Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 7
Next for the U.S. in Syria: Follow missile strike with a measured strategy
President Trump’s decisive action in launching a missile strike against Syria has put the world on notice that the U.S. will not shy away from using force to achieve its goals. That has been a matter of some concern in recent years in light of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s history of atrocities, saber-rattling by North Korea, and increasingly aggressive behavior by Russian military against western countries.
The questions Trump must answer now: What are U.S. goals in the region, and how far is this nation willing to go to in their pursuit? Sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria on an hour’s notice sends an unmistakable message that this nation will not stand by while Assad assaults his people with a banned nerve agent. It also is a complete reversal of Trump’s earlier expressed intention to stay out of conflicts in Syria.
Whether he acknowledges it or not, Trump has drawn his own version of President Barack Obama’s infamous “red line.” He also has gotten a quick lesson in just how hard - and perhaps unwise - it is to back this country away from its leadership position on the world stage. U.S. strategic interests extend far beyond its borders. Allowing Assad to get away with yet another gas attack, this one in blatant violation of a 2013 agreement to abandon chemical weapons, would have sent a dangerous signal not just to Assad, but strongman regimes around the world that there was little consequence for flagrantly violating international norms.
There is an implied “or else” in Trump’s statement that the U.S. will not tolerate further infractions. It is imperative that he articulate expectations and the options under consideration. Reacting to the footage of children convulsing and foaming at the mouth as they die from the effects of Sarin nerve gas is understandable and even necessary, but it must be followed by a measured strategy that he can take to Congress. In the Minnesota delegation, Rep. Jason Lewis and Rep. Tim Walz have said they support the missile strike, but that further military action by the administration must be authorized by Congress. The Star Tribune Editorial Board agrees.
As he settles into his new role, Trump appears finally to be ready to abandon campaign rhetoric and chart his own course. After an ill-considered initial reaction to the Syrian chemical attack in which he blamed Obama, Trump now says the responsibility for action is his. That is a welcome acknowledgment, but he should bear in mind it is a shared responsibility that draws on the finances, support and even the lives of Americans who may be called to fight and die to carry out his objectives. His unilateral strike aside, Trump now must begin a leader’s most difficult work: explaining to the public his rationale and intentions and building support for his course. Otherwise, the effectiveness of a sudden show of U.S. might is undercut and allies may doubt American resolve.
He will also have to show that in addition to exercising power, he is capable of diplomatic restraint. Russia’s response is disturbing, especially its decision to sever an air safety agreement to share coordinates and flight information with the U.S. that was intended to minimize the chance of accidental conflict in the region. It was this “deconfliction” line that was employed in advance of the U.S. strike, allowing Russians to move nearly 100 troops and materiel out of harm’s way at Shayrat airfield.
Removing that line raises the danger of a proxy war, given that Russia controls Syrian airspace and has troops embedded throughout the country. Trump administration officials who paint Russia as either complicit, incompetent or pawns of Assad are unhelpful, particularly in advance of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow next week. If Assad is to give up power, Russia will have to play a role.
This is a region whose politics are fiendishly complicated and bedeviled by multiple factions. If Trump is to purse Assad’s ouster, he must work with other nations to develop a plan that prevents Syria from falling into chaos and becoming an even greater source of instability.
___
St. Cloud Times, April 8
Legislature, Dayton face some big gaps
The 2017 legislative session is closing in on Easter break, which means lawmakers and Gov. Mark Dayton have about six weeks to finish their primary job - crafting the state’s next two-year budget plan.
Through roughly the first three-quarters of the session, the good news is major bills are moving through the Republican-controlled House and Senate in a timely manner.
The challenging news comes on two fronts. First, there are large (even massive) differences between the bottom lines of those Republican-controlled bills and the budget proposals put forth by Dayton. Second, many bills contain various policy measures over which Republicans and DFLers tersely disagree.
Here is this board’s basic summary of the differing philosophies emerging this session:
- In keeping with his progressive roots, Dayton wants to use most every dime available to the state, including its $1.6 billion budget surplus, to maintain and even expand certain state programs. His tax relief is aimed squarely at working-class and low-income Minnesotans. As for policy matters, he stands strong against substantial reforms, especially those reducing environmental protections and programs considered his legacy.
- Republican budget proposals, while differing between the House and Senate, support minimal increases in certain areas, seek substantial cuts in others, and generally aim to reduce state spending while cutting taxes more broadly. In fact, some GOP tax cut proposals would impact state programs far beyond the next two years, which seems alarming even with a surplus. On policy matters, Republicans lean heavily toward reducing regulations, especially on environmental protections. They also take direct aim at Dayton’s legacy programs and bedrock DFL values.
Again, those are basic summaries. Here are some examples that show the gaps, especially between Republican plans and Dayton’s proposals:
Education
All three proposals agree K-12 per-pupil funding should increase. The House plan calls for a 1.25 percent increase each year. The Senate plan seeks 1.5 percent each of the next two years. And Dayton wants 2 percent each year.
Overall, new spending in those three bills totals $273 million in the House, $300 million in the Senate and $709 million from Dayton. Here, though, are a couple of critically important factors in those bills in the next six weeks.
First, Dayton’s plan expands his vision of Minnesota eventually having mandatory preschool - something not even all educators support. The House goes the other direction though, cutting those funds. The Senate calls for no increase. Second, the House bill includes changing teacher layoff rules away from so-called “last in, first out,” or LIFO. Dayton ardently opposes LIFO and it’s gone nowhere in the Senate this session.
Talk about big gaps.
Taxes
In January, Dayton offered a $300 million package of tax credits aimed primarily at low- and middle-income families as well as farm property taxes. It offered minimal relief to businesses. News reports compared it to a measure he vetoed at the end of last session.
Late last month, the Senate and House plans came out. The Senate’s $900 million plan lowers the tax rate on the lowest tax bracket. The House proposes $1.35 billion in total cuts across a much broader spectrum of Minnesotans. Both bills seek to reduce the state income tax on Social Security and shrink the state property tax on businesses. They also provide breaks for college loans.
Again, look at the bottom lines: $300 million, $900 million and $1.35 billion. Talk about big gaps.
Looking ahead
Such vast fiscal differences melded with policy proposals that feed the partisan beasts will make for an interesting homestretch of the 2017 legislative session.
With that in mind, Minnesotans need to remember that this session start with legislative leaders promising to hold final negotiations in public and avoid the closed-door meetings that have marked the end of the past few sessions.
Voters also should reach out to their legislators and make sure to express their views on key issues. Be assured that’s exactly what special interests are doing. Look no farther than the gaps created so far this session.
___
Post-Bulletin, April 6
Delay is OK, but don’t mow down buffer law
In December 2014, about 300 people gathered in Marshall for what was called a “pheasant summit.” Among those present was longtime pheasant hunter Gov. Mark Dayton, who convened the meeting.
At the conclusion of that gathering, a 10-part “pheasant action plan” was announced, with all of the ideas meant to help pheasants and/or pheasant hunters. Item No. 6 in that plan read as follows: “Develop and implement a comprehensive riparian buffer program.”
At the time, few people could have predicted the uproar that would be caused by that one short statement.
It turned out that Minnesota already had laws on its books requiring farmers to maintain buffer strips along rivers, creeks and drainage ditches, but the rules were confusing, and enforcement was spotty at best and non-existent in many parts of the state. Still, with the focus on pheasant habitat, the issue didn’t gain much traction.
But then Dayton made a critical pivot, making pheasant habitat merely an extra benefit of buffer strips that would serve primarily to prevent erosion and farm chemical runoff into Minnesota’s streams, rivers and lakes. With our state’s water quality at stake, mandating buffer strips became one of Dayton’s top legislative priorities, and in May 2015 he signed the Minnesota Statewide Buffer Program into law.
Dayton sees this law - and the cleaner water that could and should result from it - as a big part of his legacy. We do, too. With more and more of our lakes and rivers in this Land of 10,000 Lakes being declared impaired, unfit for swimming and their fish unfit for eating, it is time to take direct action to protect our water.
But the Legislature, at the urging of farmers across the state, is attempting to loosen the rules that were set in 2015, and to delay implementation of these rules by one year, to Nov. 1, 2018.
Many farmers say that the drainage ditches that flow through their property were improperly classified as public waterways when the buffer zone map was created. That matters because a private waterway requires just a 16.5-foot buffer, while public waterways require a 50-foot buffer. Republican lawmakers are pushing for changes that, according to the Minnesota DNR, would reclassify 48,000 miles of public waterways as private. This in turn would mean a lot less grass and a lot more corn and soybeans.
The other issue is cost - and on that count, we understand the farmers’ plight. It’s bad enough to have to take cropland permanently out of production, but having to pay for the cost of creating buffer strips is a double-whammy.
Financial assistance for creating the buffers and keeping land permanently out of production is available through more than a dozen federal, state and local sources, including the federal Conservation Reserve Program, the state Reinvest in Minnesota program, and through local Soil and Conservation Districts. This week, the Legislature approved $22 million in Legacy funding that will be distributed by local districts to help farmers create and maintain buffers.
Of all the proposals being pushed by the Legislature, the one-year delay seems least objectionable. Buffer strips aren’t created overnight, and we can understand why farmers would want to explore all their options in terms of getting financial aid from county, state and federal governments.
For evidence that this process is complicated, look no further than the Minnesota DNR’s “Buffer Mapping Project” webpage. It lists 21 “common buffer questions,” and many of the answers to these questions are extremely long and complex.
Giving farmers an extra year to get things squared away would be fine with us. At the very least, farmers should have the right to apply for an extension if they can prove they are making a good-faith effort to comply.
But we urge Dayton to hold a hard line on other changes to the buffer law. Those waterways that farmers see as “private” eventually flow into public waters, and with more and more of Minnesota’s farmland being tiled for better drainage, the volume of water that races through these waterways is increasing every year.
The 2015 Legislature gave bipartisan support to Dayton’s buffer law. We see no reason for him to allow the 2017 Legislature to lessen the law’s impact and benefits.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.