It's a little misleading to characterize these as the definitive Top Five - since there are so many to choose from and one of them is actually a three'fer - but these votes are a cross section of the hundreds of skirmishes fought this year on the chamber floors of the Minnesota Legislature. 

Democrats did a poor job of presenting themselves and their corrupt agenda - but, then, they held the gavels, and that was all that really mattered in the end.  But then came the Mother of All Votes - Election Day - when you got to vote for who gets to vote for you in St. Paul.   The stage is set for the 504 days of the Republican overhaul of Minnesota's broken state government. 

The Votes....

Number 5: An End to Ritchie-Era Sloppy Ballot Handling (Fair and clean elections) 

One of many revealing elections votes from 2010, this example shows how Republicans carefully dissected elections statutes in an effort to take the slop out of the elections administration process.  And how the Democrats slammed the door on any such reforms. 

Action Author: Buesgens, House
File: SF2251, Date: 02/25/2010 Journal Page: 8013 
Result: Amendment Defeated 56 - 75
Scored: True Right Vote: Y 

One sure way to disenfranchise voters is to have their votes nullified by sloppy ballot handling. Disappearing ballots and ballots appearing out of thin air are red flags for any responsible election official. In what should be standard operating procedure, the Buesgens amendment would require election officials to verify that the number of ballots returned to counties, cities and school districts after the election are the exact same number of ballots that were delivered to each polling place prior to the election.

In other words, each ballot would be accounted for. More commonsensical this could not be. After the 2008 Al Franken election scandal, when the world became aware of the sloppy ballot handling under Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, one would hope that Ritchie would have asked for this change and included it in his elections housekeeping bill.

Number 4: Take Dat Trust Fund Brats! (Kitchen table economics)

Environmentalists and the members of what we refer to as the Sportingperson Elite joined forces in 2010 to spend $26 million of the of the hundreds of millions wasted on The Outside from various statutory stashes of taxpayer dollars.  (The Outside, by the way, is in great shape.  If it could talk, it would probably say something like Go away son, ya bother me.) The stashes of money include the Sacred Game and Fish Fund, the Sacred Sam Lassard Outdoor Heritage Tax Hike Fund, the Sacred Lifetime Fish and Woodland Critters Trust Fund, the the Sacred Minnesota Conservation Fund, the Sacred Reinvest in Minnesota Resources Fund…. No doubt there are more, and, of course, you have to tack on the millions taken from the state’s battered and abused General Fund.  This was one of many roll calls related to the 2010 Omnibus Woodland Critters Finance Bill.  

Action Author: Seifert, House
File: HF2624, Date: 03/15/2010 Journal Page: 8899 
Result: Amendment Defeated 47 - 85
Scored: True Right Vote: Y

The Seifert amendment deletes wasteful, unnecessary and just plain weird DNR and UofM spending items from the bill and uses the savings of $26 million to work toward the actual stated goal of protecting natural resources.  For all of her Green bona fides, Rep. Wagenius seems more concerned about financing fun little camping expeditions for UofM profs and reeducation camps for kids.  Her bill does nothing to deal with real issues like the raw sewage that is reportedly being pumped and dumped into Minnesota lakes.  When asked about the incidents, local officials simply shrug their shoulders and say they can't afford to clean it up without raising property taxes. 

Wagenius hides behind the prohibitions in MS 116P.03 to justify items in her bill like the Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas ($372,000),  and "teacher training workshops on the use of digital photography as a tool for learning about nature" ($160,000).  The statute requires that the sacred Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund money "must be used primarily to support activities whose benefits become available only over an extended period of time." 

However, the Seifert amendment uses the good old "notwithstanding any law to the contrary" boilerplate to carve out a legal exception to the prohibitions. In times of huge budget shortfalls and more on the way, the Seifert notwithstanding language is called for.  In fact, it's the only responsible thing to do. The amendment also requires a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the fat DNR budget to offset use of the trust fund money.  That should stop them from immediately going out and buying $26 million of private property for critical habbytat.

Take dat, trust fund brats!  Whoops - the amendment failed.

Number 3:  Final Senate Vote, Omnibus Government Worker Pensions Bill (Taxpayers versus Government Workers)

The bad news is that the militant unionized government workforce in Minnesota is draining taxpayers of their money.  In the near future making the state and local payroll and bailing out the Cadillac government pension plans and "Other Post-Employment Benefits" will become the main purpose of government, along with all the welfare programs on auto pilot because God forbid some state legislator should vote against the thousands of homeless veterans living under Minnesota bridges.

The good news is that taxpayers are finally starting to pay attention.   We intend to keep you informed...

Action Author: Betzold, Senate
File: SF2918, Date: 05/12/2010 Journal Page:   11344
Result: Bill Passed 52 - 14
Scored: True Right Vote: N 

Much is this bill is an exercise in tweaking the valves in the dank old boiler room where the $50 billion Government Pension Machine sits.  The union bosses at the controls have changed minute little settings, like cutting the interest rate on refunds from six to four percent and ratcheting back the increase in benefits by half a percent.  They've re-tuned state government's largest money machine to make it a tad more efficient -  at least until the heat is off.  

The few reductions in the increases and increases in the reductions are temporary and subject to change just like every other provision in the laws that government Minnesota government worker pensions. Bookkeeping gimmicks designed to make the funding status of each plan look better on paper include rolling the full funding dates forward (think of your mortgage coming due in a few years and the bank showing you owe more than you should - adding another 10 or 20 years to the due date will make things look much better - or at least postpone any painful decisions). 

New Hires 
It turns out that future government workers don't have a very strong lobbying presence in St. Paul.  So, in keeping with the union dogma on Seniority, new state and local government hires get hit hard by the pension changes in SF 2918.  They will have longer vesting requirements, lower deferred augmentation rates, lower accrual rates and lower retention of coverage limits to save some bucks system-wide going forward. 

But before we start shedding tears for the new guys, keep in mind that these employees still receive something you only wish you had:  A defined benefit pension plan backed by the taxing power of the State.  And when the economy starts to turn around post-Obama and the new guys start building seniority and start thinking about their retirement, you can bet they are going to be looking to make up the difference.  And if history is any guide, they will succeed.

Increased costs to taxpayers
After investment earnings, the big money in pensions is the contribution rate from you, the taxpayer.  Know as the "employer contribution," this is the percentage of payroll that the taxpayers are obligated to contribute to each employee's pension account.  SF 2918 increased the amount from 15.60 percent to 18.60 for the State Patrol Plan, from 6 percent to 6.25 for the PERA-General Plan, from 14.1 percent to 14.4 percent for the PERA Police and Fire Plan. 

For the teacher's retirement plan, basic members (those with much higher state benefits due to their lack of Social Security coverage) receive taxpayer contributions that ramp up two percent from 9.5 percent to 11.5 percent of payroll over four years.  For coordinated members (those with Social Security coverage), the taxpayer contribution is increased from 5.5 percent to 7.5 over four years. 

(In future articles, BillsandVotes.com will tally up the cost of these contributions.  When added to contribution hikes passed nearly every year since 2005, the total new money for state and local pensions will be close to the $1 billion range.  And that's new money only.)

Contribution rates on autopilot
In addition to direct increase in taxpayer contributions, SF2918 also ramps up the automatic contribution rate hikes allowed under current law.  Triggered by funding deficiencies (and, theoretically, funding sufficiencies), the amount of money that taxpayers are legally obligated to contribute will ramp up via the contribution adjustment mechanism.  This controversial bit of pension law was passed in a very limited manner a few years back, but was greatly expanded in SF 2918.  It used to be that contribution rates, since they are so closely related to government's power to tax, were only done via direct legislative changes in bills passed by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor. 

Not anymore.   SF 2918 authorizes that under the right circumstances a taxpayer contribution rate hike of up to 0.75 percent of payroll for the teachers plan and the local government plan can be made administratively.  The Legislature must take action to stop the increase or it goes into effect with no fanfare.

Decreases in the increases
Deferred annuities augmentation rates:  This is the compound interest rate at which an employee's pension assets grow during the period between leaving their cushy government job and collecting a pension.  The current rate varies by plan, but can be as high as five percent compounded per year.  For several plans, the bill drops that rate to one percent and zero percent after 12/31/2011.  If you go straight from Agencyville to retirement, there's no impact. 

Annual benefit increases:  Plans that offer their retirees an annual increase to stave off inflation will get a smaller bump as long as their funds are in the red.  These reductions in increases vary by plan, and are, like all else in Minnesota pension law, subject to change, most likely in an upward manner. 

Although you sort of have to read between the lines, the excellent session summaries posted by the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement (LCPR) will give you a full accounting each annual pension bill.  Spend some time learning the lingo.  It's your money that's being spent, after all.

While the vast majority of private sector employees have seen their 401K plans dry up and blow away - while hardworking taxpayers have had to postpone the secure retirements they deserve - the Governing Class will hardly feel the pea that the down economy has placed under the stack of mattresses they sleep on. 

Vote Red on SF 2918.

Number 2: Watching Them Squirm: Photo ID (Related Votes)

This is just such a blatant DFL hypocrisy.  Hats off to Tom Emmer for all his years of hammering the Democrats on this issue.

Action Author: Emmer, T., House
File: HF3111, Date: 03/08/2010 Journal Page: 8332 
Result: Amendment Defeated 59 - 74
Scored: True Right Vote: Y

Almost broke the 60 vote barrier this time! Thanks to these brave Democrats for sticking up for fair and clean elections:  Brown, Bunn, Dittrich, Eken, Kath, Koenen, Lenczewski, Obermueller, Olin, Otremba, Scalze, Sterner and Swails.  We are certain they will work to get their Caucus to pass the photo ID requirement.  

America overwhelmingly supports changing the law to require voters to prove who they are when they vote. But Democrat party bosses know that a photo ID requirement would greatly reduce voter fraud, and that would mean fewer votes for Democrats.

Whenever this amendment comes up on the floor, it's interesting to watch the DLFers twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify a no vote.  This time around, bill author Winkler uses the same slip-through-the-cracks, homeless-veteran-living-under-the-bridge argument that proved so handy during the GAMC debate:  "The problem with photo ID is that there are a lot of people who don't have photo ID's. I know your bill provides a process for them to receive one, but it does create an additional challenge for voting." 

As Erik Cartman would say, weak. 

Number 1: Patti Fritz 0 for 3: DFL Makes a Mockery of Abortion Opponent (Families, Faith and Life)

It's been said that the two most important votes of each legislative session are the votes for Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader.  This becomes clear when the issue is life:  Vote for a pro-choice House or Senate leader and you have sealed the fate of the unwanted unborn in Minnesota. 

Action Author: Fritz, House
File: HF2614, Date: 05/04/2010 Journal Page: 11276 
Result: Amendment Defeated 66 - 66
Scored: True Right Vote: Y

This has gone on long enough, Rep. Fritz.  For the third time in two years the DFL leadership has made a mockery of your efforts to end taxpayer funding of abortions.  Look at the votes below  and the pattern is obvious.  Same DFL amendment author, same issue, same vote margin - let just enough DFLers vote pro-life and then lock the board and declare a tie. 

This is legislative vote-fixing at it's most cynical.  Pure unadulterated CYA voting.

And these three amendments dealt with abortion provisions that are supported by a majority of Americans.  Even people who believe that abortion is somehow a "right" agree that taxpayers should not be forced by law to pay for the procedure. 

The lesson here is kill the body and the head will die.  As we've said before on BillsandVotes.com, the only way to make real progress on major issues is to defeat the rank and file DFLers whose most important vote each legislative biennium is the vote for Speaker of the House.  Putting Margaret Kelliher in the Speaker's Chair in January 2009 made it certain the taxpayers would be footing the bill for abortions.