REBUTTAL - Olson
Jack Stecher (stecher@free-net.mpls-stpaul.mn.us)
Mon, 24 Oct 1994 17:14:40 -0500 (CDT)
Eric Olson's rebuttals to question 1:
In his reply to Question 1, John Marty writes:
|Government really does work best when there is an ongoing dialogue between
|citizens and their elected representatives, No politician has a monopoly on
|wisdom and we need the ideas of our fellow Minnesotans to govern well.
Senator Marty goes on to ask:
|The question I would pose to Arne Carlson is based on his promotion of
|Minnesota Milestones, a yearlong process of listening to the people of
|Minnesota about what they want for their state. I support the concept of
|Minnesota Milestones but I have seen no evidence at all that Arne Carlson
|actually listened. Can the governor point to any tangible evidence that he
|listened to Minnesotans and in some way changed the approach of state
|government as a result of Minnesota Milestones?
Senator Marty states he wishes to listen to Minnesotans; I applaud this
sentiment.
One issue on which Senator Marty does not care for public input, however,
is campaign and election reform.
Despite polls showing that 80% of the electorate support term limits, Senator
Marty refused to give Minnesotans the chance to vote on the issue. Last
session, Senator Marty successfully killed in committee a bill that would
have put term limits on the ballot.
Minnesotans deserve better. We ought to have the right to decide on our own
form of government.
Governor Carlson, in his response, writes:
| Another indication of the breakdown of civic values in our
|communities is the rising violent crime rate. That is why I have
|been proud to support and sign tough crime legislation each of the
|last three years. These crime bills have increased the sentences
|for violent predators, outlawed stalking and provided more money
|for prison construction.
Governor Carlson draws attention to the crime legislation he has supported.
Indeed, his signature on the 1993 crime bill cost the Minnesota taxpayers
$9.3 million.
A tough crime-fighting measure? Well, only if one has a vivid imagination:
the money is going to establish a higher education center on violence and
abuse, complete with a violence education grant program. Elsewhere, the
new law creates an institute of sexual health; the reason this falls under
anti-crime legislation is somewhat cryptic.
The money this law spends goes to a host of other goodies, including a
study on the number of siblings prison inmates have. All in the name of
getting tough on crime.
Well, that was 1993. What did Governor Carlson do for an encore? He nearly
quadrupled his prior performance--the 1994 crime bill will cost taxpayers an
additional $34 million. This includes $4.9 million in grants administered
by the Department of Education and another $1.15 million in city grants to
cover after-school and summer recreation programs for youth.
Is this getting tough on crime? Instead of using anti-crime rhetoric to
subsidize a spoils system, Minnesotans want a more old-fashioned type of
crime control: keeping violent felons in prison.