Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 1
Minneapolis leaders botched their response to upcoming Trump campaign visit
They should have focused on the free-speech rights of the president’s supporters and detractors alike.
President Donald Trump is coming to town next week for a campaign rally that is sure to draw thousands to downtown Minneapolis - a visit that prompted a disappointing response from the city’s top elected official.
Mayor Jacob Frey could have said that the city would provide security to make sure that supporters and opponents of the president are safe and that fundamental rights of free speech are upheld. He could have simply noted, as his city coordinator did, that officials are expecting protests outside Target Center. He could have added, if he felt the need, that he shares many sentiments with the president’s critics, while assuring citizens of varying views that his staff is planning for the event and coordinating with other public agencies as they did during the Super Bowl and Final Four.
Instead, after the Oct. 10 rally was announced, the mayor and other city leaders implied that they’d rather the president and his supporters stay home. Frey said that while he would typically welcome a visit from a sitting president, Trump’s “actions have been reprehensible and his rhetoric has made it clear that he does not value the perspectives or rights of Minneapolis’ diverse communities.”
“Our entire city will stand not behind the president, but behind the communities and people who continue to make our city - and this country - great,” Frey said. “While there is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will never be welcome in Minneapolis.”
City Council President Lisa Bender echoed Frey’s statements, saying Trump’s “hate is not welcome in our community, but we cannot stop the visit.”
“I know this event will cause stress and fear _ the city will do all we can, and ask for support, in keeping everyone safe,” she said.
Trump has done much to exacerbate the nation’s deep divisions, and the Star Tribune Editorial Board has repeatedly taken him to task during his nearly three years in office. Yet he’s still the sitting president, duly elected under this nation’s laws. And whether one supports or opposes the occupant of the White House, the office deserves the respect of all Americans.
Frey and Bender should also recognize that they represent all Minneapolis residents _ not just those who support their party or preferred candidates or officeholders.
Trump’s rallies nearly always attract large, enthusiastic crowds _ including in Minnesota. The Minneapolis rally will be the president’s fourth visit to the state in the past 16 months. He attended a Tax Day event in Burnsville in April, and visited Duluth and Rochester in 2018. The Rochester event drew an estimated 11,000 people.
Trump narrowly lost Minnesota in 2016 and has vowed to win the state in 2020. His campaign strategists know that news media coverage of his Minnesota visits is also closely followed in western Wisconsin counties that helped him capture the state in 2016 _ and the Minneapolis rally will no doubt attract attendees from surrounding states.
Under a national spotlight, Frey and Bender had an opportunity to rise above partisan politics and showcase Minneapolis as a welcoming community _ even for those with whom they disagree. It’s a shame they chose to convey a very different message.
___
St. Cloud Times, Sept. 27
Get clear answers _ in public hearing _ before moving ahead with PolyMet mine
It might seem like Minnesota’s debate about whether to allow heavy-metal mining in the Lake Superior and BWCA watersheds has taken forever.
Know, though, those bodies of water are roughly 10,000 to 12,000 years old. Similarly, the rocks surrounding them _ and which hold those potentially valuable minerals _ are 540 million to 4.5 billion years old.
In that context, Minnesota should take all the time it needs to make sure proposed mines will not contaminate in a few decades what Mother Nature has taken countless millennia to create.
At least two big developments this summer involving the proposed PolyMet mine changed the landscape of the deal. One involves the credibility of at least two parts of the extensive permitting process, which the state just completed. The other involves the sale this summer of PolyMet to global mining giant Glencore PLC.
Combined, they make a compelling case for legislators to hold new public hearings so Minnesotans can hear directly from the parties requesting permission to do this high-risk mining and the elected officials and agencies granting them that permission.
Permit problems?
In separate rulings in June and this month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals suspended three long-fought-for permits PolyMet had won so it could move ahead in finding investors to make heavy-metal mining near Babbitt and Hoyt Lakes a reality.
The court first suspended a major water quality permit granted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency after leaked emails from that agency and the federal EPA alluded to the two agencies possibly trying to minimize EPA comments questioning the permit. At least one of those emails also appeared to be copied to the Minnesota House Speaker’s Office.
Media reports about the emails spurred Minnesota’s courts, its legislative auditor’s office and even the EPA Inspector General’s Office to dive deeper into whether critical comments from expert staff were withheld on the path to acquiring that permit.
Those are worthy investigations, especially knowing that heavy metal mines worldwide have created scores of long-term pollution and water-quality problems. Not to mention asking why would agencies copy such communications to a party like the Minnesota House Speaker’s office?
The second ruling came Sept. 18 when the court suspended PolyMet’s permit to mine and dam safety permit based on concerns tied to Glencore. After years of funding PolyMet’s push for the permits, Glencore became its majority owner this summer.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit by conservation groups concerned about Glencore taking ownership of PolyMet and how the design of a planned dam that is key to the mine plan is similar to a failed dam at a Glencore-owned Brazil ore mine. The January dam failure released a massive amount of toxic tailings mixed with water that killed about 230 people and polluted miles of land and waterways.
The DNR in August had refused to review the permits, saying the two mining sites were not comparable. That prompted the lawsuit _ with the Appeals Court ruling the dam disaster should prompt not just the DNR but other permitting authorities to re-examine the plans.
Knowing such a failure could ruin Minnesota’s biggest natural treasures, a thorough review is warranted.
Glencore’s role
Make no mistake. The copper-nickel mining game for Minnesota got even more serious this summer when Glencore bought out PolyMet.
Glencore is known worldwide for mining. Its supporters see it as providing crucial materials for the modern age. Opponents see it as a company focused on making profits no matter the problems _ and pollution _ created.
Going forward, its role here is clear. On every legal document and permit required, it must replace PolyMet as the party to be held accountable for this proposal.
Gov. Tim Walz met privately in August with Glencore leaders. The governor told the media he made it clear he expects Glencore to assume that role.
However, verbal insistence and expectations are not enough.
Minnesota’s elected leaders must require all necessary documents, contracts, permits, etc., be amended to show Glencore now owns the responsibility for this project. Make it inordinately _ and legally _ clear that Glencore is the accountable party.
Finally, once those investigations about the leaked emails on the water permit are completed, legislators should hold public hearings so Minnesotans can hear directly from the parties requesting to do this pollution-prone mining and the elected officials and agencies willing to grant them that permission.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Oct. 1
Health Care: Good news on insurance rates through MNsure
The good news is that for the second year in a row, health insurance premiums for policies bought on the individual market will remain stable or drop in some cases. The bad news is the system remains a taxpayer subsidy to insurance companies.
Policies bought through the MNsure exchange will go up 0.18% at UCare and drop from 1% to 1.5% at HealthPartners, Medica and Blue Cross HMO, according to a report released Tuesday.
About 155,000 people buy insurance through the individual market and 61,000 received federal tax credits through the MNsure exchange. Rates can vary depending on where people live, their age and their plan.
The good news is that the insurers have expanded the number of plan options by 39. And every county will have at least two insurers offering plans. That’s good news for the competition, as insurers are not required to offer plans everywhere, and they’re not required to sell through MNsure.
The market was stabilized via a $542 million taxpayer subsidy authorized two years ago when the premiums shot up and the market became unstable. Called reinsurance, the money went to help the insurers pay for extremely costly cases. All of that money has not been used, which may be another reason why insurers are keeping rates low.
The stability of the health insurance market _ both individual and employer-based _ continues to depend on the rising cost of care and competition among providers and insurance companies.
While Minnesota has made strides in restraining the cost of care through cooperative strategies like health care homes, more needs to be done.
Competition in the health insurance market would be enhanced if the Legislature approved a public buy-in option on the MNsure exchange. Critics exaggerate the risk of this, referring to “total government takeover of health care.” But that is an unethical scare tactic, and consumers should consider it balderdash.
Creating more buyers in the health care market and providing them with tax cuts to help pay the burgeoning costs will go further than pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into insurance company coffers.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.