Open Letter to MN Senator Ortman Regarding Right to Work

Follow @RedandBlueAmeri

Dear Senator Ortman,

     My name is Leann Bosquez I reside in Maple Grove, MN. I am in Senator Limmer’s district but because of the redistricting, my next vote cast will be in your district.

I am writing to ask you to oppose the misnomer “Right to Work” that carries the even more misleading title, “Freedom of Employment Act”.   What I have heard from many on both sides of the political aisle is that we stand together in opposing this amendment. There has been a terrible division in our state and country. I commend Senator Ingebrigtsen for the valid points he made at the hearing. I implore you to consider the safety concerns that he pointed out and refuse to allow this to be a party war rather than the serious issue that it is.

Current structures in Labor Unions are similar to the electoral process we have in our American Governments.

All employees have the legal right to choose to unite as one voice to discuss and reach agreements with their employer. When the majority of employees vote to form a Union; they decide to pool their money and elect people to represent them. Meetings are held and votes are taken within this pool of employees as to who represents them and what arrangements they would like to make with the employers. Just as citizens can choose to attend their Caucus or not and to vote or not, so do Union members have the choice to attend their Union meetings or not and to vote on Union representatives and issues, or not.

There is no mandate requiring membership in a Union. Where employers and employees have made the mutual agreement to provide the benefits of having a Labor Union; there are, as with many other benefits and work rules; costs involved. Employees choosing to be members and have full benefits pay dues. Federal Law dictates that non-members have access to the Union should they have an employer dispute or want other supports. Non-Union members share in the benefits of bargaining. I see no reason for the expense of these non-members to be placed on the Union, which is in essence their unionized co-workers.

I was employed as an employer at a non-Union company that required uniforms for customer service employees. As a non-negotiable work rule, we decided to change the uniform design, however we asked interested employees to vote on which design they preferred. The votes were not unanimous. We used the votes of the majority to put in place which uniforms were required. Each employee purchased their own uniform. Not one employee asked for a State Constitutional Amendment requiring that they not pay because they did not get the design of their choice.

“Right to Work” is Government over-reach that forces a cost burden on employees that choose to Unionize. I am shocked that some Legislators think that non-Union members are entitled to have Union benefits without having to pay the cost of them. “Fair share” payments are not “dues”. “Fair Share” only pays the cost burden of non-members. When deciding whether to accept a position of employment, people normally consider wage, benefit packages, and how these combinations will affect their personal wants and needs. People can choose to work in a Union shop or a non-Union shop just as they can consider other options existing within potential places of employment.

Companies that offer employees to purchase life insurance do not require the purchase. However, life insurance companies are not required to pay benefits to those who do not buy coverage. If law dictated that every company offering life insurance to employees had to provide coverage to those purchasing it as well as those who don’t, would you support freeloaders getting this for free at the expense of others? I hope not.

I ask you Senator; please openly oppose amending our Constitution to mandate decisions made between employers and employees be paid solely by some rather than all who benefit. Please vote no and stop this from moving to the Senate Floor.

Sincerely,

Leann Bosquez

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” —Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961

Shop my AVON Store at; http://cassondraolson.avonrepresentative.com/

MN Budget; Where is the Leadership?

Minnesota Government is shut down.
There has been a difference of opinion as to how to adjust to make up for the $6.2 billion budget shortage. In February, Minnesota's Management and Budget office,  declared  that the projected state deficit had fallen to $5 billion from $6.2 billion.

Not only that, but the state will end its current fiscal year in June with a $663 million surplus instead of a projected $400 million, because Dayton accessed federal money tagged for health care expenses for poor adults - money that Tim Pawlenty refused.
Let's keep in mind that less than 1/3 of states pay more into the Federal Government than they take back. MN has been one of these "Donor" states at least as far back as 1977. This does not necessarily mean we financially support the country, states have different resources that need Federal funding. Although the Federal Government needs more money right now, is it wrong for us to take a little more to shape up our state after so many years of MN donating to other states? Can other states contribute more, at least for a while? We are one of the highest taxed states.


Following suit with the rest of the nation but not hit as hard as most other states;

23,000 jobs were lost in MN in the last 6 months of 2007
55,000 jobs lost in 2008.  

75,000 lost in 2009, bottoming out September 2009.

September 2009 thru November 2010, MN jobs grew by 40,700 and have been slowly increasing since.
When thousands of people no longer pay taxes because of income loss, the state loses revenue. Former Governor Pawlenty, during time of a recession and after, made billions of dollars in cuts to health and human services, local governments, job programs and put higher education back to 2006 levels. He also put into process the states very high corporate tax to begin declining bringing it from a flat 9.8% down to 4.8% in a six year period. He believes in low Corporate taxes and low taxes for top incomes. The fuel excise tax was increased by .005 twice in 2008 then set to increase annually. The MN property tax  increases averaged 5.3%  during 2007 through 2009 and 2.6% in 2010. 


We run into some difficulties here.  With many more unemployed, not of their own accord, but because of lack of jobs we have more hungry and people without. Services were being cut as the number of people in need increased. The Federal Stimulus included extensions of unemployment insurance payments which helped laid off workers make ends meet and continue to purchase necessities which continued to provide sales for businesses. 
The "foreclosure boom" that began in 2006 has caused property values to decline and many owe more on their mortgages than the homes are worth. Rather than property taxes declining with the values, taxes have increased.
Although property and excise  tax increases distribute tax burdens, some individuals and businesses that have been struggling in this economy have complained of the increased costs.
As we slowly recover from the deep recession of 2007, can we afford to go from one of the highest corporate tax states to one of the lowest?

MN has a diverse economy. The relative outputs of our business sectors closely match the US as a whole. 33 of the top 100 US publicly traded companies (by revenue in 2008) are headquartered here, including the largest privately held corporation in the US, Cargill.We are farmers, laborers, minors, business owners, executives. We have been historically successful and have a humble pride in working together and have a strong work ethic. Even in the Nations difficult times we maintain one of the lowest unemployment rates.

Politically, we historically vote for a Democrat as President. In the last 32 years, we have chosen Republican Governor's in 20 of these years, Independent for 4, Democrat for 8 and most recently chose Mark Dayton (D), the great-grandson of the founder of MN Dayton's Corporation the original parent company of Target which is still headquartered in Mpls.

Most Minnesotans don't judge people differently based on whether the person rides in a limousine or a green school bus. We look for integrity and for people we feel we can trust.
When the going gets tough we get going. We pull together.

The last decade we have seen a change. We have seen political party wars that we are not accustomed to. We have seen division in our elected leadership. In 2009, our DFL held a leadership summit that included 2 of our respected former Governor's, Al Quie and Arnie Carlson both Republicans. Rather than utilize the advice and experience of these people that have provided what MN wants, our GOP scheduled a different meeting at the same time with MN business owners, discluding our DFL. How did we respond to this? We elected Mark Dayton to have the final say over the decisions of our elected lawmakers. We want our officials to work together to provide us with the best.

‎Governor Dayton announced in February 2011 that he would only accept a balanced budget that includes responsible cuts and responsible revenue increases. He was clear as to what he would approve and what he would veto. Instead of working numbers out, our House and Senate continuously submit proposals that are outside of our Governor's direction and leave shortages of over $1 billion. Is it impossible to devise ways to be responsible in both areas?


MN nice = smile, be respectful and courteous, work hard and harder as times dictate, never forget; especially when it comes time to vote.

Question: The last compromise Governor Dayton proposed was to raise income taxes on incomes of $1,000,000. If he is still talking the rate he was in March, which I'm not sure if that has changed, instead of taking home $17,721 a week, they would take home $17,125 a week. That is a big difference. Do you think it is wrong to place such a large % of the burden on these few or do you think they should do it temporarily until we recover?

Congressional Budget Office 6/2011 and Budgets, Decisions, Decisions

What does the CBO say about the Nations budget?

They project the federal debt to reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product. The sharp rise in debt stems partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the recent severe recession. However, the growing debt also reflects an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated the recession." The retirement of the baby-boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to rise from 10% of the GDP to 15%.

If current laws are kept in place, meaning that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will decline by about a third, tax cuts enacted in 2001 and extended in 2010 are allowed to expire (2021), the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth - revenues would grow to be much higher than typically seen in recent decades reaching 23% by 2035 and still growing. Activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II. These revenues would offset almost all of the rising costs attributed to aging boomers. Debt and the interest accumulated would slowly rise from 69% of the GDP to 84% by 2035.

There are "several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period." These include; further extension of tax cuts enacted in 2001 and extended in 2010, "the reach of the alternative minimum tax being restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels", and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021. If these changes are made, the significantly lower revenues and higher outlays will cause federal debt to grow much more rapidly, exceeding 100% of GDP by 2021, 109% by 2023 and approach 190% by 2035.

"To keep deficits and debt from climbing to unsustainable levels, policymakers will need to increase revenues substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches. Making such changes while economic activity and employment remain well below their potential levels would probably slow the economic recovery. However, the sooner that medium- and long-term changes to tax and spending policies are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economy recovers, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt. Earlier action would permit smaller or more gradual changes and would give people more time to adjust to them, but it would require more sacrifices sooner from current older workers and retirees for the benefit of younger workers and future generations." Please see attached full report

The causes of these problems were attributed to a combination of; baby-boomers aging, what has come to be known as "The Bush Bailout" and "Obama's Stimulus Package" as well as growing interest on these debts and budget imbalance prior to 2007.

Several states have experienced budget deficits. States received Federal monies from the stimulus and, unfortunately, did not plan for future revenues to cover existing costs. Federal and States are deciding how to raise revenues. Someone will be paying more taxes. Will it be the wealthiest, middle-America, the poorest or a combination?

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker understands that revenue must be increased but is afraid that raising taxes on the wealthiest and/or profitable companies will scare business away from the state. He chose to increase revenue by raising taxes on those earning under $24,680 that do not receive public assistance and working families that qualify for the Federal Earned Income Credit.

Minnesota is at a standstill. The Governor wants to reinstate some higher taxes on the wealthiest and profitable companies but refuses to raise taxes on the poor and middle-class. The Senate and House Majorities, similar to WI, refuse to raise taxes on the wealthiest and profitable companies and insist on raising taxes on the poor and middle class. If they don't make a decision by Thursday, the state will, as it did under Former Governor Pawlenty, experience a costly shut-down.

These same National Debates continue. Who will pay higher taxes?