This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat. email Trana if you like.
North Dakota sometimes seems like a hopelessly red state. Obama only won 45% of the vote against McCain. The last Democratic presidential nominee to win was LBJ. They've had a long line of Republican governors since 1992 and they have a Republican state legislature. Their only congressman is a Republican. Republican John Hoeven was elected to the Senate in 2010 with 76% of the vote. And the other Senate seat is open because Democrat Kent Conrad is retiring. But North Dakota sometimes has a surprise independent streak. Until 2010 Democrats had been elected in every congressional and Senate since 1982.
This year polls show a neck-and-neck race between an extremely well-liked and popular Democrat, former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp and a pretty widely disliked and polarizing Republican, Rick Berg. North Dakota is home to a lot of renters-- and it just so happens that Berg, founder of Goldmark Property Management, made millions preying on tenants. His shady property management company doesn't have a Better Business Bureau Accreditation-- the BBB site and the Internet are teaming with complaints about what a den of crooks Berg's company is-- unfairly withholding security deposits from almost anyone, including college students.
Berg was elected to the state's single House seat in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse that swept Earl Pomeroy and dozens of other Blue Dogs around the country out of office. But Heidi is no Earl Pomeroy and no Blue Dog. She's an honest-to-goodness Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat. I ran into John Nichols at a Nation event a week or so ago and he told me I should look into her because, he said, she would make a really good senator. Berg, on the other hand, is likely to be as dismal a senator as he is a representative.
Earlier this year, Berg was fundraising online and sending messages in the name of Janne Myrdal, who serves as the President of the Concerned Women of America's North Dakota chapter. What the email doesn't mention is that Myrdal is a member of CWA and CWA has a history of very, very extreme positions-- including their opposition to the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
In fact, Berg has cozied up to CWA, which opposes VAWA by issuingcrazy right-wing talking points for... people like Berg to parrot. Like this: "Most violence against women is from ‘boyfriend’ (often a succession of them) not husbands or fathers (62 percent is boyfriend violence)."
That's not all, of course. Berg has a history of opposing measures that would protect and help victims of domestic violence. North Dakota is one of just nine states that allow domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. But Berg rejected a bill that would have stopped insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. "Rick Berg was chairman of the committee that heard the bill then. He says its supporters didn't have any examples of battered women being denied coverage.”
And when VAWA came up in Congress, Berg, needless to say, refused to lead. On March 21, 2012, a North Dakota TV station [see video below] reported that Berg’s office said he won’t take a position on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act “until all the provisions are in place.” Then, he changed his mind after Heidi began to rally support for the issue. "Berg's position on the issue came to light after Heidi Heitkamp, his Democratic opponent in this fall's North Dakota U.S. Senate race, hosted the first of a series of roundtable discussions on domestic violence in Grand Forks on Wednesday."
Rick Berg is Only Looking Out for Millionaires LIke Himself.
Rick Berg is listed as the 14th richest member of the U.S. House. So it's no surprise that he was recently caught on camera admitting that he didn't know the minimum wage. But he also has voted time and again to oppose raising the minimum wage -- at the same time he's voted to raise his own pay. He even opposed the concept of a minimum wage, saying, "You would say that government should control that choice rather than the employer?"
But Berg also votes like a millionaire. He opposed the Buffett rule. And he voted for Paul Ryan's budget that would give millionaires like himself another $265,000 in tax cuts.
Today's Fargo Forum includes a poll that shows Measure 2 is heavily disfavored by North Dakotans. The measure is supported, currently, by only one in four North Dakotans. Here's info from the Forum's story:
North Dakota voters appear ready to reject Measure 2, a proposal to eliminate property taxes, by a margin of almost 3 to 1.
A Forum Communications poll of 500 likely voters found 74 percent planned to vote against Measure 2 in the June 12 primary, with 26 percent saying they will vote yes.
The telephone survey was conducted May 3 to 8 by Essman/Research of Des Moines, Iowa, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percent.
Also, today, the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has released a report on North Dakota's Measure 2. You should really read the entire report. Here's the press release that came out with the report:
A proposal to amend North Dakota's constitution to ban property taxes would lock North Dakota into a risky, uncharted course of action and leave the state's schools at the mercy of the highly volatile oil industry, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, DC-based policy research institution.
"North Dakota has the opportunity to build upon today's oil-driven economic boom to create a strong economy and quality of life for future generations," said Michael Leachman, co- author of the report. "Measure 2 would squander that opportunity and instead lock North Dakota into a risky, uncharted path."
Should Measure 2 pass, North Dakota would be the only state to place a constitutional ban on property taxes or otherwise permanently eliminate them.
Under Measure 2, North Dakota would:
experience major disruptions to schools, cities, and counties across the state because the property tax is a key source of funding for each of them;
leave its schools financially dependent on highly-volatile oil revenues;
face threats to the quality of basic local services such as police and fire protection, courts, libraries, and immunizations (or face pressure for local tax increases), particularly in faster-growing parts of the state, because state funds to localities to replace property tax revenues could well erode over time;
provide a windfall to out-of-state property owners and the federal government rather than keeping it in state; and
waste an historic opportunity to invest heavily in the state's children and in the public infrastructure that forms the building blocks of a vibrant future economy and quality of life.
"Claims that Measure 2 will bring a huge economic surge – on top of the current boom – to North Dakota just don't hold up," said Leachman. "North Dakotans shouldn't be swayed by these false promises.
The whole report is very good and very useful. But my favorite part of the report is the "take-down" of the completely ridiculous report issued by the Koch Brothers' funded Beacon Hill Institute. Here's that section from the report:
Beacon Hill Institute Exaggerates Measure 2’s Economic Impact
The Beacon Hill Institute, based at Suffolk University in Boston, has written two papers in support of banning property taxes in North Dakota. The papers’ findings are filled with illogical and inconsistent results that fail to support the case for Measure 2. For instance:
One Beacon Hill paper finds that, under the scenario with the best jobs outcome, Measure 2 would cost North Dakota more jobs than it would create. Specifically, it finds that banning property taxes would force job cuts in the public sector that slightly exceed job gains in the private sector. The paper brushes over this result by nevertheless asserting that Measure 2 would greatly increase the disposable income of North Dakotans — an illogical result. The only way this would be possible is if the private sector jobs gained as a result of the measure paid massively more than the public sector jobs lost. More specifically, for Beacon Hill’s numbers to work, the average pay for new jobs gained would need to be about double the jobs lost. The Beacon Hill paper provides no explanation for how this could be the case.
The other Beacon Hill paper, which also predicts a boom in disposable income as a result of Measure 2, appears to assume the state will take funds to pay for Measure 2 out of state reserves (instead of laying off thousands of state workers). This is a more realistic scenario, but ignores two important realities. First, because of other constitutional provisions, a large share of those reserves cannot be accessed by legislators to pay for Measure 2. Second, those reserves that are accessible by legislators almost certainly will be used to pay for other types of tax cuts or spending if Measure 2 fails, pushing the money out of state reserves into the economy. The Beacon Hill paper ignores this reality, instead choosing to calculate Measure 2’s impact relative to an unrealistic scenario in which the legislature holds surplus revenues entirely in reserve.
Both papers conclude that if North Dakota banned property taxes, new business investment in the state would explode almost immediately, growing by a third or more in the first year after implementation. Such a huge, immediate boom in business investment from Measure 2 — over and above North Dakota’s already rapid economic growth — is highly unlikely, partly for reasons discussed in the text of this paper. For instance, businesses invest in new facilities and equipment when they see growing demand for their products, and they base location decisions primarily on fundamentals such as proximity to markets and suppliers. Measure 2 would not improve substantially any of these fundamental roadblocks to increasing business investment, especially in the first year after implementation, making a huge, immediate surge in business investment unlikely.
These problems, evident despite the papers’ lack of transparency, suggest that the Beacon Hill papers are exaggerating the economic impact of Measure 2. Their findings should not be considered credible assessments of the measure’s effect on North Dakota’s economy.
The Beacon Hill Institute has worked hard to lose its credibility. This report is kind of the final straw. Before this report, the Institute had a choice to make: (a) sell out to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, or (b) retain the possibility someone might respect our work. They chose "b" and that's just fine. But it's unfortunate when local media can't tell the difference between a worthwhile report and something churned up by the Koch Brothers.
It's good to know informed North Dakotans polled in the Forum's poll understand the problems of Measure 2. It's also good that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has issued this report, to further inform North Dakotans.
What's scary is that there isn't more messaging and information going out about Measure 3. Don't get me wrong; Measure 2 is a big deal, but it seems as though the truth campaign about Measure 2 is winning out over all the lies and falsehoods from the Measure 2 advocates.
Now Measure 3 is the one people should really be concerned about. There's so much misinformation out there from the Catholic Church about Measure 3, that it may be accurate to describe it as being a death train rolling down the tracks.
Chris Cillizza, who writes "The Fix" blog for the Washington Post, had a post last week in which he outlines "10 House Districts that might surprise you." Right there at Number One was North Dakota's one and only U.S. House race. Here's what Cillizza wrote:
1. North Dakota at-large (R): Freshman Rep. Rick Berg (R) opted to run for Senate just months after winning a seat long held by Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy, and now Democrats appear to have a fighting chance to win it back. Presumptive Democratic nominee Pam Gulleson raised more than her two potential GOP opponents combined in the first quarter and appears to be running a very strong campaign. Meanwhile, the GOP was unable to avoid a contested primary, with state Public Service Commissioner Kevin Cramer pursuing a primary even after commission colleague Brian Kalk won the state party’s endorsement. This is still a conservative state, but she’s on the right path.
Pam is running a solid campaign against two candidates bought and paid for by oil companies hell-bent on destroying North Dakota. The choice in her race is this: Do you want to turn North Dakota into a huge industrial park, with toxic chemicals everywhere and unbreathable air, with all of North Dakota's government policies set by oil men in Oklahoma, or do you want sustainable growth? If you want to wreck the state, take your pick between Kalk and Cramer. If you want sustainable growth, vote for Gulleson.
While the Bismarck Tribune and other North Dakota newspapers sleep, the Fargo Forum continues to publish stories about the ongoing criminal investigation at North Dakota's Workforce Safety & Insurance. From a front page story in Sunday's Forum:
The director of North Dakota’s workers’ compensation agency assured the governor that no claims involving unexplained deletions of claims file records involved denied benefits.
But Bryan Klipfel failed to make clear in his recent report to Gov. Jack Dalrymple that the deleted electronic record that prompted an internal review did, in fact, involve a claim in which some benefits were denied.
The issue of deleted electronic notepad entries from injured workers’ claims files surfaced publicly in February, after a whistleblower who works for Workforce Safety and Insurance reported a deletion she said was ordered because it “weakens” the agency’s denial of certain claim benefits.
The North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation is investigating the deletion, which the whistleblower contends is an illegal destruction of a public record, and her allegations that the agency then tried to hide important details about the deleted record.
Let me translate this story for you: Bryan Klipfel lied to Governor Dalrymple. He told Dalrymple an internal audit was done to look into the alleged illegal deletion of WSI records in violation of records retention laws (and an injured worker's civil rights), but the truth is he didn't. Instead, he did what WSI's criminal masterminds always do; waste money on a fake audit that audits everything but not the issues that need to be audited.
What a shocker, eh? Oh wait! I wrote this exact thing on March 11, 2012. Two months ago. Here's what I wrote:
But wait! That can't be true, can it? Remember Bryan Klipfel's memo to Governor Dalrymple? I'll quote from it for you: "I want to emphasize that none of these six claimants was denied benefits, and there is no indication that anyone at WSI deleted a notepad entry for an improper reason such as intent to deny benefits." (See the Memo or my blog post on the memo, calling for Klipfel to resign).
Is he lying to the Governor? Again?
Well... he's only mostly lying. (It's not a 100% total lie.) See, this is one of the tricks WSI uses to avoid accountability. When Barb Frohlich went to WSI with her concerns regarding the August 16, 2011, notepad entry that had been deleted, they "scoped" their internal audit so that they only looked at notepad entries that had been deleted by Helpdesk employees between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. Not only did they not look at notepad entries deleted by people other than Helpdesk staff -- such as the Claims Director -- they also didn't look at a time period that included the KNOWN, illegally-deleted notepad entry: August 16, 2011. They affirmatively, specifically did not look at the problem. They audited something else.
See, that's how WSI has always done business. When the last round of whistleblowers tried to point out illegal conduct at WSI, an audit was conducted. When it was conducted, it was "scoped" to completely ignore everything that was being alleged by the whistleblowers. Then, when the audit report came out, they used the fact that "no wrongdoing has been found" to fire the whistleblowers. WSI teaches us that when you affirmatively avert your eyes from something, you don't ever see it?
Once again, reading North Dakota's newspapers is like reading NorthDecoder.com, just two months after everyone else has read it.
And Dalrymple is such an incompetent leader, he's either (a) not smart enough to recognize it's happening, or (b) not effective enough to do anything about it.
I was in Fargo last week and met with WSI's latest known victim, JR Buzalsky, who I first wrote about a month ago. JR said he, too, was contacted by the Bureau of Criminal Investigations. I fully expect this story will heat up again, soon.
I'm not done with this yet, either.
While the Tribune's reporters clean the dirt off their dragging knuckles, we're busy breaking news stories here.
I've been busy this week but, as I've had flashes of "free time," I've been thinking about President Obama's announcement this week about his views on marriage equality. My thoughts have been kind of random and undeveloped, but they're my thoughts. I want to share a couple with you.
Before getting into my thoughts specific to President Obama's evolution, I've gotta give full disclosure here about myself. I have friends who happen to be gay. I've had "out" friends since I was in high school or college (don't remember which). I've never thought of them as being "gay friends." To me those friends have been just "friends." I have some friends who are married, too. Some are getting married. None (obviously) are getting married in North Dakota, because we have one of those reprehensible amendments here, taking away rights from some people. I've always thought all my friends should be afforded all the same rights and responsibilities as other Americans, and I don't understand the fear of gay people having those rights. I've never understood the whole "anti-gay marriage" thing, mostly because the people who are loudest about the issue all seem to be so unqualified to express any opinion on the matter, at all. But that's just my perception, real or imagined.
With that said, I don't assume all gay people are good people. Like every other "category" of people -- i.e. doctors, lawyers, judges, plumbers, police officers, carpenters, welders, sports stars, actors, etc... -- there are some good gay people, and some bad ones. I don't just assume they're all good or bad. They're just people to me.
With regard to the President and his "evolution"... I've been thinking about Ellie Schafer. I don't know Ellie, but she is former North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer's daughter. She works on President Obama's staff, in the White House. She's the Director of the White House Visitors' Center. She started working on then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign's advance staff in February of 2007, and she started on his official presidential staff in January of 2009. She's been working with the President a long time.
Most of you probably know this, but Governor Schafer's daughter, Ellie, is a lesbian. I don't know that because I have some inside line on her private life. I know it because she's not afraid to talk about it. Here is, for example, an excerpt from her "Outsports.com" interview:
OS: In what role? Schafer: I worked on the advance staff. The advance staff comes in in advance of the candidate and sets everything up. It’s everything from the logistics of the trip, motorcade, hotel, venue, get all the permits, control the crowd, distribute the tickets, security, the local government. So they just come in and set the trip up.
OS: How welcoming was the Obama campaign for you as a lesbian? Schafer: Everybody welcomed me. Half the time I think people were more excited to see my partner Julie than they were to see me.
OS: When did you start with the campaign? Schafer: I started working with him in February 2007 at the announcement tour in Springfield.
OS: What is your new role in the Administration? Schafer: My current job is Director of the White House Visitors Office. We coordinate everything from the free public tour to State visits. We coordinate the Easter egg roll, Fourth of July at the White House, Christmas at the White House, Tee-ball tournaments at the White House.
I know Ms. Schafer isn't the only gay person working in the Obama Administration, but she's the one I think about when I think about President Obama's views on marriage equality. I think about the fact that the President has to have a lot of confidence in Ellie Schafer. He must really trust her. He must respect her. She must be a hard worker and a good person. And then I think about the fact he has had this position -- in the past -- that he was against marriage equality. I wonder whether he's felt completely comfortable about his own position on the issue, while he works from day-to-day with Ellie Schafer. When he brought her a birthday cake one day, somewhere in the back of his mind he had to have been thinking about his position on marriage equality.
How could he not? I just can't imagine. Were I him, the thoughts going through my mind would have to be something like this: "This position I've embraced in the past is hypocritical. I trust you, Ellie, to run part of my office. I trust you -- like I trust very few other people -- to work with and around my family and friends. I think you're a great person. But I don't think you should have all the same rights other Americans have? There's something very, very wrong here."
Working with good, hard-working people with integrity, like Ellie Schafer, had to have impacted Obama's position on marriage equality. I can't imagine it didn't.
I imagine the President walking down the halls of the White House every day. As he walks, from time to time it has to dawn on him -- not just about Ellie, but about other people in his administration -- how ridiculous it must look to others for him to like, and trust, and care about these people so deeply, but to not support their right to enjoy all the same rights and freedoms everyone else has.
I know many North Dakotans are against marriage equality. I know many of my neighbors here in North Dakota are afraid some gay folks will stop in and criticize their fashion sense, or their hairstyle or something. And, for that reason, they don't think they should have the same rights as others. And I don't get it. I just don't.
And I respect President Obama for doing and saying the right thing. At last.
Now, here's where I start to struggle: I'm planning to go to Charlotte, North Carolina, as a super-delegate to the DNC convention, representing North Dakota. I'm North Dakota's DNC National Committeeman. I'm going to have to scrape together enough money to get myself to Charlotte, and spend four or five days there, and I'm presumably going to be spending money in North Carolina. I'll presumably pay for a hotel room. I'll pay for some meals and a cold beer or two. I might catch a cab once or twice. I might buy a souvenir for my wife and kids. Thousands of people will do the same thing I'm doing. Some will bring family members. We'll all converge on Charlotte, and give it a huge boost of money. And all that money is going to help the economy of the State of North Carolina, where -- last week -- the voters just voted to outlaw marriage equality.
On May 8th, the people of North Carolina voted in support of Amendment One, a constitutional amendment that discriminates against LGBT people, couples & their families. In protest, the Democratic National Convention Committee should MOVE its convention (September 2012) to a state that upholds values of equality & liberty, and which treats ALL citizens equally.
A report that came out recently shows North Dakota is the fifth best killer of workers.
The 2012 "Death on the Job" Report produced for the 21st year by the AFL-CIO (The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) indicates West Virginia led the country in 2010 with the highest fatality rate of 13.1 workers per 100,000.
The national fatality rate was 3.6.
The report's executive summary states that since the Occupational Safety and Health Act, workplace safety and health conditions have improved, but criminal penalties under OSHA laws are weak and many workers still suffer risk of injury, illness or death.
Ninety-five workers were killed in West Virginia in 2010, including the 29 miners who died in the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Alaska were among states with the highest workplace fatality rates...
CONGRATULATIONS, North Dakota! You've made another Top-Five list!!!
I like the report's breakdown of how long it would take -- at its current pace -- for OSHA to inspect every job site in North Dakota. They have a handy-dandy chart to show how absurdly long it would take...
I'm not sure whether that's going to be readable on your computer, but it shows WE'RE NUMBER THREE!!! Yeah, North Dakota!!!
It'd take 218 years to get every job site inspected in North Dakota. My great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will be around to see that day. So I've got that going for me. Which is nice.
Question: So what, if anything, do these top-five worker-killing states have in common?
Answer: They are all bought and paid for by Oil, Gas and Coal companies. All of them -- without exception -- are overwhelmingly run by Republicans and DINOs (Democrats In Name Only). They are all what you would either have to call "Republican States" or, at best, "Blue Dog States." But, whatever you call them, for all of them, the vast majority of their politicians have been bought and paid for by oil, gas and/or coal barons. You might try to argue with me that West Virginia is an exception, but you'd be wrong. Former WV governor, Joe Manchin (a Democrat [in name only]), is representative of the "exceptions." He may be a Democrat, but he is also "more than just a supporter of his state's influential coal producers -- he's a full-fledged industry insider." (New York Times).
Are there "small-picture" exceptions? Like... are there some state legislators in North Dakota who aren't bought-and-paid-for schills of the oil, gas and/or coal industries? Oh, sure. Bunch of 'em. Might there be one member of the U.S. House and a member of the Senate who aren't sold-out? Yep. But the overwhelming majority don't work for you and me. They work for some oil company billionaire like Harold Hamm. They work for the Koch Brothers. When their boss calls, the area code that shows up on the Caller-ID isn't 701. It's 580.
So what's a fella or gal do to stop this ever-escalating trend? I can think of only one thing: Stop voting for Republicans, entirely. And stop voting for sell-outs and DINOs.
(Cross-posted, with permission, from 
Today's Fargo Forum includes a poll that shows Measure 2 is heavily disfavored by North Dakotans. The measure is supported, currently, by only one in four North Dakotans. Here's info from the Forum's story:
Chris Cillizza, who writes "The Fix" blog for the Washington Post, had a post last week in which he outlines "10 House Districts that might surprise you." Right there at Number One was North Dakota's one and only U.S. House race. Here's what Cillizza wrote:
While the Bismarck Tribune and other North Dakota newspapers sleep, the Fargo Forum continues to publish stories about the ongoing criminal investigation at North Dakota's Workforce Safety & Insurance. From a front page story in Sunday's Forum:
I've been busy this week but, as I've had flashes of "free time," I've been thinking about President Obama's announcement this week about his views on marriage equality. My thoughts have been kind of random and undeveloped, but they're my thoughts. I want to share a couple with you.
I know Ms. Schafer isn't the only gay person working in the Obama Administration, but she's the one I think about when I think about President Obama's views on marriage equality. I think about the fact that the President has to have a lot of confidence in Ellie Schafer. He must really trust her. He must respect her. She must be a hard worker and a good person. And then I think about the fact he has had this position -- in the past -- that he was against marriage equality. I wonder whether he's felt completely comfortable about his own position on the issue, while he works from day-to-day with Ellie Schafer. When he brought her a birthday cake one day, somewhere in the back of his mind he had to have been thinking about his position on marriage equality. 
Now, here's where I start to struggle: I'm planning to go to Charlotte, North Carolina, as a super-delegate to the DNC convention, representing North Dakota. I'm North Dakota's DNC National Committeeman. I'm going to have to scrape together enough money to get myself to Charlotte, and spend four or five days there, and I'm presumably going to be spending money in North Carolina. I'll presumably pay for a hotel room. I'll pay for some meals and a cold beer or two. I might catch a cab once or twice. I might buy a souvenir for my wife and kids. Thousands of people will do the same thing I'm doing. Some will bring family members. We'll all converge on Charlotte, and give it a huge boost of money. And all that money is going to help the economy of the State of North Carolina, where -- last week -- the voters just 
A report that came out recently shows North Dakota is the fifth best killer of workers. 