Change That Will Bankrupt You

On Monday (12/1) I got the following email from my former State House Rep (yes I am still on his email list).

The biggest issue of the upcoming 2009 legislative session will be how to balance the budget. As we approach the start of session in January, the scope of what we face is coming into focus. Here is the latest
information: The state collected $31.4 million less in taxes than had been expected for the month of October. This is the first time that tax receipts have fallen below predictions since the state rolled over its calendar into a new fiscal year on July 1....
On December 4, a complete budget forecast will be released that predicts how much tax money the state will collect versus the expected growth in government spending. It is widely believed that this will show spending outpacing revenue by a billion dollars or more. Unlike the federal government, Minnesota has to have a balanced budget. We can*t just spend away and run up massive deficits with no regard for how to pay them back. It also means that we have to make tough decisions every two years about how we tax our citizens and how we spend that money.

Pardon the interruption but I have to remind you all that two years ago when the House DFL caucus was handed an overwhelming majority, the State of Minnesota had an almost $2.2 BILLION DOLLAR surplus! Even then, Rep. Beard was warning about the pending recession (as I remarked here). The DFL Majority, in their eternal wisdom, went on a spending spree of epic proportions. Well on Thursday, the Strib reported the grim forecast - Minnesota went from a $2.2 billion dollar surplus in February of 2007 to an almost $6 billion dollar DEFICIT! That is a turnaround of over $8 billion dollars in less than two years!

My good friend Gary Gross has a couple of posts up about his State Senator Tarryl Clark from this week. She has alternately said that there is "no fat" to be trimmed from the state budget to "she" won't raise taxes in light of this record deficit and then points out that the House DFL Caucus doesn't have a lot of credibility when it comes to that pledge.

The week ended with this email update from SD35's other wonderful representative - Mark Buesgens.

Our government is in a deep, deep financial hole, and the first step to climbing out of it is to stop digging it even deeper. Spending went up almost 10 percent in the last two years, and 12 percent in the two years before that. In just the last four years, state spending has increased by a whopping $ 6.5 billion dollars. If the Legislature and the Governor could simply agree to go back to the 2005 spending level, we would be looking at a $1.3 billion dollar surplus.
Government’s role in helping our state achieve more prosperous times is to focus on taking actions that preserve liberty, ensure public safety and develop the necessary infrastructure for a vibrant economy.
Minnesotans are industrious, intelligent and hard-working. Provide them with the conditions for success and they will succeed. The attitude by some politicians that the people are ‘victims’ and government must save them by creating more programs and more spending will only prolong and deepen the current financial crisis. That attitude must be utterly rejected.

Put down the shovels indeed. Unfortunately that is a trait that the Minnesota Legislature is not prone to taking. The Minnesota budget has swung from big surplus to big deficit for years. From the top of the biggest wave to the bottom, the budget has gone from one extreme to the other...but what (if anything can be done)?

Simply put the Minnesota Legislature needs to learn how to truly balance a budget so that it is not tossed about like a reed in the ocean every time the economy hits a bubble or a burst! It needs to save during the good times so that it is able to weather the bad - just like normal, responsible taxpayers do.

In 2006, the voters of Minnesota voted for change. How are you liking that change?

Mark Buesgens Q&A

The Jordan Independent recently published a Q&A that the publisher had with HD35 B incumbent Mark Buesgens. A couple of the questions were standard boilerplate but the answers remind voters about what they like about Rep. Buesgens.

JI: Why are you a Republican?

MB: I passionately believe in the vision of a governmental structure created by our brilliant founders – one where all power rests with the people and government’s first role is to ensure their liberties and freedoms. A government focused on a few key priorities and held highly accountable for every taxpayer dollar that is spent. The Republican Party’s platform best fits these principles and values, and I’m proud to be endorsed by Scott County Republicans.

Now many of us would argue that the Republican Party Platform still fits the principles of small, accountable government given what we have seen out of the last 8 years but I know that there are many who are working at fixing that. His next answer goes right to that...

JI: Are there any areas in which you disagree with the main party line or you think Republicans have gone astray in state government?

MB: One, of course, is on the issue of gaming, and I’ll expand on that in question 6. A second is ethanolmandates, which have driven up the prices of corn, beef, and other commodities, benefiting a few while harming many, including farmers. A third would be the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, which I believe is a dangerous precedent in government controlling what you can and cannot do on your own private property.

These are just two issues that has gotten Governor Pawlenty in very hot water with his base over the last couple of years. It has become a very real problem for the moderate wing of the Republican Party that they need to address or they run the risk of being minimized again.

Then the interview touches on the last legislative session and what lies in store for the next one.

JI: What did the Minnesota Legislature do right and wrong last session?

MB: The legislature did add additional protections for families of Minnesotans serving in the military, and that was a positive. However, they were very wrong in increasing government spending by almost 10 percent, while the families and business who pay the tab are struggling to make ends meet. The current mindset in St. Paul of putting government before its citizens must be rejected and completely turned around, and I’ll work tirelessly to do so.

JI: The state will likely see another deficit this coming session. How should it be handled?

MB: By downsizing government and cutting taxes. Our government needs to stop doing everything they deem as nice, and zero in on what is necessary. Politicians need to realize that when government coffers are running low, most likely so are family wallets. I will passionately advocate for putting the family budget far ahead of the government trough.

There were many who tried to raise the alarm about growing government so significantly during and economic downturn but those warnings were ignored. Now the state is in dire straits - with businesses leaving the state or downsizing and tax collections way down. The Legislature has no choice but to cut back on current spending and put future spending wants on hold. However, as we saw last year, the current leadership in the House (more on that later).

The one issue that gets Mark in "trouble" with some in his base (and those on the left) is the Racino. Here is Mark's answer to that.

JI: One of the major differences between your opponent and you is your support for permitting Canterbury Park to operate a racino, which would have slot machines. Why are you a proponent of that?

MB: It’s pretty simple: Racino would add 1,300 new jobs to the area. The equestrian center that would be built would be a huge boost to the entertainment facilities in Scott County and boost the equine industry statewide. This would greatly help our local and the state’s economy. With Mystic Lake, Canterbury Park and pull tabs and scratch-offs at every gas station around, to say this would “expand gaming” is very disingenuous.

I happen to agree with Mark on this issue (some will be shocked that I agree with him I know...). As a horse person, I have long supported Canterbury Park in this. The jobs and the income (via horse shows and events) that the equestrian center would bring to the area would be a huge benefit for Scott County. Most people who show horses spend a lot of money at shows (I know the people I showed with did). It would be a huge boom for the local economy.

While most of the questions (and answers) were no real surprise to anyone who has known Representative Buesgens for any length of time, it was a good thing for the Jordan Independent to remind the voters just who is representing them and let them know just what he stands for. That is what the press is supposed to be doing (as opposed to trying to make news themselves). It is nice to see this happening.

Friends Of The Constitution - Minnesota Style

Congratulations to this years group of Minnesota Legislative Evaluation Assembly honorees. I was especially happy to see Scott County's own Mike Beard, Mark Buesgens and Laura Brod (ok - I know it's a stretch to include Laura since such a tiny portion of her district is in Scott County but we love her anyway) on the list.

Senate: Chris Gerlach, David W. Hann (100%), Debbie J. Johnson, Michael J. Jungbauer, Amy T. Koch, Warren Limmer (100%), Julianne E. Ortmann, Ray Vandeveer.

House: Bruce Anderson, Michael Beard, Laura Brod, Mark Buesgens (100%) Matt Dean, Chris DeLaForest, Steve Drazkowski, Rob Eastlund, Sondra Erickson, Brad Finstad, Pat Garofalo, Tom Hackbarth (100%), Mary Liz Holberg, Joe Hoppe, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson (100%), Joyce Peppin, Marty Seifert, Ron Shimanski, Kurt Zellers. Honorable Mention: Bob Dettmer.

The criteria for this honor includes:

LEA bases its evaluation on the traditional American principles of constitutionalism, limited government, free enterprise, legal and moral order with justice and individual liberty and dignity.

Their take on the past legislative session mirrors that of many Minnesotans....

The 2008 legislative session ended with great fanfare and the legislators and the governor declared it a victory. But, from the perspective of LEA, it was a travesty. The legislature made pronouncements on how families should be organized, how their health should be managed, how the state should bail out loan failures, what children should be taught, how babies should be monitored, and why the DNA of everyone should be kept by the State. It was an assault on civil rights and liberties. It was a triumph of the state over its people, not a government of the people.

Legislation was enacted that ignored and circumvented established Constitutional checks and balances. By proposing specific taxes be made part of the Constitution, they evaded a veto by the governor. The new tax would provide a $200 million per year to newly appointed committees that would spend those funds on the arts and the environment. Legislation is increasingly directed at special interests, at the expense of taxpaying citizens. House File 1812, the Omnibus Budget Bill that got so heated it was dubbed the “war of 1812,” made it through the legislature and was signed into law despite a challenge for violating the “single-subject rule.” The elites who expect money for their councils, their programs, their departments, and their corporations were the real winners. They got nearly everything they asked for in omnibus bills packed with enough pork to entice a majority vote. Individually, most of the items would not have passed on merit. The state budget increased 9.8% despite economic turmoil causing citizens to make personal budgetary cutbacks.

The legislators ignored warnings of an expected two billion dollar shortfall in 2009. Rather than developing a strategy of spending cuts they compounded the problem by spending a billion dollar surplus on new programs. Additionally, the state borrowed money to buy more parkland when a surplus of parks exists, and purchased equipment with loans that go beyond its life expectancy. Because bond interest doubles the cost of purchases, bonds should only be used to pay for facilities that will generate enough use to cover the costs. Irresponsible borrowing places burdens on future generations. Another tax burden became entrenched in a bill that requires the state to cover half the of the operating deficits of any light rail lines. This not only bails out a financially unsound transportation system, but taxes people who have no use for light rail. This is a characteristic of a socialist regime, not a republic, and is not in keeping with the credo of LEA.

Minnesota voters should take this into account when they go into the polling boothes in November.

When PseudoRepublicans Attack

I got an email from a reader, friend and fellow SD35 grass roots activist. It was a copy of an email that she had gotten from former Representative and current candidate Tom Rees. She sent it to me because she knew about the past issues that I had documented about Mr. Rees and his personal vendetta against current HD35B Representative (and staunch conservative) Mark Buesgens. This email is a continuation of an attack on the local BPOU that he started two years ago when he first unsuccessfully ran agaist Rep. Buesgens.

Dear Scott County Republican:
The Republican State Convention is now history. I trust that you were able to share some Good time (sic) with people of similar political beliefs. Our partys governance principles remain the Best hope for your grandkids and mine.
There was a time not too long ago when Scott County was a hostile place for

Republicans. As the first Scott County legislator elected with a party labelI know how it was. For example, in Shakopee when I was door knocking a person of different political persuasion Grabbed a baseball bat and chased me nearly a city block screaming to “Get out of town!” I was cursed and spat upon several times by Savage residents when I identified myself with the Republican Party. It was a different time and place.
Now we are facing another low point for our party on the national level. I believe we

Have had local electoral success for several reasons: (1) A superior Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Effort that overcomes a numbers deficiency by generating a larger turnout of those people that Tend to vote Republican; (2) A rather philosophical DFL local party many that I know personally That simply are not the “get your hands dirty” type of political worker(3) Candidates that for the Most part adhered to the Republican Party of Minnesota Party Platformand (4) A small group of

Hard working advocates.
However I submit that the local party leadership has squandered organizational opportunities. First the notion that the formal Party leadership should include elected officials who are endorsed by the organization. The result is inevitably loyalty to the official/candidate rather than the Party philosophy when the local Party organization becomes the campaign structure for the candidate that the narrowed involvement ultimately hurts the effort by shutting out those individuals that may have talents that would serve the Party and the public more effectively.
Second opportunity is the “Search Committee” function of the BPOU. This activity is the way party loyalty is built and future success! I don't mean the sop to precinct requests to at least have a Search Committee meeting scheduled less than two hours before the endorsement but to Show that the incumbents own the party. Each time I received a party endorsement it was the party members given the opportunity to get to know the candidates that chose me to represent the

party principles even though I may not agree with every item on the platform, I was the Best to bring the Party message to the constituency. The local Party’s Constitution identifies the Candidate Search function as one that should be assigned to one or more of the Executive Committee members. Howeverfor at least since the redistricting this important function has been Ignored.
Thank you for your consideration.

A little history on Tom Rees. Two years ago, claiming that Rep. Buesgens was not representing the HD35B, Mr. Rees went to the SD35 DEMOCRATS (so much for his loyalty to the Party philosophy) for endorsement. He never approached "his" party for endorsement - choosing instead to challenge Buesgens in a primary race. During the primary race, rather than running on issues, he made Rep. Buesgens the issue. He played the politics of fear and personal destruction - quite poorly I might add.

I can't argue with the first two paragraphs. There was a time when being a Republican in Scott County was akin to being a Republican in Ramsey County (note to Mitch - it CAN be done). However, it is the final two paragraphs that I simply must take issue with. First is the claim that the local BPOU has "squandered" organization opportunities. Given that in the 6 years I was involved in the local BPOU I only saw Mr. Rees at one convention or BPOU planning event, I am hard pressed to figure out how he even KNOWS what organizational opportunities he is talking about. In the 6 years I was involved in the BPOU, they have completely computerized their lists and developed many opportunities for the activists to get involved and get together. These opportunities were set up after input from the grass roots - input that was solicited FROM grass roots members including Mr. Rees - who chose not to reply to requests for input.

My second and third issues come in the final paragraph. First is the Search Committee function. The Candidate Search committee is a standing committee within the SD35 organization and is run solely on volunteer efforts. During the ONE AND ONLY convention that I saw Mr. Rees at (in my 6 years in the BPOU) he had the opportunity to sign up for that standing committee and again - he refused to get involved. How can you criticize a process that you know nothing about and that you have never been involved in? If he was involved in the process he also might understand the difference between an "ex officio" member of an organization and a voting member of the organization - something that activists have been trying to explain to him for the last 4 months (since the convention).

My last disagreement with him has to do with his accusation that delegates are not given adequate time to get to know people who are running for office. The candidates who are successful in running for office actually come to conventions and caucuses when they are not running - again something Mr. Rees has been reticent to do. County Commissioner Barbara Marschall is an excellent example of how to do it. Every year she is at caucus - talking to attendees and party officials alike. She comes to conventions - not as a delegate, but as a candidate whether she is running for election or not. Same thing with Rep. Mike Beard. He is always making the rounds of the caucuses, conventions and community events. People in his district know him, not because he is their elected representative in St. Paul but because he is active in the BPOU and the community - unlike Mr. Rees who does not even show up for BPOU conventions.

As I said in my post yesterday, Mr. Rees was invited to speak to the Nominations Committee of the last BPOU convention so that he would be allowed the opportunity to speak to the convention. He chose to respond to that invitation by storming out of the convention hall because the Nominations Committee would not allow him to interrogate Rep. Buesgens. These are not the actions of a serious candidate for public office. They are the actions of a gadfly - someone whose only interest is to tear down a good man and tear apart the Republican Party he claims to care about.

The Campaign Begins!

This is just a reminder of the choice that is in front of the voters in House District 35B this year.




Rep. Buesgens is faced with another primary challenge from former Representative Tom Rees. In 2006 (the last time these two faced off), Rees managed to garner 263 votes - 22.34 percent of all votes cast. During that election, Rees threw every false allegation he could think of at Rep. Buesgens - accusing him of (among other things) of stealing from his former employer. None of the charges gained any traction. He started off this campaign season with more of the same, accusing Rep. Buesgens this time of being a tax cheat both in the local papers and on this blog. Yet Mr. Rees says the district is craving "honorable" representation. What is honorable about making up false charges about your opponent????

Here is my challenge to Mr. Rees. If you really want to talk about "honorable" representation, instead of making charges about Rep. Buesgens, why don't you tell us what you would do differently if you were back in St. Paul. What votes would you have made differently? What issues would you push in St. Paul? What agenda would you promote?

While we are asking questions, let me ask this...why did you refuse to stand before the Nominations Committee at the SD35 Convention? Why did you leave the convention, rather than appearing before the assembled delegates - even after you had been specifically invited to do so? All you had to do was talk to the Nominations Committee if you wanted to be considered for Nomination. Yet instead you chose to leave the convention. Why?

Instead of engaging in the politics of fear and rumor - tell us what YOU WOULD DO to improve Scott County. I'll even remove comment moderation so that your comments will hit unedited and without delay! Go ahead - tell us what you would do differently. Can you do it?

Padding The Resume

The Minnesota Legislature recently passed HF 3902 - the Agriculture Policy bill. Tucked away in the depths of the bill (starting at line 19.19) is an addition to the Minnesota Statutes that I must admit piqued my curiosity.

19.19 Sec. 23. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 148.01, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
19.20 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of sections 148.01 to 148.10,:
19.21 (1) "chiropractic" is defined as the science of adjusting any abnormal articulations of
19.22 the human body, especially those of the spinal column, for the purpose of giving freedom 19.23 of action to impinged nerves that may cause pain or deranged function; and
19.24 (2) "animal chiropractic diagnosis and treatment" means treatment that includes,
19.25 but is not limited to, identifying and resolving vertebral subluxation complexes, spinal 19.26 manipulation, and manipulation of the extremity articulations of nonhuman vertebrates. 19.27 Animal chiropractic diagnosis and treatment does not include:
19.28 (i) performing surgery;
19.29 (ii) dispensing or administering of medications; or
19.30 (iii) performing traditional veterinary care and diagnosis.



Back in the days when I was showing and training horses, I did experiment with "alternative" medical treatments for my horses when needed. I am a huge fan of acupressure and massage therapy for animals as I have seen it work time and time again to treat things as varied as hypertension (I had a thoroughbred horse that was a nervous wreck when we first got him) to colic and related gastro intestinal distress. After 6 months of massage therapy the thoroughbred went from nervous wreck to relaxed cuddle bug (trust me....he did try to "cuddle"). The veterinary medial industry has always been quite open to non-traditional therapies. I know many people who use equine chiropractors and swear by their treatments. However, these equine chiropractors are trained veterinarians! They have gone through years of veterinary training in addition to their chiropractic training. Not so here. You have human chiropractors who are going to just take a few simple classes and then they are going to be able to treat animals.

Apparently, the discussion on the floor was "heated".

"For government to be putting this into law is ridiculous," said Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan.

This is one of those few times when I have to disagree with Rep. Buesgens but for reasons he would not expect. It is the government's place to regulate who can and can not practice procedures like this. It is part of the licensing process. Where I do agree with Rep. Buesgens is in that I don't think human chiropractors, like Rep. Jim Abeler, should be working on animals.

"Just because it is new or unusual does not mean it is not a good idea," said Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka. Abeler's a chiropractor who said that he doesn't plan to take required training to allow him to work on animals.

I agree with Rep. Abeler that we should not look at new or unusual ideas, but human physiology is very different than canine physiology which is different than feline or equine physiology! A stiff spine and hip dysplasia may appear to be the same thing, yet a chiropractic adjustment will cripple a dysplasic dog for life! Are you ready for that Rep. Abeler?

Stick to working on people Rep. Abeler. Your patients will thank you and my dogs (who may indeed someday need a canine chiropractor) will thank you!

No State Has EVER Taxed or Borrowed Its Way to Prosperity

Tax hero Rep. Mark Buesgens had a guest commentary in the Feb. 14 Shakopee Valley News (link currently unavailable) that will rock the world of all of you first principles conservatives.

This year, legislators will spend most of the session pondering which taxes to increase, debating how much money to charge the state’s credit card, and a countless variety of new laws, (i.e.: Is a sheltie more dangerous than a terrier?). However, if this legislature truly wants to make a long-term difference in people’s lives, we should devote the vast majority of our time to dealing with the economy.
It is easy to forget that a year ago we had a budget surplus that topped $2 billion. Liberal spending policies and misguided priorities burned through the entire surplus with little regard for what effect it would have on taxpayers or the economy as a whole. We will now have to deal with a $373 million budget deficit that in all likelihood will get even deeper once session begins.
As the deficit grows, the consequences of mismanaging the surplus are coming into sharper focus. We’re losing jobs, the economy is heading south and our wallets are squeezed even tighter.
So already we hear talk about more borrowing and alleged stimulus plans from state politicians who apparently cannot fathom that tax relief will stave off impeding economic doom. Perhaps if they had heeded our call for tax relief last year none of this would be necessary. Don’t count on borrowing for a solution either.
Our well-respected and nonpartisan state economist even said borrowing “provides no significant stimulus to an ailing economy.”
The facts are simple: No state has ever taxed, or borrowed, its way to prosperity. The surefire way to improve the economy can be summed up in one word: Growth.
Our economy grows when taxes are low for businesses that want to create jobs. We have to compete for jobs in a global economy, but we don’t even score well against neighboring states when it comes to a jobs-friendly tax climate. Chances are you’ve heard the radio commercials boasting about what a wonderful place South Dakota can be for a business. South Dakota doesn’t tax personal or corporate income; we tax both at some of the highest rates in the country, and for the most part higher than our neighbors. As a state we currently rank 37th in job growth. No wonder we are suffering more in this current economic climate than most around the country.
Here is another scary fact: In 1972 the top three job providers in the state of Minnesota were 3M, Honeywell and Dayton-Hudson; today three of the top five employers in the state are the State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota and the federal government. Such a dramatic change offers up two points. The first illustrates that government sprawl has gone on unchecked for far too long. Second, look at the names of those economic titans. 3M is still here, but excessive regulation threatens to drive some of their best jobs over seas. Honeywell is long gone while Dayton-Hudson is more familiar to us now as Target. It should sound a clear warning when none of these economic titans, or other business both large and small, can keep up with expanding government payrolls and the taxes we impose to afford it.
Besides low taxes, the legislature should spend time reviewing all of the regulatory burdens placed on businesses using a thorough cost-benefit analysis. We need to realize that excessive regulations produce costs that result in stagnant wages and higher costs for consumers. Eventually, business growth is stifled and, ultimately, businesses will move to a friendlier environment.
If we want this legislative session to have a long lasting, positive impact on Minnesota’s future, we must first focus on nurturing a strong economy. Failing to do so will only extend and deepen our current downturn, putting into jeopardy all the necessities and niceties that we’ve come to take for granted.

Disclosure time. Rep. Buesgens is one of the fine House Representatives from my district - 35 (Mike Beard being his seat mate and my rep). However, even if he was not one of our fine representatives, I would be singing the praises of this op-ed. Rep. Buesgens covers, in one setting, all of the things that many of us here at True North have been saying needed to be changed.

1) Mixed up priorities. This can be said of the Democratic leadership in St. Paul AND DC. Instead of releasing the $200 million of federal emergency dollars, we are debating banning certain breeds of dogs. Instead of fixing our ailing infrastructure, the Legislature is spending money on bike paths and preferred parking for hybrid cars.

2) So-called stimulus packages. The federal government is going further into debt in order to send every person in America (everyone who does not earn over $100,000 a year that is) a check for $300.00. Rather than meaningless gestures, the government should (as Rep Buesgens suggests) look at the regulation and taxation that makes it harder and harder for businesses to do business in this state and country!

3) The fact that the number 1 (2 and 3) employer in the state of Minnesota is government! Government does not produce ANYTHING so the last thing that this state needs is for the government to employ more people!

The excessive taxation that will be required to sustain the type of growth in government that our friends in the DFL want will be an economy KILLER, not savior. We need more clear headed thinkers like Rep. Buesgens in the legislature to continue to drive home this point. Then maybe we will actually have a government that serves the people, rather than having a people who are in indentured servitude to the government.