Today, Laurie Coleman (U.S. Senator Norm Coleman's wife) stopped by to visit some of our friends and neighbors. I've met Laurie before, heard her talk but it's something special when politicians (or their spouses) come to your home. She discussed raising kids in a family where dad is dedicated to public service. Tips: when little, keep the kids from seeing the trash the opposition throws at their dad; hide the papers; turn off the television. As they got older, Laurie worked with them to help them deal with opponents who know no bounds on attacking you, your family, etc.

She talked about this campaign in particular - anyone following the current US Senate campaign has seen some of the horrible attacks on Norm Coleman and it is expected to get worse, a lot worse. The Democrats have set aside over $6,000,000 to attack Norm. Then she took questions.

Sometimes you wonder if these kind of events are valuable. They are - some attendees were not sure about voting for Norm. After hearing Laurie today, they realized, "Hey, these people are like us. I'll support Norm."

I've watched Norm in small groups over the past few weeks. He really cares about Minnesotans, values, the US, kids, education, and MN history. I have my problems with some of his positions, and I call his office to voice my concerns. But the bottom line is this: he's no millionaire, he did not marry money, he works hard, and yes, he does care.

Continuing disclosure: As I have noted in the past, I am the elected Chair of Minnesota's Second Congressional District Republicans, a volunteer position in Congressman John Kline's district.

Labels: Coleman, Minnesota

A few nights ago I found my name in a post by fellow St. Cloud blogger "Political Muse", noting my opposition to sports stadia and wondering how I can square that with supporting Sen. Coleman's bid for re-election. I've met the senator and asked some tough questions of him in blogger conference calls, but I didn't know him as a mayor and thus never had the opportunity or incentive to ask his view of stadium subsidies. I did comment on Muse's post that in view of Franken's writings in Playboy I would find it much easier to vote for the re-election of Coleman.

Michael reports this morning that the Franken campaign has gone so far as to release an ad deriding Coleman's support of building the Xcel Energy Center.

I find the Franken campaign's choice odd. The reason these stadia keep getting public dollars is because the public believes somehow -- mistakenly, in the view of economists, but this is hardly the first time the public has chosen to ignore the economists -- that they are of benefit to a city and would be underprovided by private financing alone. Pointing out that Norm took from Peter to give to Paul is hardly a way to gain Paul's support in voting against Norm. There may be, there might be, a few Peters who are persuaded by the ad, but if that were true these stadium deals would not keep gaining passage. And support for hockey is enough in this state that even outstate arenas like St. Cloud and Bemidji draw public funding.

I wish there was a spokesman for the economists' view of public financing of sports stadia, but I don't think Al Franken is the right guy for that job either.

Labels: Coleman, Franken, Minnesota, sports

I don't watch the Sopranos, but I get this:
An ad ran yesterday in the StarTribune from the Minnesotans for Employee Freedom, for which I am a member of its steering committee. The ads have drawn some attention from the press this week as the first issue ad in Minnesota.

It's worth thinking a bit more about this issue: What is wrong with card check? I got a card to join AARP recently; I didn't have to fill out a secret ballot on whether AARP could represent me or not. But unions are not voluntary organizations. If 50% plus one of my fellow employees sign a card for a union, the rest of us are compelled to make it our agent for the terms and conditions of our employment. We would give away a great deal of control to our fellow workers if they were permitted to simply get 50%+1 of employees to sign cards. I would argue that a private ballot in voting for giving someone agency rights over our voluntary association with an employer is higher-stakes than our vote in a Presidential election (since the group is so much smaller, our ballot has a much higher probability of being decisive.) You might wonder why unions would be opposed to secret ballots; my answer is "cui bono?"

As I pointed out last month, and as the new ad makes clear, voting in public is coercive. Often union representatives have access to personal information about employees in a shop they want to organize, including home addresses and phone numbers, by which they can repeatedly visit and hope for a signature in a weak moment. Consider a couple of examples. From the Man Show, a spoof was done to get women to sign a petition that would "end women's suffrage." Of course, you hear that word and if not careful think "suffering" and what woman wouldn't want to end suffering? The result is, they just signed a petition to give up their right to vote.

The other is from Penn&Teller's Bullshit program, which is a petition to get dihydrogen monoxide banned. Sounds like awful stuff, until Teller draws for you what it is. Passion overcomes reason when someone is jamming a clipboard or a card in your face asking "only" for your signature.
Remember, nobody gets to talk to you when the fellow with the card comes to visit. EFCA says that employers will be found guilty of violating the National Labor Relations Act if they should interfere with a card check drive. Interfering could be anything including signs or pamphlets advising against signing cards. This after that employee and employer had already entered into a voluntary agreement. The choice is asymmetric -- laws make it much harder to remove an existing union than to create a new one. Should that agreement be abrogated by Johnny Sack with a clipboard?

UPDATE: I had not seen until someone commented on it the "Reality Check" by Pat Kessler. Kessler is misleading on two points.

The bill that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken supports does not eliminate the secret ballot election. Workers still have the right to hold one but labor unions say the new option gives employers less control.

We've cited what the bill says, and we're happy that Kessler agrees that Franken supports HR 800/S 1041. But unions have a strong preference for card check -- which they can only get by agreement with the employer currently. EFCA removes the ability of the employer to negotiate after the cards reach 50%+1. The National Right to Work Legal Foundation has analyzed all union elections and card checks since a case was decided in favor of employees having access to information from their employers. Over 250 were done by card check since November 2007 (basically, a six month period; the last data I saw had about 2500 elections a year by 2005.) As it is, unions win a majority of elections when they are held, 57% between 2001 and 2005. According to data from the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research, perhaps a quarter of all workers organized were through card check. But obviously that's not enough because...

You can agree or disagree with the motive of the bill, but the effect is that it would make it easier to form a union. That's why labor unions want it so badly. Union membership is plummeting.

Unions are not entitled to a share of the labor force. As the traditional manufacturing sectors have declined and as service sector jobs become more high-tech and professional, it is only reasonable that union membership would decline. Union membership is also declining in Sweden, hardly a bastion of free market capitalism. Kessler misleads by implying that employers in the US have been more successful in reducing unionism against the wishes of their workers. There's no evidence that would support that claim.

Labels: Coleman, economics, Franken, Minnesota, unions

The mantra of conservatives and other reasonable Americans is now: "Drill here, drill now, pay less." To address our energy snafu, our Republican Senator, Norm Coleman has introduced a bill that makes very good sense.

SB 3126 includes the following, energy independent points:

1 - Drill off the continental shelf for oil.
2 - Tax credits for nuclear energy.
3 - Funding and credits for alternative sources.

We've seen the results of the 40-year partnership of the Democrats and environmentalists:

1 - Dependency for oil on enemies of freedom in general, the US in particular
2 - Sky-high gas prices because the economics of the market place finally reflect the absurdity of playing ostrich with energy demands: increased cost of building materials; increased food prices; (stock up on meat now - ranchers are dumping b/c they cannot afford feed - meat prices will jump in the fall);
3 - A refusal to build more refineries or nuclear plants yet France, the darling nation of the left, gets 75-80% of its power from nuclear plants but we Americans, with some of the most strict construction laws on the planet cannot build a nuclear power plant?

Benefits of energy independence include but are not limited to:

1 - Lower prices for energy - affects housing, driving, food production, etc.
2 - More private sector jobs (regardless of the Obama mantra, government solves very little but officials are very eager to tell us they do)
3 - Cheaper food
4 - Investment funds to continue to develop cleaner and more efficient products.

In other words, couple energy independence with American ingenuity, the entire planet wins!

Updates to come but this is terrific news! Thank you, Senator Coleman!

Labels: Coleman, Energy

Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies has a neat tool that looks at the voting records of Congresspersons to determine their stances on trade issues. It's neat because it divides their records between votes for trade barriers and trade subsidies. Those voting for low barriers and no subsidies are free traders. There are those who are for low barriers but subsidize domestic producers -- these are classified as "internationalists" and not free traders. I have written down the results for the three presidential candidates remaining, plus for Senator Norm Coleman:

• Clinton -- very much the interventionist. She only opposed nine of 29 trade barriers in her Senate career, and only one of seven trade subsidy bills.
• McCain is more the free trader. He opposed trade barriers 35 times out of 40 votes on such issues, and eight out of ten votes were against trade subsidies. The latter fits his profile as a crusader against government waste, as most trade subsidy programs are corporate pork.
• Obama, 36% of votes opposed trade barriers (4 of 11). He only voted twice on trade subsidies and supported them both times. An interventionist, though there's not as much of a record here as you might like to make that call.
• Coleman is the internationalist. He is very much for keeping trade barriers at a minimum, voting 16 of 22 times to keep barriers down, but has supported trade subsidies in four different votes (two were farm bills, the other two for the Byrd Amendment.)

Wellstone! by the way was the closest thing to an isolationist as we've had.

P.S. This opposition to trade subsidies should also be applied when thinking of tax breaks to dissuade airlines from taking jobs to other states. Use of the public fisc this way is a lousy deal for both small airports and large. It's all the same logic.

Labels: Coleman, economics, politics, trade

The housing issue is rearing its head in the presidential and other campaigns. MPR reports on the criticism of the Senate bill (supported by both Minnesota senators.)

The Senate bill is likely to include several provisions aimed at shoring up the weak housing market. Among them are tax credits for buyers of foreclosed homes, along with billions of dollars to refinance problem mortgages and for cities to buy foreclosed properties.

But the bill also provides billions of dollars in tax breaks for businesses. Critics, including Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, say those tax breaks come at the expense of directly helping homeowners who are in trouble.

Last night we had another blogger conference call with Senator Norm Coleman, and I asked about this criticism. His response was that the tax breaks do help homeowners and that this distinction between direct and indirect help is a false one.

He also points out the issue I raised about that criticism being in conflict with the criticism in the story of there not being enough money for mortgage counseling. As Michelle Malkin has described, the mortgage counselors are often affiliated with left-wing groups like ACORN and La Raza. Coleman defended the idea of counseling; I did not bring up these groups as part of my question, wondering if he was aware of the issue. He made no mention of them. His support of the housing bill pointed to the residential construction industry, which suffered a 14% decline in employment in 2007.

I find no discussion of the mortgage issue on Al Franken's website.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration appears ready to double-down on last summer's FHA insurance expansion.

Under the expanded program, lenders could get FHA insurance for problem loans in exchange for "voluntarily writing down the outstanding mortgage principal," according to the testimony. That would entail the government being responsible for an increasing number of risky loans.

Mr. Montgomery emphasizes in the testimony that "while considering any changes to FHA, we must ensure that the financial solvency of the [FHA] must not be compromised." FHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which didn't return calls seeking comment.

Under the original program created last year, known as FHASecure, homeowners with high-interest, adjustable-rate mortgages currently can refinance into an FHA-insured mortgage and lower their monthly payments. To date, the administration says it's served 145,000 homeowners in need, and projections show that it will likely reach more than 400,000 by year's end. A temporary expansion of the program would be expected to add significantly to that total.

The plan differs significantly from the Durbin plan, which Coleman criticized for its cram-down provisions in "turning mortgages into junk bonds." (Ed Glaeser writes about how to not use the bankruptcy courts to solve the mortgage crisis.) In the Bush proposal, the lenders are being told if you want the FHA insurance, you have to work out a haircut of the principal, reducing the debt of borrowers. Coleman had not seen the plan yet and had no comment.

States are not missing the opportunity to posture for the voters or the media. In Minnesota, SF 3396, the Subprime Foreclosure Deferment Act continues to work through both houses of the legislature.

"We have a crisis in mortgage foreclosures, and this seemed like the boldest way that we could respond to the problem," said state Sen. Ellen Anderson, a sponsor of a Minnesota bill that would let some borrowers with subprime loans or negative amortization mortgages defer paying a portion of the amount owed, without being considered delinquent. A negative amortization mortgage is one in which the loan balance can grow even if the borrower keeps up with the payments.

I'm troubled by the implication that boldness should be the criterion by which we choose how to resolve debt issues. Seems like boldness got us here.

The Minnesota legislation would require a mortgage lender attempting to foreclose on a home to honor a borrower's request for a 12-month deferment. During that time, the borrower would have to continue paying either the monthly payment due on the loan at the time it was made, or 65% of the monthly payment at the time of default, whichever was less, though the borrower would eventually have to make up the deferred payments. The bill has passed committees in the Minnesota House and Senate, but the governor has said he probably will veto it. [Last] Wednesday, the bill's sponsors sent to the governor a letter suggesting that lawmakers work with him to craft a compromise.

The legislation faces strong industry opposition. "It would significantly erode the confidence lenders and borrowers have about the stability of contracts in Minnesota," said Tom Deutsch, deputy executive director of the American Securitization Forum, an industry group.

Contrary to some opinions, the bill does impose some real costs. The terms of the loan are changed. Who would lend again in a place where bad times means the power of government is shifted onto the depositors of a bank, its employees, and the taxpayers?

One thing is for sure: Housing draws voters' attention, which leads it to draw politicians' attention. The latter should worry you.

Labels: Coleman, economics, housing

I'm late with this but it is still worth viewing. Last Wednesday, March 26, the Coleman Campaign officially launched his bid for a second term as a US Senator. The kick-off was held at the campaign headquarters in St. Paul and the event was packed - well over 750 people of all stripes were in attendance! I was in the main room but there were two other rooms where video screens displayed Senator Coleman's talk.






A few photos of the event are included. Note the gratitude on the part of the Somalis. We sometimes wonder if anyone ever appreciates what we do - some of these people get it. Included with the Somali women is Barb White, Republican Candidate for MN's 5th Congressional District, seat currently held by Representative Keith Ellison.

Labels: Coleman

At least in one race, it appears so.

Al Franken, the comedian-turned-U.S. Senate candidate, thinks the current state of health care in Minnesota — and the United States as a whole — is anything but funny.

“Every other industrialized country in the world has universal health care — we’re the only industrialized country that doesn’t — and I think it’s no coincidence that we spend twice as much per person as any other industrialized country on health care,” Franken said during a visit to the Detroit Lakes Newspapers offices on Friday. “And yet we don’t have as good outcomes as they do.

“We’re last in the industrialized world in preventive care. We have 47 million people who are uninsured, with tens of millions more who are underinsured because they can’t afford full coverage … and they live in fear that they will go bankrupt if they have a medical crisis. Medical crises are the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy in this country.

“Fifty percent of the bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical crises. They don’t have that in other industrialized countries.”

Franken also notes that the current health care system has “tremendous waste,” with 34 percent of health care dollars being spent on administrative fees.

“No other country spends more than 21 percent (on administrative fees),” he said. “We have people going to work every day for insurance companies trying to figure out how to deny you care.

“I hear story after story of incredible waste in our system because we aren’t universal.”

Where do we start with this hooey? Let's look at a couple of leading examples, say, Sweden:

Health Minister Göran Hägglund has criticized the lack of progress made toward shortening wait times in Sweden’s health system.

He made the comments in an opinion article published in Dagens Nyheter in which he stated that the 250 million kronor spent by the government on lowering wait times has apparently had a little effect.

The criticism comes in response to a report by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) showing that nearly 45 percent of patients have longer wait times than are supposedly guaranteed by the healthcare system.
...
In Jämtland county, for example, four out of ten patients couldn’t even get through to their local clinic by telephone on the day they become ill.

Hägglund asserted that people are generally satisfied with the care provided—when they receive it.

“But the wait to receive attention—be it a telephone call to a local clinic or a first visit to a physician—is simply too long,” he said.

Hat tip Mark Perry, who wonders what would happen to Domino's or Northwest Airlines if four out of ten of their customers couldn't get their calls answered.

Next door in Norway, hospitals are suffering a budget crisis. This is worth reading in its entirety, but I will italicize the paragraph that should be used as a clue-bat to the back of Al Franken's noggin:

With waiting lists long, and patients still often lying in corridors, many Norwegians can't understand why medical care is under so much pressure in one of the world's wealthiest countries.

The board of Ullevål University Hospital in Oslo, one of the country's biggest public health institutions, announced earlier this week that it needed to cut its budget by NOK 406 million (about USD 81 million). Medical personnel were quick to claim that patient care would be affected.

The cuts come after another year of reports that patients often have to wait months for operations, that clinics face shutdown or maternity patients are sent home within hours of birth. The physical plant at Ullevål, like at many other Norwegian hospitals, can use some refurbishing, if for no other reason than to make the hospital a more cheerful, inviting place.

State officials, including Health Minister Sylvia Brustad of the Labour Party, argue that the hospitals are receiving more state funding than ever before, and that more patients are being cared for than ever. Nevertheless, cuts are warned and both hospital administrators and union leaders claim they're dealing with yet another health care "crisis."

Newspaper Aftenposten has gathered figures showing that Norwegian hospitals today have NOK 86 billion available, up from NOK 56 billion in 2002. Even though budgets have increased every year, the hospitals are using more money than they're getting. That's led to an accumulated budget deficit of around NOK 9 billion.

The number of doctors tied to Norwegian hospitals rose from 6,700 in 1995 to 10,854 in 2006, up 62 percent. The number of nurses and psychologists on staff has also increased, while administrative personnel has increased the least. The total number of hospital workers in Norway jumped from 67,098 in 1995 to 94,923 in 2006, with payroll costs jumping 70 percent.

Professor Terje Hagen of a health management and economic institute at the University of Oslo claims there is no crisis within Norwegian health care. "The hospitals have had tighter financial constraints in recent years, but they're still using more resources than planned," Hagen told Aftenposten.

Hagen says health care personnel aren't working as many hours as they did before, and notes there's more of them. Professor Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen puts the financial problems firmly on the rise in personnel and the resulting payroll hikes. He also rejects talk of a crisis.

"As I see it, neither hospital personnel nor politicians manage to say 'no' (to health care services that result in higher costs)," Kristiansen said. "When the possibilities for what can be done just get bigger and bigger, and no one sets priorities, budgets will burst.

"It's virtually immoral to talk about a crisis, when we are among the countries using the most money on hospitals in the world."

The budget that bursts is not the hospital's, in universal care. It's yours.

Now of course, Franken's supporters will argue that he doesn't really want single-payer, even though his health-care page says "A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system." He just wants it for kids under 18 (that's the Obama plan, too.) But even his plan for adults -- every state mandated to come up with its own plan -- creates a problem that Glen Whitman identified a few months ago:

To enact any mandate, legislators and bureaucrats must specify a minimum benefits package that an insurance policy must cover. Yet this package can't be defined in an apolitical way. Each medical specialty, from oncology to acupuncture, will push for its services to be included. Ditto other interest groups. In government, bloat is the rule, not the exception.

Even now, every state has a list of benefits that any health-insurance policy must cover--from contraception to psychotherapy to chiropractic to hair transplants. All states together have created nearly 1,900 mandated benefits. Of course, more generous benefits make insurance more expensive. A 2007 study estimates existing mandates boost premiums by more than 20%.

If interest groups have found it worthwhile to lobby 50 state legislatures for laws affecting only voluntarily purchased insurance policies, they will surely redouble their efforts to affect the contents of a federally mandated insurance plan. Consequently, even more people will find themselves unable to afford insurance. Others will buy insurance, but only via public subsidies. Isn't that just what the doctor didn't order?

Who is going to write the mandate that says hair transplants are out? That physical therapy for a chronically arthritic shoulder is limited to only ten times a year, or that condoms are in but that new fancy IUD is out?

And what happens if you mandate that everyone buy their own health insurance, and they don't? As Whitman points out, in the 47 states with mandatory auto insurance, 12% of autos are uninsured -- a higher percentage than persons without health insurance in Minnesota. And in a third of the cases nationwide, the uninsured had household income over $50,000. (Source.)

(BTW, Arnold Kling recommends this excellent article, but it's a 7 MB pdf, so beware.)

The question comes down, as Grace-Marie Turner says, to whether you let individuals control their own care, or you let government. Sweden and Norway use government, and Al Franken thinks that's a good idea. Luckily for those Republicans suffering palpitations on their choice of presidential nominee, all of the remaining GOP candidates are not for the Scandinavian model of health care. John McCain says "To use their money effectively, Americans need more choices."

Here, by the way, is Norm Coleman's health care page. I don't see any mention of Sweden.

Labels: Coleman, economics, Franken, health care, politics

Several bloggers were invited to speak earlier this evening with Senator Norm Coleman about his upcoming campaign for re-election. It was a small and fairly informal affair, with Coleman holding forth with a group of about six bloggers that I heard for approximately thirty minutes. I heard Mitch, Michael, and Drew on the call. The campaign intends to make these a regular part of their schedule going forward.

The campaign put up a new video today, the first of what they hope to be many positive campaign ads highlighting Coleman's record. This one discusses some constituent service for a couple adopting a child from Haiti. There was some discussion of whether they would run more positive ads or ads contrasting Coleman from Al Franken or Mike Ciresi, but all I learned from this was that they had a plan to have both running and that some will go to TV. There was no commitment to when this would happen.

Both Coleman and campaign manager Cullen Sheehan emphasized that there was an uptick in small donations and in volunteer activity, indicating increase in activity. In response to questions about the mood of the base, Coleman pointed to low voter turnout in GOP primaries thus far but thought the issues were so important to people that we would see a response. We need independents to win, he stressed, and we have a way to go.

Questions were asked first about immigration. Coleman felt that the Bush SOTU speech had stressed the right balance about both respect for the law and for our country's highest ideals. Not a path to citizenship that allows anyone to jump ahead of legal immigrants, and nothing that would go ahead of actually securing the border first. Coleman understood that voters did not trust the Senate on the issue and this needs to be fixed, but he also felt that people want to be able to work and not live in fear. Common ground exists, he thought, in first fixing the border and then having people agree on the speaking English, paying taxes and holding employers responsible for hiring legal immigrants. I did not hear enough of how to get from those to the desire to have people not live in fear, but what I heard was stronger on immigration than some have portrayed as Coleman's position.

I asked about the stimulus package and his plans. He gave the standard answer on what I call 3T Stimulation (Timely, Temporary, Targeted) and that he felt all would come together and pass the plan by 2/15. Whether it stays identical to the House bill isn't as certain. He also gave a focused answer on housing, arguing for the Bush position on fixing Fannie and Freddie, modernizing FHA, etc. We cannot have plans like Barney Frank's plan to introduce greater regulation in credit markets, because it would end up denying access to credit to people wanting, for example, to buy their first homes. In five to seven years, he said, people may complain about lack of access to capital. The worst, he felt, would be to raise taxes.

He closed with a rather passionate defense of his position with the base, quoting the 80% rule about who to vote for (as my friend Gary says, your 80% friend isn't your 20% enemy.) I paraphrase here, but I think the line he used was "Leadership is sometimes moving in a direction that people don't yet know they need to move." The last election was not a rejection of conservatism, and on the key issues we agree. He left us with a story that comes from a Charles Swindoll book (I knew I had heard it before, but had forgotten where and had to look it up tonight.) His side was the one with the "Yes" face.

Labels: Coleman, politics