Almanac: At the Capitol

We’re at the point in the session where comments like this are mostly just trying to read the tea leaves — so I’ll keep my thoughts short.

Reviewing the last week’s conversation on education from somewhat of a distance, I’m left with two questions that I wish were front-and-center in the minds of legislators and the media who cover them. I’m glad we’re talking about education, it just seems like the conversation should be smarter.

1. What is lost if we do nothing on education? Many DFL reactions implied that we are doing pretty good already — so why the talk for radical changes from the Governor. A system that succeeds for one half the students is not good enough — not given the fundamental role that education plays in our democracy and economy. (See more from me on this at my blog.) This might mean that half the system stays about the same, but it should compel us to consider significant changes for the remaining students who fail in our current system of high school. I totally understand the DFL’s need to be skeptical of anything put forward by the other party and the other branch of government, but I wish it came with a greater sense of urgency about changing the status quo.


2. Will the proposals work — to scale?! Changing the status quo is going to take more than pilot projects put forward by the Governor or anyone — and I’m still compelled by the argument that we are likely to need new schools as much as changing the schools we have. Are the proposals put forward by anyone premised on evidence that they will work — or in the very least an absence of evidence that they don’t work? And do they offer the chance to achieve the scale of change we’ll need. We should know by now that money won’t work on its own. In fact — no single solution will work on its own.

After spending the day talking to Vikings officials at Winter Park and lawmakers at the Capitol here's what I know about the plan to build a new stadium on the site of the Metrodome. It doesn't sound like the Vikings have bill authors yet and they may have a tough time finding some. I know Sen. Linda Higgins whose district includes the Metrodome told me "no way" will she carry the bill. That's despite the fact the Vikes said they call Higgins a friend and possible author. Republicans in the House aren't interested in helping any more professional teams after losing the majority last year. Minority Leader Marty Seifert told me Republicans have "carried water on the stadium before and it's a heavy bucket" now he says it's the majority's job. The majority in the House isn't talking. The Vikings' Lester Bagley said in our interview today that the 2006 legislature set the precedent with the Twins bill and he says this is an urgent matter. Even if lawmakers approved a stadium this year Bagley says it wouldn't be complete until 2012 after their current lease expires. But many around the Capitol are saying 2008 might be better after legislators tackle their top priorities like education, health care and property taxes. The other big unknown is how a huge crop of 53 freshmen would vote on a stadium.

One of the most memorable lines in English literature is Macbeth's lamentthat life "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifyingnothing."

I love that line! I hope it's not actually true, but it captures our sense of the absurdity of much of what happens in the world.

Well, Macbeth's description of life as a whole may or may not be true, butit certainly captures the essence of the first few weeks of any given legislative session. There is relatively little that can be done on themajor task of the session — putting together the State budget — becauselegislators have to wait for the February forecast before they can start
divvying up the pie.

So inevitably much of what they do is preen and posture, float trialballoons, and try to do as much damage to their opponents as is humanlypossible without appearing to be doing so.

Of course, one of the few things the legislature can do while they are waiting for the numbers is set the rules for themselves. And this time around, one of the things they did was increase their per diems by a hefty amount. They also increased their compensation for housing, and the House made the housing allowance year-round (The Senate was already this generous).

What are they thinking? Does it really make any sense at all that the very first thing that the Legislature does when they onvene is to raise the dollar amounts going into members' pockets? What does that say about their real priorities? Or, put another way, it says that their first priority was to take care of themselves before they start taking care of business.

I won't pretend to know what the ideal level of compensation for Legislators is. And I certainly wouldn't deny that a good number of them are making huge financial sacrifices to be there — maybe more than is reasonable to ask in some cases. But I can say with absolute certainty that the decision to raise per diems and housing allowances had nothing to do with a serious
consideration of the issue of legislative compensation, and everything to do with the simple desire to use the power they had to raise their take-home pay. If they wanted to address the issue seriously, they would hold
hearings, listen to voters and experts, and make a decision based upon the available evidence.

Instead, they did it as soon as they could, and raised the amounts as much as they felt they could get away with.

How many of these guys would have told their voters that the first thing they intended to do was raise legislative compensation? Before they did a lick of work?

How many would have gotten elected if they had done so? Is it any wonder that citizens are cynical about politics and politicians? Most of the time, campaign rhetoric is nothing but "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing."

'nuff said.