« MDE TOP 10 POLITICAL ADS OF 2010 COUNTDOWN-#1 | Home | DOCUMENTS CONFIRM WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT JIM OBERSTAR’S RESIDENCY »
DFL LEGISLATOR SERIES: TOP PER DIEM TAKERS IN MN ARE ALL DEMOCRATS
By Andy Post | December 31, 2010
Thank you to activist Terry Stone for bringing attention to the recent Politics in Minnesota report on the amount of per diem taken in 2009 and 2010 by our state legislators. Unfortunately, the PIM headline that the issue is “a bi-partisan affair” is somewhat misleading. The per diem is only “bi-partisan” in that people from both parties have taken per diem at all.
The top 12 per diem takers in the House and 17 per diem takers in the Senate for this biennium are all members of the DFL caucus. Capitol Report highlights all of the totals in the chart below. Even more alarming is the amount of per diem (we could also call it ‘extra legislative pay’) taken by DFL’ers living within shouting distance of the state capitol. The legislature’s website defines what per diem is to be used for:
State Sen. Mee Moua had no problem ringing up over $35,000 in reimbursements this biennium despite the fact that she lives in St. Paul. A simple Google calculation shows us she lives approximately 15 minutes from her office.
Here’s the breakdown of per diem takers in its entirety:
Courtesy Politics in Minnesota
Tags: DFL Legislators, Senate DFL Caucus, Uncategorized
Topics: DFL Legislators, Senate DFL Caucus, Uncategorized | 27 Comments »
27 Responses to “DFL LEGISLATOR SERIES: TOP PER DIEM TAKERS IN MN ARE ALL DEMOCRATS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 31st, 2010 at 4:56 PM
This my last post of 2010.
Always remember my words:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
December 31st, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Another factor is that I think you will find that most of the top recipients were committee chairs or otherwise in leadership position in the majority party. Four years ago when the Republicans were in the majority, the list’s leaders were mostly Republicans.
It will be interesting to see whether the Republican leadership will crack down on per diem. I have noted so far, they haven’t denied themselves any of the other perks of majority status. If they do crack down, it will mean more financial stress for member, and because legislators won’t be able to travel as much, they will be less available to their constituents.
January 1st, 2011 at 1:55 AM
More News that will never be reported by the Star
January 1st, 2011 at 7:54 AM
It seems to me that I have seen it reported in the Star, but this story is known to be a specialty of Pat Kessler’s. He always does a piece on it, when the figures come out.
January 1st, 2011 at 10:08 AM
As always Mee Moua leads the list. Thank Heaven she is gone.
January 1st, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Credit where due department — my otherwise egregious DFL rep, Kate Knuth, was pretty far down the list and Paul Gardner, in the neighboring district, barely took any per diem. Good for them.
I would say that anyone who lives in the metro really ought to eschew most per diem, though. People like Moua and Mullery really shouldn’t have been cashing in like that.
January 1st, 2011 at 4:02 PM
The DFL is out of power, so they won’t need the high level of per diems anymore. I do anticipate a crackdown, but it will be the Republican legislative leaders who will take the big hit.
January 1st, 2011 at 4:50 PM
There is a reason why there is pr diem for State Legislators. Those wealthy enough in their own right need not use per diem. Those who are not, need per diem for daily expenses. Being a Legislator need not be relegated to the wealthy who seek to be Public Servants.
Minnesota is so spread out. There are a lot of miles to cover if one lives in Northwestern Minnesota like Kittson County.
Per diem also helps pay for temporary rentals of apratments/houses for legislators furthest away from the Capitol who cannot get back to their Districts most weekends.
If there is to be Per Diem reform, look at where the Legislator come from, the miles needed to travel to and from St. Paul, greatest need for temporary living arrangements while in session, to determine the cost needed. Those within a 50 mile radius of the Capitol may need less per diem because they can get to their prime residences each night.
Per diem use is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Using per diem wisely should be universal depending on need.
January 1st, 2011 at 7:22 PM
Let us not fail to point out that these are the same people that claim they suffer sleepless nights worrying about the poorest of the poor, and the sickest of the sick.
How many elderly were tossed into the street so that Mee Moua could pad her pockets? How mant meals might that $35,000 provided for the starving children in Minnesota?
January 2nd, 2011 at 4:39 PM
Lady K:
Keep in mind per diems aren’t expected to be given out locally yet the lawmaker who lives in Saint Paul (thus no long commute expense and can go home for dinner) shouldn’t be claiming per diems at all. Thank you for confirming that Mee Moua shouldn’t have taken a cent and abused the system.
Oh Mee is a democrat by the way.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 2nd, 2011 at 5:25 PM
Lady KOS, legislators should get no salary. They should get a minimal stipend if they live more than 75 miles from the capitol. But that stipend should only be paid during the actual legislative session.
The present system just encourages these scumbags to become professional politicians. The liberals all proclaim it to be “public service.” Then it should be SERVICE. In other words, they should be SERVING us not screwing us.
The legislature should be a maximum two term affair for people to run, do their duty, and return to their normal jobs. They should only be at the capitol during the actual legislative session. It should not be a full time job.
January 2nd, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Don’t committee chairs have to travel around the state holding meetings with the public and local elected officials?
I think when you’re a committee chair you are pretty much in session year round.
This per diem thing is bs in the sense that we should pay them a full time salary, cut out the ‘per-diem’ beyond rental and car stipend. While they are in session officially for about six months, the decent work another three or four months in an official capacity forcing these per diems that go beyond the base salary of $31,000.
What kind of people do you think are going be willing to expose their lives and family for the glory of 31 grand a year? Exactly what we got.
Pay ‘em a full-time salary. Term limit their asses, since the public won’t do it. And, minimize those per-diems to temporary rental dig and a vehicle stipend- both max out at 12 grand a year together.
January 2nd, 2011 at 7:12 PM
One other thing, cut off their pensions!!!
January 2nd, 2011 at 7:23 PM
We don’t need them to “work” the whole year. What the hell do we need hearings for? So they can dream up more laws and more regulations? That is what they do.
The people that will take the job are people that are actually committed to doing something positive for the state and are not looking for a career in politics. Serving in the legislature should be as close to a volunteer position as we can make it.
The best person for the job is the one that doesn’t need the money.
January 2nd, 2011 at 8:13 PM
MN’s legislature is supposed to be part time and only meet every other year.
It’s also one of the largest State governments in the country.
So possible solutions here would be. First, get back to meeting once every other year for a very limited amount of time. Secondly, cut the amount of State Reps and Senators by 75%. And lastly since they would now truly be part time meeting only 1/6th of every other year pay them only 1/6th of their salary for that year, build barracks style housing and feed them only Michele Obama approved food while in session, maybe then they will find a way to get home on time.
January 3rd, 2011 at 12:46 AM
So, you Republicans are advocating that the law makers be relegated to a structure similar to the fly-by – night non-profits all along University avenue in St Paul?
That sounds way different than the private sector business experience you value so much.
You willing to put volunteers in charge of a 20 billion dollar-plus entity with the power to limit freedoms and choice?
Sounds crazy as hell.
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:27 AM
We need to cut the committees, cut the meetings and cut the time spent in St Paul. We can get all our needs taken care of with a part time State Congress. Start by cutting everything not a responsiblity for the State. If a program is not part of the Constitution, then the state has no creating programs. Same can be said for County and local governments.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 AM
You willing to put volunteers in charge of a 20 billion dollar-plus entity with the power to limit freedoms and choice?
No, we want volunteers in charge of an entity that spends the minimum amount necessary to carry out a constitutionally limited agenda with very little power to limit freedoms and choice.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Well Teej, to go to that, you need someone to propose it, have the legislature vote on it and governor sign it.
Put some numbers up. You say 20 billion is too much (which we can’t stay under as it is), what number would you put up, and where would you cut?
How are you going to limit what a legislature can legislate?
You’re talking rainbows and unicorns.
January 3rd, 2011 at 12:21 PM
Are comments being deleted? I swear there was something by Ed Kohler on here last night about how since the DFL was in the majority last year, it would be logical to have more DFLers at the top of the list?
Ryan and Andy, please explain your comment moderation policy.
January 3rd, 2011 at 5:34 PM
DJ, we already have limits on legislative authority. They are in the state constitution. The only problem is that they ignore them.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:37 PM
“You willing to put volunteers in charge of a 20 billion dollar-plus entity with the power to limit freedoms and choice?
”
No DJZ, I want elected representatives to be much more limited when taking away our freedoms and choices. When these knuckle heads dream up a new law, a new tax, a new department, or expand a program they are taking your freedom not expanding it.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Interesting how you chose the top 12 in the House because the 13th is a big rhino and 17 in the Senate until you got to a republican – talk about dishonesty why not just choose the top 15 or 20 or what ever and let the chips fall where they may – is this what we have to look forward to? Manipulate the numbers? – why not just tell the truth
January 5th, 2011 at 2:56 AM
@AC, yes, comments are being deleted without notice to the commenter or to other commenters, which leads to some strange comment threads since comments in response to missing comments no longer make contextual sense.
It’s up to Andy Post and Ryan Lyk to decide what type of community they want to foster here.
You can see a screenshot of the comment Andy or Ryan deleted over on my blog.
January 5th, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Wow. So those are the “controversial” posts they decide to remove? But they let Sotaman run around swearing and calling people names? Wonderful editorial policies.
January 5th, 2011 at 4:44 PM
@AC, yeah, it’s interesting to see what they choose to suppress and what they let fly. I wonder if the anonymous commenters on here include Andy Post and Ryan Lyk?
That’s one theory that might explain why they’re not censoring those comments.
January 8th, 2011 at 10:23 AM
I don’t see why Eddies comments were removed either but if you want to change the world via chastising websites for removing content Eddie should start with DUh underground and Huffpo.
Both automatically ban anyone that post anything that is not to the left of Stalin.
I also heard on the radio how a Minnsota man was investigated by the secret service for so-called threats against Obambi. I would hope one of our lefy posters here will post the link to the investigation of Randi Rhodes of Err Amerika when she saw humor in playing the sound of gunfire anytime she mentioned Bushes name.
Either that or admit the lefy hypocrisy.