Minnesota Majority has prepared a one of the most comprehensive legislative scorecards available that assesses how well incumbents have represented "traditional values" positions on the issues in the state legislature. We tracked over 40 votes during the 2007-2008 legislative sessions, spanning a wide range of issues including taxes, government spending, parental rights, property rights, health care, education and energy policy. In many ways, these votes represent the front-line in the battle to defend traditional values in Minnesota’s public policy.

Five legislators earned a perfect 100% score and were our top “Heroes”.

The Heroes
Bruce Anderson District 19A 100%	Mark Buesgens District 35B 100%	Tom Emmer District 19B 100%	Steve Drazkowski District 28B 100%	Kurt Zellers District 32B 100%

 An additional 23 House members receive an honorable mention for supporting “traditional values” positions 90% of the time or better.

Honorable Mentions
Tom Hackbarth, District 48A, 98% Mary Holberg, District 36A, 98% Mark Olson, District 16B, 98% Ron Shimanski, District 18A, 98% Michael Beard, District 35A, 98% Laura Brod, District 25A, 95% Matt Dean, District 52B, 95% Chris DeLaForest, District 49A, 95% Bob Dettmer, District 52A, 95% Rob Eastlund, District 17A, 95% Sondra Erickson, District 16A, 95% Paul Kohls, District 34A, 95%	Marty Seifert, District 21A, 95% Brad Finstad, District 21B, 94% Steve Gottwalt, District 15A, 93% Torrey Westrom, District 11A, 93% Dan Severson, District 14A, 93% Joyce Peppin, District 32A, 93% Joe Hoppe, District 34B, 93% Pat Garofalo, District 36B, 90% Erik Paulsen, District 42B, 90% Dean Simpson, District 10B, 90% Steve Sviggum, District 28B, 90%

On the opposite side of the fence we have our “Zeros” – legislators who more often than not voted against the interests of everyday Minnesotans. Instead, these House members supported policies that would raise your taxes, expand government and reduce your freedoms. A total of 9 House members were perfect “Zeros”.  

The Zeros
Margaret Kelliher District 60A 0%	Willy Dominguez District 58B 0%	Frank Hornstein District 60B 0%	Carlos Mariani District 65B 0%	Cy Thao  District 65A 0%
Alice Hausman District 66B 0%	Neva Walker District 61B 0%	Sheldon Johnson District 67B 0%	Karen Clark District 61A 0%

 An additional 18 members receive a “dishonorable mention" for scoring 5% or less.

Dishonorable Mentions
Erin Murphy, District 64A, 5% Diane Loeffler, District 59A, 5% Carolyn Laine, District 50A, 5% Melissa Hortman, District 47B, 5% Bill Hilty, District 8A, 5% Mindy Greiling, District 54A, 5% Kathy Brynaert, District 23B, 5% David Bly, District 25B, 5% Jean Wagenius, District 62B, 2%	Tom Tillberry, District 51B, 2% Linda Slocum, District 63B, 2% Mike Nelson, District 46A, 2% Joe Mullery, District 58A, 2% Tim Mahoney, District 67A, 2% Phyllis Kahn, District 59B, 2% Mike Jaros, District 07B, 2% Jim Davnie, District 62A, 2% Lyndon Carlson, District 45B, 2%

TAKE ACTION:  See how your state representative scored by visiting our vote tracking page and enter your zip code at the top of the page.  Contact your legislator and tell him or her how you feel about their score. Help spread the word by distributing copies of our Heroes and Zeros Flyer and a hardcopy version of our Legislative Scorecard in your neighborhood.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act" (S.2191 / S.3036) next week. This bill effectively imposes a massive hidden tax on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates the federal government stands to generate an additional $1.2 trillion in revenues over a seven-year period between 2012 and 2018. In addition, the CBO projects private-sector regulatory mandates would amount to more than $90 billion per year from 2012 to 2016.

The bill would result in an enormous expansion in government regulation and mandates, reducing our personal liberties. The Environmental Protection Agency would be charged with the daunting task of establishing emissions allowances for thousands of American manufacturers and electricity generators.  A diagram developed by the Chamber of Commerce reveals the pervasiveness of this new regulation (go here for an explanation of the chart).

A recent Wall Street Journal column concludes the Lieberman-Warner bill would be "the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." An analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates a $1.7 trillion to $4.8 trillion loss in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 2010 and 2030. U.S. job losses could exceed 700,000 in 2015 alone. At this same time, American consumers would be faced with dramatic price increases in food and energy, putting a significant strain on family budgets.

The impacts in Minnesota are just as dramatic. Projections for Minnesota indicate we could see over $2 billion loss in Gross State Product , $2.3 billion loss in personal income and a loss of over 55,000 jobs by 2030.  According to the Heritage Foundation, Minnesota is projected to rank #1 in the nation in job losses per capita. 

With energy prices at record highs, the last thing we need is more government regulation that will drive-up the costs of gas, drive jobs out of our state and make us all poorer while special interests line their pockets with the spoils.  But for some reason, Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman have both decided to co-sponsor this legislation. They need to hear from concerned Minnesotans as soon as possible  A vote on this bill could come in the next several days.

TAKE ACTION:  Visit www.NoCapAndTrade.com to sign a petition and send an urgent message to your elected officials urging them to reject the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Additional Resources:

• OPINION:  Michele Bachman - 'Cap and Trade' more like 'Tax and Trade'
• ARTICLE: Cap and Trade Hits Minnesota the Hardest
• OPINION: Charles Krauthammer - The Radicals are Back, Now Wielding the Environment
• WHITE PAPER: The Economics of America’s Climate Security Act
• POLL: Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal
• VIDEO: Cap & Trade's impact on coal industry.
• ARTICLE: Coal-Cap Disaster

The 85th legislature adjourned on Sunday, May 18 and at that very moment, the 2008 election season began. What had originally been four months of highly contentious legislative wrestling is now being portrayed as “one of the most successful sessions in decades.” At Monday’s press conference, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle flanked the governor and touted the accomplishments of the 2008 session.

The DFL-controlled legislature had an aggressive agenda from the very beginning of the session to raise taxes, increase government spending, expand regulations and implement social engineering programs. While Republican minority leaders fought valiantly to block most of these measures, some caucus members broke ranks with leadership, thereby allowing some of these bills to slip through.

Thankfully, Governor Pawlenty vetoed many bills such as Legalized Gestational Surrogacy, Infant DNA Warehousing and Local Government Domestic Partnerships.  But the governor’s veto of the Transportation bill was overridden by six wayward Republican House members, thereby allowing one of the largest tax increases in Minnesota’s history to be passed into law.

The sound bytes being fed to Minnesotans by the mainstream media don’t begin to tell the whole story behind the 2008 legislative session. Our analysis seeks to separate the hype from the reality, thereby allowing Minnesotans to assess what they really got out of this year’s session.

Hype: A $935 million budget deficit was erased and the budget balanced without raising taxes.

Reality: The budget fix was nothing more than a band-aid and taxes were raised – significantly. Lest we forget, the override of the governor’s transportation bill veto cost us a $6.6 billion tax increase on sales, fuel and vehicle registrations. And if approved by voters this November, Minnesotans will be paying more in state sales taxes to fund arts programs and wildlife habitat.

The final budget deal also included a $125 million tax increase on corporations with foreign operations. This was sold to the public as “closing a corporate loophole,” as if corporations were doing something underhanded. In reality, this provision was enacted by the state legislature years ago to avoid driving corporations with foreign operations out of Minnesota.

Senate Minority Leader David Senjem (R - Rochester) cautioned that the fix relied too heavily on tapping the state's “rainy day” reserve fund and not enough on actual spending cuts. Nearly $500 million needed to balance the budget came from the state’s rainy day fund, tapping about 80% of the fund’s reserves. Senjem predicts the result will be a much worse budget problem in 2009.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: A 3.9% property tax cap resulting in $460 million in property tax reductions.

Reality: When does a tax increase become a reduction? When the government doesn’t raise taxes as much as they otherwise would, it’s billed as a tax cut. This is like expecting to gain 30 pounds and stepping on the scale to discover only a 20-pound gain. Using legislative math, that’s a ten-pound weight loss.

Most politicians somehow failed to mention that while they were creating the property tax “cap”, they were simultaneously increasing local government aid by $60 million. This sleight of hand maneuver essentially took taxpayer money out of one pocket and put it in another, thereby diluting the real impact of the property tax “cap”.

The so-called “cap” includes exemptions that allow communities to exceed 3.9%. Local governments can exceed the cap for things like population growth and emergency services. The cap also doesn’t include local school district referendums. And what happens when cities blow their budgets on non-essentials and then need more funding for police and fire departments, or when the cap expires in three years time? This “cap” is really more like an open-top visor. In reality, many Minnesotans will see property tax increases that well exceed 3.9% and their projected “savings” to Minnesota taxpayers will be nowhere near the claimed $460 million.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: Nation-leading health care reform that includes increased transparency, pay for performance, e-prescribing and tax credits.

Reality: While there are some positive aspects of the health care bill like greater consumer transparency and electronic prescriptions, its major thrust is to grow government involvement and enroll more families onto state-subsidized health care. Families making up to $57,000 now qualify for state welfare health plans, adding thousands of new people to taxpayer-funded health care. The bill adds insult to injury by offering a bounty to outfits (schools, non-profit groups, insurance brokers, etc) that recruit new dependents to feed at the public trough.

Grants are doled-out to local community health boards (more government bureaucracy) to try to enforce lifestyle changes targeting weight-loss and smoking cessation.

Government bureaucrats are given the power to define “quality,” determine physician compensation incentives based upon this definition and even decide what procedures are medically necessary.

Bottom line: this bill expands government involvement in health care, which will ultimately result in higher costs for patients and taxpayers. Unmet hospital costs resulting from the legislation will mean non-subsidized families will see an increase in their insurance premiums and doctor bills. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for the thousands of new people added to welfare health plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: The Central Corridor light rail line will ease traffic congestion and improve the environment.

Reality: The Central Corridor line, like the Hiawatha line, will be built at traffic grade, meaning it will significantly interfere with automotive traffic and eliminate most street parking. Delays at intersections will mean more idling vehicles, more congestion, more wasted fuel and more exhaust emissions. For some reason, no study was conducted to compare the rail transit proposal to bus transit for the Central Corridor.

The real reason Minnesota lawmakers allocated $70 million for the Central Corridor this session was that the state was in jeopardy of loosing $450 million in federal funding for the project. Even at that, it begs the question of where the rest of the money is going to come from to build a line that will cost more than $1 billion. The construction costs are just the first installment. Most, if not all, light rail lines across the country operate at a net loss and rely upon significant ongoing taxpayer funding to stay afloat. This means Minnesota taxpayers will have to annually ante-up on this boondoggle project for years to come.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, in the end, how did everyday Minnesotans really fare out of the session? Our approach to answering this question is to evaluate the session’s results within the context of some of our core values:

Q. Were there any meaningful reductions in government spending?

A. No. Despite this year’s budget deficit, the state legislature actually increased spending by 9.8%. House Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (R – Marshall) said, “It is unfortunate that private sector job growth took a backburner to an expensive and explosive growth in government programs and services.”

Q. Were there reductions in taxes?

A. No, in fact there was a record $6.6 billion tax increase with the transportation bill. And other legislation, like the Green Solutions Act, sets the stage for the implementation of a carbon cap and trade system that will levy a huge tax increase upon all energy consumption in our state in the future.

Q. Were there reductions in the government’s involvement in the lives of everyday citizens?

A. No, in fact there were increases in government involvement in areas like ticket sales, teen drivers and car windows. Creeping socialism was especially evident in the health care legislation with tobacco and weight control funding while building a nice long electronic list for universal health care.

Q. Did the legislature create a more business-friendly environment that would encourage businesses to come to Minnesota?

A. No, in fact they made our business climate less friendly to business. Case in point – Northwest and Delta declined to locate their newly merged corporate headquarters in Minnesota.

Q. Did the legislature pass laws that encouraged greater personal responsibility?

A. No, in fact the state created additional dependents with legislation like the health care bill.

Q. Did the legislature protect our state’s sovereignty by combating the problem of illegal aliens?

A. No. While Governor Pawlenty did issue a number of executive orders strengthening laws to combat illegal aliens, the DFL-controlled legislature resisted all attempts to pass this type of legislation. This is hard to imagine in a year when four innocent children lost their lives as a result of an illegal alien.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who were the real winners out of this year’s session? Clearly it was the special interests. Folks like the Ghermezian Brothers who can now build their new Mall of America parking lot on the backs of local property owners. Or the construction companies that lobbied hard for the $6.6 billion transportation tax increase that can now line their pockets with the proceeds. And don’t forget the $38 million expansion for the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center.

The best thing we can say about the 2008 legislative session is that it is finally over. The damage could have been a lot worse, but it also begs the question, “Is this the best that Minnesotans can expect from their elected officials?” In our humble opinion, voters will need to make some dramatic changes in their representation this November if they want to see different outcomes in the next biennium.

This 3 minute video from ABC's "Person of the Week" provides a stark contrast to the treatment that VETS FOR FREEDOM received when trying to visit Forest Lake High School.  High school administrators and those who organized the protest threat resulting in the cancellation of the presentation at the school would do well to watch this video and learn the meaning of true patriotism.

In 1961, then private citizen Ronald Reagan partnered with the American Medical Association to record this 10 minute speech that was to become part of what was known as Operation Coffee Cup (OCC).  OCC was a campaign conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA) in opposition to the Democrats' plans to extend Social Security to include health insurance for the elderly, later known as Medicare.  As part of the program, doctors' wives would organize coffee meetings and play the Reagan recording to convince acquaintances to write letters to Congress opposing the program. Reagan's arguments against socialized medicine ring as true today as they did over 40 years ago. Minnesota state legislators pushing for increased government involvement in health care should take a moment to reflect on Reagan's comments.

Want to get a first hand look at government controlled health care?  Watch this brief video and see how a Canadian was forced to seek care in the United States in order to save his life.

Some Minnesota politicians believe that Minnesota should adopt a health care plan similar to that of Canada.  But these politicians would do well to consider some of the outcomes associated with the Canadian system, such as:

- Waits up to 5 days in Emergency rooms
- Three-year waiting list for a pain clinic
- Waits of four months for radiation therapy for cancer patients
- Declining enrollment in medical school resulting in too few doctors and nurses
- Closing hospitals to save costs
- 12 % of Canadians can’t find a family physician.

There are countless examples of why adopting a Canadian-style health care program is bad public policy for Minnesota.

Minnesota Majority has learned that each of the seven metro County Boards must adopt a formal resolution in order to put the sales tax and vehicle excise tax into effect within their respective counties.  This means that should a Board fail to adopt the resolution, the tax increases will not go into effect within that county.  Nearly 100% of the $1.1 billion sales and excise tax increase will be dedicated to boondoggle mass transit programs which will have very little, if any benefit for residents in some counties.  If enough citizens revolt and contact their County Commissioners, there's a chance they could block these tax increases from being implemented in their counties.  We have established an Action Alert providing individuals with the contact information for their County Commissioners.