Agriculture & Farming (2020 Presidential Election)

Source: https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/farmer-share-food-dollar-declines

Last week, we started our exploration of affordable housing in America by looking at FDR’s New Deal.  Let’s start there again, this time in a slightly better light.  In the 1930’s, FDR’s administration recognized the crucial role that farmers would play in getting Americans out of the Great Depression.  He set up a system that guaranteed farmers fair prices and prevented overproduction.  On April 27, 1935, he signed the Soil Conservation Act which aimed to combat soil erosion and preserve natural resources.  For decades, farmers thrived under this system.

In the 1970’s, President Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, who served as a board member for several agribusiness firms, undid the portions of the New Deal that protected farmers from big agribusiness companies.  This deregulation allowed the corporate agriculture industry to thrive.  

Today, big grain and meat corporations are thriving, while farmers are in an economic crisis.  Big agribusiness controls the market, at the detriment of farmers.  Thanks to mergers, acquisitions, and consolidation, a handful of companies control American agriculture.  The top 4 meat processing companies take 53% of the market share.  The three biggest chicken companies have 90% of the market share.  Tyson, for example, knows the farming side of the chicken production is not profitable.  So, they profit from every other part of production, but leave the farming, and therefore the losses, to the farmers.

For every dollar Americans spend on food, U.S. farmers and ranchers receive just 14.6 cents.  This is a 17% decline since 2011 and the lowest amount received since 1993, when the USDA began tracking these numbers.  In the past five years, the U.S. has lost an upwards of 70,000 farm operations. American farmers are facing debt levels that haven’t been seen since the 1980’s, at $409 billion.  The market is paying farmers far less than what it costs to produce the food. Over half of farmers are reporting a negative income.  Compounding this issue is the trade war.  Due to the on-going trade war between the United States and China, US Department of Agriculture Chief Economist, Robert Johannson, predicted the farm exports would fall by $1.9 billion this year.  The USDA has issued nearly $8 billion worth of support payments to farmers designed to counter the financial losses of the trade war.  Yet, the rate of farmer suicides is double that of veterans.

Presidential Plans (If this is a stand alone issue for a candidate, I have linked their entire plan to their name):

Joe Biden:  Biden says he’ll pursue a trade policy that works for American farmers.  He will expand the Obama administration’s microloan program for new and beginning farmers doubling the maximum loan amount to $100,000.  He will increase funding for the USDA’s farm ownership and operating loans. And, he will partner with farmers to achieve net-zero emissions.

Cory Booker:  Booker’s Climate Stewardship Act seeks to increase incentives to farmers for conservation practices.  As senator he introduced a bill that would place a moratorium on mergers and acquisitions between large farm, food, and grocery companies.  The bill is endorsed by more than 200 farm, food, rural, and consumer advocacy organizations.

Pete Buttigieg: Buttigieg will pay farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices.  His “New Rising Tide” plan focuses on expanding federal labor protections to cover farm workers by ensuring they are protected by labor and employment laws such as the right to unionize and minimum wage requirements.

Kamala Harris:  Harris’s Climate Plan for the Future makes big investments in climate-smart agriculture.  This year, she reintroduced legislation aimed at strengthening labor protections for farm workers.  She supports government subsidies for farmers.

Amy Klobuchar: Klobuchar wants to expand commodity support, disaster programs, and federal crop insurance for small and family owned farms.  She wants to take on consolidation and restore staffing levels at the Department of Agriculture.  As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she worked on the 2018 Farm Bill.

Bernie Sanders:  Again, like Warren, Sanders has an extensive agriculture plan.  Some of the highlights include FDR-style trust-busting laws to stop monopolization of markets and break up massive agribusiness.  He will also place a moratorium on mergers and vertical integration of large agribusiness corporations. He will make sure farmers have the right to repair their own equipment.  He also has plans for fair trade deals and ensuring a fair price for farmers.

Tom Steyer:  Steyer and his wife, Kathryn Taylor, own TomKat Ranch.  He produces grass-fed, hormone-free beef.  He finances exhaustive scientific research on his ranch on climate-conscious farming.

Donald Trump:  Trump has a list of accomplishments related to agriculture on his website.  He proclaimed March 17, 2017 National Agriculture Day. On April 25, 2017, he signed an executive order promoting agriculture and rural prosperity in America.  He then proclaimed March 20, 2018 National Agriculture Day. On April 13, 2018, it was announced by the USDA and USTR that Argentina would begin accepting U.S. pork products for the first time in 26 years as a part of Trump’s push to open markets to American agriculture.  On August 7, 2018, the USDA announced that the government of Morocco would allow the commercial imports of U.S. poultry meat and products into Morocco for the first time.

Elizabeth Warren:  Warren wants to guarantee farmers a fair price, reduce overproduction, and pay farmers for environmental conservation.  She wants to build on the model of the supply management program from The New Deal. She says this will be billions of dollars cheaper than the current subsidy program, and provide income to farmers that are higher.  Warren has, by far, the most detailed plan related to this issue. She is committed to breaking up big agribusiness that controls more and more of the market.

Andrew Yang:  Yang believes the government needs to invest in alternatives to traditional farming and ensure more sustainable techniques.  He believes a portion of planned farm subsidies over the next 15 years should be redirected toward sustainable techniques and alternative farming methods.

Affordable Housing (2020 Presidential Election)

The 2020 presidential election is exactly 1 year from today. The first major contest of the presidential primary season, the Iowa Caucus, is exactly 3 months from today.  It is during this event that presidential candidates will collect their first delegate votes on their quest to secure the majority of their party’s delegate votes and become the presidential nominee for their party.

I started this blog in March of 2016.  For 32 weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election, I chose an issue a week and just showed where the candidates stood on it.  My purpose was just to educate, not necessarily persuade. At the time, I felt like a person’s vote reflected more of how much they liked or didn’t like a candidate and they couldn’t really speak to their candidate’s issues.  I wanted to change that.  

Today, I feel that I find more and more that people are saying that they don’t care about the character of their candidate as long as they agree on policy.  But, they still can’t speak much to that policy. I still want to change that.  

So, I continue with my quest for a more educated electorate.  In preparation, I identified 80 issues, but I’ve boiled it down to 52 issues that I plan to cover over the next 52 weeks.  I hope that those of you who follow this find that you are better able to speak to how your vote affects your daily lives and are able to feel confident in your choice on election day.  

Affordable Housing

So, we begin with Affordable Housing.  But what does that even mean? Essentially, affordable housing is access to safety, security, wealth, and opportunity because wealth accrual often begins with homeownership.  

But, we can’t really talk about affordable housing until we talk about how our nation’s housing policies have historically directly invested in white homeownership while purposely excluding Black Americans.  In fact, the argument can be made that America’s racial wealth gap is really a homeownership gap.

I’m ashamed to admit that it wasn’t until a couple of years ago when I saw the episode of Adam Ruins Everything called “The Disturbing History of the Suburbs”, that I truly became aware of this issue.  I strongly recommend you take 6 minutes to watch it.  It is no accident that the suburbs are primarily white.  

Let’s start with the New Deal of the 1930’s.  As a part of the New Deal, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a series of programs to help America recover from the Great Depression, including a loan program to help Americans finance their homes.  To decide who received those loans, the federal government created color-coded maps in which green neighborhoods were good and red neighborhoods were bad.  This eventually became known as redlining.  African Americans and other minorities lived in the red neighborhoods.  Americans living in the green neighborhoods had no problem securing loans, but there were no loans available for those living in the red neighborhoods, so racial minorities could not secure home loans.

So, just move to a green neighborhood, right?  That was not permitted. White people and Black people lived in different neighborhoods for a reason.  Early suburb developers instituted rules stating that their homes “could not be used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasion race.”  So, from 1934 to 1968, 98% of home loans were given to white families.  

As I stated earlier, for most, homeownership leads to wealth accrual.  When the housing market goes up, homeowners can sell their houses for a profit and buy bigger ones.  If you don’t have a home to sell, it is that much harder to accrue wealth. Wealth attracts business which causes property values to go up again, which means white families can sell their homes, send their kids to college, passing down their wealth to future generations, while red neighborhoods, without the ability to attract business, own homes, or improve property values, remain trapped in poverty.  74% of neighborhoods that were redlined in the 1930s, remain low-income to this day and 64% remain non-white.  Furthermore, banks still regularly charge higher interest rates on loans secured by black homebuyers than white homebuyers even when they have the same credit.  

The standard metric for determining whether housing is affordable or not is if a household is spending 30% of their income on housing.  If a household makes $30,000 a year they shouldn’t spend more than $750 on rent/mortgage & utilities.  If they make $100,000, they shouldn’t spend more than $2,500. If you pay more than the 30% mark, you are cost-burdened.  Over 18 million families are paying more than 50% of their income on housing.

Rates of homeownership have reached historic lows in recent years.  Affordable housing has decreased by more than 50% from 1964 to 2009.  Much of this is due to restrictive zoning rules and land use regulations that make it harder and more expensive to build affordable housing.  Average housing prices have gone up by 188% over the past three decades while median rent has increased by 60% since 1960.

43 million U.S. households rent their homes, which is a larger percentage of U.S. households than any point in the last 50 years. Yet, there isn’t a single county in America where a full time worker making the federal minimum wage can afford a two-bedroom apartment.  In the 1960’s, 1 in 5 of all renters spent more than 30% of their income on their rent, but now it is more than half or all renters.  71% of extremely low-income renters spend more than half of their income on rent.  Nearly half of these people are seniors or people with disabilities. 7.7 million of these families are eligible for Section 8 rental assistance but do not receive it because of lack of federal resources and are therefore put on a waiting list. And, there is a shortage of 7.2 million affordable homes for the lowest income renters.   

Furthermore, despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act 50 years ago, discrimination runs rampant in rental communities where landlords discriminate againts renters based on their race, sex, religion, country of origin, income, whether or not they use housing vouchers or receive disability benefits, and on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status.  This obviously makes it even harder to find housing for numerous subgroups of people.

Stagnant job growth and flat wages have created an affordable housing crisis across rural America and Indian Country.  Even when housing supply is plentiful, it is often substandard. An estimated 40% of housing on Indian reservations is considered substandard.

Of course, the above outlines statistics concerning those who do have homes, regardless of whether they are affordable or not.  Meanwhile, approximately 500,000 people are homeless at any given time. 1.5 million people will find themselves homeless at some point this year.

Of course, there are some government programs that already help with the issue of affordable housing.  One of those is the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and funded by revenue from the government sponsored housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Formed through legislation in 2016, it was the first new affordable housing legislation passed in several decades, and it has so far invested $905 million on the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing throughout the country.  Additionally, Section 515 Rural Rental Housing is a rural housing program authorized to make loans to provide rental housing for low and moderate income families in rural areas.  The Indian Housing Block Grant Program provides affordable housing on Indian reservations and Indian areas.

Presidential Plans (If this is a stand alone issue for a candidate, I have linked their entire plan to their name):

Joe Biden:  While Affordable Housing is not a stand alone issue for Biden, under his Plan for Strengthening America’s Commitment to Justice, he sets a national goal of ensuring that 100% of formerly incarcerated individuals have housing upon re-entry.  He would expand funding for transitional housing.

Cory Booker:  Booker will create a Renters Credit to help cap rental costs at 30% of income for working and middle-class Americans, with a median credit of $4,800.  He says this will help 57 million Americans cover their rent costs, including nearly 17 million children, and lift 9.4 million Americans out of poverty.  He will give all Americans a fair shot at home ownership with “Baby Bonds”, a federally funded savings account for every child at birth seeded with $1,000.  By age 18, low-income account-holders would have $50,000 in seed capital to create wealth. He says this would be fully paid for by restoring 2009-era estate tax rules and closing loopholes that allow wealthy families to avoid paying taxes on investments held at death.  He will fund the Housing Trust Fund which will fund construction of new units for low-income renters. He will expand the supply of affordable housing by reforming restrictive zoning laws. He will invest in affordable housing in rural America and Indian Country. He will also combat discrimination and predatory practices in the housing market, expand the Right to Counsel for tenants facing eviction, and eliminate homelessness through major new investment in evidence-based programs to find, keep safe, and move back into housing anyone in need.

Pete Buttigieg:  Buttigieg believes in national affordable housing investment and protections for tenants rights.  As a part of his detailed Community Homestead Act, he would launch a public trust that would purchase abandoned properties and provide them to eligible residents in pilot cities while investing in the revitalization of surrounding communities.  He says that this plan will attack the racial wealth gap by “directly fostering asset ownership among those previously prevented from accumulating capital.” He says that “equalizing homeownership rates amongst the races would reduce the racial wealth gap between white and Black families by 31%.”  He also seeks to end homelessness for families with children, fund a national investment in affordable housing construction, and expand federal protections for tenants against eviction and unjust harassment.

Kamala Harris:  Affordable Housing is not a stand alone issue on Harris’s website, however she has introduced legislation as a Senator to address issues of housing.  In April, she reintroduced the Rent Relief Act  to address the rising cost of rent for low-income households.  It creates a new, refundable tax credit for renter household paying more than 30% of their gross income on rent.   The tax credit would be paid by the Treasury monthly. In July, she partnered with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to roll out a plan that would increase housing assistance to formerly incarcerated individuals and prevent unnecessary evictions.  She argues that this will reduce recidivism rates by providing stable housing.

Amy Klobuchar:  Klobuchar will provide access to counsel for people dealing with evictions, prohibit landlords from discriminating against renters, combat segregation in housing, and reinstate the Office of Fair Lending and Opportunity’s enforcement and oversight powers.  She will increase affordable rental housing in rural communities, improve access to information about rural housing programs, and encourage innovative strategies to attract private investment. She will increase access to affordable housing by investing in Housing Choice Vouchers, promoting effective zoning rules, giving renters access to emergency funds for rent, supporting housing for people with disabilities, and ensuring that all federal housing programs implement strong standards to reduce carbon emissions.  She will encourage mobility for renters, increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity neighborhoods, reduce homelessness, and help seniors age in place. She will increase access to homeownership by revitalizing and building value in neglected neighborhoods, promoting home ownership through down payment assistance and credit development, protecting the Community Reinvestment Act, and improving education for homebuyers. Her plan to pay for all of this is to raise the capital gains rate to the income tax rate for households making over $400,000 and raising the corporate tax rate to 25%.

Bernie Sanders:  Sanders first introduced legislation in 2001 that ultimately led to the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund that was formed 15 years later.  He says we need to build millions of apartments and homes throughout the country that will remain affordable. He says this will create millions of good paying jobs in the process.  To do this, he will invest $1.48 trillion in the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. He will invest and additional $400 billion to build 2 million mixed-income social housing units to help desegregate and integrate communities.  He will expand the USDA’s Section 515 program by $500 million to build new, affordable developments in rural areas and protect existing units. He will increase funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant program to $3 billion. He will invest $70 billion to repair and modernize public housing.  He will fully fund the Section 8 rental assistance $410 billion over the next 10 years and make it a mandatory funding program. He will enact a cap on an annual rent increases, allow cities and states to pass even stronger rent control standards, and provide $2 billion in federal matching grants for states and communities that provide right to counsel for persons in eviction or foreclosure proceedings.  To end homelessness, he will prioritize 25,000 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund units in the first year to build housing for the homeless, double homelessness assistance grants to more than $26 billion over the next 5 years to build permanent supportive housing, and provide $500 million in funding to states and communities to provide outreach to the homeless. He will invest an additional $2 billion at the USDA and $6 billion at HUD to create first time homebuyer assistance programs and expand pre-purchase housing counseling for first time home buyers.  And, this isn’t nearly a conclusive list for Sanders. I skipped over entire chunks of his plan related to decarbonizing housing, ending predatory lending and modern day redlining, expanding sustainable home ownership, fair housing, gentrification, exclusionary zoning, and segregation. 

Tom Steyer:  Affordable Housing is not a stand alone issue for Steyer and I couldn’t find anything that addressed his plans for the issue.  When asked what he would do to address homelessness, he really just outlined the problem, but didn’t propose any solutions.

Donald Trump:  This is not a stand alone issue on Trump’s website.  However, here are some things he has done as president.  In June, Trump signed an executive order to establish the White House Council on Eliminating Barriers to Affordable Housing Development. Chaired by Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Ben Carson, the council will “address, reduce, and remove the multitude of overly burdensome regulatory barriers that artificially raise the cost of housing development and help to cause the lack of housing supply.”  On the other hand, Trump wants to cut federal housing programs by 9.6 billion, or 18%.  He has proposed tripling what some of the poorest senior citizens and people with disabilities are paying for rent today.  He wants to eliminate the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund which invests in affordable housing. And, his tax legislation further enriches wealthy real estate investors.

Elizabeth Warren:   Warren’s housing plan will lower rents by 10%, help close the racial wealth gap, and create 1.5 million new jobs.  Her plan invests $500 billion over the next 10 years to build, preserve, and rehab units that will be affordable to lower income families.  By building millions of new units, she argues that that will reduce the cost of rent for everyone based on the laws of supply and demand. This is supported by an independent analysis from the Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics.  Also supported in the analysis is her claim that it will create 1.5 million new jobs.  She will cover these costs by changing tax policy that would affect the wealthiest 14,000 families.  She will also invest $500 million in rural housing programs, $2.5 billion in the Indian Housing Block Grant Program and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program.  She will also invest $4 billion in a new Middle Class Housing Emergency Fund which will support the construction of new housing catered to middle class renters in communities with severe housing shortages.  She will put $10 billion in to a new competitive grant program. For states, regions, and cities to apply for these grants, they must reform the land use rules (such as minimum lot size or mandatory parking requirements which drive up costs) to be eligible.  To address the racial wealth gap, she will create a first of its kind down payment assistance program for first time homebuyers who live in formerly red-lined communities. Like Sanders, this isn’t a comprehensive list of Warren’s plan. Her plan also addresses discrimination in housing, lack of access to credit, support for underwater borrowers, and tenant protection.

Andrew Yang:  The closest stand alone issue related to Affordable Housing for Yang, is his policy on zoning.  He says that zoning laws have made the creation of affordable housing impossible in the country's largest cities forcing the people who work there into multi-hour commutes.  He says he will make housing more affordable by working with localities to relax zoning ordinances in order to create more affordable housing. He will also encourage the building of new innovative housing options like micro-apartments and communal living in high density areas.

Transportation (MN Governor's Race)

Transportation and transportation funding in Minnesota pertain to the systems that allow us to travel by car, bus, bike, rail, or boat. Funding comes from federal, state, and local taxes. Funding from local taxes stays in its jurisdiction. Federal and state funding is allocated through complex budgetary procedures. Often, the debate at the Capitol is how to divide these transportation dollars between urban and rural communities and between roads and transit.

According to a study by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transportation Studies, overall the Metro district contributes about 48% of federal and state transportation revenues and receives about 51% of federal and state transportation expenditures. However, the metro receives 88% of all transit funding and 36% of all highway funding. In rural Minnesota, some districts receive more than they contribute, likely due to lower population density, and some contribute more than they receive.

The majority of funding comes from either the federal government (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration) or the Minnesota state highway trunk fund. The state of Minnesota collects motor fuel tax, motor vehicle tax, and vehicle registration fees. 65% of this goes to the Minnesota state highway trunk fund and used for operation and construction. Transit funding comes from the General Fund and motor vehicle tax. The Minnesota Constitution dictates which funds must be used for specific purposes.

The Minnesota Transportation Finance Advisory Committee convened by Governor Dayton in 2012 determined that the state has a $21 billion dollar shortfall over the next 20 years, just to keep transportation systems at their current level of service. This is due to aging infrastructure, rising costs of labor and materials, and inflation. Yet, the federal gas tax, a large funding source, has not changed since 1993. The Minnesota gas tax last increased in 2012.

There tend to be two competing viewpoints on how to approach transportation needs: continue to divide the given funds among the various projects or grow the funds. The Minnesota Transportation Alliance pushed hard this past legislative session for a constitutional amendment, voted on by Minnesotans, that would allow all the sales tax on auto parts to be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. Currently half of those funds are deposited there. The other half go to the General Fund which funds education and healthcare. Therefore, education and healthcare would take a hit. This is an example of redistributing current funds. This proposal passed the House, but made no progress in the Senate. The proposal to grow the funds involves increasing the gas tax to match modern day costs, needs, and inflation.

Here is where the candidates stand on transportation systems and funding:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson will put a moratorium on light rail spending and focus transit money on a first-class bus system. He will base transportation funding decisions on projects that relieve congestion and provide mobility to the citizens of Minnesota.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy voted against H.F. No. 4437 (the constitutional amendment) and called on her fellow DFL candidates for governor to clearly oppose it. She is in favor of roads and bridges as well as mass transit like the Southwest Light Rail Transit program. She says that mass transit alleviates congestion and makes it easier for cars and semis to transport people and goods.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty oversaw the biggest mass transit expansion in generations. He presided over the Hiawatha Line, now known as the Blue Line which connects Minneapolis to the airport and Mall of America. He also approved the Northstar Commuter train and the construction of the Green Line which connects St. Paul to Minneapolis. However, he also vetoed a $6.6 billion funding package for roads, bridges, and mass transit because it involved too much of a tax increase, which the House and Senate ultimately overrode. He also cut funding to the University Avenue light rail line.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz will increase the gas tax to expand funding for transit and transportation in a way that is fair and equitable. He will expand the transit network in both the metro and rural Minnesota by expanding bus networks across the state, and investing in high speed commuter rails, light rails, and bus rapid transit projects. He will build a stronger partnership with employers and freight haulers to see how our transportation system can be more efficient for freight haulers. He will convene a One Minnesota task force on the future of transportation in our state considering increases in Minnesotans who choose to bike, walk, use ride sharing services, drive for such services, and the coming of autonomous vehicles.

Sexual Harassment & Assault (MN Governor's Race)

#MeToo began spreading virally on social media in October 2017 in order to spread awareness about the widespread prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. According to the Me Too website, 17,700,000 women have reported a sexual assault since 1998.

In Minnesota, 2 lawmakers were forced to resign over sexual misconduct allegations: United States Senator Al Franken and State Representative Tony Cornish. In the wake of the movement, many new laws were proposed in Minnesota and a couple made it into law. In May a bill sailed through the legislature with unanimous support which set a time frame of 60 days for testing future rape kits due to thousands of untested rape kits sitting on law enforcement shelves. Another bill Dayton signed required sex trafficking prevention training for hotel and motel employees. Additionally, the House updated its sexual harassment policy, but the Senate did not. Bills that didn’t make it through include one that would lower the threshold for workers to sue their employer over sexual harassment, one that would outlaw butt-grabbing, and one that would outlaw cops having sex with prisoners and teachers having sex with students who are over 18.

In July, the Star Tribune reviewed 1,000 sexual assault cases from a 2 year period and found that police never assigned an investigator in nearly 25% of them, no potential witnesses were interviewed in half of them, 75% of cases were never forwarded to prosecutors for criminal charges, and fewer than 10% of cases resulted in a conviction. 

Campus sexual assault is especially pervasive. Among undergraduates, 23.1% of females and 5.4% of males experience rape or sexual assault. Yet, 80% of female students do not report their assault to law enforcement. Among cases reported to law enforcement, less than 10% of cases result in criminal charges against the perpetrator. Given this, survivor-activists argue that colleges are often a victim’s best route for justice because the accommodations and interventions a college is legally required to provide can make the difference between a student staying enrolled or dropping out including issuing a no contact directive, providing extensions and counseling, and ensuring you can continue your education without further discrimination or assault. Activists oppose bills that send all cases to the police and call campus sexual assault a civil rights issue that campuses have a legal responsibility to handle. Any school receiving federal funding is obligated under Title IX to investigate and respond to allegations of sexual assault regardless of whether a police report has been made because sexual assault can deny someone equal access to education that they are entitled to under Title IX.

Here is where the candidates stand on sexual violence:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson as no public stance on this from what I could find and he didn’t comment on the Star Tribune report mentioned above when asked for comment. All other major candidates did.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy, the only female candidate I am covering, is the only candidate to address this issue on her website. She supports and has authored affirmative consent legislation under which universities must constitute consent as a fully informed “yes” given without the influence of drugs, alcohol or intimidation. She will make sure that health insurance covers the cost of health costs that come with an assault, or that the state will. She will be proactive in addressing sexual harassment and assault by providing age appropriate K-12 curriculum that teaches personal boundaries, bodily autonomy, and respect. She wants to create a task force that will evaluate how effective Minnesota is at investigating sexual assault cases, and she wants to see a standard adopted that will lead to an investigator assigned to every case.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty says, “Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors need to focus on better investigation and prosecution of these violent offenders. The POST Board should develop statewide standards for sexual assault investigations. ... We need to ensure that justice is delivered for victims of sexual assault."

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz wants to see state legislation "to ensure law enforcement has the skills and resources to avoid re-traumatization and effectively see investigations through to prosecution." Walz is a co-sponsor of the Abby Honold Act which reforms how investigators are trained.

Reproductive Rights (MN Governor's Race)

In Minnesota, much like the rest of the country, abortion rates have seen a steady decline since being legalized in 1973. There has been a slight uptick in Minnesota over the past 2 years. Non-residents coming to Minnesota for abortions accounted for 65% of the increase, largely due to the increasingly restrictive abortion legislation in Iowa and Wisconsin. Planned Parenthood performed 61% of the abortions in the state last year, although only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services involve abortion. 95% of Minnesota counties have no clinics that provide abortions.

In Minnesota, the most common reason women cite for having an abortion is not wanting a child at this time or economic reasons. Most abortions occur among women who haven’t used contraception. 43% of women receiving an abortion last year qualified for Medical Assistance due to low incomes. More than 40% of women who had abortions last year had previously had one. Abortions in Minnesota represent around 1% of abortions nationally.

Minnesota abortion laws are much less restrictive than other states. For the most part, the restrictions we do have were proposed and signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty.

In 2003, Pawlenty proposed and signed the Women’s Right to Know Act which requires physicians to provide women with information on abortion alternatives at least 24 hours before the procedure. This includes a list of adoption centers, detailed information about fetal development, and risks associated with abortion. During the first full year, 15,859 women were given the information, and 13,788 went through with the abortion.

In 2005, Pawlenty proposed and signed the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, which made Minnesota the first state to mandate that women considering an abortion receive information about fetal pain. Currently, there is no legitimate scientific information that confirms that a fetus feels pain. Yet, this law requires that women be offered pain-reducing medication for their fetus and women have to sign a form either requesting or denying the medication.

In 2006, Pawlenty proposed and signed the Positive Alternatives to Abortion Act, which provides funds to non-profits which provide pregnancy, parenting, and family support activities and services. The Minnesota Department of Health notes that abortions have declined since the first year of the program.

Another factor to consider when considering reproductive rights, is women’s health. Maternal deaths are increasing across the country. According the World Health Organization, the United States is the only developed country where maternal deaths are on the rise. Unsafe abortions are one of the three leading causes of maternal mortality.

In 2011, Texas slashed family planning funding by 66%. As a result, 82 family planning clinics closed, ⅓ of which were Planned Parenthood clinics (which offer a myriad of health care options including safe, legal abortion), cutting the number of women the state could serve in half. Low income women were especially at a loss to affordable birth control and had more babies. And alarmingly, pregnancy-related deaths nearly doubled, with 72 in 2010 and 148 in 2012.

Criminalizing abortion and anti-abortion laws don’t reduce the number of abortions. According to a study published in May of 2016, “In countries where abortion is completely illegal or permitted only to save the life of the pregnant woman, the most recent data places the average annual abortion rate at 37 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. In countries where abortion is legal in most cases, the rate is 34 per 1,000 women.” Latin America has some of the most intensive anti-abortion laws in the world and the highest abortion rate at 32%.

Contraception and sex education do prevent abortion. In Eastern Europe, abortion rates have fallen from 88 out of 1,000 women to 42 out of 1,000 women over the past 25 years due to a rise in contraception popularity and accessibility. Colorado began offering free birth control to anyone who wanted it in 2009, and over the first 5 years of the program, saw unintended pregnancies drop by 40% and abortion fall by 42%. It also reduced teen pregnancies. The fact that contraception decreases abortion rates has been proven time after time after time.

Additionally, policies that make healthcare and childcare more affordable, contraception more accessible, and policies that support a living wage and a reduction in poverty reduce the number of abortions. Recall the 43% of Minnesota women having abortions last year qualified for Medical Assistance due to low incomes.

Here is where the candidates stand of reproductive rights:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson says there is no more important issue than protecting innocent life. He says it is a moral issue. Additionally, he cites recent breakthroughs in science and technology that have made it clear that we must protect the life of the unborn. He is pro-life and believes in the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy will pursue reproductive justice for women of color, trans folk, and women living in low-wealth and rural communities, ensuring that where there is choice, there is also access to contraception, women’s health clinics, and abortion services. She has authored a contraception equity bill that would require Minnesota health plans to provide prescription drug coverage to cover contraception without charging a copay.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty was called the most pro-life candidate in the 2012 presidential race by the National Review, a conservative magazine. As governor of Minnesota, he proposed and signed into law the Women’s Right to Know Act, the Positive Alternatives to Abortion Act, and the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act. He says that the only exception he can really reconcile or justify is the life of the mother.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz will stand with organizations that support women’s health. He believes in a woman’s right to choose and has a 100% voting record with Planned Parenthood.

Protecting Seniors (MN Governor's Race)

Minnesota is the least tax-friendly state for retirees. It is one of only 13 states where retirees need to pay state income taxes on social security benefits in addition to federal income taxes. Couples making less than $32,000 and individuals making less than $25,000 are fully exempt. There is a 50% exemption for slightly higher incomes, and couples with income under $77,000 get to subtract up to $4,500. No more than 85% of anyone’s benefits are taxed. Pensions, distributions from individual retirement accounts, and 401(k) plans are also taxable.

GOP leaders have been pushing for phasing out the state tax on social security income for many years, claiming it causes retirees to leave the state. They had some success in 2017’s special session omnibus tax bill which allowed for new subtractions for social security benefits. Democrats warn that such a large loss of revenue from a full exemption would damage future state budgets. Some support some tax relief for seniors, but thinks a complete reduction would create too large a hole in the state budget (an estimated $500 million per year). They support raising the income thresholds which haven’t changed since 1994. Exempting all who make under $60,000 a year would cost the state $15 million, but it is argued that a full exemption would benefit people with the highest incomes the most saying that the vast majority of the money would go to those making over $100,000 a year.

Elder abuse is another issue facing seniors and their families. Research estimates that 1 in 10 seniors are a victim of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation. In 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health received 25,226 reports of elder abuse, but 97% were never investigated. This doesn’t include cases reported directly to law enforcement or those that go unreported. The number of unreported instances is estimated to outnumber those of reported instances. There are 82,000 Minnesotans in elder care facilities.

On May 9, 2018, the leaders of AARP of Minnesota, Alzheimer’s Association of Minnesota, Elder Voice Family Advocates, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and Minnesota Elder Justice took out a full page ad in the Star Tribune imploring the Minnesota House & Senate to pass comprehensive legislation. They called for licensure of assisted living centers to ensure safe standards, protections against arbitrary discharges, protections against retaliation for families who speak up, an end to deceptive marketing practices that allow facilities to promise more than they can deliver, and legal tools for families to seek justice.

Elder Voice Family Advocates suspects that lobbying and cash for the nursing home industry is influencing legislators, especially rural legislators who are counting on help from owners of local elder care facilities for help in the coming election. The senior care industry is fighting legislation that requires facilities to be licensed and inspected. They have two dozen lobbyists patrolling the capitol and spent nearly $1 million lobbying in 2016 and 2017, a 56% increase from the previous legislative session. As a result, the 2018 combined health and transportation omnibus bills focused on reforming state practice rather than putting rules in place for elder care facilities.

Here is where the candidates stand on social security benefits taxes and/or elder abuse:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson would like to see Minnesota do away with social security benefits taxes.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy voted against the 2017 omnibus tax bill which ultimately passed and allows new subtractions for certain social security benefits. Elder care was addressed in the passage of the 2018 combined health and transportation omnibus bill during which she gave an emotional speech imploring her fellow legislators to do more on the topic citing concern for her own 84 year old father who lives in an assisted living facility and is vulnerable to abuse and neglect.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty is the only candidate to address this on his website. He says that Minnesota should stop taxing social security benefits. Ending elder abuse, neglect, and incompetent care will be one of his top priorities as governor. Complaints will be properly reviewed and safeguards will be put in place.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz supports raising the income thresholds subject to social security taxes. He is a co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act at the federal level which will provide a tax cut for 10 million social security recipients by raising the threshold on taxable benefits, if passed.

Protecting the Constitution and Democracy (MN Governor's Race)

The Constitution of the State of Minnesota was approved in a special election on October 13, 1857 and ratified by the United States Senate on May 11, 1858 making us 160 years old this year! It contains 14 articles, each with numerous sections. It has been amended nearly 120 times. The constitution contains our fundamental principles, the law of our land.

Article 1 contains 17 sections and makes up our Bill of Rights, many of which mirror the United States Bill of Rights. I’d like to highlight the first three sections as I’d argue the outline the fundamentals of democracy.

Section 1. Object of government. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

Section 2. Rights and privileges. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

Section 3. Liberty of the press. The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.

The term “democracy” comes from the Greek roots, demos and kratos. Demos means common people and kratos means strength. So, democracy is a form of government which gives strength to the common people, you and me. And, it’s right there in the first section of the first article of our constitution. Government is instituted for the security, benefit, and protection of the people. All political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify, or reform government whenever required by the public good. And, no member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof.

So, how do we claim this inherent right to create a government that gives strength to the common people? Voting. We choose representatives from amongst ourselves that form our governing bodies. We choose these people. This is on us. What Minnesota stands for, what the United States stands for, who represents our voices and speaks for us, is on us.

For the most part, Minnesotans know this. In the 2016 election, we had the highest voter turnout by percentage in the country. Nationwide, only 55% of voters actually voted, but in Minnesota, our number was close to 75%. Still, that was a drop for our peak performance of 78.77% in 2004. But, those are presidential elections. During our last midterm election (2014), only 50.51% of eligible voters voted. Midterms matter. A lot. This midterm matters. A lot. Voting is our strongest opportunity to make our voice heard. Voting is our democracy in action. And, only half of us are showing up. Only half of us are exercising our strength, our power.

The right to vote is a powerful, hard-fought-for right. It is the foundation of our democracy, it belongs to every citizen, and it faces ever-present threats, probably the greatest of which is sheer apathy. And, there are many that benefit from that apathy. They don’t want you to know your own power or strength. They don’t want you to be paying attention. They don’t want you to vote.

Voter suppression has thrived throughout our history and is alive and well today. African Americans have experienced voter suppression throughout the history of our country. The constitution was amended to ensure that no person was refused the right to vote based on race (15th amendment in 1870), yet states have found ways around that ever since. Immediately, southern states started amending their constitutions to enact various voter restrictions such as literacy tests, poll taxes, property ownership requirements, moral character tests, and grandfather tests which allowed people to vote only if their grandfather had voted (excluding African Americans as their grandfathers had been slaves.) Not until the 1950’s and 60’s during the Civil Rights Movement was a whole host of legislation enacted to protect the African American vote.

So, we’re good now, right? Everybody gets to vote and it’s totally fair? Of course not. Because in recent years, thinly veiled attempts at suppressing the African American vote have sprouted up in the form of Voter ID laws. The claim is that Voter ID laws are common sense and that they prevent voter fraud despite the fact that multiple sources have found instances of voter fraud to be rare. From 2000 to 2014, there were only 31 instances out of 1 billion ballots cast that would have been prevented by voter ID laws. In-person voter fraud, as it currently happens, would have no chance of swinging an election.

What does swing elections? Voter ID laws (which happen to be rather expensive as well as discriminatory). Voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minorities, young people, low-income voters, seniors, and women. Voter ID laws are the modern day version of literacy tests, property ownership requirements, and grandfather tests. Any barrier to voting, manipulating the vote, or having each vote count is a threat to democracy.

And women, we didn’t secure the right to vote until 1920 (19th amendment)! And, it wasn’t as though the men running the country at that time just woke up one day and said, “Hey, let’s have the women vote now.” It was a movement. It took over 40 years from the introduction of the 19th amendment to the adoption of the 19th amendment. It was a hard fought battle marked with protests, imprisonments, and many of the arguments we hear to justify oppression today: giving women the right to vote would threaten the family institution, a woman’s highest duty is motherhood, women’s suffrage opposes God’s will, women can’t handle the responsibility and lack the necessary knowledge and would thereby weaken the government due to this ill-informed electorate (note: literacy tests and property owner requirements suppressed the female vote, too). And, before you go rage at the men in your life for the sexism of their ancestors, note that the most prominent anti-suffragists were women.

Many powerful people don’t want you to vote. Why? It lessens their power and gives it back to the people, where it belongs. It lessens their power to buy off their legislators. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision determined that corporations and unions could contribute unlimited funds in essentially advertising for or against a candidate. Out of this decision, Super PAC’s were born. These Political Action Committees cannot directly contribute to a candidate’s campaign, but raise more money than either political party giving them power on behalf of the candidates or issues. There is a strong argument for the viewpoint that this enabled elections to simply be bought by the super wealthy and the government is no longer “for the people.” No longer a true democracy. This extends into the belief that elected officials do not represent the people and they are forced to vote on issues based on where their funding comes from or risk losing their seat.

"Latin Earmuffs"

And, then there’s gerrymandering-drawing election boundaries for partisan gain. Take a look at Illinois’s fourth district, for example. It is nicknamed “Latin Earmuffs” because it connects 2 predominantly Latino neighborhoods by just one road! This packs all the votes for Democrats into one district, weakens the Latino vote, and gives Republicans a stronger chance to win surrounding districts despite being vastly outnumbered. Gerrymandering is one of the strongest threats to democracy. Not only does it create a governing body that is not representative of the people, it encourages voter apathy by ensuring that their vote won’t carry the weight that it should. Additionally, it removes motivation for legislators to compromise because voting districts are manipulated to include or exclude voters who primarily identify with only one party, so that elected officials become vulnerable to only primary challengers and not general election challengers from an opposing party. Why compromise when you know you’ll get elected over and over again?

Now, what about Article 1, Section 3 of our constitution? The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate. Inviolate=free or safe from injury or violation. A free press is foundational to a democracy. The people in power should never control the information because they can then bend it in any way they please. The press serves the people. Attacks on the press are dangerous and irresponsible, yet very intentional. Today’s effort to discredit the press undermines our democracy by attempting to control the information and discredit facts and information that run contrary to the messaging of the administration. In the words of Hugo L. Black, while arguing the landmark 1971 case, The New York Times Company vs. The United States, which made it possible for The Times and the Washington Post to publish the classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government punishment or censorship, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.”

Democracy means strength of the common people. This is our government. These are our representatives. This is our vote. Voting is how we make our voice heard. It’s how we decide the laws of the land and the voices that represent us. There are many intentional barriers to exercising that fundamental right to vote and they threaten our democracy. Don’t let yourself be one of them. Cast it with pride. Cast it in every election. Be a part of our democracy in spite of voter suppression efforts, in spite of having to register first, in spite of insurmountable campaign financing flaws, in spite of gerrymandering. Overcome the obstacles. They are there to keep you from voting. Don’t let them. Make your voice heard. Exercise your power, your strength. Vote.

Here is where the candidates stand on the constitution and democracy:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnsons says that the state and federal constitutions are not a list of suggestions, but concrete operating rules for our government. He views the constitution as his job description as governor.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy says we must pass meaningful campaign finance reform, including the expansion of public financing of elections, to make it easier for citizens to see who is funding elections. She supports having an independent judicial panel making decisions about how district lines are drawn to avoid gerrymandering. She wants automatic voter registration when Minnesotans turn 18. She will veto Right-to Work legislation and work to expand collective bargaining. She will work with the press to make sure they have the information necessary to inform Minnesotans about policy-making at the capitol. She will restore the vote to Minnesotans who have served their time for felony convictions.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty vetoed automatic voter registration in 2009 saying that registering to vote should be an intentional, voluntary act. In 2010, he signed a bill that brought Minnesota’s campaign finance laws in line with the Citizens United Case.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz recently held a town hall in Mankato and called gerrymandering a fundamental problem. He said, “I gave the pledge that my goal is that in Minnesota we should have nonpartisan, citizen or judicial redistricting to have fair districts.” At that same town hall he called the money in campaigns for public office a fundamental flaw because it discourages people from running.