Almanac: At the Capitol

Our Brain Trust is creating a lot of chatter and loads of rebuttals. First, I'll remind you that the Brain Trust is part of our revamped website that includes a group of opinion leaders which we selected to write for us and is populated with a balance of citizens, lawmakers, bloggers, partisans and non-partisans. Former DFL Sen. Ember Reichgott Junge started it all with her posting saying: "A suburban caucus is a great step, but personal legislative experience tells me it won't be enough." Former GOP Rep. Fritz Knaak added his two cents: "But I think it's going to be much tougher to be a suburban moderate in the DFL caucus, long-term, than in the Republican one." Now, I've been heavily lobbied by former DFL Rep. Betty Folliard and friends to post her rebuttal: "Pundits are quick to pooh-pooh the fledgling legislative Suburban Caucus, but with nearly 50% of voters hailing from suburban senate districts, they may want to change their tune." Ember originally opined: "There lies the long-standing problem of suburban legislators … most are team players, they compromise, they don't like to play hardball, and they don't get the goodies in the end." Folliard responded: "Suburban legislators are accused of not knowing how to play hardball. Doubtful, though perhaps this is the birth of a new era of political discourse that denotes less discord and more discussion. " Another fun and controversial exchange started with Ember writing: "Suburban DFL members (whose constituents value getting the job done) are unlikely to publicly hold up negotiations on a major bill for their issue. It is a badge of honor for Iron Rangers and urban legislators to do so. " Folliard wrote to me: "Suburban members are smart enough to know how to triangulate- something that the Rural and Urban Caucuses have used effectively for years."

The old New Yorker cartoon went something like this: Tie loosened, belly hanging over his belt as he sits in his Lazyboy, cigarette and beer in hand, a man listens to the news on the TV in front of him. An announcer is saying: "...the explosion on the sidewalk was barely heard over passing traffic. Witnesses reported no damage or injuries. In a carefully worded statement, a moderate political group claimed responsibility for the bombing..."

The recent focus by the St. Paul Pioneer Press on the newly recreated DFL suburban caucus and The New York Times piece on Woodbury DFL legislators brought the old image back to mind: political moderates flexing muscle. What a thought!

My co-braintruster Ember Reichgott Junge has picked up on what this might mean. But I think it's going to be much tougher to be a suburban moderate in the DFL caucus, long-term, than in the Republican one.

The one issue that always comes out top in suburban polling (and this is ALL flavors of suburb: inner, outer and exer) is taxes. And even in a year where other issues can favor Democrats in areas like local government aid and roads, looking like you love taxes is sure to make you a short termer in most suburban constituencies.

Being tough on taxes is still a Republican issue and past electoral experience does show that women moderate DFLers are every bit as likely to get unelected as their male counterparts if the issue become government spending.

The good news, from a Republican perspective, is that this political reality will operate as a significant drag on DFL caucus efforts to increase revenues this year, especially if it is for something other than roads. The bad news, for Republicans, though, is what might happen if the DFL suburban legislators pull off an image where they can appear to be restraining spending and taxes overall, but are targetting increases in areas that matter most to their constituences, like roads. What it might mean is that they'll be around for awhile in a majority.

There's not a lot of experience in this new bunch, so it may be unfair to expect too much too soon. But they won't have much more than an election cycle to get their political sea legs under them before suburban DFLers will feel the heat. Republicans, who are more reliant on suburban voters than the Democrats, can't afford to wait.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has opined on the proposed DM&E expansion in the past, and it does so again today, no doubt in response to the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Rochester Coalition and the Mayo Clinic demanding that the Federal Railroad Administration comply with a 10-month-old Freedom of Information Act request asking for the railroad's financial particulars.

If the DM&E were a publicly-held company, all this information would be readily available to anyone who wanted it. But because the DM&E is privately held, it doesn't legally have to tell anyone anything except its owners about its finances and the government about its taxes.

The DM&E wants to remain a privately held corporation, and that's fine. The only problem is that it wants a huge, publicly subsidized loan to expand its operations so that it can compete with two larger, publicly-held companies, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads.