Almanac: At the Capitol

If you've opened a newspaper in the last 2 weeks you've no doubt heard the news: the DFL controlled state legislature has voted to change the name of our lovely state to "Taxapalooza," and, yes, Armageddon is on the way. Or that's what Tim Pawlenty, Ron Carey, and their Republican stooges around the state would like you to think. And, to the detriment of Minnesota, they seem to be winning the messaging war.

Although there's no doubt that the budget plan coming out of the State Legislature is going to get vetoed, I think it's an interesting study in Minnesota politics and the power of accessible messaging.

A convergence of factors have left the DFL Legislators fighting an uphill battle in selling this spending package they've cooked up:

• A one-time budget surplus has proven to be a potent talking point for the local righties despite the fact that it provides no continuing revenue and is largely eaten up by inflation. After all, why would we raise taxes when we have all this extra money to begin with?


• The Governor's occupation with a shot at VP has hardened his mind-numbingly myopic anti-tax pledge (by the way, if sticking to a promise made to a single organization to the detriment of the rest of the state isn't being beholden to special interests, I don’t know what gets you that label these days) and there's little doubt that the House and Senate's plans have a red pen coming their way.


• The potency of the phrase, "highest tax bracket in nation."


• And finally, the most significant of all the obstacles: the quick connotations that come from saying, reading, or hearing that your taxes are going up.

So, let's dive into these one by one.

First, there's no surplus, at least not in the way that one usually thinks of a surplus. The analogy I've been using is the difference between a bonus and a pay-raise. What Minnesota has on its hands is a one-time bonus for good behavior, not a pay-raise that we're going to see the fruition of every year. That means that none of this can be used to, say, raise the budget for education—we can use it to build a new school, but we can't use it to pay the teachers for that new school. And, to make the surplus even less useful, most of it is consumed by mere inflation. The force that you and I contend with every day but the government, in all its brilliance, leaves out of its budget allocations.

Second, the Governor should be governing, not kowtowing to his potential national conservative base by upholding a no-new-taxes pledge. Outside of the face-value stupidity of the pledge, the certainty of a veto that this pledge brings is what the local conservatives are using as a talking point. They argue that the House and Senate DFLers are wasting everyone's time with a budget plan they know will be vetoed. But we, as a party, should not legislate based upon the Governor's stubbornness; we should legislate based upon the needs of our citizens. We promised property-tax relief, health care reform, education solutions, and a better transportation system to the citizens that voted DFL, and that's what we're attempting to deliver, veto threat or not.

Third, the DFL Senate leadership had their heads somewhere dank and dark when they decided on pushing this tax bracket. I hate to admit it, but this just has to be said. When you're facing a Governor that has a no-new-taxes-pledge and a GOP party organization that is just itching to label you a "tax-and-spend" party, you don't propose the nation's highest income-tax bracket; you just don't. I don't know if someone dropped the ball on research, or if there's some bass-ackwards strategy behind this thing, but it is a messaging nightmare. Yes, I know, even with a 9.5% tax bracket the wealthiest, by percent, would still not have a tax burden as high as the middle class in Minnesota, but it's still an incredibly stupid plan. Not only will we almost certainly see this trumpeted in the next election cycle, even in the House races (people have a tough time separating the goings-on of the different chambers), but it significantly eases the case the GOP is making to Minnesotans. We could have done this at a slightly lower tax rate, and we should have.

Which brings me to the fourth obstacle, the tax-averse attitude of the average American. Although the Senate plan is an elaborate invitation for years of Republican talking points, the House plan is close to sheer brilliance. Without the ball-and-chain that is the "highest tax bracket" talking point, we may have had a shot (and still do) of selling the fact that the House plan raises the income taxes of less than 5% of Minnesotans and raises them only incrementally for that group. And the plan simultaneously provides significant property tax relief for over 90% of Minnesotans. So, the bottom line is that if I talk to random people on the street I can honestly tell over 9 out of 10 of them that the check they write to the State Government will actually be smaller under the House DFL's plan. I can sell that.

Ultimately this state needs more revenue. But most Minnesotans don't understand that our overall tax burden puts us in the bottom half of the states. Most Minnesotans don't know that the average state tax incidence for someone with an income of over $350,000 is 4% lower than that of someone making $50K. Most Minnesotans don't know that our economy growing slower than most American states for the first time in decades. And therein lies the fundamental problem of this DFL legislature: making the message heard. Even outside of election considerations, the only shot this legislature has of getting any of these proposals past Pawlenty is if the voters resoundingly support them. The DFL leadership needs to present Minnesotans with a compelling, easy to understand solution that they can rally behind. Fortunately, they still have a shot at winning some hearts and minds.

When this bill comes out of conference it will no doubt have a budget plan that provides significant property tax relief for the vast majority of Minnesotans, increases funding for early education drastically, puts us on the track to fixing our broken transportation system for the first time in a decade, and does it all without raising the annual taxes a cent for over 9 out of 10 of our citizens. And, much to my pleasure, it almost certainly won't have the highest tax-bracket in the nation.

The voters of Minnesota put the DFL in power in order to provide real solutions for the litany of real problems that Minnesotans face. Instead of artificially holding ourselves to special interests, we are listening and responding to the cries for help across the state. That is something that is to be applauded, and the Governor would do well to listen.

Here are the details:

ST. PAUL, MN – Growth & Justice, a public policy think tank focused on issues related to sustaining a fair, and prosperous Minnesota economy, has named Dane Smith as president. Smith, who recently concluded a 30-year career as a reporter for the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press, succeeds founder and current executive director Joel Kramer. Kramer will become chair of the organization’s board of directors for a two-year term.

"I'm excited, humbled and exhilarated by this opportunity," said Smith, whose reporting on public policy was recognized across the political spectrum as insightful and fair. "It's a bit like walking onto the field as a player after a 30-year career in the press box.

"Tax fairness and the issues surrounding government's proper role in society were among my favorite issues as a reporter. I understand the importance of smart public-sector investment that can help all Minnesotans improve their lives and strengthen the state’s economy, and I’m honored to take on the leadership of an organization committed to that great purpose."

Kramer said that the board began discussing leadership succession about a year ago during the nonprofit’s strategic planning process. "We agreed that Growth and Justice was no longer a start-up and had tremendous potential to grow in size and influence. We concluded that new leadership could provide fresh energy and perspective to drive that growth."

After a search conducted by Rebecca Yanisch at KeyStone Search, the search committee recommended Smith, and the board approved him today, effective the end of April.

"Dane brings a deep understanding of state policy, politics and media to this job, along with an outstanding network of people who respect his work," Kramer said.

Smith said that he is particularly excited about two new Growth and Justice projects that he said "lie at the heart of its mission." "Rethinking Public Education'' aims to create an evidence-based consensus on how to invest in getting many more Minnesotans to attain postsecondary degrees. "Governing with Accountability'" will recommend how to improve government performance and accountability for the results of public investments, especially in the critical areas of education, transportation and health care.

Although questions about her experience, management style, and objectivity only surfaced publicly the first week of April, any sharp-eyed news consumer could have foreseen trouble brewing for Rachel Paulose, the new U.S. Attorney for Minnesota.

Paulose, of course, has been the center of negative publicity following the voluntary self-demotion of three administrators in the U.S. Attorney's office. All three chose to go back to prosecuting cases rather than spend any more time working at close quarters with the 34-year-old experience-challenged Paulose, who apparently combines a dictatorial and sometimes abusive management style with an unfortunate tendency to read Bible passages aloud during meetings with her subordinates. Since then, we have also heard more about her lavish swearing-in ceremony where she ordered up a Marine Corps color guard and a choir to serenade her into office; her case has also been caught up in the swirl of controversy over the firing of U.S. Attorneys and their replacement by "loyal Bushies," in whose number I'm certain we can include Paulose, given that her principal qualification for her current position seems to have been that she was a protégé of infamous perjurer and soon-to-be-ex Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Paulose, whose lack of judgement includes calling attention to herself when anonymity might have been her best ally, planted herself front and center in a page 1 story about child pornography in the March 3 edition of the Star-Tribune. Upstaging the work of prosecutors that had already occurred or was well along by the time she appeared on the scene in Minnesota last spring, Paulose was quoted in the article declaring that "no sentence would ever be long enough for a person who takes the innocence of a child." This categorical statement was a natural follow on to Paulose's work with Gonzales: before leaving the AG's office, she had been involved in efforts to stiffen penalties for production, distribution or possession of child pornography. The precise term Paulose has used for her objective was to secure "righteous sentences" for those convicted of these crimes.

Now, there is something peculiarly creepy about child pornography. I certainly agree that those who produce and traffic in the stuff need to be locked up, though whether for longer than people convicted of first-degree homicide is another question altogether. And those who willingly possess child pornography are certainly in need of treatment and, perhaps, incarceration. But —­ excuse me — ­ a term like "righteous sentences" has absolutely no place in the American system of jurisprudence. "Righteous sentences" is the language of theocracy, of "Biblical law," of Sharia ­ — of a fundamentalist mindset that sees no divide between religion and secular life. It certainly is not the language of a secular democratic republic, which happens to be the system of governance bequeathed to us by the Founders, whatever ahistorical fantasies might be harbored by Pat Robertson and graduates of Regents law school. In our system — ­ as opposed to the one that the Bush Administration has been trying to cram down our throats ­ — the law is impartial, its officers charged with enforcement, investigation, and prosecution when appropriate. It is most decidedly not the job of U.S. Attorneys ­ — or Attorneys General, for that matter ­ — to decide for us what constitutes righteousness.

Paulose, then, is another example of the way the Bush Administration ­ — which, like the mullahs in Iran, exhibits equal measures of fundamentalism, corruption, cynicism and a thuggish disregard for the rule of law ­ — has attempted to subvert our judicial system, transforming it into an instrument of narrow ideological and partisan forces.

It should also come as no surprise that Paulose, like the Bush Administration attorneys who have helpfully rewritten the rules concerning torture and repealed our 800 year tradition of habeas corpus, is a member of the Federalist Society. Usually described in the mainstream media as a "conservative" legal organization, the Federalist Society is no such thing. It is an extremist group (Ann Coulter's a member ­ — (Enuff said!)) openly committed to the destruction of the separation of powers and its replacement with a Presidency tantamount to an elected dictatorship under the deceptively mild sounding term "unitary executive."

Far from conservative, the society is the bastard child of the Jacobins of Revolutionary France ­ — the folks who popularized the use of Terror to enforce republican "virtue" ­ — and Leninist "cadres" leading the rest of society sheep-like toward the promised land of Paradise on Earth. A member of the Federalist Society has no more place in the judicial system than a member of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party.

And that means there is no place in the U.S. Attorney's office for Ms. Paulose. It's time to send her packing.