Contact: Bob Carney Jr.
bob@republicancontract.com

cell: 612-803-9084

A second Citizens Petition...

A second Citizens' Petition for a Redress of Grievances -- Unallotment will also be announced at the news conference.  According to the second Citizens' Petition: "Governor Pawlenty has claimed, in writing and in court, sweeping unallotment powers in the case: Carney v State of Minnesota, apparently extending to the unchecked, unilateral power of the Governor to spend any amount, from zero to the full legislative appropriation, for almost all categories of Legislative appropriations,..."

This second Citizens' petition calls on the Minnesota Legislative Advisory Commission to study the Pawlenty Administration's claims, to then hold a hearing to question Governor Tim Pawlenty and/or Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Tom Hanson, and subsequently to consider the need for a hearing by an appropriate Committee, Subcommittee or Task Force to study the meaning of the phrase: "corrupt conduct in office", found in the Minnesota Constitution, Article VIII: Impeachment and Removal from Office.

"We are not calling for the impeachment of Governor Pawlenty", Carney said.  "Instead, we're calling on the Legislative Advisory Commission to consider whether a preliminary study of the Legislature's impeachment powers is needed, with specific reference to the Governor's sweeping claims of unallotment powers."

Carney plans to re-state his one Mayoral campaign promise at the news conference: "If elected Mayor of Minneapolis, I will run against Pawlenty for President, and I'll show the people in Iowa what a real Minnesota Moderate Progressive Republican is."

Minneapolis Mayoral candidates meet with Star Tribune editorial board -- Dick Franson weighs in

The Star Tribune has endorsed Mayor Rybak's re-election.  Five Mayoral candidates met Thursday, October 22nd with the Star Tribune editorial board for a 2009 Minneapolis Mayoral election candidates interview.  The meeting, scheduled for 90 minutes, ran to almost two hours.  The candidates interviewed were: Bob Carney Jr., James Everett, Al Flowers, Joey Lombard, and Bill McGaughey. 

Two days earlier, the editorial board had interviewed Dick Franson, Kolstad, Mayor R.T. Rybak, and Wilson. According to Wilson, Rybak had an assistant present with a three ring binder at the Tuesday meeting, which ran about 95 minutes.  Wilson did not know who the assistant was, and said Rybak did more talking than the other candidates.  Kolstad said: "We weren't told we could bring an assistant."  Franson said: "he wasn't introduced at the meeting.  I suspect he is a city employee.  We thought it was just going to be candidates." 

Wilson said: "The most humorous part was when Dick Franson accused Kolstad of having a 'mutual admiration society' with R.T. Rybak, and wondered why he was running against him.  But that was earlier in the meeting, later Kolstad did state differences with Rybak."  Kolstad has many disagreements with Mayor Rybak, as documented in the first Citizens' Petition.

By all accounts, Franson wasn't shy going after "Mayor Reebok".  Regarding the proposal to eliminate the Board of Estimates and Taxation ("BET"), Franson said: "The public doesn't want that at all.  You start knocking doors and you'll find out."  Franson views the attempt to eliminate elected members from the BET as an attack on the independence of the Park Board.   Franson speculated if Rybak doorknocked in his own ward, "he'd get doors slammed in his face."  Franson thought Rybak might lose: "If veterans, pro-life supporters, senior citizens, and independents vote, Rybak can be beaten."  Franson also said he would like to participate in a debate against Rybak, "just like we did at the editorial board."

<end>

Whereas:

The current Minnesota fiscal biennium began with an unprecedented $2.7 billion deficit, and,

Whereas:

No known previous Minnesota biennium, after the completion of any needed special session, has ever commenced with a deficit, and

Whereas:

Governor Pawlenty has claimed, in writing and in court, sweeping unallotment powers in the case: Carney v. State of Minnesota, apparently extending to the unchecked, unilateral power of the Governor to spend any amount, from zero to the full legislative appropriation, for almost all categories of Legislative appropriations, and

Whereas:

Such sweeping claims of executive power appear to fundamentally usurp the Constitutional role and authority of the Legislature, and

Whereas:

Courts are justifiably reluctant to attempt to resolve “political questions” if this can be avoided, and where individual standing to sue is not clear, now

Therefore, We, the undersigned Citizens of Minnesota do Petition our State Legislature, and demand:

First,

that the Minnesota Legislative Advisory Commission study the court record of Carney v. State of Minnesota, and hold a hearing to question Governor Pawlenty, and/or Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Tom Hanson, regarding whether the Pawlenty administration's claimed powers are proper, consistent with Minnesota statutes, or even Constitutional, and

Second,

that the Legislative Advisory Commission consider, subsequent to the hearing, whether or not to recommend that a further hearing be conducted by a Legislative Committee, Subcommittee, or Task Force, to study the meaning of the phrase “corrupt conduct in office”, as found in Article VIII of the Minnesota Constitution, with regard to whether the nature and scope of Governor Pawlenty's unallotment actions, although not criminal, when considered separately, or when viewed in combination with Governor Pawlenty's other political, fundraising and/or campaign-related activities, may or may not rise to the level of an impeachable offense against the Citizens of the State of Minnesota.
 

The Star Tribune editors said they would accept written follow-up after our meeting with them.  In response, I e-mailed this letter

Robert S. Carney Jr.
4232 Colfax Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55409
bob@republicancontract.com cell: (612) 803-9084

An open letter to the Star Tribune editorial board:

Delivered as an e-mail attachment
 

Re: Position opening; Mayor of Minneapolis

Dear members of the editorial board (but written also to the public):
 

This very long letter is not for submission as something I'm asking you to publish, at least not in the print based edition. However, I am requesting you publish it in your on-line edition. I will publish it separately at my website: www.republicancontract.com.

Because this is an open letter, I'm going to speak in it to both the Star Tribune editorial board and to the public. I'm not saying the editorial board isn't welcome to read everything – I'm just trying to suggest what I think is most essential, and what they could skip. Editorial board – you could skip now to “Moderate – Progressive – Republican” page 5, bottom, or if you're really short on time, to “Element Four...” on page 21, where I finally get specific about Minneapolis, after the preceding background.

This is a followup to yesterday's job interview meeting before the Star Tribune's editorial board, in its capacity as an HR subcommittee that is doing initial screening for those applying to the Citizens of the City of Minneapolis for the position of Mayor.

This position has an application fee: $20. The payment of that fee, plus your willingness to submit to government censorship, (but reserving the right to challenge it in court), puts you on the General Election ballot, so that the full HR committee (the Citizens) can make the final decision on who we want to hire.

Before this happens, a select committee (the Star editorial board), does the usual HR administrative thing -- sifting through piles of applicants, and conducting job interviews. This year, there are so many positions, and so many applicants, (eleven, all male = one football team,... and that's just for Mayor) that it wasn't possible for the employment committee to set up individual meetings. Yesterday's meeting included Al Flowers, James Everett, Bill McGaughey, Joey Lombard, and myself. I think Tuesday's meeting included Mayor Rybak, “Papa” John Kolstad, Dick Franson, and John Charles Wilson.

So as you can see, this employment committee is very busy right now – the City is being restructured, all elective policy makers have been told they must re-apply for their positions, and the HR committee is accepting new applicants. But the Star editorial board sub-committee does allow written follow-up from applicants, and that's what you're reading.

Two points before we move into the substance. First, this is written in haste (started today, due today), so there will certainly be ways the document could be improved. Second, there wasn't much time to fact check, most of this is off the top of my head, but the editorial board is pretty good about picking up on errors, if there are any.

Personal Background Information

my Professional Profile is online at www.republicancontract.com)

I've been active in politics since high school, when I was 5^th congressional district chairman of Teen Age Republicans. My administration was fiscally responsible... sort of. We spent nothing (like my present campaign), raised $100 selling cookies from a booth at a convention, promptly put the money in a bank account, and forgot about it. The bank called me about eight years later.

My first paid job, at age 18, was $200 a month, part time, managing a Republican congressional campaign; Al Davisson, who ran against Don Fraser. Al's campaign theme was that congressman Fraser was “ineffective”, and he, Davisson, would be “effective”. It was a real learning experience for both of us. One of our campaign events featured Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who did a media event promoting our campaign. Here's a tip: beware of endorsements from people who, on camera, have to look at their notes before they say who they're endorsing. By the end of the campaign, Al decided to voted for McGovern. I voted for Nixon, but it was partly at my insistence that we became, as far as I know, the only U.S. Republican congressional campaign to endorse the McGovern peace plan.

The following spring, 1973, I went to Washington DC for a 3 month internship in Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel's office. This was right at the start of the internship program – I was the second intern (Ron Abrams preceded me). My research topic was: “how does Congress make decisions?” Nice narrow topic. I interviewed six congressman – one was the chairman of a special committee that was reorganizing the committee system, the first major reorganization since World War II – we had a one hour, one-on-one meeting. Everyone let me tape record the interviews without a second thought – this was before Watergate blew up. After interviewing a total of about thirty people, including congressmen, lobbyists, congressional staff, administration officials, I wrote and turned in my report, with two conclusions and one recommendation:

• The whole system is a big fight over marginal reallocations of an existing pie.

• There is no process of first defining goals, then developing policies to meet those goals.

• Recommendation: The whole system should be redone from the ground up.

My recommendation was not accepted. But from an analytical point of view, I still stand by the report.

This was a unique, phenomenal, shocking, and traumatic educational experience.

Congressman Frenzel and his office learned some things too. The program was reformed after I left -- more mature interns, slender, fashionable topics. Did I break the mold, or make the mold?

My next job was janitor – moving up, union, better hourly pay, doing something worthwhile. I've been in the private sector ever since.

My impressions from Washington were favorable in many ways. I was very impressed by how hard working everyone was. Here's something that may surprise you – all the congressman told me the same thing about what was most important: honesty. As they saw it, reputations in congress were made, or broken, according to whether a congressman was honest – but I think there is a proviso here – I think they were talking at least first, if not foremost, about honest with other congressmen. This was a time of bitter partisanship. But in spite of that, I was impressed by how well people worked together, and got along on a personal basis.

Still, my overall impression then was that the system was fundamentally broken, and it had something to do with special interests.

It took me until age 30 to graduate from college (Macalester, after the U of M and Augsburg, graduating with about seven total years of undergraduate credits, but no major). My last three undergraduate were full time, and almost exclusively math, physics and computer science. It was good to be away from the world of politics.

After graduating from Macalester, I had my own business (PC Help), and also worked for Karl Egge, then Chairman of the Economics department at Macalester college. He was an expert witness on economic issues in legal cases. In 1991 I went back to school for an MBA degree, enrolling in the Carlson Executive MBA program at the U. of M. My reason for this was to prepare to do economic consulting on legal cases, along the line of what Dr. Egge was doing. The MBA program was another shock to the system. I ended up dropping out about one month before graduation, not too long after being told by one of the students, and this is a quote: “We are from Hell”. My letter of resignation, and a letter from the Dean telling me I would be graduating Summa Cum Laude crossed in delivery. I quit working for Dr. Egge at the same time I left the MBA program.

As suggested, from an academic point of view, I did well in the MBA program, and I was free to graduate and do the things MBAs do. But, as noted, that wasn't my plan entering the program. It was also a real eye-opener as to how much manipulation and what I call psychological conditioning goes on in our society. It was also an eye-opener to observe groups of people in action – and I'm not sure who in the class this does and doesn't include – who have, as best I can tell, deliberately chose evil instead of good. Put me down as a “religious nut” if you want, but as a candidate, you have a right to know that I believe, based on things that I've seen, heard, experienced, and read about, there is such a thing as good and evil, and from my point of view, not everyone has chosen rightly. I am a Christian. But it is certainly not against my religion to be nice to everyone, or to treat everyone according to natural law categories of justice and fairness. More will emerge on the relationship between religion and politics – I think there is a legitimate relationship – throughout this letter.

Since then I've worked on a wide variety of business projects as a consultant or independent contractor. My projects have been mainly in accounting, finance, and computer programming. See my professional profile for details. The breadth of my work experiences represents a good background for a Mayor, I've been in many different work situations, in both the for-profit and non-for-profit sector.

One final point on background. There is a tendency, and I think it's reinforced by the media, to marginalize some people who participate in the political process. I think this often happens with people who aren't willing to “go along” with things they legitimately refuse to go along with. In our current “campaign”, I think Al Flowers is an example of someone who has been marginalized. The legal process will determine as best it can what happened regarding incidents he has been involved in. But I can tell you this, after participating in several events where he has spoken, and talking with him over the phone a dozen times or so, I am convinced that he is a very straightforward guy, that he is stating legitimate grievances of Citizens of Minneapolis, and that it is the duty of our City Government to listen to what he has to say, and to address the grievances. There must be a dialogue, and it must take place in the venue of a political campaign. The media have reported on the incidents Al has been involved in – there has been very little reporting of the grievances he has stated, and the redress he is demanding on behalf of Citizens of Minneapolis.
 

Moderate – Progressive – Republican

That's my political principle. Note: Here's what Steve Brandt wrote in a September 2, 2009 print-based Star Tribune article:

A Republican candidate for mayor of Minneapolis who says he was denied a chance to file both his party and his political principle below his name on the city ballot is seeking a judge's ruling that would force the city to accept both.

Without belaboring this, I want to make one quick point: I've never said I wanted a chance to put both my political party and my political principle on the ballot -- my position has always been I have a right to state my political principle on the ballot, and no one has a right to edit what I state. Read my news releases from July 15^th forward for more on this, if you're interested.

I'm going to elaborate my “political principle” one word at a time , but out of order, starting with...
 

Republican

You've probably heard people described as a “RINO”, meaning REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY.

I'm a “RIN”, Republican In Name. The word “republican” has a definite meaning. In my view, if people call themselves “Republicans”, they should either behave and act according to what the word means, or they should (hint hint...) leave the Republican party, and go form some other party that they can name using a word or phrase that is more accurate and descriptive. These people can do what they need to do... but I wish they'd leave my word – Republican – alone.

The word “Republican” can usually be found living on a block with some other words: “...republican form of government...” in little villages of words like “The United States Constitution” and “The Minnesota Constitution.” Unfortunately, some “developers” have been trying to pave this block over (some say the block was paved over long ago). Let's think of what follows as a kind of visit to this word, “republican” and an investigation of what this word has to say about what's going on.

Let's first review the basics: at its core, a “... republican form of government...” has three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislature is a “representative” body, meaning that people do not make decisions directly – instead we elect representatives, who combine their judgment and our “wants” lists with some secret special interest sauce, proceeding to “make the laws” including taxation, (without “representation” that's “tyranny”), and to exercise oversight authority. The executive “executes” the law, and let's be clear, the intent is that the executive should try to read and follow instructions carefully, and should carry out both the spirit and the letter of the law. The judiciary interprets and applies the law when there are disputes that are not “political questions” – disagreements that should properly be resolved between and by the other two branches.

We have checks and balances. The executive has a role in the legislative process through the veto power. The senate must confirm major appointments. As noted, the legislature has oversight authority.

We also have a Federal system, which is really four or five tiers now (international, national, state, local, neighborhood).

There is one more element – “freedom of contract” – not typically associated with the phrase “...republican form of government...”, but in my judgment it's an element we should include in our discussion. From the civil war to the progressive era, “freedom of contract”, or “liberty of contract” was used as an excuse to prevent our society from correcting many injustices, including child labor – I think that's one good reason we tend to leave it out in discussions of our “...republican form of government...” But the right of individuals to contract (agree) to do things cooperatively, including through corporate business forms, is explicitly provided for in the original, unamended Federal Constitution. More generally, it is the single most widely used means by which everything in our society gets done. As such, I think we should not talk about a “...republican form of government...” without including the general category: “liberty of contract”, including how appropriate limits to this liberty can and must be agreed to.

After most people move beyond all of this -- into tenth grade -- it gradually recedes in to the mists of other happy junior high school experiences. I've often wondered why the Constitution is taught in ninth grade. Probably because it's impossible to teach anything else then. If anyone has a better explanation, please let me know.

We have phrases for situations where the checks and balances are disturbed. When the Judiciary “oversteps” into “lawmaking”, we call this judicial activism. We've been learning a new phrases in the past few years -- “the unitary executive” – a doctrine that asserts the executive should have sweeping powers, including the power to issue “signing statements” stating what laws enacted by the legislature “really mean”. Most recently, we're learning another new word: “unallotment”. To some “Republicans”, this means: “as long as we have 1/3 + 1 of “boots on the ground” in one house of the legislature, it doesn't matter how much the legislature appropriates, the executive is the “decider”, and can spend any percentage on any program, resulting in (voila!) a balanced budget based on reasons known only to God, the Governor, and maybe the MMB Commissioner, and based on priorities for which only the Governor can be held accountable. More on this later.

Here's what the current Minnesota Republican Party platform advocates about the balance between and among the branches:

“Reinstating the constitutional separation of powers and opposing legislation by executive order, judicial rulings, or unelected regulatory agencies. We support the election and appointment of strict constructionist judges, who adhere to the principlesexpressed in the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions.”

In theory, at the alphabet block level, this is a pretty straightforward system. Of course it works very imperfectly, but I perceive it works much better at the state level (at least in Minnesota) than at the federal level. State legislators represent a manageable number of people, and are more accessible, partly because they have (at least optionally) other things to do besides legislating.

Does all of this really matter – is there any practical impact if we don't operate “by the book”?

I'm going to leave the national level aside for now, and focus on the state level.

As a practical matter, maintaining the proper balance makes a huge difference, and (in the interest of time) the difference can be focused on one word: networks (but of course there's a tradeoff, we always pay a price when we focus too narrowly).

In general, whenever people associate in any way, at church, at a bar, in sports, at work, in politics, networks are formed. Our society does things by means of networks – people talking to each other, asking or offering to do things, persuading, manipulating, excluding – some of it's good, some is bad, some is evil. In the big picture, events caused or influenced by people happen through networks of activity.

This analogy could be continued for “techies” – Legislatures are the server farms (individual representatives are the servers, aka “public servants”), of a vast fabric of interconnected, overlapping, cross-crossing networks.

This analogy helps us understand how things happen, but it also leads us fundamentally in the wrong direction – because we're talking about people, not machines.

I see legislatures as the “first among equals” of the three branches of “...a republican form of government...” because they are, literally, the hub for the interaction of people and the networks by which we do things (and prevent) things. But it's important to keep this point in mind: networks of interacting people aren't all political, or even mostly political. We are all parts of many networks, and they overlap and crisscross, and crash.

When the legislative branch of “... a republican form of government...” is functioning properly, there will be disagreements, sometimes strong disagreements, about policy. But there is also an exchange, among everyone, of both information and ideas. And when you have enough independent minded people, policy can emerge that represents an exchange and combination of ideas that is better than anything any individual can come up with. There's more to this than just ideas – when you have many different people working together, from different walks of life and different communities – a group is more likely to identify and plan around practical difficulties with a plan or a program that any individual will inevitably not see.

The legislature can and should serve as a “network hub” through which both public and private sector activity is coordinated. When legislators of all parties are working together effectively, all of the networks that all Minnesotans participate in also work more effectively. The result can be, and should be, a better quality of life for everyone. A well functioning legislature can and should also move us closer to the ideal: “establish justice”, that is one of the reasons stated in the preamble of our Constitution for establishing a Federal government.

In short, in “... a republican form of government...”, the legislature should be the dominant “representative body” – it can and should serve as a crucial hub through which all Minnesotans coordinate their networking activity to make Minnesota a better state for everyone.

As a practical matter, as something that greatly affects whether Minnesota is “doing well” or “doing badly”, having a legislature that is functioning well is absolutely crucial. So how are we doing?

Historically, and in many ways, we have done well. The legislature functions in a reasonably transparent way – there is due process, and we have had a campaign finance system, including the Political Contribution Refund program, that has shielded the legislature from the control of special interest money. I've introduced evidence in my Political Contribution Refund lawsuit demonstrating this.

Recently, the trend is bleak.

As a Republican, one of my biggest concerns is both the complete absence of Republicans in the state Legislature from either Minneapolis or Saint Paul. In 2006 I sat down with then Minnesota House Speaker Steve Sviggum, for a 40 minute videotaped interview to go over the eight points of “A Minnesota Republican State Legislator's Contract with Voters”. My general purpose in developing and advancing that contract is to try to restore the legislature to the kind of role and functioning described above. Here's point 4:

“Partisan geographic divisions, (city/suburbs, metro/rural) are not in our best interest. To avoid this, we understand and accept that Republican legislators from different districts will represent different interests. We expect this will also be true of DFL'ers, and other parties.”

When the legislature convened in January of 2003, following Governor Pawlenty's election, Republicans had a 29seat House majority – 81 to 52. Today, this has been more than reversed, the DFL has a 40 seat majority of 87 to 47; close to the two thirds required for veto overrides. The 2003 Minnesota Senate was closely divided, with 35 DFL'ers, 31 Republicans, and one Independent. In 2009 the DFL has more than a two thirds majority, with 46 seats compared to 21 held by Republicans.

In addition, as I perceive the situation, there is a growing tendency, promoted by the Pawlenty administration, to treat the Republican legislative caucuses as “boots on the ground.”

Finally, with the recent, sweeping claims of unallotment powers claimed by the Pawlenty administration, here's my description of what I see coming, from my October 5^th open letter to the Legislative Advisory Commission (I testified before the commission at their most recent hearing on unallotment, on June 30, 2009):

We should expect a future “Republican” candidate for Governor to campaign along this line – maybe not with these words, but with this message:

“This Bud's for YOU! Elect me... I'll use my action figure unallotment super power to unilaterally balance the budget on my pinky. Makes you feel good to elect DFL'ers to the Legislature? Wife wants you to vote for 'em -- put out a sign? Go ahead! Let 'em play their games. It don't matter what they pass for spending – Gov has the checkbook – I'll be the decider for Minnesota on what's spent and what's not spent. But listen – you gotta give me this: 'boots on the ground' -- one third plus one in one house of the Legislature. That's all we need".

My perception is that this is where the Pawlenty administration is leading us.

Beyond the attack on the legislature that Governor Pawlenty has launched with his sweeping claims of unallotment powers, I think the Governor is, in effect, selling out the best interests of Minnesota, by pandering for money to groups that have political agendas that would be very harmful to our state.

Regarding “networks in general”, I think a significant part of the relatively worse economic performance of Minnesota during the Pawlenty years results from the fact that the high degree of polarization he has promoted in politics, and at the legislature, has major negative consequences for all the ways in which Minnesotans work together. This certainly isn't all Pawlenty's doing, there is increasing polarization at the federal level, and I think both parties are starting to operate in a more “machine-like” way.

Even if you accept for the sake of argument only! that the approach Governor Pawlenty is taking towards unallotment is constitutional, the consequence of this attempt to, in effect, move the network hub from the state capital to,... where, the Governor's mansion, Eden Prairie, the Governor's shoe phone?... would have devastating negative consequences – and again, this has everything to do with networking. At least in the legislature, while party majorities ebb and flow, there is still competition for seats, and the potential of shifting majorities gives all interests, everywhere, some clout. If the hub moves to the executive, then it's an all or nothing battle – the executive can not only marginalize, and economically disenfranchise, any area that doesn't “vote right”, an executive can actually campaign on a promise, explicit or implicit, to do this, and if the current unallotment claims are upheld, the executive can deliver. As I see it, we already have a partial breakdown of many Minnesota networks of all kinds, this would move us even further towards a reduced ability for everyone to do things in a coordinated way.

So... back to the question: does all this “... republican form of government...” stuff have any practical impact. Yes it does – enormous impact. And we haven't even talked yet about the very serious economic and budget challenges our state is facing. Nor have we talked about the effect, over time, of one-party rule in the core cities. This is a direct consequence of how and where the Pawlenty Administration has been leading us.

On to the next word in my stated political principle...
 

Moderate

Partly in the context of what's been said above, I make a distinction in the use of the word Moderate, and I offer a new and improved political spectrum, (let's call it “political space”) not just a line, moving left to right, but a coordinate system, with an X and a Y axis.

In my political space, the X axis remains the traditional “political spectrum”, with left (liberal) and right (conservative), moderate in the middle, radicals on both sides. I also call the X access the policy dimension. This has to do with what the policy of our government is.

For the Y axis, I have the legislature in the middle (the heart), the judiciary on top (where the head, center of reason is), and the executive on the bottom (the legs, they move us).

The Y axis of my political space is the process dimension. On the Y axis, moderates are in the middle, because their focus is on the legislature, the representative body responsible for lawmaking, policy and oversight. If a properly functioning legislature cannot be persuaded to do something, this is because a social consensus is lacking.

If you move very far up or down on the Y axis, you become a radical (an academic or an athlete). Note: there is nothing in between moderate and radical, as you move away from the legislature, the heart.

Paul Wellstone used to say he was from “the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.” I am from “the Republican wing of the Republican party” – to me, process comes first, if the process isn't working properly, we need to try to fix that first. Again, are there practical consequences to this? Absolutely. There are two main points that I want to focus on.

Point One: Advanced societies with free elections do not lurch well

As a 19 year intern, writing my critique of how Congress makes decisions, I was not thinking in an historical context, considering the advantages of stability that our society, and our system of government offers. And it is designed to be stable – our system makes it difficult if not impossible to move very fast according to even the most clearly formulated political agendas, of which there are few or none. In short, our whole system is designed to be “lurch proof”. I think that's a good thing, and it is a central design feature of the “... republican form of government...”

This doesn't mean there aren't demands by groups, on both the right and the left of the X axis, for our society to lurch, immediately, in their preferred direction. My perception is that there are sizable political constituencies, each with plenty of economic clout behind them, that want our society to lurch towards “European style socialism”, or towards some kind of return to Laissez Faire, minimal government. I see these options as highly undesirable and practically impossible, respectively.

We have serious, fundamental economic problems at the national level. I regret the lack of time to go into these in more detail today,... a brief overview of the Obama administration will be woven into the definition of “Progressive”. Here, the only point I want to make is this: our problems today are very serious, but the situation is not improved by throwing out vague words like “hope” and “change”, and then trying to launch large lurches that people haven't agreed to. And of course, the Obama Administration didn't create the problems we're facing today. I never voted for “W” – it was Nader and Grams in 2000, and I voted against Bush (for Kerry by necessity) in 2004. And further, some basic changes in direction are needed. But there is a right way and a wrong way to lead towards these changes – my assessment is that the Obama Administration is leading in the wrong way, and that serious negative consequences are likely to follow.

So, from a process point of view, along the Y axis, I'm right smack dab in the middle. The legislature should be the great national pressure cooker, the network hub, the branch of government representing, and responding to, the people. I won't advocate or support any long marches in any direction unless and until there is strong reason to believe we have a consensus on what we're doing – and by consensus I do not mean a vacuum achieved by silencing, marginalizing, and ignoring legitimate grievances of any group or individual.

On to Point Two, where Process and Policy meet.

Point Two: Moderates can talk about ideas that sound radical today IF we don't threaten to try to grab the levers of power and ram our agenda through

One of the effects of a one-dimensional, policy-only political spectrum is that people start to become marginalized whenever they start to advocate things that are controversial (unless they're pandering to the base, then it's OK). If you make the commitment to process your first priority, the dynamics of the situation change. Let me give you an example:

I am very concerned about what I see as a domination of our K-12 educational system by “secular humanists”. In my view, the fundamental priority of the whole K-12 system has at least as much to do with psychological conditioning as with “the 3 R's”. I think parents should be free to have educational choices that include the right to have their children attend schools where religion is not only taught, but practiced. And note: I do think that practical “this world” consequences can and should follow from religious ideas.

So, what by way of policy do I propose to do, in advancing my ideas about education?

Very little. Almost nothing.

I don't think our society has reached a consensus on the ideas I'm advancing. Since there is no consensus, I think trying to ram through policies to “carry out my agenda” is likely to do far more harm than good.

Some people are worried about the efforts of other people to “make” the United States a Christian nation. Others seem committed to trying to do this. I'm opposed to using the Government to try to make Christianity the “Established Religion” for a simple and compelling reason: it can't be done. Anyone who thinks Christianity can be an Established Religion simply doesn't understand what Christianity is.

On the one hand, there is very little by way of obstacles in our society that prevents anyone from living as a Christian, or converting others. On the other hand, I think a “secular humanist” society that is completely dominated by psychological conditioning, thought control, mind control, is possible. I don't think it's here yet, but it seems we're being pointed in that direction, and I want to go the other way.

A commitment to moderation in the process of government frees me to advocate for things that would rightly be seen as radical if I was trying to ram through a policy. It frees me to start building a consensus without which action will do more harm than good. Further, I think our national economic problems are so serious that it will be necessary soon to start moving in a new direction, guided by ideas that many today see as radical. But to me, people must first have the problem explained to them clearly, and there must be a plan in place that will take, as Robert La Follette used to say: “one full step.” It's often better to not do anything, than to do something that is compromised so badly that there's no realistic chance it will work. Those kinds of policies don't just fail, they take “hope” down with them.

This is a good time to move on to the third word...
 

Progressive

Progressive does not mean liberal. I'm going to leave the word liberal aside for now.

The progressive movement was partly a general “good government” movement – we shouldn't have corruption, especially in city governments. It was partly a response to changes in the economy – in particular the emergence of monopolies beyond the transportation sector – that ultimately made Laissez Faire not just immoral, but effectively impossible. It was partly a moral reform movement. It was partly an attitude, held by a lot of pretty realistic, level-headed farmers with lots of time to read in the winter – that progress was possible, and that powerful interests could be defeated. It was overwhelmingly Republican.

There are four elements I want focus on regarding how I think progressive principles are highly relevant today – of course some modifications are needed.

Element One – Reform of the Political Process (and defending progress already made) – This has already received most of the discussion I have time for. One quick point – politics was dominated by machines during the Progressive Era – La Follette details his battles to defeat these machines. I see us heading more in this direction both in Minneapolis and in Minnesota – it's a huge challenge. I'm glad we have ranked choice voting this year (I wouldn't be on the General Election ballot if we didn't), but I'm open to considering modifications and improvements, including ranked choice primaries, followed by a ranked choice general election.

Element Two – Resistance to the dominance of corporate interests – This is today almost an insurmountable problem. And it's a far more systemic problem than it was in the early 1900's. Let me offer an overview of the scope of the problem, as I see it:

• The financial sector is an uncontrollable monster. It's grown from about 5% of the economy 30 years ago, to about 8% of total GDP recently. This is all overhead – the sector actually produces nothing, and I think that's an important point to keep in mind. Further, in recent years, between a third and 42% of all corporate profit has been in the financial sector. When the “financial crisis” hit last fall, financial profits dropped drastically, and, what a surprise, the stock market dropped by about the range that the financial sector represents as the total of corporate profits.

• Our economy is structurally unable to create enough jobs to result in full employment. I don't think this is temporary – the last “recovery” was a jobless “recovery”, with globalization, American workers can't compete without the developing world – that's the reality.

• Small business is under attack – The Obama Administration is dominated by big finance and big business. Historically the engine of job growth in America has been small business – I'm sure you heard that from “Papa” John – I taught small business post-secondary for about four years, so this is something I'm well aware of. We have high unemployment, but I don't think we're getting out of this soon, and one reason is that big corporations and the financial sector dominate the Obama administration. Historically, small businesses have been an important base for the Republican party. As I see it, either the policy makers in the Obama Administration just don't get it at a very fundamental level – or we are being deliberately moved towards a European socialism model.

• Our economy can't grow without either an earth-shaking tech event, or a bubble – When you think about, we haven't had significant economic growth since the 1980's without one or the other. In the 80's we had the “Reagan Revolution” – some increase in defense spending, and “deficits for growth”. I think the real driver there was the PC, and later the internet revolution. The Clinton years were driven economically by the PC revolution, morphing into the internet revolution. When the dot-com bubble popped, we had the housing bubble. Now that that's popped we have... nothing. Green jobs and infrastructure spending aren't going to do it – not even close. During this entire period, the financial sector was steadily growing, and just as steadily producing... nothing!

• Is our fundamental economic problem scarcity, or abundance? – In my current thinking, our fundamental economic problem isn't scarcity – it's abundance – that's why we can't create full employment. This thesis needs elaboration at book length – the title of the one I want to write on this is “Choking on Blessings; the economics of abundance”. This one needs far more work, I wanted to identify it as a factor, partly as a “coming attraction” -- partly for “full disclosure”, my thinking really is that off-center. But again – no consensus, I'm not proposing action, just more study at this time.

The problems are both so large, and so inter-related, that it's difficult to know where to begin. Let me offer two examples of what a huge, seamless egg we're trying to get our arms around:

• Example one – The financial sector and the stock market. One of the factors depressing the economy is the deflated stock market – when people have taken hits in their portfolios, and their housing value, this depresses consumer spending. But how can the stock market be inflated? Manufacturing (GM?) isn't going to do it. Realistically, the only sector you can inflate is the financial sector. So... another bubble.

• Example two – Health care “reform” and the Medical-Industrial complex. This goes back to the structural inability of our society to create jobs. There are about three million “health care bureaucrats”, or about five for every doctor in the U.S. If we had a single payer system, medicare for all, administrative costs would plummet. Or would they? Where are these three million people going to work? I think part of the cry of “European style socialism” is a very realistic perception, on the part of Republicans, that bureaucrats need to work, and if you eliminate their jobs in the private sector, those jobs are likely to reappear in the public sector.

What's the solution?

I think we need to do three things.

• First, start talking about the underlying problems, and try to build a consensus for solving them. To me, this starts with the “economics of abundance book”, no time to further elaborate.

• Second, protectionism. La Follette advocated that tariffs be set according to the difference in wages paid in the U.S., as compared to other countries. The weak dollar won't restore our manufacturing. If we don't move to protectionism, there will be both an inadequate ability to create employment in the U.S., and an unsustainable trade deficit. I know further research is needed on this.

• Third, regulation, especially of the financial sector. The financial sector does not create value. Developing exotic financial instruments has two effects, when it works it produces bubbles, and when it doesn't, it produces what we've got now.

Element Three – the domination of big media by corporate interests

I want to limit the discussion here to newspapers, due to time limitation.

The decline of print based newspapers is obviously something you at the Star Tribune have to be very concerned about. It is a huge economic challenge for Minnesota. We have the three main elements most essential to producing paper products: inexpensive electricity, abundant water, and abundant trees. I don't know by what percentage our state's economy is tilted towards the products used by newspapers, but it's certainly significant. In the mid-90's, I checked the Statistical Abstract, and found that “paper and printing”, including newspapers, represented about 13% of the manufacturing sector, and it was growing (then) at about twice the rate of the economy. As a percentage of manufacturing it was bigger than the transportation sector (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Boeing, all foreign car companies manufacturing here). This is a gigantic industry, and the rapid decline is having a very negative impact on Minnesota.

I think it's necessary to stop looking at newspapers as media, and to start looking at them as manufacturers and distributors of paper products, with the possibility of distributing other products.

Here are two things I think newspapers should start looking at, regarding the print based business:

Consolidate delivery with multiple publications. “Paper routes” should be changed into delivery routes not just for competing publications, but for a whole variety of products that people need on a daily or a regular basis.

Figure out ways to produce new, and customized paper publications. People still appreciate getting information on paper. There is still a market for paper based products. But if newspapers don't start moving towards these solutions, the long trend won't be leveled off by the kinds of new products and business model introductions I'm suggesting.

In one sense, I think some good may come out of the Star Tribune's decision to effectively “abandon” coverage of local politics. First, the vacuum will be filled, and is being filled, by community newspapers (your potential customers when you follow my delivery system recommendations), and by web sites. Second, politics antagonizes people. When newspapers enjoyed monopolies due to high entry barriers, there could be some independence on the part of the news and editorial departments – people knew there was no real choice if they wanted to know what's going on. Those days are long gone. You might want to sell services of delivering political news that is published by other entities, that the Star Tribune can't be held accountable for. In general, I see part of the issue of no coverage of local politics as an abuse of the Star Tribune's position as a monopoly manufacturer. As a progressive, I don't want to go after the Star Tribune to stop you from censoring the news, I want to go after you as a TrustBuster – you have an effective monopoly on the production and distribution of paper based products generally, including some products that have political content. I want to regulate rates of people for delivering political news from different view points the same way railroads were regulated, and required to deliver at reasonable rates for everyone.

As you know if you've read my website and news releases, I frequently assume the posture of a satirist, and I challenge how things are described in the “language of news”. (Example: “Czar Tribune). I am focusing on what I see as economic relationships in describing news organizations and the people who work with them. This is not always well received. In doing this, I am both attempting to make a serious underlying point, and providing (to my mind) a little entertainment and comic relief. My concerns with how the media “reports news” are broad and deep, and I am very interested in trying to effect what improvements I can.

Bottom line: as I see it today, the Star Tribune is mainly a jobs program – I want to do what is possible to make sure the business adapts, and the jobs are preserved, while we figure out this whole “economics of abundance” thing. “News coverage”, “independent news rooms”, “separate offices for editors”, “hard news standards”? How quaint.

In short: in the age of the internet, we insurgents have ways of getting our message out – if we can only avoid being arrested.

Element Four – a focus on local government

And this really all leads into a fuller discussion of things I'd like to accomplish as Mayor.

I've made the point already that I see the Mayor's office at least partly in a political context. At this time in the U.S., we are desperately in need of a Republican party that can and does offer solutions for our many problems. And so... my one campaign promise:

If I am elected Mayor, the day after Governor Pawlenty announces for President, I will announce for President, and I'll go to Iowa to show the people of Iowa what a real Minnesota Moderate Progressive Republican is.

Three quick points here. First, I don't really think I'm going to be elected President. Mayor maybe, Minnesota has a history of electing non-traditional people, especially when they're endorsed by an effusive Star Tribune op-ed. But, as an elected Mayor of Minneapolis, I would certainly be in a position to influence what the Republican party is, heading to the next election cycle. Second, if I was elected Mayor, the MM would have to cover a presidential campaign launched by me, it would be hard news simply because of the office I held. Third, regarding time, serving as Mayor would be a job and a half to begin with, so what remaining time and energy would go to the “political project”, but would be limited.

If I'm not elected Mayor, I plan to continue my “moving the Republican party” project, probably by running for Governor, and certainly by recruiting and promoting candidates for the legislature, including what I broadly categorize as independent minded people of all parties. I will continue to write, and produce videos, hopefully including books and documentaries. Pending a review of Campaign Finance and Disclosure rules, I will probably also work as a paid consultant for campaigns, and may work as a lobbyist over at the state Capitol.

But let's go back to the operative premise – after that glowing Star Tribune op-end piece hits the streets, suppose I am elected.

Beyond what I stated at the “job interview” yesterday, there are a number of specific things I'd like to address and work on.

First, regarding both the budget and LGA, I am very serious about using the City of Saint Paul budget as a benchmark, to try to understand why things cost so much more on this side of the river. My focus will be on trying to find savings, including money to finance the Sky-bi. I am realistic about the difficulty of cutting any municipal budget, or more generally any bureaucracy. Information is stored in tangled mazes, people all work together to preserve everyone's job. Frankly, I think the best prospects for achieving savings in current activities, is to openly go at this from the point of view of how people can be re-deployed, or even from the point of view of offering buyouts. My main point here isn't to commit to anything in advance, just to say that I'm very serious about trying to find ways to save, but this has to be done in a way that can actually be effected.

Second, regarding LGA and the budget, I think one of the reasons there have been big cuts to LGA, beyond the total absence of any Republicans from Minneapolis in the legislature, is low credibility regarding the need. If we can show that real cost cutting is being done, as a permanent approach, and if we have new initiatives, like the Sky-bi, that can be justified, then I think the legislature may be less hostile to LGA.

Third, all budget issues are in the context of huge looming structural deficits at the state level.

Fourth, the housing crisis in Minneapolis is real, and I am strongly in favor of trying to find ways to minimize the impact of it. In particular, I would like to study whether it would be realistic to defer property taxes, either for a limited period of time, or in some cases over a longer time, and put this on the city's bond. The city has an excellent credit rating. This would help both struggling homeowners and would stabilize property values by reducing the number of distressed properties that go on the market.

Fifth, most of the other candidates have raised the issues of harsh inspection policies. I think this is a problem, and I would work hard to try to rethink the inspection process, to make it easier for homeowners to safely comply, and to tie this with neighborhood revitalization.

Sixth, I'm very concerned about “regentrifiation” (not sure where the “re” came from). There are two related concerns here. First, we should always give preference to people who live in a neighborhood, areas should never be targeted for redevelopment just because that fits in with the “city” plan, or with a developer's plan. Second, our focus should be helping people in distressed neighborhoods, doing everything we can to amplify economic development that will occur naturally as homeowners improve their properties.

Seventh, regarding “affordable housing.” I'm going to put this thought “out there”, but I frankly admit it's a difficult one. Let's start with the obvious: If you don't have much money, you need inexpensive housing. This can be provided in various ways, including letting a neighborhood run down. But here's the real dilemma – if you “improve” a neighborhood, but there aren't jobs for people to afford the improved neighborhood, they have no choice but to leave. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I think we first need to face the fact (as explained above), that we are in a semi-permanent recession, and start reasoning from there. One solution to provide less expensive housing for people is through regulation, making it easier, in fact promoting, home modifications so people can double up, so a house can be divided into apartments. Another solution is to develop new kinds of house designs, say, an earth sheltered house one one residential lot, with small living quarters for eight individuals, or six individuals and one or two families, and with common areas. I'm opposed to redefining marriage, but I'm in favor of redefining households. Our focus needs to be on how to provide affordable housing – and let me be very clear about what I mean, this includes rooms at $300 or $400 a month, by modifying and supplementing our existing housing stock.

A disclosure –

I want to go on record as stating that I have recently had some cash flow issues with respect to my personal finances. I calculate my net worth as about $400,000, based almost entirely on real estate. I don't think any further disclosure is necessary at this time.

In conclusion –

First: I thank the Star Tribune editorial board for interviewing me for the position of Mayor of Minneapolis.

Second: I think I've given good reasons for the Star Tribune to endorse me for Mayor of Minneapolis, and I ask you to do so. The Citizens of Minneapolis will have to take your word for it, but do people really have anything else to go on this time?

Third: If you decide not to endorse me, I call on the Star Tribune to not endorse Mayor Rybak. When I say he has refused to even acknowledge that there is a 2009 Minneapolis Mayoral Election, this is said with exaggeration, but not with too much exaggeration. Mayor Rybak's approach to the 2009 Mayoral Election is something that in my judgment should under no circumstances be rewarded with an endorsement.

Fourth: I call on the Star Tribune publish an editorial stating that you join in our Citizens' Petition for a redress of grievances, and to demand that Mayor Rybak agree to televised Mayor Forums. While I believe the editorial board of the Star Tribune has means to judge intelligently whether Mayor Rybak merits re-election, this must be re-emphasized: other than taking your word for it, the people of Minneapolis have very little else to go on.