Almanac: At the Capitol

As a veteran of trade missions (I went to Hollywood, Japan, China, Cuba, Canada with governors) the travel news from the governor's office is interesting. Of course Pawlenty is in China today on his second trip there. Then he leads a 73-member delegation to India. It's the state's first mission to India and a booming market with more than a billion people. Experts say India will be the second largest economy in the world. So it probably makes sense to do business there. What's more interesting to me is that Agriculture Commissioner Gene Hugoson just announced he's returning to Cuba next month. I traveled with Jesse Ventura to Cuba 5 years ago when President Bush and his brother Governor Bush told Ventura not to go. Besides getting into Castro's private compound for cigars served on silver platters, I saw the state drumming up some serious business. Participants in that mission have done millions of dollars of trade. But now agricultural exports to Cuba are drying up. Maybe it's Castro's illness. I got to see first hand the power and charisma Castro possesses. He charmed all the American business people on the trade mission. He does have an aura about him. In contrast, I also met his brother who would assume power after his death, and his brother does not have the same presence. What's also fascinating about the commissioner's mission to Cuba is the politics. It seems Pawlenty is threading a needle again. He's not personally going on the trip, a trip the president of the United States and many Republicans would oppose. I do wish I could attend some of these trade missions, but it's hard to make a case for the huge expense of international travel and news gathering without the threat of a Jesse Ventura international incident looming. Also, sorry I haven't blogged in a while, I just got back from a trip to Europe with my family. We kissed the Blarney Stone in Ireland—so I may be full of it.

With the 2007 session now concluded, I can let you know there's some good, bad and ugly in terms of the results and cooperation from the House Republican perspective.

There are lessons to be learned as we head to the 2008 session: When the DFL actually involved the Governor and House GOP, results were bipartisan, well-received and easily passed. These initiatives include the Ag and Veterans package, the alternative energy bills and bills of local interest.

When the DFL ignored the Governor and Republicans, the results were disastrous: The twice botched bonding bill is the best example. The DFL whipped together a huge pork-filled package with little input from Republicans and the Governor. The first time they did this, they got a veto of the whole bill in early May. Almost no discussion took place in terms of the second bill. The DFL and Chair of the Committee never talked to me or the Governor's office on marking up a second bill, but ended up whipping up a second bill and trying to jam it through on the last night. That blew up in their face as we ran out of time. With 2008 being a heavy bonding year, I'd ask the DFL to work with the Governor and the Republicans or a similar fate is going to happen. A reasonable, affordable bill that treats the whole state fairly and is bipartisan had better be in mind. I also think that roads and bridges need to be a high priority and perhaps the MVST/Governor's package needs to be part of the mix in order to get the jam on transportation unclogged.

The recently vetoed Tax Bill is a good example of Senator Pogemiller playing the political "Dr. Kevorkian" by inserting political poison pills into good legislation and, therefore, killing it. He knew full well that the auto-growth factor for government was a killer and a veto for the Tax Bill. He did it anyway and knew many people who liked the tax bill would be angry at the Governor for keeping his word and issuing a veto. Lesson learned for next session: When the Governor says he'll veto something, he means it. Whether it's a porky and oversized bonding bill, a tax increase or other poison pills. Please listen and learn for next time.

For those concerned about the last day of session, keep in mind that the House sat in recess doing nothing well over 6 daytime hours on the last day of session. In the last week of session, we sat in recess for dozens of hours, rather than processing supposedly high-priority items.

The Constitutional Amendment for dedicated funding and tax increases ran out of time, as did the non-negotiated Bonding Bill. A supplemental nursing home funding bill also ran out of time, because the DFL couldn't prioritize nursing homes over their massive welfare programs in the Omnibus Human Services bill. The "Denny Green time management" of the House DFL needs improvement one way or another, but it may be the citizens and rank-and-file DFLers who will need to make this point for the DFL leadership to listen.

Let's take a look at the jam at the end, in which the DFL is trying to blame Republicans for having the audacity of asking how their school kids and nursing homes were treated under the quickly assembled bills:

The House DFL spent $26 billion in its last six hours of the last day of session. Remember that the over-all budget is less than $35 billion.

In terms of spending:

• That is $4.3 billion per hour.


• That is $71 million per minute.


• That is $1.2 million per second.

My question to the DFL, who want to ram unread bills through the legisalature: Could you lend me a few seconds?

1. Rep. Cornish brought everyone cake on his birthday.
   
2. Rep. Finstad's kids stop by the floor once in a while (they're really cute kids.
3. With all of Rep. Siefert's random rants on the floor, I've been able to catch up on my constituent email.
4. Rep. Berns' kids visit, too, and they're just as cute as Finstad's.
5. Bipartisan support for the Education, Public Safety, Environment, and Agriculture bills.

A point of clarification, Rep. Siefert mentioned that 4 of the past 7 years have resulted in special sessions. Oddly enough, he forget to mention his party was in control at the time.

Lately, there's been slightly more cooperation after the bloated Bonding Bill was vetoed in total.

We promised to be civil and respectful and the bill was vetoed in a civil and respectful manner. It would certainly have helped if the DFL would have involved the Republican legislators and the Governor in setting the budget targets. We've worked together on one budget bill that passed easily: Agriculture and Veterans. As we finish session, I will once again extend the hand of friendship and the olive branch of cooperation to bring a successful conclusion to our work.

The Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern (DM&E) railroad expansion and loan issue has been brought up in these pages time and time again. Many Minnesota Monitor readers may say, "Who cares about some railroad that runs mainly in South Dakota, southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, if you include its subsidiary, the Iowa, Chicago & Eastern railroad? How does it affect me?"

First of all, railroads are very important to this country in shipping large quantities of goods and materials great distances. For such hauling they are far more efficient that trucks. Railroads helped this country grow, and today they are an indispensable part of this country's economic engine.

The DM&E plays not just an important, but a vital, role in shipping agricultural-based products through the region it serves. Without it and other railroads in this area, commodity prices would soar, and with them the prices of many agricultural products we use, particularly those based on corn and soybeans. These include not just food but oils, livestock feed and plastics, among many others.

In supporting railroads or any other transportation system — highways, air travel, maritime shipping — the question becomes: How much should government be involved? And if government becomes involved, should it do so at a cost to such other competing interests as cities, counties, states, other businesses, the environment, cultural and religious groups like Native Americans and churches and, finally, just plain folks?

These are questions that lawmakers in Washington and state legislatures have to face every day. Such questions also arise at the county, city and, in Minnesota, township level.

"I want to expand my hog operation," a farmer says. "I just built a home two miles away," says another member of the community. How does government weigh these competing interests?

An Analogy

When health care professionals enter their fields, they are charged with numerous responsibilities. But ultimately, all the complexities of their jobs are boiled down to one simple phrase: the Hippocratic oath. For well more than 2,000 years, it has been a common denominator of the medical profession.

It is "First, do no harm."

Think about it. What if we applied this same very simple phrase to the workings of government? What would the consequences be?

For one thing, we'd not have a war in Iraq. For another, income taxes would be simpler. (Oh, how appropriate at this time of year!) For a third, the environment would be better safeguarded. For a fourth, all our children would have preventive health care. For a fifth, government would not take a position of picking winners and losers.

And that brings us back to the DM&E.

I have been critical of the railroad in these pages. It is not because I don't like the DM&E or see its benefit. It is because it has tried to use government's laws, for better or for worse, to improve its position at the expense of others.

If the railroad were a physician answerable to the Hippocratic oath, its request for special considerations to expand would fail miserably.

This is why that it is perhaps poetic justice that one of its chief opponents — perhaps the chief opponent — was the world famous Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The Mayo Clinic saw that the government's approval of the DM&E's plan to ship coal through Rochester would do harm to its patients and operations.

First, do no harm

Inevitably, when government makes policy, it must often decide between the interests of one side and another. There, it crosses the line of "First, do no harm." The question then becomes "Do the results far outweigh the costs?"

Doctors and society have decided that cutting open someone to remove an inflamed appendix, for example, is a case where benefits (survival) far outweigh the costs (the incision). With cancer patients, the question can be much more difficult. Is the harm caused by an experimental chemotherapy procedure worth the possibility of a cure?

When government takes sides, the questions may be posed in simple terms for the electorate, but the answers and options are far from it. As much as we would like, we cannot quantify the "First, do no harm" rule. There is no such thing as 100 percent compliance. But what is appropriate? 90 percent? 75 percent? 51 percent?

We are a nation of laws based upon a constitution. When there is disagreement we rely upon a system of courts to decide right and wrong. Ultimately, we — and the courts — have found that this country must rely on concepts far older and more fundamental than that constitution.

One is "First, do no harm."