VOTE 60 : Norm Coleman Leadership produces Republican Victory in Farm Bill

"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done. By my ability to bring people together and my ability to make good things happen. You can measure it versus a guy who's been there 12 years; 12 years, which by the way is the time when your kids go at first grade to the time they graduate high school. If you're there, get the job done. Be measured by your ability to get the job done. I think that's fair." Candidate Coleman 2002

That was Candidate Coleman who presented an image of a can-do coalition builder. When the election results were announced that Coleman would be the representing Minnesota for the next six years, Independent voters, like me, thought “Let’s give the guy a chance ... if can work across the aisle, that would be great”

Coleman garnered two prime committee assignments – Foreign Relations (which he has disappointed me repeatedly) and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Agriculture would be the big one for many Minnesotans.

Before discussing the current Farm Bill, it should be noted that the previous Farm Bill was signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002 to be effective with the beginning of the Fiscal Year on October 1, 2002 and expiring at the end of FY2007 ( or September 30, 2007). Coleman’s challenger in 2002, Paul Wellstone was on the Agriculture Committee and despite 9/11 and the military action thereafter, Congress was able to get the bill done in a timely manner. Farmers and bankers knew what to expect.

The House of Representatives held hearings and developed a bill that was passed in July 2007. The Senate though operates on its own time table.
The technically the Farm Security Act of 2002 expired on September 30, but through Public Law No: 110-92 continuing funding for many programs was extended (at the previous funding rates.)
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the farm bill in October without any dissenting votes. The bill then languished on the floor as Republicans and Democrats clashed over how to deal with the nearly 300 amendments that had been filed.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to select a list of amendments that were directly related to farm policy, but Republicans said that he should not be allowed to limit their proposals on such wide-ranging legislation.

On Friday, November 16th, the Senate finally addressed the issue with a procedural vote (meaning “Do we really want to vote on this?). The vote failed as 42 Republican Senators voted “No” (meaning “We are going to drag this out”).
According to Norm Coleman’s interview with former First District Congressman Tim Penny on Friday, Reid suggested that each side be allowed 20 amendments to be considered. Coleman stated that he convinced his fellow Republicans that they should precede. [ Now, we know what Coleman meant when he said “ my ability to bring people together, he meant bringing his fellow Republicans to action. ]

The Senate proceed to consider a number of amendments. EVERY Amendment FAILED …including the amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment which would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America. President Bush had requested that payments be limited to $200,000 but the Senate bill is for $1,000,000. This fiscally more responsible amendment failed by four votes with Coleman supporting the $1 million subsidy (read more here) .

So what was the point of waiting ?

We must remember that although subsidies got a lot of media attention, the bill also is the major authorization for nuitrition programs … (Food stamps, emergency food assistance program (TEFAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), etc.) I have already written how Republicans Love Subsidies but Hate Welfare.

This delaying of approval has hurt the people who need these nutrition programs. Although Congress approved a Continuing Resolution in September, it was at the existing levels. As The Star-Tribune reported today “Food inflation has more than doubled during the past 12 months.” For example, nationally, eggs cost 37 percent more than a year ago. Chicken feed -- made mostly of corn -- is 60 to 70 percent of an egg farmer's costs. Dairy farmers pay more for feed, too, up by as much as 40 percent since last year. And why is corn up … demand for ethanol … another highly subsidized product and which will increase sixfold based on the Senate approving the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 the day before it voted on the Farm Bill.

Let’s look at just how just one program will be impacted … milk and cheese account for about 40 percent of WIC food expenditures. As a result of higher food prices, it will cost significantly more for the people to buy these commodities … but the dollars were capped at last year’s rates … so the additional cost is being born by the needy … or they go without. Further, since the cost of the foods has increased faster than the budget, state WIC programs could have to reduce participation and establish waiting lists.

The end result is a cut to the Safety Net for the working families … but the Safety Net for $1 Million Dollar Mega-Farms is retained.

Thanks, Norm. I’ll be glad to “"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done.” … you’ve done a horrible job … on a Key Assignment … but I suspect that your Republican colleagues are pleased.
You delivered legislation late, that rewards the wrong people (even above what President Bush wanted) and hurts those that need it most.
By my account, you didn't "get the job done" !

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .

VOTE 60 : Klobuchar loses Fiscal Fight to Coleman & Coburn

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .


Wanna get a Fiscal Conservatives blood to boil ?

Ask if it is right that $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia … or $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan … And $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210 ?

Fiscal Conservatives see that as wasteful government spending.

Farm subsidies have been getting a lot of media attention … and rightfully so.

Good news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have a Senator who wants to fight for taxpayers’ monies and added an amendment to the Farm Bill to address those excessive payments.

Bad news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have too many Senators that talk about the need for fiscal conservatism, but when it comes to the vote, they side with special interests.

The Fiscal-Fraud Du Jour is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R). There doesn’t seem to be a bill that comes to final vote in the Senate without Senator Coburn offering an amendment … that’s why I call him Doctor Death .
The Farm Bill was no exception as Coburn offered Amendment 3807 : To ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion … but seven days later the amendment was withdrawn.

The efforts to reign in subsidies had an aggressive amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (of which Senator Klobuchar was a co-sponsor.) It would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America.
Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment and it failed the SuperMajority requirement (see VOTE60).

Despite that aggressive amendment failing, Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment Roll Call 426 which would allow payments only to full-time farmers making less than $750,000 a year and part-time farmers making less than $250,000, after expenses and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Once again, Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment.

Former First District Congressman Tim Penny interviewed Coleman on Friday. Penney is the ultimate Fiscal Conservative and a former member of the House Agriculture Committee and his first question was, “Why did you vote against this?” After hedging for a bit about how others voted, Coleman answered that there are some farmers with million dollar loans and they needed coverage.

Wow. I thought subsidies were to provide a safety net.
IF someone has a million dollar loan, they must also have the collateral and asset base to support that loan. Why one million … what about the poor farmer with $1,000,001 loan ? What about the $2 million dollar farmer?
Isn’t this argument akin to the Social Security argument concerning means testing ?
What is more important subsidizing mega farms or family farms? When smaller operations are driven out of business that destroys the culture of family farming and undermining rural communities.

What is a reasonable safety net ? According to Coleman, not $250,000 … not $750,000 but One Million Dollars !

That’s not a safety net.
That’s protecting a system that ensures subsidies for special interests.
According to Senator Klobuchar the average income of a Minnesota farmer is $54,000 yet there were only TWO Farm Business receiving Crop Subsidy Payments in Minnesota for 2005 that exceeded $750,000 ( oh by the way, they also exceeded $1 million ) and a total of 71 that exceeded the $250,000 threshold.

The bill will now go to a conference committee at which Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to get the threshold down to $900,000.

As a Fiscal Conservative, I do not have a lot of hope for Congressman Peterson’s efforts as Republicans Love Farm Subsidies .

Coleman is Fiscal Irresponsibility in Action !

MERRY CHRISTMAS : Bishop puts Hold on Christmas while Congress celebrates

How ironic is that two news story related to celebrating Christmas hit the news wires at the same time.

Archbishop Imad al Banna said Christians in Basra should still pray to mark Christmas, but should forgo such celebratory trappings as trees, gift-swapping and family gatherings to protest the deaths of a brother and sister, both Christians, as bombings and mayhem struck at cities throughout Iraq.

Meanwhile, half a world away, the US Congress passed House Resolution 847 sponsored by Steve King (R-IA), Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), John Kline (R-MN) and others to recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.

I guess our world is coming together now that Virgil Goode ( you may remember that he wrote “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America”) and Keith Ellison can both support this resolution … somehow I am not surprised by Ellison – he’s impressed me as a class act.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for Virgil Goode and Steve King (along with too many others) who voted “Present” on HR 635 recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.

Will there come a day when people of all faiths can respect the faiths of others ?

For me, I will heed the advice of Archbishop al Banna and celebrate by going to the store to purchase items for the ECHO Food Shelf.
And in my prayers, I will remember the missing soldiers in Iraq (Byron W. Fouty, Alex R. Jimenez, Ahmed K. Altaie, Keith Matthew Maupin), the British hostages , American contractors held by FARC in Chile since February 2003, and all other hostages and soldiers that cannot be with their loved ones.

Does Dick Day think the Surge is working ?

How should a politician respond when the President of the United States announces Operation Jump Start requesting National Guardsmen to report for duty?
And how should a politician react when the operational commanders announce that the success is now being achieved?

The primary mission of Operation Jump Start is to assist U.S. Border Patrol in preventing illegal border crossings and searching for illegal immigrants crossing the border. 6,000 National Guard Soldiers and Airmen (including some from Minnesota) have been deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border.

And the results are encouraging.
On Friday, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said : “First of all, if you look back on fiscal year 2007, apprehensions at the border were down a little over 20 percent for the fiscal year, which combined with other indicators, strongly demonstrates to us that we are seeing fewer people that are attempting to cross.
One of the metrics, by the way, that kind of suggests we are having an impact on illegal migration is that apparently remittances are down. Remittances, as you know, are the payments that people send back to their home country. And at least some people interpret that as a sign that people are either going back on their own or they're at least prepared to go back and therefore they're beginning to bank more of their money.
We are on pace to double the size of the Border Patrol. We're at about 15,000 or will be at the end of this year, end of the month. And we have also dramatically ramped up interior enforcement efforts. …”
U. S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said “For the first time, we’re getting ahead of the criminal organizations” (which would include drug smugglers and illegal immigration rings.) Aguilar also said the number of Border Patrol agents will rise to 18,300 at the end of next year.

That sounds like good news … but not if you are a politician who is mounting an election campaign on a Strong Borders, Strong Future theme.

One of the things that military generals have been accused of throughout history has been the tendency to 'fight the last war' assuming that the wars of the future would look much like those of the past. Unfortunately, history suggests there is some truth in that accusation.

And politicians fall into the same trap -- running the next election based on the past.

The Republicans fell for the Tancredo Trap and suffered badly in 2006 elections. Immigration is a decisive issue. President Bush’s plan is a lot different than Tancredo’s. Tancredo is running to replace Bush but polls indicate that he is not getting support. Other leading candidates seem to realize that there is a broader problem that goes beyond just “walling off the border”. Rudy Giuliani can visualize a path to granting legal status to illegal workers. Mike Huckabee has voiced compassion for illegal immigrants and as governor of Arkansas offered taxpayer-financed scholarships to the children of illegal immigrants. John McCain has spoken passionately and sponsored legislation.

Why is Dick Day following Tom Tancredo and not the other leading Republicans ?

Dick Day followed an advocacy group to the Mexican border. As a State Legislator it is surprising that Day didn’t also contact some of the local governments. For example, the Eagle Pass Texas City Council passed a resolution against the border fence and is refusing to allow the federal government to build the wall on river-front city property. Eminent Domain is a big issue and Homeland Security is right in the middle of it. There are also economic concerns that impact the border communities … Day should have also contacted members of the Texas Border Coalition which is made up of elected officials from the cities of Brownsville, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, El Paso, Harlingen, Hidalgo, Laredo, McAllen, Mission, Rio Grande and Roma Texas.

Immigration is a complex issue. And any politician that can so easily be enticed by advocacy groups exhibits extreme naiveté.

Photo ops may make good campaign propaganda but anyone wanting to be a US Congressman better open his mind to all sides of the issue and not become beholden to advocacy groups … especially when the Surge is working.

VOTE 60 : Why is Dick Day running for the House of Representatives ?

State Senator Dick Day of Owatonna wants to represent the First District of Minnesota in the House of Representative and his major platform is illegal immigration.
Using the motto, Strong Borders, Strong Future; he hopes to write a bill to overhaul the entire immigration system.
Day told KEYC_TV , ''I can assure you every place that I've went in the first district eight out of ten people when I sit down and say what's your biggest concern they say illegal immigration.

Is the First District any different than the entire State of Minnesota ?
Is this a problem that Dick Day can best resolve as a member of the 435 member House of Representatives ?
If Dick Day really wants to resolve this issue, he needs to be in the US Senate.

President Bush supported the Senate's "comprehensive" approach to immigration reform which was passed in May 2006 with the support of Republican Senator Norm Coleman's vote.
The comprehensive immigration reform would have strengthened border security, but would also create a program permitting illegal immigrants who had resided in the United States for five years or more to "earn" their citizenship after paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and holding a job for six years. It also would allow illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States from two to five years to apply for a guest worker program.

Previously, in December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437).
Actually, the immigration issue has been a major issue in the House since the establishment of Immigration Reform Caucus in May 1999.

The differences were so significant that the House and Senate were never resolved during the 109th Congress.

During the 110th Congress, the Senate has tried to address the issue with a compromise bill offered by Senators Kyl (R) and Kennedy (D) but that failed to be brought up for a final vote. This failure caused Morton Kondracke to name some Senators - including Republican Norm Coleman - the "cowardice caucus" for having voted "yes" in 2006 and "no" this year. This was not a vote For or Against the legislation … it was just a vote to whether to debate the issue … hence “cowards”.

Obviously, Norm Coleman and the Senate is where the problem lies. Day would have a greater impact on this issue in the Senate … especially since the issue has seen a number of proponents of strict immigration reform will not be in the House in 2009. The Immigration Reform Caucus will be losing its founding member – Tom Tancredo – plus other prominent members who have announced they will not be up for election including Barbara Cubin(R-WY), Terry Everett(R-AL), Duncan Hunter(R-CA), Chip Pickering(R-MS), and Rick Renzo(R-AZ). Now, I know that there is no guarantee that the people who take those seats won’t have the same passion as Day, but in the 2006 election Immigration Reform Caucus members J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), John Hostettler (R-IN — the chair in the 109th Congress of the House Immigration Subcommittee), Chris Chocola (R-IN), Anne Northup (R-KY), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Charles Taylor (R-NC), Richard Pombo (R-CA) and of course, former First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht all lost. The Minuteman successfully got Randy Graf on the Republican ballot to replace retiring Representative Jim Kolbe … Graf lost. Conversely, there was strong support against Republican Chris Cannon since he opposed strict immigration laws but Cannon successfully beat a fellow Republican in the primary and a Democrat in the November election.

Politically, I see immigration as a decisive issue that is ripping the Republican Party apart. But if Day feels that passionately it about it (and 8 or 10 people tell him so) then he needs to challenge Norm Coleman in the Republican primary.

The US Senate Straw Poll is February 5th so if you are part of the "8 out of 10" remember the name, Dick Day !

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here.

VOTE 60 : Your only Vote that matters

The 2008 elections will be for President, 33 Senate seats and all House seats but your vote that will contribute to America's future is the election for US Senate.

Oh sure, you can vote for President, but the President is actually elected by the Electoral College. Historically, most states will overwhelmingly select one candidate leaving only a few states to determine the outcome.
Florida (with its butterfly ballot in 2000) and Ohio (with its allegations of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in 2004) may play an important part in 2008.
Some speculate that the tri-state grouping of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin could be important in 2008, but I have no doubt that your vote - or my vote - will not determine the outcome.


Through the practice of gerrymandering to maintain favorable districts, the House of Representatives generally allows incumbents to be reelected 90 % of the time. When districts are won by 20 % or more, you know there is a problem. Look at the 2002 election where all the incumbents were re-elected with the minimum margin win by 19 % and (actually one Congressman won 72 to 27 %). Now, the 2006 elections did produce one incumbent losing (52-47%) but the other incumbents were reelected comfortably (the closest race was by 16%). In 2008, MN-01, MN-02, MN-03(retiring) and MN-05 will be contested, but otherwise, don’t expect a close call.



Should you care ? Of course, but temper that with the knowledge that party discipline is critical in the House to move any agenda. Historically, one party has had a dominant majority … currently the Democrats have a 33 seat advantage.


That might make one think that the Democrat agenda would be quickly enacted.

Not so.

The Senate operates under different rules. Under Senate Rule 22, the Senate does not have to act on any legislation unless 60 senators want to proceed with a vote.

Hence VOTE 60.


This year, voters need to weigh carefully if they wish to vote for more of the same Do-Nothing Senate or vote for progress on a variety of issues … ranging from immigration to war funding … from confirmation of judicial nominees to White House appointees.


In some ways, the 60 vote filibuster / cloture procedure allows a Senator to “hid” behind the cloture vote. It should not be surprised that a number of Republican Senators (notably, Coleman, Collins and Smith) who are up for re-election are siding with the Democrats to allow votes to move forward … knowing that it will take nine Republicans to bolt provides cover to tell the voters that you wanted to vote on it, but it was filibustered.



The 2008 Senate elections will determine domestic policy as much whomever is elected President.
The Republicans have 21 seats to defend while the Democrats have 12.
With six Republican Senators already announcing that they will not be in the 111th Congress when it convenes in January 2009, the make-up could definitely change.
If you reside in Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and of course, Minnesota, your vote in the Senate election will determine what happens for the next six years.
Weigh your choices carefully.
You're not voting for a candidate ... you're voting whether your want progress to resolve issues, or more of the same.


FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.

Top Issue in MN First District : Immigration ? ? ?

They’re at it again !

The Star-Tribune continues to lead its online Politically Connected section with Mark Brunswick’s article Illegal immigration emerges as key issue in First District race : At the behest of an advocacy group, Republican candidate Dick Day went to the U.S.-Mexican border, and others may follow.

Let’s address the Star-Tribune first and then the immigration issue.

As an online media source, readers want to read current news. I believe this story was first released on November 28 … yet here it is at the top of the page as with notation that it was updated on December 4th. So what was the update?

Bluestem Prairie has done some amazing reporting on Day’s trip long before the Strib and has done thorough follow-up questioning some aspects of the Brunswick’s story.

The Strib should provide its readers with an explanation of what the update is.
Was it to correct an error in reporting … readers might like to know what was misstated. Was it to add information … that is common and readers might want to just read that part … if it was a major change, should it have been a follow-up / reaction story. Or was it to recycle the story to generate more attention to the issue and the Republican candidates?

Now to the issue itself.
First off, who says this is a top issue ? ”At the behest of an advocacy group”, tells me that it was not First District residents.
But this is an issue that Day has been pushing for awhile. On September 5th, Day told KEYC-TV ''I can assure you every place that I've went in the first district eight out of ten people when I sit down and say what's your biggest concern they say illegal immigration.”
WOW … 8 out of 10 !
Funny that makes the First District out of step with the rest of the country … and even Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Americans say the economy and health care are most important to them in choosing a president, compared with 34% who cite terrorism and social and moral issues, according yesterday’s Wall Street Journal . In a WSJ September 2007 survey of Republican voters, the question was asked : President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal, temporary-worker status. 30 % percent of the respondents strongly opposed that position (down slightly from the 32 % in March 2006) while 37% were somewhat favorable to Bush’s position (up from 32 %).
This is not an issue that even Republican can agree what the solution should be ! And does Day have a solution ?

Ask yourself these few questions.
During the past year have you meet an illegal immigrant and did they cause you any problem?
During the past year have you visited a doctor?
During the past year have you seen an increase in your health insurance expense?
Does the cost of gasoline and reduction in home values concern you?

I suspect that most First District residents would agree that health care and the economy are a greater concern than illegal immigration.
On a personal note, the monthly premium for my health insurance has increased $154.50 in one year (or $1854 in total) … and my spouse and I are in excellent health.
Health care should be the number 1 issue.
And before someone blames the rising health care costs on undocumented aliens, the University of California's School of Public Health researchers issued a study that determined “illegal Mexican immigrants had 1.6 fewer visits to doctors over the course of a year than people born in the country to Mexican immigrants. Other undocumented Latinos had 2.1 fewer physician visits than their U.S.-born counterparts.
link

It is disappointing that Dick Day and his fellow Republicans candidates are listening to advocacy groups and not the people that they wish to represent. It’s also disappointing that the media becomes part of the publicity machine changing focus from issues that truly need attention.