Long before the House omnibus tax bill came to the floor Wednesday, Republicans knew it was going to pass.
So certain were they that the DFL-controlled House would pass the bill that Rep. Greg Davids, R-Preston, issued a statement before the final vote was taken.
“It’s clear the Democrats cannot help themselves when it comes to wasteful spending,” Davids wrote in the statement.
So why, given that the outcome was pre-ordained, did the debate go on and on and on?
Does oratory, even that rare really compelling speech, matter? Do votes ever change based on a great speech?
Not on the key measures.
“On the major bills,” said Davids, “they have the votes. In the end, the majority will pass the major bills. You’re not going to block them.”
GOP vilifies tax bill to no avail
That proved true on the House tax bill, which is very different from the Senate tax bill, meaning the debate over how to raise revenue in Minnesota hasn’t really even become serious yet. The serious talking will be done in a Senate-House conference committee and ultimately when DFL legislative leaders sit down with Gov. Mark Dayton.
There’s no part of the bill that appeals to Republicans, a fact that was clear after about the eighth or ninth speech vilifying the bill.
The House bill, in a nutshell, calls for a fourth-tier income tax, a surcharge above and beyond the fourth tier on the wealthiest Minnesotans, and hefty increases in cigarette and alcohol taxes.
The revenues are to be used to pay the state’s $627 million deficit, pay back borrowed school funds, invest in education -- and re-fund programs, such as Local Government Aid, as a way to cut property taxes, which have skyrocketed in the state in the last 10 years.
“A shameful day in Minnesota” is how Rep. Joe McDonald, R-Delano, put it as he spoke against the bill.
At times, in his harangue, McDonald appeared on the verge of tears.
Rep. Linda Runbeck, R-Circle Pines, was nearly as passionate.
“Minnesota is no longer a state that works,” she said. And like McDonald, she went on and on about the evils of the bill.
In the midst of the rhetoric, many of the legislators — DFLer and Republican alike — were strolling around the floor or into a retiring room where they could sip coffee and crack jokes.
Does it ever matter?
Does political rhetoric ever change a vote?
Generally, Davids said the only times members of the minority can get the majority to change is on smaller, subtle issues in which the person speaking has special expertise.
Because he tends to hold his rhetorical fire, because he has a sense of humor and because he understands the complexities of many of the issues of the day, Davids tends to be someone the body as a whole listens to.
Several members on both sides of the aisle seem to command that type of respect.
Others get listened to because members know that something bizarre is likely to happen.
The headliner in that group of the bizarre is Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa.
Earlier this week, Drazkowski made headlines by offering an amendment to the health and human services bill that would require welfare recipients to undergo a drug test before being able to receive a state check.
Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, was so offended by that amendment that she offered an amendment to the amendment that would require legislators to pass a drug test.
Both amendments passed, but presumably will disappear in conference committee.
Still, Rep. Jason Metsa, DFL-Eveleth, decided to have some fun. He left a paper cup filled with a yellow liquid on Drazkowski’s desk in the House chamber. He also left a little note, saying he wanted to be the first to comply with the new drug-testing policy.
What was in the cup?
“Lemonade,” said Metsa of the liquid. “Really.”
(Metsa, a rookie, succeeded Tom Rukavina, the longtime Iron Range representative who would have approved of this little gag.)
Drazkowski at center stage
Drazkowski was in full Draz mode again Wednesday, taking on the tax proposal and particularly Minneapolis, one of his favorite foils.
The House tax bill re-formulates Local Government Aid and restores funds that were stripped away from communities across the state when the GOP was in charge and legislators were attempting to find ways to balance the budget without raising taxes. DFLers insist those LGA attacks were part of the reason for the big jump in property taxes.
Drazkowski is unhappy that Minneapolis and St. Paul will receive bigger hunks of money in the new House tax bill. His amendment would freeze those cities at 2009 rates while every other recipient would receive the new, better benefits.
He started on his spiel, which he called “a defense for the hard-working people of Minnesota.”
He started reading from a list of Minneapolis projects he considers “wasteful”: A green roof for City Hall. A green roof at Target Center. A few dollars for a Bike to Church on Sundays program. $75,000 for graffiti removal. Settlement of police brutality suits, etc., etc., etc.
Even his GOP brothers and sisters, who have heard the spiel before, grew restless as he read on.
One of his colleagues, Rep. Chris Swedzinski, R-Ghent, interrupted.
“You could go on all day if you start listing all the wasteful spending in the state,” said Swedzinsk.
“You’re right,’’ said Drazkowski, laughing. And he continued to read from his list of Minneapolis projects.
At some point in his broadsides, Drazkowski typically becomes more irritant than jester.
Finally, Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee that created the tax bill, suggested that Minneapolis-bashing wasn’t really productive.
“We should thank the people of Minneapolis for what they do,” she said. “It’s truly the economic engine that drives the state’s economy.”
Drazkowski’s amendment was defeated, although by a relatively close vote.
By the way, Drazkowski never did get around to mentioning that Minneapolis residents receive about $20 less per resident than the $188 per capita received by the hard-working citizens of Mazeppa.
Sometimes, there’s actual information
Not all of the floor talk is quite so, ummm, pointlessly time consuming. Sometimes, there’s actually informative discussion.
Rep. Michael Beard, R-Shakopee, for example, spoke of his displeasure at a portion of the tax bill calling for an increases in taxes on sand. That tax, he said, will hurt longtime companies, ranging from glass makers to construction outfits.
Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, addressed Beard’s concerns by pointing out that the bill calls for the new tax specifically on the unique sand used for the process of fracturing oil shale. Money from that tax, Hansen said, will be used to pay for such public costs as highway damage that results from the huge demand for the sand.
Beard remained an adamant foe of the bill, but at least one small issue seemed to gain clarity.
Mostly, however, there was rhetoric. And most of that talk comes from the minority party, which knows it’s going to lose. (The roles were reversed last session, when DFLers, who were destined to lose, did most of the talking.)
Why bother?
Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, who was majority leader last year, said there are essentially three potential audiences for those who speak in these lost causes:
• “Sometimes, you’re speaking for the people on the outside who might be watching and they want to know that you’re standing up for them.”
• At other points, a caucus leader might be speaking to the caucus “to get everybody together on certain issues.”
• And then there are the times a legislator is attempting to speak to the whole body.
But it seems that even the best of those speeches seldom changes votes.
Remember, for instance, the dramatic speech Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, delivered two years ago. That’s when Kriesel, the wounded war veteran who left after one term in the House, spoke in opposition to his party’s proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Kriesel was credible and eloquent and courageous. His speech received national attention.
But it’s unlikely that Kriesel’s speech changed any vote.
MinnPost photo by Terry GydesenTwo years ago, Rep. John Kriesel spoke in opposition to his party’s proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Nonethess, the legislators talk on. And sometimes other legislators even listen.
“You listen to people who have something to say,” said Rep. Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock. “You’re more likely to listen to the people who don’t stand up and talk on every issue.”