Almanac: At the Capitol

$2.5 billion increase in property taxes – actual or projected
1.2 billion in fees, co-pays, cigarette fees (or whatever you call those)
.8 billion in tuition increases
.5 billion "saved" by not funding the federal special education gap

Total: $5.0 billion tax or fee increases since 2003

What a coincidence! We can't escape reality: The state has to live up to its obligations in funding education, health care, transportation, and property tax relief. We either live up to our obligations or shift them. We've been shifting them for the past five years. Now let's restore our integrity and do what needs to be done.

While I generally applaud what Democrats are doing at the statehouse, I'm also deeply disappointed on two fronts. What happened to early childhood funding? It is a pittance of what is needed. And what happened to legislation extending the statute of limitations for survivors of child sexual abuse? It is the most important tool we have to prevent more victims of sexual abuse. Democrats … please, don't forget the kids in all of this. They need you!

• 2+2=5. I've seen arguments made by smart and powerful people that not only ignore the facts on a number of important education issues, they willfully spread incorrect information about the cost and public nature of charter schools. I'm not so naive as to think that politics doesn't sometimes involve the "creative presentation of information," but I'd at least like to think that in a discussion about education that we could have our own opinions, but not our own facts.


• Team spririt gone bad. I myself have fallen into a particularly troubling argument about "charters v districts" — as if one was automatically better than the other. This frankly is a little like Ford arguing with General Moters about who's best. The fact is: this classification of a school matters less than the curriculum, leadership, governance, etc. of the individual school. And we're not getting the outcomes we need from education generally. The last thing we need is the fight that was started by the Senate's move to cap charter schools. Charters were meant to be a means to an end, not an end in themselves.


• This will go down on your permanent record. What we do now will have long-term impacts. I have to give credit to David Laird and anyone raising the issue of the future of our workforce. The consequences of our current discussion are really troubling because we are simply not addressing the future needs for a well-trained and responsive workforce for people in the E-16 system and current workforce right now. We're arguing about short-term issues, and not the long-term consequences of doing nothing.


• Schoolhouse Rocks. Perhaps more importantly (and more hopefully), I think we've lost sight of the fundamental democratic purpose of education. This starts to get really "fuzzy" if we're not careful about it, but this fundamental purpose is also a point of common ground, and something that actually motivates people to have a better discussion. I was reluctant to make this point for a while, but have been surprised by how postively people react to it. This democratic purpose includes the need for an educated workforce. People who don’t have the education to get a good job will be less productive citizens.

What I learned on my Spring break? It's time to have a new conversation on education. The one we have is failing us. Perhaps its even time to start the class all over again.

Even though President George W. Bush was officially not at the top of the Republican ballot in 2006, many political observers view the mini-landslide against the GOP last autumn as due in large part to the public voting against the President, who carried a very low job approval rating (at approximately 35 percent on Election Day in Minnesota) and a generally unpopular Iraq war strategy. It is the hope of Minnesota House Republicans that a stronger top of the ticket in 2008 will help their party make inroads on the large advantage held by the DFL in the lower chamber. One key component to the Republican strategy will be to leverage the positive statewide media coverage that will likely come out of the GOP National Convention (to be held in St. Paul at the Xcel Energy Center September 1-4, 2008) into votes for their party two months later — pigging backing onto what they hope will be a Republican nominee viewed favorably statewide.

The Republican Party in particular has used the national convention platform wisely in recent years by converging on blue states: Minnesota will mark the fourth consecutive GOP convention held in a state that voted Democratic in the previous presidential election cycle. But has planting the Republican flag on 'enemy territory' worked for the GOP in the past?

The trend began in 1996, when the GOP convention was held in San Diego. In the presidential election that year, Republican nominee Bob Dole performed about as well in California as compared to incumbent President George H.W. Bush's performance in 1992 (each losing to Clinton by 13 points). In 2000, the national convention was held in Philadelphia, and the GOP gained 5 points statewide in Pennsylvania from 1996. In 2004, the Republican convention was held in New York City and President George W. Bush gained 7 points in New York State from his campaign there in 2000.

Recent historical results thus show some evidence of a boost in support for Republican presidential nominees in the state in which its convention is held. This is a new strategy for the RNC who, from 1960 to 1992, held 8 of its 9 presidential conventions in states that were carried by Republican presidential nominees during the previous election.

A strong performance by Republican presidential nominees in the Gopher State has also had a positive impact on some lower ticket races in recent years. For example, in the last four elections in which the Republican presidential nominee has come within 7 points or less of victory in Minnesota (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000), the GOP deficit in the state Senate dropped by an average of 4 seats (excluding 2004, in which the Senate was not up for election).

House Republicans are, therefore, not only hoping a strong presidential nominee emerges from the convention in St. Paul, but that this translates into a more competitive performance for its candidates across the state in November — giving a shot of adrenaline to a party that suffered significant losses (and control of the House) in 2006.