Walz makes correct votes on Off-shore Drilling

Before the House passed H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, it had to decide whether HR 6709, the National Conservation, Environment, and Energy Independence Act, which Congressman Tim Walz (MN-01) co-sponsored, should be considered. The vote to consider Walz’s bill failed.
Walz stood in opposition of the majority of Democrats and voted with a majority of Republicans to consider his bill. That failing, Walz voted with the Democrats to move forward HR 6899. It should be noted that Republican Jim Ramstad (MN-03) joined Walz in his support for HR 6899 while Republicans John Kline (MN-02) and Michelle Bachmann (MN-06) voted against drilling.

Is HR 6899 (the one that was approved) an inferior bill ?
Depends upon your viewpoint.
For those who have read my blog already realize that I do not oppose drilling, but want a fair return in royalty payments directed to the US Treasury and not to the bordering states. I also oppose subsidies for nuclear power and the oil industry.
HR 6899 is a narrower bill than some of the others being considered and meets my main objectives. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office report “enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits (or increase surpluses) by about $3.5 billion over the 2009-2013 period and by about $6.7 billion over the 2009-2018 period.” That’s good. It would repeal $18 billion in oil industry tax breaks and use the money to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. And it would force oil companies to pay additional royalties for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

What’s this mean ?
Not much … Walz’s bill is not dead, just that the House just determined that it wanted to move HR 6709 forward instead.
And more importantly, not much because the Senate must approve it. That is not likely since it has its own version of legislation it may consider plus the clock is running out on the session. Also, the White House has said it will veto HR 6899.

During the debate on Walz’s bill, Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii, spoke the truth blasting John Boehner, the Republican Minority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, for both pushing legislation that could only be supported by a majority of their own political parties claiming that the bi-partisan HR 6709 that would generate the most support.

To me, Tim Walz and Jim Ramstad get a thumbs-up but Nancy Pelosi gets a thumbs-down.
For Tim Walz, this is just the first step. This bill was largely a to have Democrats go on record supporting some version of off-shore drilling. The Democrats who voted for HR 6899 have now voted for off-shore drilling. They cannot move back from that position. Next term, a more expansive bill ... possibly Walz's will be enacted.
For Jim Ramstad, this is just another example of a responsible Congressman who will be sorely missed in the 111th Congress.

Politics aside, Politicians Praise MN Largest Earmark

It certainly wasn’t a Mark Antony moment ( you know, ”I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him), yet for less than an hour on Monday, September 15th, the poisonous pox of “earmarks” was not acknowledged … no they came to praise the largest “earmark” project to built in Minnesota in a very long time.

It was a good day … no sneering of the evils of “earmarks” … just a spirit of accomplishment … as it should be. In alternating speeches, Republicans and Democrats gushed in a esprit de corps. Yet there were some differences in the scope of how they approached their few moments of allocated time to address the audience. Congresswoman Michele Bachman (R-06) spoke of in her “Minnesota Nice” manner assuring the crowd that private donations will quickly be funding the 35W Remembrance Garden while Congressman Keith Ellison (D-05) saw this as only a minor start on the need to address the nation’s infrastructure needs. There was much praise for the workers who built this project… Congressman Tim Walz (D-01) thanked the rescue workers … and the children who were on the bus as the bridge was collapsing thanked the volunteers with the Salvation Army and Red Cross for all their assistance since the tragedy occurred.

And throughout it all there was no mention that the only members of the Minnesota delegation voting against a funding bill that included $195 million for funding the reconstruction of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis were Representatives John Kline (MN-02) and Michele Bachmann, both Republicans … as that could have been embarrassing since they were both on the podium giving speeches.

My question is : Isn’t this proof that all “earmarks” are not wasteful government spending ?

While Bachmann and Kline are on a “pork-free” diet, they are not recognizing that the “earmark” process actually dispenses monies for needed projects.
Joe Bodell asked the right question … is this a principled stand against pork, or is Kline cutting off his nose to spite his face ? Bodell’s column is dated, but the intent is valid and he reviews the “earmarks” requested by Congressmen Oberstar, Ellison, Kline and Walz. Bodell finds minor problems with the “earmarks” in the Transpiration bill. My conclusion based on reviewing the Defense and HHS funding bills is that Minnesota’s members of Congress are not abusing the system but that Bachmann and Kline are short-changing their Districts and the State. In Bachman and Kline's world, others get a larger share of the pie ... as the pie does not get smaller ... our needs are not served ... but our monies go elsewhere.

In the First District, Congressman Walz is being challenged by Dr. Brian Davis who has campaigned on “earmark” reform.
Walz has been transparent on his funding requests publishing his 47 "earmark" requests for 2009 appropriations.
From Walz’s press release : “While it is likely that only a few of these meritorious projects will ultimately receive funding, I believe it is important for residents of southern Minnesota to be able to see the list of projects I am supporting and I am proud to release this list of local priorities.”
In this way, voters know Walz’s vision for the District’s needs … Dr. Davis needs to tell voters which projects he does not believe should be funded and any that he would add to the list. If it’s “wasteful government spending”, then tell us and if you plan to adhere to a “pork-free diet” tell us that.

For one hour on Monday, “earmarks” were not evil … they were a bridge to improving our infrastructure ... and there are a lot of bridges that need improving.

John McCain - War and Divorce

I vote on issues and not personalities (even if that disappoints Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager - “This election is not about issues,” Davis said. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”)

Divorce is not a consideration in my evaluation of a candidate.
Yet, when divorce happens, it can be a learning tool that voters can use to see how the candidate responded to the situation. Does the candidate see the causes of the divorce and see the need to prevent the situation from repeating itself … in his own personal life or in others?

While some cite John McCain’s divorce from his first wife, Carol, in 1980 as a “personal deficiency”, it should be noted that McCain has been married to his current wife, Cindy, since 1980 (one month after his divorce was finalized). That’s a long marriage by all standards.

John McCain life has been well documented including his return home as a disabled POW.
Physically, the injuries were evident … but what about the emotional toll?
The toll was felt by the soldier but also by the soldier’s wife and children.

Carol McCain tells her story that includes an endorsement that McCain “is the best man for president.” She holds no bitterness stating yet I have to wonder how the war affected his family relationships.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) report that “Twenty percent of married troops in Iraq say they are planning a divorce. Multiple tours and inadequate time between deployments increase rates of combat stress by 50 percent. These psychological injuries exact a severe toll on military families.”
IAVA supports the creation of new VA programs to provide family and marital counseling for veterans receiving VA mental health treatment.

These emotional problems are not going away. Just this week, Department of Veterans Affairs reported that veterans are killing themselves in record numbers.

While those of in Minnesota’s First District are well aware of Congressman Tim Walz dedication for Veterans and their families, the battles still go on and the next President and his administration will have to address these problems.

What can we expect from a President McCain and Vice President Palin ?

Previously, I wrote “How long have Republicans opposed PTSD ?” , documenting McCain’s lack of support for funding these types of funding. Additionally, McCain was not supportive of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 which was only passed since it was included in the Supplemental Appropriations for war funding. Patrick Campbell, chief legislative counsel for IAVA said "Here you had John McCain opposing a proposal that was endorsed by every veterans' service organization, endorsed by a majority of the Senate and two-thirds of the House, with huge bipartisan support on either side of the aisle, and John McCain said it's too generous."

And what about Alaska’s governor ?
Commenting on Veterans care, Palin said on September 22, 2006 “It's a shame that they have to fight for that. That it's not just a given, that promises made will be promises kept by the state and federal government. It will be my job that, rest assured, the promises in health care and for benefits due them are provided. It's unfair though, and it's disrespectful to make a promise that we can't keep. That being, that we'll provide all health care facilities and services here in the state of Alaska. Unreasonable, disrespectful to make that kind of promise.”
Palin should be concerned. Alaska ranks at the top of military veterans (17.1% according to a 2002 report) and at the top of suicides per 100,000 veterans with 23.6 (according to a 2004 report). Compared to the past, a larger percentage of returning troops are physically or emotionally wounded, says Jerry Jenkins, executive director of Anchorage Community Mental Health Services. "We're seeing a greater increase of kids in need already, because the families have split up," Angie Aiken of the North Star Behavioral Health System says. "Then when the parents return, it's quite difficult for them, because often the parents who are returning are traumatized in some way."
I can find no reporting on this issue of any action being taken by Governor Palin.

But some Governors are taking action on their own. Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) pressed leaders of the Montana National Guard to explore its treatment of combat veterans and implement necessary changes. The Guard responded by forming a PTSD task force. After more than a year of study and exploration, the Guard announced it had implemented more than a dozen changes to its system in an effort to address PTSD and traumatic brain injury in returning soldiers. Barack Obama wants the Montana Program to be implemented in every state.

Voters should be less concerned the candidate’s family status and more concerned about the policies they will advance to address the stress that military families experience.

MN-01 : Walz Challenger Proves Strong in Primary

Following up on my prior commentary, Congressman Walz’s supporters should see a great cause for concern from the Primary Election results. Overall, Walz underperformed from his 2006 primary performance by approximately 20 %. His opponent proved strong … his opponent being Apathy. Now, I know it’s only a Primary and everyone doesn’t participate ( as an Independent voter, I do not vote in partisan contests), but there was no doubt that Dr. Brian Davis was able to excite his core voters to go to the polls.

In the state’s largest county, Olmstead (Rochester) where Walz beat Gutknecht in the November election (by 1848 votes) after trailing him in the primary (195 votes), Davis tallied more votes in a contested party primary than Walz got running unopposed (add Dick Day who received in excess of 1900 votes in the Republican contest and the result indicates this county will be strongly contested.)

Another county that the Republicans showed strongly is Martin County (Fairmont). Gutknecht beat Walz by 1,195 votes in the General Election and Davis once again outpaced Walz (once again, add in Day’s votes and there are a lot of people preferring the Republican Party.) Walz can take some solace in that he actually increased the number of votes he received from the prior Primary Election (the school bond referendum may have brought more voters to the polls.)

For those that think that this is just a primary, are missing fact that the First District has been a Republican base for years.

The Republicans will attack the November elections by focusing on social issues (which will play well in the evangelical western portion of the district) while portraying Walz as “Pelosi’s Pawn in Washington”. As anyone listening to how Sarah Palin is portrayed ( Jet sold on eBay, earmarks, rejecting bridge funding, gas pipeline in progress, etc.) knows that the factual truth is not a perquisite for a campaign. Walz has voted against Pelosi on many issues – Iraq war funding, FISA, Alternative Minimum Tax, and pushed her on ethics and drilling legislation – but the Republicans will not acknowledge that.

The Republicans will not want to promote their economic philosophies based on privatization, deregulation, and lowering of taxes on the wealthy … best categorized as the misguided concept of "trickle down" economics.
Trickle-down, supply-side economic policy hasn't ever made sense: it has left the vast majority of Americans struggling just to stay even. The Labor Department now classifies 1.8 million citizens as "long term unemployed". August’s official unemployment numbers indicate 84,000 jobs were cut by employers in August meaning that 605,000 jobs disappeared for the year.
The median household income in Minnesota fell from $58,363 in 2001 to $55,802 in 2007 (adjusted for inflation). Hourly wages haven't kept up with inflation forcing more people to maintain multiple jobs (estimated to be 8.1 million workers or about 5.5% of the total employed population).

The Republicans will blame Walz and the Democratic controlled House as the problem without ever acknowledging the obstructionist and delaying tactics that they have employed.

To the McCain camp we are just being “whiners” and he proposed making the Bush tax cuts (which are especially beneficial to multinational corporations and the wealthy) permanent while proposing that employees with company provided health insurance pay $2870 more per year in income taxes.

Our problem is the not that we need a tax cut, but we need tax fairness.

Voters in the First will have a choice of a neophyte ideologue versus a Congressman who has extended himself to everyone throughout the district.
Voters need to remember Walz efforts on behalf of Veterans, Seniors, Farmers, SCHIP, and working families.
Dr. Davis has not only embraced the Bush tax cuts (not surprisingly for someone making $411,780 salary) but also permanently ending the estate tax.

With this being a Presidential Election year, the Republican base will be engaged and strongly supporting Dr. Davis.
The question for the Walz supporters is, will you educate the apathetic voter ?

Did Bachmann Lead the Platform Fight Against MN Farmers ?

Michele Bachmann convention speech focused on Minnesota Nice …so, how did our guests respond ?
The RNC enacted a platform that says the "U.S. government should end mandates for ethanol and let the free market work." (Note: As previously stated , Congresswoman Bachmann was part of the Platform Committee.)
Responding, Bruce Stockman, executive director of the Minnesota Corn Grower’s Association (MCGA), said "Here in Minnesota I don't know how you could say something more devastating” He said that the policy was seen as somewhat of a slap in the face to Minnesota and the entire Midwest. “It’s my view that so-goes the Midwest goes the election of the president, ” Stockman continued. “To be so opposed to the renewable fuel standard as a platform seems like not a good decision.”
The position marks a major change from the 2004 platform, and ethanol is a key part of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil yet John McCain supports cutting the mandate that requires 9 billion gallons of biofuels, such as ethanol, be blended into gasoline this year and about 11 billion gallons next year.

What’s the motivation for this change ?
The amount of the subsidy (which was reduced in the last Farm Bill) ?
The Food –versus – Fuel debate ?
The desire to promote domestic drilling versus renewables ?

Since the Farm Bill was so contentious and will be in effect for a few more years, the likelihood of changing the subsidy is not realistic.

There is no easy answer to the Food –versus – Fuel aspect of the debate, but reducing tariffs could increase supply.

That leaves “Drill, Baby, Drill”.

The debate should not be whether to provide subsidies for the ethanol industry, but whether we should be providing sweetheart deals for the established oil industry. Bachmann, who voted against the Farm Bill, and the RNC are picking the international oil industry.

As the New York Times reported “… industry analysts who compare oil policies around the world said the United States was much more generous to oil companies than most other countries, demanding a smaller share of revenues than others that let private companies drill on public lands and in public waters.” [SNIP] “ “They are giving up a lot of money and not getting much in return,” said Robert A. Speir, a former analyst at the Energy Department who worked on the report. “If they took that money, they could buy a whole lot more oil with it on the open market.”

Some Republicans see the inequity of the subsidy / royality question. As I noted Alaska has raised its tax rates that it collects from the oil industry. Alaska is not alone, Canada’s Alberta province will require oil and gas companies to pay $1.4 billion more a year in royalties.

Why does the GOP pick the oil industry over farmers ? That will be for the voters to decide if they agree with that concept ... but all Republicans are not the same.

In Minnesota’s First District Republican primary voters will be the first to weigh in. State Senator Dick Day recognizes the huge economic benefit for southern Minnesota stating “If there’s any place in the U.S. that the Farm Bill is going to pump money into our economy, it’s the 1st District in Minnesota.”. Conversely, growers will recall Brian Davis’ non-committal support for the Farm Bill during FarmFest while proclaiming strong support for “domestic energy production without government placing too many obstacles in the way in the form of regulations and new taxes, fees or royalties.”

McCain Ignores Minnesota Voter’s Biggest Concern

Poor Dick Day.

He wants to represent Minnesota’s First District in Congress, but every speaker that I heard during the Republican Party’s nominating convention ignored the issue that eight out of ten people say is their biggest concern (according to Day). Now maybe it was mentioned by someone during all the convention speeches but not by Fred Thompson, not Michele Bachmann, not Rudy Giuliani and not Sarah Palin. John McCain barely broached the issue and not in the way that Day and other proponents wanted to hear … unless you consider “we believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential, from the boy whose descendents arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers.” as addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
If anything that could be interpreted as approving a “pathway to citizenship” and recognition that citizenship can be gained by birthright.
I’m sure that Day’s opponent in the Republican Party, Dr. Brain Davis who also supports a tough stance against illegal immigration, was also disappointed.

But that was what this convention was about … ignoring the problems while creating an image that the McCain-Palin ticket will solve our problems.

Immigration was the “hot” issue during the Republican nomination process, but now seems to be forgotten. Instead the chants during the Republican Convention were “Drill, Baby, Drill”. Both issues are important issues, but the emphasis on them is to have “low-information voters” thinking about subjects that will draw them to the Republican column in November.

This emphasis may win an election but not help the country in the long term.
It’s not that the Republicans don’t know what the problems that are impacting us greatly, it’s just that they don’t have solutions that “low information voters” will like.
As President Bush’s ex-speechwriter David Frum writes an article entitled The Vanishing Republican Voter :
“What the middle class needs most is not lower income taxes but a slowdown in the soaring inflation of health-care costs. If health-insurance costs had risen 50 percent rather than 100 percent over the Bush years, middle-income voters would have enjoyed a pay raise instead of enduring wage stagnation.”
Frum analysis backs-up my assertion. As I wrote in my commentary when Day was suggesting that Top Issue in MN First District : Immigration ? ? ? ”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.
(Note : that’s a lot more than my gasoline expenditure.)

John McCain has a plan that the average worker will see an increase of $2870 in taxes to pay for health care benefits that were previously provided by employers as a free fringe benefit. That will only exasperate the problem as workers may want to go without coverage. McCain’s objective is that somehow competition will drive down policy costs that individual families will then purchase. The logic is incomprehensible to me (Note : Dr. Brian Davis subscribes to the “competition” argument.)

McCain’s big line in his acceptance speech was "Change is coming."
Well the first change would be to terminate the “earmark” funding for political conventions as the federal government gives each party $16.4 million for general convention expenses and $50 million for security. That's $112.8 million of taxpayer dollars !
What do the political parties get – besides media attention ?
Money … lotsa money !
The Democratic National Convention host committee raised more than $50 million from private donors; the Republican National Convention committee has said it is shooting for $58 million. Funding to the RNC in Saint Paul included some prominent companies in the health care industry including Medtronic ($1 million), St. Jude Medical ($1 million) and Eli Lilly ($250,000).

Voters need to be ignoring the Convention speeches and television commercials that attempt to brainwash us to embrace "their" issues, and instead ask the candidates what they will do about “our” problems.

But for Senator Day and the others that believe that illegal immigration is still the number one issue, how do you think President McCain will act ?

Lastly, the most glaring comment during the RNC came from Rudy Giuliani who admonished the Democratic Party’s Convention speakers :( "for four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words 'Islamic terrorism'." ) That comment could equally apply to the RNC convention … in fact, McCain never spoke the name Osama bin Laden or mentioned the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan … which is Ground Zero for Islamic terrorism.

Yes, McCain did acknowledge Iraq … “I said I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war.”.
But Iraq is not Islamic terrorism.
After all, McCain was a prime proponent of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) which stated that the “ policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Iraq is a war caused by a desire for a regime change that was not a part of the Islamic terrorism.

How soon we forget.

MN-01 : Davis opposes Palin Oil Plan

Dr. Brian Davis’ Letter to the Editor in the New Ulm Journal seeking votes in the September 9th Republican Primary, states his bottom line as “We need to increase domestic energy production without government placing too many obstacles in the way in the form of regulations and new taxes, fees or royalties.”
Domestic energy is his primary, if not only, issue.

Since this is a Republican Primary, the comparison to other Republican’s positions tells voters a lot about Davis knowledge of the issue.

John McCain has praised Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) for her knowledge of domestic energy production.
Yet her policies are in stark contrast to Dr. Davis.
In August 2007, Alaska Gov. Palin called state lawmakers into special session to enact her "Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" plan. The Palin administration said its tax plan would place Alaska about average worldwide in terms of government receipts and it would also end tax credits for past oil field investments.
The legislation that was enacted raised taxes on the oil industry and sent money to struggling consumers. For fiscal year 2008, the state projects that the tax increase Palin pushed will generate an extra $2 billion for the state. This year, she used some of the proceeds to provide a $1,200 rebate to residents as energy prices rose.
The logic is simple. As the price of oil goes up, oil company profits rise. And as profits rise, so does the tax rate on oil production. When prices are $80 a barrel, the tax rate is roughly 37 percent, and the state’s budget runs a slight surplus. When oil hits $120 a barrel, the tax rate reaches about 50 percent of profits.

In many ways, what Palin has implemented on the state level is what Obama and other Democrats have sought as a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies.

Palin, at the state level, recognized that her citizens were not getting a fair share return on the state’s resources. According to Wood Mackenzie, a Scotland-based energy industry consulting firm, tax or other fiscal terms have changed in 28 countries since oil prices began their dramatic climb in 2001. Readers of my blog, know that I chastised Gil Gutknecht and John Kline in 2006 for their votes that did not correct this situation. Now, Davis is staking his campaign on the same misguided philosophy.

A study entitled "State Taxation, Exploration, and Production in the U.S. Oil Industry" concludes that raising oil production taxes has little effect on long-term oil production. The study states "Public officials in oil producing states have an incentive to increase severance taxes because they risk little lost production and stand to gain a substantial amount of tax revenue". It also notes that oil companies would not feel the full brunt of a state tax increase because they can deduct such taxes in figuring their federal corporate income taxes.
The report credits "a well-organized energy industry lobby" for keeping tax rates low.

Davis’ philosophy seems to understand the “energy industry” needs, but not the taxpayers.
Davis is committed to helping the “energy industry” to be able to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Yet once again, Palin’s words should be considered “In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators …” (Source : 6/23/08 Letter to Senator Harry Reid.)
Davis has not acknowledged the impact of speculators on oil prices.

Referring again to Davis’ LTE, he writes “Minnesotans are looking for honesty in their elected officials, people who can deliver real solutions to our most pressing problems. As a father of four, physician, taxpayer, and engineer with prior energy industry experience, I am confident that we can do better.”
I agree that we want “honest” elected officials.
Yet based on Davis’ Facebook page which states that he worked eight months in the energy industry in 1983, that comment is misleading.
Further, we do want our elected officials to be taxpayers, yet Politico reported that Dr. Davis failed to pay his property taxes on time “every year from 2003 to 2007.” Since Dr. Davis has not released copies of his income tax filings, voters do not know if they were filed timely or correctly.

As an Independent voter, I believe it is inappropriate for me to participate in either Party’s primary, yet I have a concern for the November election. The First District is an extremely competitive with the western portion having had Republican representation for over 20 years until Democrat Tim Walz’s victory in 2006. Additionally, the district’s largest county, Olmsted County, voted for Republican Tim Pawlenty for Governor in his last election.
If the District is going to be represented by a Republican, Dr. Davis does not have the knowledge, experience or philosophy that will help taxpayers.
To paraphrase Dr. Davis, "I am confident that the Republicans can offer a better candidate.”
When Gil Gutknecht’s term limit pledge indicated that he would not run in 2006, I advocated State Senator Dick Day for the job.
Day has legislative experience that Davis does not.

If you’re voting in the September 9th primary, vote Day.