The Fact-Checker: Truth in Politics

Happy New Year to All!!

And a just a note-- Joseph Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic Party-- he ran and serves as an Independent. He also endorsed a republican for the upcoming presidential elections...people do change their affiliation from time to time. (do you like Mitt or Norm?) And the name Jeffords comes to mind.....you republicans were real nice to him!

Thought this was an interesting posting, so I decided to do some homework and add to the discussion. Went to the Campaign Finance Board and downloaded the SD42 GOP filings for the last election cycle. Wanted to see for myself how the local GOP spent their money.

In 2006, they gave $1000 to Bill Cullen, $1400 to David Hann with same to Erik Paulsen, $300 to Duckstad, $300 to Stevens and $300 to Young.

In July of 2006 they spent $3500 for office space, and another $1000 in August.

They spent $3550 for what I assume was a generated letter and group lit drop.

In 2005, they gave Duckstad $200, rented Grace for $400 and spent $300 for lapel pins and another $200 for election night entertainment.

The 2007 figures are not due yet, so we don't know how they spent their money last year.

The SD42 DFL did NOT endorse candidates in local elections, and so no money was given to any candidates for local elections. DFL individuals offered time lit dropping or phoning for candidates on their own and not under the umbrella of the party organization.

We also saw the development of the first ever PAC in our little city-- the Taxpayer's Alliance. This group spent approximately $2.56 a VOTE on the campaigns of Duckstad, Young and Stevens, to a total of about $14,000. (found this out at city hall) It is interesting that the members of this group all seem to be members of the SD42 GOP.

So, by saying that little was spent by SD 42 GOP on local elections is technically true, but in reality, the republicans in this city spent a huge sum of money to change our city council to their liking.

And all so they could save less than $11 a year, and get rid of one immigrant woman of color....

Does the fact checker say
Submitted by Gino G on January 4, 2008 - 11:10pm.
Does the fact checker say anything about Vamma's bias towards Republicans?

National DFL candidates will be added to the list. We're concentrating on the big issue discrepancies in what is said and what is actually done. Tax cuts and abortion are big issues for Republicans.

There are 111 entries listed at Fact Checker and we're not going to list them all.

The next entry will be Edwards on special interests, a January 2008 entry.

Watch for it....

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

The Debates-

The Washington Post assembled a team of crack fact checkers to truth squad both debates, and call the candidates out for any inaccuracies.

Fact upon fact, the debates revealed that all the candidates exaggerate--eliminate context, slant information, distort, on, on...
A fact is a fact, right? Is the truth more important to the prognosticators or the audience they're trying to reach? That's a good question for them. What seems to count as much to voters and to the candidates themselves are appearances, likability, reputation and whether you're one-of-the-gang?? The later was especially true of the Republican Debate.

Which debate was more civil??

Obama and Clinton-

Issue: Withdrawal from Iraq

The Fact-Checkers say Obama has a clearer timetable for withdrawal and can also claim consistently opposing the Iraq war. Despite this the Washington Post says on substance of this particular exchange, the Clinton camp has the better of the argument.

The Fact Checkers gave Obama two Pinocchios for what they describe as a "somewhat tortuous" position on withdrawal.

On the other hand they've given Clinton one Pinocchio, accusing the Clinton "Fact Hub" for taking "Obama's quotes out of context, and over-simplifiying his position."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/clinton_vs_obama_the...

"Fact upon fact, debates...

It's not the exaggeration, or even the slanting that bothers me; it's the distortion and out and out whoppers."

Yes. Its been pointed out that under the rigors and pressures of a campaign not all of this truth/fact bending is intentional??

After the simpler truths are bent out of shape, the whoppers seem to lose their ability to appear as they really are, intentional distortions!!

Of course, they (the whoppers) are believed, mired in repetitive reinforcement, eventually to become everyone else's inconvenient truth.

I don't think we need examples.

McCain gets the Pinocchio Test

December 2007
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/most_revealing_fibs_...

McCain claimed that tax cuts "increase revenues" and that tax hikes have the "opposite effect" which has been disproved by his own senior domestic policy adviser, who was the former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Here's the math. In December 2005, McCain's adviser "supervised a CBO study that looked at the economic impact of federal income tax cuts. According to the calculations of his experts, a 10 percent tax cut would result in a revenue loss of $1.241 trillion over 10 years. Under the most optimistic assumptions, increased economic growth generated by the tax cut would offset this loss by $345 billion dollars. That is a net revenue loss of nearly $900 billion."

"Asked to explain the candidate's position, the McCain campaign sent an e-mailed statement from his adviser claiming that the senator "has never supported the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves." The email went on:

"Cutting middle class taxes will generate additional growth, especially if it is accompanied by fiscally responsible spending cuts that eliminate earmarks, stop waste, and reform entitlements. John McCain believes that the improved growth will make families better off, and also happen to reduce the revenue lost by lower taxes."

That statement is consistent with McCain's adviser's views, as expressed in the 2005 CBO study. But it is not consistent with the McCain quote to the National Review. The assertion that tax cuts generate economic growth that partially offsets lost revenues is not at all the same as a claim that tax cuts actually "increase revenues."

According to the Fact-Checker, this was not the first time that Mccain's adviser had to clean up after his candidate.

Evidently the master of the "Straight Talk Express" wants cake and cake too. "After voting against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts in the Senate, McCain has been atoning for his supply side heresy in his latest presidential run."

Fact Checker refers to Mccain as an enigma, because he received their first ever Geppetto checkmark for truth-telling, but then got cranked by three Pinocchios for the claim that the Constitution established the United States as "a Christian nation."

And Fact-Checker says they're revealing fibs??

There is hope for you, Tommy!

First of all, I am happy to welcome you as a regular reader to the SD42 site – congratulations. Admitting your weaknesses is often the first step to finding a cure.

Second, I commend you for admitting that per diem payments (which were increased by a whopping 50% by the 2007 DFL legislature) are a BAD IDEA.

To see how YOUR LEGISLATOR voted on increasing the per diem, click here. You will find that indeed ALL THREE of our esteemed legislators are mentioned. See if you can determine which party – to use your childish language – Republicon or Democrap – is responsible for this boondoggle?

Once again, Tommy, I continue to invite you to raise the bar on your commentaries. Are you capable of posting a comment without slandering anyone or without calling anyone a name? Try it once! Instead of bullying and name-calling, let’s REALLY discuss the issues. How about it?

What is the definition of "socialist", Tommy? Do you know?

Peter are you saying Democrats are ultimately responsible for the idea of an increase, e.g. they sponsored the bill, but Republicans took more money, right? Because locally they did.
Actually Republicans offered amendments to the bill, which were rejected and each party voted for it, the vote was 59 to 7 supporting it. At the end the Republican minority leader said it was a victory for transparency. (See below) Also, the per diem is based on how often you worked at the Legislature. Hann voted against the bill, but ultimately used it the most of any EP legislator. Go figure! BTW, according to Senate text it would seem a Republican started the initial conversation.

Vote-
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/journals/2007-2008/20070221019.pdf#Pag...

Anderson
Bakk
Berglin
Betzold
Bonoff
Carlson
Chaudhary
Clark
Cohen
Dibble
Doll
Erickson Ropes
Fischbach
Foley
Frederickson
Gerlach
Gimse
Higgins
Johnson
Jungbauer
Koering
Kubly
Langseth
Larson
Latz
Limmer
Lourey
Lynch
Marty
Metzen
Moua
Murphy
Neuville
Olseen
Olson, G.
Olson, M.
Ortman
Pappas
Pogemiller
Prettner Solon
Rest
Robling
Rosen
Rummel
Saltzman
Saxhaug
Scheid
Senjem
Sheran
Sieben
Skoe
Skogen
Sparks
Stumpf
Tomassoni
Torres Ray
Vickerman
Wergin
Wiger

Those who voted in the negative were:
Day
Hann
Ingebrigtsen
Koch
Michel
Pariseau

Per diem resolution approved

A resolution affirming the per diem level of $96, set by the Rules and Administration Committee near the start of the 85th Legislative Session, consumed the bulk of the Wed., Feb. 21, Senate floor session.

S.R. 41, authored by Majority Leader Lawrence Pogemiller (DFL-Mpls.), also provides that members voting against the per diem allowance must file a written request for per diem with the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate’s chief administrative officer. Members who vote for the per diem allowance, under the resolution, are not required to take any additional action to collect per diem. Pogemiller said the resolution is about transparency. The written request provision, he said, is intended merely to clarify with Senate staff what a Senator’s intent is regarding per diem.

Sen. David Hann (R-Eden Prairie) said the resolution was unusual. Depending on how you vote, you do one thing or another, he said. Hann said the principle could be extended to spending bills, preventing districts whose Senator votes “no” on a bill from getting state funds. However, Pogemiller countered that the resolution is different from general laws, because it deals only with an internal Senate matter. This is simply about transparency, he said.

An amendment setting the per diem rate at $96, but providing that members may only collect per diem during the interim on days when their presence is recorded at an official committee or commission meeting, was offered by Sen. Thomas Neuville (R-Northfield). Under the amendment, members may collect daily per diem during the session, as under current practice. Conditioning per diem on a member’s vote is disrespectful, Neuville said, because it seeks to punish Senators for disagreeing with the majority. He said the amendment creates a level playing field, since currently members of the Majority Caucus may collect per diem when they come in for general office business, while members of the Minority Caucus may only collect per diem when they come in for a committee meeting. Pogemiller opposed the amendment, saying it reduces transparency by allowing Senators to vote against per diem but collect the payments anyway. Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington) offered an amendment to the amendment setting the per diem amount at $66, the pre-2007 rate. The amendment to the amendment was rejected on a voice vote. The Neuville amendment failed, 18-48.

Hann offered an amendment requiring members who vote “yes” on the per diem amount to address the Senate for at least 10 minutes before claiming per diem payments. In the spirit of transparency, he said, we can all be clear on why we need the per diem provided in the resolution. The amendment was not adopted, 5-61. Sen. Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake) offered an amendment requiring members to indicate in writing the amount of per diem they wish to claim, up to the maximum of $96, regardless of how they vote on the resolution. We should not give the public the perception that there is any cynical intent behind this resolution, he said. The amendment failed, 20-46. An amendment changing the language in the bill for members voting against the resolution and claiming per diem from a written “request” to a written “statement” was offered by Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville). A request implies that someone will approve or deny the matter, she said. Pogemiller had earlier clarified that the written request was not a matter to be approved, Fischbach said, but just an administrative step. The amendment reflects that more appropriately, she said. The amendment was not accepted on a voice vote.

I am troubled by both the substance and the timing of this resolution, said Sen. Geoff Michel (R-Edina). We can and should have the debate on Legislative compensation, he said, but the right place to start it is in the Compensation Council. If Legislators are undercompensated, then the right solution is to adjust the salary, Michel said. Additionally, the per diem rate was increased soon after the session started, he said. Not many jobs give you a raise in the first month of work, he said. We should perform a little more, Michel said, and then discuss whether we deserve a raise.

Minority Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) thanked Vandeveer (R) for starting the conversation about the per diem process. This has opened up government and created total participation, he said. Senjem said the process itself, debating per diem on the Senate floor, represents a victory for transparency.

The bill was approved 59 to 7.

Here below is a link to SR41-

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/briefly/floor_display.php?filename_typ...

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." -- C.P. Scott, editor Manchester Guardian, 1921

Let’s start backwards: historically and factually, our Republican Governor and GOP dominated legislature had already delivered deep cuts to schools and roads, without DFL support.

This is how MPR reported the increase in Legislator pay:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/
ongoing/votetracker/issue_view.php?id=76

”Minnesota senators voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to stick with a $30-per-day increase in their daily expense checks. The Senate voted 59-to-7 to continue a $96-a-day expense rate that most members began collecting more than six weeks ago. The seven Republican senators who voted against the increase (which included Hann) will have to ask for their expense checks in writing, and one called the requirement a stunt designed to punish them." However, Rep Ron Erhardt, R, Edina said “We're all entitled to a little cost of living allowance now and again.”

"John Marty of Roseville, ****** Cohen of St. Paul, both Democrats - had previously informed Senate budget officers that they would take less than the maximum in per diem. Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, refuses per diem for weekends and holidays."

This hardly sounds like blackmail. One would assume Hann could have opted out of the increase. Because in “the House, about three dozen members took less than the maximum during the 2006 session, said Paul Schweizer, the House controller.”

So, why did Hann spend the more than EP's two other legislators? Housing checks go to members whose regular homes are at least 50 miles from the Capitol for rent and to receive reimbursements for their actual costs. Why Hann out-spent other local legislators is a question we should ask him, especially since he voted against the bill. Certainly we are not 50 miles from the capital and certainly calling it blackmail is an over exaggeration.

When it comes down to it, this is a discussion about ideological differences. Part of the DFL rational was that legislator pay should be able to support and attract people to public service. With this in mind, the DFL legislature also proposed a worker wage increase in spring 2007.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/
web/2007/04/18/minwage/

Twenty-five other states had a higher minimum wage than Minnesota. But, Republicans “labeled the bill a "job killer" because a higher wage requirement would increase costs for employers who would then be forced to cut jobs.”

But SF875, which raised the minimum wage, PASSED on a 40-to-23 roll call vote anyway. Hann did not vote. Interesting for a legislator who was supposedly blackmailed for accepting an increase in per diem to show up to work, didn’t show up for a very important vote to increase workers’ pay. The irony is stunning.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects
/ongoing/votetracker/issue_view.php?id=86

Tommy, you are starting to sound like Howard Dean.

VAMMA, you can't have an honest debate with Peter, because Peter simply isn't capable of doing so.

The whole point of this Per Diem discussion is that the local republicons - AGAIN - are distoring an issue on their website.

And since this discussion of per diem and the GOP website started, they've updated their website.

"To add clarity?" a reasonable person might ask.

Let's take a look, at that update!

***
DFL LEGISLATURE SETS PER DIEM SPENDING RECORD -- Minnesota lawmakers have set a record in 2007 and the proof was in their paychecks. 5 Eyewitness News has learned that last year, State Representatives and Senators took home more than $2 million above their annual salaries. Click here to find out how your legislator voted on increasing their pay.
***

Imagine that! The GOP, providing a link to where Paulsen and Hann voted against pigging out at the trough, but NOT providing a link to where Paulsen and Hann ARE porking out at the trough!

This, VAMMA, is distortion, pure and simple.

We also have Paulsen and Hann clearly demonstrating why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples - they were against it, before they profited from it.

And everyone reading this needs to understand that Peter, who is doing his "best" to cover for Hann, Paulsen, Ypung, Duckstand and Aho, is the official webmaster for the official GOP SD42 website.

Which, of course, is another reason why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.

You miss the point again, Tommy. If you hate per diems, then ANY amount is an abuse. If you hate per diems then you ought to be livid about these eight votes in the Minnesota House and these two votes in the Minnesota Senate.

Again, to borrow your filthy language -– was the per diem increase a Republicon or a Democrap initiative? Which party supported and insisted on the increase and which party tried to stop the increase?

But the abuse doesn’t just stop at per diems. Your legislature voted in 2007 to give themselves a $1,200 housing allowance (or $14,400 per year) even though they meet for less than three months this year. Can you tell me why your legislator needs a year-round housing allowance?

Who voted for this increase? Republicons or Democraps?

In addition, the DFL leadership increased the number of government committees by a third. The nine new committees include Minnesota Heritage, Mental Health, Fish and Game, fourth and fifth education committees, Housing Finance, Energy Finance, Labor, and an extra Finance Committee to serve the Ways and Means Committee.

Every one of these new committees needs staff and extra budgets. Every one of these committees comes with budget mandates (you need to spend money to justify your existence). Almost every DFL legislator now can boast that he or she is a chair or vice chair of some House Committee or Panel.

Who put these extra committees in place? Who increased the size of government by one third? Republicons or Democraps?

Furthermore, if the per diems were soooooo important to the DFL, why did they not campaign on this? All I saw were slick ads about schools and health care. I didn’t see one ad about per diems. Why?

Why didn’t they say – right in their campaign literature – if you vote for me, my first act as a legislator will be to spend the budget surplus to increase my own pay? Don’t you think that would have been more honest?

They could have even put together an emotional ad campaign. I see something along the lines of a Sally Struthers – aid for African children ad:

ADOPT A LEGISLATOR
Won’t you please help this legislator?
(insert photo of desperate looking legislator here)

Like most Minnesotans, you probably lay awake wondering how Minnesota's DFL legislators can afford to feed themselves without increasing their expense allowance from $66 per day to $96 per day. But now we have started an “Adopt a Legislator” campaign.

That’s right -- for a contribution of just $30 per day (or about $4,200 per legislative session) you can make sure that your local DFL legislator can afford to eat at the finest restaurants in the Twin Cities. Yes, for the mere cost of a 50-inch high-definition flat panel plasma television, you can rest easy knowing that Maria Ruud and Larry Pogemiller and Phyllis Kahn never again have to make the difficult choice between tap water and Evian.