TO: Denise Cardinal

Memo FROM: Nesbitt Research

DATE: July 13, 2010
Memorandum Report on the GOP Fact Check of ABM’s “Cuts” Ad

The following is a rebuttal of the GOP response to the ABM ad “Cuts.”

2120 L St. N.W., Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20037 MNGOP Ignores the Facts
202.263.4395 Office
GOP’s Claim that Emmer/Pawlenty Did Not Vote on Bill to Tax Upper Incomes
888.520.7960 Fax is Non Sequitor
allen@nesbittresearch.com
www.nesbittresearch.com
MNGOP Claim: In order to discredit our ad on Tom Emmer’s
record, the Minnesota GOP attempted to discredit the point that
Emmer opposed the closing of corporate loopholes by saying
Emmer did not vote for HF 2323. In doing this, they conveniently
ignored the following facts of the Emmer/Pawlenty record:
The Emmer/Pawlenty Plan Created a Huge Deficit
On May 6, 2010, the Star Tribune noted that Pawlenty’s illegal
unallotment plan caused a $2.5 billion deficit:
In a rare rebuke, the Minnesota Supreme Court
ruled Wednesday that Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s solo
move last summer to cut $2.7 billion from the state
budget violated the law.
...
Budget officials and legislative leaders expected to
work well into the night on Wednesday to figure out
the budget implications.
They estimate the ruling adds somewhere
between $900 million to $2.5 billion to the
budget deficit. [Star Tribune, 5/6/2010]
Emmer Flip-Flopped On FY08-09 Tax Bill With Local Aid Increases,
Property Tax Relief
On May 5, 2008, Emmer voted against HF 3149, the 2008
omnibus tax bill, as it passed the House 80-52. On May 18, 2008,
he voted for the bill when it returned from conference committee
and passed the House 129-4. The House bill closed corporate tax
loopholes, increased local government aid, and capped property
taxes for low income seniors. The bill also created a new property
tax credit for middle-class households. While Emmer did
eventually voted for final passage of the bill in order to balance
the budget on the last day of session, he previously had opposed
the bill in the House, which would have brought property tax
relief. [Minnesota House of Representatives, HF 3149, House
Journal 11356, 12910]

1 of 4
In fact, Emmer Will Seek to Eliminate Corporate Taxes Altogether
On three separate occasions, Emmer voted to reduce or eliminate
corporate taxes.
Emmer Advocated Eliminating Corporate Taxes.
Emmer’s Gubernatorial website states, “Eliminating the corporate
income tax will enable business owners to put money that would
otherwise be added to the state’s coffers back into their
businesses to expand, innovate, and put Minnesota back to
work.” [emmerforgovernor.com, Accessed 04/01/10]
Emmer Wanted To Accelerate Corporate Tax Cuts.
In a March 2006 release from his MN House office, Emmer stated,
“Last year the Legislature passed a law to phase-in the single-
sales factor apportionment for corporations. This would mean
businesses that pay corporate income tax will not be penalized in
the form of higher corporate income taxes for adding jobs and
buying property in Minnesota. We originally planned an 8-year
conversion to the new tax structure, but our budget surplus gives
us the ability to do it in 5 years and we should take advantage. It
will only “cost” the government $1.6 million to complete the
transition by 2011, but the return will be tremendous.”
[Statement from the office of MN Representative Tom Emmer,
03/14/06]
Emmer Wanted To Slash The Corporate Tax Rate.
In February 2010, the Rochester Post Bulletin wrote, “Emmer said
he wants to see the corporate tax rate slashed with the idea of
moving toward a consumption-based tax system.” [Rochester
Post Bulletin, 02/27/10]

GOP Attempt to Refute Education Funding Cut by Talking

About Date of Bill Passage
GOP Ignores the Fact that Emmer was One of Only 13 State Reps to Vote
Against Passing HF 6 in 2007
GOP Clam: “After April 18, 2007, there were no additional votes
taken on this bill that year. During the 2008 session, this bill was
used as a “vehicle” and a delete-all amendment was added
completely changing the bill. The vote they reference on May 8,
2007 was actually a vote on May 8, 2008 and it wasn’t a vote on
the bill but, rather, a procedural vote on whether the bill should
be taken from the table. Emmer voted against taking the bill
from the table.”
The Truth: On April 18, 2007, Emmer voted against HF 6, the K-
12 funding bill, which passed the House with a huge bipartisan

2 of 4
 majority of 119-13. The state House of Representatives identifies
the vote taken that day as passage of the bill. Emmer voted
against the bill, which increased funding, taking a stance against
increasing school funding. The bill appropriated an additional $16
million to schools and granted schools an additional one-time
increase of $51 per student. On May 12, 2008, Emmer again
voted against the bill when it was up for repassage. The bill was
passed again on a similar 119-14 vote. [Star Tribune, 5/12/2007;
Minnesota House of Representatives, HF 6 2007, House Journal
3997, 12113]

GOP Misread Youth Job Training Funding as Unrelated to

Youth Job Training
GOP Ignore Funding for Youth Job Training Program Clearly Delineated
GOP Claim: Nowhere in ABM’s backup is there any support for
this claim. “Training” is mentioned only once in the legislation,
and that is in reference to home ownership education. This bill
had nothing to do with job training.
The Truth: Cuts to youth job training programs are clearly
identified as included in HF 1976 by the Children’s Defense Fund.
On April 29, 2005, Emmer voted for HF 1976, the GOP written
health and human services funding bill. The bill narrowly passed
the House on a 68-66 party-line vote. The House bill included $70
million in cuts to child care assistance and $10 million in cuts to
youth programs. [Minnesota House of Representatives, HF 1976,
House Journal 3367]
The CDF lamented the cuts to child care and child programming
as well as the looming increase to penalties some MFIP recipients
took:
HF 1976, the House Omnibus Jobs and Economic
Development bill authored by Representative Bob
Gunther, included a $70 million cut to child care
assistance and an increase in the “housing
penalty” for MFIP recipients who receive public
housing subsidies, reducing their cash grant by
$200 instead of the current $50. While the
legislation allocated $2.2 million to provide
services to reduce the risk of homelessness for
youth who “age out” of the foster care system, it
cut $10.3 million from youth programs
Minnesota Supreme Court ruled designed to
provide employment services and job skills
training to at-risk youth. [CDFAC 2005
Minnesota Legislative Scorecard, accessed
5/25/2010]

3 of 4
###

4 of 4