MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The Minnesota House has scheduled a vote for Thursday on the bill that would legalize same sex marriage.

And on Tuesday a state Senate committee voted to approve the bill.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are looking at the economic impact of same sex marriage in Minnesota.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates more than 10,000 same-sex couples live in Minnesota, and that about half of them will get married within the first three years of legal same-sex marriage.

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law puts the economic benefit of same sex marriage at $42 million, including:

– $28 million for a rush of weddings.

– $14 million generated by out of town guests.

– $3 million in tax revenues.

– And 238 new jobs, mostly in tourism.

But that’s not the whole story.

A state financial analysis of the impact of gay marriage on the state found there will be a cost to taxpayers — $630,000 in the first year of gay marriage.

That’s because the spouses of an estimated 114 newly married gay state workers will apply for health care and other benefits. But the spouses of 24,298 heterosexual state workers currently get benefits worth $165 million.

On the other hand, economic activity spiked in states with gay marriage. From $60 million in the first gay marriage state, Massachusetts, to $5 million in New Hampshire.

MA — $60 million
CT — $16 million
VT — $5 million
IA — $8 million
NH — $5 m

Here are some of the sources for this Reality Check:

Fiscal Note 2013-14.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minnesota House Democrats this week voted to raise the excise tax on beer, claiming it will raise the price only 7 cents a bottle.

But is that true?

It’s complicated, but the arithmetic holds up.

What’s still not known is how much it will cost beer manufacturers,  distributors, retailers, and bars.

As a generally accepted political principle, raising beer taxes can be perilous. But House Democratic lawmakers say the alcohol industry has had a free ride for a long time.

“The excise tax has not been raised in 26 years,” said Rep. Ann Lenczewski, the DFL chair of the House Taxes Committee.

She added: “I challenge anyone…to tell me which tax has not been raised in 26 years? It’s a very modest 7 cent tax.”

It’s true that Minnesota last raised alcohol excise taxes in 1987. But many are questioning whether a beer tax hike will cost “a very modest” 7 cents a bottle.

Here’s what House Democrats did this week:

They voted to raise the beer tax from $4.60 per 31-gallon barrel, to $27.75 per 31-gallon barrel. That’s a 600 percent increase.

For comparison, the same tax for the same 31-gallon barrel in Wisconsin is $1.86.

Small brewers who manufacture up to 200,000 barrels a year, however, would be exempt.

Here’s how it’s calculated:

A barrel of beer holds 331 12-ounce drinks. Dividing the number of drinks by the current tax, it’s about 1.4-cents a beer.

Using the same arithmetic, the higher tax per barrel adds between 7 and 8 cents a beer.

Here is the exact calculation used by the House Taxes Committee, verbatim:

The current law tax is a $4.60 per barrel. A barrel contains 31 gallons. Since a gallon contains 128 ounces, a barrel contains 3,968 ounces (31 * 128 = 3968). Each beer equals 12 ounces (at least that is the standard size of bottles and cans sold). So a barrel contains 331 beers (3968/12 = 330.67). The current tax on a beer equals 1.4 cents per beer ($4.60/331 = $0.0139).

The bill increases the excise tax per barrel to $27.75 or an increase of $23.15 per barrel ($27.75 – $4.60 = $23.15). Going through the same calculations to reduce this $23.15 per barrel increase to a per drink increase yields a tax increase of 7 cents per beer (i.e., $23.15/330.67 = $0.07). This is the effect of the excise tax increase that’s in the bill.

Assuming this gets passed-through to consumers (as almost all economic studies show it will), the state retail sales tax and gross receipts tax will ultimately get added to the ultimate price paid by the consumer. This will raise the price by 6.785% (general sales tax) and by 2.5% (the gross receipts tax). Applying the combination of these two state retail taxes will raise the burden of the 7 cents by about another cent (0.06875 + 0.025 = 0.09285; 0.09285 * 7 cents = 0.65 cent). So the total state tax burden increase is a little less than 8 cents (rounding up it’s 8 cents, rather than 7 cents). In places where there are local taxes, those local taxes will further raise the burden a bit, but those are not state tax increases.

There’s similar confirming data from the Department of Revenue:

The proposal would increase the excise taxes on beer, wine, and spirits equivalent to 7 cents per drink.

Assuming that a drink equals twelve ounces for beer, five ounces for wine, and 1.5 ounces for distilled spirits, the tax rates would be changed as follows:

Current/ Proposed

3.2 Beer (per 31-gallon barrel) $2.40 /$25.55

Strong Beer (per 31-gallon barrel) $4.60/ $27.75

Cider (per liter) $.04 /$.51

Regular Wine (per liter) $.08/ $.55

Strong Wine (per liter) $.25/ $.72

Sparkling Wine (per liter) $.48/$.95

Spirits (per liter) $1.33/ $2.91

But down the chain from the brewer to the bar, the higher cost will get multiplied by calculating various markups as a percent of the total cost of the product.

And beer distributors say it will cost more to make, to ship, and to drink — at least 14-cents a drink.

That’s Reality Check.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Minn. House Research
Issue Paper on Alcohol Beverage Taxes

Minn. Alcohol Distributors

http://www.mndistributors.com/facts.cfm

Summary of House Taxes Bill
Including Alcohol Excise Taxes

Full Text of House Taxes Bill
House Taxes Bill

MN Revenue Department Fiscal Analysis of Effect of Alcohol Excise Tax Increase
PDF Document

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) – There’s a lot of revisionist history going on at the Capitol about those pull tab revenue projections — numbers that Gov. Mark Dayton says no one knew were wildly inflated.

But that’s not exactly true, according to lawmakers who tried to sound the alarm.

Many lawmakers were skeptical about pull tabs from the very beginning, even when top state revenue officials said it would eventually generate $66 million, or more, every year.

At a stadium Senate hearing last April, Minnesota Revenue Commissioner Myron Frans said that his level of confidence in the pull tab revenues was, on a scale of one to 10, at “about five…probably an eight.”

“We feel very strongly that this is a reasonable, and conservative estimate in terms of the revenue that will be generated,” Frans said then.

But the numbers were wildly off base. For 2013, state officials first estimated $35 million in revenues.

Now, they’re guessing $1.7 million.

Despite repeated attempts by some lawmakers to flag it, the Democratic governor now says no one knew how faulty the projections would be.

“If they misunderstood the situation, they have no one to blame but themselves,” Dayton said. “And I have no one to blame but myself.”

But many lawmakers did have access to different information.

An in-depth report, circulated by supporters of casino gambling, described electronic pull tab devices as “unproven technology in terms of its market potential.”

The report, titled “Minnesota Charitable Gaming: Proposal for Funding Vikings Stadium“, said: “There is no precedent in charitable gaming for such a dramatic increase [in revenue], and all trends have for the past 20 years been in the opposite direction.”

The report concludes: “Electronic pull tabs have not been implemented anywhere in the United States, so there is no basis to the revenue forecast.”

In addition, lawmakers who supported slot machines at horse racing tracks — called Racino — cited studies in Iowa indicating more problems with e-pull tabs.

Rep. Tom Hackbarth, (R-Cedar) said he tried to warn lawmakers — and the governor — about the faulty projections, but he says they ignored it.

“I think everybody knew,” Hackbarth said. “Everybody knew that it was not going to generate that kind of money, but they needed some sort of revenue source to sell the stadium issue.”

He said he believes the Legislature may have to re-open the Vikings stadium bill to fix the funding problem.

On the other hand, Dayton said it’s “premature” to push the “panic alarm”.

He said he believes the pull tab revenues will eventually come around, and meet expectations.

Here are some of the sources that we used for this Reality Check:

Pull Tab Reality Check March 2, 2012 (Additional sources included)

April 24, 2012 Senate Finance Committee

Charitable Gaming Study

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — A Minnesota House committee will vote Thursday night on a watered down version of a gun bill that includes background checks for gun show sales. It’s far less than gun safety advocates had hoped, but the pull-back from tougher gun laws is not uncommon.

Supporters of tougher gun laws came into the session with high hopes for an assault weapons ban, ammunition restrictions and universal background checks. Like other states, it now appears very little — if anything — will happen.

Unlike the recent gun restrictions passed in New York and Colorado, the vast majority of states are not imposing tougher gun laws. In fact, some states are even going in the opposite direction — making it easier to own weapons and carry them in public.

Gun laws are getting less restrictive in Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, Kansas, Wyoming.

In South Dakota: the first state to allow all teachers to carry guns in school. In Arkansas: legalized concealed weapons in churches.

Also, 15 states have introduced bills banning federal agents from enforcing gun laws within their borders.

Here is what you NEED TO KNOW.

In Minnesota, gun rights groups beat back a ban on assault weapons, there will be no restrictions on high capacity clips and universal background checks are in serious trouble.

Some gun restrictions are moving ahead, mostly in the Northeast: New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut and also Illinois.

However, most states, like Minnesota, have found it too difficult to pass.

Reality Check Sources:
Colorado Firearms Law
New York Gun Laws
Denver Post Report of Hickenlooper Signing New Gun Restrictions
Associated Press: Nationwide Action on Gun Laws
Example of 15 States Firearms Protection Act
Council of State Governments Summary of Passed/Pending Gun Legislation
Pioneer Press: Minnesota House Drops Mandatory Background Checks
Star Tribune Minnesota Poll: Minnesotans Favor Background Checks
Arkansas Approves Guns in Churches
South Dakota Teachers May Carry Guns at School

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) - For Minnesota lawmakers, the hours are long and the pay is low. Without a pay hike since 1999, they earn $31,140. A new plan would bring it to $40,800 in 2015.

In fact, compared to legislatures around the country, Minnesota is solidly in the middle. The National Conference of State Legislatures ranks Minnesota 17th in the nation, above the national median salary of $28,000.

That’s not the whole story.

Even if legislative salaries go up to $40,800, Governor Mark Dayton says it’s not enough. He’s recommending that Minnesota lawmakers be paid $56,954 – the same amount as the average Minnesota family.

“They work very hard, drive long distances and respond to their constituents around the clock,” Dayton said in a statement.

Even without a pay hike, Minnesota lawmakers are at the high end of legislatures in the Upper Midwest: lower than Wisconsin, but higher than Iowa and the Dakotas.

None of these numbers include per diem – those daily expense payments lawmakers get that can add up into the thousands of dollars every year.

Last year, in a short legislative session, per diem averaged $11,000 per member. Many business executives with comparable responsibilities would be paid 5 to ten times higher.

If you average that $11,000 a year in expense payments on top of their salaries, it is still less than the $43,043 it would be with inflation – and less than the $56,954 that Gov. Dayton says it should be.

Sources Used For This Reality Check:

Compensation Report

Click Here

Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator

Click Here

2012 State Legislator Compensation and Per Diem Table

Click Here

State Elected Officials’ Compensation

Click Here

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) – With no deal in sight, the president is on the verge of signing an order that will slash billions of dollars from the federal budget.

Update: President Barack Obama did sign that order Friday night.

$85 billion – or about 3 percent of the budget – needs to be cut by midnight on March 2. That’s because members of Congress couldn’t see eye-to-eye on a compromise.

Democrats wanted more taxes and Republicans wanted more spending cuts. The White House has warned this budget slashing will lead to layoffs and flight delays.

Minnesotans could suffer from those budget cuts too. Some over time, and some right away.

Like elsewhere in the country, Minnesota air travelers could see longer lines and slower travel if the government follows through on threats to furlough air traffic controllers and TSA agents one day each pay period.

The White House says:

- The jobs of 100 Minnesota school teachers and aides are at risk.
- 700 low-income children won’t get into Head Start.
- 2,360 won’t get vaccines.

The Blue Angels might not perform at the St. Cloud Air Show in July. And Meals on Wheels could deliver fewer meals to the elderly.

But Minnesota will be hurt less – a lot less – than most other states. That’s because Minnesota gets fewer dollars from the federal government than almost anywhere else.

For every dollar Minnesota sends to Washington in federal taxes, it gets back 68 cents in federal grants and programs. That puts us 49th among 50 states in federal aid, which means there’s less to cut here.

The White House predicts Minnesota will lose more than 16,000 jobs. But state economist Tom Stinson says that’s not true. The sequester could slightly slow Minnesota’s job growth, but outright job losses are not expected.

Here are some of the sources for this Reality Check:

White House Sequester – Impact/Minnesota
Click Here

Pew Trust Study: Federal Grants By State
Click Here

Tax Foundation: Federal Spending Vs Federal Taxes By State
Click Here

Airport Slowdowns After Sequester
Click Here

MN Economic Forecast, Including Sequester
Click Here

MN Meals on Wheels
Click Here

St. Cloud Air Show
Click Here

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – A national anti-gay marriage group has put a bounty on the heads of Minnesota Republicans.

The National Organization for Marriage says it will spend $500,000 to defeat any GOP legislator who votes to legalize gay marriage.

It’s a serious threat, but what does the record actually show?

The National Organization for Marriage posted its half million dollar threat online just a couple of days before a bill to legalize gay marriage is slated to be introduced at the Minnesota Legislature.

But here’s a fact: In the 2012 election, the vast majority of gay marriage voting legislators won.

Sen. Branden Peterson says he isn’t fazed by the warning

“It doesn’t matter whether its five million or 50 million [dollars],” he said. “They might as well spend their money somewhere else, because it’s not going to have an effect.”

The two-term lawmaker from Andover, Minn., is the first Republican to change his vote on legalizing gay marriage. And he may be part of a new, growing GOP movement.

In fact, the gay marriage debate is transforming the political landscape.

In 2001, only 35 percent of Americans supported it. But now, 48 percent of Americans do.

And for Republicans, there’s a generation gap. Only 30 percent of the overall party favors gay marriage; but 70 percent of Republicans under the age of 30 support it.

But that’s not the whole story: The Washington-based Democratic think tank Third Way says 98.5 percent of state legislators who voted for gay marriage were re-elected.

Out of 196 elections in New York and Washington state, only five pro-gay marriage lawmakers lost their seats — four in New York and one in Washington.

And in three of those elections, other factors — like corruption– might have played a bigger factor.

Peterson says he will be a co-author on the gay marriage bill, but he still has some concerns about how the law will work.

Also, he says he wants to make sure Minnesota carves out legal protection for small businesses and conscientious objectors.

Indeed, supporters of legal gay marriage say they expect more Republicans to join them. As for Peterson, he says what’s remarkable is that gay marriage is not that important to many people.

He says Minnesotans are much more worried about state spending, taxes and job creation.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Less than 24 hours after the President Barack Obama proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, Minnesota Democratic lawmakers unveiled a plan of their own to raise state pay for low income workers to $9.50.

The president is right about how little money a family makes earning the federal minimum wage.

“Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong,” Obama said in his State of the Union address.

That’s true.

A family of four earning the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour makes $24,128. The federal poverty line for that family is very close to that: $23,550.

But federal figures show most minimum wage earners are young workers.

“[L]et’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour”, Obama said.

Here’s what you need to know.

Of the 73.9 million American workers at or below minimum wage, 49.5 percent are under the age of 25.

And many of them are teenagers.

But it doesn’t mean Minnesota families aren’t feeling the pinch, said Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman.

“Poor people are poor because they don’t have any money,” Hortman said. “What is sad in Minnesota is that a lot of the poor people are working. And they are working long hours but their pay is very low.”

In fact, Minnesota’s minimum wage is among the lowest in the country.

Minimum Wage

MN: $6.15
US: $7.25

At $6.15 an hour, it’s one of only four states below the federal wage.

And it’s lower than any of the surrounding states in the Upper Midwest.

WI: $7.25
IA: $7.25
SD: $7.25
ND: $7.25

But the plan raising it to $9.50 an hour would make Minnesota a state among the highest.

What the president is not saying, however, is that when he ran for office in 2008, he proposed raising the federal minimum wage even higher — to $9.50 an hour.

But even with a Democratic House and Senate, Obama did not deliver on the pledge.

And with Republicans now controlling the House and opposing the minimum wage hike, the chances of passing it are very low.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

2013 Minimum Wage By State

Federal Poverty Guidelines

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Minimum Wage

World Incomes

Wage and Salary Data

Minimum Wages May Increase Unemployment?

Text of President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address

Related: Dayton Must Sell Sales Tax Change To Fellow DFLers

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Even though Minnesota’s sales tax is high, it takes in a less money than other states with similar tax rates.

That’s because many items in Minnesota are exempt from tax, including food, clothing and medicine – items that many other states tax.

In fact, Minnesota ranks seventh in US sales taxes, at 6.875 percent.

California is number one at 7.5 percent.

Five states — Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Indiana and New Jersey — are at 7 percent.

But that’s not the whole story. In 1969, Minnesota first imposed a 3 percent sales tax, with many exemptions, when Republican Harold Levander was governor.

It’s gone up and down since then — mostly up.

Now, Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, wants to cut the tax, but apply it to many goods and services.

“For most families in Minnesota, that’s a wash,” said Dayton when he unveiled his budget plan. “Pay a lower rate on more items, it comes out the same amount total sales taxes paid by most Minnesota families.”

Here’s what you need to know:

– Reducing sales tax to 5.5 percent would move the state’s rank from seventh in the country to 27th.

– It would put the state more in line with sales taxes in the rest of the upper Midwest.

– And Minnesotans would be taxed on many more items, such as clothing, dog grooming, auto repairs, haircuts, skating lessons and legal services.

There’s an interest group for every one of those exemptions, and skeptical lawmakers are already starting to hear from them.

Related: Minnesota Budget’s Fine Print Shows Reach Of Plan

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Sales Taxes on Clothing

Gov. Dayton Budget Plan

MN Sales Tax Collection Data

History of MN Sales Tax

Sales Tax by State

Sales Tax Issues MN House Research

Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures Tax and Budget Iusses

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) – Hundreds of people visit the State Capitol every day. What’s impossible to know is how many are carrying a concealed weapon.

New state figures reveal that hundreds of legally armed Minnesotans have notified the Department of Public Safety to say they are carrying a concealed weapon at the State Capitol complex, including the Capitol building itself.

Since 2006, 573 people notified the state they would carry concealed weapons at the Capitol complex, where thousands of people work and visit.

In 2012, 56 people declared their weapons. The law forbids the state from revealing who they are: lawmakers, staffers, or visitors. And gun rights supporters say it makes the Capitol safer.

Representative Tony Cornish, a retired police chief, says the emotion and unpredictability of the legislative session make it essential that gun holders remain anonymous.

“You wouldn’t believe the whacks that come into this place,” Cornish said. “The most effective protection you have is when people don’t know you are armed.”

Minnesota law gives legal permit holders the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere inside the Capitol, even in the galleries of the House and Senate – and even when the legislature is in session.

Minnesota gun laws allow citizens to carry at the State Capitol complex only if they’ve completed a required gun safety training course.

All that permit holders need to do is notify the Public Safety Commissioner that they’ll be packing.

That’s Reality Check.

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — Like all 50 states, Minnesota gun dealers are required to do a background check on weapons purchases.

Minnesota’s better than many states, but there are gaping holes in the system.

Minnesota gun dealers use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to verify the records of gun buyers. But the data base does not include the names of millions of people who cannot legally own a weapon.

IT’S TRUE. Minnesota and federal law prohibit gun ownership for: Drug offenders, fugitives, domestic abusers, felons, illegal immigrants, dishonorable discharges, stalkers and several categories of mentally ill.

However, it’s hard for gun dealers to always get accurate information.

IN FACT, a 50-state study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found Minnesota submitted 3,960 mental health records to the NICS in 2011. Minnesota ranks 18th.

That’s pretty good, nationally, but in 2010, the state submitted no records at all.

That’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

Minnesota reported 556 cases of gun restrictions for substance abuse in 2011. But it’s still difficult to access criminal records of people who are not permitted to own a weapon or who lie on their applications.

Here’s you NEED TO KNOW:

Up to 40 percent of gun purchases require no background check at all. Those include weapons purchased at gun shows or in private sales. One more gaping hole in the background check system:

In 2010, nearly 80,000 gun buyers lied on their application. But there have only been 44 prosecutions.

That’s Reality Check.

Here are some of the sources used for Reality Check:
President Obama Proposal to Restrict Gun Violence
National Instant Criminal Background Check
Helping States Provide Records for Background Checks
Minnesota Justice Information Services
Denials of Gun Permits
Nat’l Institute of Justice Study on Gun Ownership
Mayors Against Illegal Guns 50-State Study of Gun Laws
MN Uniform Firearm Application
Helping States Provide Records for Background Checks
Minnesota Justice Information Services
Denials of Gun Permits
NRA Institute for Legislative Action
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – It doesn’t seem to be quite the deal that any politician in Washington wanted, but Congress and President Barack Obama did manage to steer the country away from the fiscal cliff.

Late Tuesday night, the House signed off on a bill that will prevent a middle class tax hike and delay automatic spending cuts. The bill, which is waiting for the president’s signature, raises taxes on families making more than $450,000 a year and extends long-term unemployment benefits for a year.

It does not, however, include spending cuts, or Social Security or Medicare reform. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed their discontent with the agreement.

“I hate this agreement. I hate it with every fiber of my being,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota.

Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio summed up the political conflict like this: “Quite frankly, the president won’t show the leadership to make the move on the entitlement side, and we’ve been slow to the dance on the revenue side.”

Another showdown is just around the corner.

In two months, the Treasury Department needs to increase the amount of money the country can borrow, and lawmakers will need to sign off.

How The Agreement Affects You

But despite the agreement, most of us will still be paying more in taxes — even if we’re not rich.

In fact, the Social Security tax is going up by 2 percentage points on all incomes up to $113,000. So, you will see a smaller paycheck.

If you make $50,000, your tax hike is $1,000. That’s $35.71 less on every two-week paycheck. If you make $75,000, your tax hike is $1,500. That’s $53.57 less per paycheck.

It’s the first income tax hike in 20 years in this country.

But that’s not the whole story.

Congress made permanent Bush income tax cuts for middle class Americans. But those do not apply for high income earners.

Families earning from $500,000 to $1 million a year will see average tax hikes of about $15,000. Tax hikes for incomes above $1 million a year will average about $171,000.

There are no spending cuts, but there is $100 billion in special tax perks for the following:

– $430 million for Hollywood tax breaks.

– $331 million for railroads.

– $222 million for tax credits on Puerto Rican rum.

– And $70 million for NASCAR tracks.

The bill prevents expected cuts in Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors, extends unemployment benefits for another two years, and it sets the estate tax to a graduated top rate 40 percent, up from 35 percent in 2012.
　
While Congress was able to preserve about 80 percent of the George W. Bush tax cuts, but 77 percent of all workers will see some kind of tax hike.

Not Over Yet

This was the bare minimum that Congress and the president could do, and there are more big crises on the horizon.

There are no automatic budget cuts in this bill; they put off that debate until March. That’s also about the time the next debt ceiling debate hits.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

“Fiscal Cliff” Bill

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h659

Tax Policy Center Analysis

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?template=simulation&SimID=462

Percentage of Households Getting Tax Increase in 2013

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/01/tax-bill-analysis-77-of-households-to-see-tax-increase/


Tax Perks in “Fiscal Cliff” Bill

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-pork-asparagus-nascar-rum


Tax Increase Coming for Most American Workers

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFJJ5t6z0jZGoblNq4ibSb1SNsBA?docId=ed561668c4b5407aa30f52366da6d56b

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – In Minnesota, guns are banned on all school properties — public or private, across all grade levels.

But that’s not the way it is in a handful of other states.

Five states allow students and staffers to carry weapons on college campuses. Colorado even has a designated dormitory for gun-toting students.

Guns are permitted on campuses in Oregon, Mississippi, Utah, and Wisconsin, according to the nonprofit investigative journalism website ProPublica.org.

Indeed, Badger state students can carry concealed weapons on campus grounds, parking lots and other open spaces. They can’t, however, bring them into buildings with signs at the entrance saying guns are banned.

But that’s not the whole story.

In Harrold, Texas, there’s something called the Guardian Plan. There, the school district allows teachers and staffers to carry weapons in the classroom. The district finds it safer and quicker than waiting for police to arrive in an emergency.

And then there’s Michigan.

Twenty-four hours before the Connecticut massacre, the Michigan state legislature passed a bill repealing many “gun free” zones.

Michiganders with concealed pistol permits and advanced training could have carried guns into schools and sporting events on school property. But Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed the legislation Tuesday.

Snyder, a Republican, told reporters last week he was uncomfortable taking away school discretion.

And said the bill would get extra scrutiny after the Connecticut massacre.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Pro-Publica: Ways That States Have Loosened Gun Laws

http://www.propublica.org/article/seven-of-the-most-striking-ways-states-have-loosened-gun-laws

National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action

http://www.nraila.org/

Michigan Gun Law

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/snyder-deciding-on-michigan-gun-in-school-bill-days-after-deaths.html


Teachers Carry Guns In Harrold, Texas

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/14/4486104/texas-school-where-teachers-carry.html


Places Where Guns Are Prohibited in Minnesota

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/firearmsMN.pdf

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is considering electronic pull tab games as a way to help the state pay for its share of a new Minnesota Vikings stadium.

The consideration comes as pull tab money trickles in more slowly than expected.

Lots Of Bars, Not Many E-Tabs

There are 6,000 bars in Minnesota, and 2,800 have paper pull tabs. So far, only 87 have installed the new electronic devices. That’s problematic because the state committed $350 million to a new Vikings stadium, with pull tabs as the main source of revenue.

In fact, finance officials say Minnesota’s taking in about half the pull tab revenues it predicted. Projections have been cut for next year from $34 million to $16 million and by 2017, from $84 million to $47 million.

Here’s what you need to know: Only a very small amount of every gambling dollar actually goes to a stadium.

– 85 cents goes back to players.
– 4.35 cents to the gaming company.
– 3 cents to charity.
– 2.25 cents to the bar.

That makes it about 5.4 cents to the state — and the Vikings stadium.

But that’s not the whole story.

The money is trickling in because there’s only one pull tab vendor in Minnesota right now. Gambling officials will approve two more next week.

MSP may approve e-tabs within days, making it the single largest pull tab location in the state.

If Minnesotans are worried about the slow roll-out of electronic pull tabs, they should look at Virginia. The commonwealth approved e-tabs two years ago, and it’s still not online.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minnesota’s Democratic leaders don’t want anyone to think the 2013 Legislature is not going to vote on legalizing gay marriage.

But don’t get the idea that there will be a vote, either.

In fact: Party leaders say only they will “continue the conversation” from the November election, in which Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment which would have had the effect of banning gay marriage.

The incoming Democratic Speaker of the House, Paul Thissen, said he thinks “the conversation is going to continue to evolve, and there will be proposals. People have already announced that there will be proposals that will be debated or, at least, introduced, and we will have that discussion going forward.”

Democrats are super-sensitive, because taking up gay marriage would leave them open to charges of “over-reaching.”

That’s exactly what Democrats accused Republicans of doing when the GOP held the majority, debating gay marriage, voter ID, right to work, abortion, guns, and more.

Two separate analyses of the marriage amendment vote suggest that it’s not at all clear that legalizing gay marriage would pass — even if it comes up for a vote next year.

And most– if not all– of the yes votes may need to come from Democrats.

One analysis of marriage amendment vote patterns by the Associated Press showed that some 56 members of the incoming Legislature “would be forced to choose between the prevailing tide in their party and the preference of their constituents. The data would undoubtedly be used by both sides to exert public and political pressure on a highly controversial matter”.

A study by the left-leaning political website LeftMN found that 29 Senate Democrats were elected in districts that voted NO on the gay marriage ban: 5 short of the votes needed to pass.

In the House: 58 Democrats elected in districts that voted No: 10 short.

According LeftMN, “The basic numbers break down as follows; 81% of the votes needed in the house are DFLers who represent districts that voted against the Marriage amendment. In the Senate that number was 85%. In the House the 13 votes needed in addition to that 81%, represents 33% of the in-between representatives. In the Senate the five votes needed represented 28% of the in-between Senators.”

Incoming Senate Majority Leader, Tom Bakk, who’s from a northern Minnesota district in which the amendment was narrowly defeated, says the vote wasn’t necessarily about gay marriage. It was about keeping it out of the Constitution.

“I think the more pressing thing probably, this session, is the budget,” Bakk said. “I do think we still need to have a pretty significant conversation around the state on that subject. I think the conversation during the election was about whether we put it in the constitution; it wasn’t about where the public was at on the issue.”

Meanwhile, Minnesota Democratic leaders say they are watching closely the United States Supreme Court, which announced last week it will hear two gay marriage cases and rule on their constitutionality.

A Supreme Court ruling could make Minnesota’s gay marriage debate moot, but that decision is not expected until late spring or early summer — after the Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to adjourn.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Associated Press Analysis of Marriage Amendment Voting Patterns

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/11/09/some-minn-lawmakers-face-gay-marriage-conflict/

LeftMN Analyses of Marriage Amendment Voting Patterns

http://left.mn/2012/12/marriage-equality-in-2013-the-in-between-representatives/


MN Secretary of State Election Results

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1734

New Democratic Majority Fights Against “Overreach”

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/11/23/capitols-dfl-leaders-must-guard-against-overreach/

US Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/12/07/4bf6c366-40ab-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Republican Mary Franson won re-election to her Minnesota House seat by just 12 votes, defeating Democrat Bob Cunniff after a lengthy recount in a district where some voters were given the wrong ballots.

Franson’s narrow victory is one of this year’s few bright spots for Minnesota Republicans, who lost both the House and Senate by wide margins.

One-Party Control

Voters gave Democrats one-party control of the Minnesota statehouse for the first time in a generation. Democrats are in charge for the first time since 1990, when Rudy Perpich was governor.

And one-party control is not just in Minnesota. It’s in a remarkable 74 percent of states. You’ve got to go back all the way to 1952 — when Harry Truman was president — to find so many state capitols controlled by a single political party.

In Minnesota, the new Senate leader called the outcome a voter reaction to years of “crisis government.”

“People are tired of the gridlock. They are tired of the bickering. I think you are starting to see that play out in elections, not just in Minnesota, but across the country,” said Sen. Tom Bakk.

Whatever the reason, Bakk is right about the trend.

In fact:

– 37 states now have one party controlling the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office.
– 24 statehouses are Republican.
– 13 are Democrat.
– 12 are split.

But that’s not the whole story.

Democrats may have a majority in Minnesota, but they don’t have a “supermajority,” like many other state legislatures.

Twenty-five states now have veto-proof statehouses, meaning the party in power can pass whatever it wants, and override any governor’s veto.

The Surrounding Political Landscape

Minnesota is one-party Democratic control. But Republicans rule in Wisconsin and in the Dakotas. Iowa is one of the few remaining states that are split.

Why is the one-party trend happening now?

A number of reasons:
– Redistricting.
– Partisan divisions, harshness, gridlock.
– Obama or Romney turnouts.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A Minnesota man told police he feared two teenagers breaking into his home had a weapon when he shot and killed them on Thanksgiving Day.

Byron Smith, 64, of Little Falls, is now facing murder charges.

Smith admitted to investigators he fired “more shots than (he) needed to.”

And seemed to brag about making “a good, clean finishing shot” when he killed 18-year-old Haile Kifer, after he had already killed 17-year-old Nicholas Brady.

Minnesotans already have the right to defend themselves in their homes, but the case in Little Falls would probably not apply.

It’s already legal to shoot and kill an intruder in your home, or in your yard, or your garage, if you are threatened.

But self-defense becomes murder at a very specific point.

Most states already have self-defense laws based on the Castle Doctrine — “a man’s home is his castle.”

In fact, in Minnesota, you can shoot an intruder — even kill — if you feel threatened with great bodily harm, or if you are trying to prevent a felony.

But you must stop shooting if the threat’s eliminated, even if the intruder is still alive.

That’s called the “duty to retreat.”

Self-defense laws in 24 states go further than Minnesota. They are not “duty to retreat” states — but “stand your ground” or “make my day” states. “Make my day,” as in Clint Eastwood’s famous line.

Here’s what you need to know.

This year the Minnesota legislature passed, and Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed, a bill that would have turned Minnesota into a “make my day” state.

That would have expanded the Castle Doctrine beyond a house — to cars, motor homes, boats — even tents.

That’s not the whole story.

In Little Falls, Smith may have felt threatened when two young people broke into his home.

But even a “make my day” state won’t allow a shooter to do what Smith says he did — keep shooting until the intruders were dead.

George Zimmerman used Florida’s “stand your ground” law when he killed Trayvon Martin, claiming he felt threatened.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The Minnesota Vikings say they haven’t decided to charge fans extra for the privilege of buying a ticket.

They’re only asking the question in a survey to season ticket holders.

But for many NFL teams, it’s a huge source of revenue.

Eight of the last 20 NFL stadiums were paid for, in part, by personal seat licenses (PSL).

In fact, the Dallas Cowboys charge up to $150,000 for one. The New York Jets, up to $30,000. The Giants, $20,000.

There’s no comparable number for a market the size of Minnesota, but an average PSL might cost about $1,300.

The 15 current NFL teams selling PSLs averaged 48,200 PSLs last season, according to an industry group.

An amount that averaged about 69 percent of stadium capacity, including a high of 56,314 PSLs sold by the Dallas Cowboys, to a low of 8,356 sold by the Seattle Seahawks.

What you need to know:

The Vikings stadium bill does allow PSLs, which are called in statute a “Stadium Builder’s License.”

Here’s the exact language:

“Subd. 14. Stadium builder’s licenses. The authority shall own and retain the exclusive right to sell stadium builder’s licenses in the stadium. The authority will retain the NFL team to act as the authority’s agent in marketing and selling such licenses.”

They must be approved first by the Stadium Commission, which would sell the licenses. But the Vikes can keep all the PSL money, and apply it to stadium construction.

Here’s the exact language:.

“Subd. 2. NFL team/private contribution; timing of expenditures. (a) The NFL team/private contribution, including stadium builder license proceeds, for stadium costs must be made in cash in the amount of at least $477,000,000.”

What’s got Gov. Mark Dayton seeing purple is that there’s no legal limit on the number of PSLs, or the price.

But that’s not the whole story:

PSLs would generate only a small part of the Vikings $477 million stadium share.

The Vikes also own naming rights, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And the NFL will loan the Vikes up to $200 million more — money paid back through stadium revenues.

Meanwhile, the value of the Vikings franchise rose dramatically in the last year. From 2011 to 2012, a year in which the Vikings stadium was approved, the team’s value rose 22 percent, to $975 million.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

MN Vikings Stadium Law

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=299&year=2012&type=0


Recent NFL Stadium Financing

http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf

Vikings Post on Possible Stadium Financing Methods

http://www.vikings.com/stadium/new-stadium/facts.html

NFL Stadiums With Most Expensive Naming rights

http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110822/nfl-stadiums-with-the-most-expensive-naming-rights

Dallas Cowboys PSLs

http://cowboys.c1ms.com/

New York Jets PSL

http://www.newyorkjets.com/tickets-and-stadium/new-stadium/seating-chart.html


New York Giants PSL

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/sports/football/15tickets

PSL Rank by Team

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/09/08/NFL-Season-Preview/PSLs.aspx

NFL Team Valuations

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/#page:3_sort:0_direction:asc_search:


Vikes Consider Seat License

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82904b67/printable/minnesota-vikings-have-stadium-state-must-raise-the-money.html

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Nearly 3 million Minnesotans showed up at the polls on Election Day –that’s a voter turnout of 76 percent.

Minnesotans defeated two constitutional amendments: one to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and another to require voters to show a government approved ID when they cast a ballot.

It appears the amendments motivated many voters to go to the polls, after some Republicans had calculated it would drive turnout — and help them win.

But the numbers show that it turned out to be a big miscalculation.

Minnesota was heading for another near-record turnout when President Barack Obama claimed victory on Tuesday night over Gov. Mitt Romney. We know now that many voters were motivated by the marriage amendment, but it was not restricted to only one party.

More people voted on the marriage amendment than for Obama or Romney.

A total of 2,861,955 million people voted for Romney or Obama. Even more — 2,905,763 — voted on the marriage amendment, which failed.

That’s a difference of 43,808 voters.

And in fact: Opposition to a gay marriage ban was bi-partisan, racking up vote margins higher than the presidential races in key Minnesota counties.

In Scott County, Romney beat Obama 56 percent to 41 percent. But voters rejected the gay marriage ban 51 percent to 49 percent.

Obama won Hennepin County 62 percent to 35 percent.

But the marriage amendment vote had a larger margin, 65 percent to 35 percent.

What the numbers tell us is this: Republican leaders put gay marriage and voter ID on the ballot, strategizing it would bring out more GOP voters; instead, it backfired.

Voters rejected both amendments — even in Republican districts — and it helped turn over control of the Legislature to Democrats.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Gay Marriage, Voter ID Amendment Language

MN Voter Turnout

2012 MN Election Results

MN Marriage Amendment Vote by County

Hennepin County Election Results

Scott County Election Results

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Gov. Mitt Romney returned to the campaign trail on Wednesday, but refrained again from criticizing President Obama in light of the disaster on the East Coast.

But Romney is facing disaster questions of his own; over whether he supports abolishing FEMA — the federal agency in charge of cleanup and recovery.

Mitt Romney ignored questions about FEMA during an event his campaign called a “storm relief” effort.

And he won’t explain what he meant when he said last year that states should be in charge of disaster relief, or private business — not the federal government.

“Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction,” he said. “And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut? We should ask the opposite question — what should we keep?”

In fact, Romney is proposing to cap all federal spending, except Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

That would mean cuts to all other federal programs, including FEMA, to the tune of 34 percent or more.

Obama is proposing a 3 percent FEMA cut, including the Disaster Relief Fund.

That’s not the whole story.

Many states can’t handle the cost of a billion-dollar disaster, such as the Joplin tornado last year.

But Romney’s theory is that smaller disasters – i.e. the $100 million flooding in Duluth — could be paid for with state money.

Today, Romney issued a written statement that “FEMA plays a key role” preparing for, and responding to, natural disasters.

And he said as president, he “will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission.”

But Romney still does not answer the basic question: will he gut, or abolish FEMA, or even turn it over to the private sector?

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The group supporting the proposed marriage amendment released its fourth TV ad on Thursday.

It features parents in Massachusetts who objected to the use of a book in their 2nd grader’s class.

One of the parents, David Parker, was arrested at his son’s Massachusetts school in 2006 after refusing to leave until his questions were answered about a book called “Who’s in a Family?”

The book includes different kinds of families, including same-sex parents, and he sued the school district for not notifying him in advance.

The Parkers objected to same-sex parents in the book, and lost a court case to force the school to notify them when gay themes were discussed.

And in the ad, produced by Minnesota for Marriage, Parker and his wife, Tonia, say gay marriage could soon be taught in Minnesota schools.

“If gay marriage happens here, schools could teach that boys could marry boys,” a narrator says at the beginning of the ad.

The Parkers then say: “After Massachusetts redefined marriage, local schools taught it to children in 2nd grade, including the school our son attended.”

This is false, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

There’s no evidence that Massachusetts “teaches” gay marriage, or that young children are being indoctrinated, as the Parkers alleged.
Massachusetts schools do have a diversity curriculum, called the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework, that includes same sex marriage; but it was developed before gay marriage was legal.

“Courts ruled parents had no right to take their children out of class or to even be informed when this instruction was going to take place,” the ad says.

This is misleading.

The court ruled against the Parkers.

But the Parkers’ lawsuit argued the school violated their religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral.

The courts said it was not a violation, and that parents cannot restrict what a public school teaches.

“If marriage is redefined in Minnesota, same sex marriage could be taught in local schools, just as it was in Massachusetts,” the Parkers concluded. “Don’t make the same mistake and think gay marriage won’t affect you.”

The ad continues a pattern of deception by the group supporting the constitutional amendment.

It’s important to remember: Minnesota’s not voting to legalize gay marriage.

It’s voting to keep it illegal by adding it to the Constitution.

Even if the amendment fails, gay marriage will still be illegal under Minnesota law.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s not the only state where David and Tonia Parker are starring in gay marriage ads.

The Parkers deliver nearly identical gay marriage messages in TV ads now airing in Maryland and Maine.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — In a race that’s already among the most hotly contested in the country, a new television ad from Democrat Rick Nolan accuses Republican Congressman Chip Cravaack of a smear campaign — and more.

“The middle class has been hit the hardest in this economy,” says Nolan in the ad while driving a pickup truck. “My opponent’s response has been a smear campaign. That’s just not the Minnesota way. But maybe he doesn’t know that because he’s not from here, and he doesn’t live here anymore.”

The problem?

The allegation is false.

Cravaack does live in Minnesota, and the Congressman provided his property tax statements to WCCO to prove it.

But it’s more complicated than that.

Cravaack’s family lives in another state, and Democrats want voters to know that.

“Chip Cravaack? He’s a pretender,” say Minnesotans in a new television ad from the state DFL Party. “He doesn’t know how we live. He doesn’t know where we’re coming from. He doesn’t even live in Minnesota anymore”.

The ad repeats the distortion.

But it’s not the whole story.

After Cravaack was elected to Congress in 2010, his wife accepted a job in New Hampshire the next year and moved there with their three children.

But the couple kept their Minnesota home, which Cravaack claims as his residence.

The irony: Cravaack won the election, in part, by claiming Democratic Congressman Jim Oberstar didn’t live here.

“Jim Oberstar doesn’t even live in our district,” said then-candidate Cravaack during a taped interview with the Minnesota Libertarian party, an allegation Oberstar said was false.

Said Cravaack of Oberstar: “He lives in a $1.1 million Potomac home in Maryland. He’s never here. I live here. This is my home. This is where my kids go to school. And if I’m doing a bad job, I know my neighbors down the street are going to come knocking on my door and telling me I am doing a bad job.”

Here’s what you need to know.

It’s illegal for members of Congress to live outside the state they represent.

Cravaack says he spends weekdays in Washington, Saturdays at his home in Minnesota, and Sundays with his family in the New Hampshire.

Based on records provided to the Duluth News Tribune by Cravaack’s Congressional Office, the newspaper reported Cravaack spent 164 days in Minnesota in 2011, and 139 “voting days” in Washington.

The paper also reports that Cravaack spent 11 days in New Hampshire, and that his family spends time with him here in Minnesota.

The issue of Cravaack’s residency signals a change in tone for Nolan, who once said he would not make it part of the campaign.

“I don’t intend to push him on that,” Nolan told WCCO-TV recently.

“I think families should be left out of politics. But I do think being an integral part of the district makes you better able to represent a district.”

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

DFL Ad

Rick Nolan Ad

2010 Cravaack Accuses Oberstar of Living Outside District
Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3

Cravaack Victory Speech

Cravaack Family Moves to New Hampshire

Nolan Says He Won’t Make Residency an Issue

Residency Requirements for Members of Congress

Nolan for Congress

Cravaack for Congress

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – There was none of the harsh exchanges familiar in the first two debates.

But it doesn’t mean the candidates didn’t mix it up, and they stretched some facts.

For example, President Barack Obama accused Gov. Mitt Romney of wanting to keep troops in Iraq, even today.

“What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down,” the president said.”That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

Romney objected, saying the president was misrepresenting his position.

“There was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement,” Romney said, “And I concurred to that, that we should have some number of troops to stay on. You thought it should be five thousand troops, I thought it should be more.”

What Romney says it MOSTLY TRUE.

Obama wanted to leave thousands of troops in Iraq under what’s called a “status of forces agreement.”

But the Iraqi government refused to grant legal immunity to the troops that remained, and negotiations for a transition force broke down.
All U.S. troops left Iraq by December 2011.

The president was right: Romney wanted to leave thousands of troops in Iraq.

But Romney’s criticism was that the troops left too quickly, not that the war should go on.

Regarding Iran, Romney accused the president of all but allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon, repeatedly saying that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon.

“We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran,” Romney said.”We should not have wasted these four years to let them continue to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.”

That’s MISLEADING, and context is important here.

It’s true that Iran is moving forward on developing nuclear fuel, according to international inspectors, and may be working on technology to build a weapon, including a delivery system.

But Iran denies that it is creating enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

What Romney doesn’t say is that America didn’t do nothing. In fact, the U.S. led a years-long effort to impose crippling economic sanctions.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check, and other sources to review for foreign policy claims made in the debate.

Nuclear Iran (CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-iran-nuclear/index.html

Benghazi Security (CNN):
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html

Romney’s Defense Spending (FactCheck.org):
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/

Romney on China (FactCheck.org):
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/

Foreign Policy: Iran:
http://www.propublica.org/article/reading-guide-where-obama-and-romney-actually-stand-on-iran

Iraq War (PolitiFact.com) :
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/11/joe-biden/biden-romney-called-ending-iraq-war-tragic/

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) –The fight to put a gay marriage ban in the Minnesota Constitution took a new turn Thursday. A TV ad from the main group supporting the amendment warned of dire consequences if it fails.

The ad shows places in the United States and Canada where gay marriage is legal. But the ad is deceptive.

Minnesota’s not voting to legalize gay marriage.

“When same sex marriage was imposed elsewhere, it has not been live and let live,” says the ad, by Minnesota for Marriage. “People who believe marriage is one man and one woman have faced consequences.”

IN FACT:

What the ad asserts is not the question Minnesota’s voting on. Minnesota voters will be asked to put into the Constitution an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Even though gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. Putting it in the constitution would make it MORE illegal.

And if Minnesotans reject the amendment, gay marriage will still be illegal.

The ad continues: “People who believe marriage is one man and one woman have faced consequences. Small businesses fined. Individuals fired. Charities closed down.”

The ad makes it seem as if there are widespread persecutions, and shows news articles with headlines like: “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Law forces DC Catholic Charities to Close Adoption Program” and “Toronto Broadcaster Fired After Tweets on Sean Avery, Same Sex Marriage Debate” and others.

But it tells only part of each story.

-Washington D.C. didn’t force Catholic Charities to shut down. Catholic Charities shut itself down rather than work with the city to help gay couples adopt children.

-The business owner who was fined?

He opposes gay marriage, but allowed them at his facility– his lawyer called it a “misunderstanding” by an employee who did not speak on his behalf.

-And the freelance sportscaster? It’s true: He was fired for tweeting support for traditional marriage after New York Rangers hockey player Sean Avery expressed support for gay marriage.

The ad also references a Massachusetts school fight: “Same sex marriage taught to young children in elementary school. And parents have no right to be notified or take their children out of class that day.”

The basic facts are true, but out of context. Parents at a Massachusetts elementary school who believe homosexuality is immoral wanted prior notice before gay- themed books were read in class.

They claimed a violation of their religious rights. But a federal court denied their claim, but not because of same sex marriage. The court said it’s not a federal issue. If the parents want to change policy, it said, they should run for the school board.

Here’s what you need to know:

Putting a traditional definition of marriage into the constitition makes it harder to change marriage laws in the future. But defeating the amendment doesn’t make gay marriage legal.

It leaves in place current Minnesota law, and a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling declaring gay marriage illegal.

 Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

 Minnesota for Marriage ad

Minnesota Marriage Laws

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.01

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.03

Action in Minnesota

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=gay

Proposed MN Constitutional Amendment

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1719

Catholic Charities Ends D.C. Adoption Services

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203947.html

 http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-1528&s=MA&d=35252

Massachusetts Lawsuit, Court Decision Over Gay Themed Books

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1528-01A.pdf

http://davidparkerfund.org/html/lawsuit.html

Wildflower Inn Settles Gay Marriage Lawsuit

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-24/vermont-inn-2-women-settle-gay-marriage-lawsuit

New York Rangers Star Supports Gay Marriage 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/sports/hockey/08avery.html

Sportscaster Fired After Tweets on Gay Marriage

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/news/story?id=6532954

Minnesota for Marriage

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/

Minnesotans United for All Families

http://mnunited.org/

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minnesota’s television airwaves are flooded with negative campaign ads right now, especially in the hotly contested races for Congressional seats held by Republicans Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack.

There’s a new political attack that both Republicans and Democrats are using. The attacks focus on how often challengers showed up for work.

A new ad from 6th District Democratic challenger Jim Graves says Bachmann is more concerned about national fame than national policy.

“Unfortunately Michele Bachmann’s gotten distracted by her own celebrity,” the ad says. “It’s costing Minnesota. She missed 90 percent of votes while campaigning out of state.”

This Graves ad is TRUE. Bachmann missed hundreds of votes, including 88 in a row during her presidential campaign. The number, however, is cherry picked for maximum negativity.

Since taking office in 2007, Bachmann has missed 11 percent of recorded or roll call votes.

But she’s not alone.

During 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama missed 33 percent of roll call votes. And from 2005 to 2008, Obama missed 24 percent of votes.

Also in 2008, then-candidate Sen. John McCain missed 52 percent of votes.

In Minnesota’s 8th District, the conservative American Action Network is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to attack the 1970s voting record of Democrat Rick Nolan. Nolan is running against Cravaack, a first-term Republican congressman.

“Four pay raises, and he skipped one-third of votes as he left Congress,” the ad says.

This is mostly TRUE. But the numbers are manipulated to show Nolan at his worst.  However, his absentee rate was high.

From 1975 to 1980, Nolan missed 16 percent of recorded and roll call votes. In comparison, Cravaack has missed  1 percent of votes in 2011 and 2012.

Nolan defended his attendance record this week.

“I missed a few votes on the recording of the minutes and the naming of post offices, but when the critical issues were up, I was there,” he said.

Nolan’s campaign also issued a written statement:

“Once again Chip Cravaack is cherry picking the facts to mislead voters. Rick Nolan served honorably and was widely viewed as one of the most respected members of congress during his service. As he sees his numbers slipping in the polls, Chip Cravaack is launching more false and desperate attacks.”

Here’s what you NEED TO KNOW: This kind of political attack is nothing new. Republican Sen. Rudy Boschwitz used it in 1978 to defeat Democrat Wendell Anderson.

As Minnesota Governor, Anderson appointed himself the US Senate seat vacated by Walter Mondale, who was elected Vice President in 1976.

“First, he appoints himself to the job,” the ad said. “Then he doesn’t show up for work. Let’s elect a senator who will.”

According to govtrack.us, the median number of missed votes for members of Congress is just 2.5 percent.

Editor’s note: The Cravaack campaign issued this statement on Thursday, Oct. 18 — “Once again, former Congressman Nolan is not being straight with Minnesotans. Nolan missed 36% of votes during the last year he served in Congress and 26% of votes the year prior. After Nolan voted to raise his pay by nearly 50% over a four year period, he skipped a number of key votes including funding for disabled veterans and defense authorization bills,” Ben Golnik, Adviser to Cravaack for Congress.

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check.

Voting records:

Chip Cravaack

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/chip_cravaack/412441

Richard Nolan

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/richard_nolan/408211

Michele Bachmann

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/michele_bachmann/412216

Barack Obama

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/barack_obama/400629

John McCain

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/john_mccain/300071

Graves Ad

American Action Network Ad

http://americanactionnetwork.org/

Bachmann Missed Votes During Presidential Campaign

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/184937-bachmann-missed-every-house-vote-in-september

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/bachmann-breaks-streak-of-88-consecutive-missed-votes/

Rudy Boschwitz

http://www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00013.xml

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The Vice Presidential nominees demonstrated style and substance in their feisty, first and only debate. But also, a lot of spin.

Congressman Paul Ryan claimed that Governor Romney can tax rates by 20 percent and keep the middle class tax benefits like the mortgage deduction.

Here’s how the exchange went:

RYAN: You can — you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers…
BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.
RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.
BIDEN: It has never been done before.
RYAN: It’s been done a couple of times, actually.
BIDEN: It has never been done before.
RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan…
BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy?

Biden is right, and Ryan is wrong.

Romney’s 20 percent tax rate reduction costs $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney would have to eliminate most tax loopholes to pay for it.

But Biden stretches the truth on tax hikes.

“The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more,” said Biden, describing the President’s plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts.

Biden is technically accurate, but he leaves out important information, so his answer is deceptive.

Millionaires get a tax hike, but so do many others – all the way down to couples making $250,000, and single taxpayers at $200,000.

The vice president also played fast and loose with Ryan’s Medicare plan. Here’s what he said:

“It’s a voucher. When they first proposed — when the congressman had his first voucher program, the CBO said it would cost $6,400 a year, Martha, more for every senior, 55 and below, when they got there. He knew that, yet he got all the guys in Congress and women in the Republican Party to vote for it. Governor Romney, knowing that, said, I would sign it, were I there,” said Biden. “Who do you trust on this? A man who introduced a bill that would raise it $6400 a year?”

More DECEPTION.

Ryan did introduce a Medicare voucher bill in 2011 that could cost seniors that much.

But he discarded the plan long ago, and introduced a new one to ease that burden.

It has not been evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office.

And Ryan repeated one of the most common deceptions of 2012 about the President’s health care plan.

“We face a very big choice,” said Ryan. “What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids? President Obama, he had his chance. He made his choices. His economic agenda: more spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care,” Ryan said.

No matter how many times Congressman Ryan and Governor Romney say the new health care law is a government takeover, it is wrong.

The new federal health care law is not a government takeover. It is a free market expansion of health care.

　
Here are some of the sources used for this Reality Check:　

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/08/policy-memo-6400-medicare-question21

http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8a03a030-3ba8-4835-a67b-9c4033c03ec4

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-proposals-obama-vs-romney.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/12/transcript-the-2012-vp-debate

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — The guys who usually play second fiddle in the race for the White House stole the spotlight in a much different debate than their bosses gave us last week.

Vice-President Joe Biden and VP hopeful Paul Ryan met Thursday night in Kentucky.

The debate touched on everything from the economy, taxes, and Medicare, to foreign policy.

Deep in the weeds, and a lot of spin.

Let’s take Medicare, a big part of the campaign — much of what you heard was deceptive.

Biden says Romney and Ryan will change it to a voucher plan; that’s partly true, but misleading.

They plan to offer checks to future seniors to buy private insurance, and say it will offer 100 percent coverage.

Ryan says Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare benefits?

That’s not true.

It slows Medicare growth by cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.

Both sides keep repeating that spin on Medicare; both are false.

One moment that never came up in the last debate was Romney’s 47 percent secret tape, in which he said he would never care about 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes.

A gleeful Vice-President Biden wielded it like a knife on Thursday, and Ryan was ready with a response to the gaffe-prone Biden.

If Biden’s job was to reclaim the momentum that President Obama lost during the last debate, he did that. Tonight you saw Joe Biden in top form.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Public opinion polls this week are showing the campaigns for two constitutional amendments are getting very close.

But adding the marriage and voter ID amendments to the state constitution that’s been around since 1857 may depend on voters who skip the amendments on their ballots.

That’s because skipping them has the same effect as voting no.

Minnesota politicians win elections all the time without winning a majority of votes.

Mark Dayton? 44 percent

Tim Pawlenty? 46 percent.

Al Franken won with 42 percent and Jesse Ventura was victorious with 37 percent.

All won pluralities, not majorities.

A constitutional amendment? That’s much harder to pass.

Constitutional amendments must be approved by a super majority: A majority of everyone voting in the election, not just a majority of people voting on the amendment.

So if there are 100 voters: 49 vote “Yes,” 47 vote “No,” and four skip the amendments, the amendments fail — it’s not a majority of everyone who went into the voting booth.

But that’s not the whole story. Minnesota’s had a super majority requirement since 1900.

The state’s liquor industry campaigned for, and won, the tougher standard because it was trying to make it harder to add a prohibition amendment to the Constitution.

And it worked. Before 1900 in Minnesota, 72 percent of constitutional amendments were adopted. Since 1900, only 51 percent.

Many voters do skip the constitutional amendments on the ballot.

History shows it takes about 60 percent of voters on Election Day to pass a constitutional amendment.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Republicans are crying “foul” over new jobs numbers showing the unemployment rate dropping to 7.8 percent – the lowest rate since President Obama took office.

They are claiming that the figures were manipulated for political reasons.

A new survey from Public Policy Polling Monday found that 61 percent of Republicans in Minnesota think the Bureau of Labor Statistics is manipulating the unemployment numbers to help President Obama.

That includes Republican US Senate candidate Kurt Bills, whose campaign told WCCO today Bills believes the numbers are “suspicious”.

It all started with a tweet from business icon Jack Welch.

“These Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers,” Welch wrote on Twitter.

And it’s still coming, from the Donald, on “FOX and Friends” Monday. When asked if the numbers where manipulated, Donald Trump nodded.

“I do. I do. I think there’s a lot of monkey business. And I’m telling you, in a month and a half they will do a readjustment like they have been doing for the last year and a half,” Trump said.

That’s a lot of MISINFORMATION in one 8-second sound bite.

And it doesn’t reflect the reality of how the employment numbers are arrived at.

Since 1940, the Labor Department has conducted two monthly surveys:

• A household survey, which produces the unemployment rate.
• And an employer survey, which measures how many jobs were gained.

This is where the 2012 jobs conspiracy was born.

For the conspiracy to work:

• The Obama administration would have to access encrypted data.
• Manipulate nearly 100,000 answers.
• And do both of the above within a very short period of time, perhaps hours.

That’s why Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who oversees the Bureau of Labor Statistics, appeared offended when she was confronted with that question on CNBC.

“I’m insulted when I hear that. It’s ludicrous to hear that kind of statement,” Solis said.

That’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

The Obama administration might be able to say the economy is doing better. But it does not mean the economy is doing well.

Of the 873,000 job gains last month, 600,000 were part time jobs. That includes workers whose hours or pay are reduced, or who can’t find full time work.

Here are some of the sources used for this Reality Check:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

US Census

Where the Job Numbers Come From 1

Where the Job Numbers Come From 2

Fox & Friends

CNBC

Jack Welch On Twitter

Public Policy Polling

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — It may have been a surprise to some, but the first presidential debate had a great deal of substance.

Both candidates had plenty of time to say exactly where they stand. But each of them strayed from the facts repeatedly.

Gov. Mitt Romney asserted that he would cut tax rates and balance the budget.

“I’m not calling for a $1trillion tax cut,” he said. “What I have said is: I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one, so there is no economist who can say my plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

That’s NOT TRUE.

Experts say it is not possible to reduce tax rates and raise revenues and balance the budget.

President Barack Obama said he wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and he says they would pay the same amount as they did in the ‘90s.

“For incomes over $250,000 a year…we should go back to the rates that we had under Bill Clinton, when we created 23 million new jobs, when we went from deficit to surplus and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot,” he said.

That’s NOT TRUE, either.

Wealthy Americans would actually pay more than they did in the Clinton years because there are new taxes imposed on rich taxpayers in the Obama health care bill.

Romney repeatedly said Obamacare is a government takeover of health care, and it cuts $700 billion from Medicare.

Both statements are FALSE.

And the president said everyone can keep their own doctors AND had promised premiums would go down $2,500.

And that’s NOT TRUE either.

Overall: Obama was in command of the facts, but Romney seemed comfortable, more comfortable than we have come to expect from him.

I thought Romney did very well.

And the night’s most memorable moment? Big Bird.

“I’m sorry Jim, I am going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” Romney said. “I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I am not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from china to pay for it.”

That got a lot of people worked up. Within seconds, Twitter exploded.

There were 17,000 outraged tweets per minute about Big Bird.

By the way: public broadcasting makes up 0.012 percent of the budget.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The shooting at Accent Signage Systems is the worst incidence of workplace violence in Minnesota since the state started keeping records 20 years ago.

But almost 2 million people in the US experienced some kind of violence on the job last year, ranging from verbal threats to physical assault and murder.

And while it may seem as if we’re hearing more and more about workplace shootings, work violence is actually down from previous years.

Even so, the number of work murders is startling.

780 Americans died violently at work last year.

That includes 458 homicides, and 242 suicides.

Here in Minnesota, there were five violent deaths at work in 2011, including three homicides.

Since 1992: 95 workplace homicides, 68 by shooting.

But that’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

40 percent of women who die at work are murdered – the number one cause of death for working women.

Many of these murders are caused by spouses or domestic partners, and many because they are sitting at the front desk.

Studies by the Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Labor reveal employees don’t typically just “snap”.

There are indicators of potentially violent behavior, which include:

-Increased use of alcohol
-Unexplained absenteeism
-Outbursts of anger
-Overreaction to changes in company policy

And many other indicators of possible future behavior. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports some workers are more at risk than others:

-Delivery truck and taxi drivers
-Customer service agents
-Law enforcement officers
-Health care workers like psychiatric evaluators
- And those who work alone or in small groups

The Labor Department says situations in which employees put themselves at risk include jobs in which employees are exchanging money with the public; working with volatile, unstable people; working alone or in isolated areas; working where alcohol is served; and working late at night or in areas with high crime rates.

That’s Reality Check.

Here are some of the sources we used for this story:

What To Do Before, During, and After a Workplace Shooting

Workplace Violence FAQs

2011 US Workplace Fatalities 1

2011 US Workplace Fatalities 2

2011 US Workplace Fatalities 3

MN Fatal Workplace Injuries 1

MN Fatal Workplace Injuries 2

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — If the marriage amendment passes or fails, here’s what will happen: Nothing.

It’s TRUE.

Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. If the amendment passes, it will still be illegal. If the amendment fails, gay marriage will still be illegal in Minnesota.

Here’s what you NEED TO KNOW.

Minnesota law specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

A separate law specifically forbids same sex marriage. That won’t change no matter what voters decide. However, if it’s in the constitution, it’s much harder to change the law because you’ve got to change the constitution first.

That’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

It’s harder to PASS a constitutional amendment.

In a regular election, the person with the most votes wins; and lots of politicians win without getting 50 percent of the vote. But a constitutional amendment must get 50 percent OF ALL THE VOTES CAST, plus 1.

So, if you cast vote for everything else, and skip the constitutional amendment, it’s the same as voting no.

A constitutional amendment can fail, even if it gets the most votes.

That’s Reality Check.
　
Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

MN marriage statute
MN law prohibiting same sex marriage
MN Secretary of State
Text of Gay Marriage amendment
Votes Needed to Pass Amendment
Historical Results for Constitutional Amendments
MN Legislature Summary of Marriage Laws
Marriage Amendment Supporters　
Marriage Amendment Opponents

Historical Election Results:
Governor Pawlenty 2006
Governor Dayton 2010
Senator Franken 2008

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — The biggest election contest in Minnesota isn’t the U.S. Senate race or the Presidential race. It’s the campaigns to pass — or defeat — the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It’s already among the most expensive ever in Minnesota with almost $10 million raised so far. However, new campaign spending reports show one side has a lopsided advantage in the money race.

Minnesotans United for All Families, which is trying to defeat the amendment, reports raising $2.56 million since July, and $8.2 million total.

The main group supporting the amendment, Minnesota for Marriage, reports raising $560,000 since July, and about $1.4 million total.

The lopsided money advantage has helped the Vote No marriage group buy television ad time and build a statewide get-out-the vote effort.

Minnesotans United says 87 percent of its money comes from inside Minnesota, and that it has more than 44,350 individual donors.

Minnesota for Marriage reports only 156 contributors, and two of them account for $850,000.

More than half of the pro-amendment money comes from one source: the Roman Catholic Church. The Minnesota Catholic Conference contributed $200,000 to the effort in September alone, bringing its total for the year to $600,000.

The conservative Minnesota Family Council also gave $100,000 in July, and a quarter million dollars total in 2012.

Minnesotans United reports it spent $2.3 million dollars in 2012 on television ads. The pro-amendment group Minnesota for Marriage listed no similar expenditures.

Here are the spending reports filed Wednesday by Minnesota for Marriage and by Minnesotans United For All Families.

Here is a statement from John Helmberger, Minnesota for Marriage Chairman:

“Our latest report reveals that our 2012 donor contributions nearly doubled in only two months’ time since the July report. These numbers reflect what we are hearing from the majority of Minnesotans who understand that marriage is the unique union of one man and one woman and that children need their mothers and fathers. Since around the time of the State Fair, these folks have been taking a more public role in protecting the definition of marriage in Minnesota.”

“Many choose to engage by volunteering—we are continuing to work with the tens of thousands of new supporters and volunteers who signed up at the State Fair. Others show their support by putting a VOTE YES yard sign in their lawn—we have distributed nearly 50,000 since the Fair with another 25,000 nearly entirely spoken for. Still others have given generously to support the efforts of the Minnesota for Marriage campaign as it works tirelessly to defend marriage.”

“We are pleased with our fundraising efforts to-date and are incredibly grateful to the thousands of supporters who have donated their time and money to see marriage preserved in Minnesota so that it can continue to be our most fundamental social institution and the most pro-child institution we have. We look forward to continued financial and grassroots support as the campaign gears up for its final phases of advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts prior to November 6th.”

“We’ve never been surprised by the amount of money wealthy same-sex ‘marriage’ activists are willing to pour into their attempt to change the minds of Minnesotans on the definition of marriage. In fact, we predicted over a year ago that we would be outspent 3 or 4 to 1. We are confident that as we continue our final outreach effort, the voices of the majority of Minnesotans will speak louder at the polls than the amount of money wasted in a futile attempt to convince people that men and women are interchangeable, and the Marriage Amendment will pass on November 6th.”

Here is a statement from Minnesotans United for All Families campaign manager Richard Carlbom:

“We are incredibly proud of the support Minnesotans are showing for our efforts. Real Minnesotans would be hurt by this amendment, including thousands of families who are being devalued by supporters of the amendment. Minnesotans know this amendment is wrong, and they’re making a personal investment in the efforts to defeat it.”

“We know that soon, the special interests pushing this amendment will flood the state with money to fund incredibly hurtful, misleading and divisive television ads. We are humbled by the incredible energy of this grassroots coalition that is making it possible for us to spread a powerful message of freedom and how no one should be told it’s illegal to marry the person you love. Together, we will stand united for all families in Minnesota.”

Despite a 6 to 1 money advantage by opponents of the marriage amendment, the outcome is still too close to call, according to public opinion polls.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A new television ad from a national conservative group takes on a Democratic candidate for Congress in Minnesota for comments he made — nearly 40 years ago.

But the candidate in Minnesota’s 8th District — Democrat Rick Nolan — says the ad is “completely false.”

Here’s what the ad says:

“Medicare. To us, a sacred promise we rely on. But to Rick Nolan, Medicare’s outdated. In the way of his radical ideas. In the ’70s, Nolan backed a bill to replace Medicare with a European-style health program. Under Nolan’s plan, Medicare would have ended altogether. Even now, Nolan supports a plan that cuts Medicare by over $700 billion. Defeat radical Rick Nolan and his dangerous ideas.”

The facts cited by the ad are TRUE — 36 years ago.

In 1976, then-Congressman Rick Nolan supported a universal health care bill sponsored by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

It was similar to Canada’s National Health Care program.

The Kennedy bill was one of three health care plans competing for votes back then, including one from President Richard Nixon mandating health insurance for working Americans.

None of them passed.

The ad then takes what Nolan said in the 1970s and makes claims about 2012:

“Under Nolan’s plan, Medicare would have ended altogether. Even now, Nolan supports a plan that cuts Medicare by over $700 billion.”

That’s MISLEADING.

The Kennedy plan would have ended Medicare in name only.

Medicare would have been “Super Sized” because everyone, including seniors, would be covered under the new plan.

It’s also unfair to say Nolan wants to cut Medicare.

The Affordable Care Act Nolan supports lowers payments to doctors and hospitals, and uses the money to fund other senior services.

One more thing you NEED TO KNOW:

The ad is produced by the Washington-based American Action Network, which calls itself a “center right” think tank.

It was founded by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who serves as its CEO.

Because it is a tax-exempt 501c4 organization, it is not required to disclose its donors.

The Nolan for Congress campaign issued the following statement in response to that ad:

“The American Action Network ad is absolutely false. They are trying to use 30-year-old legislation and misleading facts to make completely false claims about Rick Nolan. The legislation they refer to is essentially a ‘Medicare for All’ program that would have covered seniors and all Americans. It would have been self-sustaining, similar to the original designs of Social Security and Medicare.

The truth is, Rick Nolan believes we need to honor the promise made to Americans who have spent their lives paying into the system by strengthening Medicare and making sure it’s there for future generations. And it’s ironic that they would attack Rick for supporting the same $700 billion in ‘cuts’ to Medicare that Congressman Cravaack has supported. Cravaack voted twice for the Ryan plan, which includes the same Medicare reforms as those in the Affordable Care Act.

When it comes to protecting Medicare there is a clear choice in this election – between Rick Nolan who wants to preserve and protect it for future generations and Chip Cravaack who enthusiastically supports the Ryan plan, which ends Medicare as we know it and increases costs for seniors by $6,400 per year.”

Here are some of the sources we used for this Reality Check:

Nolan for Congress
Cravaack for Congress
History of Health Care, including Kennedy-Corman bill, in the 1970s　
American Action Network
Open Secrets: American Action Network
Public Integrity
Open Secrets: Outside Spending
Medicare “Cuts”
Politifact

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Special interest groups can spend the money to say almost whatever they want in a campaign commercial.

And that’s what the liberal-leaning Alliance for a Better Minnesota does.

The problem is that it’s only half true, and it leaves the false impression that Minnesota Republicans raised property taxes on almost every homeowner in the state.
　
“Minnesota families need real solutions,” says a young couple with a child, the first in a series of comments from different people criticizing the GOP-controlled legislature. “But the Republicans in the legislature shut down our government. To protect a tax break for millionaires.”

That’s an EXAGGERATION.

The shutdown came after Republicans refused Governor Dayton’s plan to raise income taxes on millionaires.

But Governor Dayton refused to accept the Republican plan to balance the budget through spending cuts alone.

And the ad blames the GOP for raising property taxes.

“They passed a law making 95 percent of Minnesota homeowners pay higher property taxes,” says a man standing on the porch of a house.

This is highly MISLEADING.

Republicans passed – and Governor Dayton signed into law – a bill eliminating the popular Homestead Credit, which was used by 95% of Minnesota homeowners.

But it was replaced with another program aiming to reduce property taxes for those same homeowners: The Homestead Market Value Exclusion.

Here’s what you NEED TO KNOW:

Many of Minnesota’s 1.3 million homeowners did see property tax hikes averaging 2.4 percent, but many saw a decrease.

The Revenue Department calculates that 69 percent saw tax hikes, but 31 percent got a tax cut.

Of the 1,268,731 Minn. homeowner parcels, there was a decrease of 396,754; 425,222 saw an increase of 0 to 10 percent; and 446,755 saw an increase over 10 percent.

Just last year, a leading Democrat also proposed eliminating the Homestead Credit, and many other popular credits, to lower overall tax rates.

And a similar bill made it through the legislature in 2007 but was vetoed by then-Governor Pawlenty because it also included income tax hikes.

Not a single Democrat voted for it in 2011 when it was proposed by Republicans, even though Governor Dayton signed it into law.

That’s Reality Check.

　
Here are some of the sources used for this Reality Check:

Alliance for a Better Minnesota

ABM Press Release

MN Govt Shutdown

MN Senate Fiscal Analysis of 2011 Tax Bill

Homestead Market Value Exclusion Explainer

MN Revenue Department Property Tax Aids and Credits

MN Statewide Average Effective Residential Homestead Tax Rates

House Dem 2011 Tax Reform Bill

Levi Russell, AFP’s director of public affairs, objected: “Our ad doesn’t say – or even suggest – that Obama’s health care law creates a government run system,” he wrote. “It does say that Obamacare moves us closer to a government run system.”

He’s right.

The 2012 ad featuring disillusioned Canadian patient Shona Holmes does not state the Affordable Care Act “creates” a government run system. We should have said the ad reflects a common, and false, impression that the US health care system may soon be “Canadian style”.

The ad leaves a clear and misleading impression that’s exactly what’s happening, or about to happen, and continues a thread that began before “Obamacare” was passed by Congress in 2009.

In addition to the current AFP ad, we included in our 9/11/2012 Reality Check a 2009 ad by the group Patients United Now, an organization funded by AFP and featuring the same patient, just before Congress voted on health care.

In it, Holmes relates her experience as a narrator lists Canadian health care problems that US patients face if ACA is passed.

“Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.,” the ad says .

ST. PAUL (WCCO) — Former President Bill Clinton remains among the most popular politicians in America — more popular even than President Obama. But a recent television ad from the Obama campaign in which he is featured makes questionable claims about what caused the Great Recession.

This is what Bill Clinton said:

“This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on higher income people and go back to deregulation. That’s what got us into trouble in the first place. President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up — investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class. That’s what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan.”
　
The ad is filled with political sins of omission.

What it DOESN’T say, however, is parts of the financial deregulation that helped fuel the global recession got started under Democratic President Bill Clinton, and continued under Republican President George W. Bush.

Clinton, as well as a majority of Democrats and Republicans, repealed parts of the Glass Steagel Act, laws that regulated banks and investment firms. It led to wildly risky lending and investments.

That’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

The Bush tax cuts may have contributed to America’s huge debt and its deficit, but few economists believe it caused the Great Recession.

It is TRUE that Mitt Romney advocates tax cuts for the wealthy.

But his plan, as he told Meet the Press on Sunday, cuts marginal income tax rates by 20 percent for ALL taxpayers, not just the wealthy.

“If we bring down our top rates, and actually go across the board,” said Romney, “bring down rates for everyone in America but also limit loopholes and deductions for people at the high end.”

The biggest uncertainty for voters may be that Romney won’t say what those loopholes and deductions he’ll eliminate, and how he’ll pay for it.

Reality Check Resources:
Glass-Steagall Act Explained
Repeal of Glass-Steagall
Mitt Romney Tax Cut Plan
President Barack Obama
Mitt Romney on Meet the Press
George Bush Tax Cuts
CBO Report on Tax Cut Economic Impact
CBS Money Watch
Bush Tax Cuts and the Economy
Bill Clinton Approval
Barack Obama Approval

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – The 2012 Presidential campaign set a record this week, but it’s one that calls for a Reality Check.

The campaigns and their supporters have already spent as much money so far – it’s only mid-August — as they did for the entire 2008 campaign.

Reportedly, more than $500 million has been spent on political advertising.

The Romney campaign and outside groups spent $273 million on ads. Obama and outside groups supporting him have spent $239 million.

In other political news, there’s the birth of a new group of former Navy Seals who criticize the President for taking credit for the killing Osama bin Laden.

The Obama campaign is complaining that it is being “Swiftboated”. “Swiftboated” is now a common campaign term, used first against John Kerry for his Navy Swiftboat claims.

On the one hand, it signifies a false attack — dirty politics.

On the other hand, it is a political strategy to go after your opponent for one of his or her strengths, not his or her weaknesses.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Many of you let us know you didn’t like the political ads you saw from an obscure Democratic Congressional candidate named Gary Boisclair.

The ads targeted 5th District Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, and featured graphic images with extreme language.

What you may NOT know is that TV stations are legally required to run them.

And after examining one of them, Reality Check found that about the only thing accurate in the ad is the first line: “Congressman Ellison swore an oath to the constitution on a Koran.”

That’s TRUE.

Ellison put his hand on the actual Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

But the remainder of the ad is a textbook example of political exaggeration, distortion and fear.

Part of Boisclair’s anti-abortion, Tea Party strategy is his opposition to Muslim representation.

Boisclair told to reporters, “When a man who pretends to uphold the Constitution while he puts his hand on a different system of law– Sharia law– there’s a problem there.”
　
Here’s what you NEED TO KNOW.

Boisclair doesn’t live in Minnesota.

He lives in West Virginia, and describes himself on his website with the followings: “Pro-Life, Tea-Party Activist, Society For Truth & Justice, Washington DC.”

He’s exploiting a loophole in election law that forces television stations to air extreme messages.

IN FACT, The Federal Communications Commission requires TV stations to air political ads from federal candidates — no exceptions.

It’s the law.

Even if the ads are deceptive, false or extraordinarily graphic.

However, television stations can reject ads from non-candidate groups, like Super PACs.

Activists like Boisclair are registering as official “fake” candidates. They don’t expect to win, but they are forcing the media to air their shocking, in-your-face commercials.

Boisclair’s Minnesota ad states:

“The Koran says Christians and Jews are blasphemers, who should have their hands and feet cut off, and that they should be crucified and killed. Do you really want someone representing you who swears an oath on a Koran? A book that undermines our constitution and says you should be killed?”

That is FALSE.

Islamic scholars say the Koran does not order the death of non-Muslims. Moreover, the Koran commands Muslims to obey the law of the land in which they live.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – There’s no law requiring candidates to release their tax returns, or for how many previous years. But it’s become customary for presidential contenders to do so.

Mitt Romney campaign surrogate, the former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, says there’s a Republican standard.
　
Romney did release his tax returns, said Pawlenty on CBS ‘This Morning,’ “for 2010 and 2011.”

But that’s not completely true.

Romney did release his 2010 tax returns, under pressure from his fellow Republicans. He revealed he earned $21.6 million and paid a tax rate of 13.9 percent; and he says he’ll make public his 2011 returns, too.

But two years of releasing tax returns is NOT standard practice for Republicans — or Democrats.

IN FACT:

President Barack Obama released six years of tax returns when he ran for president in 2007.

And here’s a list of how many years of tax returns former presidents released.

George W. Bush: 9 years.
John McCain: 2 years.
Jimmy Carter: 1 year.
Gerald Ford: 10 years.
Ronald Reagan: 1 year.
John Kerry: 20 years.

And Romney’s own father, George, released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968.

But that’s NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

According to the Tax History Project, the practice of releasing tax returns came from Richard Nixon, who was under fire for his own financial dealings.

Nixon — in his famous “Checkers” speech– demanded his opponents make all of their finances public.

Here’s what you NEED TO KNOW:

Nixon’s gambit worked. Two of his Democratic opponents released their tax returns. Ironically, it turns out, Nixon did not.
That’s Reality Check.

Here are some of the sources that we used for this Reality Check:

Bloomberg: Romney’s 13.9% Tax Rate Shows Power of Investment Tax Preference

Tax Analysts: Presidential Tax Returns

CBS News: Pressure mounts on Mitt Romney to release more tax returns

CNN Money: GOP candidates on their tax returns

Washington Post: Romney’s misleading history of tax returns issued by presidential contenders