Sardonicky: The Other War Against Women

The war against women is nothing new, and it isn't limited to the GOP misogynists who don't want us to have access to birth control. The war against women is really an economic one, waged by the .01 percent against the rest of us. The real war is the class war being waged against the women, men and children of the 99%. The birth control battle, while odious, is just a part of the larger oppression of poor women, working women, and minority women. Wealthy white women get treated with dignity and respect, regardless of the medical circumstances. Paris Hilton will never be forced to undergo an ulstrasound if she doesn't want one. 

You don't get the big picture by reading or watching the mainstream media accounts. The debate that rages is whether it's false equivalence to compare Rush Limbough's vitriol with Bill Maher's potty mouth. Liberals are torn between championing the hate machine's right to free speech and calling for its silencing. Reactionary politicians are trying to out-do each other in creative medievalism, turning routine ob-gyn visits into torture. There is not a little pornography in the current political discourse. 

And meanwhile, American women are still only earning about 82 cents to the man's dollar -- an apparent increase from just a few years ago, when we got 75 cents to the dollar compared to men. However, that increase is mainly due to the fact that men lost more jobs during the meltdown; the hard truth is that everyone's wages have shrunk. Men's pay decreased by two percent, while women lost an average of .09 percent. Moreover, black women still earn only 70% of what white men get, and Latinas, just 60%. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, much vaunted by the Obama Administration as one of his signature legislative accomplishments, really has had nothing much to do with the very slight improvement in the pay scales of working women. 

 As a matter of fact, Lilly Ledbetter herself is having trouble making ends meet on her meager retirement benefits. In an interview with WNYC this week, she said her income has fallen by over 50% since her husband died in 2008. Despite her fame and her seat of honor at the State of the Union address, she is "just scraping by." You can listen to the interview here. Instead of contributing to politicians who are co-opting this brave woman for their own ends, you might want to purchase Mrs. Ledbetter's new book. It's called "Grace and Grit." As she says in the audio, income discrimination is not just a woman's problem -- it's a family problem. I highly recommend listening to the whole thing. It will open your eyes and make you mad as hell. You'll find out how she did all the work herself to get the law changed, and that she didn't earn a single extra penny as a result of her efforts. 

 Jenny Brown of Labor Notes writes that over her lifetime, the typical working woman loses $379,000 because of the continuing income gap. And as Lilly Ledbetter has experienced, this loss carries over into retirement. Social Security benefits are predicated on the amount of lifetime earnings. And then too, wage discrimination is usually built right into jobs that are traditionally held by women. 

 Hospitality and retail jobs are a big part in the "improving" employment statistics, because the increasing wealth of the one percent has given them scads more money to burn in hotels and restaurants and stores. So of course thousands more servants and lackeys are needed to meet the needs of the very rich. And service industries are dominated by low-paid female workers. The average wage for a restaurant server is only $2.13 an hour -- well below the legal minimum wage, but exempt from the law because tips theoretically compensate. Only they often don't, because employers don't make up the difference as they are required to do. Some bosses force the wait staff to pool their tips among the cleanup crews and even pocket their own cut. 

 Then there's the hotel business. The Hyatt Chain, owned by the wealthy Pritzker family, is notoriously anti-union and anti-woman. Management ordered heat lamps turned on striking workers outside the Chicago hotel during a heat wave last summer. At the Hyatt hotel in Santa Clara, California, bosses celebrated “housekeepers appreciation week” last September by grafting photographs of housekeepers’ faces onto bikini-clad bodies on surfboards. If Hyatt employees want health insurance, a $400 monthly premium is deducted from their checks. Yet Hyatt heiress, Forbes billionaire and Obama bundler Penny Pritzker has a seat of honor at the White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. That should immediately suggest that this hilariously named in-house lobby of CEOs and a few token, co-opted big labor leaders has absolutely nothing to do with jobs. 

When you hear the word "job creator" in Washington, it refers to an oligarch who not only wants to keep more of his/her hoarded wealth, but wants to make sure what little the rest of us have left is taken away through "shared sacrifice." President Obama was happy to pose with Lilly Ledbetter at a few photo-ops, and never hesitates to use her name as a campaign talking point. But he also never dreamed of appointing her to his phony jobs council. She might have spoken too many inconvenient truths. She might have made Penny Pritzker uncomfortable. The war on women is bipartisan. The Republicans just have an uglier and more vocal way of expressing it. 

 

 

Some GOP lawmakers distance themselves from tax pledge By Gregory Korte, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – At least two Republican congressmen say they don't remember signing it. One signed it, but has since disavowed it. A half dozen have bucked pressure from within their own party and never signed it.

• 
  Eric Francis, for USA TODAY
  Rep. Jeff Fortenberry has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge.

Enlarge

Eric Francis, for USA TODAY

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge.

And a few others say they support the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in principle but would sooner violate the pledge than turn their back on a deal to reduce federal spending.

For more than two decades, the pledge written by activistGrover Norquist has been essential job application paperwork for any conservative Republican seeking a seat in Congress.

But a small number of GOP House members are joining Senate colleagues in distancing themselves from the pledge, as Congress works on a compromise to reduce the deficit.

That distance has taken a number of forms, from amnesia to outright disavowal:

•Not constrained: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., has informed Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that he no longer wishes to be associated with the pledge, though his name still appears on the group's website. "When you look at something like ending the ethanol subsidy, if that's considered a tax increase, I can't be constrained by that," he told USA TODAY. "Things have to be on the table."

•Agree in principle, if not in practice? Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., stands behind the "spirit" of the pledge, but "does not believe that the pledge prevents him from supporting tax reform that includes tax increases in some instances or closing loopholes," said his chief of staff Fredrick Piccolo Jr. If raising some taxes to solve the debt crisis means angering Norquist, Piccolo said, "he'll anger Grover Norquist."

A spokesman for Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., said Wisconsinites are interested in revenues in general, not the specifics of the Norquist pledge. "That's why Congressman Duffy has voted to get rid of loopholes and deductions in an effort to make the corporate tax code fairer and flatter and more competitive," said his chief of staff, Brandon Moody. Does that mean Duffy could support a deal that ends tax breaks for some people? "He'll take each vote as they come and make an informed decision based on the specifics of the proposal or bill," Moody said.

•Don't remember: At a town-hall-style forum last month, a constituent challenged Rep.Lee Terry, R-Neb., about his signing of the pledge. "I did?" Terry responded. "The list I've seen doesn't have my name on it."

In an interview afterward, Terry said he may have signed the pledge as a candidate in 1998, but wouldn't do so today. "I am so anti-pledges," he said. "At some point, I have to be able to say, 'Look at my record.' And my record shows I have never voted for a tax increase."

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., also "doesn't sign pledges," said spokesman Tom Pfeifer. But after retrieving a signed copy of the pledge from Norquist's office, Pfeifer said: "Whether or not he remembered signing something 19 years ago. … after reading the pledge it's clear he has stuck to it."

Thirteen members of Congress — including six in the House of Representatives— have never signed the pledge. One is Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.

With increasing amounts of Treasury debt being bought by China, the deficit is a national security and human rights issue so important that "everything has to be on the table," Wolf said — especially tax breaks favoring special interests. "Tax earmarks ought to be eliminated."

Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., also never signed the pledge, saying it "simply reinforces our existing, broken tax code—the same tax code that's laden with 60,000 pages of deductions, exemptions and exclusions designed to curry favor from special interests," he said in a statement. He supports abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax.

Norquist's group says 236 congressmen have signed the pledge, agreeing to oppose tax increases for as long as they hold their current office. That's up from 173 congressmen just a year ago, before Republicans took control of the House.

If tax increases are to be part of a deal to decrease the deficit by the end of this year, 19 will have to find a way out of the pledge.

The pledge takes several forms depending on the office. In its simplest version, politicians oppose "any and all efforts to increase taxes."

The pledge for members of Congress is more specific. Congressmen pledge to: "One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal tax rate for individuals and businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Despite questions about the definition of a tax increase, Norquist has little patience for any equivocation. "Everybody knows what the pledge means. It's very simple. If it raises taxes, it's a tax increase," he said.

Politicians trying to wiggle out of their promise don't have to answer to him, Norquist said. "The commitment is not to Americans for Tax Reform. It's to their constituents."

That's good enough for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has been feuding with Norquist since leading a group of 34 GOP senators — including 31 pledge-signers — to eliminate ethanol subsidies in June.

"Most of us agree with Grover on most of the stuff," Coburn said. "But he's not the one who gets to determine what a tax increase is. We are, and the American people are.

"The more media he gets, the more false power he has, which is more intimidating to people," Coburn said.

If more House members are showing their independence from Norquist in going after tax "earmarks," that could bode well for future deficit reduction efforts, he said.

Obama and Regulatory Uncertainty

Obama and Regulatory Uncertainty

Posted: 09 Sep 2011 08:31 AM PDT anGRY BEAR

One of the current Republican talking point is that a major reason that firms are not hiring is regulatory uncertainty.

Of course there is little or no evidence to support this argument and virtually every poll of business and especially small business shows that fear of regulation is a very minor factor in current business decisions. The dominant factor in poll after poll is inadequate demand.

ON 11 June 2004 Milton Friedman published an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page called "Freedom's Friend" [reprint available here], where he proposed that the number of pages in the Federal Register could be used as a measure of government's interference in people lives and a measure of freedom.

I've looked at this measure before, back in 2008. Given this new Republican talking point it seems a good time to revisit it, so I've updated the data to include the first two years of the Obama administration. The chart compares the average number of pages published in the Federal Register each year. This measure allows you to compare the number of pages in four-year and eight-year administrations, as well as the number in the first two years of the Obama administration. If you tried to chart the total number of pages published over an administration, you could not make this type of comparison very well.

Milton Friedman wanted to use this approach to demonstrate that Reagan interfered in people freedom less than other presidents. He clearly made that point, and if you update the chart it shows that Bush II set the all time record for the number of pages in the Federal Register. Of course, the Republicans would deny that the record level of interference in people's freedom by President Bush caused business to limit hiring.

But in the first two years of the Obama administration the number of pages in the Federal Register averaged 75,875 as compared to and average of 75,894 under Bush. So far Obama appears to have published -0.02% fewer regulations than Bush. Of course, he still has time to move ahead of Bush. But as of yet this measure implies that there is actually less regulatory uncertainty under Obama than there was under Bush when the Republicans obviously made no claims about regulatory uncertainty restraining employment.



I wonder if anyone in the press would pick up this point and actually question some Republican when they make this talking point.

I clearly miss [the late] Mark Haines of CNBC, who would regularly call politicians or other fools on such talking points. This would clearly give someone else at CNBC the chance to pick up where Mark Haines left off.

At least, I hope some other popular bloggers will spread this analysis.

Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult Source: Clean Technica

ALEC's Lackeys: King and Keith: the Cucking Stool

ALEC's Lackeys: King and Keith

In an attempt to pivot away from the consequences of the budget cuts they insisted upon, Minnesota Republicans want to change the conversation. Last week, Republican legislative leaders held a press conference to announce "Reform 2.0." Currently lacking details, Reform 2.0 is supposed to gather ideas through citizen input, but it's more likely to be warmed over leftovers from the last session. It's a virtual certainty that the Reform 2.0 agenda will look almost exactly like the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) agenda for "state government reform." The 2010 Republican "reform agenda" was cribbed from ALEC, and 2011 will feature more of the same. And in today's episode of ALEC's Lackeys, we'll look at two of the most "reform-minded" Republican members of the House - Reps. Keith Downey and King Banaian.

The Minnesota GOP's "reform (1.0 and 2.0) agenda" seems to be drawn directly from ALEC's 2011 "State Budget Reform Toolkit" in both word and spirit. If you go line by line through the list of ALEC's "Index of Recommendations," the parallels are striking. The deep, original reform ideas of Rep. Keith Downey are nothing more than rewarmed ALEC boilerplate. The dazzling budgetary wizardry of Rep. King Banaian is cut and pasted from the ALEC playbook.

ALEC Recommendation: The legislature should require each agency to have a mission statement with goals and objectives linked to the state’s core functions of government.
ALEC Recommendation: States should adopt a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) approach to bring sanity and fiscal sustainability to the state budget process.

At the top of all Minnesota Republican talk about the budget is a buzzword - "priority-based budgeting." That was the basis for Rep. Banaian's HF2, one of the core priorities of the House GOP.

ALEC Recommendation: States should create a permanent sunset review commission to recommend ways the state can cut costs, reduce waste, and improve efficiency and service levels.

HF2 also included a "sunset commission" that would force all state agencies to appear in front of a panel to justify their existence or be eliminated. This was rolled into SF1047 (the omnibus state government bill) which was eventually vetoed by Governor Dayton.
When you get to "Section IV: Tools to Control Cost and Improve Government Efficiency" in ALEC's toolkit, the similarities with the legislative agenda of Keith Downey are downright eerie.

ALEC Recommendation: Adopt a state hiring freeze encompassing all departments.
ALEC Recommendation: Policymakers should delay automatic pay increases for state employees until the rising costs of government are brought under control.
ALEC Recommendation: Increase the use of privatization and competitive contracting to execute tasks to lower costs and improve the quality of service provided.
ALEC Recommendation: Develop a program (or programs) for state employees to allow them to be rewarded for savings generated by new innovations or re-engineering of existing business practices.

HF4: Mandates a 15% reduction in state workforce by 2015 by using a combination of hiring freezes, furloughs, and early retirement incentives.
HF192: The "Reinventing Government Employment Act" would freeze salaries, benchmark future salaries based on a review process, implement an employee "gainsharing program" where employees who save money get a share of the savings, force state employee units to bid for contracted services against private contractors, and propose a constitutional amendment to make Minnesota a "right to work (for less)" state.

ALEC Recommendation: States should adopt a constitutional revenue or spending limit. Such a limit would impose much needed discipline on profligate spending patterns.
ALEC Recommendation: Pass a balanced budget requirement, mandating that the expenditures included in the budget for the next fiscal year shall not exceed estimated revenues, and create a protected emergency reserve account.

HF1612: Proposes a constitutional amendment limiting spending to the revenue taken in the previous biennium.
HF67: Limits spending in the 2012-13 biennium to forecasted revenues.
Please do go and read the ALEC playbook, erm, "toolkit," if you haven't already. Reform 2.0 will be more of the same. Book it.
Follow me on Twitter @aaronklemz
 

Minn. GOP pays $170K penalty for illegal fund transfers

by Rupa Shenoy, Minnesota Public Radio

August 18, 2011

St. Paul, Minn. — The Minnesota GOP has agreed to pay a federal penalty of $170,000 because of illegal funds transfers and financial reporting omissions. The penalty comes as a result of a Federal Elections 

Commission complaint filed in 2007 by the Washington D.C. nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

The FEC found the Republican party of Minnesota failed to disclose nearly $100,000 in debt in 2006. The same year, the party withheld retirement contributions totaling nearly $8,000 dollars to four employees. Also that year, state Republican party made illegal excessive transfers totaling more than $560,000 from its non-federal account to its federal account. 

In an agreement with the FEC released by Minnesota Republicans, the party says the errors and omissions were not intentional. GOP chair Tony Sutton said in a statement the party has taken steps to correct problems, including hiring an outside firm to produce financial reports.

Sutton did not immediately respond to calls for further comment. 

The GOP Has Become a Cult, And the Tax Cut Mantra is Their Jim Jones Kool Aid to America

How radical and cultish are the declared Republican candidates for president?
The answer is clear from a question that came 48 minutes into the FOX sponsored Iowa "debate" on Thursday.
According to a TIME magazine blog of the event, the moderator, FOX's Bret Baier, asked "everyone to raise their hand if they would oppose a debt deal that offered $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Everyone raises their hand, though Pawlenty's hand bobs up and down a bit."
In one infamous moment of ignorant and cowardly group-think the radical and destructive financially anarchistic outlook of the GOP was revealed.
"No new taxes (or really no taxes)" has been the lynch mob call to arms (and votes) for national Republican candidates for years, but it has reached a feverish and pernicious pitch.
Think about it, all the GOP candidates for the presidency (and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would have held their hands up too, you can be sure), would turn down, let's say, a trillion in cuts in federal spending if they had to also vote for just 1/10th of that amount in tax increases on millionaires and billionaires.
The rational responses to this craven tomfoolery are too numerous to detail in a short commentary. Suffice it to say, the anti-tax mantra has become a political/religious symbol that defies logic or common sense. In a time when the nation is beset by enormous financial problems, it is a placebo pill that removes the challenge of finding multi-faceted and inventive solutions to an immensely complex problem.
By raising their hands in unison in opposition to a modest increase in taxes on the most wealthy, big oil, and hedge funds (because that is whom a $1 in tax increases for $10 in revenue would likely affect), the GOP candidates affirmed themselves as snake oil salesmen. And snake oil doesn't' cure anything; it only enriches the person selling it (or in this case, might help them attain the power to run America).
As the TIME blog noted at 121 minutes into the exchange in Iowa, "Baier mercifully ends it all."
But unfortunately, it was only the debate that concluded. The long delusional nightmare for America continues.

BOYCOTT the below KOCH supermarket paper goods: Handy pocket list

@KatieAnnieOakly

KatieAnnieOakly March 15, 2011

BOYCOTT the below KOCH supermarket paper goods: When U buy THESE KOCH Paper Products, U FUND THE GOP #p2 #tloc

DO IT NOW DOSSIER: Coburn does more GOP violence, CALL,complain!!

please call Dr. Coburn's office (Washington: 202-224-5754; Tulsa: 918-581-7651; Oklahoma City: 405-231-4941) fb.me/1a1EBJ2Z7
Sen. Coburn: ‘Good Thing I Can’t Pack A Gun On The Senate Floor’ | In yet another example of disturbing rhetoric from the GOP, yesterday Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) intimated that he’d like to threaten physical violence against his Senate colleagues, saying, “It’s just a good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor.” During a tour of Northeast Oklahoma, Coburn also called his fellow senators “career elitists” and “cowards.” After the Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) that claimed the lives of six people, there were renewed calls for elected officials to tamp down allusions to violence and be more cautious and respectful when talking about their colleagues, but Sen. Coburn apparently has no such concern. His cavalier remarks come only days after Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) used menacing language about the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Protest at $10,000 Republican Golf Outing in Wayzata: MyFoxTWINCITIES.com

Protest at $10,000 Republican Golf Outing in Wayzata

Organizers blast pricy outing as inaccessible

Updated: Wednesday, 17 Aug 2011, 7:39 PM CDT
Published : Wednesday, 17 Aug 2011, 10:29 AM CDT

by Jeff Goldberg / FOX 9 News

WAYZATA, Minn. - Hundreds of protesters showed up at a $10,000 per ticket golf outing in Wayzata, Minnesota on Wednesday that featured House Speaker John Boehner and two Minnesota congressmen.
Boehner was joined by Republican congressmen Erik Paulsen and Chip Cravaack. Donors who bought a $10,000 ticket for the golf outing had the opportunity to tee off with the Republican lawmakers at Wayzata Golf Club.
Organizers of the protest say the members of Congress should be spending their recess with common workers and the unemployed, rather than entertaining big-dollar donors on a golf course.
With chants, signs and cardboard cut-outs of Republicans -- even a plane flying a message from above, protestors worked to make their anger known.
A 2005 Golf Digest article said Boehner found time to play 100 or more rounds of golf per year, citing opponents. The article says Boehner belongs to the prestigious Burning Tree club outside of Washington, which costs $75,000 to join and $6,000 in annual dues. The club’s membership is said to have included more than 70 lobbyists over the last decade.

"If someone I've gotten to know on the golf course comes into my office with a good argument, I tend to want to listen," Boehner said.
Mark Ambroe was recently laid off from his book-keeping job at a small business, and he said he joined nearly 200 others to criticize the Republican Party for focusing more on protecting the rich than on creating and preserving jobs.
Yet, Cravaack argues that's what his party is trying to do by loosening the reins on businesses big and small.
"We need to have a more business-friendly environment to create jobs," he said.
According to Republicans like Cravaack, that can only be realized with fewer taxes and less regulation. Cravaack said repeated calls from Democrats -- including President Barack Obama -- to raise new tax revenue to deal with the deficit and debt will only make the unemployment problem worse.
"Show me businesses getting of the ground again," Cravaack said. "Show me that first, and then if you think we still need revenue, I'd be glad to discuss it then."
Many of the protestors, however, took issue with that stance, which has become the hallmark of tea party candidates. When discussing the recent debt ceiling debate, the tea party earned much ire for the roadblock to compromise.
"I think the tea party has hijacked the Republican Party," said one protestor.
Club members at the course said taking a break from their swings was anything but a disruption, with one golfer saying the group's use of free speech rights was "terrific."

NOTE: A previous version of this story included Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. John Kline as attendees. Neither were at Wednesday's event.

Read more: Protest at $10,000 Republican Golf Outing in Wayzata http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/politics/bachmann-boehner-golf-outing-protest-aug-17-2011#ixzz1VL4DJkph

Hundreds Protest Outside GOP Fundraiser in Wayzata

Influential Republican members of Congress remained out of sight and earshot of protest.

• By Jay Corn

Protestors calling for an end to military operations overseas, tax reform, job creation and an end to Wall Street special treatment gathered in front of the Wayzata Country Club Wednesday.
Speaker of the House John Boehner, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman and other featured guests reportedly used a service road to enter the golf course and did not pass by the protestors on their way in.
It was originally announced that Wednesday's fundraiser was to take place at the Spring Hill Golf Club in Orono, but protestors and media got wind at about 10 a.m. that the event would actually be taking place in Wayzata.
Tickets to attend the fundraiser were $1,000 per plate, and $10,000 was supposed to buy a round a golf with Speaker Boehner—although he was not spotted on the course by 12:15 p.m.

Related Topics: Gop, John Boehner, and Michele Bachmann

a peek at the rift between the MNGOP grassroots and legislative-lobbyist elites

Get the popcorn: a peek at the rift between the MNGOP grassroots and legislative-lobbyist elites

Progressive friends wrapped themselves in their purple beach towels yesterday and began texting Bluestem shortly thereafter, once Charley Shaw's Friday afternoon news feature in PIM, Many in GOP base angry at Legislature, floated up on their tablets.
All of the messages? Some variation on "Get the popcorn." This is a show to watch.
Why do the heathens--or whatever--rage at their leadership? Shaw sets up the case:

. . .But in the wake of the 2011 legislative session, the loudest cries of protest are coming from the Republican Party activist base, which is angry about the performance of their elected brethren who were installed in the majorities last January. . .
Some Republican activists are frustrated that the 2010 electoral victories didn’t translate into a fuller realization of the conservative agenda. Their view of the borrowing contained in the final budget ranges from dispirited to enraged, and many are also extremely critical of the way House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch went about setting their initial budget of roughly $34 billion.

Three GOP House committee chairs draw particular fire: Abeler, Gottwalt and Garofalo. Consider the source of their scorn for the final man in that series:

Garofalo, the chairman of the House Education Finance Committee, ran afoul of conservatives with an education quality rating system called Parent Aware. Conservatives decried the program for expanding the state’s education bureaucracy.

Bluestem's curiosity was piqued, and so I scurried to the House website, only to find it under maintenance until this afternoon. In the meantime, a bit of reading to discover the deets of the grassroots' irritation.
It wasn't poison ivy, but an alert easily found at Education Liberty Watch, in the March 28 Urgent Update on Minnesota Education Spending Bills.
It's not just the bureaucracy. It's the freedom and liberty--and the competition between private preschools and home daycares. Education Liberty Freedom EdWatch President Karen Effrem, "the only one to her knowledge of the dozens of people who testified about these bills that asked for cuts of any kind," wrote to those who insist on Education for a FREE nation:

Worse yet, after passing the House education spending bill out of the Education Finance Committee, Chairman Pat Gorafalo (R.-Farmington) added $26 million more spending to the bill in the Ways and Means Committee, including $4 million in more spending to early childhood for these scholarships.  (The spreadsheet is available here).
Rep. Garofalo and Rep. Jim  Abler (R-Anoka) were able to come to some understanding about the turf battles related to education vs. child care and policy issues of the quality rating system. They were aided by the strong work and advice of Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria), a child care provider who understands the dangers of this quality rating system on private home providers.  The chairmen are both to be strongly commended for agreeing to not impose the mandates/bureaucratic burden of this “voluntary” system on private family child care providers. Rep. Garofalo should also be thanked strongly for the part of the amendment prohibiting state interference in curriculum.
In exchange for that however, Rep. Garofalo kept the statewide ramp-up of Parent Aware in his bill using the bureaucratic, central economy promoting governor’s economic development regions. The amendment also redefines preschools as both public and private for the purposes of the bill.  This means that the government controlled QRS system is imposed on private preschools instead of just public school readiness or Head Start programs as we had been led to believe was the case  This is the equivalent of giving the commissioner of education jurisdiction over private K-12 schools that accept scholarships for poor children.  This is completely unacceptable!! [emphasis in the original]

Oh noes! So what fiends dreamt up the notion of scholarships for low-income parents to send their kids to private pre-schools?
The clue came when finally, the Legislature's website was restored, along with its massive store of hundreds and hundreds of bills, including the omnibus education bill, HF 934.1 that so gave Dr. Effrem the fantods. The Parent Aware program does seem pretty complex, but I was struck by something else.
Those scholarships for low-income folks to private preschools.  Where had I seen that idea before?  Heck, reading  Sec. 4. [119C.04] EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS recalled the American Legislative Exchange Council's Smart Start Scholarship Program model bill, tweaked for the Gopher State.
Effrem and home daycare providers (many of whom are mothers who like to think of themselves as  stay at home moms and businesswomen at the same time) share an objection:

Even worse, the House increases early childhood spending by incentivizing poor families to put their children in preschool instead of educating them at home with early childhood scholarships . . .

Putting aside fears of leaving the education of small children to those who employ such flagrantly misplaced modifiers, this statement exposes a cultural and economic fault line on the right.
Shouldn't we avoid spending money on early childhood education--despite the benefits of that investment, sung by the gnomes of Zurich masquerading as economists at the local branch of the evil Federal Reserve bank--and thereby tighten control of the kiddies as well our belts? And allow the fiction to flourish among cultural conservatives that families don't need schools or dual-incomes (even if one parent performs work in the home in addition to rearing one's own children)? Home schooling, baby.
And what good would that public investment in early childhood education be unless it can be immediately monetized?
Shouldn't an opportunity for making money be shifted with the public dime to private preschools with more-or-less standard curriculum? Let poor families mimic the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous who compete for places in exclusive pre-schools. We've all seen that on television. Why shouldn't the private preschool operator get a piece of those dreams, rather than those dirty hippies down at the Head Start? And whet the public appetite for public funds for private scholarships and vouchers, as well as charter schools?
It's a horrible dilemma for the freedom-loving conservative who is fighting for liberty and hating on the "government schools." Homeschool? Or handing a chunk of the public exchequer to job creators at private schools?

While ALEC supports home-schooling--especially if home schooling parents or taxpayers get a chance to buy some online education via one set of its corporate and non-profit funders--another set of think tanks and corporations looks to make money by dismantling public schools simply by getting kids into privately owned bricks and mortar.  Far more of the education model bills have to do with those private schools than homeschooling.

And so you have it, dear readers, buried with the first engrossment of the K12 Education Omnibus budget bill: the battle royal within the contemporary Republican party.  Cultural conservatives who dominate the Tea Party movement (in Minnesota, at least) or "job-creating" corporatists looking to enhance profit centers via out-sourcing the function of the public schools?
Ah, yes. Pop some corn.
Photo: Pat Garofalo, hero of the revolution or grassroots Benedict Arnold? It's Sue Jeffers' call.

Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 07, 2011 at 12:53 AM

Recall Petition under Minnesota Statute Section 211C

2010 Minnesota Statutes

Chapter 211C. Recall of Elected State Officials

Section	Headnote
211C.01	Definitions
211C.02	Grounds
211C.03	Petition for Recall; Form and Content
211C.04	Proposed Petition; Submittal
211C.05	Supreme Court Review of Proposed Petition
211C.06	Issuing, Circulating, and Verifying Petition
211C.07	Governor; Writ of Election; Election
211C.08	Election Result; Removal from Office
211C.09	Recall Petition; Corrupt Practices

211C.01 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1.Application.

 

The definitions in this section and in chapter 200 apply to this chapter.

Subd. 2.Malfeasance.

 

"Malfeasance" means the intentional commission of an unlawful or wrongful act by a state officer other than a judge in the performance of the officer's duties that is substantially outside the scope of the authority of the officer and that substantially infringes on the rights of any person or entity.

Subd. 3.Nonfeasance.

 

"Nonfeasance" means the intentional, repeated failure of a state officer other than a judge to perform specific acts that are required duties of the officer.

Subd. 4.Serious crime.

 

(a) "Serious crime" means a crime that is punished as a gross misdemeanor, as defined in section 609.02, and that involves assault, intentional injury or threat of injury to person or public safety, dishonesty, stalking, aggravated driving while intoxicated, coercion, obstruction of justice, or the sale or possession of controlled substances.

(b) "Serious crime" also means a crime that is punished as a misdemeanor, as defined in section 609.02, and that involves assault, intentional injury or threat of injury to person or public safety, dishonesty, coercion, obstruction of justice, or the sale or possession of controlled substances.

Subd. 5.State officer.

 

"State officer" means an individual occupying an office subject to recall under the Minnesota Constitution, article VIII, section 6.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 2

211C.02 GROUNDS.

The grounds for recall of a judge shall be established by the Supreme Court. A state officer other than a judge may be subject to recall for serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the duties of the office or conviction during the term of office for a serious crime.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 3

211C.03 PETITION FOR RECALL; FORM AND CONTENT.

The secretary of state shall prescribe by rule the form required for a recall petition. Each page of the petition must contain the following information:

(1) the name and office held by the state officer who is the subject of the recall petition and, in the case of a representative, senator, or district judge, the district number in which the state officer serves;

(2) the specific grounds upon which the state officer is sought to be recalled and a concise, accurate, and complete synopsis of the specific facts that are alleged to warrant recall on those grounds;

(3) a statement that a recall election, if conducted, will be conducted at public expense;

(4) a statement that persons signing the petition:

(i) must be eligible voters residing within the district where the state officer serves or, in the case of a statewide officer, within the state;

(ii) must know the purpose and content of the petition; and

(iii) must sign of their own free will and may sign only once; and

(5) a space for the signature and signature date; printed first, middle, and last name; residence address, including municipality and county; and date of birth of each signer.

The secretary of state shall make available sample recall petition forms upon request.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 4

211C.04 PROPOSED PETITION; SUBMITTAL.

A petition to recall a state officer may be proposed by 25 or more persons, who must be eligible to sign and shall sign the proposed petition for the recall of the officer. The persons submitting the petition must designate in writing no more than three individuals among them to represent all petitioners in matters relating to the recall. The proposed petition must be submitted to the secretary of state in the manner and form required by the secretary of state and be accompanied by a fee of $100. After the secretary of state issues a petition to recall a state officer under section 211C.06, the secretary of state may not accept a proposed petition to recall the same officer until either the earlier petition is dismissed by the secretary of state for a deficiency of signatures under section 211C.06, or the recall election brought about by the earlier petition results in the officer retaining the office. Upon receiving a proposed petition that satisfies the requirements of this section, the secretary of state shall immediately notify in writing the state officer named and forward the proposed petition to the clerk of the appellate courts for action under section 211C.05.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 5

211C.05 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF PROPOSED PETITION.

Subdivision 1.Assignment for hearing.

 

Upon receiving a proposed petition from the secretary of state, the clerk of the appellate courts shall submit it immediately to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, or, if the chief justice is the subject of the proposed petition, to the most senior associate justice of the Supreme Court. The persons proposing the petition shall provide to the reviewing judge any materials supporting the petition. The officer who is named in the proposed petition may submit materials in opposition. The justice, or a designee if the justice has a conflict of interest or is unable to conduct the review in a timely manner, shall review the proposed petition to determine whether it alleges specific facts that, if proven, would constitute grounds for recall of the officer under the Minnesota Constitution, article VIII, section 6, and section 211C.02. If it does not, the justice shall immediately issue an order dismissing the petition and indicating the reason for dismissal. If the proposed petition does allege specific facts that, if proven, would constitute grounds for recall, the justice shall assign the case to a special master for a public hearing. The special master must be an active or retired judge. The justice shall complete the review under this section and dismiss the proposed petition or assign the case for hearing within ten days.

Subd. 2.Hearing; report.

 

A public hearing on the allegations of a proposed petition must be held within 21 days after issuance of the order of the justice assigning the case to a special master. The special master shall report to the court within seven days after the end of the public hearing. In the report, the special master shall determine:

(1) whether the persons proposing the petition have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the factual allegations supporting the petition are true; and

(2) if so, whether the persons proposing the petition have shown that the facts found to be true are sufficient grounds for issuing a recall petition.

If the special master determines that these standards have been met, the report must include a statement of the specific facts and grounds for the recall petition.

Subd. 3.Supreme Court; decision.

 

The Supreme Court shall review the report of the special master and make a decision on the petition within 20 days. If the court decides that the standard expressed in subdivision 2 has not been met, the court shall dismiss the petition. If the court decides that the standard for decision expressed in subdivision 2 has been met, the court shall prescribe, by order to the secretary of state, the statement of the specific facts and grounds that must appear on the petition for recall issued under section211C.06. If the court dismisses a petition under this section because the persons proposing the petition have acted in bad faith in violation of section211C.09, the court may assess the persons proposing the petition for reasonable costs of conducting the proceeding.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 6

211C.06 ISSUING, CIRCULATING, AND VERIFYING PETITION.

Upon receipt of the order from the Supreme Court, the secretary of state shall issue a recall petition. When the required number of signatures on the petition have been secured, the petition may be filed with the secretary of state. The petition must be filed within 90 days after the date of issuance. Upon the filing of the petition, the secretary of state shall verify the number and eligibility of signers in the manner provided by the secretary of state. If the secretary of state determines that a petition has been signed by a sufficient number of eligible voters, the secretary of state shall certify the petition and immediately notify in writing the governor, the petitioners, and the state officer named in the petition. If the petition is not signed by a sufficient number of eligible voters, the secretary of state shall dismiss the petition.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 7

211C.07 GOVERNOR; WRIT OF ELECTION; ELECTION.

Within five days of receiving certification of a petition under section211C.06, the governor shall issue a writ calling for a recall election, unless the election cannot be held before the deadline specified in the Minnesota Constitution, article VIII, section 6. A recall election must be conducted, and the results canvassed and returned, in the manner provided by law for the state general election.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 8

211C.08 ELECTION RESULT; REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

If a majority of the votes cast in a recall election favor the removal of the state officer, upon certification of that result the state officer is removed from office and the office is vacant.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 9

211C.09 RECALL PETITION; CORRUPT PRACTICES.

A person proposing a petition may not allege any material fact in support of the petition that the person knows is false or has alleged with reckless disregard of whether it is false. A person may not intentionally make any false entry on a petition or aid, abet, counsel, or procure another to do so. A person may not use threat, intimidation, coercion, or other corrupt means to interfere or attempt to interfere with the right of any eligible voter to sign or not to sign a recall petition of their own free will. A person may not, for any consideration, compensation, gift, reward, or thing of value or promise thereof, sign or not sign a recall petition.

The Supreme Court may dismiss a proposed petition for violation of this section. Notwithstanding section 645.241, the sole remedy for a violation of this section is dismissal of the petition by the Supreme Court.

History: 

1996 c 469 art 2 s 10