Reality Check (and Candidate Contrast Basis)

"The Affordable Health Care Act...it is socialized single payer health care for the whole nation".
LWV Candidate Forum, Oct.12, 2010

"I'm going to have to tell you that I'm not sure what the difference is between Universal Health Care and Single Payer."
Courage Center Candidate Forum, Sept.30, 2008, Bayport Senior Center

Really?? Someone forgot to tell the insurance industry that they are out of business.

Somehow, the Press missed that little detail of the federal health care overhaul. The statement plays nicely into Ms. Lohmer's message and her philosophy, but it happens to be not even close to true. Ms. Lohmer is not much bothered by facts. Such command of the facts, and abuse thereof, reminds us of her mentor Michelle Bachmann, who famously diagnosed the subprime mortgage financial meltdown as a result of hyper regulation.

Good grief. There is plenty of room for disagreement on opinions when we stick to facts, but even facts seems to mean nothing to Ms. Lohmer. We have found that Ms Lohmer makes a lot of statements about what Julie's views are, and Ms. Lohmer is even more wrong about Julie's views and positions than Ms. Lohmer is about basic facts.

Ms. Bunn is not being honest. She claims we agree on health care. This is not true. She wants to create a public health insurance program that competes with private companies, at the same time, making it harder for private companies to stay in business. She has boasted that a variety of committees and commissions are at work crafting legislation that could lead to an entire takeover of the health care industry; thus implementing a model of European socialism here at home.
Stillwater Gazette, Oct.27, 2010

Julie never claimed to agree with Ms. Lohmer on health care. Scott Wente of the Woodbury Bulletin, based on his interview with both candidates, stated in his District 56A summary article that both candidates were in agreement in opposing single payer health care. However, without a doubt, Julie could not possibly agree with Ms. Lohmer on health care since Ms. Lohmer states that we currently have single payer health care and we clearly do not.

Disagreement on facts aside, Julie has never backed single payer health care. Julie supports market-based reforms that protect consumers, improves access, and lowers costs, and she has passed into state law bills that help achieve this (e.g. 2007 HF1873).

"I do have some disturbing numbers, talking with a gal that's running for school board in Stillwater, and out of Stillwater's 700 graduating class last year there were seven honor students. I think that is very concerning, that is very much a problem, and I think that's very telling to what's going on right now."
LWV Candidate Forum, Oct.13, 2008

"As far as I know, the state, um, the pie of the state gets over 50%, closer to like 60% I believe for, um, the education, so I guess my question is how is the money being spent and how is the money being wasted because its an awful lot of money, and again, um, you know, just want to see accountability, and want to see full financial disclosures going on with school districts, I mean I think there's a lot of things we could look at."
Stillwater Gazette Candidate Forum, Oct. 2008

Seven 2008 SAHS students graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA. A 2008 SAHS senior won first place, and therefore a full 4yr. scholarship, in the national Drake Physics exam. A 2008 SAHS senior earned a perfect score on the ACT exam. Seven of Minnesota's 200 National AP Scholars were 2008 SAHS seniors, including Julie's daughter. More than 400 SAHS students received academic letters in the 2008 school year. Ms. Lohmer's son was also 2008 SAHS graduate.

K-12 Funding is roughly 40% of the state budget.

Mrs. Lohmer appears to know next to nothing about SAHS except that it is wildly under-performing according to her gal friend Lu Shaughnessy.

Here is what is "very telling to what's going on" -- Mrs. Lohmer's M.O.: she gets information from questionable sources, does not subject that information to critical thinking or to comparison with other available information, and then she repeats that information in support of her positions. This is the opposite of how an effective legislator needs to operate.

Ms. Lohmer correctly identified the percentage of the state budget for education in her 2010 Stillwater Gazette Candidate Forum. We feel we should get some credit for this since we took her to task for it on these pages in 2008.

Ms. Lohmer variously describes herself in voter's guides as having operated a small business for 34 years, or as a small business owner.

We have found no publicly available documentation that shows Ms. Lohmer is a business owner. We have found however that another woman, Colleen Williams, is listed as co-owner of Premier Planning Associates apparently with Ms. Lohmer's husband. We have found no one who can identify any significant role that Ms. Lohmer has played in her husband's (financial planning) business, nor has she publicly described this role during 3 years of campaigning. As near as we can determine, Ms. Lohmer had a career as a medical office worker, a homemaker, a home schooler, a volunteer, and an activist, not as a business operator.

An accurate and truthful resume is important in any job application. While many news outlets are content to repeat what they are told by Ms. Lohmer, the Star Tribune apparently probed enough to see no substance to the business operator claim, and described what they found substantiated: "an anti-abortion activist, home school cooperative founder, and former medical office administrator."
Star Tribune, Oct.27, 2010

"It doesn't take much digging to find that we have many …programs that allow for widespread fraud. Recently, the Minnesota House Republican caucus published a map showing that welfare cash benefits are being spent in all 50 states - including locations such as Alaska and Hawaii.
Lohmer 2010 Campaign Newsletter

The Governor, as head of the Executive Branch of State Government, is essentially the CEO of an organization with a $30 Billion annual budget. He hires and fires the Commissioners and deputies of every state agency, sets their agendas and goals, and manages them. The Republican Party has owned the Governor's office and run the agencies of state government for over 20 years. If there is widespread fraud occurring in the state's programs it would suggest that our Republican leaders have not been doing a very good job.

The Republican party, contrary to their rhetoric, does not have a monopoly on the desire for efficiency and effectiveness in government. In this case however they arguably bear more responsibility for its failures since their leaders have managed and run all government agencies for over two decades.

"Trick or treat — you decide"
"In 2008, she [Bunn] put the mask on to run against me in a deplorable, name-calling campaign."
"Ms. Bunn is not being honest. She claims we agree on health care." ...continued in the section at the top
Lohmer Candidate Viewpoint
Stillwater Gazette, Oct.27, 2010

Julie and Ms. Lohmer both had their final campaign viewpoint letter in the same issue of the Gazette. Julie's viewpoint doesn't mention Ms. Lohmer. Ms. Lohmer uses 75% of her column to criticize Julie.

Julie's campaign has mailed eight unique 2010 campaign pieces, only one of which addresses Ms. Lohmer in a "compare and contrast" format, which is the same approach as in the election two years ago. Each of these "compare and contrast" pieces were/are backed up with the basis for any statements about Ms. Lohmer in the "Candidate Contrast Basis" section of this Reality Check page (see below). You can judge for yourself whether we have mis-represented Ms. Lohmer or treated her unfairly. We believe our statements are accurate.

On the other hand, we find incorrect "facts" and little or no basis in Ms. Lohmer's descriptions of Julie, but we trust the reader is sufficiently skeptical to draw their own conclusions.

This is reminiscent of Julie's election in 2006 when the Republican Party mailed a dozen hard hitting attack ads on Julie and then followed that up with an ad saying, Shame on Julie Bunn for all the mud-slinging. The Republican Party had assumed the DFL would run attack ads on Julie's opponent, but the DFL had not mailed ads of any type in that election. It made the Republican Party look more than a little hypocritical.

We find some irony in the statement by Ms. Lohmer that Julie is not being honest. Julie did not claim that they agree on health care (see top row of this section), and, contrary to Ms. Lohmer's description of Julie's work and beliefs, Julie is not a supporter of single payer health care.

Oct.13 Woodbury Bulletin Letters

[Julie Bunn has] "voted for every significant tax increase — whether it be gas, sales, property or income — that has come before the House for a vote. Even worse, she's authored, co-authored or sponsored the vast majority of that legislation herself."

Chris Addington, Baytown Township

"Once elected, it was Julie Bunn who could be heard on the floor of the Legislature defending her vote for job-killing tax increases."

"She still sends out literature hoping people will believe that she doesn't support the extreme left agenda of her party bosses."

Mike Charron, Winona, MN
[defeated by Bunn in 2006 for 56A Rep.]

Bills authored or co-authored:

The following is a complete list of Bills authored by Julie, during both of her two terms, that changed the amount of a tax.

Tax Votes:

The following is a complete list of Julie's votes on tax bills during the just completed two-year term. In Julie's first term, she voted against every bill that contained a tax increase other than the Transportation Finance Bill.

2008 Transportation Bill Vote (HF2800):

The Governor, MN-DOT, and outside analysts all claimed in 2006 that we were facing a $1B yearly transportation funding shortfall. An $840M/yr bill failed to pass in 2007. The 2008 Safe Roads and Bridges Act was estimated to raise $640 million a year for ten years ($6.4B). The Governor's own proposal was $277 million a year, all borrowed.

Road and bridge funds are raised through gas taxes and License tab fees; none of these revenues pay for transit. This is pay-as-you-go, road-user-based financing. Minnesota's gas tax had been 20¢/gal since 1988. Wisconsin's gas tax was 20¢/gal in 1988 but was inflation indexed and is now 32¢/gal. The Bill raised Minnesota's gas tax to 25¢/gal, plus adds a temporary surcharge of up to 3.5¢/gal to pay for a bonding portion of the bill. The License tab fee increase does not affect currently registered vehicles.

A separate transit portion of the bill allowed Metro County Boards to accept or reject a ¼¢ sales tax increase for cooperative participation in regional transit development. This is estimated to provide about $112M/yr, of which $4M would come from Washington County if the Board opts to remain in the program.

When the temporary surcharge expires, the gas tax increase amounts to a 25% increase, significantly less than the twenty years of inflation experienced since 1988.

Funding roads and bridges by a user based revenue source will help reduce the burden of transportation on local property taxes. See Mayor Hargis' comments on this issue.

Moderate Republicans (an endangered species in the MN House after their treatment in March '08) and the MN Chamber of Commerce supported the 2008 Safe Roads and Bridges Act.

Funding Roads and Bridges will also keep high skill construction jobs in the state at a time when other construction sectors are soft.

Transit: Washington County I-94 Park-and-Ride lots are at capacity. These funds will provide more main corridor commuter bus transit options. Buses are the appropriate transit mode for this area for the foreseeable future.

Who follows extreme party bosses?
Check this Link to find out.

2009 Tax Vote (HF885/2323):

Julie voted against the original HF2323 because it raised $1.5B in ongoing taxes and reformulated mortgage interest and charitable deductions into credits. Julie voted for HF885 which is the tax described here, a temporary tax in identical amount to what the Governer was proposing to borrow ($1B), targeted at education and health care, and included two business tax credits. After HF885 was vetoed, it was resurrected as HF2323, replacing the tax provisions of the original HF2323 and balancing the budget on the last day of the session by including the Governer's education shifts.

After several billions of dollars of budget cuts had been agreed to, this bill raised the same amount of revenue as the Governor proposed in his 2009 budget plan (his proposal to borrow an additional $1 B, beyond the education shift, was voted down 132 to 2 on the House floor). The Governor vetoed this bill, adjourned the legislature, and misused his unallotment authority to close the remaining $1B budget gap. Julie voted for it for two reasons:

(1) to get the Governor to the negotiation table and to offer any form of revenues he preferred (instead he chose the illegal unallotments); and

(2) because the state economist testified that an additional $1 Billion cut in state spending at the height of the recession would lead to greater private and public sector job loss than the revenue increases proposed in the bill (he had an independent research study to back it up showing ~1000 lost jobs due to the tax vs. ~4000 lost jobs due to $1B more cuts or unallotments [related study at this link]).

So, even if the bill had passed in its original form, it was the more pro-jobs vote at the time.

Julie acknowledges and takes seriously the consequences of a tax that hurts jobs, and would not have voted for this tax if the evidence did not convincingly show that the alternative was worse by a significant margin, or if the tax didn't sunset after the recession. The evidence, according to Pawlenty's own state economist and according to hard data backed by the consensus of economists in general and by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in particular, was convincing in this case. This vote was driven by evidence, not by ideology, nor by allegiance to political party.

From Republican Party of MN Mailings

Regarding the 2010 Bonding Bill
"Politician Julie Bunn voted to borrow and spend nearly $1.1 Billion"
On items such as Orchestra Hall, Museum of Natural History, Kelly Farm, volleyball courts, a Bird Breeding Atlas, etc.

"Smoke and mirrors."
"Pork barrel spending."
"Another typical politician."
"A typical tax and spender."
Other equally substantive statements.

Regarding the 2009 Tax vote
Voting for a $1 Billion in job killing tax increases on families and businesses.

See Tax Bills and Votes section above.

If any of the mentioned projects were inappropriate, then they have not been funded since they didn't survive the Conference Committee or the Governor's line item veto. None of the mentioned items were proposed by Julie.

State Bonding done in 2005,2006, 2008, and 2010 was passed on a bipartisan basis, all roughly the same amount: just over $1B submitted and something not far under $1B approved and signed by the Governor. This is in line with a bipartisan agreement that debt service be kept below 3% of non-dedicated general fund revenues as needed to maintain a high bond rating and low interest.

Bonding is an important tool for dealing with the normal fluctuations in the tax revenue stream and runs counter cyclical to the business cycle: more bonding during economic downturns when tax revenues are lower, interest rates are lower, and when project costs are lower due to the availability of idled construction and skilled workers, less bonding in normal times, and no bonding during significant surplus.

Bonding is also an important tool for building and maintaining public infrastructure throughout the state. There are always more requests for project funding than there is money available under the 3% rule, so districts and projects are competing with each other for this funding. Any individual legislator who submits bonding project requests that are not appropriately substantive do so with the likelihood of having their projects discarded and having their districts underfunded in proportion to the rest of the state.

Julie has done an outstanding job of getting critical capital projects funded for the communities that she represents.

Julie has chief authored and carried to passage bonding legislation of major importance to infrastructure in or near our district: flood control projects for Stillwater and Bayport, sewer and water funding for Lake Elmo, landfill clean up to address PFC pollution of our aquifers, enhance perimeter security and lighting for the Oak Park Height Correctional Facility, and class room renovation at Century College (where over 1,000 students from our district attend school). These are exactly the kind of fiscally appropriate, targeted capital investment projects for which bonding is intended.

In the bonding process, some projects in the original bills passing the House or Senate floors are negotiated out in Conference Committee or line item vetoed by the Governor.

This is how the process works, so inevitably individual House or Senate members by voting up or down for the bills, vote for projects that they know will fall to the cutting room floor at some point.

In the competition between projects and districts for bond funding, a critical infrastructure project has better odds of surviving the process when competing with non-critical projects. Furthermore, if a legislator doesn't vote for a bonding bill that contains their own bonding requests (along with many others), that legislator's bonding request will be the first to be dropped in conference committee.

The attack ads also attempt to blur the line between General Fund spending and spending on bond backed projects, as if the bond backed projects are a direct cause of the General Fund budget deficit, but these are completely separate funding mechanisms, with bonding having only an indirect small effect (marginal change in debt service, limited by the 3% rule) on the budget deficit.

The Republican Party has already mailed a half dozen different attack ads all based on this one hollow message with zero substance. It seems that they don't have much to work with.

Tarrance Group "Poll" phoned into district residents from out of state on and after Sept. 15. 2008

"I'm going to read a list of issues for each of these people [Lohmer, Bunn]. Please tell me if knowing this makes you"...[more, less, etc. likely to support her].

"In one of the first votes after taking office, Rep. Bunn voted to give herself a 17% increase in pay and increased her daily living allowance that she can collect 12 months out of the year."

MN Legislators' annual salaries are $31,140 and have not been increased since 1999.

Per Diem limits in the House were raised from $65 to $77 (17%) by a Rules Committee action early in 2007, not by House vote, and not by Julie Bunn. Per Diem pay is intended to offset daily costs like parking, conference fees, meals away from home, travel costs, etc. Individual legislators choose what amount of per diem pay they take, limited now to $77. Julie requested less than even the previous per diem limit, receives less per diem than any area Republican state representative, less than her Republican predecessor, and ranks 115th out of 134 legislators in per diem received (see per diem rankings).

Regrettably, Push Polls have arrived at state district level.

The questions are stated so that the issue, legally, does not need to be factual: IF the following was true, how would it affect your view?

The Tarrance Group is a National Republican polling operation.

The "Poll" included a half dozen other questions that misrepresented Julie's positions on the Stillwater bridge, nuclear power, education finance, welfare, and property tax.

Freedom Club Mailing, Oct. 2008
Social Security Check

"...Bunn voted against eliminating state income tax on Social Security benefits."

[The Erikson Amendment to the Omnibus House Tax Bill (HF3149)]

NOTE:
One of Kathy Lohmer's two endorsers, the Republican Liberty Caucus, is dedicated to the abolishment of Medicare and the elimination of Social Security (as well as the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human Service, HUD, and others). And the Freedom Club would like you to believe that it is Julie Bunn who poses a hazard to your Social Security income?

The Erikson amendment would have exempted all Social Security benefits from the state income tax. Under current law, up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits are subject to the state income tax. Low and middle-income taxpayers are currently exempt or pay lower taxes on their Social Security benefits; therefore, this amendment would have benefitted higher-income seniors.

According to the non-partisan House Research staff, the amendment would have cost over half a billion dollars in FY10-FY11 ($235 million in FY10 and $277 million in FY11). And Rep. Erikson offered up no way to pay for, or make up, that lost revenue (approx. 1/32nd of the entire state biennium budget). The amendment was for the out biennium because if it had been for the current biennium in order to offer it on the floor, the author would have had to provide a mechanism for paying for it.

Vote result: not adopted, 44-85

Not to say that this proposal isn't worth considering within the context of overall tax policy reform, but the amendment was never offered as a bill during the legislative session, and never went through the committee process, and hence was not vetted or discussed as a major tax initiative should be. In spring of 2008, with an anticipated multi-billion dollar deficit for the next biennium, this amendment would have added another half billion dollar hole to fill in the budget, exacerbating the deficit rather than addressing it.

Thus, the amendment was intended as a "gotcha" vote for the sole purpose of allowing the Republican Party to send out this kind of attack ad against Julie Bunn and other legislators.

[Ms. Lohmer was] appointed by Pawlenty to a Citizen's Board, but quit before confirmation.

In June of 2008, Governor Pawlenty appointed Ms. Lohmer to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Citizens Board. The lack of any apparent qualifications for such a position, other than being a candidate for public office for the Governor's party, created a bit of a stir at the time (Pioneer Press article 6/12/2008). Days before Lohmer was to attend her confirmation hearing, she resigned in April, 2010 because she "is a candidate for the House" so "it doesn't make sense for them to confirm me now, only to have me step down in a few months." [see the resignation letter]

Could one be certain that Ms. Lohmer would even complete her legislative term if elected?

Governor Pawlenty was possibly maneuvering to gain another ally against Julie for his efforts to facilitate Xcel Energy's siting their new fly ash disposal facility in West Lakeland. [read more in the MinnPost article].

[Ms. Lohmer] supports all-cuts approach to balancing the budget, while also supporting a new entitlement: vouchers for private and home schooling.

From 10/13/2010 Woodbury Bulletin profile, Ms. Lohmer suggests "allowing the state money that would be spent on a student to attend a public school to be used for education in a private school." Ms. Lohmer mailed her own campaign literature with the same message.

Ms. Lohmer endorses Tom Emmer's budget proposals which include freezing K-12 education at its 2010-2011 $13.84 Billion level for the 2012-2013 biennium [see Emmer website and commentary on other Emmer cuts].

There is a forecasted K-12 enrollment growth of 14,000 pupils and $160 million in increased special education needs, which together with expected modest inflationary increases represents an estimated total of $525 million additional costs for 2012-13 relative to 2010-11 based on current funding law. [MN Office of Management and Budget Forcast]

About 11% of current K-12 students (95000 of 918000) attend private school or are home schooled. Parents have made these school choices, for various reasons including perceived quality, social advantage, and religious content, without the benefit of public school levels of funding from the state. Paying for these additional students therefore represents a significant new cost outlay and entitlement and does not in any way reduce the cost of educating our current public school student population.

It should be noted that private schools are currently subsidized by a total of about $50 million in funding from the state through a variety of mechanisms, covering some costs for books, tests, counseling, health services, transportation, and tax deductions.

Tom Emmer's K-12 funding freeze represents a shortfall of $525 million for projected 2012-13 costs. Recent federal education jobs funding of $167.7M was estimated to save 2411 teaching jobs. Using this as a guide, a $525M cut would roughly equate to 7000 teaching positions. Metro school districts alone have already laid off close to 1700 employees over the past two years and have made more than $285 million in budget reductions. More information at MNpublius.

[Ms. Lohmer] makes false or misleading claims about Julie's positions and record.

Ms. Lohmer falsely represented Julie's record in her 8/21/008 State Fair KTLK radio broadcast with Jason Lewis:

"She [Bunn] votes for EVERY tax increase. She voted straight line with the party the first year that she was in. Now last year she didn't vote absolutely every time, but of course it is an election year, and it wasn't on anything that had to do with tax increases."

"Julie worked towards a single-payer Canadian style [Health Care] system."

Chris Addington, who is featured in the "Community Voices Speak for Lohmer" section of Kathy Lohmer's "Principals over Politics" campaign flyer and website, continued the Lohmer disinformation campaign in 2010 in the Woodbury Bulletin [see Tax Bills and Votes]

Neighbors and supporters who have been door-knocked by Ms. Lohmer in 2010 have found that Ms. Lohmer continues to falsely represent Julie's positions on the Stillwater Bridge and on Single-Payer Healthcare.

See Julie correct the record.

Julie in fact had voted against EVERY Omnibus Tax Bill that would have increased taxes in both years of her first term. [see Tax Bills and Votes]

Julie chief authored the 2007, and co-authored the 2008, healthcare reform proposals that were passed and signed into law. These reforms build on the strengths of our existing multi-payer healthcare system, are consumer oriented, and are estimated to take 12 percent off cost increase trends in Minnesota over the next five years. These efforts had bipartisan support and were applauded by business and labor groups. Julie has never advocated for a single payer system.

This is Principals Over Politics?

[Ms. Lohmer is] endorsed by a group that wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

[She] supports a radical proposal to balance the state budget that disproportionately slashes programs that aid seniors, people with disabilities and children.

See the Republican Liberty Caucus website and their endorsement of Ms. Lohmer and Ms. Lohmer's rationale for her position.

Ms. Lohmer has endorsed Governor candidate Tom Emmer and she backs his budget plan (as well as pretty much anything else her party leadership proposes).

The table below shows what Tom Emmer's all-cuts budget looks like. The FY10-11, FY12-13 data is from the Feb.2010 MN Office of Management and Budget Forecast (see table bottom p.46). More recent forecast updates change these numbers slightly but are not presented with the context and analysis available in the February report.

The table shows amount of spending on programs, which in FY10-11 is higher than state revenue used for such programs due to one time federal aid.

In FY10-11, $35B in revenues would have been required if the Governor had not delayed $1.72 B payments to school districts, and $35.75 B if in addition the Governor had not un-allotted. Both of these were one-time mechanisms that push program cuts to the future. Put otherwise, we had an almost $36B budget, but only spent $31B state revenue due to one time federal aid, and one time delayed payments and a $.75B one time cut.

The FY12-13 forecast is based on programs as they exist in current law. It would be $37.55B if the K12 shift had not occurred but is higher if any repayments are done.

Mr. Emmer compares his $32B budget only to the $31B of state revenue used in FY10-11 and doesn't acknowledge the severity of the program cuts represented by his budget relative to current law for FY12-13 or even relative to actual spending in FY10-11.

These cuts result in higher school class sizes, delayed or eliminated repayment to school districts, higher tuition, higher property taxes, and fewer services, …expenses which are disproportionately borne by the middle class, seniors, and the disabled.

Clearly, significant cuts are required. But equally clearly, an all cuts plan (20%) is more draconian than any budget we have seen in a generation.

Putting the challenges in perspective.