BLOG: Capitol Spin, Capitol Reality

There is an old saying:

No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

This session is no exception. The DFL is in control, and aside from internal divisions on issues such as the 2nd amendment, the DFL seems united in a desire to grow government and put more of our lives under control of the state legislature. Everything from licensing bullion dealers, to giving more power to the Met Council, to "anti-bullying" legislation to unionizing independent small businesses, to more "green energy" mandates is being considered, and if the citizens don't speak up loud and clear, these and many other things will pass and be signed into law.

Today, I want to respond to a local Senator—Jim Carlson and his recent update, which I believe is more spin than fact. As with all political communication from those in power, the messaging looks more like slick marketing material than factual resports to the voters. I think his update demands a response.

I will reflect on three issues:

• The Health care "exchange"—SF 1
• Early voting and reduced election oversight—SF 535 & SF 677
• Governor Dayton's tax hikes

In all three cases, the spin dominates the news, and proponents paint a rosy picture that is not deserved.

SF 1 would establish the much-discussed health care insurance "exchange" in Minnesota (HIX). Senator Carlson claims that it:

" ...will serve one out of every five Minnesotans and create a market-based solution that will allow insurance companies to compete for business. Creating the exchange gives the Legislature a great opportunity to continue to lead the nation in healthcare coverage."

As I point out in my blog post Not What it Seems, the HIX is not about reducing costs, or better care. There is nothing in the bill that would accomplish these goals. The point and purpose of this bill is to track citizens and enforce "the mandate". It is also to track the incomes of enrolees so that subsidies can be calculated. The Minnesota HIX is an "active purchaser" model, where the only insurance available in the exchange will be the policies "chosen" by the unelected, pointedly unaccountable "board" established by the legislation.

Senator Carlson owes the citizens an explanation of exactly how this legislation will accomplish its goals. I fear that the reason Senator Carlson has not offered this information is because it isn't true.

Please show me where I am wrong.

SF 535 and SF 677 weaken the integrity and oversight portions of Minnesota election law. SF 535 changes the law on absentee and early voting to allow voters to cast their votes on days other than election day, and removes the need for an "excuse" to vote absentee. SF 677 puts limits on poll challengers, making it harder for them to become poll challengers, easier to eject them from the polling place, and fewer in number.

Let's set aside the obvious conflict between this bill change and the Minnesota constitution, which specifies an election day. Senator Carlson seems to dismiss this concern. Why? Don't we follow our constitution?

Minnesota is the only state that allows both vouching and same-day registration. The "early voting" provisions in SF 535 do not change the voter verification rules, so the minimal verification of identity required in current law will be aggravated by a much wider window to attempt fraud, with far less oversight by election judges and/or poll watchers. The carefully constructed systems to ensure the integrity of the vote on election day will effectively be swept away. If not a guarantee of future election fraud, this is an open and urgent invitation. This is only a good idea if you believe that there is zero fraud, or you believe that ease of voting is so important that fraud doesn't matter.

The spin on these bills is that there is a problem to be fixed, and it's not integrity. The proponents of these bill had darn well better be right, or we will have trouble.

Senator Carlson would do well to stake out a position on this proposal. It looks to me like it is likely to pass, with potentially disastrous effects on our election integrity.

Lastly, Gov Mark Dayton's tax plans and budget took a body blow this last week when the projected deficit was cut by half, and reporters asked the Governor if this would cause him to modify his proposals. His response spoke volumes about his agenda and priorities. His rhetoric has always been about the impossibility of balancing the budget without tax hikes, and now that the deficit is almost bite-sized, he lets slip that what he really has in mind is having more revenue to spend. Letting us keep our own money, even if not absolutely required by the state budget, was never his plan.

So much for the spin.

These tax hikes are still on the table. The net $2.2 billion hike is not pocket change. It's worse than just the money, because the business-to-business taxation, the "sin" taxes, and the taxation of services, are all targeted at focused constituencies, or people who may well vote with their feet by fleeing to less tax-hungry states.

Where does senator Carlson stand?

Spin is nice, but at some point, the rubber meets the road, and reality intrudes. The spin dominates the rhetoric, but it is the job of our representatives to be straight with us.

I anxiously await the hard facts and more details from Senator Carlson in "update #4".