As college students across the country are getting ready to head to school this Fall, the most important question for many of them in this difficult economic time is how to pay for it without plunging themselves into crippling debt for the years ahead.
The issue here is Pell Grants. Pell Grants are college grants that the federal government provides to students whose parents make less than $60,000 each year. In 2008 and 2009, over 96,000 Minnesotans received Pell Grants to help get them through college, and 62.5% of national applicants did not receive the grants due to a lack of funding.
DFLer Jim Meffert's campaign released an internal poll yesterday confirming what so many of us in CD3 have been hoping to hear: Erik Paulsen is seen as part of the problem in Washington.
Standard caveats apply - it's an internal poll, so the highlights are bound to be bad for Paulsen and potentially good for Meffert. And the toplines (Paulsen leading Meffert 44-22) aren't good by any means. But any survey from a reputable shop like Lake Research which shows an incumbent with numbers like these has to be seen as a warning sign.
Paulsen reelect Re-elect Erik Paulsen: 33%
Consider someone else: 31%
(Don't know): 24%
Vote to replace Paulsen: 12%
The two really important numbers in that second note are the Re-elect Paulsen and Vote to Replace numbers -- 33-12. Those should correspond pretty closely with the base numbers for the two big-party candidates right now -- which means that, if the survey is accurate, there's a pretty huge number of voters in CD3 who are willing to consider someone not named Paulsen. Especially when we consider that only 33% both know enough about Paulsen's performance to have an opinion and like that performance, there's an opportunity here.
What Meffert needs right now, in a bad way, is money and exposure. We'll be doing our part in that respect in the next week or so (more news as events warrant), but you might consider sending a few bucks his way. We could make a significant impact in this race with a relatively small investment, despite not having a boogeyman named Bachmann as an opponent.
The bottom line here is that Paulsen is seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution among those who even know who he is. It's a start.
Howie Klein raises a great point. Why hasn't Erik Paulsen and John Kline joined Michele Bachmann's Teabag Caucus in the House?
Minnesota and Wisconsin share more than a long border and some Lake Superior shoreline. Each state has 8 congressmen and each state currently has 3 Republicans in Congress. But not even far right Minnesota colleagues John Kline or Erik Paulsen have joined Bachmann's Caucus. And none of the Wisconsin Republicans have either. Neither Paulsen nor Kline is willing to comment on why they won't join the Tea Party Caucus.
Maybe they view the insanity emanating from from the teabaggers as detrimental to their reelection efforts? Maybe they don't use my patented Effenheimer Fundraising SystemTM?
Last week, we posted here about some of the benefits of the Wall Street Reform bill. As we discussed in the post, while the bill isn't perfect, it goes a long way toward helping to fix some of the biggest problems that led to the current crisis.
Erik Paulsen has consistently stood with Wall Street, against the unemployed, against his constituents, and against real reform of the industry that has had a a stranglehold over our economy again and again. This time was obviously no different. Every time real reform has been proposed, Paulsen has stood in the way and not offered any real solutions. Is there any question why corporate PACs give him so much money?
As Jim said last week,
"As far as I can tell, Erik Paulsen's only accomplishment in two years in Congress has been raising money. He's going to need all of it to explain to the families of the Third District why he's done nothing but vote against their interests since he arrived in Washington, because we are not about to let him off the hook."
This is not the time for Congress to be spitting in the face of ordinary people and businesses and standing behind big credit card companies.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on the Wall Street Reform bill on Thursday, and barring any last second surprises, it should be on President Obama's desk by early next week. While the bill may not be perfect, there are several things it does to move us in the right direction and help fix the huge problems in our country's financial sector. Here are a few major examples:
(I was going to post on this topic myself, but Jim Meffert's increasingly effective campaign against Paulsen's failure to stick up for us in Congress has handled it for me. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Unemployment Benefits Extended - Whether family, friend or colleague, we all know someone affected by the continuing rise in unemployment. That's why Congressman Paulsen voted for the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, to provide the unemployment with 14 weeks of additional benefits.
On May 28th of this year, Paulsen decided Unemployment Benefits weren't important to him anymore and voted against them. On July 1st, he voted against extending them again. Of course, Paulsen won't be sending out another taxpayer mailing bragging about this vote.
Yesterday, Jim Meffert took a tour of the future of our country's economy. After the unemployment numbers that came out today, it's clearer now more than ever that we must act immediately to begin adding new green jobs that the people of Minnesota and the rest our country so desperately need.
Jim visited the Minneapolis Electrical Training facility yesterday morning to learn about advancements that are creating Minnesota jobs through green energy technology. The facility is operated by the IBEW, and they train their workers in several new "green" technologies, including Wind Energy, Programmable Controllers, Instrumentation, and high-efficiency lighting technologies. The facility was built as a joint venture of the Minneapolis Chapter of NECA and Local Union 292 IBEW at no expense to the taxpayers. While located in St. Michael, just outside of the 3rd District, many residents of the District are trained here and it's a great example of the type of facility that should exist all across the country to help create a new green sector of our workforce.
Here are some picture of Jim Nichols, the Training Director, showing Jim around some of the new technology and devices that the workers receive training in:
I read an interesting piece at Daily Kos today about how candidates from a random sampling of Senate and House races nationwide are doing in terms of social media. The author was trying to answer, objectively, how Democrats were doing against Republicans. Her reasoning was she doesn't think that the meme that Republicans are kicking our butts on social media is all that true.
This essay marks the beginning of an occasional series examining just that. Today, I'm focusing on some races for open Senate seats, two Republican, two Democratic. I'm also focusing on Twitter and Facebook. There are many more races to cover and many more forms of online media to look at -- how many times have their YouTube videos been viewed? Are they engaging with the blogosphere? What are their online ad buys like? Online fundraising, texting...there's a wealth of media to check out. But Twitter and Facebook are public metrics that are readily comparable.
We'll expect candidates to have more Facebook fans than followers on Twitter, because there are many more people on Facebook. But advertising on Facebook can rack up large numbers of fans relatively quickly, so a case where a candidate's Facebook-to-Twitter ratio seems out of the ordinary may suggest that the campaign has been advertising heavily on Facebook. (Which may be a good idea, mind you.) Also worth noting, some Republican candidates (including Peter Schiff in today's group) have created splash pages on Facebook -- when you search for them and initially go to the page, instead of seeing a normal Facebook wall there's...a splash page -- big graphic, sign-up, etc. I haven't yet found any Democrats who are doing that.
With this in mind, how do the competitive races in MN stack up? I'll examine the MN-GOV, MN-02, MN-03 and MN-06 races.
Once again, here's the "money quote" from that editorial:
The idea that a representative would use as much as one third of his office budget, money meant to be spent in ways that benefit constituents, on thinly veiled re-election entreaties, is unconscionable. It's an inappropriate use of the funds, and it presents an unfair advantage for incumbents.
Such spending should be eliminated. If politicians want to send glossy, self-promoting pamphlets about themselves, they can pay for them themselves.
Well, according to a report today from Tom Scheck of Minnesota Public Radio, Paulsen's re-election committee has more than $1 million in the bank. So, certainly - Paulsen can afford to pay for his "thinly veiled re-election entreaties" himself, through his campaign war chest.
But, what did one dedicated reader claim to get in the ol' mailbox, just the other day?
ANOTHER taxpayer-paid mailer - on Health Care Reform!!!
In January of 2008, when he announced for Congress, Erik Paulsen said, and I quote:
"Quite frankly, today, Congress as an institution, is broken and if elected I intend to help fix it."
Well, after one year - quite frankly - Erik Paulsen is playing the same games (and worse) that were played before he got there. And "frankly" is the operative word. In Congress, elected representatives have the "franking privilege" - they get to send out mailers, to the people, PAID FOR by the people.
And after a little over one year of being in congress, Erik Paulsen is making nationwide news for abusing that privilege.
Paulsen isn't "fixing" the system; he's "putting the fix in" to make sure he STAYS in the system.
Here is part of an Editorial naming Erik Paulsen by name; it's an editorial that appeared last Friday in the Hendersonville, North Carolina Times-News:
The idea that a representative would use as much as one third of his office budget, money meant to be spent in ways that benefit constituents, on thinly veiled re-election entreaties, is unconscionable. It's an inappropriate use of the funds, and it presents an unfair advantage for incumbents.
Such spending should be eliminated. If politicians want to send glossy, self-promoting pamphlets about themselves, they can pay for them themselves.
On Saturday, while Maureen and Jim Meffert are discussing real solutions for America's future at the DFL's 3rd Congressional District Convention, Erik Paulsen will be hosting one of his rare town hall meetings.
For a congressman who doesn't like direct interaction with people who disagree with him, and would rather spend more than $400,000 of your tax dollars on campaign-style mailings, the timing couldn't be better. Nearly 300 of his strongest critics will be picking his opponent for this fall's election and won't be able to show up and ask the tough questions he deserves to face.
If you're not a delegate to our convention Saturday, please consider stopping by Paulsen's meeting at the Eden Prairie City Hall (8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie). It runs from 10 a.m. to noon.
If you're aren't able to attend Paulsen's meeting, don't let him off the hook. Call his local district office this week at (952) 405-8510 and politely, but firmly, demand answers.
Among other things, you might want to ask Paulsen:
Why did you vote against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will protect a woman's right to receive equal pay for the same work as men?
Why did you vote against Middle Class tax relief?
Why haven't you stepped up and condemned the kind of rhetoric coming from people like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin? Sure, you're members of the same party, but do you believe the president's opponents should "reload" after the health care debate? And you really didn't need to sign on as a co-host for Palin's event in Minneapolis, did you?
When and how will you propose substantive legislation to put Americans back to work?
Why did you vote against health care reform legislation that addresses some of the most egregious practices the insurance industry has used to deny Americans access to health care?
Please reconcile your calls for fiscal restraint with your excessive spending on glossy, high-price, low-substance mailings from Washington, D.C.?
This list could go on and on. If you're lucky enough to get an answer from Paulsen, please share it with us by e-mailing info@hackettforcongress.org.
Thank you so much for everything you're doing for our party! If we stand together, we can do more than just beat Paulsen this fall. We can move our country forward and usher in a new era of opportunity for all.
Less than a month ago the taxpayers paid for a slick campaign mailer from Erik Paulsen masquerading as a Health Care Survey sent out after the House had voted! This "survey" was part of Paulsen's $413,000 expenditure of taxpayer funds, the third highest in the whole House.
Today I received another "Survey," this one for seniors. He wants to know if I would serve on an Advisory Committee and if I'm in favor of one of the Republicans favorite red herrings - a Constitutional Amendment requiring balanced federal budget, Oh yes, there is a question about protecting Medicare. Otherwise it's pure campaign, as slick as the government can buy.
Apparently his concern for government expenditures does not include his reelection campaign. Of course he hangs on to his socialized medical care courtesy of the taxpayer.
On January 14th of this year, 15 year old Phoebe Prince committed suicide in Massachusetts after relentless bullying, including cyber-bulling on facebook, twitter, and other internet places. The Massachusetts legislature is now looking at enacting a cyberbullying statute, similar to the one Erik Paulsen voted against 3 years ago. Erik Paulsen is further to the right than Gov Pawlenty, who signed the bill - despite Erik Paulsen's "No!" vote.
Here's how that Minnesota vote, almost 3 years ago, broke down:
SF 646 Cyber-Bullying
Senate Passage: 03/07/2007 : Bill Passed 61 - 2
House Passage: 05/04/2007 : Bill Passed 96 - 35
(Paulsen voted "No!")
Governor Passage: 05/09/2007 : Signed
(VoteSmart.org)
Currently, roughly 40 states have anti-bullying laws similar to the Minnesota law that Paulsen voted against. As is Massachusetts, the Georgia Legislature is also working on an anti-bullying law. From March 30th's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
This page is dedicated to Erik's time in the U.S. Congress and his voting record on legislation that may be important to you. Feel free to contact me HERE in relation to any of these pieces of legislation.
