We have moved!!

We have moved the Gopher State Politics Blog off of Blogger / Blogspot to a new site of its own.  Please visit us at www.GopherStatePolitics.com  

Thank you, 

 Robert L. "Bob" Smith, 3rd

Young Minnesota Republicans Attend Center of the American Experiment 2015 Annual Dinner

The Gopher State Politics Institute had the privilege to sponsor an enthusiastic group of young Republicans from the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University.

The group of students and alumni were led by Dr. Matt Lindstrom, Ph.D.

Thanks to all that attended.  We hope to see you at future events.

Matt Lindstrom, Ph.D., (left), P.J. O'Rourke (center), Robert L. (Bob) Smith, 3rd, Founder (right of P.J.) and the students and alumni of College of St. Benedict and St. John's University).               Photo by Mark Prokosch

Center of the American Experiment Celebrates its 25th Birthday!

The Center of the American Experiment celebrated its 25th birthday last night at its annual dinner. Gopher State Politics Institute staff was honored to attend the celebration, along with over a thousand friends of the Center.

Not only did we enjoy great food and enlightening conversation, but we also had the pleasure being entertained by P.J. O'Rourke, the great Political Satirist and Author.

Happy Birthday to the Center of the American Experiment and a special thanks to Mitch, Kim and staff. Keep up the great work.

Bob Smith, 3rd

http://www.americanexperiment.org/

Needed, One Champion...

Will the Minnesota GOP Blow the 2016 Elections?

It’s a distinct possibility...

Opinion and Viewpoint by Bob Smith 3^rd

It won’t be long before 2016 is here; especially in political times as the presidential contests are heating up.  Let’s put it this way, the real prize is not the presidency—it’s sane government for Minnesota.  That means the Republicans must take the Minnesota Senate.  I repeat, the most important goal for the Minnesota GOP is to win the Minnesota Senate while gaining a seat or two in the Minnesota House and maintaining their Congressional seats.

The problem for the Minnesota GOP in 2016 will be to handle adroitly the fanaticism of the fringe and nut elements of the party for various presidential candidates to the detriment of local elections.  Presidential enthusiasm is great but let’s takes half of that energy and re-direct it to winning Minnesota House and Senate seats.

The GopherStatePolitics Institute’s challenge to the would-be caucus and 2016 convention delegates is: Will you devote at least equal time, Funds and effort to help local candidates as you would working for a presidential candidate?

That still leaves the question of how will the state Republicans coordinate a statewide campaign to win the Minnesota Senate?

The Republican State Senatorial Campaign Committee will be in the thick of it along with the state party.  Will that do it?  Unfortunately and sadly, I believe the state party has been weakened and will not have the funds nor the timber to accomplish the task.

They also will most likely be distracted and consumed to a large degree by intra-party presidential politics.  Is there a solution?

Yes.  May I suggest that it must come in the form of a “Champion”.  Someone who can command the trust and respect of all Republicans.  Someone who will be able to devise a plan to take the Minnesota Senate and who will be capable of leading the Republicans to that victory in 2016.

The importance of the Republicans winning the Minnesota Senate in 2016 cannot be overstated—it is the single most important event for all Minnesotans to bring this state to sound government.

Yes, that “Champion” is out there and will emerge soon.

 ***

GopherStatePolitics Institute will feature later articles as the GOP strategy develops to win the State Senate.  The “Champion” will be named at the proper time when s/he steps forward.

Estate Tax Shoos Away Snowbirds by KIM CROCKETT - Published February 8, 2015-Star Tribune Op-Ed

Great op-ed by Kim Crockett of the Center of the American Experiment. Please share it with your friends and associates!      Bob Smith

***

Estate Tax Shoos Away Snowbirds by KIM CROCKETT - Published February 8, 2015-Star Tribune Op-Ed
Of course, they’ve paid their "fair share." And once they go South, they’ll be donating elsewhere.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/291113251.html

In a ritual familiar to many Minnesotans, I recently made plans to visit my mother in Florida. When I called to compare calendars, she surprised me. After just a few months as a new snowbird, she is thinking of becoming a resident of Florida. "We are happy to pay the taxes, but the estate tax is another matter," she said.

Several years ago, my mother and stepdad moved from the Land of 10,000 Taxes back east to "Taxachusetts," where many of her college pals and family members still live. All of her estate planning to this point assumed she’d die a resident of Massachusetts, which has an estate tax similar to that of Minnesota and a dozen other states.

While my mother adores Massachusetts — Sen. Elizabeth Warren and all — she is a thrifty and savvy planner and hopes to leave resources behind, primarily to help a family member with special needs. She is one of those "Happy to Pay" folks, but has found her limit: She is not happy to pay a death tax. Florida has none.

I work for a nonprofit focused on public policy, so this issue is of interest — not just as a matter of good tax policy, but for our organization’s future (and I assure you for the future of every other nonprofit in Minnesota). More important, it is vital for our state’s future.

When I was making calls to donors in December, I had many similar conversations to the one I had with my mother. Too many of the people I reached had either relocated or were thinking about it. In comparing notes with other nonprofits, I found that we are all hearing the same thing: a growing part of our donor base is leaving as baby boomers retire but also as younger, more mobile people are headed to a better climate for taxes or weather, or both. This is laid out in stark detail by data from our state demographer in a report called "Minnesotans on the Move."

One donor told me that when he and his wife retired, they stuck around. This was home. They were looking forward to giving lots of time and money to the Rochester area, including a large donation to a local foundation. Over time, they were deeply offended by the (false) idea that they had not paid their "fair share" in taxes or that somehow they had not earned their success. They knew where they came from and how hard they had worked. Yet my donor stayed, continuing to pay taxes and to give generously to nonprofits.

The tipping point came with the estate tax, which my donor called "a tax on my children." He estimated the cost of Minnesota’s estate tax. Rather than pay the tax, he bought a house in Florida for less than what he would have paid in estate taxes and became a Florida resident. Instead of paying estate tax, his children are going to inherit a five-bedroom house in Florida.

Once people leave the state, they shift their lives and donations to their new communities.

Vance Opperman observed in Twin Cities Business that while Minnesota has a lot to offer, we have a problem: "the constant rhetoric attacking rich people, people that aren’t morally [willing] to pay their fair share, I resent. … And I frankly think the constant effort to harass people of wealth has a secondary but negative effect. When people make their first big hit, their first big capital gain, you want them to stay here. You want them to fund the orchestra, to fund foundations. You want them to continue to contribute to our society, to start venture capital, to invest in new businesses. And if you chase those people out because they think they’re not wanted, or if you chase those people out or you don’t attract people who are mobile, you will have a decline in many of the amenities we’ve just been talking about."

You might be thinking, "Good riddance. Who needs Richie Rich anyway?" I got a full helping of such green-eyed rhetoric last week at the State Capitol. In recognition of the exodus caused by the estate tax, both the Senate and the House are hearing bills that would either repeal the tax (best scenario) or bring the tax in line with the federal estate tax (good enough compromise).

While most legislators seemed to get the problem, during one hearing a state representative mocked the idea of helping "rich guys with three yachts on Lake Minnetonka." Another compared certain untaxed stock gains to a lottery windfall. The estate tax, it was argued, was our defense against an aristocracy.

This is how we end up with family farms and businesses being sold to pay taxes. But I get that fear about accumulated wealth. I worry about it, too. I do not want to be bossed around by Richie Rich, either.

I am reassured by two things. First, most wealthy Americans build and earn their success and then give a lot of it away to hospitals, schools, the arts and even policy organizations. Very few inherit great wealth. When they do, they arrange for their estates to be out of the reach of Minnesota’s estate tax. Second, inherited wealth is often morally debilitating. It’s like people who win the lottery; many end up with nothing — or with serious problems — because they did not earn it.

So I do not worry about aristocracy. I worry about all of the farmers and small-business owners who do not have yachts or untaxed stock gains but instead have lots of valuable acreage or capital equipment that puts them right in Minnesota’s estate tax bull’s-eye. I don’t think they should pay for the farm twice: first in property and income taxes, and again when they have gone to their peace.

I want them and their heirs to stay put and call Minnesota home, to keep working that farm or growing that business.

***

Kim Crockett is chief operating officer of Center of the American Experiment, devoted to Building a Culture of Prosperity in Minnesota and the Nation

How Open Is the Opening to Cuba? By Bruce L. R. Smith

     President Obama’s supporters congratulate him for “going big” in his opening to Cuba, restoring full diplomatic relations and proclaiming his intention to reverse a half century of failed policies.  At first look, this was indeed a bold move, not a mere loosening of a travel restriction (as Obama did when he took office in 2009). But it is a reopening of embassies, releasing of political prisoners, and paving the way for much broader economic relations in telecommunications for a start– and this all done with the help and the blessing of the Pope.  Apparently, eighteen months of secret negotiations were required.       Upon closer examination, there is less here than meets the eye.  The gains are more limited and what has actually changed is not quite what was proclaimed.  Consider, first the stated rationale for Cuba’s interest in the deal.  Raoul Castro has declared that Cuba is interested in a revival and rescue of its morbid economy, but has no intention whatsoever of changing Cuba’s one-party government.  The U.S. for its part has declared that the reopening of embassies requires that American diplomats have full rights to move about the country and speak with anybody they choose, not to be hemmed in and nor restricted in their movements as is currently the case.  This does not augur too well for a meeting of the minds anytime soon.  The first meeting of high-level officials from the two sides, which took place yesterday, January 22, in Havana, unsurprisingly it produced no quick resolution of this issue or other items discussed.
     The Cubans demanded, as conditions for further progress, the immediate lifting of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and the removal of their country from the State Department’s list of countries engaged in terrorism.   The first condition of course cannot be met by unilateral action, but requires action by Congress.  The claimed diplomatic advantage of the Cuban opening within the hemisphere is thus easily negated.  Those who are reflexively anti-American can and surely will declare that Obama’s opening to Cuba is phony because it is meaningless unless accompanied by the immediate lifting of the embargo.  Gaining Congressional support was not made easier by the fact that Obama did not include any Republicans in his secret negotiations, (he did phone Senator Menendez to “inform” him of the pending action but at the eleventh hour and did not even pretend to solicit advice from the Senator or any other Congressional Republican).  
     On the matter of Cuba’s removal from the terror list, the President, for all of the proposed boldness of his move, took no position, suggesting that he would seek a “recommendation” from the State Department and act accordingly.  Removal from the terror list is critically important from Cuba’s point of view because U.S. banks are chary of dealing with any country or bank that has even the remotest connection to terrorist financing.  
     The lifting of the embargo is a very complicated matter.  Before Congress can even consider lifting the embargo, a whole host of statutory requirements must be met relating to human rights, fulfillment of various claims, changes in political representation, plus additional other matters.  On top of this, there is a backlog of unresolved disputes relating to the seizure of properties and assets by Cuba from American investors following Fidel Castro’s seizure of power from the corrupt ancient regime of Fulgencio Batista.  Experience suggests that such disputes usually take years to resolve after protracted litigation and or arbitration.  So if you had any idea of rushing down to your neighborhood tobacco store for Cuban cigars or calling your travel agent for a quick flight to Havana, you can forget about it.  There is a way you can sign up for one of the twelve or so categories of cultural and educational exchange, a process which has been made easier to navigate and the categories have been broadened to expand travel by Americans.  But these are incremental gains and will mostly mean only a modest increase in tourism.
     Another long-term issue likely to emerge in future negotiations is the question of the American Gitmo base.  Some Americans believe that the base has no strategic significance anymore, but this is by no means a universal view and raising the issue would certainly complicate negotiations with the Cubans and inflame political passions here at home.
     All of this suggests that it will be difficult for American firms to operate freely in Cuba anytime soon and that diplomatic relations will move forward only slowly and with many bumps along the road.  There is also a danger that, if official relations are complicated and progress is slow, the shadow network of illicit money and criminal activity which bedeviled Cuban-American relations in the old days will return with a vengeance.  Collaboration between law enforcement might be a desirable first step in building toward a secure long-term diplomatic opening with Cuba.   

***

Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a Ph.D from Harvard University.

More on Lincoln Gordon by Bruce L. R. Smith

For those of you who have asked for more information about Professor Smith's forthcoming book on Lincoln Gordon, I have found some additional details...

Lincoln Gordon

Architect of Cold War Foreign Policy

Bruce L. R. Smith

After World War II, American statesman and scholar Lincoln Gordon emerged as one of the key players in the reconstruction of Europe. During his long career, Gordon worked as an aide to National Security Adviser Averill Harriman in President Truman’s administration; for President John F. Kennedy as an author of the Alliance for Progress and as an adviser on Latin American policy; and for President Lyndon B. Johnson as assistant secretary of state. Gordon also served as the United States ambassador to Brazil under both Kennedy and Johnson. Outside the political sphere, he  evoted his considerable talents to academia as a professor at Harvard University, as a scholar at the Brookings Institution, and as president at Johns Hopkins University.

In this impressive biography, Bruce L. R. Smith examines Gordon’s substantial contributions to U.S. mobilization during the Second World War, Europe’s postwar economic recovery, the security framework for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and U.S. policy in Latin America. He also highlights the vital efforts of the advisers who helped Gordon plan NATO’s force expansion and implement America’s dominant foreign policy favoring free trade, free markets, and free political institutions.

Smith, who worked with Gordon at the Brookings Institution, explores the statesman-scholar’s virtues as well as his flaws, and his study is strengthened by insights drawn from his personal connection to his subject. Smith adeptly shows how this “wise man” personified both America’s postwar optimism and its dawning realization of its own fallibility during the Vietnam era.

Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a Ph.D from Harvard University.

www.kentuckypress.com  2015 catalog (Page 25)

The Mayor Finds Himself in Hot Water… By Bruce L. R. Smith

Guest Columnist…  A View from Washington

     New York is a tough town.  Its ballplayers, performers, business moguls, and of course politicians are always under pressure, and often find themselves in real jams. Mayor Bill de Blasio, near the end in his first year in office, has found himself in one of those very difficult positions, and it is partly of his own making.  He ran on an aggressively liberal platform which assailed police tactics in minority communities, as symbolized by the “stop [question] and frisk” practices, and called for reform of the NYPD.  Too many police officers however, de Blasio’s approach was one-sided – he put the blame for strained relations and racial tensions on the police.  

     Citing a lack of police “accountability” in dealings with minority communities, de Blasio sought in particular a change in what he saw as an outmoded concept of punishing minor offenses, a practice implemented by former Mayor Giuliani.  Liberals like de Blasio asserted that the “broken windows” theory of combating crime was responsible for the large-scale incarceration of young African Americans and Hispanics for relatively minor crimes which carried excessive sentences.  There was, and is, need for analysis and reform of many aspects of the criminal justice system, and the Mayor’s arguments were not without merit.   His intentions were good.  He wanted to reduce the racial divide in New York City and in America.  Alas, through his own mistakes, his political inexperience, and circumstances beyond his control, racial tensions in the city are at their worst point in years, and the ripple effects have been felt around the country.  

     What did the Mayor do wrong?   For one thing, his aggressive campaign against the “stop and frisk” tactic of the NYPD misstated what those tactics were.  Cops did not frisk unless, upon questioning, they had reason to do so.  De Blasio ignored the fact that the city’s cops are assigned to neighborhoods on the basis of crime statistics: neighborhoods with statistically high crime rates are assigned more police units.  This often meant more stops and questioning of persons of color since those communities had higher crime rates.  Further de Blasio injected his bi-racial teenage son into the campaign in order to curry favor with minority voters and frequently made the point that he had to caution his son to be wary of and extremely polite to the police if he was ever stopped and questioned.  The implication, though never quite stated so boldly, was that white officers were notorious for the use of excessive force on minority youths. The NYPD is the most diverse in the nation, with a majority of its officers in fact minority.  De Blasio’s campaign charges amounted to a slander on the most professionalized police force in the country and were recognized as such by the police and by anyone except de Blasio’s most fervent supporters on the far left.
      After he became mayor, de Blasio quickly announced that the NYPD would drop the stop and frisk tactics.  Fair enough.  He had run on the pledge to reform the police department and now followed through on his campaign promise.  But he put his wife, who was a well-known advocate and critic of the police, in charge of devising a plan to improve police/community relations.  She then hired, or tried to hire, another advocate to be her deputy.  It turned out that this woman unbeknown to the mayor and his wife had a boyfriend who was a convicted murderer, and that the woman’s teenage son had recently been arrested on a breaking and entering charge.  The leadership of New York City’s police unions raised alarms at the prospect of a mayoral adviser with this background.  The woman finally withdrew as a candidate for the deputy post, but the mayor and his wife issued statements deploring character assassination by the media and smear tactics by the police union leaders.  The Mayor’s reliance on the Reverend Al Sharpton, bête noire of the NYPD for his past incendiary tactics and current tax delinquency, as an adviser confirmed to many in the department the Mayor’s hostility to the police.  The Mayor increased the budget of the NYPD for technology, safety, and training, but he remained unpopular with rank and file officers and the police union leaders.  

     Fast forward to the events of November and December.  Widespread protests and demonstrations erupted In Ferguson, Missouri and elsewhere following the death of a black youth, Michael Brown, at the hands of a white officer.   Protests and demonstrations also erupted the next month in New York City when a grand jury in Staten Island failed to indict a white officer in the choke-hold death in July of Eric Garner, a middle-aged black man, in the process of arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes.  A video of the scene had been widely shown on television and passions in the city ran high.

       Mayor de Blasio defended the rights of peaceful protesters, spoke with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about a potential federal investigation, and generally viewed his role as that of trying to calm the justifiable outrage against what appeared to be a travesty of justice.   The national attention fed the impression that police forces were under siege from the highest levels of the federal government. The New York City protests, unlike those in Missouri, were generally orderly and did not involve looting and destruction of property, but one protest march got out of hand.  Two police lieutenants were jostled and slightly roughed up by angry protesters.  Many police were enraged when the Mayor appeared to downplay the incident at a press conference when he used the word “allegedly” in response to a reporter’s question about the roughing of the police officers.  This appeared to be a failure to defend his officers against the mob.  

     The next day the situation took a grave turn when a gunman with a long record of arrests and mental health problems shot and killed two officers, execution style, as they sat in their patrol car.  On social media the murderer had declared that his motive in planning to kill two white policemen was to avenge the death of Eric Garner.  The two “white” officers he killed were Officer Ramos, a Hispanic, and Officer Liu, a Chinese American, before the suspect killed himself.  The normally astute Police Commissioner Bill Bratton did not help the situation when he initially in speaking to the press called the killings a “spin-off” from the climate of protests and anger directed against the police.  The Mayor and the Commissioner later appeared at a joint press conference (this time no Al Sharpton) where the Mayor, alternately downcast and testy, scolded the reporters, telling them to “get real” and recognize that they were partly to blame for the crisis by playing up the extremists when most of the protesters were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights.  The Mayor made the suggestions that protests and demonstrations be suspended until after the two officers were laid to rest.  The protesters ignored him.  

     When the Mayor and Commissioner visited the hospital to console the families of the slain officers, police officers turned their backs in a gesture of contempt and disrespect for the Mayor.  The head of the patrolmen’s Benevolent Association declared that the Mayor had blood on his hands.   At the funeral service for Officer Ramos in Queens a few days later, scores of officers outside again turned their backs when the Mayor rose to give his brief speech.  The Mayor, subdued and downcast, seemed to scrunch his 6’6” frame down to the height of the lectern.  The Mayor in general appeared dazed and uncertain of what to do, perhaps concluding that the best thing he could do was to keep a very low profile and allow Commissioner Bratton and community leaders to rescue him and the city.  No one rose to defend the Mayor.  The Democratic politicians acted as if they had never heard of him.  Former Republican Governor Pataki and former Mayor Giuliani piled on and blamed the Democrats from President Obama on down to de Blasio for creating a climate of hatred of the police.  One acquaintance the Mayor turned to for advice told reporters that it was the Mayor’s political inexperience and lack of knowledge of the city’s complex constituencies that had caused his problems – not, perhaps, the most robust defense of the embattled Mayor.  The Mayor’s only friend, it seemed, was Commissioner Bratton.

     New York is a tough town, yes, but it is also a resilient town.  One hopes the Mayor will regain his footing because it is not a good thing for the nation’s leading city to be leaderless.  At the same time one hopes that the Mayor has learned something.  It is not a good idea to charge into an explosive issue on an ideological high horse.  It is a mistake to see things only from one side and to appeal only to one’s base.  There is a reason why politicians are usually cautious, even timid, and waffle on the issues – they always run scared, and properly so.  They instinctively know that the body politic is like some giant slumbering monster which, once aroused, can thrash about and destroy its own habitat and everything in sight with its huge flailing tail.  The politician’s ultimate job to make everybody feel he or she belongs and has a stake in society.   Politicians who are cocksure and cater only to their political bases do not serve that larger end. 

***

Bruce L.R. Smith is a Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Professor Smith made his career principally at Columbia University in New York City and at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. C. He lives in Washington, D. C. with his wife Elise, a health attorney and association executive representing and advising skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Bruce L. R. Smith has B.A. & M.A. from The University of Minnesota and a Ph.D from Harvard University.

***

Please watch for Mr. Smith’s forthcoming book-biography of Lincoln Gordon. It is scheduled for release May 2015. Please see the following cover page and University of Kentucky Press catalog page. (Pending)