Just when one-party domination looked safe again in Minnesota, the St. Paul scandal that dare not speak its name has reared its ugly head. And it involves a veritable who’s who of Democratic icons apparently accustomed to manipulating the legal system for political gain.

The nomination of civil-rights attorney Thomas Perez for labor secretary has raised more than a few eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Perez, who perfected the art of filing lawsuits using “disparate impact” analysis in his post as assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, has been busy explaining a particularly unctuous quid pro quo with the city of St. Paul.

Just this week, U.S. Senate Democrats were forced to postpone a confirmation vote in the Health, Education and Labor Committee.

First things first. Prior to the landmark 1971 ruling in Griggs vs. Duke Power, most cases of discrimination required actual intent. That is, a business policy that is racially neutral on its face would not be prohibited. However, in Griggs, the U.S. Supreme Court found that “even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent,” he or she could still be held liable for damages if such a policy results in an ‘unequal’ impact.

The opinion, of course, ignored the fact that every rule (or law) is bound to have a disproportionate effect on someone. Consequently, one legal absurdity that followed was a federal appeals court decision overturning legislation in Washington state that denied imprisoned felons the right to vote — allegedly due to the law’s “disparate impact” on minorities who were disproportionately represented in correction institutions.

The case was eventually reversed en banc, but you get the point. And so apparently did the highest court in the land. By most accounts, the justices were poised to rule for St. Paul in a pivotal case, Magner vs. Gallagher, challenging its housing inspections on the basis of statistical disparities.

According to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Slumlords had sued the city to prevent it from enforcing its housing code on the grounds that it disproportionately decreased the amount of housing available to minorities. The City argued that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA) prohibits only intentional discrimination, not neutral practices like code enforcement that happen to impact particular groups disproportionately.” Sound familiar?

So why would St. Paul ditch a slam-dunk case it had been working on for eight years? One reason: because the Supreme Court’s reversal of “disparate impact” theory would threaten not only Perez’s use of the dubious tactic, but also his ideological counterparts in Minnesota who feared the Constitution getting in the way of liberal litigation. Enter Walter Mondale. After heeding the wisdom from University of Minnesota housing activist Myron Orfield, the former senator placed a call to St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman urging the city to drop the case.

Coleman, however, had other issues — not the least of which were career attorneys at the federal Justice Department who were eager to recover up to $200 million in a pair of false-claims lawsuits. One, brought by businessman Fredrick Newell, charged that St. Paul “certified it was using federal funds to create jobs in low income areas for all races, when in fact it was only focused on employing minorities,” in the words of the committee.

Perez seized the opening and brokered the quid pro quo by contacting the city’s attorney, David Lillehaug (Gov. Mark Dayton’s second pick for the state Supreme Court). In early February 2012, the interested parties met in St. Paul and agreed, according to documents uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, that if “Justice would decline to intervene in Newell, the city would withdraw its Supreme Court case.”

Oh, and to no one’s surprise, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has since issued its own “disparate impact” rules allowing lawsuits based on statistics to go forward against housing projects under the FHA, regardless of intent to discriminate. The legacy of the Fair Housing Act — and its chief sponsor, Mr. Mondale — was intact.

The labor nominee may yet survive, but what does this whole sordid affair say about Minnesota’s Democratic elite? Indeed, we now know that Messrs. Mondale, Lillehaug, Coleman and Orfield were more than willing to impede the wheels of justice and apply considerable political pressure at the expense of a whistleblower looking out for the U.S. taxpayer.

As published in the Star Tribune 28 April.

And you thought the rich didn’t pay taxes.

Then again, as the “revenue raisers” were quick to remind Mr. Mickelson, the fortunate few still have plenty left even after the taxman takes half their income. So quit complaining and just lie back and enjoy it, right?

Alas — no matter how much our covetous culture demonizes them, the working wealthy are apt to do just the opposite. And if you think that won’t make a difference to your state’s economy, consider this: According to economist Art Laffer, 62 percent of the 3 million net new jobs in the last decade came from just nine states without an income tax.

States such as California and Illinois — which seek to punish the well-to-do with higher levies on earned income — are not only digging out of deficits, but the state of their economies gives new meaning to the term “basket case.”

As I wrote on Dec. 9 (“To plug state jobs drain, try this plan”), if Minnesota wants to avoid becoming a cold California, it needs genuine, progrowth tax reform — not the $1.1 billion income tax hike Gov. Mark Dayton has proposed for 54,000 Minnesotans. Or even worse, the $2 billion worth of private earnings House DFLers plan to confiscate by adopting the second-highest income tax rate in the nation: 11 percent.

Why, there’s even a “snowbird” tax just for those who summer at the cabin (all the while paying sales, gas and property taxes) but whose permanent residence in another state affords them a lower income tax rate. Can’t have that, say the looters, especially if you’re planning on hiking Minnesota’s biennial budget another 8 percent.

The Democrats’ greedy hand assumes it’s “fair” to tax one set of Minnesotans and not others. But having different rules for different citizens is the antithesis of “fairness” and reeks of the arbitrariness of despotism.

Of course, there’s only so much money at the top, so the DFL-controlled Legislature already has a 9.5-cent-a-gallon gas tax hike waiting in the wings, along with a quadrupling of the metro sales tax.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In 37 states, as in Minnesota, one party controls the legislative and executive branch. However, the majority are moving in quite a different direction than St. Paul. So with apologies to Dickens, let’s take a quick look at a “tale of two states.”

North Carolina for the first time since Reconstruction has a Republican governor with a GOP statehouse. The first priority for lawmakers in Raleigh recovering from decades of Democratic rule is reducing the government’s burden on working families (even wealthy ones) by reforming the tax code.

In fact, the only question in the Tarheel State is whether to assess a flat 5 percent rate on all income and retail sales (sound familiar?) or to eliminate the North Carolina income tax altogether by broadening the tax base.

The contrasts, predictably, don’t stop there. While North Carolina is now embracing energy exploration, Minnesota’s environmental lobby clings to our disastrous California-style Renewable Portfolio Standards; while North Carolina’s newly elected Gov. Pat McCrory has announced he will not expand Medicaid enrollment, Dayton may be the nation’s most enthusiastic chief executive implementing Obamacare; and while Raleigh is promising cleaner elections through a new voter ID law, Democrats in St. Paul are attempting to pass even less stringent voting standards in Minnesota.

Dayton likes to mock the reformers who suggest it’s counterproductive to double down on big taxes here. “I’ve heard this for 30 years,” he says, “everybody’s going to leave the state …”

Funny, that’s exactly what they used to say in California.

As published in the Star Tribune 31 March 2013.

Yes, one might think that John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts, would run into more trouble from Lindsey Graham, John McCain and James Inhofe than Chuck Hagel would. Then again, one might think that in the midst of fiscal insolvency, Senate Republicans would not be so fixated on another military adventure in the Middle East.

The problem for Hagel was — and is — that he’s fed up with war. Avoiding more needless American bloodshed is paramount for the decorated vet, and that has driven a wedge between Hagel and his GOP colleagues.

To be sure, the nominee was considered something of an apostate for supporting President Obama in 2008, and he sometimes (as his hearings demonstrated) shoots before he aims. But if Hagel’s willingness to talk with Iran was the deal-breaker, what to make of the fact that Truman talked with Stalin, Nixon with Mao and Reagan with Gorbachev?

Well, can we be honest? It was Chuck Hagel’s criticism of the “Jewish lobby” that required for the first time in history 60 votes to confirm a defense secretary. Had Hagel not uttered, “I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator,” he’d have been easily ensconced as defense secretary in early February.

Which is not to say past statements aren’t fair game for any constituency. But by any objective standard, well-financed groups — such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with more than 100,000 members — wield considerable influence in Washington, especially with Republicans.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Israel, the discourse too often breaks down between extremes. It is a false choice pitting the idiocy of the “Holocaust-denying Jewish banker conspiracy type” against an “Israel can do no wrong” crowd that deals in charges of anti-Semitism the way Al Sharpton deals in racism.

In fact, there’s a much more vibrant and open debate on Israeli policy in Tel Aviv than there is in Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu, the hawkish prime minister, has now been forced to join hands with dovish rivals to form a coalition that may jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians.

In a perfect world, the Palestinians would immediately give up any right of return to “Israel proper” in exchange for a halt to all settlements on the West Bank. But any talk of “1967 borders” is a nonstarter for Hagel-hating hard-liners, even though Mahmoud Abbas is no Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian president has already dismissed the idea of 5 million Arab refugees reclaiming property in what is now Israel.

Besides, Israel has little choice but to move on a two-state solution. Keeping control of the “occupied territories” is demographically impossible for the Jewish state. As Col. Uri Dromi, former director of the Israel Democracy Institute, once said, “Either we give the Palestinians equal rights, in which case, Israel ceases to be Jewish, or we don’t, in which case, Israel ceases to be democratic. The only way for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic is for it to pull out of the territories.”

The clarion call of the Israeli homeland has always been “never again.” Likewise, America has long prided itself as a safe haven for the victims of political persecution worldwide. But the United States can ill afford to establish military tripwires around the globe — in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle East. As Henry Kissinger famously proclaimed, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

And you don’t enhance our national security by financing an empire with borrowed money — the costs in blood and treasure are just too great.

As published in the Star Tribune 3 March 2013.

While the usual suspects remain ever vigilant for any hint of political malfeasance involving Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar get off scot-free for voting in favor of Obamacare’s medical devices tax before they were against it.

How is it that our Minnesota media (broadcast, print and especially online) can be so attuned to the supposed shortcomings of one conservative congresswoman, but so laudatory over the unsuccessful efforts of two Democratic senators to delay a new tax on a crucial state industry?

Gee, it’s almost as if there’s a bias.

You may recall that the 2.3 percent levy on gross sales (not profit) of medical devices was only one of 20 new taxes courtesy of the Affordable Care Act. There’s also the $123 billion surtax on investment income; an $86 billion Medicare payroll tax increase; and a $60 billion tax on health insurers, just to name a few.

You might also remember the enthusiastic support for Obamacare coming from ol’ Al and Amy. Well, what to make of this switcheroo? Did they think no one would notice? (Given the lack of scrutiny, perhaps they were on to something.) Or were they just adhering to the sage advice of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who famously said “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…”

Either way, it’s not too comforting to medical device manufacturers that warned of massive layoffs should the tax be implemented. Medtronic alone has or will cut 1,000 workers and expects a $175 million loss in 2013, due in great part to the $370 million-plus excise tax. And since our fair state is home to more than 350 med-tech companies, you can multiply the damage.

Now imagine if this were a conservative Republican who voted for a $20 billion tax singling out manufacturers with a substantial presence in Minnesota. Do you think you might see a story about insouciant politicians not looking out for their home state?

So where is the outrage over a couple of Democratic senators, not normally associated with corporate interests, doing an about-face on a business tax they initially voted for in lieu of, oh, I don’t know, potential campaign contributions? Just sayin’.

Would not a more discerning press be asking just how effective these titans of Minnesota politics really are? The House voted to kill the tax, but Al and Amy apparently had no clout with the Democratic leadership in the Senate, which failed to act.

The fact is, Obamacare is already shaping up to be a train wreck. Health insurance premiums are up, not down, as promised by the president. The bill swells the Medicaid rolls by 25 percent, putting further pressure on state budgets by adding 16 million more people to the federal-state program. The Heritage Foundation says the 10-year cost of expanding Medicaid could total $42 billion.

But the real catastrophe lies in the explicit moral hazard inherent in the law. The guaranteed-issue community rating requirement, coupled with a modest fine, er … tax, for failing to purchase health insurance, ensures that a) business will not be providing insurance when they can pay a much cheaper penalty and b) individuals won’t buy it either once they realize they can wait and purchase a policy after they get ill. The system will be swamped as the health insurance risk pools will increasingly be made up of those who are not healthy.

In fact, almost every state that enacted a ban on preexisting condition exclusions along with price controls has had to modify the law before their individual insurance market completely dried up.

Oh, yes, and then there’s the medical devices tax.

That issue alone ought to be especially acute for one Alan Stuart Franken, whose contentious victory in 2008 allowed a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to pass the Affordable Care Act.

Someone ought to ask him about that.

As published in the Star Tribune 3 February 2013.

In case you weren’t aware — and ironically enough, thanks to the online efforts of Slate.com and the news board Reddit — a backlash ensued last fall when the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Minnesota statutes prohibited the offering of online courses through Coursera.

The California-based company has teamed up with more than 30 prestigious universities — from Harvard to Duke to Stanford (where two professors developed the online platform) — to offer classwork that the American Council on Education may soon recommend for college credit.

The state’s Office of Higher Education said it had warned institutions offering those classes in Minnesota “as part of our overall responsibility to provide consumer protection for students.” Now the state has cautiously backed off. Larry Pogemiller, director of the office, sees “no reason” to require registration of free online classes — at least until the Legislature can take another look at the law this upcoming session.

But as the Star Tribune reported in December, no Minnesota college has yet to offer one of these immensely popular “massive open online courses,” or MOOCs. More important, they’re not in any hurry to offer academic credit for completed MOOCs elsewhere — even though most schools do so for “advanced placement” high school classes or other work experience.

Pogemiller, who along with his colleagues in the statehouse was a rubber stamp for any appropriation remotely connected to “education,” says that before plunging forward, “we need to be thoughtful about it.” Critics apparently worry about the rigor of online work and whether students can demonstrate actual learning. One University of Minnesota professor derided MOOCs as merely books on a computer.

This from an employee of an institution that charges $13,500 annually, merely in tuition and fees, for taking classes like “Geology and Cinema.” Or how about “Feminist Film Studies,” or “American Indians and the Cinema?” Boy, these people love movies.

In fact, if you really want an exposé in identity politics posing as a requirement for liberal arts, go to this website and check out the course catalog under “liberal education requirements” on the left side of the page. It becomes abundantly clear that the “social sciences” are no longer teaching those Western values that unite us, but merely offering up red meat for any group with a grievance.

The knee-jerk defenders of the overpriced status quo in higher ed are on a collision course with reality. They will claim that average college graduates make more than nongrads — if they can find a job in their chosen fields — but ignore that student loan debt has risen to $1 trillion and is quickly wiping out most gains. Were it not for the massive amounts of taxpayer subsidies via state appropriations and financial aid (the $40 billion Pell Grant program now funds half of all undergrads), most universities would have long ago priced themselves out of the market.

But instead of eliminating the frivolous coursework, or layer upon layer of administrative overhead (as the Wall Street Journal starkly documented last week), or universit- funded institutes designed to hype the supposed evils of, say, urban sprawl — yes, billions in endowments could be put to other uses if the benefactors were only asked — the regents, trustees, and obedient lawmakers predictably circle the wagons and hope to stave off cheaper technological competition.

All the while, Bloomberg reports that the cost of obtaining a four-year degree has surged by 1,120 percent in the last 35 years. To put that in perspective, medical expenses have risen 600 percent. Yet the University of Minnesota, in its recent $1.1 billion funding request to the Legislature, says the only way it can freeze skyrocketing tuition is — you guessed it — if state government pays more.

For all the talk of bailouts these days, one has to wonder how long this one can last.

As published in the Star Tribune 6 January 2013.