True North

The amendment was offered by freshman DFL Rep. Jeremy Kalin to the Transportation Policy Bill (HF 1351) (Hornstein). It passed the House by a 85-47 margin on May 10, 2007 at House Journal Page 6255. The language has been dropped from the Conference Report on the bill.

During the debate, Rep. Kalin said on the House Floor that "welfare recipients are the real working people of Minnesota, because they are trying to get to the top of the economic heap."

Rep. Marty Seifert disagreed.

What the amendment really did was waive towing and impoundment fees (above the value of the vehicle) for anyone who could prove that they were merely eligible for the nine programs: Food Stamps (EBT); Emergency Assistance (EA); Minnesota Family Investment Program(MFIP); Diversionary Work Program (DWP); Medical Assistance (MA); General Assistance (GA); General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC); Emergency General Assistance (EGA); Minnesota Supplemental Aid (MSA); MSA-Emergency Assistance (MSA-EA); or Energy Assistance (LI-HEAP).

Republicans voting for the Kalin amendment: Jim Abeler, Ron Erhardt, Sondra Erickson, Bud Heidgerken, and Neil Peterson.

Nervous DFLers voting against the Kalin amendment: Dittrich, Kranz, Lenczewski, and Morgan.

End original post

(I further clarified in the comments that this bill was from last session--not the just recently overridden Transportation bill.)

Since then, in the comments Rep. Kalin has responded that he did not say what was attributed to him in the quotes. For background -- the amendment that Kalin offered had 2 parts. One part dealt with people unable for some reason to get their cars out of hock being allowed to remove items from their cars. (Coincidently, this idea is being reintroduced in a bill this session and Nick Coleman recently wrote a column on it). Another part was about waiving the towing fees for people on welfare.

The video is here

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesHFS.asp?ls_year=85

You can click on either version of May 10, 2007 on HF 1351. It's in the "Part One" segment for that day at around 2:14:00. (I tried to snag it and clip the relevant part only but I don't have any good video grabbing software.)

Here is an annotated transcript that was forwarded to me today of the discussion during that interval of the House floor session on May 10, 2007:

2:14:00 [Rep. Seifert]: "Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to the debate, and Rep. Heidgerken made some points [about the first half of the amendment to allow people to recover necessary items from towed cars] I think that made some sense. If someone has some eyeglasses in the car, I think they should be able to get them. But the second part of the amendment, where if you are on some type of public relief program, and you don't scoop your vehicle out and it gets towed, you kind of get treated differently than if you are someone who works, that second part to me does not make a lot of sense. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to divide the amendment between lines 3.6 and 3.7."

[Rep. Juhnke and the Clerk of the House conferred to determine that the Kalin amendment could be divided at that point. See note at end of transcript.]

2:15:43 [Rep. Seifert]: "Mr. Speaker, this does not make a whole lot of sense when we are telling people who have to get up for work in the morning `if you don't get your car off the street in time, then we're going to tow your vehicle and you are going to be held responsible.' There is something called personal responsibility. I know it is not used very much any more in this world, but there are two words called personal responsibility. And by telling people you know what, if you're on public assistance, the personal responsibility needed for removing your car off the street in these circumstances? Never mind. But if you have to get up and go to work in the morning, then you had better pay attention.' So let us at least have some consistency. I am just begging the Members to vote "no" on the second part. I am asking for a roll call."

2:16:36 [Rep. Kalin]: "I strongly recommend a yes vote on this section. I am not a resident of Minneapolis or St. Paul. I do not have a dog in this fight. But I do have a dog in the fight when it comes to making sure that the folks who are working their tails off to move off assistance and up that economic ladder so that they can become full, self-sufficient taxpayers, that they have every opportunity, that we remove the hurdles from a deficiency claim of several hundred dollars because they are going to work, because they are complying with the strong welfare reform requirements that we want to see here. We want in this state for people to move off of assistance and on to self-sufficiency so they can move up that ladder, so that we don't cut rungs off
that ladder, so they can pay taxes, live self-sufficiently, and so that they can reach that top tier of income taxes, from rags to riches, and so that my dear friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle can shelter them from that top tier of income taxes."

Note: When Rep. Seifert said "if you are on some type of public relief program, and you don't scoop your vehicle out and it gets towed, you kind of get treated differently than if you are someone who works," Rep. Kalin shook his head. And when there was a brief break in the action ten seconds later, Rep. Kalin said aloud, "welfare recipients are the real working people of Minnesota, because they are trying to get to the top of the economic heap." It is not on the tape, but it was heard. And it is consistent with Rep. Kalin's underlined comments that are noted above.

A staffer for the House GOP Caucus was standing 15 feet behind Rep. Kalin, saw him shake his head when Rep. Seifert differentiated welfare recipients and working people, and heard him say those exact words ["welfare recipients are the real working people of Minnesota, because they are trying to get to the top of the economic heap."] during the consultation between Rep. Juhnke and Clerk of the House Al Mathiowetz, just before Rep. Kalin said on the tape that welfare recipients were "working their tails off" to "reach the top tier of income taxes.' Lawyers would say that Rep. Kalin is pleading a distinction without a difference, in order to hide a weak case."

According to this account, the quote that is being attributed to Rep. Kalin happened off mike. I can picture it because that kind of thing happens all the time in the legislature. There is a lot of backchat on the floor that has to be gaveled down frequently by whoever is in the speaker’s chair. This explanation is good enough for me, but I can see where some people might need to hear and see it on the tape to believe it happened. Rep. Kalin says he didn't say it but he said plenty on this occasion that was close enough that I don't believe him. The reader is free to draw a different conclusion.

As an addendum, I agree with Rep. Siefert (and Nick Coleman) that the first part of the bill was not objectionable. I understand why law enforcement might feel differently. Stuff in the car is an incentive for some people to pay the fine but I think the hardship stories are compelling and I think it's fair that there can be a limit to what the state/city/county can take from you when you park your car in the wrong spot.

The second part of the bill goes overboard. To see how unfair it is, you need to focus not just on Mr. Guy on Welfare but on his next door neighbor in the trailer park or rental house, who is NOT on assistance and is trying to make a living without resorting to the dole. He has a job or maybe two jobs, for which getting time off to go get his car out of hock is a sacrifice along with whatever he has to pay. Why should Mr. Welfare get a break? He can afford to keep a car, get gas for it and drive it around. Why should he also get immunity from parking violations? Because that is what it is, a "get your car out of jail free" card. If you've ever had the sorry experience of having to go get your car from an impound lot (and I have) it's no fun aside from whatever costs are involved. (For an example of how unpleasant it can be, see what happened recently to a local judge when he and his wife had to go get their son's car out of stir.) Rep. Kalin wants us to have compassion for Mr. Welfare Guy. Where is the compassion for somebody who is just getting by, who has to pay higher payroll taxes so that Mr. Welfare Guy can get his car back for free? If we want a healthy economy, it's not just about getting welfare people off welfare--we have got to get the working guy to believe he's not a chump for not just giving up and getting on welfare. Legislation like this doesn't help.

---

Share this True North article on your favorite social networking websites!