Rep. Tom Emmer
I’ve been deeply skeptical of Tom Emmer’s commitment to support high-tech innovation in Minnesota. At a BIO forum for candidates running for Minnesota governor, Emmer’s lackluster performance earned him a big, juicy “F” from MedCity News.
So it was a pleasant surprise when Emmer, now the Republican Party’s nominee, debuted proposals earlier this week to boost job creation in the state. Among his ideas: expand the recently passed angel investment tax credit, and beef up incentives for research and development.
Advertisement“Accelerate the growth of start-up companies and subsequent jobs through expansion of the angel investor tax credit. Minnesota recently enacted legislation to provide a tax credit for investors in early-stage companies. Tom Emmer believes that this credit should be expanded to provide more help to early-stage enterprises, many of which are highly mobile technology companies, so they can attract venture capital investments and create new jobs and innovation here in Minnesota.“
Bravo, Tom! Only one tiny problem: You voted against the very policies you now embrace.
In March, Emmer was one of less than two dozen lawmakers who voted “no” on House Bill No. 2695, an omnibus jobs bill that created Minnesota’s first-ever angel credits through a five year, $60 million program signed into law by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
The vote was not close: 112-20! Look folks, it’s not as if 2695 was a divisive federal stimulus or healthcare reform law, neither of which earned a whole lot of Republican votes in Congress.
So it’s safe to say that 2695 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support — a rare occurrence these days in St. Paul. (The Senate voted 58-3 to approve a companion bill.)
In fairness, 2695 was a large bill that did many things. A no vote doesn’t necessarily mean Emmer opposes angel credits. A spokesman for Emmer did not return a message seeking comment.
But what does it say about Emmer’s economic acumen when he votes so far outside the mainstream of his own party, and against policies widely embraced by Minnesota’s business community — and now himself?
In addition to angel credits, 2695 doubled the size of the research and development tax credit to 10 percent for the first $2.5 million spent on R&D and another 2.5 percent for more.
Emmer apparently likes this idea, as well:
“Increase Minnesota employers’ opportunities to grow knowledge and technology jobs by expanding the state Research and Development Tax Credit. Minnesota created the first state R&D credit almost thirty years ago. Today, however, its credit is among the lowest in the United States and puts the state’s companies at a competitive disadvantage. Tom Emmer will expand the R&D credit to regain Minnesota’s competitive footing with other high-tech intensive states.”
Loved the part about how Emmer complains that Minnesota’s R&D credit is among the lowest in the nation. Here’s an idea on how to fix that problem: it’s something I like to call “Don’t vote against an expansion of the R&D credit.”
Radical stuff, I know.
Sarcasm aside, it’s good to know that should Emmer win the election, the new governor of Minnesota supports expanding these programs. And past experience tells us, it’s easier to expand a program than to create or kill one.
But Emmer’s flip-floppiness also tells us that politics is not as black and white as it seems. Republicans normally hold the edge on business stewardship, but it was two Democrats — Rep. Tim Mahoney (St. Paul) and Sen. Kathy Saltzman (Woodbury) — who championed the credits for years.
Instead of supporting sound policy, we get one Republican (Emmer) voting against the bill that created the credits, and another Republican (Ted Lillie, who’s running against Saltzman) who bizarrely derided them as benefiting only the “elite few” near the University of Minnesota.
Oy, my head hurts.
Focus on health and wellness leads a Minnesota health system to change name
MN employers embrace private health insurance exchange to manage costs
How a medical device company used $4M in angel tax credits to land $5M
Promising University of Minnesota startup Orasi Medical shuts down
Sign up for MedCity News' e-newsletter, providing medical industry news from across the country.
Sign up
Anyone can blog on MedCity News when they become a "MedCitizen." MedCitizens publish their own thoughts about current medical news and the latest issues in healthcare to the entire MedCity News audience.
Dr. John D. HalamkaChief Medical Information Officer’s role becoming more important
Amy SiegelHow low can you go? Creating value with cheap medical devices
Steven M. Auvil (Sponsored)5 things med tech companies need to know about the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
Lisa Suennen2012 JP Morgan Healthcare’s (wo)men’s club is changing in a good way
Joe HageA huge American opportunity waiting to happen
Doug MowenMed tech consolidation brings a need for focus. Here are 2 ways to get it
Comments
Post a comment
You could have just written: I don’t like Emmer, Your criticism is ridiculous. Not voting for a large bill that includes provisions you like is common, and in fact obligatory for principled legislators. Otherwise your vote could be bought by tucking in a provision you like in an otherwise objectionable bill.
Be honest. If you dislike Emmer, just admit it. But your criticism is childish.
Comment by David Strom — September 8, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
What has happened to the state of my birth, Minnesota? Tom Emmer has blood on his hands. He is a very bad man and he is responsible for creating an environment where in … recently…. three (count them … three) Minnesota teens would rather take their own lives than be bullied anymore in school. Connect the dots Mr. Emmer (who openly admits contributing to a hate group that advocates the murder of gay people). Connect the dots… you and people like you have encouraged the persecution of innocent kids. I am sure that those teens who tortured these gay kids to death felt justified even righteous. You, Mr. Emmer, have blood on your hands. And so does Target.
Comment by Kathleen M Lake, MA — September 8, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
My criticism is childish? I know you are David, but what am I?
Comment by Thomas Lee — September 8, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
When you’re outvoted 120-12 on a bill whose major provisions are now central to your economic platform, shouldn’t that raise an eyebrow or two? You call that a matter of principle. I call that hypocrisy.
Comment by Thomas Lee — September 8, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
Um…I don’t know anything about blood Kathleen except that I have a lot of it. Let’s try to stay on topic. This story is about economic policy, not homicide, though the two topics can blur sometimes.
Comment by Thomas Lee — September 8, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
“In fairness, 2695 was a large bill that did many things. A no vote doesn’t necessarily mean Emmer opposes angel credits.” – is true, as you say, and as David Strom elaborates on “…Not voting for a large bill that includes provisions you like is common, and in fact obligatory for principled legislators.”
I’m surprised to see such an unsubstantiated headline, that is all.
Comment by Jeff Pesek — September 9, 2010 @ 12:43 am
Business leaders in the state especially in our technology industries have called the angel investor bill one of the most important pieces of business legislation ever passed in Minnesota.
Yet, David and Jeff, are speaking of unspecified (the key notion here, btw) portions of the bill that would have given Emmer reason to vote against it (if I recall, there wasn’t much that was objectionable in this bill anyhow). In point of fact, if this legislation is as important as business leaders say it is, then it should have been a primary reason to vote FOR the bill and hold one’s nose for any of the other provisions that *may* have been a problem (something every legislator has to do all the time – it’s called “compromise”).
So, gentlemen, I find your criticism of Thomas’ article to be a bit tortured. It’s as ridiculous as Senate wannabe Lillie’s foolish viewpoint article trying to find fault with this legislation (remember, “some of the best business legislation ever in Minnesota”) and simultaneously trumpeting his now deeply in question business credentials. Only a lightweight would try and pull off that argument.
The fact of the matter is that kudos need to go out to Saltzman and Mahoney for getting this thing passed. Who cares what party they are from? Makes no difference if it’s good for the state and business.
Wouldn’t it be great if BOTH parties treated Minnesota business or the treasure that it is? The closer we get to that, the better it is for the whole state.
Finally, when we find objections as convoluted as this it’s clear that there is allegiance to party or dogma versus what is truly best for Minnesota. These two legislators got the job done, worked hard for Minnesota and provided us with some excellent tools to help grow and retain the kind of businesses we want here in this state. Recognize Saltzman and Mahoney for what they did and this bill for what it is and quit with the silly support of an indefensible position.
The least I can say for Emmer in this one is that he came to recognize the value is now for it. A bit of an awkward way to get there, but at least he did. I’m okay with someone admitting they made a mistake and then following the right path forward. Emmer ought to do just that instead of ignoring his mistake. David and Jeff should as well.
Thomas – this article and your last one about Lillie’s criticism of this bill are well written and say some things that needed to be said. Thanks for your work.
Comment by John — September 9, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Post a Comment