Letter to the editor: Most Bills Designed to Help 'Job Creators'

To the editor,

The majority party in the Minnesota Senate and House of Representatives has put forward a lot of legislation. Most of these bills are targeting the advantage of the heralded job creators of the private sector. The premise used is that government does not create jobs. In practice all this legislation would seem contrary to that premise by using government to enhance job creation via legislation leveled purely to the advantage of the job creator.

It is reported by TakeAction Minnesota that Rep. Kurt Bills received $35,400 for his 2010 election cycle. He reported $12,700 in contributions. The ratio of bank led organization money from Wells Fargo, TCF and U.S. Bank to his citizen contributions is 2.8. So every citizen-contributed dollar was amplified by an additional $1.80 from the banks. This is somewhat ironic since Rep. Bills introduced a bill last year anticipating the Federal Reserve would fail; the very source of bailout money these banks received, and the money in some small part later thrown into his race.

On the other side of Senate District 37, Rep. Tara Mack picked up $43,000 from the bank-led Minnesota Business Partnership in 2008.

Our own Sen. Gerlach is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This organization has suggested legislation now showing up in state legislatures across the country. In some cases the wording is not even modified and reads verbatim from the ALEC script. ALEC is reportedly funded by the Koch brothers.

The real benefactors from our Senate District 37 legislators have been the job creator stratum. After 30 years of “trickle down” this strategy is known to fail. Any legislation not benefitting this stratum has typically been targeted at marginalizing some minority group.

As your teachers asked you to provide let us consider some concrete examples:

1. Right to Work. Eighty-five of every 100 employees are union free. This amendment targets a minority group presumably to undercut union voting power and money in general elections. There is no comparable attempt to stifle bank money influencing elections. The sleight here is that everyone has the right to work but Minnesota wages will decay over time if this amendment passes.
2. Marriage Definition Amendment. This is blatant attempt to separate a minority group from the judicial branch of government. Out of fear of judges making an adverse ruling on the validity of the Minnesota Defense Of Marriage Act the amendment attempts to separate a minority group from access to the courts. The sleight here is to “let the people vote”. The balance of that statement is “on the right of a minority to access the courts.”
3. Photo ID. Our state has an excellent history of voter turnout. But rather than move legislation to bolster the turnout the Photo ID bill will disenfranchise some unknown and unidentified minority of our state citizens. If there is evidence of voter fraud it should be produced and weighed against the margins by which the GOP lost two recounts in recent history. Any voter fraud that may indeed exist could be more effectively combated by increasing voter turnout and thereby diluting any fraudulent effect. It appears to be yet another attack at a faceless un-quantified minority group. The sleight here is to couch it as improving “voter integrity” which could have been accomplished by bolstering the turnout instead of impeding voter turnout.

Voters in Senate District 37 should begin asking themselves whether it is the banks and the job creators that government exists to serve or if government exists to serve the general population.

Any job created is due to demand. These job creators know that they will hire if business is good, that there is demand for goods or services they provide. In the absence of demand our current legislators provide government relief and they are certainly getting it. But how about you, is the government serving you?

Right now, with Gerlach, Bills and Mack representing Senate District 37 it is a question of who has the upper hand, or more correctly who is committing sleight of hand. Do they speak for you or the bank money that put them in office? The legislation they’ve put forward and voted in favor of should answer that question for you. Is the language used by these three meant to accurately portray who benefits from this legislation? Is the truth being palmed?

We all get one vote this fall. You’ll have to decide for yourself if it is you being represented or the banks and that one stratum of society. Look for the proof that what you see is what you get. Beware the sleight.

Jeff Wilfahrt, candidate for current Senate District 37B