Posted Friday, 03 July 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
(
The following article is reprinted from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.)
This past Sunday my family and I decided to walk to our local grocery store to purchase a few last minute items for our evening meal. On a whim, I directed my kids to turn onto Bryant Avenue and informed them that there was a scenic bridge spanning the Minnehaha Creek.
When we arrived I was mildly disappointed to find that the Bryant Avenue pedestrian bridge was closed. A sign informed us that we could cross at either Lyndale Avenue (two blocks to the east) or Dupont Avenue (two blocks to the west). We opted for Lyndale and agreed to cross at DuPont on our return trip.
The following day I was reading our neighborhood newspaper, The Southwest Journal, and I stumbled upon a small article entitled “Pedestrian bridge fix-up could begin soon.” “Hallelujah,” I said.
I then read the remainder of the article and my point of view changed, dramatically.
Due to the actions of the Metropolitan Council I learned the bridge is slated to receive $382,000 in federal stimulus money. (The project will receive an additional $95,000 from the city for a total cost of $477,000.)
Now, I’m no crank or curmudgeon and I’d love to see the bridge safely restored to its former glory as much as anyone but, in its own way, this project is as egregious as the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.
I fully recognize that the latter bridge was projected to cost a mind-boggling $250 million but this bridge is no less a waste of taxpayer money – it is just doing it on a smaller scale.
In one sense it would be easy for me to look the other way and say, “What the hell. The $382,000 bill is a mere drop in the ocean of America’s debt.”Alternatively, I could look the other way and rationalize away the project by arguing that similar projects of questionable merit litter America’s neighborhoods and communities -- from Arkansas to Alaska -- and it’s only fair that Southwest Minneapolis receive its share.
But I can’t and I won’t.
The national debt now stands at a truly staggering $11.3 trillion -- about $37,000 per person or $148,000 for a family of four. In other words, my family’s share of the national debt equates to just under half the cost of the Bryant Avenue Bridge.
The bridge, of course, is only symbol of a much larger problem but it is time all of us, including the residents of Southwest Minneapolis, begin making small sacrifices.
In my case, my family and I had to walk two additional blocks to cross the creek at Lyndale. On our return trip was only slightly more burdensome. We crossed at DuPont and I had to carry my son’s bike down some stairs, cross a smaller foot bridge, and then I had to carry his bike back up another flight of stairs.
At the time I thought nothing of my actions but, in retrospect, if I have to continue to make such small sacrifices so he won’t be burdened with even a greater share of this country’s national debt in the future, I will gladly do so.
And that, in the end, what this is all about: every one of us needs to realize that the massive legacy of the national debt is not simply created by other people. It is created by millions of citizens who are either not paying attention; are actively looking the other way; or, ultimately, unwilling to do without things which really aren’t that vital or important.
Bridges are all fine and well but whether they are a $250 million “bridge to nowhere” or a questionable $382,000 “stimulus project,” they are both a waste of taxpayer money and they are taking this country down a slow road to fiscal oblivion and that’s a path I’d prefer not to take.
Posted Wednesday, 17 June 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
One of my favorite Monty Python skits is the infamous encounter between King Arthur and the Black Knight. What makes the scene so funny is that after first losing one arm – and then a second – the Black Knight keeps on fighting as though nothing has changed. I was reminded of this scene yesterday after Governor Pawlenty disclosed he was eliminating the Political Contribution Refund program effective July 1, 2009.
On principle, the Independence Party of Minnesota has always agreed to fight its Republican and DFL opponents with one arm tied behind its back because of our refusal to accept special interest and lobbyist money, and now the Governor is slicing off our other arm by eliminating the PCR program which rebated donations on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to $50 for individuals (and $100 per couple).
Like the noble Black Knight, though, the Independence Party will proceed on its noble quest. As the only political party truly dedicated to fiscal responsibility, I am of the opinion that during these difficult economics it is only fair that political parties and candidates share in the burden of balancing the state budget. As such, I have no qualms with Pawlenty’s decision.
What this means, however, is that all of us must rise to the occasion and embrace the IP’s other time-honored principle of personal responsibility. In other words, we must now fund the party and its candidates without the benefit of this program.
The fact that the Republican governor and the DFL-controlled legislature couldn’t come up with a budget-balancing agreement this past session tells us that the common-sense wisdom of the Independence Party is needed in Minnesota now more than ever.
If you feel the same way and believe in the party and its bedrock principles, help the party by making a contribution today!
Jack Uldrich
Chair
P.S. If you prefer to fight with at least one hand, make your contribution today – while you can still qualify for the rebate!
Posted Monday, 15 June 2009
by Peter Tharaldson
E-mail
I guess the real questions you have to ask yourself when deciding where you will be politically active is how bad you think the problem is and where you think the best chance for reform lies? (not the image of reform, but the real reform). I believe that we are not in another political cycle, but are instead in paradigm shifting decline if our country does not act now.
How did I learn about the harm coming to our country? …from Paul Tsongas when I was a 17 year old college student in Iowa, from Dean Barkley and Ross Perot in the 1990’s, from John McCain as a real maverick in 2000, from Tim Penny who has to be the most well-rounded person in politics today, and certainly from the Jims. They all pointed to something really dangerous, but always spoke with optimism that our country could fix it. Back then their concern about debt, the decline in civility, and sacrificing our future was more distant. They all offered solutions…real honest ones actually. It is unfortunate that their path was not chosen because now we can actually see the storm clouds on the horizon (but they are still far enought to do something about it).
Over the past many years the instigators of the storm have adopted marketing language that would put any retailer to shame….independence, reform, change are all touted. The failure of this reform is not because these are bad people (a few are), but because they participate in a political system which has become cancerous by nature. They can’t make reform….it’s not what got them elected.
My experience has been that the real reformers in both parties have truly come from the more independent wings by-in-large. As big "I" Independents we are often reminded that we should support those reformers within the two parties. The thing of it is….when the right wing RepublicanS rejoiced at their destruction of Democrats at the polls in 2002 they celebrated the destruction of moderate Democrats, not the leftists they despised. In 2008 the same thing happened…in reverse…every moderate Republican left paid for the sins of George W. Bush in the election…to the gleeful cheer of democrat partisans (as the black clouds were rolling in). A politics professor of mine from Iowa, David Loebsack, beat the Republican congressional incumbent in 2006. National Democrats hailed it as a defeat of Bush extremism…that they really socked it to them. The guy beaten was Jim Leach, a Ford Republican who refused all PAC money and refused to ever run a negative ad. He was called out of touch...he was actually shy and thought about his words carefully. He was hanged on Iraq. He voted against it. I supported him while supporting Paul Tsongas. His defeat was absolutely disgusting in my view and a symptom of the political gamers who have no soul.
At the federal level I also appreciate the Libertarian bent (I am kind of a federalist in philosophy). What happened to Ron Paul?…he got screwed! Then I am led to believe that he will rebuild the Republican Party from the ashes….and who gets elected chair in Minnesota….Tony Sutton.
There can be exceptions…but they are rare. Tim Walz is one…but he, by himself, is oversold as the redemption of party politics in America. It is almost as though he fits into the marketing plan.
So enough about the Dems and Republicans….we can start talking about them when they fix the problems and stop whining that they need one more seat to save us from the other.
What do we stand for? We have a strong federalist bent in our platform (weaker fed, stronger state, local government). We also have many ideas and solutions that the Democratic and Republican blogosphere never understood because they are too busy destroying each other. What matters most, however, is something that I have never had any confusion about and am quite certain of. Talking to John Anderson two years a go confirmed it for me.
There are common American ideals. By being here and living here we accept them and believe in them. While the Democrats and Republicans have woven these ideals into their marketing plans, they forgot about the things that make those ideals come true…honesty, sincerity, and humility….American and Midwestern virtues. The ugly methods always present in party politics, but now increasingly used like a growing cancer, make it impossible for the Democrats and Republicans to reform our great country….they can’t govern….it is as simple as that.
My political participation will be devoted to the ideals I respect…not to the game. The IP naiveté about getting elected is countered by our realism that governing cannot go on much longer like it has. The Democrat and Republican naiveté about that is costing jobs, futures, communities and our country dearly. It’s time that they stop destroying the reformers and look in the mirror.
Posted Monday, 08 June 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
In 2004, I wrote the book Into the Unknown: Leadership Lessons from Lewis & Clark’s Daring Westward Expedition. One of my favorite stories—because it has so much relevance for today’s political leaders—occurred during the early part of June 1805.
On June 2, 1805, Lewis and Clark approached a fork in the Missouri River. During their consultations with the Indians the previous winter the Indians had said nothing of a second river. Nevertheless, it was critical that the Corps of Discovery follow the true Missouri River. If they didn’t, they were unlikely to reach and successfully pass over the Rocky Mountains before winter. This setback would have jeopardized the entire mission.
Lewis and Clark split their team up and sent one group up the north river and a second group down the south river. After three days, both teams returned and were still unsure as to which river was the true Missouri.
Lewis and Clark being the good leaders that they were then split up. Meriwether Lewis traveled north and William Clark went south. After a few days the two men returned and they still weren’t sure.
While they were away something very interesting occurred. All 30 members of the team determined that the north river was the true Missouri. They reached this decision the following way: For the past year, the Corps of Discovery had been traveling up the Missouri River and the water was “warm, slow, muddy and brown.” The water of the north river was also “warm, slow, muddy and brown,” therefore they reasoned it was the true Missouri. It is the equivalent of saying that “Tomorrow is going to be pretty much like yesterday.”
Lewis and Clark conferred among themselves and reached a far different conclusion. In the face of complete opposition, they announced the south river was the true Missouri. They reasoned as follows: At some point the snow from the mountains needed to melt and when it did it would create a river that was cold, fast and clear.” Those characteristics matched the south river and, as history demonstrated, the two captains made the correct decision.
My point is this: Many, if not most, of the leaders in both the DFL and Republican continue to think that -- and act as though -- “tomorrow will be pretty much like yesterday.” From my perch as an author and professional business forecaster, I see the trends in biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, RFID, social networking and robotics (to name but a few) are accelerating and I know that tomorrow is going to be radically different then either yesterday or today—and we need more independent (and Independence Party) leaders with the courage to head out into the unknown.
Posted Wednesday, 03 June 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
Henry Thoreau once wrote that “For every thousand people hacking at the leaves of a problem, there is one person striking at the root.” In light of the current finger pointing between the governor and DFL legislative leaders over the less-than-satisfactory conclusion to the 2009 session, it is time to stop looking at the current players as the only problem and begin considering wholesale systematic reform to Minnesota’s political system.
Below are five electoral reforms are worth considering:
Reform #1: Instant Run-off Voting (IRV). It is a fact that our last three governors have won office with the support of less than 50 percent of the vote. This leads to an undemocratic situation whereby a candidate elected by a minority of voters is able to thwart the will of the majority. Under IRV, regardless of which party’s candidate wins the election, he or she would be able to rightfully claim they represent the will of the majority and could act accordingly.
Reform #2: Fusion Balloting. If IRV is too bold for people, fusion balloting – which allows other political parties such the Independence, Green, Constitution or Libertarian parties to cross-endorse like-minded candidates -- is another possibility. This reform would have the benefit of minimizing the “wasted-vote syndrome” as well as encouraging opposing political parties and candidates to work together on like-minded issues rather focusing exclusively on issues of disagreement.
Reform #3: A Unicameral Legislature. One reason this legislative session failed to produce a meaningful outcome was because DFL leaders in the majority-controlled House and Senate were not playing from the same game book. This is only slightly ridiculous because unlike the legislative bodies of our federal government, members of the Minnesota House and Senate have nearly identical jobs and represent the same geographic areas. There is really no other reason than tradition why Minnesota has a bicameral legislature. The solution may not be ideal but, given the state’s dismal recent history of unproductive sessions and special sessions, it is hard to imagine how a unicameral legislature – where members are more accountable to the public -- could do worse than the current system.
Reform #4: A Smaller Legislature. Undoubtedly, many people will oppose a unicameral legislature. If, however, they are unwilling to support this reform perhaps they would at least consider a smaller legislature. With a mind-boggling 201 representatives (near 40% of the total number of congressmen and senators needed to represent the entire country), Minnesota has more representatives per capita than all but a handful of states. In an era where businesses and families are cutting back, it is only fair that the state legislature do the same.
Reform #5: Initiative and Referendum. Alas, the creation of a smaller legislature is bound to run into the sticky problem that the legislature itself must vote to reduce its size. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the inherent conflict of interest legislators face in downsizing their own jobs. Simply put, they are unlikely to do it. This then begs the question of who can, should and will do it. One obvious answer is the people themselves. Under a system of Initiative and Referendum, the citizens of Minnesota would be given the power to act when either the legislature can’t or won’t.
None of these reforms will cure all that ails our system but rather than playing the blame-game and pointing fingers at the other side, it is time to bring Minnesota’s political system into the 21st century -- and we can do that by going to the root of the problem
Jack Uldrich is the chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota.
Posted Wednesday, 03 June 2009
by Laura Knudsen
E-mail
Great news for Minnesota: Governor Pawlenty announced yesterday that he will not seek a third term as governor. During his press conference he claimed to have no plans for the future. The Independence Party, however, does have plans and they include winning the office of Governor in 2010!
What are the chances of an Independent governing our state again? The answer is great!
The voters of Minnesota have had eight years of watching failed DFL and GOP leadership. They are tired of politics as usual including special sessions, rising taxes, budget deficits and a focus on polarizing issues. This year’s hostile take over of Minnesota’s budget by Pawlenty is the last straw.
Start spreading the news: Only 19 more months of Pawlenty and independents are ready!
Posted Tuesday, 02 June 2009
by Jim Moore
E-mail
After receiving $20 Billion in taxpayer money, General Motors filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday and the new plan is for the Government to add another $30 Billion of taxpayer money into the deal. Sadly, millions of families are hurting because of this failure. I feel the worst for those who work for the suppliers of GM (as well as Chrysler) who will inevitably fall into bankruptcy as well. Why the government feels it is such a great position to succeed when the management of the largest US automaker failed is anyone's guess. It is likely rooted in the political desire to prevent the inevitable. It's as if the Obama Administration believes it can prevent gravity from pulling down a financial albatross incapable of flying any longer.
Read more: $20 BillionLater, and GM is Still Bankrupt
Posted Wednesday, 27 May 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
Malcolm Gladwell has an outstanding article in this month's New Yorker entitled "How David Beats Goliath." It is an excellent primer on how I believe the IP can win and I can't recommend
the article highly enough. If, however, you don't have time to read the full article here's the operative quote: "When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath's rules, they win."
According to some scientific research Gladwell cites, "David's" (i.e the underdog) winning percentage against "Goliath's" increases from 28.5% to 63.6% when they play by unconventional rules!
Think about that for a moment, folks. What the article is really telling us is that if we want to win against a bigger, stronger and more well-funded opponent one of the first things we should do is stop playing by the same rules as the Democrats and Republicans.
As party chair, I truly welcome your "unconventional" ideas.
Posted Tuesday, 26 May 2009
by Peter Tharaldson
E-mail
Most of the rhetoric from the hard core left about our currenty economic situation mirrors the idiocy of the far right. One of left's most unique rhetorical tricks used, however, is a new creationism. This liberal creationism assumes that American problems magically appeared in January, 2001. Which politicians are guilty of it? Any of them who say "we inherited this mess" or "the past eight years".
Read more: A New Creationism: Liberal Style
Posted Thursday, 14 May 2009
by Jack Uldrich
E-mail
For over 200 years this country has relied predominately on a winner-take-all voting system. This is fine in political contests in which only two candidates run but in cases where three or more candidates are on the ballot (as in Minnesota with the Independence Party), it can lead to an undesirable situation whereby the winner wins with only a plurality of votes (as opposed to a majority of votes.)
The problem is that this can often lead to undemocratic outcomes. For example, in 2000, neither George Bush (48.1%) or Al Gore won a majority (48.0%) of votes. Ralph Nadar received about 3% of the vote. Under Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) -- also known as Ranked Choice Voting -- rather than simply "throw out" Nader's votes, IRV would allow those voters to select their second choice. In this case, my educated guess is that most Nader voters would have preferred Gore. These Nader votes would then have given Gore a true majority (i.e 48% + 3% = 51%).
Lest one think the IRV is partisan in nature. It is not. Imagine if the 2008 election had been much closer and neither Obama or McCain won an outright majority. In this case, the votes of right-wing, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr (who came in third) would have likely gone to McCain.
To understand the IRV voting method better, Minnesota Public Radio has produced a short, 1.5 minute video:
Page 1 of 9
