After spending three days at this year’s annual “Take Back America Conference” I can tell you one thing: Elections have consequences.

Descending the escalators into the basement-bunker maze of the Washington, D.C., Hilton’s conference halls one might think he has stumbled upon a progressive speak-easy, where the word liberal isn’t dirty and “Fox News” is laughed at as an oxymoron.

Conference attendees scurry by with canvas tote-bags carrying the day’s swag on their shoulders: ACLU water bottles, free campaign materials from the Progressive Majority booth, or the newest Al Gore novel purchased from the conference’s own makeshift bookstore. SEIU T-shirts bump into “Rainbow Coalition” T-shirts while filing into break-out sessions with titles like “Making the Decision to Run: Is My Time Now?” and “The Impeachment Process.”  The energy produced by the concentration of fervent party activists, who are fueled by the first encouraging election results in years, is nothing short of stunning.  Indeed, the nation’s progressives have come together to declare that the progressive movement is no longer on the ropes.

While the excitement levels at the conference hit their peak during the speeches of the various presidential contenders (a topic to which I’ll return in more detail shortly), the meat and potatoes of the conference was more dutiful.  Speeches centered on the idea of building a sustainable movement and planning together for a progressive America that would last long after the 2008 elections have been decided.  Yet for all the shared excitement and good will, tension simmered below the surface.

more insideThe Opening Salvos
Robert Borosage, president of the Center for American Progress (the conference’s sponsor and organizer), opened the conference with a speech titled “Our Time Has Come.”  Borosage stressed the idea that the conservative movement has met its end and that we, as progressives, have a historical opportunity to capitalize on the moment to create an “enduring majority.”  The speech, however, came across as more of a locker-room pump-up speech rife with hyperbole and partisan language.  It is the hyper-partisanship and winner-takes-all attitude that many progressives strive to excise from the nation’s capitol in the next election (an admittedly impossible goal, but we certainly can move in the right direction). But Borosage’s black-and-white analysis seemed eerily familiar.  Even more troubling were the undertones of intra-party battle-the notion that some within our ranks are not progressive enough.  Although Borosage never overtly stated this effort to pull some of our own further to the left, the message still came through: We should be loyal to the vision above all else.

Interestingly enough, it was Minnesota’s very own Rep. Keith Ellison who reined back the “our way or the highway” tone of the opening speech.  Ellison took the stage and spoke immediately not of 2006 but of 1964.  He spoke of a party that had been down and out, on the verge of quitting, and without any real control in Washington: the Republican party of 1964.  They did not quit, however, but built.  Ellison’s lesson was simple: the tide is turning but we cannot expect to replicate the right’s machine without the same measured patience they exhibited over the past 30 years.  Moreover, this patience necessitates the construction of a mechanism to address and resolve internal party conflict to avoid cannibalism.  Personally, I found this message to be a far more important one than that espoused by Borosage or any of the other opening speakers. The greatest danger facing the progressive movement right now may very well be the progressive movement.  It was refreshing to hear someone address this issue in the middle of all the chest thumping, and it made me proud that it was Keith.

These two speeches provided an interesting preview of the strengths and weaknesses of the days to come: for every five tables in the convention room calling for progressive unity, there was one deriding the Democratic Congress; for every 100 cheers during Sen. Hillary Clinton’s speech, there was one loud jeer.  Certainly the cannibalistic temptations that Keith warned against at the opening of the conference did not come close to derailing the overall message, but their presence was felt throughout.

The Candidates
There is little doubt that Clinton felt this presence most acutely.  The presidential candidate gave the most widely reported speech of last year’s conference, but the stories in the news had little to do with the content of her speech. Instead, the “boos” of the crowd got the headlines. Clinton must have learned from that treatment because she rescheduled her appearance at the last minute to 8 a.m. on the last day of this year’s conference.  This was undoubtedly a conscious move to reduce the size of the crowd for her speech. The turn-out was smaller than for either Obama or Edwards and the jeers were few and far between this year.  Although rounds of applause dominated this year’s outing, Clinton received a few isolated “boos” when she spoke about the Iraq war, which were aptly drowned out by her supporters’ intentionally uproarious applause.  Despite this modest setback, Clinton’s speech was overall quite impressive.  Out of the three front-runners Clinton did the best job of displaying her own thorough command of the issues.  And she outlined a proposal to provide nation-wide pre-k, a huge plus in my book.

Other presidential candidates stuck to their originally scheduled time-slots.  This was, perhaps, unwise for former Sen. John Edwards to do as he was scheduled immediately after a very hard act to follow — Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.  While Edwards definitely had more crowd support than Clinton, he failed to match the energy that Obama had left the stage with 15 minutes earlier.  In what seemed like an intentional concession to Obama, Edwards delivered a plodding, content-fueled speech.  Oddly enough, a significant portion of his speech framed America’s problems through the lens of international opinion.  Everything from Iraq (accurately so) to health care (weirdly so) was given the “what does the rest of the world think of us” treatment.  While I agree with Edwards that our falling rank in the court of international approval desperately needs to be addressed, my first thought when looking at the Katrina tragedy isn’t “what does Europe think of us now.”  This teenage like insecurity is unlikely to play well with the whole of America.  Maybe I just can’t get over my gut-level reaction that Edwards is a fake, but the appearance did little to win me over.  And given the crowd’s reserved reaction, I’m not sure he impressed too many of the other on-the-fencers present.

Which brings me back to the first of the big three to speak: Obama.  Not only was the crowd for Obama by far the largest, it was hands-down the most diverse.  And if the success speeches were to be measured by the number of goosebumps in the room, there’s not doubt that Obama would win by a landslide.  The combination of the large crowd, the diverse audience, Obama’s undeniable presence, and a speech that was grounded in optimism resulted in far more applause than any other candidate experienced.  Yet for the quality of the speech, it did trail in substance in some areas.  Health care was covered in a very superfluous fashion, and education was the usual rant against No Child Left Behind instead of a real plan. Still, Obama outlined specific details about his energy policy (cap & trade) and how our foreign policy should evolve post-Iraq (rebuilding our traditional alliances while rejecting isolationism). As usual, Obama tended to rely heavily on his own personal story but he is doing an increasingly better job of interweaving that story with a vision for where we need to go as a nation.

For the duration of the conference Politico.com had a booth set up at the entrance that allowed attendees to vote in a presidential straw poll (each attendee was assigned a poll number at registration that allowed one vote). Guess what the results were. You guessed it: Obama -29 percent, Edwards – 26 percent, Clinton – 17 percent, and Richardson – 9 percent. (I promise, my impressions of the speeches really were formed before I saw the results.)

My humble opinion: America needs Barack Obama.  I’ve been a quiet Barack supporter since the outset, but I’m more convinced than ever after this conference.  Edwards is (from an issue stance perspective) a true progressive, Clinton has the most thorough command of the issues, but Barack is the only one that truly has the ability to mend this nation.  His unfailing optimism is backed by unassailable intellectual credentials and his background completes the narrative arc of this nation’s social follies while signaling to the rest of the world, firmly, that America is born anew.  But, hey, that’s just me.

Moving Forward
There’s no doubt that this year’s Take Back America conference was a complete success. The energy of thousands of progressives coming together to plan for our future was almost cathartic after the last six years. Seeing Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota enter a room to have Bernie Sanders yell “hey, who’s that!” and run over to give her an emphatic hug, or Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader sitting down in the corner of a back room for a slice of pizza is enough to put a smile on any progressive political wonk’s face. But these are fleeting moments that bring fleeting smiles.  The true hopes and aspirations of the conference are carried by the attendees who do (or do not) take the lessons of the weekend home to build a stronger political movement.  Let’s just hope they remember Keith Ellison’s sage words: “Don’t be patient with bad results, don’t be satisfied that we’re not out, absolutely be dissatisfied, but do not turn your dissatisfaction into a cannibalistic enterprise.”

With this session’s most politically tenuous piece of major legislation finally hitting the Governor’s desk, political observers are waiting with bated breath to see how blindly loyal Pawlenty is to his ideological overlords.

In the final hours of the session, the state legislature painfully birthed bill after bill, each born of some gubernatorial compromise.  With the exception of a few line items, each of the major bills have survived the ever looming threat of the veto pen but that could all change in the next few days: All indications are that the Governor will lay the red ink on the tax bill.  Why?  Well, it certainly isn’t because of the check made out to the RNC to help with preparations for the 2008 convention…  No, the thing that really gets our stubborn leader’s goat is responsible accounting.

more insideLet me explain.  The tax bill once again returns Minnesota to the fiscally responsible practice of taking into account inflation when projecting future spending (which we did before 2002).  The practice is not only universally applied in the business world, but states across the nation also seem to be pretty fond of the idea:

Minnesota is believed to be the only state that does not tally expected inflation when estimating future spending. “If I’d tried to do that, I think I would have been put in jail,” Richard Sims, former state economist for Arkansas and Kentucky, said in an interview when he visited the Minnesota Legislature, Feb. 6. [Star Tribune, 5/30/07]

That’s right, the only state…

By his own words, Pawlenty has mentioned only this inflation provision among the reasons to veto the bill; for some reason ignoring the many items he finds agreeable in the extensive bill.  To veto the entire bill just because of a single provision that the vast majority of states have already enacted seems, well, odd.  Indeed, the same editorial piece had the following to say about the tax bill:

It’s such a solid piece of lawmaking workmanship that if Pawlenty vetoes it — and we urge him not to — he should feel obliged to help rebuild the bulk of it as soon as possible, by calling a special session.

This bill isn’t a tax-increase bill. If it were, it would not have received 10 Republican votes in the Senate. Rather, it’s a tax-exchange bill, raising a modest sum by closing an unintended corporate tax loophole, and using that money to pay for property tax relief and a break to Minnesota-based corporations. [Star Tribune, 5/30/07]

In short, if the Governor vetoes this bill it will not due to his oft-cited excuse of a tax-hungry legislature; taxes are not raised under this bill.

If the Governor vetoes this bill it will solely be about his opposition to fiscally responsible governance.  To the Governor, and to many of his uber-conservative allies, extricating inflation from spending projections amounts to a back-door government shrinking mechanism.  After all, if the dollar is worth less next year that amounts to a reduction in government spending power as long as the dollar amount remains the same.  And since the government isn’t keeping the spending power at the same levels year over year, surpluses will appear because revenue does naturally adjust for inflation.  While that sounds nice, it amounts to stealing money from the education department just to drop it in the surplus pot.  These artificial “surpluses” are then used by conservatives to push tax cuts, which starts the whole circle over again.

Moreover, refusing to include inflation allows the Governor to trump out relatively minuscule increases in dollar amount spending and bill them as “spending increases.”  In fact, the Governor has done just that during his tenure.  For example, education spending levels have not yet reached the 2003 levels when inflation is taken into account, but the Governor still maintains that he has “increased” education spending during his time at the capitol.  This is technically true only because inflation was removed from projections; were it included the Governor could only truthfully say that he had cut education spending.

These may seem like silly sticking points but they are changes in wording that can swing elections (especially when they are as close as the last Gubernatorial election).  After all, what seems more honest: claiming that you increased spending when the real-world spending capacity of a department has decreased, or admitting to budget cuts under that same real-world situation?  Perhaps I’m delusional, but I would guess that the majority of Minnesotans are on my side here.

Even outside the political considerations (where all true policy decisions would be made in a perfect world) adjusting for inflation just makes sense.  To my knowledge we’re the only state in the nation that fails to adjust for inflation, but just to cover my own behind, let’s merely say that the vast majority of states do so.  Why would we allow the partisan agenda of a handful of people get in the way of a fiscally responsible policy that the whole of the business community abides by and the “vast majority” of states, Republican and Democratically controlled alike, have enacted?  The only answer can be blind allegiance to a mistaken few.

Make no mistake, this is an important bill.  The bill closes corporate tax loop holes and uses that money to provide local government aid to the tune of millions.  Mayors across the state are begging the Governor to pass the bill because it means much-needed money for items they have been desperate for since the LGA cuts in ’03; such extravagant things as more police officers.  Moreover, this bill represents the last real chance for any property tax relief this session, even if it is more acutely focused on lower-income families.  Yet the Governor would pass up all of this (without any tax increases!) just because he disagrees with the world’s accountants.

The tax bill has scores of financially responsible measures that will benefit scores of real Minnesotans.  To veto this bill would be to sacrifice the sincere interests of millions of Minnesotans at the altar of blind ideological adherence (not to mention national political ambitions).  Let’s hope that the Governor remembers which of the two put him in office.

As I wrote in my previous column in this space, I think that the DFL leadership in the Senate and, to a lesser degree, the House has made a strategical error in the formulation of their budget plans.  Ceding the language of “America’s highest income tax bracket” is an almost inexcusable mistake and the accompanying sales tax increases don’t help the cause.  That being said, the Governor has led us down a path that leaves us at a crucial juncture with only two options: raise revenue or dismantle Minnesota’s legendary quality of life.

Slowly but surely I think Minnesotans are beginning to wake up to this reality.  Whether it’s the extra minutes each day that your commute is taking from your home life, the steady decline of our public school system relative to the rest of the nation or the ever increasing sting of the property tax bill, everybody is starting to see and feel the pinch.  Which is where the state legislature’s slight fumble finds its silver lining: a renewed interest in debating the merits of the tax code.

more insideAs you may or may not know, I produce a radio show on AM950 called “Minnesota Matters” (Live M-F 5-7pm!!), and after a few months of discussing the legislature’s budget plans I can tell you that the most sure-fire way to get people to call in is to start talking about taxes.  We don’t even have to talk about tax hikes, a mere mention of the “tax” word is enough to get every person with a pulse to pick up the phone and try to get their opinion on the air.  To some degree I anticipated this level of interest in the subject, but what I didn’t anticipate was the intensity of the response.  A few people might call to opine on the merits of various solutions but then, inevitably, a rabidly anti-tax individual will call in to enumerate the reasons that the government has no right dipping its hand in his purse and the flood gates open on calls.

The responses to the tax question both on the show and on the street are as varied as the range of plans before the legislature, but I have picked up on one primary point of contention between the two sides of the debate: What is your fair share?

When you distill the debate down to its core contention there are, essentially, two camps: the dollar amounters and the percentagers.  For those in the former camp, your “fair share” is more or less defined by the dollar amount on the check you write to the state (or the IRS for that matter).  The expectation is that every member of society should pay in a defined amount; after all, a rich person doesn’t use the highways or the police appreciably more than a middle class person (there’s a debate even there, but just let me play devil’s advocate).  And while for most members of this camp paying slightly more than the average for higher income people and less than the average for the destitute is negotiable, the “fair share” is still determined by the dollar.  When the person you’re sparring with over tax policy exasperatingly asks the question of what dollar amount is “enough,” you know you’ve found a member of this camp.

For the second camp, the “percentagers,” one’s “fair share” is determined by a percent of their income.  Under this measure the dollar amount on the check isn’t nearly as important as is the level of commitment relative to the individual’s means.  Indeed, this is why the most recent tax incidence study has been trumped out so many times during this debate.  The study indicates that when all taxes are considered the middle class in Minnesota is paying roughly 12.3 percent of their income to the state while the rich (defined here as making over 400K) pay in only 9.6 percent.  Obviously, those who find themselves in the percentage camp interpret this as an example of the wealthy failing to pay their fair share.  When the person you’re sparring with over tax policy exasperatingly cites the tradition of progressive tax policy in the state of Minnesota, you know you’ve found a member of this camp.

I put forth and attempt to define the distinction between these two ideological starting points because I think the lack of recognition of the depths of this difference prevents many honest discussions of tax policy from even getting started.  I would postulate that there are more people who find themselves in the “percentager” camp but it’s surprising how many are on the other side and the range of circumstances from which they come.  Personally, I would assert that it is a moral obligation for those who are better off to give more to the cause; an obligation that dates back to Abraham’s tithing in the book of Genesis.  And there are also scores of economic theories that support the idea that the wealthier should contribute a correspondingly greater proportion.  But, I digress.

Once we accept this difference of position and determine which camp holds the dominate opinion, we can move on to the more practical details such as whether higher-income individuals should be made to give above the median rate, or how high the rate need be set.  But until then we’re going to hit a roadblock every time we get to the line about “your fair share.”

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,

The length of the political campaign season is getting a little out of control in the United States.  When you have two prominent politicians of the same party publicly sparring over the controversial comments of a prized Hollywood fund-raiser a full year before most states have their primaries, well, let’s just say things have gotten a little out of hand.

So, I’m going to do the responsible thing.  I’m going to do what so many other political commentators, pundits, and reporters should be doing: ignore the 2008 cycle for now… and start talking about the 2010 cycle!  If a couple of my readers are wondering what that foul taste in your mouth was right there, it was your gag reflex letting you know that this just isn’t right but, hey, maybe it’s so wrong, it’s right!?  Yeah, probably not, but I’m going to go ahead with this ridiculousness anyway.Pulling out my best set of political binoculars and aiming them squarely at the governor’s mansion in November 2010, all I can make out right now is a blur of blue, red, and, wait a second, is that a pink boa?  No, it can’t be, forget the body and let’s move on.  Readjusting the zoom on these binocs here, I’m going to zoom…out…a little…ah, here we go, June 2010: the primary (keep your fingers crossed that it actually is moved to June).  Well, the focus is still pretty blurry, but at least I can make out some faces.

A lot of faces, in fact.  What’s with these binoculars?  How can there be this many DFLers still around at the primary in 2010?  Haven’t some already dropped out or decided not to run?  Oh, I see, the disclaimer on the side of the lens says, “Warning: these binoculars can only display all possibilities; objects in the future-view-finder are less predictable than they appear.

A combination of national anti-incumbant, anti-republican sentiment, and Klobuchar’s impressive campaign discipline has left her far ahead of her opponent in the polls.  In the last month alone only one of the seven major polls published has shown Amy Klobuchar with a lead of less than 10 points over Congressman Mark Kennedy; the average Klobuchar lead of those polls was 16 points, a practically unheard of margin in a swing-state Senatorial race.  The effect of these polls coupled with the seemingly insurmountable momentum of the Klobuchar campaign has lead almost all national political forecasters to downgrade the race to a safely Democrat one.

Still, anything can happen in four days; so let’s take a closer look at where Amy Klobuchar and Mark Kennedy stand on the issues:Rep. Mark Kennedy, GOP

Energy:  Does not support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but he did vote for a Defense bill that included a provision for drilling in ANWR.  Supports encouraging fuel conservation through various avenues but does not support the Kyoto Treaty.  Of note: Pat Shortridge, Mark Kennedy’s campaign manager, was the senior lobbyist for Enron during the 2001 secret energy talks with Dick Cheney.

Iraq War:  Does not support immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal.  Has historically supported the Bush Administration policy in Iraq but has recently acknowledged that mistakes have been made and that we need a strategy “focused on adapting to win.”

Social Security:  Kennedy has yet to officially clarify his position on Social Security and privatization but his voting record indicates at least past support for privatization plans.  Among other indicative votes, Kennedy has twice voted to keep avenues towards privatization open [Vote #78, 3/6/05; Vote #273, 7/25/01].

Health Care:  Opposes universal health care plans.  Supports tort reform that limits malpractice lawsuits.  Does not support drug reimportation programs but did support the President’s medicare prescription drug benefit program.  He has received 0% rating from the American Public Health Association; “the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world.”

Immigration:  Supports and recently voted for fencing off the border.  Supports an increase in border patrol.  Does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Amy Klobuchar, DFL

Energy:  Supports expanded incentives for renewable energy and technology.  Supports adoption of renewable fuel content standards (10% by 2010, 20% by 2020) and raising the fuel economy standards for all cars.  Supports ant-price gouging legislation.

Iraq War:  Supports the development of a timetable for bringing home the troops but does not support immediate withdrawal.  Calls for a renewed commitment to funding and providing the best possible equipment for our troops.

Social Security:  Opposes privatization but wants to introduce further incentives for supplemental retirement options like IRA and 401(k) accounts.

Health Care: Supports a universal health care plan.  Calls for the government to negotiate for lower prices with pharmaceutical companies.  Opposes taxpayer subsidies for pharmaceutical advertising.

Immigration:  Supports increased border patrol and the fence.  Calls for more rigorous enforcement of immigration laws through cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.  Supports earned citizenship plan.

After 4 years of handling press, how did Brian McClung manage that?  I mean, think of all the people that missed out on the Governor’s wonderful attacks!  And just imagine how much money was used to rent a plane for a day just to miss an easy way to address a large segment of the 7th CD.  I know that Republicans love cronyism, but maybe Pawlenty should take a look at who’s scheduling this stuff!

Well, at least an immigration policy that is presented anywhere on either his Congressional or campaign websites.  Observe the following (derived from one of my posts earlier this week).  Keep reading for the whole story.
Kline’s campaign site has no way to access any sort of policy papers and a google search of the site for “immigration

Mary was born December 29th, 1946 in Pierz, a small Minnesota town south of Brainerd.

This information also appears on the CWTC site and her Wikipedia entry.  But it doesn’t appear on the WCCO voter guide.  No, the voter guide has the following information under “birthplace:”

Balta, ND Moved back to Minnesota when 4 yrs. old

This could easily be a mistake but it is still intriguing.  I have yet to get a hold of the Kiffmeyer campaign and WCCO has yet to get back to me, but other campaigns have confirmed that they submitted the information to the guide for their respective candidates.  So, if there is a mistake, it is likely on the part of the Kiffmeyer campaign.  But if that is the case, why the very specific answer that she moved back to Minnesota when she was 4 and why “back?”

More as this develops…