The ad features a number of farmers, one of whom says the EPA wants to regulate methane coming from cattle.

“For thousands of years, 60 million buffalo roamed these prairies in Iowa,” one farmer says. “Who regulated them?”

EPA regional spokesman David Bryan told our sister site, The Iowa Independent Monday that “there’s no truth to that at all.”

“There are a number of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and different types of ambient air quality standards, but trying to say we’re putting a tax on emissions from cows is just a little ridiculous,” Bryan said.

Another claim in the ad, that the EPA wants to regulate dust on farms, is also a myth. Bryan said every five years the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to evaluate air standards, but EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made it clear in a note to Congress that there is no intention to regulate dust on farms.

“You can’t plow a field without dust, you can’t drive down a gravel road without dust,” a farmer says in Cain’s ad. “My dog makes dust.”

The EPA focuses on regulating coarse particulates, Bryan said, such as dust from construction, demolition and industrial sites.

“We center our monitoring of air mostly on urban areas where it affects the most people,” he said. “We’re going to leave the dust standards where they are.”

Dean Kleckner, former head of the Iowa Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau, endorses Cain in the ad, saying, “He reminds me of Ronald Reagan, and I knew Ronald Reagan.”

“Over-regulation is killing the American farmer,” Kleckner says. “I think Herman Cain is the answer. Running a farm is a business and Herman Cain is a proven CEO.”

Bryan said the EPA has worked to counter the false claims that the EPA wants to regulate methane and dust, but not everyone is getting the message.

“What further method do we have other than you folks to say we don’t intend on doing this?” Bryan said.

With just 10 days to go before the deadline for the congressional “super committee” to make a deal, members remain hung up on tax and entitlement reform even as automatic across-the-board cuts loom.

At the moment, Republicans and Democrats are divided by their respective plans, with each offering a mixture of spending cuts and tax revenue increases. Republicans have offered a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction package with roughly $750 billion in spending cuts over the next decade and a $300 billion tax proposal mostly comprised of deduction eliminations. Democrats have offered to trim $2 trillion, with their proposal calling for an almost equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases. The committee was assigned to come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit savings.

Attention now has turned to other courses of action available to the committee to try and avoid the “trigger mechanism,” a fail-safe that would result in deep military and across-the-board cuts if the deal isn’t made.

Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the panel’s Republican co-chair, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that super committee may punt some of the decisions about deficit reduction to individual committees — “a two-step process,” as he described it. In that scenario, the super committee would set the amount of increased tax revenue to be met, and individual congressional committees would then draft legislation to meet it.

The chairmen of the relevant committees—the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee—have said that they would accept that arrangement, according to reporting this morning from the New York Times.

But even if no deal is agreed to and the “trigger” is pulled, there’s still reason to believe the heavy cuts it calls for will be avoided.

The trigger’s cuts do not go into effect until January, 2013, so Congress would have a year to legislate their reversal. That would likely “launch a heavy lobbying effort on K Street, where defense firms in particular would be eager to prevent automatic cuts,” according to The Hill. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) addressed the possibility on “Fox News Sunday,” saying, “In the very, very unfortunate event that we don’t [make a deal] I think it’s very likely that Congress would reconsider the configuration.”

President Obama has told the committee that it needs to “bite the bullet,” and has floated the possibility that he may block any attempt to create a workaround from next week’s Thanksgiving deadline.

Source: A still of Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the ad.

In ads that will run on cable throughout the week, digital rights activist groups criticize Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar for support of the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, which they say would throttle internet freedom to protect profits for entertainment companies.

On its website, Demand Progress, a progressive group, says they have one goal for the ad: “We need to embarrass a key lawmaker to set an example for others, and make it clear that it’s not okay to shill for the entertainment industry.”

The ad targets the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, which would “makes unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty of up to 5 years in prison,” according to Open Congress.

The ad is named “Bieber is Right” in reference to teen pop star Justin Bieber’s comments criticizing Klobuchar for the bill. It asks: “Why is Sen. Klobuchar’s top legislative priority an internet censorship bill that would risk putting ordinary internet users and even Justin Bieber behind bars?”

It’s also paid for by Fight for the Future, a technology rights group, and contains much footage from Occupy Wall Street rallies in Minnesota. Many other groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, have opposed the legislation.

The act is supported by a host of entertainment and media companies, many of which gave generously to Democratic candidates, according to Open Congress.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has recently been heralded by conservative pundits who regret his early departure from the GOP presidential race, told MSNBC Thursday that he won’t accept a vice presidential position.

Pawlenty dropped his bid for the GOP presidential nomination following a third-place finish in the August Iowa Straw Polls. An endorsement of Mitt Romney’s campaign led to speculation that he was gunning for the vice presidential spot.

MSNBC host host Lawrence O’Donnell proposed that Pawlenty is Romney’s best prospect for a vice presidential candidate.

“I’ve already said publicly and repeatedly, that’s not something I’m going to consider,” Pawlenty said. ”He’s going to have a lot of great people to pick from as a vice presidential candidates, I’m sure he’ll make a great pick, it will be a great balanced ticket, but that’s not something I’m going to consider.”

Pawlenty said the “bench strength of the Republican Party and conservative movement is incredible,” citing vice presidential prospects for politicians like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain’s running mate over Pawlenty in the 2008 race.

Video: Pawlenty discusses his decision not to pursue or accept a vice presidential offer around the 11:00 mark.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

According to a new Gallup poll, only 9 percent (for Perry) and 3 percent (for Bachmann) of Republican voters see them as the likely candidate to receive the nomination.

Minnesota Independent reporter Andy Birkey and Texas Independent editor Patrick Michels discussed how their home-state candidate is viewed back home, how religion plays a big part in both candidates’ politics and the “outsider” personas they have cultivated on their way to the national stage.

The complaint was filed on Nov. 9, and will be followed by a hearing with an administrative judge if the company, MikLin Enterprises, doesn’t settle with the International Workers of the World.

For more background, see the entire story at the Minnesota Independent.

Jimmy John’s Complaint

Source: A poster distributed as part of the IWW's campaign to win sick days for Jimmy John's workers.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint Wednesday finding that Twin Cities Jimmy John’s owned by MikLin Enterprises unlawfully threatened, disciplined and terminated workers for engaging in union activities.

The complaint about the sandwich shop stems from a March incident where six supporters of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were fired after protesting the company’s lack of paid sick leave.

Among the findings against Jimmy John’s in the complaint: “Disparaging and threatening pro-union employees on Facebook, removing union postings from stores, interrogating employees about their union activities, and threatening mass firings for union organizing.”

Micah Buckley-Farlee of the Twin Cities branch of the IWW is one of the six fired workers.

“We’re looking forward to continue fighting for paid sick days, which is the starting point that led to the whole thing they fired us for,” Buckley-Farlee told the Minnesota Independent. “So I’m looking forward to getting back to my job and organizing around paid sick days.”

Unless there is a settlement between the company and the union, an administrative judge will hear the case in mid-January 2012.

Union supporters said they’re willing to consider a settlement if Jimmy John’s reinstates workers and pays back pay. The Minneapolis franchises, which are owned by MikLin Enterprises and headed by Michael Mulligan, according to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office, haven’t returned a request for comment (this post will be updated if we find out more).

This isn’t the company’s first brush with labor law violations. In January 2011, the National Labor Relations Board overturned the previous union election, which the union lost by two votes, due to unfair labor practices by the company. At the time, the company and union reached an agreement that Jimmy John’s would not take action against workers supporting the union.

Buckley-Farlee said the union is keeping the possibility of an election on the table, but that the union is currently more dedicated to grassroots organizing.

Update: The Minnesota Independent has received a copy of the NLRB complaint, you can view it here.

Thirty Minnesota and Wisconsin state legislators signed a letter urging their congressional delegations to vote against construction of a nearly $700 million bridge across the St. Croix River near Stillwater.

The legislators, many of whom are from the states’ larger cities, said the bridge was simply too expensive.

“As things currently stand, Minnesota will be forced to divert $160 million of its federal allocation and up to $220 million of state highway and bridge funding. Wisconsin will also need to utilize general fund resources, competing directly with education, healthcare and other priorities,” the legislators wrote. “In choosing the most expensive option, H.R. 850 further constrains our states’ already limited resources for critical bridge repairs and road safety projects.”

The legislators called the proposed bridge “wasteful” and urged Congress to allocate funds to take care of all infrastructure safety needs.

“It is particularly striking when one considers that no new net economic development would occur if this massive bridge were to be built,” Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis) said in a statement. “On the contrary, this bridge would divert jobs and revitalization investments anticipated for the Twin Cities metropolitan area.”

A less expensive option is supported by Rep. Betty McCollum (DFL-Minn.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minn.), while Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and all four U.S. senators from both states support the more expensive option.

The more expensive bridge would also violate a section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

There have also been some public relations missteps by bridge supporters. The blog Ripple in Stillwater earlier reported that Stillwater had used $80,000 in public funds to lobby for the more expensive option, which the city said it would return to Washington County after a critical audit.

StillwaterjointletterNov2011

Thus far, only Cain and Perry have revealed the most detailed plans, and because women are disproportionately likely to be single parents and to have lower wages, smaller pensions and more medical problems, they are expected to fare worse under these plans than their male counterparts.

The gender-wage gap and its relevancy to tax-policy discussions

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (PDF), in 2010, women who were full-time wage and salary workers earned 81 percent of what men earned (median weekly earnings for women were $669, and $824 for men). The female-to-male earnings ratio has hovered around 80 to 81 percent since 2004, up from 62 percent in 1979.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (PDF) showing women make up 49 percent of the total workforce but represent 59 percent of low-wage workers–this despite the fact that more women than men finish high school and earn bachelor’s degrees. And according to a new report (PDF) by the Martin Prosperity Institute, women hold 52.3 percent of “creative class” jobs–engineers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, teachers–but in these jobs, earn an average of $48,007, while men earn an average of $82,009. Controlling for hours worked and education, creative class men out-earn creative class women by 49.2 percent.

According to the 2008-2010 American Community Survey, about 29.2 percent of families whose income in the past 12 months was below the federal poverty level were families headed by single women. It gets worse depending on the presence of young children: 38.1 percent of women-run households with children under 18 were below poverty; 46.1 percent of households with children under 5 were below poverty. In comparison, only 10.5 percent of all American families—and only 5.1 percent of married-couple families—in this survey were making below the poverty level. The aforementioned GAO report found single women with children had an average household income of about $27,000.

Income disparities do not stop at wages, however. Women tend to live longer, they are more likely to outlive their savings and less likely to have significant retirement plans or to have the type of jobs that incur significant pensions. Thus, they disproportionately benefit from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), women represent about 57 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and about 69 percent of beneficiaries over 85. In 2008, women 65 and older received an average of $11,377, compared with $14,822 for men.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (PDF), about 56 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are women, and women are more likely than men to report having three or more chronic conditions.

How do women fare under ‘9-9-9’?

THE PLAN: ‘9-9-9’

With the nation’s attention focused on Cain’s old sexual harassment charges, scrutiny of Cain’s infamous “9-9-9″ Plan is stalled for the moment. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Cain’s plan would make those earning under $50,000 pay a few thousand dollars more in taxes, while those making between half a million and $1 million would pay nearly $100,000 less in taxes. According to an analysis by the left-leaningCitizens for Tax Justice (PDF), if Cain’s plan were to go into effect today, the richest 1 percent of taxpayers would pay $210,000 less in annual taxes, while the poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would pay $2,000 more in annual taxes.

At the same time, Cain’s proposed plan is expected to raise about the same–or potentially less–revenue as the current tax system. Still, a recent poll of likely Iowa Caucus-goers conducted last month shows the average American making under $50,000 annually doesn’t understand the plan and believes he or she would fare better under “9-9-9.”

Cain’s plan is actually a complicated three-step process. Replacing the current tax code with a 9-percent business flat tax (or value-added tax), a 9-percent individual flat tax and a 9-percent national sales tax is only the second step in the process. And as the Tax Policy Center summarizes, combined, the three taxes are equivalent to a 25.4-percent national sales tax, with adjustments for dividends paid to tax-exempt entities and charitable contributions.

The first step in Cain’s plan, explained by The Washington Post, would actually be to cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top-25-percent rate, down from the current high of 35 percent. The third step would be to replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax.

Cain claims under “9-9-9,” Americans who fall under the federal government’s poverty level would be exempt from paying the individual income tax; however, he would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), designed to help the working poor, and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Additionally, he would eliminate payroll tax deductions for employers (except in unspecified “Opportunity Zones”), which currently serve as a hiring incentive. Helping out the wealthy, Cain would get rid of the estate tax and capital gains taxes. His plan, according to Edward D. Kleinbard of the Gould University of Southern California School of Law, involves a “disguised one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth.”

More from TaxVox, the Tax Policy Center blog:

A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. … In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

Cain’s plan would eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is a refundable credit designed to offset federal payroll and income taxes for low- and moderate-income working people.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), this year, working families with children with annual incomes below $36,000 to $49,000 (depending on marital status and dependents) may be eligible for the EITC. Single individuals without children who make less than $13,600 annually and married couples making less than $18,700 annually would qualify for a small EITC. In 2009, the average EITC was $2,770 for a household with children and $259 for a childless household. According to CBPP, families mostly use this tax credit to pay for necessities, home and vehicle repairs and, sometimes, additional education.

Cain would also kill the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which helps working families pay for child care costs.

According to the Urban Institute, high-working, low-income families spend $3,135 annually, or 12 percent of their income. The Institute estimates that 69 percent of children under 5 with low-income working mothers are cared for regularly by someone other than a parent, and 39 percent of these children are in child care for at least 35 hours per week.

“It would be horrifying to lose [the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit],” said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). “That would particularly affect women.

“We have a basically progressive tax code,” she told TAI. “If we go to a flat code, it would significantly hurt low-income workers.”

Joan Entmacher, vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, where she works at promoting policies aimed at improving the economic security of low-income women and their families, told TAI that Cain’s tax proposal appears to affect women worse than the other candidates because his plan is “much harder on lower-income Americans” in the way it would raise taxes on low- and middle-income earners.

Under Cain’s plan, millionaires would get a 17.9-percent tax rate, or a 22-percent boost after taxes. But a single mother earning between $20,000 and $30,000? Her tax rate would be 24.9 percent. In other words, a single mom making $25,000 a year will have to give 25 percent of her income, or $6,250, to taxes.

Cain has proposed creating tax benefits to certain geographic areas in what he calls “Opportunity Zones” (PDF), but he has not been specific about where these zones would be or how they would work.

“Overall, you’re going to be better off if you’re making over $1 million in income, better than single mom trying to raise kids on $25,000 per year,” Entmacher said.

Terry O’Neill, an attorney and professor who is the president of the National Organization for Women(NOW), told TAI that Cain is turning his back on women, many whom depend on the tax programs he wants to eliminate.

“When Mr. Cain wants to take away the Earned Income Tax Credit, he is punishing women who sometimes work two jobs full-time, minimum-wage jobs, just to pay for food and rent,” O’Neill said.

Perry’s postcard proposal cuts more than it balances

During his speech at the Corner Stone Action Dinner in Manchester, N.H., on Oct. 28, Perry repeatedly waved a blank postcard in explaining his tax and economic-policy plan. Like Cain’s plan, Perry’s plan (PDF) is more complicated than he lets on in speeches. Where they differ is in Perry’s explicit details in how Americans would pay for the substantial tax breaks on the highest earners — by eliminating deductions and cutting specific entitlement programs that especially benefit lower-income earners, and women.

THE PLAN: ‘Cut, Balance & Grow’

Taxpayers would be able to choose whether to file their taxes under the current tax code or under a new 20-percent “flat tax.” What Perry has not emphasized is that taxpayers will have to spend time—and potentially money—calculating which plan benefits them more.

Like Cain, Perry has countered claims his plan will result in disproportionately higher taxes for lower and middle-income families. As an example, Perry points to the provision in his 20-percent flat-tax plan, where families will be eligible for “generous” exemptions of $12,500.

In his proposal, Perry takes a dig at Cain’s proposal to introduce a federal sales tax and a business value-added tax, which he calls “highly regressive,” and uses the working poor to make his case:

When added to existing federal income taxes and state and local income sales taxes, a national sales tax would be highly regressive. Low-income families spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on food and gas than do those with considerable wealth. For example, a household earning $25,000 each year would spend roughly 40% of its income on food, utilities, and health care, while a household earning $130,000 each year would pay less than 15% of its income on those three items.

But because Perry would eliminate the EITC, lower- and middle-income earners would still pay more under his plan than they do now. Using calculations made by the Tax Policy Center, The New York Times estimates single parents with two children making $9,700 annually would pay no income taxes under Perry’s plan but would not receive the $4,885 tax credit they receive under current tax law.

Perry, like Cain, would eliminate the capital gains tax.

EFFECT ON WOMEN

To pay for the plan, Perry has suggested cuts in education and nutritional programs for poor children. He has offered various suggestions for reforming Medicare, which include gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility, alongside a gradual retirement-age increase under Social Security; paying Medicare benefits on a sliding scale based on income; or by creating bundled premium support payments that would go directly to the individual. He has also proposed block-granting Medicaid payments.

Entmacher told TAI that under Perry’s plan, taxes would go up for the working poor and what she calls the “true middle class” — households making no more than $75,000 per year.

“The Perry plan is particularly hard on single heads of households,” Entmacher said. “They do worse than the working poor.”

The others

As for the remaining GOP candidates in the pack, the one expected to win the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has a vague plan. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have stated support for a flat tax, and all the candidates support eliminating the estate tax.

Romney’s main tax proposal is to end taxes on interest and dividend income for people who earn less than $200,000 a year, but otherwise keep the existing tax system in place. Romney does not support a flat tax or a national sales tax, stating they would largely hurt the middle class. He supports extending most, if not all, of the Bush-era tax cuts.

All of the experts TAI spoke with agreed the tax code needs reforming. With GOP candidates vying for shorter rules in the name of simplicity, Lower-Basch thinks what the tax code actually needs is more tiers and brackets to be more fair, reasoning that households making $250,000 a year should not be taxed the same as those making $1 or $2 million a year.

Source: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul launched the Minnesota portion of his presidential campaign with a spirited rally at the St. Cloud Civic Center Saturday.

Paul’s speech in St. Cloud touched on issues like domestic economic policy, the drug war and foreign interventions.

“The country and the world is in a mess today, and I’m quite convinced that we know exactly how we get here and exactly what to do,” Paul told the crowd, “and one thing’s for sure is we don’t need more government.”

Paul blamed the Federal Reserve for helping to bring about the speculative bubbles that sunk the nation’s economy.

“It’s the Federal Reserve that by interfering in the monetary system, monkeying around with interest rates, they create the bubbles,” Paul said. “For a while they can create one bubble and patch it up again, but eventually the big bubble bursts.”

He also condemned government bailouts of big banks and companies.

“They said if we don’t bail out the system there would be a depression,” Paul said. “Guess where the depression would have been? It would have been on those who were receiving our money. Instead the depression was dealt to the people, the middle class, they lost their jobs and they lost their houses and we the taxpayer absorbed the debt.”

Paul also voiced support for abolishing the Department of Education and the federal income tax, condemned the drug war as a tragedy and worried about creation of a worldwide monetary currency.

He told supporters that the country is increasingly in agreement with their libertarian economic views.

“We’re witnessing the end of an economic era,” Paul said. “This is a tremendous opportunity for those of us who believe in liberty to get this message out.”

Paul’s foreign policy stances have drawn jeers from some Republican crowds at debates, but he continues to advocate for neutrality and condemn the United States’ assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that ”what we must worry about is the rule of law because the rule of law protects us.”

Organizers put the turnout for the Republican candidate at about 2,500. Paul has trailed in most polls, but has captured a number of high-profile straw poll victories.

“You can not stop an idea whose time has come and the idea of liberty’s time has returned,” Paul said of his supporters. “We don’t have to understand each little issue, all we have to do is legalize freedom.”