April 1-4, 2009
Apr 01 10:19 Rep. Neugebauer Interview Notes Apr 02 06:39 Real Budget Priorities Apr 02 03:46 Murtha: "If I'm Corrupt, It's Only Because I'm Trying To Help" Apr 03 05:08 Four Months, Seven Bills Produced Apr 03 06:54 Who Needs a Constitution? Apr 04 05:19 Cap & Tax Dies, Taxpayers Rejoice Apr 04 08:44 Sen. Hann Asks for Audit of AG's Office Apr 04 18:19 The Gift of the Griffiths
Real Budget Priorities
Prioritize is the longest 4-letter word in the Democrats' dictionary. That's why President Obama's budget is missing real priorities. Rep. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't make that mistake. After reading his WSJ op-ed , it's easy to get inspired about his budget alternative.
Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.We can't sustain the Democrats' spending binge. During Tuesday's blogger conference call, Rep. Ryan told us that we've already started monetizing our debt rather than attempting to sell bonds. The more we monetize our debt, the more likely it is that the United States' bond rating will drop, causing us to pay higher interest rates.
Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations, and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).
Here's one of the Republicans' priorities:
Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.I suspect that that's a conservative estimate. I'd further suspect that smaller deficits would ease tension of bond traders, which would stabilize a number of things. The other thing Rep. Ryan's budget would do is calm turbulent market economists who worry that the debt created by President Obama's budget hurts future job growth.
Here's another focus of the GOP's plan:
Energy . Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.During my interview with Rep. Neugebauer yesterday, we talked about the negative impact Cap-and-Trade will have if enacted. Rep. Neugebauer sarcastically noted that Cap-And-Tax wouldn't impact people if they didn't heat their homes, run their air conditioners or put gas in their car. After thinking about that a bit, I'd revise that a little by saying it would also impact people if they bought groceries, paid property taxes to support schools or pay for snow removal.
The only real way to make energy a positive is by enacting the American Energy Act, which is the only all-of-the-above legislation either side has written. Here's what I wrote about the AEA last August:
It's time that Republicans rallied around the American Energy Act. This upcoming week, Republicans everywhere should talk about the virtues of the American Energy Act. Whether it's rebel legislators in Washington, bloggers across the nation or the NRCC running wall-to-wall ads on national TV, they should be touting the substantial legislation put together by House Republicans.
I've touted the AEA numerous times. Now it's time that the NRCC capitalized. This is solid legislation that Americans would flock to if they knew about it. The fastest way to guarantee Americans finding out about the AEA's provisions is for Pesident Bush and Sen. McCain to make a visit to Capitol Hill to hold a joint news conference touting the AEA.
Republicans should have graphics made to highlight the bill's balanced approach to energy reform :To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:This is the only true path toward energy independence. It increases production. It incentivizes conservation and the development of alternatives. It tries solving the energy problem from a supply standpoint rather than from a punitive standpoint.
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
The last paragraph of Rep. Ryan's op-ed is particularly significant:In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.It's time DC Republicans proved to people that they're serious about restoring the GOP brand. Offering a budget that sets out clear goals based on solid economic principles is the fastest way to restore credibility.
That's precisely what this budget does.
Posted Thursday, April 2, 2009 6:52 AM
No comments.
Rep. Neugebauer Interview Notes
This morning, I had the privilege of interviewing Rep. Randy Neugebauer, one of the quietl solid conservatives serving in the House of Representatives. I had the opportunity to ask Rep. Neugebauer alot of questions on a wide range of budget topics. Here are those questions and Rep. Neugebauer's answers:Q1: What are the biggest differences, priority-wise, between the House GOP's budget and the Democrats' budget?I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about the communications job that the House GOP is doing, thanks in large part to staffers like Mary Vought, Matt Lloyd, Ericka Andersen and Dave Dziok. They've connected key conservative leadership people with bloggers.
Rep. Neugebauer: The Democrats' budget is a big government budget, one that says government has all the solutions. Rep. Neugebauer is skeptical of it because it doesn't do enough to create jobs. The GOP budget focuses on job creation, which Rep. Neugebauer said "is the thing that cures alot of ills."
Q2: Don't the deficits in President Obama's budget mean that the middle class will have their income taxes increased?
Rep. Neugebauer said that it definitely does. He them started talking about the "cap and tax", saying that "there's no need to call it cap and trade because it's really cap and tax." Rep. Neugebauer said that Cap and Tax "will hurt people except those who don't heat their homes or run their air conditioning or put gas in their car."
SIDENOTE: I REALLY APPRECIATE Rep. Neugebauer's sarcasm in driving this point home. It's exactly the right way to make the point.
Q3: Will the House GOP's budget lessen the stress of the world's bond markets?
Rep. Neugebauer: "The world is in the middle of a severe downturn." We won't be able to sustain the current levels of borrowing, especially on a global scale. Rep. Neugebauer said that monetizing our debt would carry with it inflationary concerns as well as lowering our standard of living. Finally, he said that monetizing the debt "would hurt the middle class."
Q4: What percentage of President Obama's tax increases fall on the backs of small businesses?
Rep. Neugebauer: A greater percentage than President Obama is telling the people. When small businesses say that they've made $250,000, that doesn't mean the business owner took a salary of $250,000. His or her salary might be substantially less. Taxing that $250,000 makes it more difficult "for a plumber to buy a new truck or hire more employees."
Q5: Isn't the American Energy Act a superior energy plan than President Obama's Cap and Tax plan?
Rep. Neugebauer: "Absolutely. Whether the price of gas is high or low, we're still buying it from people that don't have our best interests at heart." Rep. Neugebauer said that the AEA is the gold standard in terms of energy policy because it's the only all-of-the-above policy on the table.
Rep. Neugebauer said that an all-of-the-above energy plan helps businesses and
consumers alike. He looks forward to pushing the AEA because it's (a) the fix to a national security issue and (b) smart policy.
It'd be a bigger mistake, though, if I didn't talk about how impressed I've been with how House Republicans aren't buying into Washington Fever. They've put together an appealing budget that exercises fiscal restraint and sets the right priorities.
Prior to yesterday, I knew very little about Rep. Neubegauer. After our interview, I'm comfortable saying that he's an impressive legislator. While he doesn't have the high profile (yet) as people like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor, he's still an impressive person. He answered my questions in sufficient detail and he addressed them on point. That's the best way of connecting with the American people.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the House Republican Conference for putting these interviews together. I'd further like to thank the staffers who worked on putting things together that made this all happen.
If Republicans stick to their principles like they've done so far and if they continue to communicate their message in a direct, on-point way, they'll connect with more voters faster than they probably imagine.
UPDATE: RedState's Kevin Holtsberry has a great post up about his interview of Rep. Mike Pence .
The GOP's communication strategy is on a par with their policymaking ability, something that will stand them in good stead in 19 months.
Posted Wednesday, April 1, 2009 10:28 AM
No comments.
Murtha: "If I'm Corrupt, It's Only Because I'm Trying To Help"
I've heard alot of stupid excuses made in the process of justifying excessive abuse of the earmark system. Some are mildly amusing. Others are outright howlers. Such is the case with earmark apologist extraordinaire Rep. John Murtha. Here's how the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted the King of Earmarks :Mr. Murtha, a 76-year-old Marine veteran schooled in the blunt-knuckle deal-making that defined politics here, is contrition-free when it comes to his success.Rep. Murtha isn't close to "the people." He's close to the lobbyists. What happens the minute Rep. Murtha stops representing PA-12? Will Pittsburgh's economy ruen to shambles? I suspect it might.
"If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district," Mr. Murtha said. "My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary. Not the bureaucrats who are unelected over there in whatever White House, whether it's Republican or Democrat. Those bureaucrats would like to control everything. Every president would like to have all the power and not have Congress change anything. But we're closest to the people."
It's true that he's brought short term relief. It's doubtful, though, whether he's helped western Pennsylvania develop policies that lead to sustained prosperity. Their prosperity seems to exist only to the extent that the federal government keeps dumping money into the district.
I'll further take issue with the notion that he's corrupt only because he's trying to help the people of PA-12. He's corrupt because he isn't a man of integrity.
Posted Thursday, April 2, 2009 3:46 AM
No comments.
Four Months, Seven Bills Produced
Simply put, the DFL-dominated legislature has been a failure if we use addressing the budget deficit as the primary benchmark. Four months into the session, with a scant 6 weeks left to the budget session, there's no excusing the DFL's inaction in terms of working on solving the deficit problem.
I've written about the DFL's inaction in action . I cited the St. Cloud Times' Editorial Board's criticizing the legislature for doing nothing:But any tradition that allows the Legislature to convene for two months and make no effective progress not just on the budget, but on other legislative matters needs to be revised. Again, given we're counting the public's nickels, how many could have been saved by not convening until this week? And, really, what business of the people would not have been done?My adopted state representative, Steve Gottwalt, included this important information in his weekly e-letter this week:In St. Paul, the flood waters of red deficit ink remain on the pages of Minnesota's budget. We have a month and a half left in this session, and only seven bills have made their way to Governor Pawlenty's desk. Virtually none of those bills helps balance our $6.4 billion projected state budget deficit. With every day that goes by, we compress the process for thoughtfully considering budget-balancing proposals , and increase the likelihood the legislature will end up in extra innings.I've written before about do-nothing congresses but this is ridiculous. Actually, it's shameful. Speaker Kelliher and Majority Leader Sertich in the House and Majority Leader Pogemiller and Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark should be ridiculed for their inaction.
Though their actions were predictable, that doesn't make their actions acceptable. They're playing their usual obstructionist budgetary games. They're hoping to create a logjam the last night of the session in the hope that they'll force Gov. Pawlenty to sign some of their irresponsible bills.
Rather than accepting the DFL's obstructionist ways, Minnesota's taxpayers should reject the DFL's irresponsible priorities.
By contrast, Republicans have offered numerous reforms, starting the first day of the session. By contrast, the GOP hasn't proposed increasing taxes on small businesses, choosing instead to find cost savings, focusing heavily on the HHS budget.
That's happened because the House and Senate GOP have set sensible priorities and exercised fiscal restraint. That's another stark contrast between the DFL and the GOP.
The question now is whether Minnesota's taxpayers will say that they're tired of the DFL's obstructionist ways and their irresponsible spending habits. What isn't in question is whether the time has come for We The People to tell the DFL that increasing taxes on small businesses isn't acceptable. What isn't in question is whether it's time we held their feet to the proverbial fire for their irresponsible spending habits.
How can we take the DFL seriously when they talk one day about balancing the budget while setting the right priorities one day, then watch them propose job-killing tax increases on small businesses the next? Aren't their actions telling us that one of their priorities is making life difficult for small businesses?
That type of thinking explains why they've pushed 7 bills through this session during 4 months of hearings and floor sessions. It's a pathetic record of inaction.
More importantly, it's justification for firing the DFL legislature 19 months from now.
Posted Friday, April 3, 2009 5:08 AM
Comment 1 by Chris Walden at 03-Apr-09 03:17 PM
The inaction of the Legislature on fiscal issues is disappointing, but I have found a silver lining:the government cant grow much with only 7 bills completed and signed.
Who Needs a Constitution?
Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner some constitutional questions during a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Secretary Geithner couldn't answer what constitutional provision allowed the Obama administration's unprecedented power grab.
This morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano emphatically states in this post that the Obama administration's power grab isn't supported by the Constitution:The Federal government committed extortion and they're not being held accountable. What's next? Listen to this: I recently met with the Chair and CEO of one of the country's top 10 bank holding companies. His bank is worth in excess of $250 billion, has no bad debt, no credit default swaps, no liquidity problems, and no subprime loans. He told me that he and others were forced by Treasury and FDIC threats to take TARP funds, even though he did not want or need them.It's appalling to hear of these strong arm tactics. That doesn't mean, however, that this is the first time I've heard of these tactics being used. They're typical Chicago machine-style political tactics.
Remember the punchline to the joke being "I'm with the federal government and I'm here to help you"? Based on the tactics described by Judge Napolitano, that punchline should be combined with a famous line from the Godfather to say "I'm with the federal government and I'm here to make you an offer you can't refuse."This happened in September 2008, but the demands for more control are more recent. It sounds to me like Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, and Sheila Blair have all read a biography of Benito Mussolini. I guess they skipped the last chapter.There's no justifying Secretary Paulson's tactics. They were wrong and potentially criminal. It's fair to say, though, that they're mild compared with the authorities Secretary Geithner is seeking. That's before we start talking about Barney Frank's legislation which would "impose government controls on the pay of all employees, not just top executives."
Judge Napolitano nails Mr. Geithner with this statement:The Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.It's called the system of checks and balances. The political parts of the government can't give themselves authority reserved solely for the (theoretically) nonpolitical branch of government.
It's that simple.
Posted Friday, April 3, 2009 7:00 AM
Comment 1 by Hal at 03-Apr-09 10:24 AM
This is mind numbing to me. And what I don't get is why Wall Street and the rest of the markets are reacting like nothing is happening that is all that bad. And now I see from WSJ that the TARP is being retooled to show that it's actually going to cost us more as tax payers then initially what we were told. ( http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/03/cbo-tarp-may-be-more-costly-than-first-thought/ )
Financials should be running scared with the control the government is seeking over their boards. It's Fascism 101.
With all this spending to top things off, gold should be going through the roof and Wall Street to the floor. Yet right now I'm looking at the DOW and it's down a little on jobless claims, but it's not really reacting and gold is slipping below $900 according to real time widget ExactPrice ( http://www.learcapital.com/exactprice )
It's just madness to me. I can't figure out how so many can just turn a blind eye.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Apr-09 05:56 AM
Hearsay about an unnamed Chairman of an unnamed financial institution.
You would think a judge would have more respect for norms of evidence.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Apr-09 12:55 PM
Hearsay about an unnamed Chairman of an unnamed financial institution.
You would think a judge would have more respect for norms of evidence.Normally, I'd agree with you. In this instance, though, I'm comfortable with not naming names because of the retribution factor.
Cap & Tax Dies, Taxpayers Rejoice
Thursday night, the Senate essentially killed President Obama's attempt to push cap and trade through via reconciliation . As a result, millions of taxpayers are rejoicing. Had it passed, cap and tax would've affected anyone who heated their home, ran an air conditioner, filled their gas tank or bought groceries.Please pass Al Gore a Valium, and better make it a double, because his cap-and-trade dreams just took a dive in the U.S. Senate. In a vote late Wednesday, no fewer than 26 Democrats joined all 41 Republicans to insist that any new cap and tax on carbon energy would require at least 60 votes.I couldn't be happier. Cap and Tax would've hit everyone hard. It would've deepened the recession we're currently in. It would've hurt trucking companies. It would've shot up prices we paid for groceries. It would've affected families' home heating bills.
Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander called it "the biggest vote of the year" so far, and he's right. This means Majority Leader Harry Reid can't jam cap and tax through as part of this year's budget resolution with a bare majority of 50 Senators. More broadly, it's a signal that California and East Coast Democrats won't be able to sock it to coal and manufacturing-heavy Midwestern states without a fight. Senators voting in favor of the 60-vote rule included liberals from Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Now look for Team Obama to attempt to impose cap and tax the non-democratic way, via regulation that hits business and local governments with such heavy costs that they beg Congress for a less-harmful version.
Though the press corps has barely noticed, this means that two of President Obama's most economically destructive priorities have taken major hits in the last two weeks. The cap-and-tax collapse follows Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter's decision to oppose Big Labor's attempt to eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. If Mr. Specter holds firm, and as swing state Democrats also look for cover, Republicans will be able to prevail on a filibuster.
Now that this radical policy has been laid to rest, it's time to talk about Cap and Tax from a truth-in-advertising perspective: It's the Obama administration's attempt to unilaterally subject the United States to the Kyoto Treaty's restrictions without ratifying the Treaty. It's the Obama administration's attempt to put us at a competitive disadvantage through artificially high energy prices.
It's also verification that President Obama plans to pursue the environmental agenda he campaigned on. Let's remember that he said he didn't have a problem with $4 a gallon gasoline per se; he just hoped it hadn't reached that price quite that fast. Let's remember that then-Candidate Obama said that, under his Cap and Trade proposal, "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket."
Does that sound like the type of energy policy America can believe in? Doesn't it sound more like the type of energy America should reject?
Posted Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:23 AM
No comments.
Sen. Hann Asks for Audit of AG's Office
State Sen. David Hann has asked Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles to investigate the things happening in Lori Swanson's AG office. He's specifically asking Mr. Nobles to investigate some unusual expenditures in the name of security improvements. Here's what Mark Brunswick is reporting:A state senator wants to know what security risks justified the installation of two security doors valued at $15,000 in the attorney general's office.Spending $15,000 on two doors simply isn't justifiable, especially if Ms. Swanson's justification is security. Sen. Hann is right in asking what security concerns Ms. Swanson has inside her own office. (Perhaps she shouldn't have treated her employees like dirt ?)
Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, sent a letter Thursday asking the legislative auditor to look into why Attorney General Lori Swanson should be concerned about security in her office and what recommendations a 2007 security assessment had made.Hann's letter also asked Nobles' office to investigate the timing of the installation, which was ordered within weeks of reports of office turmoil over some attorneys attempting to organize a union. Installation of the doors and a $6,000 replacement of carpeting in Swanson's office were first reported by WCCO-TV, generating questions about whether they were a wise use of taxpayer dollars.Sen. Hann is onto something when he says that "some extraordinary things [should] be done" if constitutional officers experience security risks in their workplace.
"I'm concerned about what happened with the security assessment that she says that she conducted. What was done with that assessment? Who paid for it? What was the scope of it?" asked Hann, a member of the Legislative Audit Commission.
"It seems a little strange to me that it occurred without anyone else knowing there were security issues at the Capitol. If a constitutional officer says we have a security risk that requires some extraordinary things to be done, I think that should be known," he said.
While I'm not forming a final judgment on this, I'm skeptical that there were security issues in the AG's office. Why should we take Ms. Swanson's word that there security issues? Mr. Nobles should insist that Ms. Swanson provide extensive documentation that a threat existed. The last thing I'm willing to do is take Lori Swanson's word on anything.
Nonetheless, it's plausible that a hostile work environment existed based on the turmoil that Ms. Swanson stirred up with her heavyhanded tactics, especially with regards to Amy Lawler and Ms. Swanson's alleged unionbusting activities .
It's quite possible that the alleged security risk wouldn't have existed had Ms. Swanson not utilized the same intimidation tactics that Mr. Hatch employed.
Posted Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:44 AM
No comments.
The Gift of the Griffiths
I just finished listening to John Hinderaker & Brian St. Paul Ward interview Clark Griffith. With Opening Day right around the corner (Monday), I'm prone to thinking about the Griffith family's legacy.
First, let's start by saying that Calvin Griffith's Twins were the last team who made their living off of the baseball team. That meant, in the free agency world, that they couldn't pay big dollars for their players. That meant losing players like Rod Carew and Harmon Killebrew through free agency.
That also meant that they had to have a prolific farm system to replenish their talent & stay competitive.
That they did with gusto. It also meant that they had to make great trades. That they also did quite well. In 1982, Calvin moved the Twins into the Metrodome. It's also the year that they started a youth movement that culminated with Carl Pohlad accepting the World Series trophy in 1987.
1982 marked the year when Frankie 'Sweet Music' Viola joined a couple Twins' farmhands named Gary Gaetti & Kent Hrbek in the lineup. That's also when they added Tom Brunansky to their starting lineup by trading second baseman Rob Wilfong & relief pitcher to Gene Autry's California Angels.
Not surprisingly, Cal won that deal. HANDILY. Brunansky quickly learned how to play the right field baggie better than any player at the time. Many was the time he'd barehand the ball off the baggie & hold a runner to a single. Those foolish enough to run on him in those situations usually got thrown out handily. (That isn't unlike what Michael Cuddyer's been doing the last couple years.)
Another Twins farmhand played a major role in their winning the 1970 AL West division championship. His name is Bert Blyleven. Not surprisingly to true baseball insiders, Bert was part of the 1987 rotation, along with Sweet Music & Les Straker, that brought the World Series Trophy to Minnesota.
While it was Mr. Pohlad who accepted the trophy, the team was built by Calvin Griffith.
Another key addition to the Twins' championship teams was a fireplug from Triton Junior College in Illinois. His name was Kirby Puckett.
After Jim Eisenreich, who played his high school ball here at St. Cloud Tech, was put on the disabled list, the Twins called up Kirby. In one of the great Twins' stories of all time, Kirby arrived by commercial airlines to Anaheim, where he hopped on a taxi, which he took to Anaheim Stadium. The Twins clubhouse guys had to pay the taxi driver. That night, all Kirby did was start his major league career with a 4-for-4 night.
The Twins of the 1970s were a good team, with their best team that didn't win the AL West was 1977. That group could hit & hit & hit some more. Lyman Bostock, who was later tragically killed in the prime of his career, teamed with Rod Carew & Larry Hisle to form an offensive juggernaut. That's also the year that Sir Rodney his .388, at the time the highest batting after since Ted Williams' hitting .406.
During the 1960s, the Twins had a great pitching staff, highlighted by Jim 'Mudcat' Grant, Jim 'Kitty' Kaat, reliever Al Worthington, Camilo Pasqual & Jim Perry. We shouldn't forget Tommy Hall & Boswell, either.
In 1969, another Twins farmhand played a crucial role in the Twins winning their first division title. That man was Rich Reese, quite possibly the best fielding first baseman in the game at the time. Reese, Kent Hrbek & Doug Mientkiewicz are easily the three best defensive first basemen in Twins history.
With this being the Twins' last season of domed baseball, we're about to come full circle. We'll finally play our games outdoors again. Alot has changed since Calvin Griffith sold the Twins to Carl Pohlad in the summer of 1984, not all of it good.
What still can be said, though, is that the Twins still play the game right. Their farm system is still one of the best in baseball. They still respect the game. Thanks to the Twins' system, men like Tom Kelly & Ron Gardenhire would fit into Calvin Griffith's organization as they fit into Carl Pohlad's organization.
That's a tribute to the Griffith family. Thanks to their traditions & skill, Twins fans like me have had alot to cheer about Twins baseball. Personally, I've been enjoying Twins baseball since my first game in August, 1966. That Sunday afternoon, I watched the Twins score 9 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning to defeat the Baltimore Orioles. Later that year, I watched those same Orioles sweep the defending World Champion LA Dodgers, shutting them out the last 3 games of the World Series.
Finally, no article chronicling the Twins history would be complete without mentioning Tony Oliva. Fans back then gave him the nickname Tony O. Baseball writers simply knew him as the best hitter of his time. He still is the only player in major league history to win a batting title as a rookie. He's also the only hitter to back that up by winning it again his sophomore season.
There aren't many people who can say with a straight face that they taught Rod Carew the nuances of hitting. In fact, there's only one. His name is Tony Oliva.
Twins fans have had alot to be thankful for the last 40+ years, thanks in large part to the foundation that Calvin Griffith built.
Thanks Calvin. Twins fans really owe you & your family alot.
Posted Saturday, April 4, 2009 6:19 PM
No comments.
