Does this map look familiar?

Much of the talk about the new Congressional district map has centered around the idea that it is a "least change" map. What you may not realize is that it really hasn't changed that much in over a century.

Here's the new map:

And here's an 1899 map from the Legislative Coordinating Commission's GIS page:

There are obvious differences (including the fact that there were only seven districts,) but the basic shape of these districts look very familiar. The current CD8 is almost identical, and the 1899 map preserves the longstanding division in the Red River valley community of interest and northeastern Minnesota. The bizarre CD4 would be right at home with the tortured present day CD6.

It's all academic now that the maps have been drawn, but I find it fascinating that our current map looks so  similar.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

Not Almanac 2/27 is all redistricting all the time

The new episode of Not Almanac is ready for you to listen and download. In it we talk about redistricting, including the drama-free congressional map, the Alsace-Lorraine region of Edina, and talk of a lawsuit over minority representation in the legislature.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

You can download the episode and subscribe to Not Almanac through iTunes via this link.

Thanks to you, we've had over 3,500 listens to our first five episodes! We appreciate every listener, and we'd love it if you'd share Not Almanac with someone you think would be interested.

Follow us on Twitter @TonyAngelo, @stevetimmer and @aaronklemz

Water, water everywhere...

...and plenty left to sell, apparently.


Quietly, two separate bills that would weaken conservation of Minnesota drinking water are percolating at the Capitol. One would permit the Minnesota Legislature to approve the sale of water across state lines, the other would repeal a 2008 requirement that cities adopt conservation pricing for water use.

Introduced last week, SF 2004/ HF 2434 would allow the Legislature to approve the sale of Minnesota water across state lines. All three of the sponsors (Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, Rep. Bud Nornes and Rep. Mark Murdock) represent the same territory in northwestern Minnesota. Of course, just days before this bill was introduced, Hoffman announced that she would challenge US Rep. Collin Peterson instead of running for re-election to her state Senate seat.

There are many curious things about this bill.

It would strike a provision that discourages diversion of water from Minnesota to another state or Canada, and allow the sale of water across state lines. This would be a first step toward privatizing Minnesota's water resources.

Who would be buying our water? One potential customer could be North Dakota, whose burgeoning oil patch consumes massive quantities of water for hydraulic fracturing. A University of Minnesota study estimates that each well requires 1 million gallons of water, and notes that groundwater in the region is insufficient to handle demand. With 1,000 new wells being drilled annually, the amount of water needed is tremendous. Existing ground and surface water sources are insufficient, according to an analysis by the University of North Dakota. Oil and gas companies are already looking to Minnesota for frac sand, will they also turn to Minnesota for the water they need?

While there's been no specific proposal to divert or sell Minnesota water (to my knowledge), this only adds to the intrigue. Why sell Minnesota water? To whom? Does North Dakota fracking have anything to do with this bill? Does Senator Hoffman's financial interest in her family's North Dakota PVC pipe business GPK Products have anything to do with this bill?

The water conservation pricing provision has been inserted into SF 1567, the Senate's version of a Chamber of Commerce supported environmental permitting bill. It repeals a section of Minnesota statute that mandate that water systems charge rates that increase depending on the amount of water used. Under this approach to pricing, the largest users of water pay higher rates, which provides an incentive for the biggest users to adopt conservation strategies. Metro-area water systems were required to adopt conservation pricing by the end of 2010, and water systems in greater Minnesota have until the end of 2013 to change their pricing.

These provisions work. Rochester has adopted conservation pricing and estimates that the reduced cost for new wells and other infrastructure will exceed the drop in revenue from reduced use. There is a robust economic literature on the question of water pricing, but the bottom line is that higher prices for large users generates the largest savings as they cut their usage. The largest water users in Minnesota are industrial users, and that's where the greatest potential for water conservation lies. These large users have had five years of lead time to change their water use practices since the passage of this provision.

Both of these bills are terrible. Minnesota's water is our greatest natural resource. We should be conserving our drinking water, not selling it to other states.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

A new Congressman for Edina

Melisa Lopez Franzen & Keith Ellison

Part of it anyway. The Fifth Congressional District now includes what might be called the "Alsace Lorraine" region of Edina. In the eighties, the northeast corner of Edina was in the Third, and in the 90s it was in the Fifth. In the 00s (pronounced "aughts"?) it was back to the Third. Now it's the Fifth again.

Erik Paulsen is still sending campaign mail to his former constituents, however; we got a nice four color piece just the other day. They'll figure it out sooner or later!

In the meantime, somebody who figured it out sooner was Keith Ellison, who held a meet and greet with his new constituents at a restaurant in the 50th and France area yesterday, February 25th. On short notice the Congressman drew a crowd; every chair in a room advertised for 75 was filled, and a couple of dozen people stood along the walls.

One of the other persons in attendance was Melisa Lopez Fanzen, who is running for the DFL endorsement for the state senate seat in SD 49, essentially the old SD 41 with a little real estate added. That's Melisa in the photo with Keith.

And that's the Pacific Ocean!

I don't know why this photo:

Getty Images

Made me think of this painting:

Painter unknown

But it did. The woman pointing is Sacajawea; I think the man standing next to her is supposed to be Lewis or Clark. Perhaps a reader will know the provenance of the painting better than me.

I got the painting here.

Exhibit A against the "regulations are killing jobs" argument

In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature allocated money to commission a study of the impact that regulations have on business start ups in Minnesota. In December 2011, the Southwest Minnesota State University Marketing Advisory Center completed the report of the first comprehensive study to explore the impact of business regulations on business startups. The impetus for the study was testimony from 3M executive Alex Cirillo, who testified that he had heard from business owners that it was more difficult to start a small business in Minnesota than other states, but that this was all anecdotal. Well, the results are in and they do not match the Republican story about Minnesota's regulatory climate strangling business, nor do they support the Republican approach to growing jobs.

First, the bottom line of the study is regulations are not strangling business startups. To the contrary, Minnesota leads the region:

Regardless, it appears that regulations and requirements in Minnesota are not detrimental to it being the leader in the five-state area for new business start-ups. Between 2004 and 2008, Minnesota experienced the largest increase in number of total small businesses (less than 500 employees). 

Or, as the study concludes:

It would appear from this study that regulations; neither the quantity, difficulty surrounding securing information or the volume of licenses, permits or inspections required; are detrimental to Minnesota in being a leader in the five-state area for the start-up or existence of business entities. Business start-ups continue to be relatively strong in Minnesota when compared to surrounding states. 

Second, costs to start a business are low in Minnesota:

Costs associated for starting a business in Minnesota compared favorably with the adjacent states. When comparing the costs, Minnesota and North Dakota had the lowest percentage of start-ups requiring $5,001 or more. Those businesses able to start-up with $0 to $500 initial investment found Minnesota to be comparable to the other states in the study. 

Third, tax breaks are not a significant factor in business location decisions:

None of the [five] states seem to be gaining a strategic advantage in attracting small start-up businesses by offering tax incentives. South Dakota had 11% of their respondents indicating they received some form of tax break for locating their business within the state. All of the other states were in the single digits for percentage of start-ups receiving any form of tax break. 

Not only that, only 2% of small business survey respondents listed lower regulatory burdens as the reason why they located in a state.

Remember, this is the only study that actually examined the connection between regulations and business formation in Minnesota, it was commissioned by the Legislature, and conducted by Southwest Minnesota State University. It should be Exhibit A in any debate about the supposedly onerous impact of regulations on Minnesota small businesses. Please go and read the whole thing.

EDIT: The initial version of the above paragraph said "job creation" instead of "business formation." I think both are accurate, but wanted to be careful in my phrasing. The study begins its "Discussion" section with the following:

Previous studies, often commissioned by various states, have had mixed results in determining characteristics that attract new businesses with no one state in the upper Midwest scoring a decisive victory in all categories generally considered as benchmark factors. These previous studies have concluded with various ranking strategies depending on the measure incorporated in the study. Some of these studies were previously discussed in this report; none were based on the number or intensity of regulations to determine their effect in either encouraging or rejecting that state from consideration in establishing a business. This study appears to be the first to explore this variable and its effects on business formation.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

O, Lard, my Lard, why hassst Thou forshaken me!

From the G.R. Anderson
City Pages article from 2006

O, Lard, my Lard, why hassst Thou forshaken me!

What is it now, Michele? Say, have you been drinking?

No.

Michele?

Yesh.

It's okay. What's the problem?

My beautiful housh!

What about your housh; I mean house?

My housh is no long in my Housh District. I mustch choose between my housh and the Housh. My job or my housh.

Boy, you really are sloshed. But you know, Michele, a lot of people have lost both their job and their housh, as you say, recently.

But Lard, this is meeee, Michele, the anointed one. These tinks don't happen to meeee; they aren't suppostched to, anyway. Where were You, anywaaay?

I beg your pardon?

Why dint you protec meee from the librul judges on Toosday?

You mean the two Republican appointees, the two Independent appointees, and the one DFL appointee? If you must know, I was trying to keep some gay kids from getting beat up in your old hometown. They're mine too, not that you ever noticed.

Well, I never ---

That's what I said; you never noticed they're mine, too. Although we've discussed it before.

Rilly?

Really. And losing your house, and your job, well, we discussed that, too.

No we dint.

Yes, we did.

Don't you remember I told you that Beelzebub wanted to go double or nothing on that Job bet he lost with me, and betting against you this time? I decided to toss the House and the "housh" in as goodies for good measure, just to make it interesting before we drop the hammer.

Let's see how you do. Any you never told me, do you have any cattle?

And a coon hound on every porch

If ever you are looking for easily mock-able material to write about, there is no finer oeuvre that Rep. Steve Drazkowski's chief author's bill page at the Legislature's website. I recommend it for anyone with writer's block.

There's one that isn't in the bin yet, however, that deserves your closest attention. As Aaron noted last evening, the "Draz" (a rep. from Mazeppa) as he is affectionately (derisively perhaps; I thought somebody said the "drag" the first time I heard it) by his fellow Republican legislators, has proposed a sales tax holiday for guns and ammunition.

If you read the Strib account, the Draz is actually talking about guns, ammunition, and "hunting gear." Here's the quote from the Draz:

My preference is for an outdoors, guns and ammo [sales tax] holiday.

But why stop with guns and ammunition (perhaps too long a word for the Draz to comfortably use)?

Imagine a new "Coon Hound Checkoff." You use them outdoors don't you?

If the Draz wants to be ecumenical about it, and bring fishermen in on the largess, why not a "Rapala Rebate?" I mean, really, have you seen what has happened to the price of buzz baits and Rapalas lately?

The Draz could even go green here and help people buy canoes and kayaks, which are mostly cheaper than a fine fowling piece.

Yes, Draz, this is a great idea; you just have to think bigger.

Gun tax holiday? We're already setting sales records!

In yet another moment of utter tone deafness, on Tuesday Rep. Steve Drazkowski proposed that any money that might be gained by taxing online retailers be used for a sales tax holiday on guns and ammunition.

What intrigues me is how Rep. Drazkowski arrived at the conclusion that of all things that are taxed, guns and ammunition are the items that he believes are most in need of sales tax relief. Gun retailers certainly don't need the additional boost. Minnesota gun sales have skyrocketed in the past few years.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a useful (though imperfect) proxy for gun sales. The Minnesota NICS data reveals a state that's having no trouble paying for guns and ammo. In fact, we've been setting records for NICS checks every year since 2007.

The 337,000 Minnesota NICS checks in 2011 represented a 75% increase over 2001. And Minnesota's increase in gun and ammunition sales is not an isolated phenomenon. President Obama may well be "the greatest gun salesman" ever, in spite of proposing nothing whatsoever that would limit gun or ammunition sales.

Despite this, Rep. Drazkowski's first thought about which industry needs a little boost is the guns and ammunition industry. Late today, we might have discovered why.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski just pointed out to me his new legislative district looks like a gun.
— Heather J. Carlson (@PBhcarlson) February 22, 2012

Well, in that case, it all makes sense.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

Minnesota for-profit college students shoulder massive student loan debt

New data from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education show that Minnesota for-profit college students take on crippling amounts of loan debt. Minnesota for-profit college students took out $408 million in student loans in the 2008-2009 school year, the highest of students in any category of Minnesota higher education institutions. On a per-student basis, for-profit college students took out over five times the amount in loans as students of public two-year colleges did in 2008-2009.

"Minnesota Measures 2011," January 2012, p. 55-56 

Therefore, on a per-student basis in 2008 - 2009, the average student loan amounts were:

State College students $2992
State University students $5202
U of M Students $5504
Private non-profit $7825
Private for-profit $15385 

The per-student calculation isn't a perfect measure, since it doesn't account for total credit load. Since a larger proportion of public two-year college students are part-time students, this reduces the average loan load. Despite this, the average still illustrates a stark difference in significance of student loan debt to for-profit college students. 96% of for-profit college students took out loans in 2008-2009, compared to 38% of public two-year college students.

Even worse, for-profit college students were far more likely to take out private loans than public college and university students. According to the Minnesota Measures report, 43% of Minnesota for-profit college students took out private loans. According to the Project on Student Debt:

Private student loans are one of the riskiest ways to pay for college.The majority of these non-federal loans are made to students by private banks and lenders. No more a form of financial aid than a credit card, private student loans typically have uncapped variable interest rates that are highest for those who can least afford them. Even when fixed rates are offered, private loans lack the basic consumer protections and flexible repayment options of federal student loans, such as unemployment deferment, income-based repayment, and loan forgiveness programs.

High student loan debt is a tremendous burden for graduates. It's even worse for students who take on debt but do not complete a degree. It is impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, which as the Wall Street Journal put it, gives this type of debt a "unique type of hopelessness."

Nevertheless, new Office of Higher Education Director Larry Pogemiller, was confirmed promising to look to for-profit colleges for innovations that can be imported to public colleges. Even worse, he expressed willingness to discuss eliminating state funding for public higher education and creating a voucher program that would direct even more state money to for-profit colleges.

Let's hope that one of these "innovations" isn't the student debt load imposed on for-profit college students.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

The House or your house?

Which is it going to be, Michele?

Michele is now in the Fourth, but wants to run in the Sixth, without moving back there.

Even for Bachmann, this is zany.

Edina hewn in two

Into two congressional districts, that is: the Third and the Fifth. By the looks of it, the northeast part of the City, which was in the Fifth in the 90s, is back there again. It looks as though Edina and St. Paul Park are the only two cities split into two congressional districts.

The new senate district is 49, and its boundaries are, again, by the looks of it, pretty close to the current ones; it got a little bigger here and there than the current 41.

Update: On Saturday the 25th of February, Keith Ellison will be at Mozza Mia in "downtown" Edina to meet his new Edina constituents. He'll be there at 1:15 PM for a little over an hour.

Reprise: Mike Dean on redistricting

I thought this might be a good time to bring the video of Mike's Dean's interview on redistricting. Here it is.

Steve Morse on environmental regulation reauthorization

On February 20, 2012, Steve Morse, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, testified before a Minnesota Senate Committee in opposition to a bill that would, among other things, abolish all environmental regulation and require that each be reauthorized by the Legislature.

After the hearing, Aaron Klemz and I did a brief interview with Mr. -- and former Minnesota Senator and Assistant DNR Commissioner -- Morse. Aaron's the interviewer; I ran the camera.

Aaron -- and maybe me, too -- will have more on this in coming days.

Ridiculous Republican bill of the day

In a further attempt to turn back the calendar to the 1950's, four Minnesota Senate Republicans introduced a bill to require a two-year waiting period for divorces if the couple has minor children.

This would be the longest divorce waiting period in the country. By the way, Nevada, with the nation's highest divorce rate has one of the longest waiting periods for divorce. Minnesota has a low divorce rate, with no waiting period for divorce.

Honestly, this bill would probably decrease marriage in Minnesota, and would do nothing to keep marriages together. It's insulting to think that a couple (especially one with children) would make a decision to divorce rashly, and that a two-year waiting period would prevent divorce.

Ladies and gentleman, this is the party of less government intervention into your lives. I am slightly heartened that it was Rep. John Kriesel (R - Cottage Grove) who brought this to the attention of folks on Twitter.

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

Two images

Hat tip to Chris Stinson, who first put these two images together.

From Minnesota Majority's "We Want Voter ID" website

Star Tribune editorial cartoon by Steve Sack

Not Almanac 2-20-2012

The new episode of Not Almanac is available for your listening pleasure! It includes some more bullshit from Sen. Parry, Anthony Hernandez and Rep. Drazkowski, whether legislators need a basic skills test, and legislatively self-imposed judicial activism.

If you see a moment that you think deserves to be enshrined as a bullshit moment, let us know; we'd love to include it! You can contact any of us through the Twitter accounts below.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

You can download the episode or subscribe via iTunes using this link.

Follow us on Twitter @aaronklemz, @TonyAngelo, @blogspotdog

Your Twin Cities Drinking Liberally calendar for this week

On Monday, February 20th, Drinking Liberally in Hopkins will host Greta Bergstrom as its guest speaker. Greta is the Communications Director for Take Action Minnesota, a liberal advocacy group. One of the issues before the Legislature on which Take Action is especially active is the photo voter ID amendment bill, and Greta is a great person to talk about it.

If you want to know what photo voter ID is really about and how it will potentially disenfranchise thousands and thousands of people, this would be a great meeting to attend.

Drinking Liberally Hopkins meets the third Monday of each month at 6:30 PM at the VFW Hall at 100 Shady Oak Road in, well, Hopkins. That just about half block north of Excelsior on Shady Oak, on the west side of the street. You can't miss it.

On Thursday the 23rd of February, the Minneapolis chapter of Drinking Liberally will host as our guest the newest member of the Minnesota House, Rep. Susan Allen of District 61B in south Minneapolis. Rep. Allen was elected in a special election in December. Rep. Allen is the first Native American women elected to the Minnesota House. She is a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

Rep. Allen is not a stranger to the Capitol, but it will be fun to hear about her experiences there as a new legislator.

Drinking Liberally Minneapolis meets every Thursday at 6:00 PM at the 331 Club in northeast Minneapolis, 331 - 13th Avenue N.E., or one block north of Broadway on University Avenue N.E. You can't miss it, either.

The programs with Ms. Berstrom and Rep. Allen are expected to start around 7:00 PM.

Enter the pawnbroker

Fridley Pawn America, photo by author

In their ongoing celebration of the wonders of the free market, Presidents Day will be ticket scalper and pawn broker day at the Minnesota House. On the calendar for the day are two bills, one would allow pawnbrokers to charge fees for storing pawned collateral, the other would prohibit practices that frustrate ticket scalping. It's a free market double-header - what could be more American than that?

Minority Leader Paul Thissen calls SF 1268 the "Pawn America bill" for good reason. As Ron Elwood from Legal Aid pointed out in his May 2011 testimony, this bill is written to satisfy the desires of a single company, Pawn America.

The ubiquitous Pawn America commercials that show CEO Brad Rixmann as a ventriloquist conversing with "Eggmo" could be recast with the Republican legislative leadership as the dummy. Rixmann has built his legislative influence the old-fashioned way, with lots and lots of campaign contributions. In 2011, Rixmann gave $50,200 to the Republican Party of Minnesota, $22,000 to the Republican Senate Victory Fund, and $37,500 to the House Republican Campaign Committee. His 2010 and 2011 contributions to these three entities are just shy of $200,000 combined. This makes Rixmann one of the biggest contributors to the Minnesota Republican Party, almost in the same category as Stanley Hubbard and Bill Cooper.

If SF 1268 passes, pawnbrokers would be allowed to charge fees for the storage and maintenance of pawned collateral. There is no statutory limit to these fees, other than they be "reasonable." Similar to the broader banking industry, fees represent a source of new revenue even if new regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency limit the exorbitant interest rates that they charge.

In addition to defending the right of pawnbrokers to charge more fees for a pawn transaction, the Republican majority will defend the inalienable right of ticket scalpers to resell tickets. Technology, such as e-tickets, could make it more difficult for ticket resellers to mark up their products. Annette Meeks, CEO of the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, defends the right to scalp tickets as a "personal right" to sell what you own. That's a quaint notion in a world where ticket scalpers are a $4.5 billion industry that uses computer technology to scoop up large quantities of tickets, and then turn around and resell tickets at a much higher price online. Hey, that's the free market at work!

There's no time for job creation at the Capitol, but the Republican party has plenty of time to carry water for their big campaign contributors. If this isn't what's meant by "crony capitalism," what does it mean?

Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz

The enemies of civilization

This bill is their wanted poster

End of the Roman Empire
sparticus.schoolnet.co.com

On January 30th, some of the most bilious and choleric enemies of a civil society -- including two District 41 representatives, Keith Downey (A) and Pat Mazorol (B),  Mary Liz Holberg, Steve Drazkowski, and King Banaian -- dropped this turd into the punchbowl. It is similar to a bill offered last session by Downey and the (former) Deputy, on the Senate side, Geoff Michel. (Oh, and this bulletin just in: Glencoe's Glenn Gruenhagen was added as an author; that will really seal the deal for a lot of people.)

Photo credit unknown

Essentially, this is how the proposed bill would work. Let's say you wanted to pull a few teeth --  just for the neighbors and a few friends; nothing big -- and some bureaucrat comes in and says, "You can't do that; it's practicing dentistry."

Whereupon, you say, "Ha! That seems burdensome to me. I'm really good with a pliers; I practiced on the dog; prove to me this 'practice of dentistry' stuff is really necessary."

And believe it or not, under the statute the state would have to prove it each and every time that some yahoo decided to become a shade tree dentist. It would be true of any profession or occupation licensed by the state -- or any political subdivision thereof.

The practice of medicine (I'm really good with a penknife and my old woodburning set; I ought to be able to remove warts and small skin cancers); the practice of law (I go an "A" in debate); accounting, building contractors, electricians, plumbers, cosmetologists, barbers, and any other licensed activity would be subject to the same rule of "least restrictiveness."

Anybody wishing to challenge a licensing requirement -- even if not the object of an enforcement action -- would be able to do so, and each and every time, it would be the licensor's burden to prove the health and safety necessity of the requirement. No matter how many times the licensor won, a litigant could still make the licensor prove the necessity of the rule the next case.

This bill turns the law on its head. The simple cost alone of defending every licensing regulation in each case staggers the imagination. And of course, that's the idea. Regulators will run out of money and will just give up.

And it is not as though you can't presently challenge a license or any other regulation, for that matter. But you bear the burden of proving why the rule is unconstitutional or is contrary to statute, or that the statute or ordinance itself was beyond the power of the body to enact or adopt. And if you win, it binds the governing body against everybody else.

Under the bill, merely because the governing body won once, that doesn't mean each and every person coming before it can't make the same argument (because the new person was not a litigant to the earlier decision and is not bound by it), requiring that the same experts come in to court and explain the same thing, over and over.

There's one other serious -- nay, fatal -- defect in the bill I haven't even mentioned yet: it violates the separation of powers under the Minnesota Constitution. If legislation is made within the scope of authority of the Legislature, you can't have a law that subsequently derogates that authority to a court. It is a denial of the democratic process.

It is astonishing that a group of legislators would hate the body they sit in so much that they would cheerfully give their legislative authority away, to a bunch of judges, and turning them into activist judges, to boot. Pitiful.

And you'll never guess who thinks this is a great idea.