Independence Minnesota

Congressional District 2  -  Welcome!


The focus of our Party is to bring Minnesota politics back to pressing issues, including education, transportation, and preserving our environment, plus economic factors such as job growth, fiscal responsibility and dependency on foreign oil.  We stand for government and political leadership that serves the highest long-term interests of our state and oppose partisan politics based solely on self-interest, extremism, or special interests.  For more information, please see our Party Platform.

This page is dedicated to independent minded citizens who live and work in Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District and who long to bring politics back from the extremes. Our district covers the southern Twin Cities metropolitan area and contains all of Carver, Scott, Le Sueur, Goodhue and Rice Counties. It also contains much of Dakota County and a smaller section of Washington County.

We are always looking for new members. Please join us if you are disenfranchised from one of the other political parties.  You will be welcome here!

Articles written by cd-2 authors

Instead of Occupying or Having a Tea Party, I Declared My Independence!

By Ted C. Williams CD 2
Posted 11/04/11


If there’s one thing we can all agree on right now, it’s that people are frustrated. People are frustrated with the state of our economy, our governing leadership, flaws in the education system, taxation, a crumbling infrastructure and an overall lack of people being able to work together. In the past three years we’ve seen two large movements grow built upon these frustrations: the Tea Party movement and more recently the Occupy movement. These two groups are filled with people that want their voices heard and feel like they’ve been ignored, so they have taken to the streets and gathered together in the hopes that their unifying stance will show our political leaders that change is needed.

I commend these groups for standing up for what they believe in and the desire to regain ownership of a government they feel does not meet the needs of the masses but instead of an elite minority, but I haven’t been compelled to join their movements. When I look at both movements, I see groups that are very capable in voicing what they dislike, but I don’t see strong long term solutions being produced. The Tea Party movement wants less government and lower taxes, but there aren’t any real specifics to what they want cut and what needs to take place to make up for less revenue (and when cuts have been introduced there has been backlash, since it would involve programs such as Social Security that would be impacted). The Occupy movement wants the upper class to be taxed more and more jobs created, but again there isn’t a solid platform on how to implement a better tax structure or how additional taxation will equate to more jobs.

The formation of these groups has also created a different problem that I really find concerning: Instead of unifying us all together to figure out ways to solve the problems facing us, it has polarized the conversation and has pitted groups against one another. The mantras from these campaigns can be summed up as “we feel like we have been wronged, but it’s not because of what we’ve done but what another group has, and as long as they change we will all be better off.”    Picking sides can work well when cheering on sports teams, but not when it comes to resolving issues, and the end result has been a state and a country more divided than ever (just look at the gridlock that occurred in Minnesota with the budget and the twenty day shutdown and a budget that only pushed hard decisions down the road).

I, like many others, want to see change and aren’t happy with the way our government is currently being run. I also feel though that there is a need for conservatives, progressives, and moderates to all come together and tackle the important issues with everyone’s voices being heard. When differing viewpoints are all taken into account, I believe there is a better chance of strong long-term solution being created.

That’s why this past summer I decided to join the Independence Party of Minnesota. It is a collection of active citizens from different parts of the political spectrum that feel the necessity for us to work together and find common ground to ensure a better tomorrow for our state. We all don’t share the same political philosophies, but in listening to what others have to say and to take their opinions and information into account, a more well-rounded and solid stance can be taken.

The Independence Party of Minnesota is a recognized political party that is able to give access to candidates on the ballot throughout the state, but it is currently dwarfed when compared to the two major parties. While the Independence Party is currently David to two very large Goliaths, there is a groundswell forming and the party is gaining strength from people like myself that want a new direction in the way our state is governed.

I hope that you will want to get involved with the Independence Party of Minnesota, and if you do please feel free to contact the CD2 Party contacts. Our contact information is located on the right hand side of this page, and we would love to have you on board

A Look Back at the ’11 Legislative Session



With crude computer animation, let's take a look back at what happened during the 2011 Minnesota State Legislative Session.

Earlier Articles By CD2 Authors

Click to read any of the following articles...

 




 

Upcoming Events and announcements2nd Congressional District Meeting

What:   CD2 Caucus Follow Up Meeting

When:  Saturday April 21st - 10-noon

Where: Savage Library - Savage, MN
               13090 Alabama Ave. South
 
Agenda:
- Bank Account Changes
- Caucus Follow Up
- Refine Goals, Mission & Vision Statements

LOCAL PARTY CONTACT INFORMATION



Chair
Arid Sornberger,  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Vice-Chair
Marian Brown, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , (952) 432-7707

Secretary
Ray Martin

Treasurer
Joyce Franchett,  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , (952) 322-2664

Web Content
Jon Ness,  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

DONATE TO CD-2



Please mail checks to:

MN IP CD-2
Attn: Joyce Franchett
13002 Echo Lane
Apple Valley, MN 55124

Caucus Resolutions

The Resolutions below were brought at 2010 caucuses.  Click on each one for the specific language of the resolution.

Peak Oil -- supporting H.F. 995 from the 2007-2008 legislative session (Vance Norgaard)

Fixed Education Budgeting (Elizabeth Brandt)

Spending Caps for Political Campaigns (Jean Bogema)

Politcal Contribution Refunds (PCRs) -- supporting reinstatement of the program (Gerry Drewry)

Unicameral Legislature -- suggested plan for furthering this cause (Marian Brown)

Immigration Reform (Al Krueger)

Rewording Platform Core Value #3, on Social Inclusiveness -- (Tim Biros)

State Divestiture of Israeli Bonds (Vance Norgaard)

Honest State Budgeting (Gerry Drewry)

Eliminating Wasteful State Spending (Jean Bogema)
 

Opinion Corner

 
The following editorial was published May 9, 2010, in Parade Magazine.


With the Congressional leadership behind him, FDR signs the landmark Social Security Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935.
How Much Government?
By David Gergen

Seventy-five years ago,  President Franklin D. Roosevelt was eager to weave a safety net under millions of impoverished Americans who were retired and had no savings. On his left, supporters called for a massive new government program. On his right, Republicans argued that it would bankrupt the country and undermine people’s habits of thrift and self-reliance.  

Sound familiar?

FDR, ever the master, came up with an ingenious solution: create a program in which Americans would be asked to contribute to a social savings account that government would manage on their behalf and would be there for retirement. Instead of big government, it was to be a partnership that would encourage individual thrift and responsibility. Thus was born Social Security, overwhelmingly supported in the Senate by Democrats and Republicans (77–6 on final passage) and the most popular social initiative in the country’s history.

Where is that spirit of creativity and collaboration when we need it again? Today, many citizens are at dagger points as we argue over a question that has hung over us since the founding of our nation: How much government is good for America?  

Democrats argue—with justification—that in the elections of 2006 and especially 2008, voters sent a clear signal that they wanted more government. Candidate Barack Obama asserted that free markets were broken and promised that Washington would ride to the rescue, saving the economy, overhauling health care, stopping global warming, and reforming K-12 education. Voters not only gave him 53% of their votes—the highest total for a Democrat in 44 years—but returned swollen Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  

Democrats can well say they had a mandate, and they insist that after throwing trillions of dollars at our problems, we are beginning to see success. The economic engines are indeed starting to rev up, and slowly—painfully so—people are finding work. So Democrats feel they will ultimately be celebrated.

But it is equally clear that, for now, these massive efforts are scaring the dickens out of a growing number of Americans, prompting a significant backlash. Republicans now argue—with increasing justification—that we are creating more government than we need, more than we want, and certainly more than we are willing to pay for. Consider just a few statistics.

• Public spending by federal, state, and local government was 24% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1950, 35% before the Great Recession, and could hit 44% this year.    

• The Tax Foundation estimates that 60% of all Americans now receive more in income benefits from government than they pay into government, and that with new policy directions, the number will grow closer to 70%.

• The Tax Policy Center has found that while everyone is expected to pay payroll taxes, only 47% of American households now pay federal income taxes.

• The European Union has agreed that it is dangerous for a country to allow its publicly held debt to exceed 60% of its GDP. The Congressional Budget Office says that the U.S. could hit 60% by the end of this year, and on its current course could hit 100% by 2020.

• Meanwhile, The Economist estimates that the federal government now employs a quarter of a million people to write and enforce regulations.

Personally, I find these trends troubling. If they continue, we will diminish both the vitality and prosperity of the nation. Government should be compassionate and yet lean. But I recognize that others who care just as much about the country’s future sharply disagree. Our challenge is whether we can put down our daggers and once again work together in a civil, creative spirit. We clearly have the means to solve our problems; what is less clear is whether we have the collective will.


David Gergen is a professor of public service at Harvard and a senior political analyst at CNN. He serves on the board of Teach for America and has advised four Presidents.