Jul 02 Briefing I: Voters Should Punish the Politics of Greed

The average House DFLers cast 24 votes to feather their nests in 2007 and 2008. Votes on salaries, expense accounts, year-round housing subsidies, slush funds, and a boost in the House budget of $61,000 per Representative lead the list. These votes were not isolated decisions, a troubling pattern, a disturbing trend, or a nasty habit. This was an orchestrated effort by liberal politicians to grab for your wallet with both hands.

House DFLers think every crowd has a silver lining. Politics is the arena where the deadly sin of greed wears the mask of self-importance. The difference between a hungry dog and a House DFLer is that a hungry dog will not bite you for more after you feed it. A House DFLer who wants to get rich in a day may not be hanged in a year, but might be ejected after two years. The House DFLers told voters that they wanted to do good, but they just came to do well . . . for themselves.

These briefings will give brief descriptions of key votes, followed by detailed end-notes with accessible web-links to prove each assertion. I hope you find them to be useful.

01. A SYSTEM FOR RAISING LEGISLATIVE SALARIES WITHOUT DIRECT VOTES

1. In 2008, House DFLers voted for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed legislators to take future salary increases without voting to approve them. If the amendment were to be approved by the voters, Representatives could take pay raises recommended by a board without ever casting a vote in favor of the raises. [1]

2. On a separate vote, House DFLers voted to apply the same automatic approval for increases in their per diem (or daily expenses) payments. [2]

3. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated a effort to require legislators to approve formally an pay raise recommended by the pay-raise board. [3]

4. On a separate vote after HF 3796 was amended to get pay raises and boost in expense accounts without a direct vote, the House defeated an effort to require some form of direct approval by the Legislature before Representatives could take board-recommended pay raises. [4]

5. On a separate vote, House DFLers rejected a motion to delay passage of a constitutional amendment that would allow legislators to take future pay raises that were recommended by a board of political appointees, without legislators taking action to approve the raises. [5]

6. On a separate vote, House DFLers rejected a motion to have the proposed constitutional amendment heard by at least one policy committee before it was rammed through the House. [6]

02. JACK UP EXPENSE ACCOUNTS FOR LEGISLATORS

Without showing receipts, Legislators can claim daily expenses up to a certain amount for any day they wish to claim them. The "per diem" expenses had been limited to $66 per day (a lot of Big Macs in one day), and to one day per month for office work in St. Paul when the Legislature was not in session.

On the following votes in 2007, the House DFLers loosened the rules on expense payments and raised the daily cap by $11 (or about 17%). Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar) to over $18,000 of daily expense money on his $31,000 annual salary. Worse still, Sen. Mee Moua (DFL-St. Paul) took over $22,000 in lunch money in 2007, even though she lived less than eight miles from the Capitol.

Most of the following votes were cast on February 26 and March 1, 2007 on the Permanent Rules of the House, as modified and adopted by the House DFL for 2007 and 2008.

7. In 2007, House DFLers increased the rate for expense payments to $77 per day as part of the Permanent Rules of the House, without taking a direct vote on that increase in personal benefits. That would be an expense account of over $28,000 on a $31,000 salary if a Legislator made the full claim every day. The highest claim in 2007 was for only 233 days and $18,000. [7]

8. In 2007, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required Representatives to show receipts for daily expenses that they were claiming for days when the House was not in session. [8]

9. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required Representatives to show receipts for daily expenses that they were claiming for days when the House was in session. [9]

10. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required Representatives to post on the Internet how much money they were taking each year for daily expense claims. [10]

11. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have limited daily expenses for Representatives to their actual costs (below the $77 cap) during any special sessions caused because the Legislature failed to pass budget bills. [11]

12. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have continued the House tradition of allowing only one day per month for per diem payments for working in a St. Paul office when the House was not in session. [12]

13. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required a direct vote in 2007 before allowing a 22-member majority of the Ways and Means Committee to raise the expense accounts for all 134 Representatives. [13]

14. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required Representatives after 2008 to vote on future increases in daily expense accounts. [14]

15. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have directed the House Rules Committee to at least consider whether the Rules should require a full Floor vote on raising daily expense accounts for Representatives after 2008. [15]

16. On a separate vote, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent House Rules that would have required a direct vote on the House Floor before Representatives could accept the higher expense account caps in 2007 and 2008. [16].

17. Later in 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to the 2007 State Government Finance Bill (Senate File 1997) which would have lowered the per diem payment cap back to the 2006 level of $66 per day, and returned housing subsidies for politicians to just six months per year. [17]

03. YEAR-ROUND HOUSING FOR LEGISLATORS

Prior to 2007, legislators who lived more than 50 miles from the Capitol were given housing subsidies for up to one month before and one month after a legislative session. As part of the new Permanent Rules of the House, this subsidy was converted to year-round housing subsidies worth up to $14,400 per year. In some years, the Legislative session has run only three months.

18. House DFLers voted against an amendment that would have blocked the move to year-round housing subsidies for legislators in St. Paul. The housing scheme and the higher expense accounts for Representatives passed in 2007 meant that these two benefits could exceed the total salary for Representatives. [18]

As part of the last amendment described in the previous section (Item 16), House DFLers also rejected a return to prior caps on expenses accounts and rejected a six-month cap on housing subsidies.

04. SLUSH FUNDS, SUPER-SIZED BUDGETS, AND OTHER PERKS

19. In dealing with the 2008 Deficit with the Budget Bill (House File 1812), House DFLers rejected an amendment that would have eliminated a $4 million slush fund that the Legislature carries forward to fund "special projects." [19]

20. In passing the State Government Finance Bill in 2007, House DFLers boosted the budget for the House by over $8 million. That was an increase of over $61,000 per Representative. That was a 19% increase for the House, while the increase in state funding for K-12 education for the 2008-2009 school year was just 1%. [20]

21. In adopting the Temporary Rules of the House in 2007, House DFLers increased the number of House committees by 33% and doubled the budgets for these panels. By the end of 2007, there were about 100 committees, subcommittees, divisions, subdivisions, task forces, working groups and other panels. [21]

22. About half of the House DFLers opposed an addition to the Permanent Rules of the House which barred Representatives from becoming paid lobbyists for the first year after they left office. [22]

23. House DFLers opposed an amendment that would have continued the tradition of not meeting until March 1 in the even-numbered bonding year. This provision had saved $1.3 million in 2006. [23]

24. House DFLers opposed an amendment that would have continued the practice of using current House personnel to staff the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force, instead of hiring new and extra staffers. [24]

Based on this pattern of self-dealing by House DFLers, Minnesota voters may want to send a different group of people to St. Paul next November.

- - -

END NOTES

You can see the exact results of roll call votes by clicking on the following hyperlink for the House Journal, clicking on the Journal for the date of the vote, and scrolling down to the page indicated for each entry. You can see the exact language of a bill by clicking on the following hyperlink, clicking on "bills," and entering the bill number ("hf#" for House Files, "sf#" for Senate Files). www.house.mn

[1] PAY RAISES WITHOUT ROLL CALL VOTES: On May 12, 2008, the House DFLers passed House File 3796 by Rep. Kent Eken (DFL-Twin Valley). It would have asked voters to pass a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Representatives to take pay raises recommended by a board of political appointees without the legislature ever casting a vote to approve the pay raise. The House DFLers passed the plan by a margin of 91-43. House Journal page 11959.

[2] AUTOMATIC INCREASES IN DAILY EXPENSE PAYMENTS: On May 12, 2008, the House DFLers passed an amendment to HF 3796 offered by Rep. Larry Hosch (DFL-St. Joseph) which would have provided automatic approval for increases in per diem payments (as well a pay increases) without a legislative roll call vote. The House DFLers passed the Hosch amendment by a margin of 73-59. House Journal page 11956.

[3] DO NOT REQUIRE A VOTE BEFORE TAKING PAY RAISES: On May 12, 2008, the House DFLers rejected an amendment to HF 3796 offered by Rep. Paul Kohls (R-Victoria) which would have required a vote before legislators could take a board-recommended pay raise. The House DFLers defeated the Kohls amendment by a margin of 87-46. House Journal page 11957.

[4] DO NOT REQUIRE ANY LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR PAY OR EXPENSE HIKES: On May 12, 2008, House DFLers used a procedural motion to block an amendment to HF 3796 offered by Rep. Mark Olson (IR-Big Lake). The Olson amendment would have required at least some form of legislative approval before Representatives accepted a board-recommended pay raise. The House DFLers blocked the Olson amendment by a margin of 91-42. House Journal page 11958.

[5] DO NOT DELAY A VOTE ON BILL FOR PAY RAISES: On May 12, 2008, the House DFLers defeated a motion to table (or delay) a vote on HF 3796. The motion was offered by Rep. Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake). The House DFLers blocked the Hamilton motion by a margin of 90-43. House Journal page 11958.

[6] DO NOT HAVE THE PAY RAISE PROPOSAL HEARD BY THE PROPER COMMITTEE: On May 12, 2008, the House DFLers defeated a motion to have the constitutional amendment proposed in HF 3796 heard by the Government Operations and Reform Committee before it was passed by the House DFLers. The motion was offered by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano). The bill had never been heard in a House policy committee before it was rammed through the full House. The House DFLers defeated the Emmer motion by a margin of 83-48. House Journal page 11955.

[7] PASS RULES CHANGES ON PER DIEMS, HOUSING, PERKS: On March 1, 2007, House DFLers passed "new" Permanent Rules of the House. The package included a 17% raise in expense accounts for Representatives (without requiring receipts, without requiring Internet reports on claims taken by each Representative, without imposing limits to actual expenses below the cap), and an increase to year-round housing for legislators from the exurbs and Greater Minnesota up to $14,400 per year, and without prior limits on bonding sessions, non-session expense accounts, and other perks. The House DFLers passed the new system by a margin of 85-42. House Journal page 680.

[8] NO RECEIPTS FOR EXPENSE CLAIMS WHEN OUT OF SESSION: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Bob Dettmer (R-Forest Lake). The Dettmer amendment would have required Representatives to submit receipts for expense payments they sought when the Legislature was not in session. The House DFLers defeated the Dettmer amendment by a margin of 81-50. House Journal page 576.

[9] NO RECEIPTS FOR EXPENSE CLAIMS WHEN IN OF SESSION: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Bob Dettmer (R-Forest Lake). The Dettmer amendment would have required Representatives to submit receipts for expense payments they sought when the Legislature was in session. The House DFLers defeated the Dettmer amendment by a margin of 77-54. House Journal page 578.

[10] DON'T POST TOTALS FOR EXPENSE PAYMENTS ON THE INTERNET: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Paul Kohls (R-Victoria). The Kohls amendment would have required Representatives to post the totals of how much they took in expense account payments on the Internet. The House DFLers defeated the Kohls amendment by a margin of 70-62. House Journal page 589.

[11] TAKE FULL EXPENSES, EVEN WHEN WORK ISNOT COMPLETED: On March 1, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural tactic to reject an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth). The Anderson amendment would have limited Representatives to their actual expenses below the per diem cap for days spent in special sessions triggered by a failure to complete budget action during regular sessions. The House DFLers defeated the Anderson amendment by a margin of 81-46. House Journal page 675.

[12] LIFT OLD LIMIT ON EXPENSES WHEN HOUSE IS NOT IN SESSION: On March 1, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural tactic to reject an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton). The Erickson amendment would have continued the practice of limiting Representatives' claims for daily expenses incurred for doing office work in St. Paul when the Legislature is not in session to just one day per month. The House DFLers defeated the Erickson amendment by a margin of 87-40. House Journal page 679.

[13] NO ROLL CALL VOTE ON 2007 INCREASE IN EXPENSE ACCOUNTS: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural tactic to defeat an amendment to the Permanent House Rules offered by Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan). The Buesgens amendment would have required a direct vote in 2007 before allowing a 22-member majority of the Ways and Means Committee to raise the expense accounts for all 134 Representatives. The House DFLers defeated the Buesgens amendment by a margin of 69-60. House Journal page 573. {040}

[14] NO ROLL CALL VOTES ON FUTURE INCREASES IN EXPENSE ACCOUNTS: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural tactic to defeat an amendment to the Permanent House Rules offered by Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan). The Buesgens amendment would have required Floor votes on future increases in expense account caps. The House DFLers defeated the Buesgens amendment by a margin of 74-59. House Journal page 585.

[15] DON'T EVEN CONSIDER REQUIRING VOTES ON FUTURE INCREASES: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to the Permanent Rules offered by Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague). The Brod amendment would have asked the Rules Committee to at least consider including a requirement in future rule changes that would require a Floor vote before expense account caps could be raised after 2007. The House DFLers defeated the Brod amendment by a margin of 43-90. House Journal page 585.

[16] NO 2007 VOTE ON INCREASES IN EXPENSE ACCOUNTS: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural tactic to defeat an amendment to the Permanent House Rules offered by Rep. Mark Olson (IR-Big Lake). The Olson amendment would have required a direct vote in 2007 before allowing a 22-member majority of the Ways and Means Committee to raise the expense accounts for all 134 Representatives. The House DFLers defeated the Olson amendment by a margin of 76-57. House Journal page 581.

[17] DO NOT RETURN EXPENSE CAPS AND HOUSING SUBSIDIES TO LOWER LEVELS: On April 19, 2007, House DFLers rejected an amendment to SF 1997 (2007 State Government Finance Bill) offered by Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon). The Sviggum amendment would have reduced the House budget by over $1 million, restored the expense account limit to $66 per day, and limited housing subsidies for legislators in St. Paul to just six months per year. The House DFLers defeated the Sviggum amendment by a margin of 47-85. House Journal page 4053.

[18] YEAR-ROUND HOUSING, EVEN WHEN SESSION LASTS ONLY THREE MONTHS: On February 26, 2007, House DFLers used a procedural motion to defeat an amendment to the Permanent Rules of the House offered by Rep. Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers). The Peppin amendment would have stripped the proposed Rules of the provision to offer year-round housing subsidies of up to $14,400 per year to Representatives who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol. Rep. Peppin noted that the 2006 session had lasted less than three months. The House DFLers defeated the Peppin amendment by a margin of 80-51. House Journal page 574.

[19] KEEP THE $4 MILLION "SLUSH FUND" FOR THE HOUSE: On April 3, 2008, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the 2008 Deficit Reduction Bill, House File 1812 by Rep. Lyndon Carlson (DFL-Crystal). The amendment was offered by Rep. Marty Seifert (R-Marshall). The Seifert amendment would have canceled a $4 million carry-forward "slush fund" maintained by the Legislature. The Seifert amendment would have applied the $4 million of "savings" to future deficits. The House DFLers defeated the Seifert amendment by a margin of 56-77. House Journal page 9711.

[20] RAISE THE HOUSE BUDGET BY 19%, BUT SCHOOLS BY ONLY 3%: On May 4, 2007, House DFLers approved a budget increase for the House of over $8 million as part of the 2007 State Government Finance Bill. That amounts to an increase of over $61,000 in budget for every Representative. That same month, House DFLers approved the K-12 Education Budget Bill that raised state fund for schools by 2% for the 2007-08 school year and 1% for the 2008-09 school year. House DFLers will say that they later added another 1% for the 2008-09 school year, but that was one-time money spent in a deficit year, and will not be part of the base budget for schools in the future. The House DFLers passed their House budget increase by a margin of 71-57. House Journal page 5458.

[21] EVERY MAN A KING, EVERY WOMAN A CHAIR: On January 3, 2007, House DFLers approved Temporary Rules of the House which increased the number of committees by 33%, rising from 27 under Republicans in 2006 to 36 under the DFL in 2007. The budget for committees almost doubled to $640,000. By the end of 2007, there were about 100 committees, subcommittees, divisions, subdivisions, task forces, working groups and other panels. Because many of these panels met after the 2007 legislative session, many Representatives sought extra payments for daily expenses, mileage, and lodging. House DFLers passed the Temporary Rules and the expansion of committees (and their budgets) by a margin of 86-48. House Journal page 8.

[22] I WANT TO BE A PAID LOBBYIST WHEN I GET OUT OF HERE: On February 26, 2007, about half of the House DFLers voted against an amendment to the Permanent Rules of the House offered by Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon). The Sviggum amendment barred Representatives from serving as paid lobbyists for the first year after they leave office. Although almost half of the House DFLers opposed the Sviggum amendment, it passed by a margin of 83-50. House Journal page 587.

[23] DON'T SAVE $1.3 MILLION BY SHORTENING BONDING SESSION: On March 1, 2007, House DFLers defeated an amendment to the Permanent Rules of the House offered by Rep. Dean Simpson (R-Perham). The Simpson amendment would have adopted the same rule for 2008 as applied in 2006 when the short "bonding session" began in March instead of February. Rep. Simpson noted that the shorter session in 2006 saved $1.3 million for taxpayers. The House DFLers defeated the Simpson amendment by a margin of 38-89. House Journal page 676.

[24] WE WANT BIGGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE STAFFERS: On April 30, 2008, House DFLers defeated an amendment to House File 3729 by Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson). The amendment was offered by Rep. Tom Hackbarth (R-Cedar). In prior years, a legislative task force on electrical energy issues had been staffed by existing personnel who worked for such committees as Regulated Industries and Commerce. The Hackbarth amendment would have continued that practice, instead of hiring extra personnel for the task force. House DFLers defeated the Hackbarth amendment by a margin of 45-85. House Journal page 11044.

Cross-posted and comments welcome at Wright County Republican.