The Big E Posts

Last Tuesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) dropped a bombshell that she had just obtained Swiss citizenship. A bizarre move from a bizarro politician. Reactions varied from confused to bemused to vitriolic.

Why would she hand her DFL opponent, Jim Graves, an opening like this? Graves responded in a measured way:

Her Democratic challenger, Jim Graves, issued a brief statement calling news of Bachmann's dual-citizenship a "distraction." Graves also noted that he and his family are "proud to be Americans."

(MPR)

Vitriolic: This blogger emigrated from Russia and I'll pick up about half way into his rant:

Still, I can understand that U.S. citizens may acquire some other citizenship without actually taking any action e.g. by virtue of being born to American parents in a foreign country granting automatic citizenship to all newborns. But it is an entirely different matter to apply for foreign citizenship, let alone on such flimsy grounds as having foreign-born in-laws.

What makes it worse, is that Mrs. Bachmann has repeatedly and proudly proclaimed her American patriotism, especially during her recent presidential campaign (I am really curious to know whether she applied for foreign citizenship while still running for president of the United States). To make it even worse, she is a member of Congress (currently running for re-election). I am not aware of any other sitting member of Congress ever obtaining foreign citizenship.

And if you think it cannot get any worse than that -- well, it can. Bachmann is a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Financial Services Committee. So the former now includes not merely a foreign citizen, but a citizen of a country not even allied with the U.S., and the latter includes a citizen of a country that just happens to have 1) an exemption for tax evasion in its extradition treaty with the U.S. (an exemption that some convicted American tax evaders took full advantage of) and 2) banking secrecy laws which frequently cause no small amount of frustration to various parts of U.S. government, including, of course, the House Financial Services Committee! So, whose side will Rep. Bachmann be on in future clashes between American and Swiss banking regulators? Will she alternate her loyalties on different days of the week (perhaps making Wednesday the day of full neutrality, in the best Swiss traditions) or will she decide on a case by case basis?

I see only one way Michele Bachmann can resolve all these glaring conflicts of interests -- resign, or at least not seek re-election. If she fails to do that, the House leadership should immediately strip her of all committee assignments and initiate the expulsion proceedings. The American people have a right to be represented by legislators with undivided loyalties.

(Huffington Post)

Bemused, confused and hilarious below the fold ...

^{- Photo of Bachmann yodeling}
Bemused:

Does she know that Switzerland recognizes same-sex partnerships? In a 2005 referendum, same-sex couples were granted the same rights as married couples in next of kin status, insurance, taxation, and shared possession of dwelling. In fact, it was the first nation to pass such a law by referendum.

Adopting Swiss citizenship, even for family reasons, will open Bachmann up to hard questions from Tea Party loyalists and conservatives on the campaign trail. As one commenter posted on a blog Wednesday: "No better way to say you Love America than becoming a citizen of another country..."

(Washington Post)

Confused:

According to her version of events, Bachmann has known she was a Swiss citizen for approximately 34 years. However, she never disclosed her citizenship while running for Congress and president of the United States.

Her office said that such a disclosure was not necessary.

"It wasn't necessary to disclose, because she is an American citizen and always has been. She has a United States birth certificate and a United States passport," Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness told POLITICO on Wedneday evening.

Her statement that she has been a citizen since 1978 is based off a technicality - at the time of her marriage, automatic citizenship was granted to those who married Swiss citizens. However, Marcus Bachmann, her husband, did not register their marriage with Swiss authorities until this year - meaning that the Swiss government was not aware of it until recently.

(Politico)

Bachmann's polite appraisal of the parliamentarians contrasted with strong statements she made throughout the presidential campaign, when she criticized President Obama for policies she labeled socialist. The Social Democratic Party "has governed Switzerland as part of a grand coalition since 1959," according to Encyclopedia Britannica.

Unlike Bachmann, the party "supports an extensive government role in the economy," Britannica says.

(Boston Globe)

And last but not least, Ken Avidor provides the hilarious:

Yesterday, voters in North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. They already had a law banning gay marriage. The bigots just wanted to be sure in case "libruls" tried to overturn their law.

Even worse, it also bans civil unions and more:

There would be no more legal unions between unmarried people, gay or straight. It could take health care benefits away from families, it could take away domestic violence protections, hospital visitation rights, and all the very basic protections of civil unions.

Here's the deal. We have six months to do everything we can to make sure that the bigots don't win in Minnesota.

We can beat this so-called "Sanctity of Marriage" amendment by having one-on-one conversations with people we know.

MNUnited has all you need to begin those conversations. Tips, examples and a checklist:

TIPS FOR HAVING A SUCCESSFUL CONVERSAT ION ABOUT MARRIAGE

BEFORE

STARTING

1. Print these guidelines and review them before

starting. That will help to fortify your confidence and remind you of both the specifics of

your story and your goal of building genuine dialogue.

2. For your first conversation, start with a friend or family member whom you believe is most

open to listening.

3. Find a one-­‐on-­‐one opportunity when they aren't distracted by kids or meal preparation

or something else. Unless you are particularly brave, the dinner table is probably not the best

place to start.

4. Make it your goal that the conversation goes

well, not that you win them over immediately. It

would be awesome if that happened, but the core

goal is to begin a dialogue. This will help ensure that your family member or friend will stay genuinely open over time.

WHAT TO DO

5. Make sure you check in with yourself before speaking. If you are on edge or have had a stressful day, pause and consider before beginning. More than anything, you need to feel calm and open to listening to your friend or family member as well - just like you're asking them to be calm and listen to you.

6. Start slowly and be real. Talk about your life, and why marriage matters to you. Look for areas of agreement that you can build on - keep your conversation personal and give examples from your own life.

"There's something I want to talk to you about, and I'm a little uncomfortable. But you're important to me, so I want to talk to you about something that really matters to me."

7. Stay away from harsh debate. When debating, people typically put their guard up and are not open to listening. For example, it is typically not helpful to focus on rights or discrimination. It is far more helpful to tell stories from your own life about why marriage matters to you. Remember: these conversations are not meant to put people on the defensive, but rather to help them understand.

"Just a couple of months ago, I was at a wedding with my friends Sue & Linda. They've been together for 20 years, and I could see how hurtful it was to them that they cannot celebrate their commitment to each other in the same way, and that hurt me as well."

"Every married person I know got married because they fell in love with someone and wanted to make the commitment to share their lives together. I love my partner and we want to be able to make that same kind of commitment through marriage. For me, nothing says family like marriage, and its hurtful to me that I can't get married simply because of who I am."

"What does marriage mean to you?"

"I want to get married because..."

"I believe that everyone is different in some ways, but we all share the desire to live happily and protect the people we love most. That's what marriage is all about for gay people, too. And so it hurts to know that if this amendment passes, I will never be able to marry."

"For me, when you really love someone, there's just no substitute for marriage. Nothing else provides the same protections or clearly says "we've made a lifetime commitment to each other." "I guess I just don't know anyone who would trade their marriage in for a domestic partnership or civil union. Do you know anyone who would? Would you?"

8. Use examples of ways that you have changed your mind about something in the past that was difficult for you to understand or "get." This also keeps you in touch by remembering that it was hard for you to change your opinion or feelings about something. Remember, your goal is to build genuine dialogue.

9.Use connecting language like, "How do you see it?", "This can be a difficult issue because it seems like such a big change" or "Help me understand your concern."

10. Check in with yourself and if you are starting to get revved up, take some slow and deep breaths. If you are too worked up, it might be time to shift the conversation. Remember, in most cases, these conversations are more like marathons - not sprints.

"When I was talking with Brad and LouAnne, I could feel myself wanting to just convince them right away. To just "get it" ... but then I reminded myself that this was just the first conversation, and that they were really important to me - so I held back. A couple of weeks later, we talked again, and they asked more questions. I could tell they had really been thinking about it - and I realized that we had started the journey."

11. Thank them for the conversation, regardless of the outcome. Once again: the goal is to start the dialogue that has the long term goal of changing hearts and minds. People keep thinking, even when we aren't with them. We want them to think positively about the conversation.

AFTER THE CONVERSATION

12. Share your experience with other friends who joined you in having these kind of conversations so you can compare notes and look for ways to continue building your confidence and skills.

13. We want to know how your conversations are going what works and where there are glitches. Please take a moment and let us know how you are doing [link to submission form] so we can continue improving our toolkit for others to have these crucial conversations, too.

I predicted that the bill that the Legislature passes will screw over Minneapolis. Minneapolis will contribute far more than the $150 million that the stadium bill says it will. According to analysis from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who stands make money from their parking lots near the new stadium, Minneapolis' share will be between $742 million and just over $1 billion.

Mayor R.T. Rybak's administration has said the city's contribution of local sales taxes to a new stadium on the Metrodome site will amount to approximately $338 million for capital and operations over 30 years, or $675 million when including interest costs. But a provision in the stadium bill raises that figure if the local economy booms.

The city's contribution could reach $890 million if tax revenue grows by 5 percent each year for 30 years, based on a Star Tribune analysis of figures provided by the city's chief financial officer, Kevin Carpenter. In that scenario, the city would also be left with more money to spend on the convention center and economic development.

Conversely, the city's contribution could fall to $592 million if the taxes stay flat.

We taxpayers won't feel this pain all in one year. With future LGA cuts and myriad other funding cuts coming our way, it'll just be yet another reason why our property taxes will continue to climb.
Here's some more analysis:

1. $150 million toward construction costs.

2. More than $225 million toward operating costs and capital improvement costs. Minneapolis has committed to not only help build the stadium with a $150 million contribution, it's also agreed to split the costs of operating the stadium over 30 years. This will start at around $7.5 million/yr with an estimated 3% increase per year over time. So, at least $300 million with inflation.

3. Accruing interest on our new debt while we pay off the convention center debt. That gets us to more than $375 million, which is far short of $675. What makes up the gap? Interest. How does one run up interests costs to nearly twice the cost of borrowing $150 million? I picked up some information in that during some hallway discussions during the City Council hearing on the issue tonight. As I now understand it, it's because Minneapolis would borrow $150 million (and start paying interest on that chunk of change) years before it can start paying it back.

(MinnPost)