Minnesota Public Interest Research Group

Steamrolling over democracy: Voter I.D.

2012-03-12T10:27:00.003-07:00

The conduct surrounding the proposed Voter ID amendment has been shameful. It has passed through three Senate committees with limited testimony and wholly along party lines. If the Voter ID amendment was something that would truly benefit Minnesota elections, wouldn't all political sides come out in support of the measure? Wouldn't the Secretary of State, the person who is in charge of making sure the elections run smoothly, embrace a system that seems to make his job easier? The truth of the matter is that requiring a photo ID for voting is a partisan issue and one that will make it harder for over 700,000 citizens of Minnesota.

There are real flaws with this constitutional amendment, and most stem from the vague yet binding wording of this amendment. One major concern is that Minnesota voters will not even know what is considered valid identification under this legislation. To this, and other concerns, proponents consistently retort that it would be decided in the next legislative session. Why should Minnesota voters place this amendment into the Constitution when they do not even know what they are voting on?

It has become obvious that the proponents of this amendment in the Minnesota Legislature are not listening to those who would be directly affected by this, including students, members of our military, the elderly, and the disabled. The figures of those who would be directly affected by the proposed amendment have been stated over and over in the media, but seem to fall on deaf ears in committee. The proponents seem more interested in steamrolling this partisan legislation than considering the reasonable questions of concerned constituents.

MPIRG still feels Voter ID is not a solution to any real problem and hopes that Minnesota will stand up in defense of our strong election integrity as it exists, today.

Written by Mitch Menigo

This is Our House

2012-03-05T14:20:00.001-08:00

For many people myself included, the Capitol seems like a place where we don’t belong. Along with other marginalized communities, students are in need of empowerment in this arena.

Executive Director of MPIRG Josh Winters proved me and 106 other young adults wrong on Tuesday by assuring us that, “This is our house. We do belong here.”

Mr. Winters along with the rest of the MPIRG staff of Campus Organizers and Canvass members empowered high school and college students from as far away as Duluth and Morris to speak with their own legislators and let their voice be heard.

MPIRG staff has often reminded students that “If you’re not AT the table, you’re ON the table.”

As students we have been timid to address our senators and representatives because we are very new to the process. YEA Minnesota and MPIRG are working diligently to make sure that our legislators see us, hear us, and in turn, represent us.

Every year MPIRG organizes a Lobby Day where students from U of M campuses as well as Hamline, Augsburg, St. Catherine’s, and Macalester are invited to participate in trainings, issue briefings, and meetings with their legislators as constituents.

The specific issues we talked about were Voter ID, Solar initiatives, and a Recycling Refund opportunity. We all were able to hear from Representative Kate Knuth and her personal testimony of how attainable a position of office is. Winning her first election at the age of 25, Representative Knuth made a conference room full of students feel truly welcomed in the highly esteemed Capitol building.

Everyone needs to be aware that first and foremost, we all have a very important spot reserved for us at the Capitol and in the offices of our elected officials. Secondly, that if we don’t show up, if we don’t testify, if we don’t take initiative to vote or participate in caucuses, we really can’t expect to be listened to by our senators or representatives.

Thanks, MPIRG and YEA Minnesota for empowering students to get involved and be active members of society. Because, contrary to popular belief, we do care. And we will use our voices to be represented.

Written by Kate Dobson

Wolves: From endangered to in danger

2012-02-29T13:34:00.004-08:00

The Minnesota DNR and the House Committee on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Policy and Financing are discussing opening up a possible wolf hunting season. If enacted, this bill would let the Minnesota DNR sell licenses for people to kill wolves in Minnesota. The grey wolf was just taken off the endangered species list in Minnesota this past winter. According to the DNR, approximately 3,000 wolves inhabit Minnesota. If passed, the DNR would seek to drive Minnesota’s wolf population to 1,600.

Stunning natural ecosystems and diverse wildlife are some of Minnesota’s best assets. The presence of wolves is a triumph as industrialization and human activities pushed wolves to the brink of extinction. It is critical that we preserve the population we have in Minnesota instead of hunting them back onto the endangered species list.

The DNR has cited population management as the reason to curb the gray wolf in Minnesota. They also want to encourage our already burgeoning deer population. The DNR makes money from selling deer hunting licenses and will profit from selling wolf hunting licenses. None of Minnesota’s neighbors, including Wisconsin, allow wolf hunting. Wolves in Minnesota are in further danger of becoming victim to greed as the hunting and agricultural industries have been consistently lobbying for the right to kill wolves. Wolves are a perceived threat to these industries’ profits and that combined with cultural prejudices against the grey wolf means we might be forced to live in a Minnesota once again without North America’s top predator roaming through our woods.

Written by Sydney Jordan

I oppose Voter ID and so should you.

2012-02-13T13:16:00.000-08:00

On Feb 1^st, the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections met to discuss the possibility of requiring citizens to show a photo ID with their current address before voting. Over 150 people descended on Capitol Room 15 and 30 people stood up to testify and voice their concerns. With MPIRG, I testified to speak out on behalf of my fellow students and our voting rights. The committee hearing, which lasted more than five hours, included testimony from the Secretary of State’s office, the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and numerous concerned citizens worried about how this measure would impede thousands of students, people of color, low income communities, the elderly, active duty military personnel, and other citizens who at any given time do not have a Photo ID that reflects their current address.

As a student, I argued that it would be difficult for my peers and me to obtain a new ID every election. It would be cost and time prohibitive for an ID that would only last students 9 months to 3 years maximum. For many students, the elections they participate in while in college are their first experiences with voting and the election process. When their first voting experiences are positive ones, it reinforces the necessity to make voting painless and possible for every single person. Although issues of voter fraud have been brought up, the reality of this is that almost all students vote responsibly and passionately.

At the committee hearing, proponents of the bill stated they would offer free IDs to people who needed one. Although they said that people would be given free photo IDs it was unclear where the funding would come from to pay for them. Additionally it’s unclear if people would be compensated if they were required to obtain things like birth, marriage, or divorce certificates, in order to receive their actual photo ID.

Proponents stated the main reason for pushing this constitutional amendment forward was to combat voter fraud. But truly, the reality of this is that voter fraud is nearly nonexistent. Minnesota’s past two elections have been faced with the utmost scrutiny by officials from both major political parties and neither of them found any significant problems with Minnesota’s elections.

MPIRG is opposing this proposed Voter ID bill because it’s a solution in search of a problem, it presents obstacles to voting for otherwise eligible voters, and because Senate File 1577 is vague and doesn’t clearly articulate how the election system would actually work.

The Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections will be meeting again this Wednesday, February 15th at 1pm in Capitol Room 15. I strongly encourage you to show up and show your opposition.

Written by Sydney Jordan

Why is Voter I.D. a bad idea?

2012-02-01T06:22:00.000-08:00

Voting is our right!

Democracy only works when everyone is involved. Any restrictions or barriers that decrease participation and limit our ability to exercise the most basic right in our democracy are an attack on the founding principles of our country.

Voter ID would make it hard for many people to vote!

Consider that voters who are least likely to have ID also are more likely to experience barriers that would prevent them from getting an ID, including senior citizens, low income communities, communities of color, and STUDENTS!

Whether their address doesn’t stay consistent, they cannot make it to a DMV or they cannot afford to pay, this new ID would prevent thousands of Minnesotans from being able to cast their ballot.

MN has the highest turnout nationally!

Our state is a model for how to hold elections, and our current election laws – like same-day registration – allow voters to easily exercise their right to vote. Why would we change the best system in our nation?

Voter ID would end absentee voting & same day registration as we know it!

If voters are required to show their voter ID at their polling location, voters out of state, like those serving in the military abroad, are among those who would be unable to participate in elections. Same-day registration vouchers would also be out of luck.

Voter ID does not fix ‘voter fraud’ anyway!

Proponents say this ID is the solution to voter fraud. However, the ID would only prevent voter impersonation – a crime for which NO ONE has ever been convicted in MN. This ID would not ensure a decrease in the limited cases of fraud that have occurred. Instead, it guarantees thousands of voters will face hurdles that may deter them from participating on Election Day.

The video below, produced by Campus Progress, details the effect of Voter ID legislation in other states.

Written by Tom Raley, MPIRG Campus Organizer

video by Campus Progress

Mr. Sviggum: pick one.

2012-01-30T06:43:00.000-08:00

MPIRG, like many in the education community, was shocked to learn of University of Minnesota Board Regent Steve Sviggum’s new job as communications and executive assistance for the Senate Republican Caucus. It is hard to imagine two more conflicted roles, and easy to imagine the consequences to education funding in our state.

A critical piece of the Regent’s position and work centers around State funding for higher education, and with this year’s bonding bill, all the more important. The U is preparing for a long advocacy battle for education funding in this year’s bonding bill with as Governor Dayton’s first proposed release - over a hundred million less than the U’s request. In stark contrast to the U’s hopes, last session the Republican Party fought to cut higher ed funding by as much as 19%.

Soon after the announcement, it was disclosed that Sviggum had not shared his prospective job with the University, increasing concern that he was aware of how controversial his new role would be to the commitment he has made serving as a Regent. Because of the partisan nature of his new position, it is hard to reconcile how he can execute the Regents mission while fulfilling his new role with the Republican Party without violating his Regent duties.

The Minnesota Daily reported the concern of partisanship and called for ‘public criticism’ to remind and warn Regents to ‘act diligently to guard against partisan influence’ in THIS editorial. The Star Tribune echoed these sentiments in their editorial Conflict is clear in Sviggum’s two roles.

MPIRG calls on Mr. Sviggum to chose his side in the higher education battle. Both the Board of Regents and Senate Republican Caucus need to hold him accountable if he is unwilling to do so himself. Until Sviggum chooses his side, neither can be confident he is fit to serve in either capacity.

Written by Dakotah Johnson, MPIRG Campus Organizer

Photo credit: capitolchat.areavoices.com

2012 Legislative Session Starts Today!

2012-01-24T06:31:00.000-08:00

Attention Minnesotans! The 2012 legislative session officially starts today at noon! This year is shaping up to be another thrilling session, with issues like Voter ID, environmental regulations, the Vikings stadium, a multitude of proposed constitutional amendments, and others coming to the forefront. With these concerning things going on, you can bet that MPIRG will be at the Capitol following what’s happening, updating you on the issues you care about, and urging legislators to support policies that benefit students and our communities. We encourage all Minnesotans to follow the legislative session, get involved, and demand decision makers work to create a better Minnesota that we all know is possible.

Follow our work at:

http://mpirg.blogspot.com/

on Facebook

or on Twitter @MPIRG

Resources:

Minnesota Senate

Minnesota House of Representatives

Star Tribune State & Local Politics Coverage

We wish all the best to our allies in their work this legislative session as we work together to make this state great.

MPIRG applauds EPA’s new mercury rule

2012-01-11T06:09:00.000-08:00

Most of us assume someone is protecting our air and water from becoming unhealthy, even toxic. We expect the air we breathe and the water we drink to be clean. Even reasonable expectations are often met with harsh realities, but not this time.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently moved forward with new rules limiting emissions of mercury and other toxics from power plants. Protecting the public from harmful air pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and acid gases is a public health priority. Moving forward with this rule will save thousands of American lives, spur innovation and job creation, and protect our communities. We applaud the EPA’s decision to stand its ground and move forward with the strongest air toxics protections possible to defend public health and protect children from toxic mercury.

This new rule will reduce the mercury emissions from power plants by 90%. Mercury contamination in the U.S. is so widespread that up to one in ten women of childbearing age is likely to have mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk for mercury poisoning.

Not everyone is happy that the EPA is protecting public health and the environment. That’s right; the dirty emissions spewed by the power plants are almost as bad as the misleading scare tactics spewed by their lobbyists in Washington. Industry leaders have told us that if these rules were implemented our lights would go out and we’d be forced to eat contaminated food. I sat in a well lit room this morning, ate some waffles and yogurt, and listened to the morning news.

The fact of the matter is that the technology power plants need to comply with these new rules already exists and is being used successfully. Furthermore, installation of this modern air pollution technology will support 46,000 new short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.

This new rule is a common sense step forward that protects public health and the environment. The EPA and President Obama deserve our thanks on this one.

Written by Jamison Tessneer, MPIRG Organizing Director

Minnesota Campaign Finance Laws See First Test of 2012

2012-01-10T11:33:00.000-08:00

Just last week, Common Cause Minnesota, filed a complaint with the MN Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFDB) alleging that the Republican Party of Minnesota circumvented campaign finance laws during the 2010 recount for the gubernatorial election. The head of the party at the time, Tony Sutton, allowed the creation of a shell corporation called Count Them All Properly, Inc. in order to hide $700,000 in legal fees related to the recount. By funneling money through this corporation, the debt was left off the Republican Party’s books. Furthermore, donors to the corporation did not have to be disclosed, leaving a cloud of doubt surrounding the funding of these operations. Although these allegations are just that, merely allegations, the CFDB has launched a full investigations into the claims made by Common Cause.

This incident not only underscores the shady dealings of politicians in Minnesota, but also draws attention to the need to reverse the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision and further remove money from politics. Since the Citizens United decision, corporations have been given the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money towards the election or defeat of a candidate. It is illegal for corporations to contribute directly to a candidate or political party. However, by creating this shell entity, corporations may have essentially been allowed to indirectly contribute unlimited funds to the Republican Party.

Upon its ruling, it was immediately apparent that the Citizens United decision would lead to incidents like this, albeit the full scope was not necessarily realized. With the November elections upon us, the role of money in politics is becoming increasingly apparent; just last week, Sheldon Anderson contributed $5 million to a Newt Gingrich “Super PAC”, a move that was legalized by the Citizens United decision.

This is an issue that plagues both major political parties. As parties right here in our own state are hiding their solicited unlimited donations, and presidential candidates are receiving unlimited support from corporations and wealthy donors, it has become quite obvious that the voices of citizens are no longer the leading role in the election of candidates who are supposed to be representatives of the people. No, now the voices of corporations and those at the top have taken the spotlight; it’s no wonder so many public policy decisions are made in the interest of corporations and big business and not the general public.

As such, MPIRG supports any endeavor to limit money in politics, including ending “Pay to Play” politics, requiring disclosure of contributions, and a full reversal of the Citizens United decision. Until then we need to implement a strong public campaign financing system in the state of Minnesota. We must remove the power of big corporations and wealthy individuals to have so much influence on who gets elected in our state and our country. We must restore the ability of average citizens to fairly choose who represents them, without the influence of special interests.

Written by Tom Raley, MPIRG Campus Organizer

photo courtesy of MPR

Why students should move their money out of Big Banks

2012-01-06T13:04:00.000-08:00

As the U.S. economy slowly recovers from its recession nightmare it’s critical that the American people wake up and actively engage in solutions. We have the power to fight against the institutions that caused this crisis. As average citizens we can choose not to support these financial juggernauts by moving our personal finances into small, local banks and credit unions. There are numerous reasons to move your money from the Wells Fargos and U.S. Banks of the world and this blog series reviews just a handful.

As we enter college, we learn quickly the bank our school is in cahoots with as they suggest or even lure students into opening an account with the institution during registration.

College students with just a few dollars to their name might not think that their banking decisions matter. But in a country where our dollar is our vote every day, they do. Students who are new to their college town may be especially interested in this easy option for their banking needs. But the hidden and explicit cost of banking with, well, a bank are huge. ATM fees, overdraft fees, and even hidden charges ensure your college experience keeps you with just a few dollars – or even less.

Students are not known for their abundant wealth. But it is exactly during this critical moment of investing in our future that we also invest in banking habits that reflect our values. Banking locally just makes sense.

Not only are credit unions working harder to meet your needs as a consumer, they are also doing more to support the community.

Ready to move YOUR money to a local, nonprofit option? Check out credit unions in your neighborhood that offer special student rates – many of them do! In addition, most credit unions are happy to do the legwork of closing your current account for you without charge.

Written by Dakotah Johnson, MPIRG Campus Organizer

Why Labor and working people should move their money

2012-01-05T06:30:00.000-08:00

As the U.S. economy slowly recovers from its recession nightmare it’s critical that the American people wake up and actively engage in solutions. We have the power to fight against the corporate interests of the institutions that caused this crisis. As average citizens we can choose not to support these financial juggernauts by moving our personal finances into small, local banks and credit unions. There are numerous reasons to move your money from the Wells Fargos and U.S. Banks of the world and this blog series reviews just a handful.

Folks within the labor movement, workers rights supporters, and working people in general should perhaps be the most concerned about supporting the big banks. The financial collapse of 2008-09 was caused entirely by anarchic, out of control banking practices, perpetrated by large banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and US Bank. Many cited this collapse as the worst since the Great Depression; it left thousands of people to finding themselves out of work, in foreclosure, without a retirement savings, and without money to send their kids to college. Working people certainly did not cause this crisis; yet, we are the ones being forced to pay for it.

Shortly after the collapse, Congress enacted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which appropriated $700 billion to bailout the failing banks. As a result of the bailout, now in 2012, banks are largely seeing record profits; however, by claiming that the country is in dire financial straits, lawmakers argue that ordinary Americans need to tighten their belt, and accept cuts to their wages and benefits. Meanwhile, the high unemployment resulting from lack of investment during bad economic times, further forces workers to accept these concessions or face losing their jobs altogether.

Big banks like JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, and Wells Fargo are literally sitting on billions of dollars that they cannot profitably spend; they’re holding our economy hostage and forcing working people to work harder while only suffering more and more. Credit unions allow customers to have a say in the way their bank is run and their not-for-profit structure ensures that they have the best interests of their customers in mind, not the interests of their shareholder. Average American workers did not cause this financial meltdown and we should not be forced to pay for it. We should refuse to support the institutions that caused it by moving our money out of the big banks and into small, local banks and credit unions.

Written by Tom Raley, MPIRG Campus Organizer

photo courtesy of CBS News

Why environmentalists should move their money

2012-01-04T14:22:00.000-08:00

As the U.S. economy slowly recovers from its recession nightmare it’s critical that the American people wake up and actively engage in solutions. We have the power to fight against the corporate interests of the institutions that caused this crisis. As average citizens, we can choose not to support these financial juggernauts by moving our personal finances into small, local banks and credit unions. There are numerous reasons to move your money from the Wells Fargos and U.S. Banks of the world and this blog series reviews just a handful.

As environmentalists, we sometimes think our issues are siloed off and separate from the rest of American political culture, but more and more of us are drawing the link between our issues and issues like fair revenue raising and campaign finance reform. Recently, with the increasing discussion of Wall Street and the Big Banks, it’s important for environmentalists to recognize that our opposition is guilty by association. The Big Banks and Big Oil are working hand in hand. As many Americans have lost jobs, lost homes, and lost money, Big Oil, much like their Big Bank allies, have made money hand over fist.

Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase are some of the largest funders of British Petroleum, the company responsible for the largest oil spill in U.S. history and who continually oppose clean energy policies and projects.

Additionally, Bank of America and Citi Group are some of the largest funders of coal companies investing $4.3 billion and $2.8 billion dollars respectively during 2009/2010 according to Bloomberg’s league table.

Environmental organizations and individuals supportive of environmental causes should move their money from the Big Banks and into small, local banks and credit unions. We must support a broad-based movement to reduce the political power of the Big Banks. In doing so we will strike a blow to a major ally of Big Oil while simultaneously investing in the very communities we work to protect.

Written by Jamison Tessneer

Why social justice and faith leaders should move their money

2012-01-03T10:22:00.000-08:00

As the U.S. economy slowly recovers from its recession nightmare it’s critical that the American people wake up and actively engage in solutions. We have the power to fight against the corporate interests of the institutions that caused this crisis. As average citizens, we can choose not to support these financial juggernauts by moving our personal finances into small, local banks and credit unions. There are numerous reasons to move your money from the Wells Fargos and U.S. Banks of the world and this blog series reviews just a handful.

The major banks' misleading and deceptive policies are more than expensive and frustrating -- they're simply wrong.

For those of us actively invested in making the world a more honest and just place, saying no to the Big Banks' lies and sneakiness is taking a stand for humankind.

We've all been watching middle class America shrink. Major banks have atrocious records of helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, and in many cases, have made these situations worse. Unlike local financial institutions that work to meet their consumers' needs, Wall Street sticks to strict guidelines in order to maximize profits. In 2008, nine of the bailed-out banks paid out almost $33 billion in bonuses to their top executives. To put that in perspective, that’s more than twice the GDP of Afghanistan.

We shouldn't be rewarding gluttony, and we shouldn’t be rewarding deceit.

Remember "the first will be last..."? I'm not willing to wait, and those currently struggling certainly can't afford to. We all must stand up as arbiters of peace and justice. If you are a part of an organization or church that values fairness and equal treatment and opportunities for all people, consider investing in a local bank or credit union so that your money is working for, not against your fellow citizens. Taking a stand against predatory, Bully Banks is a step in the direction of honor and a show of strategic support for the poor.

Written by Joey Dobson, MPIRG Campus Organizer

Photo Courtesy of Christian Today

What turning 23 meant to me

2011-12-19T07:08:00.000-08:00

Last week was my 23^rd birthday. To celebrate, I ate some delicious Ethiopian food, school some friends at cribbage, and perfected my slam dunk technique. I only get one Michael Jordan year, after all, and I want to make it count.

I also stopped by the pharmacy to pick up a generic prescription for migraines.

And I felt lucky. I have phenomenal health insurance coverage… through my parents. When I graduated from college, I didn’t have to worry about not being covered. I didn’t have to stock up on medication, I didn’t have to wrap myself in bubble wrap, and I could still see the dentist without emptying my savings account. (Still meaning to make that dentist appointment…)

All of this is thanks to President Obama’s health care law. Under a different president, I would have lost coverage under my parents’ health insurance plan when I turned 21. Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services released that 2.5 million young Americans now have coverage under this law – otherwise we would have been uninsured.

Everyone deserves to know that they can see a health professional when they need to and not be pressured to make tough financial choices for the sake of their well-being. Obama’s new law brings us one important step closer to closing the insurance gap. Now, let’s get to work for the almost 50 million other uninsured Americans.

Joey Dobson

MPIRG Campus Organizer

Hamline University is Right to Deny Job to Emmer

2011-12-14T12:29:00.000-08:00

Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer was recently denied an “executive in residence” position at Hamline University. Emmer claims that the university reneged on their employment agreement after a group of faculty expressed opposition based on Emmer’s political beliefs. According to the Pioneer Press, in a letter from Emmer to Hamline President Linda Hanson, he states, “Madam President, is there a requirement that every faculty member at Hamline conform on the issue of marriage? Is there only one point of view allowed? Is there no political or religious freedom recognized at
Hamline? I thought the 'mission' at Hamline University was to educate - not to inculcate.''

The answer to all of Emmer’s questions is simply, “No.” and to his statement on the university’s mission they are fulfilling just fine without him. The fact of the matter is that Tom Emmer would bring very little to Hamline’s robust academic community in terms of scholarly work or expertise. Instead, he would bring a lot of liability. During the 2010 midterm election cycle a contribution from Target Corporation to a pro-Emmer Political Action Committee made national news several times for the backlash it caused to the company from consumers. For a small, private college in St. Paul, Minnesota, looking to attract a diversity of students from across the country, hiring a controversial political figure is probably not the best way to attract potential students.

While Emmer was candidate for governor his budget plan included reducing higher education funding. Many of our students, including myself, receive state grants which would have been at risk of greater funding cuts leaving students to bear a larger financial burden. Regardless of a professor’s political beliefs it is important that they value higher education; this includes understanding the importance of adequate funding for institutions and students.

Between supporting cuts in funding for higher education and support for restrictive voter laws that would negatively impact college students, it’s clear that Tom Emmer doesn’t value quality, affordable higher education or even young people’s right to participate in our political process.

Emmer has set himself up as a lightning rod for hot button social issues and is a mouthpiece for social conservatives. That’s fine for talk radio and cable news networks, but there is no place for that in an academic community.

Written by Natalie Cook

MPIRG Board Chair and Senior at Hamline University

MinnPost photo by Terry Gydesen

What Minnesotans Can Do to Promote Alternatives to Tar Sands

2011-11-28T09:47:00.000-08:00

The announcement of President Obama’s decision to defer ruling on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election brought jubilation to many MPIRG members this week who are working on campaigns to champion green energy. The proposed pipeline would connect the ecologically-disastrous extraction of so-called tar sands petroleum in Alberta, Canada to refineries along the Gulf coast of Texas, where this crude petroleum would be exported outside of the U.S. and sold in the international market. This proposal has met with both ardent support from entities like the Chamber of Commerce and widespread eclectic opposition ranging from MPIRG and other environmental activists, the New York Times, NASA climate scientists like Dr. James Hansen, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. MPIRG chapters across the state are working on making the public more aware of the consequences that this proposed pipeline will undoubtedly bring.

The decision to construct a pipeline through the United States is controversial because representatives from the TransCanada have claimed that the proposed pipeline will inject 7 billion dollars into the U.S. economy, creating 20,000 permanent jobs and over 120,000 related jobs. However, these numbers are hotly disputed, with the Cornell Global Labor Institute’s recent study on the anticipated benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline providing a very different picture of what impact this pipeline will have for the U.S. The study finds that significantly less than 7 billion dollars will actually be generated and only 2,500 to 4,560 jobs will be created and that the number of related jobs will actually fall closer to 96,000 jobs, the vast majority of which would be created by this project will be non-local and temporary jobs. The study is also quick to report that due to rising energy costs in the Midwest, the Keystone XL pipeline will actually cause a slight dip in employment through those rising costs on consumers and employers. With TransCanada and other groups misleading the American public, it’s clear when unbiased facts come to light that this proposal will in actuality be a detriment to our economy, not to mention a disaster for the environment.

The current Keystone pipeline that runs through Alberta Canada supplies Minnesota with 80% of our energy consumption, as evidenced in the documentary H2Oil by Marty Cobenais. This new XL project is an unwelcome development in Minnesota because we have such readily available alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources that we should be developing. Minnesota boasts a tremendous potential for wind and solar power that is not being utilized. Yet, our tax dollars are sent to Canada to pay for oil developed through extraction of tar sands oil. Rather than exporting our money and jobs to another country, Minnesota should be doing more to grow its renewable energy economy; these green energy jobs cannot be outsourced to another country and it would put people to work in Minnesota’s blooming solar industry. To that end, MPIRG is devoted to lobbying our state congress to encourage the production of small-scale solar energy projects and guarantee a competitive price for solar power on the energy grid by supporting the Solar Skies Initiative introduced by Senator Dibble and Representative Knuth. With MPIRG lobbying for this bill when our state Congress assembles this January, the future of our state’s solar industry couldn't be brighter.

Written by Joe Hartmann

Co-Chair

University of Minnesota –Morris MPIRG

Healthcare for All

2011-11-17T06:42:00.000-08:00

One of MPIRG’s three year campaigns is the Healthcare for All campaign, aimed at helping improve the healthcare systems of both the United States generally and Minnesota specifically. This is a critical issue, as the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise to 50 million and America’s health care spending reaches the trillions. The United States also has some of the worst health outcomes of industrialized democracies. The healthcare system of the United States is in dire need of reform and improvement.

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Congress began to address many of the problems present in the US healthcare system. The legislation included several important regulatory measures, including allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26 and stopping the practice of insurance companies denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The PPACA also aimed to significantly decrease the number of uninsured Americans through expansion of Medicaid and the creation of health insurance exchanges in every state. Health insurance exchanges are marketplaces where small businesses and individuals can purchase insurance coverage with the assistance of experts, called navigators. Currently, insurance companies are unwilling to insure individuals or small business employees due to the increased risk of needing to pay out large sums of money for an individual without the balancing effect of insuring healthier individuals in the company. Insurance exchanges alleviate this problem by grouping individuals for insurers.

As part of implementing the PPACA, Minnesota must pass legislation creating an exchange by January 2013. It is important for the exchange in Minnesota to be successful so as to increase insurance coverage and further the movement for insurance reform. Several features are particularly important for an exchange to be successful. These include public governmental involvement, to maintain public accountability, conflict of interest policies, to prevent insurance company employees from serving on the exchange board or as navigators, and regulations across the whole system to ensure individuals with a variety of health levels receive coverage through the exchange. As a young adult who will soon need to acquire my own insurance coverage, I strongly support the creation of a strong, user-oriented insurance exchange that improves the health of all Minnesotans.

Written by Margo Worman, Macalester College

Rule by the Many

2011-11-15T07:02:00.000-08:00

Fall signals the coming of two great Minnesota traditions: winter and elections. The latter tends to get MPIRGers more excited. Though 2011 is considered an "off year," there was plenty of excitement last week for St. Paul's first election using ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting. MPIRG was instrumental in campaigning for St. Paul's switch to ranked choice voting, and the Hamline MPIRG chapter helped make sure that students knew what to expect when seeing a ranked choice ballot for what was likely their first time.

Ranked choice voting allows voters to express their full array of opinions. Instead of marking just one candidate for an office, the voter gets to rank candidates as 1, 2, 3, and so on. When the ballots are counted, the first choice votes are tallied and if a candidate has more than 50% then he or she is elected. If not, then the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and all of that candidate's first choice ballots are reallocated according to the voter's second choice. This process continues until a candidate has attained a majority of votes.

Minnesota serves as an ideal laboratory for electoral reform because of our streak of elections resulting in winners without a majority. Our last three governors were all elected with less than 50% of the vote. In a state with very diverse and moderate opinions, voters should not have to feel like they are "wasting" their vote by voting for a "spoiler" who cannot win. With ranked choice every voter can express his or her opinion, yet still end up with a winner who has majority support.

Not only is ranked choice voting fair and practical, but also cost-effective. An election conducted with ranked choice voting allows all candidates to run in the general election. This eliminates the need for a primary election. Primaries are often plagued by very low turnout with only the most devoted supporters of a candidate turning out to vote. Public opinion is not at all reflected in the primaries even though the primary can sometimes be just as important as the general election. An extra election costs cities and states time and money to train election workers and set up polling stations. One ranked choice general election allows far more choices and gives all the voters a chance to make their voices heard.

Ranked choice voting is not a new idea. Australia has been using the system for nearly a century for its national elections. Ireland even uses the system to elect its president. Ranked choice voting has proven itself on a large scale and can be introduced to all of Minnesota. If democracy is truly "rule by the many" then why should we allow a candidate to win an election with less than half the vote? Now that the state's two largest cities have successfully implemented ranked choice voting, the stage is set and the time is right for further reform.

Written by Ben Surma

MPIRG applauds Klobuchar and Franken for voting against Sen. Paul’s dirty air initiative

2011-11-10T13:10:00.000-08:00

MPIRG continues to encourage Minnesota’s Senators to oppose further attempts to weaken clean air standards

On Thursday, November 10, 2011 the U.S Senate defeated an extreme proposal offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) that would have prevented air pollution safeguards to protect millions of kids and other Americans from dangerous air pollution. Senator Paul's dirty air plan would lead to as many as 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 asthma attacks annually.

Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar were among those who voted against this extreme anti-environment agenda. This is exactly the type of leadership we are looking for when it comes to protecting public health and the environment.

As industry lobbyists and their friends in congress continue their assault on the EPA and the Clean Air Act MPIRG strongly encourages Senators Franken and Klobuchar to stand with Minnesotans and oppose attempts to weaken health and environmental standards that protect the public and our great outdoors.

Moving beyond bottled water

2011-11-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

As part of MPIRG at Augsburg’s sustainability awareness month, Augsburg is following in other MPIRG campus’ footsteps and working to ban the sales of bottled water on campus. Bottled water is harmful for many reasons ranging from issues surrounding the environment, health, economics and social equality. Not allowing this unjust product to be sold on our college campuses could be the first step to eliminating the bottled water industry.

Environmentally, plastic water bottles create more waste than a reusable water bottle filled with tap water. An astonishing 85% of plastic water bottles do not make it into the recycling bin, and rather sit in our landfills for years. It also takes millions of barrels of oil to make the plastic for a year’s worth of water bottles in the United States. This oil count isn’t even including the transportation necessary for the water to get from the point of creation to your door. This releases 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere yearly. Also, the plastic these bottles are made out of include toxic chemicals that can potentially leak into the water that the consumer is drinking out of the bottle.

A common misconception may lead you to believe that bottled water is healthier for you, but in truth, it can be much worse. As stated above, toxins from the plastic bottle can leak into the water. It is not, however, only the chemicals in the bottles that poses a risk to your health. The water that comes from one’s tap is controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency, and held to high safety standards. Individual companies that distribute water are overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, and held to less rigorous standards which allow more bacteria and other harmful products into your drinking water.

Bottled water is also economically unjust. Bottled water can cost five hundred times more than tap water. This leads to a problem with accessibility. Bottled water companies are turning water, a human necessity, into a commodity. Bottled water companies have continually sold water at a market price, rather than a price that all people can afford. No company, person, or entity should own water. Basic needs such as water should be accessible to everyone at a fair price.

With all these issues surrounding bottled water, it is to no one’s surprise that so many MPIRG campuses are tackling the issue. Macalester College, one of our chapter schools, has already successfully banned the sale of bottled water on their campus. MPIRG chapters at not only Augsburg, but also University of Minnesota Twin Cities, University of Minnesota Morris, and Hamline all have similar Ban the Bottle campaigns running on their campus this year. Hopefully, these campuses will start a statewide, and then national, trend of banning the sale of bottled water on college campuses, teaching young people that bottled water is an unnecessary commodity.

Written by BreAnna Bemboom

Klobuchar ignores students’ concerns about the Clean Air Act

2011-10-25T08:15:00.001-07:00

On Wednesday, October 19^th, members of MPIRG and several other youth environmental groups met with Senator Amy Klobuchar’s office to ask for the Senator’s support in defending the Clean Air Act, particularly against the Rand Paul Congressional Review of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. Natalie Cook (Chair of the Student Board of Directors) and Logan Bailey (UMTC chapter) represented MPIRG at the meeting, which was headed by Christy Newell of the Will Steger Foundation.

We met with Greg Bohrer, Sen. Klobuchar’s energy and environmental legislative correspondent, and explained why defending the Clean Air Act was so important to us, our generation, and the state of Minnesota. The Clean Air Act has been vital in protecting the nation’s health, and attacks on the clean air standards would weaken regulations on harmful pollutants such as mercury, ozone, and greenhouse gases. These attacks are part of an alarming trend of anti-EPA legislation. This is of special concern to us, young adults, because the energy and environmental policy decisions of today will affect us for decades to come. The problems caused by pollution, global warming, and diminishing natural resources will be our generation’s burden to bear.

Amy Klobuchar’s past environmental voting record was also discussed. For most of her term Sen. Klobuchar has been supportive of pro-environment legislation, but her stance has softened considerably in the past year. In April 2011, she voted in favor of two separate attempts to weaken the Clean Air Act, the Baucus Amendment and the Stabenow Amendment. We expressed our concern and disappointment over these votes, as well as with the Senator’s reluctance to voice support for environmental regulations.

Mr. Bohrer was asked multiple times if Sen. Klobuchar would make a speech or public statement in strong support of the Clean Air Act. We continued to stress this point as we talked about the current attitude towards environmental regulation. The debates over global warming and the EPA have been marked by a belief that environmental regulation restricts industry. This is simply not true. Regulation creates the opportunity for innovation and for growth in the green economy. Several of us at the meeting are working or studying in environmental fields, and we spoke to Mr. Bohrer about our personal experiences and our frustration with the lack of support by our representatives. Not standing up to anti-science and anti-environment attitudes only discourages bright young adults from pursuing green jobs.

We were told that Amy Klobuchar will not make a speech in support of the Clean Air Act. She is unwilling to threaten relations with her Republican colleagues whom she hopes to work with on other issues. She also has not decided on which way she will vote on the Congressional Review of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, a rule that is estimated to save up to 34,000 lives a year. By not defending the Clean Air Act, Amy Klobuchar is allowing attacks on the public health of Minnesota.

It was disappointing to learn that Sen. Klobuchar is on the fence regarding the Rand Paul review, but there were a few positives to take away from the meeting. Mr. Bohrer promised to pass along our concerns to the Senator, and encouraged us to keep communicating with her office. Youth will make up 22% of the eligible vote when Sen. Klobuchar runs for re-election next year, so our voices are sure to be heard.

Written by Logan Bailey

Students Ask Senator Al Franken to Support Clean Air

2011-10-17T10:53:00.000-07:00

Members from a variety of environmental student groups met with Senator Al Franken’s office on Wednesday, October 12th, asking if Senator Franken will commit to defend the Clean Air Act from future attack in Congress, and to speak in support of Clear Air Act safeguards on the floor. We also asked that Senator Franken help stop attacks on clean air by voting against the Rand Congress Review resolution on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. The Cross State Air Pollution Rule allows the Environmental Protection Agency to protect downwind states from pollution from their neighbors. The review calls for formally repealing this rule. We also raised our concerns about the political culture of today that is so critical of the EPA, and we voiced our support of the good work the EPA does.

Health Concerns: The Clean Air Act is vital to the health of our nation. The amendments being challenged will prevent over 230,000 early deaths by 2020. A healthier nation is a more productive economic nation. Protecting the Clean Air Act is a long term investment in our health and economy.

Protecting the Next Generation: Future generations will look back on what action we take on this issue, just as we look back on the creation of Clean Air Act. We need to make the right choices for our future. We explained from personal experience that graduates coming out of college today would work in the environmental field if there were opportunities and support for it. Instead much of the money today is in Oil and Coal industries. Attacks on the EPA and environmental regulations eliminate job growth and opportunities for young people to seek careers in this important field. We need to foster an atmosphere of support for the environment in order to see real change.

We received a very favorable reception from Senator Franken’s staff. We met with Alana Petersen, State Director for Senator Franken, and Al Juhnke, the Senators Agriculture and Energy Field Representative. Petersen and Juhnke spoke about the Senator’s commitment to making educated decisions on these matters. They encouraged people to contact their representatives and senators. Our legislators take it seriously when we bring matters to the table, and it is an essential part of the process for constituents to be vocal in what needs to be done.

In attendance were Natalie Tungsvik, MPIRG Student Board of Directors Chair from Hamline University, Cora Ellenson-Myers and Logan Bailey from the UMN MPIRG chapter, Tim Sheehan, Co-Chair of Yea!MN, Alyssa Tucker from the MN Youth Environmental Network, and Gretel Lee from UMN Campus Beyond Coal.

Written by Cora Ellenson-Myers.

What have we been up to?

2011-10-12T13:51:00.001-07:00

The beginning of September brought the start of a new academic year, new students, and new opportunities. We’ve spent the last month talking g to thousands of Minnesota college students about issues related to the environment, health care, affordable higher education, democracy, economic justice, and gender and sexuality. Talking with thousands of young people about pressing social and environmental issues facing society begs the question, “What can we do about it?” MPIRG is there to engage these students through our work so they can have a measurable impact on something they care about. This combination of raising awareness on important issues and providing a direct outlet through which students can engage inspired almost 500 students to attend MPIRG kick off meetings this fall. About 300 of those students will attend weekly meetings and regularly engage in our work. The remaining 200 and some additional students that will join throughout the semester will help when their schedules allow. Hundreds of dedicated student volunteers paired with an excellent staff of organizers and issue advocates teamed with one of the largest canvass operations in the state is the making of a powerful, organized movement for social change.

This weekend, we will host our annual fall retreat. More than 100 college students and MPIRG staff from across Minnesota will spend a weekend learning about and discussing important issues, electing the organization’s public policy agenda, and attending trainings on a variety of grassroots organizing and advocacy skills. This annual event serves as a way to refine the organizing and advocacy skills of our students and educate them on important issues, but it also serves as a way to build cohesion amongst the students and staff from across Minnesota so that we can better operate as an organized movement.

The Clean Air Act is Under Attack Again? Seriously?

2011-09-19T10:08:00.000-07:00

In 1970, then Republican President Richard Millhouse Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act to encourage economic growth while promoting public health. After more than 40 years it has been pivotal in preventing more than 200,000 premature deaths, avoiding more than 700,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, and decreasing total emissions of the six principle air pollutants by 41%. Over the same period of time the GDP has increased by more than 64%. This is one successful piece of public policy and anyone that tells you otherwise is probably benefiting financially from the dirty coal industry or other polluters.

Regardless, those industry polluters are at it again and have identified the Clean Air Act as there poster child of burdensome, over reaching policies. These industry leaders have made massive investments in politicians and “advocacy” organizations that disseminate their economic scare tactics. They claim the Clean Air Act is the type of policy that impedes economic growth despite the major economic growth the United States has seen over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, history and facts are not on their side, but fortunately for them, they have the ability to mobilize a group of people that don’t know the history and disregard fact. That’s why MPIRG will be fighting back!

This fall, as the propaganda machine revs up for the 2012 election watch out for misleading attacks on bedrock public policy like the Clean Air Act. MPIRG will be working to counter these well funded attacks with some good old fashioned grassroots organizing and public education.

We at MPIRG believe that citizens deserve basic public health and environmental standards and that industry should utilize innovations spurred on from the market to improve the negative impacts they have on public health and the environment.

We can have both a robust economy and clean air, but it will take a little old fashioned American ingenuity.

Why we're excited about the 2011/2012 academic year

2011-09-14T10:31:00.000-07:00

Another school year is finally upon us which, for MPIRG, means another
year of dedication to grassroots organizing. For those of you familiar
with MPIRG, I would imagine you are already quivering in anticipation with
the prospects of what can be accomplished this year. And I can assure you
much will be accomplished! For those of you new to the world of MPIRG and
progressive activism let me start by way of introduction to our
organization.

MPIRG, or Minnesota Public Interest Research Group is a 40 year old non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization committed to fighting for environmental and social justice in
the great state of Minnesota. There are, however, a few things that separate us from the other organizations you will come across on your campuses and throughout the state. The first thing that sets us apart from other non-profits in the state is that we are COMPLETELY student
directed and have been since our creation in 1971 when students at the University of Minnesota decided they wanted representation at the capitol and gathered petition signatures from a majority of the student body. Our board of directors is composed of students from all of our MPIRG schools—University of Minnesota-TC, University of Minnesota-Duluth, University of Minnesota-Morris, St Catherine University, Macalester College, Hamline University, and Augsburg College. These board members are responsible for everything from hiring and firing staff to budgeting for a state-wide non-profit organization. The power is truly in our, and more importantly all of your hands. As a student at an MPIRG school you are this organization and your involvement, or noninvolvement is what will decide where this organization, and even this state, goes in the future.

Another thing that separates us from the other organizations you might come across while deciding to get involved over the course of your next few years in college is that we get things
done! We have built a 40 year track record of accomplishing what we set out to do throughout the state of Minnesota. These accomplishments range from making the boundary waters canoe area a paddle only area in 1978 to mandating business recycling in the city of Minneapolis just weeks ago, to creating composting initiatives on campuses across the state. When we say we want to see change we don’t idealistically flounder about hoping and wishing for change but provide our students with the skills and resources to make a tangible change in our state.

So, what are we working on now, and how can you get involved? We are currently running three more broad three-year campaigns which are as follows: Health Care for All, Affordable Higher
Education, and Environomics(working to improve our environment and economic conditions simultaneously). These campaigns, however, are just the tip of the iceberg as MPIRG works on a multitude of different issues at each of its individual campuses.

You all are looking for ways to get involved, why not make some real change while you’re at it. Keep on the lookout for intro meetings at each of your respective schools and if you have any questions feel free to contact your local co-chairs, board members, or organizers as well as either of us. We are looking forward to having a great and productive year, and I can assure you, you will never have this much fun getting this much done! We hope to see all kinds of new faces over the course of the next year, and hopefully reading this will motivate you to get involved!

Sincerely,

Your Chair and Vice chair of MPIRG, respectively Natalie Tungsvick and
Lucas Felts

Business Recycling Comes to Minneapolis

2011-06-20T10:17:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 17, 2011

Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG)

Contact: Adam Luesse, 612-532-6990, adamluesse@gmail.com

Council Member Cam Gordon, 673-2202, Cam.Gordon@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Magda Bilska, 701-373-5453, magda@mpirg.org

Minneapolis City Council Unanimously Passes Business Recycling Ordinance, Bringing the City One Step Closer to Its Goal of Going Green!

Earlier today, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to require that all commercial buildings implement recycling programs to reduce the solid waste that ends in the garbage stream. The Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) joins thousands of community members in applauding the decision, which brings Minneapolis closer to its goal of becoming a sustainable city.

“There has been broad support for this proposal throughout Minneapolis. We have received letters of support, for example from both the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and the SIERRA Club. I see this as a major step forward for waste reduction and greening our city, and think that it helps set a baseline expectation that recycling is not new and not difficult, but simply the way that we deal with waste in Minneapolis." said Council Member Cam Gordon.

The ordinance had a simple beginning. While working at a local bar during college, University of Minnesota student Adam Luesse noticed the establishment was not recycling. “I thought it was just common sense, so I brought my concern to a MPIRG chapter meeting. Together we met with Council Member Gordon, who jumped at the opportunity to work with stake holders and develop a recycling solution that businesses could support.”

Minneapolis joins cities across the country in business recycling programs, including Washington, D.C and Portland, OR. When San Fransisco, CA implemented the program, they reduced more than 75% of waste created by commercial buildings just six months after implementation.

“Over the year MPIRG's field canvass has spoken with over 11,000 Minneapolis residents about the Ordinance, gained 3,500 members able to help, and collect over 200 calls to action to the Council. The supportive response has been overwhelming...most people we spoke with were not aware this was not already a law and wanted to help any way they could,” said Magda Bilska, Canvass Director of MPRIG.

In addition to the out pour of support from Minneapolis residents, the Minneapolis business community’s commitment to commercial recycling is staggering. In a questionnaire the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce sent to member businesses, 90% of respondents reported recycling at least part of their waste. Recycling is now seen as part of the operating cost of running a business in Minneapolis.

“This vote proves once again Minneapolis’ commitment to becoming a green city. We are excited for the many options to continue reducing solid that are gaining support, such as organic recycling” said MPIRG Executive Director Josh Winters.

The new law will go in to effect on September 1, 2011.

Minneapolis Business Recycling Advances to Full City Council

2011-06-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

Magda Bilska, MPIRG's Field Canvasser Director, testifies on behalf of MPIRG's strong membership base as to the need and support for a business recycling requirement in Minneapolis. She was followed by Adam Luesse, an MPIRG student whose launched our work on this issue, testifies in favor of this common sense step forward to making Minneapolis a more sustainable city. The committee passed the measure out of committee unanimously. Next stop: the full Minneapolis City Council on June 17. Hope to see you there!

MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESS RECYCLING VOTE JUNE 6th!

2011-05-19T11:51:00.000-07:00

MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESS RECYCLING VOTE JUNE 6th!
CALL TO ACTION: MINNEAPOLITANS, CONTACT YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER TODAY!

Over the past year, MPIRG has led the promotion of a greener Minneapolis through expanding our recycling programs. Read more about this initiative HERE!

The Minneapolis Council Committee on Regulatory, Energy & Environment is preparing to vote on this long awaited ordinance! The vote will be critical toward implementing a comprehensive recycling program. Please plan to attend!

What: Minneapolis Council Committee on Regulatory, Energy & Environment
When: Monday, June 6, 2011 at 1:30PM
Where: Minneapolis City Hall, Council Chamber 317

NOW is the time to make sure YOUR Council Member supports business recycling - please take a moment to do so TODAY! See below to find your Council Member’s contact information, use our easy phone and email templates provided, and help send a strong message that our City is ready to take the next step towards environmental responsibility! Together, we can pass this ordinance!

Ward 1: Kevin Reich, 612-673-2201, Kevin.Reich@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 2: Cam Gordon, 612-763-2202, Cam.Gordon@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 3: Diane Hofstede, 612-673-2203, Diane.Hofstede@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 4: Barbara Johnson, 612-673-2204, FORM
Ward 5: Don Samuels, 612-67302205, Don.Samuels@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 6: Robert Lilligren, 612-673-2206, Robert.Lilligren@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 7: Lisa Goodman, 612-673-2207, FORM
Ward 8: Elizabeth Glidden, 612-673-2208, Elizabeth.Glidden@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 9: Gary Schiff, 612-673-2209, FORM
Ward 10: Meg Tuthill, 612-673-2210, Meg.Tuthill@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 11: John Quincy, 612-673-2211, John.Quincy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Ward 12: Sandy Colvin Roy, 612-673-2212, FORM
Ward 13: Betsy Hodges, 612-673-2213, FORM
OR find your Council Member on this map: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/

Email sample script for contacting your Minneapolis city council member
Phone sample script for contacting your Minneapolis city council member

Crank Up Your Brain

2011-05-05T07:53:00.000-07:00

Check out this story from the Northland News Center or watch the video below as Brittany Meyer-Madges from MPIRG at UMD shares the importance of bicycling to reduce one's carbon footprint, live a healthy lifestyle, and make a smoothie while you're at it!

Twin Cities Take Back the Night

2011-04-28T10:18:00.000-07:00

Twin Cities Take Back the Night 2011, a march and rally to combat sexual violence, will be held at Minneapolis Community and Technical College Plaza on Apr. 29 from 6:00 to 9:30 p.m.

The Twin Cities have hosted an annual Take Back the Night event for decades. Each year, community members have taken this opportunity to raise awareness about sexual violence in the area.

The upcoming event boasts the theme, “Using radical resistance to challenge rape culture and to create safe and transformative healing processes for survivors of sexual violence.” The planning coalition has been operating under a definition of sexual violence that not only includes rape and sexual assault but also violence based on actual or perceived sex or sexual orientation.

Attendees will be able to access a variety of new resources including informational materials from sponsors, on-site crisis counseling by trained staff from the Aurora Center for Advocacy and Education, and security personnel and marshals for the event and march. ASL interpretation has been arranged.

This year’s event will begin with a rally, featuring several speakers and performers including music by Ashley Gold. A march through downtown Minneapolis will follow.

As in past years, the event will close with a candlelight vigil and “speak-out” where attendees may speak to the group about their thoughts and experiences surrounding the issue of sexual violence.

Everyone is welcome to attend this Take Back the Night event. The MCTC campus is readily accessible via pubic transit, located along lines 2, 6, and 12.

For more information, find our Facebook event page, listed under Twin Cities Take Back the Night 2011 or e-mail twincitiestbtn@gmail.com.

Minnesota Election Integrity vs. Voter Disenfranchisement

2011-04-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

To what degree would the requirement for a voter to present a photo identification card at the polls impact a state election in Minnesota? The answer is, we’re not entirely sure yet.

Video and text by Marisa Wojcik

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, is the author of SF 509 which would mandate such an identification card when Minnesotans went to the polls. Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake and former Secretary of State, authored the House companion legislation, HF 210. As the bills advance in both the House and the Senate, issues of the bills’ monetary costs, election integrity, voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement have been major concerns.

Even though there are currently eight states with photo identification laws currently in effect, we are still missing crucial data that would help determine the effectiveness of such a law. There are no studies that examine the effects of a photo identification law on a state’s election, which is the first problem Minnesota runs into when discussing whether this is necessary for the state. Studies and reports can examine turnout and fraud rates across various states, but does not pinpoint whether or not a photo identification was the factor among factors at play.

“There is a shortage of empirical evidence,” said Professor David Schultz of Hamline University. Professor Schultz wrote and published two studies on voter fraud in the United States. Both studies found that the level of voter fraud that occurs in the United States cannot be determined as significant in effecting the outcome of an election.

The Paradox

Studies such as “Facts About Ineligible Voting and Voter Fraud in Minnesota” written and published by Citizens for Election Integrity or “Less than Fundeamental: The Myth of Voter Fraud and the Coming of the Second Great Disenfranchisement” written by Professor Schultz, have shown that voter fraud is near to negligible in considering election outcomes. The CEIM study found that .0404 percent of all people who voted in Minnesota were investigated for voter fraud in the November 2010 elections. However, “an investigation does not indicate guilt,” the study says. “Based on the survey, nine ten-thousandths of one percent (0.0009%) of 2008 voters were convicted of fraud.”

The response from proponents of photo identification legislation is that the fraud could be there, we just don’t know about it, so why take a chance? For states such as Indiana, following the adoption of a photo identification law, there was no increased detection of voter fraud. For proponents of photo identification, this says that photo identification works because any fraud that was occurring without adoption of the law has now been put to an end.

For opponents of the photo identification, this says that one of the chief arguments in favor of the law is now questionable because there was no fraud to prevent.

Disenfranchisement

There is potential for Minnesota citizens to be unable to vote if a voter photo identification card is required at the polls. Students returning to class in September have transient living situations and are subject to move roughly once a year. If they don’t have the correct current address on their photo identification card it must be renewed with every move. Many students in Minnesota are not originally from the state. For out-of-state students, their driver’s license will not suffice and a special voter card must be issued.

Senior citizens, citizens with disabilities and citizens who are homeless or living in a temporary residence will have to deal with issues of transportation to obtain the identification card prior to the election and proof of residence for that district. The state of Minnesota cannot dictate what goes onto the identification cards of the 11 American Indian tribes.

Kathy Bonnifield of Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota says we shouldn’t be so hung up on what the possible intentions behind adopting a photo identification law. Instead, we need to look at the impact.

Integrity

Those in favor of the legislation say it will increase integrity by insuring Minnesota that fraudulent voting is not occurring. Bonnifield warns it could potentially decrease the integrity of our elections.

“When you talk about election integrity, it includes as many eligible voters as possible. Excluding eligible voters means there might be an election integrity issue where the people elected into office really don’t represent all eligible voters, it would only mean all eligible voters who happened to have the proper i.d.,” said Bonnifield.

A balanced approach to the state's budget deficit

2011-04-27T08:41:00.000-07:00

With the 13% proposed cuts to higher education and nearly 40% proposed cuts to transit, Emma Wright, a student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities and MPIRG board member, shares why revenues need to be a part of any solution to Minnesota's budget deficit.

The next step in expanding garbage incineration in Minneapolis

2011-04-20T17:12:00.000-07:00

In 2009, the Hennipen Energy Recovery Center (HERC) located next to Target Field and operated by the multinational company Covanta, applied for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow the facility to increase its garbage incineration amount from 1,000 tons to 1,212 tons per day. This includes about ten tons of material that is considered hazardous household waste. The Minneapolis Planning Commission denied Covanta the CUP. Covanta, despite neglecting to provide the MPCA with the sufficient information required to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, is appealing the planning commission’s decision.

Proponents of garbage incineration often cite the unsustainable, environmentally devastating effects of landfilling solid waste and point to the energy generation advantage incineration produces to distract inquiring citizens from the environmental effects of incineration. Unfortunately, in addition to toxins like mercury and dioxins emitted from burning solid waste, garbage incineration doesn’t even eliminate landfilling from the equation and instead fills the earth with the toxic ash waste produced from burning garbage.

Recently, 14 state legislators representing Minneapolis have signed a letter calling for Covanta to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which will provide a comprehensive environmental evaluation of the proposed expansion of garbage incineration at HERC. Such a review hasn’t been completed in more than 20 years. Covanta will claim that the request for an EIS is burdensome, that it could take an additional 9 to 12 months, and that it could cost up to $250,000. It’s already been well over a year since they applied for the permit so 9 to 12 more months is probably fine. Covanta CEO Anthony Orlando’s annual salary of $4.7 million tells me the company is in a fiscally stable position and can afford a study that proves their garbage incineration plant in Minneapolis, Minnesota is safe for our children, air, water, and soil.

At MPIRG, we believe the solution to solid waste management has less to do with incineration or landfilling and much more to do with how we’re using resources. Better yet, how we’re reducing, reusing, and recycling these resources. A comprehensive zero waste plan must be developed and implemented for the City of Minneapolis. Until then, MPIRG stands with these state legislators and strongly encourages the Minneapolis City Council to require Covanta to complete an EIS before this project moves forward. This would be the responsible, ethical way to pursue the expansion of a facility that burns materials which emit toxic chemicals in our community.

Tar Sands in DC: Powershift 2011

2011-04-16T05:58:00.000-07:00

Canada's Dirty Oil: breaking our addiction - Political audience from Dirty Oil Sands on Vimeo.

Here at Powershift 2011, climate activists are talking about the tar sands. Today we'll hear a panel consisting of Danielle Droitsch, Director of U.S. Policy at the Pembina Institute (Alberta); Zach Porter, Campaign Coordinator at All Against The Haul (Montana); Ashley Anderson, Director of Peaceful Uprising (Utah); Elizabeth Shope from the Natural Resources Defense Council; Ryan Salmon, Energy Policy Advisor for the National Wildlife Federation's Climate and Energy Program; Alex Moore, Dirty Fuels Campaigner at Friends of the Earth (San Francisco) and Brant Olson from Rainforest Action Network.

Across town from Powershift near the Lincoln Memorial is the US Department of State, which yesterday released the tentative copy of the environmental impact statement for TransCanada's Keystone XL oil pipeline. The 320 page "supplemental" document is a follow up to the first environmental impact statement which drew heavy criticism from the EPA, ultimately delaying US approval of the Keystone XL to this point. The State Department will be accepting public comments from April 22nd to June 6th. More on where to send letters coming soon.

Here's a copy of the new report itself http://bit.ly/eFXVH3 as well as the April 4th letter to Sec. Clinton http://bit.ly/dHXYss

LRT and Complete Streets on the Chopping Block

2011-04-14T20:28:00.000-07:00

In addition to the massive cuts coming from the House and Senate Transportation Committees an important project for transit and a critical policy for MN are under threat of being defunded and abolished. The first is the Central Corridor light rail, menaced by a proposed immediate full stop and canceled funding by HF1232. The second is the complete streets policy, adopted last year, in danger of being dismantled by HF0518.

The Central Corridor, more than three years in the making, would provide a much needed speedy and reliable light rail bridge between the Twin Cities downtown areas. Currently, anyone wanting to travel by bus must budget for a 1 (if they’re lucky) to 3 hour trip on the 16. Not that I don’t love the bus, I take it everyday, but light rail along University would be a vast improvement over buses alone. Anyone riding the bus during the day knows that routes along University Ave are already at capacity if not over. When you take into consideration rising gas prices, and reduced incomes (due to the recession) more and more people have been, and will be, using transit.

When considering all of these factors one would immediately grasp the necessity of the light rail system we are in the process of building (or rebuilding for that matter). However, Representative Larry Howes (R, District 04B) and others in the legislature want to put the brakes on the project. The current bill (HF1232) would cancel appropriations for the project and halt its progress. It nearly goes without saying that this is a ridiculous idea, in that it merits only ridicule. Hundreds of people, organizations, government agencies, and business have spent time and resources planning this project for years. The money raised by an increased county sales tax to fund the project will now be effectively stolen. Construction companies and hundreds of construction workers (who would pay some of it back in taxes) will lose their contracts. And finally, interest rates will go up for county governments and the state as we attempt to pay back money we borrowed for the project, damaging our future ability to borrow. Canceling the light rail will hurt more in the short term and the long term than it could possible help the state budget for this year alone.

While it would be ridiculous to halt the light rail it would lunacy to repeal our Complete Streets (CS) policy. For those who don't know, CS is a low to no cost high impact policy whereby we design our streets with more than simply cars in mind. The benefits are numerous including increased safety for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists, better health due to air quality, and equality of access for the elderly, children, and people with disabilities. Overall complete streets is a multimodal and holistic policy outlook. There are three reasons why CS can be low or even no cost. The first is that (being smart and thrifty Minnesotan's) we have written the current policy so that it only takes effect when streets are going to be resurfaced or expanded. It does not mean expensively redoing all streets immediately. The second is that most of the improvements of CS can be accomplished with painted lines, as in the case of bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks, or even simple signage to reduce speed. The third reason is that CS is applied on a case by case basis so if the street requires such improvements it will get them. There is little need to but bike lanes on every street, but most do need sidewalks, and all need wheelchair ramps.

Like the Central Corridor, Complete Streets is on the chopping block. The difference though, is that where the Central Corridor does cost a significant amount of money, CS has little to no cost, only benefits. That fact however, did not dissuade Representative Leidiger (R, District 34A) and others from authoring the bill. There is no good argument against a comprehensive Complete Streets policy. It does not drain funds from another agency or region because it costs almost nothing. It does not improve urban areas at the expense of rural areas because it has advantages for both. It does not penalize automobile drivers because it seeks to incorporate all modes of transportation.

What it does do is improve the safety, health, and livability of communities across Minnesota. It makes no sense to repeal the Complete Streets policy.

Call, email, and write letters urging your senators and representatives to make the sensible decision – keep the Light Rail and Complete Streets alive.

To find our who represents you, and their contact information, visit http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

New Bill Focuses on Protecting Public Health from Toxic Chemicals

2011-04-14T18:05:00.001-07:00

Earlier today, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act aimed at contemporizing the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA, passed in 1976, grandfathered tens of thousands of chemicals into U.S. markets without adequate evaluation for health and environmental standards, and provided limited authority for the U.S. EPA to protect public health.

The introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act is a monumental step forward for U.S. families, children, and workers. Conventional wisdom dictates the failure of TSCA to actually protect public health and the environment. Out of more than 80,000 industrial chemicals, the EPA had the authority to test only 200 of these chemicals and the power to regulate five. It took the EPA well over a decade to regulate asbestos, a well known carcinogen.

Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar demonstrated exceptional leadership when they signed on as original co-authors of this innovative bill that really puts the U.S. on track to catch up with the changing global tide of how we use chemicals in consumer products.

The Safe Chemicals Act will change the way we review and regulate chemicals we use in our everyday products.

What MPIRG likes about the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act:

Requires immediate action on Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs), which are chemicals that build up in the food chain and do not break down in the natural environment

Requires basic health and safety information for all new chemicals entering the market.

Reduces the burden of disproportional exposure to toxic chemicals for people of color and low income and indigenous communities.

Upgrades the scientific methods for testing and evaluation of chemicals as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

The 2011 Safe Chemicals Act is indeed a reason to celebrate. Is it common sense legislation that protects public health and the environment? Yes, but as history shows there are deep rooted financial interests that will fight these reforms tooth and nail and so environmental health advocates and organizers will dig their heels in to prepare for an epic battle. MPIRG will continue to engage in this struggle and report live from the front lines.

Korea Free Trade Agreement

2011-04-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

Korea Free Trade Agreement

Letter to the Editor: Minnesota Daily

By Anna Gedstad (Economic Justice Committee of MPIRG)

In early December, President Obama touted the potential benefits of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the largest free trade accord since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. The proposed agreement was signed by former President Bush in 2007, but didn't make it to Congress, and with good reason: it will have destructive effects on America's economy, the environment, and workers' rights.

During the NAFTA period (1993-2009), Minnesota lost over 50,000 manufacturing jobs to outsourcing. Likewise, the Korea FTA nearly ensures that American jobs will continue to be outsourced to foreign countries where workers have been subjected to harsh conditions and low wages. In addition, the agreement will reduce auto emission regulations on motor companies, and in turn help to reverse the progress that automakers are making towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. Not surprisingly, the United States is currently running a half trillion-dollar trade deficit that will increase as a result of the Korea FTA, according to the United States International Trade Commission.

The Korea FTA will extend the irresponsible deregulatory policies that landed the American economy in its dismal state. If President Obama and Congress intend to rescue the United States' economic vitality, it is imperative that the Agreement is not approved.

Transit in Trouble

2011-04-01T15:26:00.000-07:00

As students living on or near campus many of us often use or are at least familiar with Metro Transit. Some of us, who don’t have the money to afford a car or choose not own one, are even what could be termed transit dependent. I for one cannot afford to own a car and so use the bus to get from my apartment to Hamline, to get to my internship, and to go to Rosedale mall or Grand Ave. Transit allows people, especially those with low incomes, to get to work. It gives mobility to many elderly and people with disabilities. It grants students (high school an college alike) freedom from the expense of owning a car.

Transit, however, is facing deep cuts in the face of the state’s deficit. The bill which passed through the Senate Transportation Committee includes nearly 40% in funding cuts overall to Metro Transit. The likely results of such a funding decrease would be a reduction in route frequency with as many as 200 fewer buses running at peak transit times, an 18% reduction in whole bus routes, and a $0.25 to $0.50 fare increase. The cuts laid out in the bill which passed the House Transportation Committee could result in as much as a $4.00 fare increase or a 45% cut to regular bus routes, a laying off of 550 drivers and a reduction of Metro Mobility services.

The argument driving many of the proposed cuts is that reducing funding will increase efficiency. While this sounds appealing (who doesn’t want more efficient services after all) Metro Transit has already been rated the second most efficiently run transit system among peer regions. Also, our relatively small system has already been made smaller by a 10% contraction in size in 2002. Any proposed cuts to funding will result in a reduction of service across the state. Rural Minnesota, for example, is already underserved by transit despite the fact that a large number of elderly and people with disabilities (two demographics which rely heavily on transit) live outside of the Metro Area.

While it is true that the state of Minnesota faces a serious budget deficit, funding for our transit system, like education, is an investment in our future development. Not only do many people use transit to get to work (as many as 60% of riders are going to or from their jobs) but one major factor that businesses take into account when considering where to locate is the transit system in that state/city. Even the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce cautioned that deep cuts could hamper future economic growth.

Cutting transit this deeply will have a strong and lasting negative impact on students, low income earners, the elderly, people with disabilities, jobs, businesses, growth and even car owners. Congestion, for one, would be much worse if not for transit ridership on the several Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors we have on our roads and freeways. The economic loss due to congestion in Minnesota was pegged as high as $1.1 Billion back in 2008. The simple fact is that when transit is reduced, it pushes many people off of buses and rail and into cars, raising demand for gas, and increasing air pollution and congestion costing us huge amounts of time, fuel, and money.

Additionally, of those people who are pushed out of buses, not all have the option of owning a car. Many low income people simply cannot afford to switch from bus to car and as such, when we no longer offer them a bus, they must give up their job and livelihood. Without a healthy transit system people, especially the elderly, are often unable to go clinics for checkups or pharmacies for medication. In the end though, the state will pay for their transportation be it by bus, by ambulance, or by hearse. Make no mistake, such a drastic reduction in transit funding will hurt people and the economic vitality of our state.

However some people may frame the debate about the budget and about transit just remember this:

This is not a debate between bus riders and car owners.
This is not a debate between workers and business.
This is not a debate between wealthy and poor.
This is not a debate between rural and urban.

This is a debate between a short term budget and the long term economic and environmental viability of our state. We must decide now, as a state, how we wish proceed. Will we cut vital services in order to make a small dent in this year’s state budget? Or, will we bite the bullet and invest in a vibrant and equitable future which can only be brought about with a robust transit system.

Call your State Senator and your Representive today. To find our who represents you, and their
contact information, visit http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

MPIRG Students Testify on Impact to Students from Transit Cuts

2011-03-22T15:13:00.000-07:00

Natalie Tungsvik, Hamline University and Vice Chair of MPIRG's Board testifies alongside Emma Wright, University of Minnesota Twin Cities and MPIRG Board Member, on the negative impacts to students and broader community as a result to cuts in transit funding. Check it out...

MPIRG Students Testify Again in Opposition to Voter ID

2011-03-16T09:31:00.000-07:00

On March 14, Ben Hellerstein from Carleton College and Ben Surma from Hamline University shared with the Senate Local Government and Elections committee concerns from students about how they will be left out of the process if this legislation passes.

Check it out to learn more!

Trials and Stribulations in the Mainstream Press.

2011-03-04T14:11:00.000-08:00

Lot's of talk about Canadian oil in the Star Tribune lately. First, Neal St. Anthony's well intended/misinformed column. Then a news piece about a recent report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. There there was this response from some guy at the American Petroleum Institute--the same lobbying group that have generously provided high school science teachers around the country with such fine educational videos as "Fuel-less: You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel." Who know's if they'll publish my venting--but hey, that's what blogs are for right?

The only one misconstruing the facts is the professional oil lobbyist, Peter Lidiak, whose Feb. 24 response intentionally avoided the premise of the article (“Pipeline safety questioned, Feb. 17) in order to deceive the public.

The NRDC report in question—a very manageable 16 pages—specifically focuses on “Dilbit,” a combination of the molasses like substance bitumen (the material extracted from the ground) and the array of highly corrosive chemicals used to dilute it.

US imports of bitumen have historically been refined into synthetic oil in Canada; however US imports drastically increased over the last decade, outpacing Canadian refining capacity. In response, new pipelines belonging to Enbridge and TransCanada, along with retrofitted US chemical refineries such as Flint Hills Resources in Rosemount, have allowed “DilBit” to instead be piped straight to the US for refining. The volume of this imported mixture increased fivefold in 2010 alone and has come to equal more than half of the 900,000 bpd of imported Canadian tar sands oil.

Two of the largest refineries that process Dilbit are in Minnesota and Illinois and the pipelines feeding them cross our land. To transport this new substance, pipelines will have to run at a much higher pressure, temperature and continually higher volumes. This is why Minnesotans should be worried.

The pipelines crossing our state are owned by Enbridge, the company responsible for last summer’s oil spill in Michigan. This ruptured pipeline—which is part of the same network as our own—leaked 840,000 gallons of petro-chemicals into the Kalamazoo River. And what were the contents of the pipeline at the time? According to Enbridge’s CEO, 2/3 bitumen, 1/3 diluents: DilBit. It’s going to cost them $475 million to “clean up.”

In demonstration to what American Petroleum Institute (API) would call “commitment to safety,” over the last eleven years ruptured pipelines belonging to Enbridge have spilled 1.1 million gallons of oil onto US soil and killed 3 people. Minnesota has experienced the most incidents of any state with 18 spills and 2 deaths. Those numbers are from the US Dept. of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, whose inspection staff, by their own admission, has been chronically understaffed since 1994.

The citizens of Minnesota (and columnists at this very publication, for that matter) must not be taken in by fallacies promoted by industry representatives. From extraction, through transportation unto combustion, this synthetic petroleum is neither safer nor environmentally preferable to conventional oil resources.

Minnesota Water at Risk

2011-02-22T12:27:00.000-08:00

Bills have been introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate to repeal 2009 amendments to Minn. Statutes §116G.15 which protect our water. These repeals will be overturning a 35 year bipartisan effort to protect the Mississippi’s critical areas. These repeals stop any new efforts to protect our water in Minnesota for 2 YEARS. This, in turn, theoretically stops the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from conducting some major research/work and subsequently violate the Clean Water Act.

Another interesting aspect of these repeals is that they are meant to “stream line” the system around water quality. The proposed way of doing this is by having regular employees doing the water research that the state needs. Senator Pederson said that there is some water research that MN would want to hire researchers to do. This brings up a few questions…

a) When will Minnesota know it is “the right time” to start using professional researchers?

b) Who determines “the right time”?

c) Does MN have the capacity to micro manage every case of all the water ways in MN to see if they deserve professional research?

d) Lastly, do people who work desk jobs at places like the DNR know how to do water research?!

It is environmental repeals like these that are going to send MN from being one of the leading states in environmental quality to playing catch up with basic technology we should have already had. Minnesota’s water is our states livelihood! It is one of the reasons people come to our beautiful state. MN congress people who do not work to protect Minnesotans right to fish, swim, boat, drink safe water etc. are sending a clear message to their constituents: Saving a buck or two is worth more than the safety of what makes Minnesota so unique-our water!

Don't Judge A Bill By It's Title

2011-02-18T10:44:00.000-08:00

The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, House File 199, was passed through the Minnesota House Health and Human Services Reform Committee Wednesday afternoon. Representative Steve Gottwalt (R) introduced the bill that says no individual can be mandated to have health care coverage under the United States Constitution.

The bill counters the measures put into place by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA. This new federal law mandates that all individuals have some form of health care or be penalized by the government. "The government has no authority to force someone to buy a product," Representative Kiffmeyer (R) said. Gottwalt said "Obamacare" is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and it is the states' freedom to make these decisions.

Emphasis on the ability to be "free to choose" spun the committee debate around "what does freedom mean?" The Citizens Council for Health Freedom was in attendance in support of H.F. 199. According to the group, freedom means the government cannot force an individual to have health insurance. The CCHF also said freedom means that those who cannot afford and do not qualify for health insurance are happy receive the charity of doctors who are free to give that care at no cost.

Representative Tina Liebling (DFL) responded to say that freedom means the ability to still be covered by your insurance plan even when your paycheck can't quite cover the whole cost. She continued to say that when those who can't afford health insurance end up with extensive medical bills, it's their neighbors who end up paying for the uncompensated care. Under the law of the ACA, the risk is spread in the insurance pool and you provide for your own costs to the extent that you are able.

Some members of the committee encouraged Gottwalt to consider the financial implications of this bill as there was no fiscal note included. Should the bill be passed in Minnesota it could be in direct conflict with federal law and challenged in the Supreme Court. If that were to happen, it could mean legal costs to the state.

H.F. 199 passed through the House's Health and Human Services Reform Committee with a roll call vote of 12 in favor and 9 opposed. It has now been referred to the House Government Operations and Elections Committee.

-Marisa Wojcik

MPIRG/UpTake Legislative Intern