Replies

The Financing:
The state will finance the taxpayer share with appropriation bonds, which are debt instruments to be repaid over time with interest.

Appropriation bonds are paid with an annual appropriation from the state’s general fund. Yes, the state’s general fund is at risk with appropriation bonds, unlike
revenue bonds.

Revenue bonds are bonds that are repaid with revenue from the particular capital project that is built with the bonds. For example, a community center can be built
with revenue bonds and then be repaid with revenues from the enterprise.

Appropriation bonds indeed put the state’s general fund at risk yet do not pledge the full faith and credit of the state to repay the bonds. General obligation bonds
do that.

Thus, some folks will argue that appropriation bonds are less risky for taxpayers precisely because they do not pledge the full faith and credit of the state.

This is really a distinction without a difference. If the financing mechanism for the stadium deal, electronic gambling, fails to produce revenues sufficient to repay
the bonds, it is highly unlikely the state would allow the bonds to go into default,even though there would be no legal argument to prevent such an outcome.

More likely, the state would simply rob other programs or raise taxes to fund the gap.

So yes, the taxpayers are at big risk regarding these bonds.

Which leads us to the next financing issue: gambling revenue.

The deal finances the bonds by allowing the state’s charities to implement two new kinds of gambling, electronic pull tabs and electronic bingo that links players in one location to players in other locations.

This gambling would be taxed with the revenues going into the general fund and then laundered back out to repay the bonds.

First, gambling revenues are incredibly volatile. To base 30 year bonds on a volatile revenue stream is risky, even reckless.

Second, this kind of gambling is new and unproven, adding to the risk. There is really no track record of this kind of gambling to offer and kind of reliable projections
upon which to base revenues.

And no, the answer to this problem wasn’t more gambling in the form of the so-called “racino,” as some Republicans proposed.

The state is going to come to regret turning to gambling to finance programs.

Gambling is a regressive tax visited upon those who can least afford it. Normally,our libertarian tendencies wouldn’t care, but the fact is that these addicts blow
their small earnings on gambling and then turn to the welfare system to pick up the pieces.

The state has no business preying on dopes who don’t know any better because the taxpayers end up footing a bigger bill in the long run.

It’s the coward’s way out. If Republicans want more government and more government spending, they ought to be big enough and honest to support honest tax increases
to pay for it.

Really, it’s been appalling to watch Republicans bray on and on about more gambling while attempting to claim the mantle of conservatism.

There’s nothing conservative about advocating for more governmental revenue to support more governmental programs, especially when those programs have nothing to do with
core functions of government (like building a stadium or bailing out the horse racing industry).

With the session over, maybe Republican leaders like RNC Committeewoman Pat Anderson can back to her job of rebuilding a broken, bankrupt state party instead of hanging out at the Capitol as a paid lobbyist for the gambling industry.

The Referendum:
As expected, Minneapolis residents will get jobbed out of their right, pursuant to the city charter, to vote on the expenditure of city funds to build sports facilities
that require more than $10 million city funds.

The sophistry here is that the $150 million local share isn’t really Minneapolis money since it’s financed with a local tax that is state imposed.

If that’s true, is it really a local share? Shouldn’t that $150 million count towards the state share?

The 1%:
Despite being the legislative minority, Democrats in both the House and Senate provided the majority of votes for the stadium.

Yes, the DFL was responsible for a $350 million public subsidy for a Delaware based private corporation owned by a billionaire New Jersey real estate mogul.

Let the DFL never, ever be heard to complain of corporate greed, corporate welfare,or any BS about paying one’s “fair share.”

Every DFLer who voted for this bill put the lie to the “party of the workin’ man”
narrative.
You offered up a subsidy to a member of the 1%, financed by gambling, which preys heavily on the bottom 1%.

And that includes a DFL governor who did little this session but advocate for this stadium, his clear number one priority.

The DFL wanted a stadium this session. Will they campaign on it? Don’t hold your breath.

How cynical and how very crass.

Photo I.D. Required!:
Did you know the Vikings bill requires the presentation of a photo identification.
It’s true! Check out HF 2958 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=ccrhf2958A.html&session=ls87
the stadium bill. Article 4, section 52, subdivision 9(d) states: Before participatingin the play of a linked bingo game, a player must present and register a valid picture
identification card that includes the player’s address and date of birth.
It’s right there on page 71, lines 13-15.

So Democrats are opposed to a photo ID to vote but support photo ID to play bingo?

How cynical and how very crass.

The Process:
Putting aside the merits of the stadium issue, every citizen should be appalled by the lack of transparency and secrecy surrounding the conference committee that
assembled the stadium bill behind closed doors.

Joint Rule 2.06 mandates: All Conference Committees shall be open to the public.As much as practical, meetings of Conference Committees shall be announced as far
in advance as possible, with the intent to provide a 24-hour notice, and actions taken shall be agreed upon in an open meeting.

This didn’t happen. Instead, the conference report was crafted behind closed doors,out of sight from the taxpaying public.

The conference committee played games by having different parties in separate rooms to avoid triggering a quorum of the conference committee which would then trigger
an open meeting.

Citizens were treated to the spectacle of the conference committee posting their bill before the committee even officially met. Just how in the he$$ does a conference
committee assemble and agree upon a conference report before they have even met?

They hid behind closed doors and cut a deal with the Vikings in a smoke-filled back room.What disservice to the people of this great state.

Another stadium?:
The Vikings bill didn’t just build a new home for the Vikings. It also will likely build one for the Saint Paul Saints.

Sources say that the Saint Paul legislative delegation was persuaded to support the Vikings stadium with a wink and a nod that the Saints would get a stadium as well.

How?

Well, just take a look at the bonding bill [https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=293&year=2012&type=0
that passed just days before the stadium bill.

Contained within is a provision that appropriates $47.5 million for capital project grants. Our sources say that a chunk of this money is set aside for a Saints stadium.

Anyone else out there who wants a stadium? Anyone the state has missed? How about that lingerie women’s football team?

The fallout:
Many conservatives are rightly ticked off about this bill and have expressed interest in stripping GOP legislators who supported the bill of endorsement.

The Watchdog encourages folks to take a different, more positive course of action.Namely, go out and work to support legislators who had the courage to oppose the
bill in the face of angry, hostile, venomous, mouth-breathing supporters who harassed legislators with profanity and threats throughout.

No matter where you live, there is a GOP legislator nearby who stood on principle.Even if it isn’t your legislator, support that person with your time, money, and
talents. Be positive. Be proactive.

Spending time hammering at a fellow Republican is counterproductive and only cheers the DFL. Work FOR something, not against.