Independence Minnesota

Congressional District 2  -  Welcome!


The focus of our Party is to bring Minnesota politics back to pressing issues, including health care, education, transportation, environmental preservation and economic factors, such as 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.

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!

Featured Article

(Article originally published in the Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2010)

Lawmakers Keep the Change

When lawmakers travel overseas on official business they are given up to $250 a day in taxpayer funds to cover meals and expenses. Congressional rules say they must return any leftover cash to the government.

They usually don't.

According to interviews with 20 current and former members of Congress, lawmakers use the excess cash for shopping or to defray spouses' travel expenses. Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn't know the rules demand repayment.

"If that was the policy, you could never get many members traveling," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat. Mr. Ortiz said he had never returned any money.

"There's a tacit understanding that if lawmakers don't spend the money, they get to keep it," said Rep. Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who was defeated in 2006.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, said lawmakers often used leftover money "for shopping or to buy souvenirs to bring back to constituents. That's fairly standard."

Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) said he once bought marble goblets in the Kabul airport as gifts for constituents. Rep. Mark Souder (R., Ind.) said he dipped into his funds to buy a $200 painting of an estuary in Turkey, which hung in his office for a while and was now in his house.

Lawmakers who said they sometimes keep excess funds said the amounts were small. "I won't deny that sometimes I have a little left, but it's not much—maybe 80, 90, or 100 dollars," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D., N.C.).

Congress has no system for tracking how the cash payments, called per diems, are being spent. Lawmakers aren't required to keep receipts and there are no public records.


From left, Reps. Alcee Hastings, Eliot Engel, and Solomon P. Ortiz, and U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield, in Rio Negro, Columbia, in 2008. (Photo courtesy Associated Press)

In the past two years, hundreds of lawmakers spent a total of 5,300 days visiting 130 foreign countries on taxpayer-funded trips, according to congressional travel records.

House lawmakers received between $375,000 and $625,000 in per diem cash over that period, according to a Wall Street Journal estimate based on per diem rates and congressional travel disclosures. There's no documentation for how those funds were spent. Estimates for Senate travel couldn't be calculated.

"You are all concerned about nickels and dimes, and I'm not," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D., Fla.). "You know, in a taxicab in Kazakhstan, I don't have time to get a receipt—I don't speak Kazakh."

In a subsequent interview, Mr. Hastings said he had time to gather receipts, but didn't.

Mr. Hastings said he sometimes used the extra taxpayer money to buy gifts, meals or drinks for military pilots, security officials and interpreters who travel with him. On a trip earlier this year to the Middle East, Mr. Hastings gave $100 to an Iraqi refugee, he said.

"I'm a generous spirit and a courteous spirit," Mr. Hastings said. "I stand accused."

Some lawmakers are assiduous about returning surplus cash. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Democrat, has returned to the U.S. Treasury about $8,500 of the $25,000 he was given for 11 trips since August 2005, according to documents provided by his office.

The per diem program is administered by the State Department. According to department officials and publications, when lawmakers arrive in a foreign country, U.S. government officials give them an envelope with cash in the local currency.

The total stipend is set by the State Department based on surveys of local prices. It is meant to cover three meals and incidental expenses, which federal travel regulations say include transportation and tips for baggage handling and other services.

The amounts range from $28 a day in Kabul to more than $250 a day in Awashima, Japan.

When lawmakers leave the country, U.S. government officials generally meet them to convert any leftover foreign currency back into U.S. dollars.

Many of the lawmakers' daily expenses are picked up by U.S. embassies, foreign governments or military liaisons, according to travel documents and interviews.

House and Senate rules say per diems can be used only for legitimate travel expenses. Any leftover money must be returned. The cash is for lawmakers, not their spouses. Lawmakers can request an extra $50 a day if they believe the allowance is insufficient.

"The extra money and the plus-ups are really for the spouses," said Mr. Souder, the Indiana Republican.

Last summer, a dozen lawmakers of both parties flew to Lithuania to a conference of the Helsinki Commission, an independent U.S. government agency made up of members of Congress and others that was born during the Cold War to promote democracy, security and human rights.

The lawmakers were given $941 each in local currency to cover expenses for the six-day trip, said one attendee, Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.).

When they got home, Mr. Durbin returned $401.08 to the Treasury, according to documents provided by his office. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D., Md.) returned $86. No one else returned any money, according to travel records for the trip and interviews with the lawmakers.

One lawmaker on the trip, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R., Ala.) said he didn't return cash. "I don't keep up with it penny for penny," he said.

Mr. Butterfield said he didn't recall if he had any leftover funds, and that he sometimes kept the extra cash.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) said he once tried to return surplus cash to the State Department, but "they wouldn't take it. They said, 'We don't have a way to handle that.' " Mr. Coburn said he sent a personal check to the U.S. Treasury.


ARTICLES WRITTEN BY CD-2 AUTHORS

Remind Our Representatives Who They Work For!

Posted 6/1/09
By Bill Wilcox - Burnsville
 
President Obama signed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 the other day. People may differ over whether the new law goes far enough to protect consumers against credit card companies. Nevertheless, it is nice to see our politicians actually agreeing for a change in an overwhelming bipartisan vote to create some reforms in how the credit card companies deal with their customers. A 357 to 70 vote in the house and a 90 to 5 vote in the Senate is truly an impressive display of bipartisanship. It shows broad support for taxpayers in a difficult economy. While I am frequently a critic of politicians in Washington, I applaud Congress on this vote.
 
While reading a little further on the new law, a startling fact appeared. Two members of the Minnesota Congressional delegation actually voted against the law when it came up for a vote in the House of Representatives on April 30th. Minnesotans in CD2 and CD6 will be ashamed to find out that the people they sent to Washington as their representatives in Congress actually took this opportunity to side with the credit card companies. John Kline and Michele Bachmann were the only Minnesotans to vote against the law.

"Credit Card Bill of Rights" continued...

 

Earlier Articles By CD2 Authors



Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is a highly respected economist, and the former director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  The following article was printed in the Nov. 21st edition of the Wall Street Journal, and adapted from testimony he gave before the Senate Committee on the Budget on Nov. 10.

The Coming Deficit Disaster

President Barack Obama took office promising to lead from the center and solve big problems. He has exerted enormous political energy attempting to reform the nation's health-care system. But the biggest economic problem facing the nation is not health care. It's the deficit. Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures.

Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

Going forward, there is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit every year. Our national debt is projected to stand at $17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $50,000 per American. By 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of the president's budget, the budget deficit will still be roughly $1 trillion, even though the economic situation will have improved and revenues will be above historical norms.

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth. They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption. Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living. Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China.

At what point, some financial analysts ask, do rating agencies downgrade the United States? When do lenders price additional risk to federal borrowing, leading to a damaging spike in interest rates? How quickly will international investors flee the dollar for a new reserve currency? And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself? Given the president's recent reception in China—friendly but fruitless—these answers may come sooner than any of us would like.

Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg. Perhaps the most vivid example of sending the wrong message to international capital markets are the health-care reform bills—one that passed the House earlier this month and another under consideration in the Senate. Whatever their good intentions, they have too many flaws to be defensible.

First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost.

Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan.

Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.

If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place.

In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order.

What to do? The best option would be for the president to halt Congress's rush to fiscal suicide, and refocus on slowing the dangerous growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should call on Congress to pass a comprehensive reform of our income and payroll tax systems that would generate revenue sufficient to fund its spending desires in a pro-growth and fair fashion.

Reducing entitlement spending and closing tax loopholes to create a fairer tax system with more balanced revenues is politically difficult and requires sacrifice. But we will avert a potentially devastating credit crisis, increase national savings, drive productivity and wage growth, and enhance our international competitiveness.

The time to worry about the deficit is not next year, but now. There is no time to waste.

Click here to download the full text of Dr. Holtz-Eakin's testimony (PDF file).