending that just concluded? Yes and no. Prior to Citizens United, corporations already had lots of ways of getting around the law. They could do issue ads that attacked candidates but did not expressly urge their election or defeat. They could set up political action committees. They could fund get-out-the-vote, voter-registration, and voter-education programs. Individual corporate officers could give money. There were many ways around the law.
Citizens United did not necessarily mean that more money would go into elections; instead it meant that money would enter in different ways and with less transparency. Given that it was illegal for corporations to make express advocacy independent expenditures before Citizens United, when the Supreme Court declared that ban unconstitutional there were no laws in place to force corporate disclosure. The intensity and closeness of the 2012 elections probably explains how much money was spent; Citizens United tells us about why, in part, we do not know who spent it.
In addition the Citizens United decision was built upon in a 2010 Court of Appeals decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, that allowed for the creation of Super PACS that could accept unlimited political donations from corporations, unions and individuals to engage in independent expenditure express advocacy. With limited disclosure and often innocuous sounding names, these groups provided another outlet for money.
Finally, the transparency problem with money was exacerbated in 2012 by the misuse and hijacking of nonprofits. Basically, there are two types of nonprofits under the federal tax code. Entities classified as 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in partisan politics as a condition of donations to them being tax deductible. But contributions to nonprofits classified as 501(c)(4)s are not tax deductible, and they may engage in partisan politics and endorse candidates for office so long as that political activity is not a major purpose of their activity.
There is extremely limited disclosure required on nonprofits in terms of donors, and there are no contribution limits to them. Corporations and wealthy donors used them as laundering mechanisms to escape disclosure requirements.
So what could be done on campaign finance? More disclosure is needed and efforts to pass the Disclose Act to force that is a first step. But partisan opposition to it in Congress has prevented that. Overturn Citizens United? That requires a constitutional amendment and that means two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and ratification of three-fourths of the states. Little chance there. The Supreme Court could reverse itself, but unless President Obama can replace a conservative Supreme Court Justice, that option, too, looks unlikely.
Yet President Obama could act on his own to mitigate some of the problem. He could issue a procurement rule barring corporations from making express advocacy independent expenditures above a certain dollar amount as a condition of bidding on federal contracts. Here the issue is about conflict of interest.
Additionally, he could direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to engage in rule-making to require shareholder assent before expending money for political purposes. The issue here is protecting the First Amendment rights of shareholders not to have their money spent for political causes they do not support. This rule would parallel those already found with unions and their members.
Third, Congress could change the tax code to require more disclosure for nonprofits that use money for political purposes. The president alone might also be able to direct the IRS to do that.
Voting
The defeat of the voter ID amendment is a rare victory in the battle to fight the second great wave of disenfranchisement in American history. The first wave was after the Civil War and when Reconstruction ended. It ushered in the Jim Crow era and a 100-year effort to prevent African-Americans from voting.
Voter ID, based on the erroneous claim of widespread voter fraud, is one part of this disenfranchisement. Across the United States in the last few years many states have enacted voter ID and other laws such as cutting back on early voting and restricting voter registration drives. Pre-election voting-rights litigation was significant in 2012. The United States effectively has 50 different state laws regarding voting. Were it not that Obama won the 2012 presidential race so decisively, problems this year in Florida would be holding up the election results yet again.
One solution is to use federal voting rules and procedures. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate federal elections. Congress could construct rules regarding voter eligibility, ban voter ID, allow for early voting, or whatever else it wants to do. Uniformity and fairness across states in elections too.
Political speech and rhetoric
The final critique is that political campaigns have become too negative and nasty. Maybe. They are tame by comparison to the 19th century. But there are limits regarding what can be done to regulate political speech. The Supreme Court correctly in its 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan gave broad First Amendment protection to speech that criticizes public officials and candidates. A free society should encourage robust political debate, and it should be the people and not judges or government officials who decide what is true. Moreover, attack ads will continue to be used so long as they are effective and voters respond to them.
The bigger problem now is that voters have developed partisan choices when it comes to the consumption of news. The world is increasingly divided between FOX and MSNBC. It seems all of us want our own truth now. The rise of the new and social media has done little to encourage voters to seek out alternative information.
One solution to this would be to reinstate the fairness doctrine and vigorously enforce the equal time doctrine, requiring television and radio to offer opposing viewpoints. The public has a First Amendment right to a diversity of viewpoints and broadcasters, as a condition of holding a license, should be required to honor this.
Overall, Klobuchar and Nolan are correct that the American elections system is a mess. But the causes are varied and the fixes more complex than they realize.
In post-election statements, both Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep.-elect Rick Nolan called for campaign finance reform. They singled out the role of big money and negative ads in campaigns, demanding among other things, an overturning of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Campaign-finance reform is needed, but the American election system is broken, demanding even broader changes beyond reversing Citizens United. These changes extend to the role of money in politics, voting, and the quality of political debate and information.
Money and politics
Citizens United is one of many Supreme Court decisions that try to define the role of money and speech in American elections. Concern that money corrupts the political process goes back to the 19th century. Beginning in 1907 with the Tillman Act, federal law made it illegal for corporations to make direct political contributions to candidates for federal office. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act did the same for labor unions.
Many states have similar laws. The concern, especially with corporations, as Chief Justice Rehnquist once stated in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) is that the government might reasonably fear that a "corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed." The task is now to prevent the conversion of resources amassed in the economic marketplace from corrupting the political marketplace.
What Citizens United actually did was to say that corporations (and unions) have a First Amendment right to make direct expenditures from their treasuries to make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for office. The decision did not overturn the ban on direct contributions to candidates, but it overturned laws that made it illegal for corporations to spend money independently to support a candidate for office.
Is Citizens United responsible for the $6-8 billion election cycle spending that just concluded? Yes and no. Prior to Citizens United, corporations already had lots of ways of getting around the law. They could do issue ads that attacked candidates but did not expressly urge their election or defeat. They could set up political action committees. They could fund get-out-the-vote, voter-registration, and voter-education programs. Individual corporate officers could give money. There were many ways around the law.
Citizens United did not necessarily mean that more money would go into elections; instead it meant that money would enter in different ways and with less transparency. Given that it was illegal for corporations to make express advocacy independent expenditures before Citizens United, when the Supreme Court declared that ban unconstitutional there were no laws in place to force corporate disclosure. The intensity and closeness of the 2012 elections probably explains how much money was spent; Citizens United tells us about why, in part, we do not know who spent it.
In addition the Citizens United decision was built upon in a 2010 Court of Appeals decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, that allowed for the creation of Super PACS that could accept unlimited political donations from corporations, unions and individuals to engage in independent expenditure express advocacy. With limited disclosure and often innocuous sounding names, these groups provided another outlet for money.
Finally, the transparency problem with money was exacerbated in 2012 by the misuse and hijacking of nonprofits. Basically, there are two types of nonprofits under the federal tax code. Entities classified as 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from engaging in partisan politics as a condition of donations to them being tax deductible. But contributions to nonprofits classified as 501(c)(4)s are not tax deductible, and they may engage in partisan politics and endorse candidates for office so long as that political activity is not a major purpose of their activity.
There is extremely limited disclosure required on nonprofits in terms of donors, and there are no contribution limits to them. Corporations and wealthy donors used them as laundering mechanisms to escape disclosure requirements.
So what could be done on campaign finance? More disclosure is needed and efforts to pass the Disclose Act to force that is a first step. But partisan opposition to it in Congress has prevented that. Overturn Citizens United? That requires a constitutional amendment and that means two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and ratification of three-fourths of the states. Little chance there. The Supreme Court could reverse itself, but unless President Obama can replace a conservative Supreme Court Justice, that option, too, looks unlikely.
Yet President Obama could act on his own to mitigate some of the problem. He could issue a procurement rule barring corporations from making express advocacy independent expenditures above a certain dollar amount as a condition of bidding on federal contracts. Here the issue is about conflict of interest.
Additionally, he could direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to engage in rule-making to require shareholder assent before expending money for political purposes. The issue here is protecting the First Amendment rights of shareholders not to have their money spent for political causes they do not support. This rule would parallel those already found with unions and their members.
Third, Congress could change the tax code to require more disclosure for nonprofits that use money for political purposes. The president alone might also be able to direct the IRS to do that.
Voting
The defeat of the voter ID amendment is a rare victory in the battle to fight the second great wave of disenfranchisement in American history. The first wave was after the Civil War and when Reconstruction ended. It ushered in the Jim Crow era and a 100-year effort to prevent African-Americans from voting.
Voter ID, based on the erroneous claim of widespread voter fraud, is one part of this disenfranchisement. Across the United States in the last few years many states have enacted voter ID and other laws such as cutting back on early voting and restricting voter registration drives. Pre-election voting-rights litigation was significant in 2012. The United States effectively has 50 different state laws regarding voting. Were it not that Obama won the 2012 presidential race so decisively, problems this year in Florida would be holding up the election results yet again.
One solution is to use federal voting rules and procedures. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate federal elections. Congress could construct rules regarding voter eligibility, ban voter ID, allow for early voting, or whatever else it wants to do. Uniformity and fairness across states in elections too.
Political speech and rhetoric
The final critique is that political campaigns have become too negative and nasty. Maybe. They are tame by comparison to the 19th century. But there are limits regarding what can be done to regulate political speech. The Supreme Court correctly in its 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan gave broad First Amendment protection to speech that criticizes public officials and candidates. A free society should encourage robust political debate, and it should be the people and not judges or government officials who decide what is true. Moreover, attack ads will continue to be used so long as they are effective and voters respond to them.
The bigger problem now is that voters have developed partisan choices when it comes to the consumption of news. The world is increasingly divided between FOX and MSNBC. It seems all of us want our own truth now. The rise of the new and social media has done little to encourage voters to seek out alternative information.
One solution to this would be to reinstate the fairness doctrine and vigorously enforce the equal time doctrine, requiring television and radio to offer opposing viewpoints. The public has a First Amendment right to a diversity of viewpoints and broadcasters, as a condition of holding a license, should be required to honor this.
Overall, Klobuchar and Nolan are correct that the American elections system is a mess. But the causes are varied and the fixes more complex than they realize.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Now What? Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota
The Marriage amendment was defeated and Democrats took control of both houses of the Minnesota legislature and also control all the executive branch constitutional offices. Advocates of same-sex marriage say the time is now and that the DFL should not simply repeal the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) but move directly to legalize same-sex marriage. Should that be at the top of DFL agenda come January? Reasons bode in favor and against this choice.
The cause is worthy. This is a major civil rights issue not a political question. As Vice President Dick Cheney said: “Freedom means freedom for everyone.” It is wrong and impossible to say to one group: “Wait, Wait, the time is not right.” But the fact is, the next move on same-sex marriage in Minnesota may be more complex.
Strike while the iron is hot and the momentum strong, according to GLBT activists. Momentum is important. It might also be that the time to act is now, that this is an issue that is the right thing to do even if it means losing the majority in the House in two years. Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill fully cognizant, as he said, that it would cost the Democrats the South. He signed it and it did. Maybe the DFL should demonstrate the same courage. That is a reasonable position to take and maybe worth it.
But voter rejection of the Marriage Amendment does not necessarily mean majority support for same-sex marriage. Lots of people voted against the amendment for lots of reasons and not all for the reason that they supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Some thought the amendment route was wrong or that it was not needed because of DOMA and a court decision in Minnesota making it illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Yes it is the case that the right to marry should not be contingent upon majority assent. But it is not clear the public supports this next step yet. It is also not clear the DFL have the votes to secure legalization. It is also the case that election of a DFL majority in the legislature was more of a rejection of the Republicans than support for the Democrats. Cautious minds might bode against this strategy for fear of backlash or overreach.
But even if the votes are not there now, begin the battle. Introduce the legislation and work on public opinion. So many times the rule at the capitol is that laws do not pass the first year. Again a reasonable strategy.
So what should the DFL do? There are four options.
Option one is seek GOP support for legalization and only pursue with their support. The GOP nationally and in MN are in bad shape, out of touch demographically and way behind the times in support from young people because of gay rights and same-sex marriage. Follow the path of New York State and move for bipartisan support. Let Republicans join in sponsoring the bill.
Option two is to legalize same-sex marriage in all but name. Pass domestic partner legislation regardless of sexual orientation or marital status. This is not marriage rights but it grants benefits to couples even if they choose not to marry. This approach might be more acceptable to many Republicans, but not necessarily to marriage equality advocates. This is a half-way step that perhaps builds momentum for full marriage equality. Conversely, for some this is government getting o ut of the marriage game altogether and maybe that is a viable route.
Option three is wait for the US Supreme Court. It will been soon–perhaps sooner than many think–that it will strike down bans on same-sex marriage under the US Constitution. I have argued for two years that Justice Kennedy will do that in a 5-4 vote before he leaves the Court. Or maybe he or another conservative justice will retire under Obama’s presidency and provide the fifth vote for this.
Option four is do nothing. This sounds cautious but Obama paid a price with young people in not moving vigorously on gay rights. If the DFL does nothing it too risks backlash within its own party and among supporters.
All four options carry risks and the DFL cannot avoid making a choice.
Final thoughts on the Amendments: Supports of the two constitutional amendments got everything they wanted but still lost. They said they wanted the people to decide and they did. They got their preferred wording (title and description) on the Amendments and they lost. Now the claim is that there were lies and disinformation by opponents. The reality is that they lost in the marketplace of ideas.
Announcement: Since 1999 I have been a professor at Hamline University in the School of Business teaching graduate students. I am pleased to announce that beginning in the fall 2013 I will be moving to the Hamline University Department of Political Science where I will be again teaching undergraduate students. I have enjoyed my time in the School of Business but it will be exciting to be back in political science working with undergraduates again.
The cause is worthy. This is a major civil rights issue not a political question. As Vice President Dick Cheney said: “Freedom means freedom for everyone.” It is wrong and impossible to say to one group: “Wait, Wait, the time is not right.” But the fact is, the next move on same-sex marriage in Minnesota may be more complex.
Strike while the iron is hot and the momentum strong, according to GLBT activists. Momentum is important. It might also be that the time to act is now, that this is an issue that is the right thing to do even if it means losing the majority in the House in two years. Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill fully cognizant, as he said, that it would cost the Democrats the South. He signed it and it did. Maybe the DFL should demonstrate the same courage. That is a reasonable position to take and maybe worth it.
But voter rejection of the Marriage Amendment does not necessarily mean majority support for same-sex marriage. Lots of people voted against the amendment for lots of reasons and not all for the reason that they supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Some thought the amendment route was wrong or that it was not needed because of DOMA and a court decision in Minnesota making it illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Yes it is the case that the right to marry should not be contingent upon majority assent. But it is not clear the public supports this next step yet. It is also not clear the DFL have the votes to secure legalization. It is also the case that election of a DFL majority in the legislature was more of a rejection of the Republicans than support for the Democrats. Cautious minds might bode against this strategy for fear of backlash or overreach.
But even if the votes are not there now, begin the battle. Introduce the legislation and work on public opinion. So many times the rule at the capitol is that laws do not pass the first year. Again a reasonable strategy.
So what should the DFL do? There are four options.
Option one is seek GOP support for legalization and only pursue with their support. The GOP nationally and in MN are in bad shape, out of touch demographically and way behind the times in support from young people because of gay rights and same-sex marriage. Follow the path of New York State and move for bipartisan support. Let Republicans join in sponsoring the bill.
Option two is to legalize same-sex marriage in all but name. Pass domestic partner legislation regardless of sexual orientation or marital status. This is not marriage rights but it grants benefits to couples even if they choose not to marry. This approach might be more acceptable to many Republicans, but not necessarily to marriage equality advocates. This is a half-way step that perhaps builds momentum for full marriage equality. Conversely, for some this is government getting o ut of the marriage game altogether and maybe that is a viable route.
Option three is wait for the US Supreme Court. It will been soon–perhaps sooner than many think–that it will strike down bans on same-sex marriage under the US Constitution. I have argued for two years that Justice Kennedy will do that in a 5-4 vote before he leaves the Court. Or maybe he or another conservative justice will retire under Obama’s presidency and provide the fifth vote for this.
Option four is do nothing. This sounds cautious but Obama paid a price with young people in not moving vigorously on gay rights. If the DFL does nothing it too risks backlash within its own party and among supporters.
All four options carry risks and the DFL cannot avoid making a choice.
Final thoughts on the Amendments: Supports of the two constitutional amendments got everything they wanted but still lost. They said they wanted the people to decide and they did. They got their preferred wording (title and description) on the Amendments and they lost. Now the claim is that there were lies and disinformation by opponents. The reality is that they lost in the marketplace of ideas.
Announcement: Since 1999 I have been a professor at Hamline University in the School of Business teaching graduate students. I am pleased to announce that beginning in the fall 2013 I will be moving to the Hamline University Department of Political Science where I will be again teaching undergraduate students. I have enjoyed my time in the School of Business but it will be exciting to be back in political science working with undergraduates again.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
A mandate or a rejection? Lessons from the 2012 elections
Today's post appeared as a guest commentary on November 7, 2012 in Minnpost.
For a year that was not supposed to be theirs, the Democrats appeared to do well across the country and in Minnesota. But while the Democrats may conclude that it was a mandate for them, it is possible that their success was more a rejection of the Republicans. The election returns thus provide important lessons for both of the parties both across the country and in Minnesota.
At the presidential level, President Barack Obama scored a decisive Electoral College victory but a narrow popular-vote win (50%-48%, according to the New York Times). His margin was far less than in 2008, and the total number of votes he received in 2012 was 60 million compared to 69.5 million. Not the numbers of a mandate.
In so many ways this was a campaign he should have lost. Obama had economic numbers that doom most presidents, the public did not like his handling of the economy, and Obama never articulated the case for why he deserved four more years. All this Mitt Romney seized on in his campaign. But Obama won because the public never really liked Romney as a person, he never connected with the average voter, and he, too, lacked a compelling narrative for why he should be president. In too many ways, the rival arguments for Obama and Romney as to why they should be president came down to “I am not the other guy.”
Moreover, Romney proved to be a horrible campaigner. In the end he only won one swing state. Obama out-organized Romney and used better math and tracking to locate voters. One of the major stories in 2012 is that the polls called it exactly correct nationally and across the states. Republicans were in constant denial about the polls but they were wrong. Moving forward they need better field operations and campaign information.
The soul searching for the Republican Party thus begins again, much like four years ago. In 2008 the conclusion was that McCain was not conservative enough, so in 2012 the GOP base – now dominated by Tea Party activists – toyed with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum before settling on a candidate who did not enthuse them or the American public.
Romney: a caretaker candidate
Romney was a caretaker candidate en route to the 2016 elections. The Republicans are an old, white, Christian, anti-gay and anti-immigrant party out of touch with the changing American demographics. But instead of dealing with that they will move further to the right, making Paul Ryan the obvious frontrunner for 2016. He was one of the few Republican winners.
The congressional elections represented lost opportunities for Republicans. There were 33 Senate races with 23 seats held by Democrats. Republicans lost Senate races in Missouri and Indiana that they should not have. They did it by nominating candidates so out of touch with mainstream America, or with retreads such as Tommy Thompson, that even weak Democrats won.
The Senate also witnessed the loss of some moderates such as Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe. The result is a more polarized Senate with more conservative Republicans. Democrats still have control, again by default. Finally, the House represents little change from the existing one, with no party taking comfort that they achieved a real victory. More gridlock is the message, along with the reality that the 2014 elections are now less than two years away.
The most interesting of surprises: Minnesota
Minnesota turned out to be the most interesting of all surprises. The Republicans were routed. They had won surprise control over the Legislature in 2010 with talk of jobs and the economy. They failed to deliver on it, and balanced a budget with gimmicks and a government shutdown. They overreached with social issues and pushed an elections amendment and marriage amendment. Both amendments represented a go-for-broke strategy to change the Constitution permanently, and the public rejected the amendments along with the Republicans.
It is possible that this overreach cost Chip Cravaack his seat and almost unseated Michele Bachmann. Bachmann should have won big in a tailor-made district for her, coupled with her money and name recognition advantage. It is doubtful she will be chastened by her narrow escape, but she certainly is a weaker leader for the Tea Party and less a 2014 Senate threat to Sen. Al Franken than before.
Republicans have handed to the DFL the keys to the Minnesota government. Democrats control all the constitutional offices, including the governor and the Legislature. This is the first unified party control since 1990. Dayton can potentially move his agenda finally, but the Democrats should heed the lessons of the Republicans in that they need to be cautious about claims of mandates. They may have won simply because the Republicans were inept and awkward, embracing issues that fail to appeal to mainstream and centrist Minnesotans.
The mandate is not here for Democrats. Nor is there a mandate for the Republicans. Neither should assume that the election returns mean the public is happy with them. The public still wants a change, but perhaps not the type that either party wants to consider for themselves.
For a year that was not supposed to be theirs, the Democrats appeared to do well across the country and in Minnesota. But while the Democrats may conclude that it was a mandate for them, it is possible that their success was more a rejection of the Republicans. The election returns thus provide important lessons for both of the parties both across the country and in Minnesota.
At the presidential level, President Barack Obama scored a decisive Electoral College victory but a narrow popular-vote win (50%-48%, according to the New York Times). His margin was far less than in 2008, and the total number of votes he received in 2012 was 60 million compared to 69.5 million. Not the numbers of a mandate.
In so many ways this was a campaign he should have lost. Obama had economic numbers that doom most presidents, the public did not like his handling of the economy, and Obama never articulated the case for why he deserved four more years. All this Mitt Romney seized on in his campaign. But Obama won because the public never really liked Romney as a person, he never connected with the average voter, and he, too, lacked a compelling narrative for why he should be president. In too many ways, the rival arguments for Obama and Romney as to why they should be president came down to “I am not the other guy.”
Moreover, Romney proved to be a horrible campaigner. In the end he only won one swing state. Obama out-organized Romney and used better math and tracking to locate voters. One of the major stories in 2012 is that the polls called it exactly correct nationally and across the states. Republicans were in constant denial about the polls but they were wrong. Moving forward they need better field operations and campaign information.
The soul searching for the Republican Party thus begins again, much like four years ago. In 2008 the conclusion was that McCain was not conservative enough, so in 2012 the GOP base – now dominated by Tea Party activists – toyed with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum before settling on a candidate who did not enthuse them or the American public.
Romney: a caretaker candidate
Romney was a caretaker candidate en route to the 2016 elections. The Republicans are an old, white, Christian, anti-gay and anti-immigrant party out of touch with the changing American demographics. But instead of dealing with that they will move further to the right, making Paul Ryan the obvious frontrunner for 2016. He was one of the few Republican winners.
The congressional elections represented lost opportunities for Republicans. There were 33 Senate races with 23 seats held by Democrats. Republicans lost Senate races in Missouri and Indiana that they should not have. They did it by nominating candidates so out of touch with mainstream America, or with retreads such as Tommy Thompson, that even weak Democrats won.
The Senate also witnessed the loss of some moderates such as Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe. The result is a more polarized Senate with more conservative Republicans. Democrats still have control, again by default. Finally, the House represents little change from the existing one, with no party taking comfort that they achieved a real victory. More gridlock is the message, along with the reality that the 2014 elections are now less than two years away.
The most interesting of surprises: Minnesota
Minnesota turned out to be the most interesting of all surprises. The Republicans were routed. They had won surprise control over the Legislature in 2010 with talk of jobs and the economy. They failed to deliver on it, and balanced a budget with gimmicks and a government shutdown. They overreached with social issues and pushed an elections amendment and marriage amendment. Both amendments represented a go-for-broke strategy to change the Constitution permanently, and the public rejected the amendments along with the Republicans.
It is possible that this overreach cost Chip Cravaack his seat and almost unseated Michele Bachmann. Bachmann should have won big in a tailor-made district for her, coupled with her money and name recognition advantage. It is doubtful she will be chastened by her narrow escape, but she certainly is a weaker leader for the Tea Party and less a 2014 Senate threat to Sen. Al Franken than before.
Republicans have handed to the DFL the keys to the Minnesota government. Democrats control all the constitutional offices, including the governor and the Legislature. This is the first unified party control since 1990. Dayton can potentially move his agenda finally, but the Democrats should heed the lessons of the Republicans in that they need to be cautious about claims of mandates. They may have won simply because the Republicans were inept and awkward, embracing issues that fail to appeal to mainstream and centrist Minnesotans.
The mandate is not here for Democrats. Nor is there a mandate for the Republicans. Neither should assume that the election returns mean the public is happy with them. The public still wants a change, but perhaps not the type that either party wants to consider for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)