April 20-22, 2010
Apr 20 00:29 It's Time To Right California's Ship of State Apr 20 02:35 Betty McCollum vs. Michele Bachmann Apr 20 09:34 Gov. Crist, Do the Right Thing Apr 20 19:30 DFL: EdMinn's Puppets? Apr 21 04:24 Bulletin to Dingell: We Know Who We're Upset With Apr 22 00:42 Crist Watch Apr 22 03:53 Rabid Right Wingers For Repeal? Apr 22 10:16 Gloomy Outlook Predicted For 'Historic' Democrats Apr 22 22:13 Obama to Wall St.: Without Change, We're Doomed
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
It's Time To Right California's Ship of State
If ever there was a state that needed a change of direction, it's California. Steven Malanga's article highlights California's problem perfectly:
The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California's largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. "We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory," she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. "Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll get you out of office.'"California's budget is filled with trendy niceties that the state simply can't afford. California's public union pensions are too burdensome, too. Tom McClintock talked about that during the recall election what seems like a century ago.
The video has become a sensation among California taxpayer groups for its vivid depiction of the audacious power that public-sector unions wield in their state. The unions' political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state's public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation's and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination-high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes-has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.
That's why things are looking tougher than normal for California's Democrats:
Early polls show Brown in a statistical dead heat with Republican Meg Whitman, the billionaire former eBay CEO. In the Senate race, several polls show Boxer virtually tied with Republican former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell and ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in head-to-head matchups, with Assemblyman Chuck DeVore not far behind. Boxer described her challengers as the most formidable the three-term senator has ever faced.In other words, the political mood is changing in California. Hopefully that means the new legislature will consider cutting spending next year. This is where the TEA Party movement needs to get involved. Wresting control from the crazy liberals must be a high priority.
Posted Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Apr-10 06:44 AM
Two things: First, on a percentage basis, Minnesota is in essentially the same budget bind as California is. Second, I wonder how many times Republicans are going to get sucker-punched by Democrats who create chaos, leave government only to return once Republicans clean up (or fail to clean up) the mess? The GOP needs to have a much better plan than simply having better intentions or better ideas. They have to actually have a plan that will WORK, and quickly, to set things right. That's a tall order.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-10 06:50 AM
Jerry, if you have great leadership & great ideas, that will get alot accomplished.
That's what conservatives have going for them. They just need the chance to implement their ideas.
Comment 3 by eric z at 20-Apr-10 04:05 PM
Arnold S. is pushing for economic growth via alternate energy technology and jobs. Is that just press fodder, or is he within GOP ranks believed sincere? If sincere, do you disparage that?
I would think progressive DFL and business savvy GOP individuals would not be dismissive of alternative energy, given success in Europe, especially Denmark, which is energy-independent and not sending any of its young to slaughter in oil-producing regions.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-10 05:57 PM
Eric, Green jobs kill other jobs. That's been proven time & again. I'm not opposed, nor is any mainstream conservative, to an all of the above energy policy. That's what the newspapers write but that isn't reality.
I think Ahnold is sincere but he's badly misguided. To fund these alternative energy initiatives, California has hiked taxes, which is driving more jobs out of the state than will be created by green energy.
Think of it like this: it's like taking one step forward, then two steps back...DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY ad infinitum.
Betty McCollum vs. Michele Bachmann
Last week, Betty McCollum took to the House floor to decry the violent tones emanating from the TEA Party rallies across the nation. Here's a transcript of that brief speech:
MCCOLLUM: When members of Congress compare health care legislation to government tyranny, socialism or totalitarianism in the hopes of scoring political points, it's like pouring gas on a fire of extremism. I don't want another Oklahoma City to ever take place again. And just as we would not give aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, let us not allow the words of our elected leaders to give comfortable excuses to extremists bent on violence.First, a number of important points must be made to Rep. McCollum's speech. First, Dictionary.com's definition of tyranny fits pretty nicely into the health care debate:
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.Ignoring the will of the people, writing the final health care bill in Speaker Pelosi's office with only the inner circle of liberals surrounding her certainly fits the description of oppressive and unjust government. In fact, it fits perfectly.
Second,the only documented and verifiable violence during the health care debate was perpetrated by SEIU thugs. I'd defy Rep. McCollum to provide proof of a TEA Party activist involved in acts of violence.
Third, contrary to Rep. McCollum's and President Clinton's opinions, Oklahoma City was caused by President Clinton. Had Janet Reno not invaded the Branch Davidian compound with such an overwhelming show of force, Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have committed his horrible act of violence :
Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 ; June 11, 2001) was a United States Army veteran and former security guard who was convicted of detonating a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of six. It was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks,[3] and is referred to as the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer, sought revenge against the federal government for the Waco Siege which had ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years earlier. He also hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered a tyrannical federal government.There's no similarity between the TEA Party rallies and the siege at Waco. The Oklahoma City Bombing happened because the federal government's siege directly led to the death of 76 civilians. Tim McVeigh didn't act because of any words that were spoken. Tim McVeigh committed his act of violence because of what the federal government did.
Let's be clear about this: I'm not justifying McVeigh's actions. The taking of innocent life isn't excusable. PERIOD. End of discussion.
Here's Michele Bachmann's response to Rep. McCollum:
BACHMANN: Well, apparently it's hate speech when it's on the right and it's not hate speech when it's on the left so, you know, go figure where that comes from.The Democrats have been singing from a discredited hymnal for over a week now. Anytime a Republican criticizes the Democrats on policy, Democrats either trot out the violence card or the race card. Democrats don't engage substantively because they know they aren't on the side of the angels in the substantive debate.
The main thing right now is the government takeover of private industry and we're seeing it in one sector after another. And the worst is this new financial regulation bill where the federal government wants to decide who will get credit in the future in the United States. They want to decide what a bank teller in Peoria, IL will make and they also want to give permanent bailout authority to the federal government and bypass Congress. That is the federal government coming in in a real thuggish way if you will and taking over the board rooms of private industry. This is what makes people very unsure about their government right now.
Michele's next reply totally nails it:
REP. BACHMANN: When people on the right are disagreeing with the Obama administration, that we're fomenting violence. Well I think that violence is when the Democrat-controlled base, whether it's President Obama, Harry Reid or Speaker Pelosi, when they feel that their political position of power is being attacked, that's what they equate violence with. But, as a matter of fact, the First Amendment was written specifically to guarantee freedom of political speech. People have the right to disagree with their government, especially when they see these unprecedented actions that are taking place by this president, putting us in greater debt than we've ever seen, increasing taxes to a level that we haven't seen before, at least what they're talking about increasing taxes to and this very unprecedented level of the federal government taking over private banks , car companies, insurance companies, the federal government owning over half the home mortgages, taking over the student loan industry, health care, of course the people are reacting.The First Amendment indeed was ratified so that people could speak out against political leaders when they disagreed. Without that right, there wouldn't have been a check against the federal government. The Founding Fathers certainly wrote the Constitution to negate the possibility of an all-powerful, tyrannical federal government. They wrote checks and balances into the Constitution for a reason.
Rep. McCollum and the other Democrats singing from this tattered hymnal don't have any credibility, partially because they stood silent during the anti-war rallies sponsored by CodePink, MoveOn.org and other far left organizations when President Bush was hung in effigy, when pictures of President Bush had Hitler mustaches on his face and a bullet hole in his forehead.
The Democrats are playing with fire this time. The Democrats have been portraying the TEA Party participants as knuckle-dragging rednecks, high school dropouts and hardline conservative extremists. That myth was shattered last week when a poll showed that 43 percent of the TEA Party participants identified themselves as independents and 8 percent identified themselves as Democrats.
Steve Hayes put it best here :
STEVE HAYES, SENIOR WRITER, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: It's interesting to watch not only the evolution of the Tea Parties themselves but the evolution of how they are treated by the elite.It's one thing to rail against a faceless extremist. It's another when a politician rails against his constituents, especially when people know that their neighbor or friend or co-worker is attending TEA Party rallies.
Remember when the Tea Parties first started this was a fringe group and they were angry and a bunch of kooks. And then people gradually understood that they were our neighbors , and in the case of Congress, their constituents.
The minute that that faceless extremist becomes a living, breathing person, the sting goes out of the accusations. In fact, that's where the anti-TEA Party backlash will start.
The Democrats are desperately grasping at straws with this strategy. It's bound to fire up the TEA Party faithful. That isn't a good thing for Democrats because the people found at TEA Party rallies look alot like Mainstreet America.
Posted Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:35 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Apr-10 04:02 PM
Andy at Residual Forces is publsihing that Bachmann favors Emmer but her COS is a Siefert person.
1. Is Ron Carey still her COS, or is that not known at present?
2. Do you make much of the pic Andy had of Marcus Bachmann with an Emmer lapel badge on, standing onstage with Michele Bachmann?
3. Andy is implying Emmer is gaining traction. Any truth known to you in another part of the Sixth District from Andy?
Gov. Crist, Do the Right Thing
After reading this article and after following this race closely for the last 6 months, it's time to make a statement about the Florida Senate race.
It's time for Gov. Crist to do the honorable thing and drop out of the race entirely. Running as an independent won't help Gov. Crist win. It will only burn the bridges he's built within the Republican Party of Florida.
Yes, I know about the poll showing Crist with a tiny, inside-the-margin lead in a 3-way race between Gov. Crist. Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek. As Gov. Crist knows, that lead is misleading because it's a sample of registered voters, not likely voters.
Gov. Crist knows firsthand that there's a huge intensity gap between Marco Rubio, Gov. Crist and Kendrick Meek and that that enthusiasm gap strongly favors Marco Rubio.
If Gov. Crist opts for running as an independent, the NRSC will support Marco Rubio:
The toughest assessment came from the arm of the national Republican Party that had clamored to endorse Crist and shove aside rival Republican Marco Rubio nearly one year ago, when their positions in the polls were reversed.Gov. Crist knows that this is his high-water mark in a three-way race. After this, the GOP endorsements will go to Marco Rubio. Eric Cantor's endorsement of Mr. Rubio this morning is proof of that:
"We believe there is zero chance Gov. Crist continues running in the Republican primary," said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senate Committee, in a memo. "It is our view that if Gov. Crist believes he cannot win a primary, then the proper course of action is he drop out of the race and wait for another day."
The memo added that Texas Sen. John Cornyn, NRSC chairman, would have delivered the advice personally, if Crist had returned his phone call.
Miami, FL ; Today, U.S. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced his endorsement of Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate. As the Republican Whip, Congressman Cantor is the second highest-ranking Republican in the United States House of Representatives.Eric Cantor knows a bit about fiscal conservatives and limited government because he's got a great track record on those issues. In addition to his votes for fiscal discipline, Rep. Cantor has played an integral role in getting every Republican to vote against Obamacare, Cap And Trade, the Stimulus and the Omnibus spending bills funding government.
"We are a nation at a crossroads, and we need responsible leadership in Washington. Marco Rubio is just the type of leader our country needs and will make an excellent Senator for the State of Florida. The Obama Administration is working hand-in-hand with Senate Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi to fundamentally change the America we know and love.
"Washington spends way too much, and Marco understands the need for a limited but effective government. He knows that it's not enough just to talk about ending government waste, but that actions are needed to begin to erase our deficits and free our children from our debt. This Administration's policies have put a squeeze on our nation's job creators and entrepreneurs, and Marco will help fight for pro-growth policies that empower the American entrepreneur and small business people to thrive and create sustainable jobs.
"When it comes to defending our country, I know that Marco understands the differences between America's friends and its foes. We can trust Marco Rubio to take an aggressive stance against radical jihadism and strongly defend America's special relationship with Israel. America needs energetic, smart, responsible leaders to start making sure that Washington once again starts working for the people, and Marco will play a big part in that effort."
With Congressman Cantor's announcement, Marco said, "I'm proud to have Congressman Cantor's support and his endorsement. He has been a leader in not only standing up to the Obama agenda but also offering clear conservative alternatives. When Charlie Crist and President Obama were campaigning together for the stimulus, Eric was rallying Republicans to stand united and offering conservative alternatives that would have cost less but created jobs. We need leaders in Washington that can be trusted to stand with conservative leaders like Congressman Cantor, instead of joining President Obama to support wasteful stimulus spending, costly cap-and-trade energy taxes, higher taxes and even greater debt."
Congressman Cantor is a fifth-term congressman representing the Seventh District of Virginia. In December 2008, he was elected to serve as the Republican Whip. Cantor is one of a new breed of top young conservative leaders, who, as the Republican Whip, has helped lead the fights against the Democrats' wasteful stimulus, cap-and-trade and out-of-control spending. He also holds a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee and serves as Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
Rep. Cantor knows that re-inforcements are needed in the Senate. That's why he's endorsing Marco Rubio. He knows that Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Barrasso and other fiscal conservatives need company.
From here on out, Crist has to know that he's gotten his last GOP endorsement. He's got to know that his message isn't resonating with Floridians. All he has left is cash on hand. When you don't have an appealing message, that cash won't help.
It's time for Gov. Crist to bow out gracefully. Otherwise, his political career will be over this November.
UPDATE: John McCain just announced that he won't support Gov. Crist if Gov. Crist runs as an independent. Should Gov. Crist run as an independent, he'll do so without the blessing of GOP moderates.
Posted Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:24 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Apr-10 03:59 PM
Kendrick Meek seems like a good guy.
What's not to like about him?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-10 05:25 PM
He's been a rubberstamp for President Obama's radical agenda.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-10 09:25 PM
So is Crist which is way all the Republicans have been supporting Rubio. Crist is acting just like Arlen! Oh wait a minute Arlen did us a favor by wanting to be a Democrat. Crist is trying to hurt us by running as an independent.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL: EdMinn's Puppets?
Based on this statement issued by Rep. Mark Buesgens, I've got to question whether the DFL doesn't represent EdMinn first, their districts second:
Buesgens: Lobbyists do not belong at the head of the tableRepresenting the teachers union isn't the same thing as representing students. All too often, they're actually exact opposites. That Tom Dooher is the DFL's trusted ally isn't surprising. That they're that in-your-face about his lobbying influence isn't surprising, either.
ST. PAUL The head of a committee table in the Minnesota Legislature is no place for a registered lobbyist, according to State Representative Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan. Buesgens, who formerly chaired the House Education Policy and Reform Committee, criticized Democrat legislators for allowing Education Minnesota President and registered lobbyist Tom Dooher to sit at the table with legislators during Tuesday's hearing on Minnesota's 'Race to the Top' application.
"Special interests have absolutely no place at the committee table, no matter who they represent," Buesgens said. "This one in particular has consistently stood in the way of education reform and spent millions upon millions of dollars over the years to elect reform-averse legislators. Putting him at the head of the table for all to see sent a clear message, like having Vito Corleone watching over his foot soldiers."
According to Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board records, Dooher is registered lobbyist number 2005, having first registered on June 18, 2007. Board documents also show that the EdMinn PAC gave $155,700 to the Minnesota DFL House Caucus in 2008, the most recent election year.
"Special interests do not run the Legislature, or at least that's what we are told. But apparently if you are willing to fork over enough cash, Democrats can find room for you at the head of the table. It's a disgrace," Buesgens said.
EdMinn PAC and Education Minnesota are technically separate entities, but the PAC's 2008 year-end report shows $691,320 in income from Education Minnesota coming in monthly installments of $57,610. The report also shows the union giving the PAC 'miscellaneous income' totaling $93,946 that was "used to record staff time."
"They are one and the same in every way that matters, and today they got to lord over the Legislature," Buesgens said.
If there's anything that we know from the past 3 years, it's that the DFL, like their DC counterparts, have stopped paying attention to Main Street and instead paid all their attention to their special interest allies. That relationship won't help the DFL this fall.
It won't help because people are demanding that their needs come first, that the special interest's priorities rate a significantly lower priority.
It's one thing to let lobbyists testify. It's quite another when they're give this prominent a seat at a policy hearing. It's even worse when you think of the money EdMinn drops into the DFL's re-election coffers on a monthly basis. Giving Mr. Dooher that prominent a seat at the table is the ultimate political payoff.
It makes it look like the DFL legislators on that committee are EdMinn's puppets, not public servants representing their constituents. For far too long, the DFL has told Minnesotans that they support "education" when what they really meant was that they supported EdMinn.
Whatever the wording, the one thing they haven't done is improve educational outcomes. After all the dust settles, that's the only benchmark that parents and other taxpayers care about. If you're getting a failing grade from the parents and other taxpayers, then you've earned a pink slip this November.
There's no question that teachers are genuine public servants. I can't say the same thing about union leaders. In fact, I think of them as lobbyists and political operatives, not as public servants.
With this much information at our fingertips and with our ability to connect the dots, there's no reason why we should let EdMinn and the DFL get away with their time-tested euphemisms. It's time that parents and other taxpayers started demanding that the educational outcomes improve. Those legislators that stand for the status quo should be fired the next they're up for re-election.
After all, a child's future is what's to be gained. Given the choice between improving a child's future or paying off an important political ally, I'll pick the student's future every time.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 20, 2010, revised 15-Sep 5:41 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 20-Apr-10 08:04 PM
Education Minnesota represents teachers who know a great deal more about the solutions needed to educate children than either yourself or Tim Pawlenty or any other legislator sitting in the state capitol. You take a poll of teachers and I guarantee we will be largely in agreement with what our union is advocating with regards to education reform. So, it is entirely appropriate for teachers to have our representative seated at the table where education reform will be discussed.
I have very little time for people who have spent almost zero time in front of a classroom telling me how I and my colleagues ought to run that classroom. It is fairly easy to tell me and my colleagues we are failures while you sit in your pajama pants and judge from your recliner.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-10 09:36 PM
Education Minnesota represents teachers who know a great deal more about the solutions needed to educate children than either yourself or Tim Pawlenty or any other legislator sitting in the state capitol. You take a poll of teachers and I guarantee we will be largely in agreement with what our union is advocating with regards to education reform. So, it is entirely appropriate for teachers to have our representative seated at the table where education reform will be discussed.You've just made my point. I don't want the chief union lobbyist running the meeting. I don't trust him. I'll trust parents first.
Your "EdMinn knows best because we're the professionals" thing ain't working. Parents know more than a little about education policy, too. What's more, their only interest in guaranteeing that their children get a great education. You can't say that about EdMinn, can you? They've got other interests, don't they?
I looked at David Obey write out the DC Opportunity Scholarships & President Obama signed their death warrant. Obey did this because the NEA asked him to do it. He complied like a little puppy.
It isn't about the children, is it??? It's about the unions, isn't it???
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 20-Apr-10 08:06 PM
In fact, I have polled my teachers in my district and not a one spoke up to express agreement with this Governor or his supposed plans to improve education. Every message I received was a message of disagreement about those "reforms". Perhaps you would like to stroll on over to my school and call all of my teachers "puppets" and explain to them how they are failures for opposing fake reform.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-10 09:29 PM
Eric, I didn't call the teachers puppets. I called the DFL legislature EdMinn's puppets.
Comment 3 by Jim Smola at 21-Apr-10 09:47 AM
I find it interesting that there is such an outcry about having Tom Dooher at the committee hearing when the purpose of the hearing was how to come to an agreement on the Race to the Top application between the Department of Ed and Education Minnesota. The objections fly in the face of what has to be done to get the application approved. For anyone to insist that Education Minnesota doesn't represent student's interest is to distort the facts and what past history has shown us. In fact, if Education Minnesota did not advocate for public schools and students, who would?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-10 10:05 AM
Jim, Thanks for mischaracterizing what happened. I don't have a problem with EdMinn testifying at the hearing. What I've got a huge problem with is Tom Dooher at the head of the table & practically running the hearing.
Excuse me for questioning EdMinn's commitment on educational outcomes. It isn't like public school teachers are sending their children to charter & private schools because they aren't satisfied with government-run schools.Oh wait. I know of more than a few teachers who are sending their kids to charter schools because the government-run schools don't meet their standards.
As for advocating for public schools, I don't care where kids get a great education. I only care that they get the best education for their parent's taxes. If that's in public school, great. If it's in a charter school, that's fine, too. If it's in a private school, I'm all for that, too.
In fact, I believe in a healthy competition between all of the different options. I don't think a monopoly is a good thing, whether it's in education, car manufacturing or anything.
During the recent health care debate, people criticized past reforms for being half-measures. We needed competition & a total overhaul even though most people liked the quality of their health care. Somehow, though, serious comprehensive reforms in the education product is disdained. Why is that?
When you can answer these questions, then I'll take you seriously. Until then, I'll be skeptical of you.
Comment 4 by Marie G. Zepeda at 21-Apr-10 10:11 AM
Educators need someone to be our champion. ED MN is the most likely organization.
If anyone questions the job teachers are doing, make an appointment at your local public school. Since it's such a pressing issue, you'll have no difficulty spending a day for a visit. Visit several classes. Ask if you can help a student with math and reading while you are visiting.
When budgets are tight, educators become the focus of many political discussions. Many think they can do a better job. If that be the case, why aren't there more volunteers in classrooms? Why don't thse critics pursue a career in education?
Comment 5 by Ryan McMurchie-Pasch at 21-Apr-10 10:31 AM
Why is it such a bad thing to work together to try and get an application written that may actually help the students. Tom Dooher represents our union yes, but as a union we want to make sure that all students receive a quality education.
I am a special education teacher and all I want is for my students to be successful. However I believe it is unfair to tell me that I will be paid based on my students achievements on tests when many times their success or failure is based on their disability which is out of my control. If you are going to pay us based on student achievement who will want to teach my students?! Don't they deserve a quality education too?
I don't believe that it is fair to my profession to say that in a mere 5 weeks ANYONE can teach. That is a slap in the face to me. I have been teaching for 8 years and am still working to grow in my profession. It isn't as easy as it looks and I welcome anyone to spend time in my classroom.
Comment 6 by Lola at 22-Apr-10 08:07 AM
I think how "failure" is defined ought to be looked at. A student walks into my classroom the first part of April and then a week later takes a test that is used to determine whether I was successful or a failure as a teacher--in less than a week with the student.
What educational outcomes do you want? The public schools financing continues to decline--yet the demands and the needs are greater.
Give schools less money, crowd the classrooms, and then decide what you want us to teach. I demand that you and the legislators be realistic. You cannot have it both ways. Who is really failing students in Minnesota? Our governor has hurt more students with his actions, his comments, and his lack of ability to work with educators.
Comment 7 by Deirdre Crawford at 22-Apr-10 10:16 AM
Why is it that the total responcibility for student success is placed at teachers feet and none is attributed to parents or the students themselves? Time and again people point out that parents should have the same say at teachers, but parents are to busy to come to conferences and won't take the time to do homework with their kids. And the students themselves??? What happened to earning your own grade and working hard? Teachers are already held to standards, maybe the next education reform should punish not just them but the other adults in children's lives ? Maybe if YOUR child does not pass the test I am paid less and you get a nice fine??? Do you want your income based on your effort or someone elses?
I believe every student can learn and that all children deserve a quality education, but to do that parent and communities need to work with teachers and schools, not against them.
Teachers are entitled to make fair compensation for their education and work just like everyone else. And teachers are entitled to have a say in legislation that directly effects them. Current so called reforms are not going to attract more teachers but scare them away. No one wants a job that doesn't pay their bills, especially after years of college.
Bulletin to Dingell: We Know Who We're Upset With
Yesterday, Rep. John Dingell told Jon Stewart that " People are afraid and frustrated and a lot of times they don't know who they're mad at ."
With all due respect to Rep. Dingell, that's utter nonsense. The American people know exactly who they're upset with and why they're upset. Mostly, they're upset that the Democrats aren't listening to us. They're upset that Democrats are doing their best to control every facet of our lives, whether it's taking over the health care industry, financial institutions, student loans, car manufacturers and the energy industry.
It's time that Rep. Dingell quit with the spin and stop denying the fact that this is the most arrogant, most secretive Congress in history. It's so secretive that they've written a health care law that they intended to impose on everyone except themselves, only to find out that they didn't exempt themselves from it.
This provision likely would've been stripped from the bill if the bill hadn't been written by Democrats in Harry Reid's office.
We're upset with the amount of reckless spending that's happening in DC, too. Never in my lifetime have I seen spending be this out of control. It was bad under President Bush but it's exponentially worse under the Obama administration's control.
The Democrats' health care legislation raises taxes by $670,000,000,000. If the House Cap and Trade is signed into law, that would represent another $1,900,000,000,000 in tax increases, not to mention gas prices and home heating bills that "would necessarily skyrocket" according to President Obama.
That's without considering how Cap And Trade would bankrupt the coal companies, driving the economies in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio into total ruin.
John Dingell has served too long in DC. He needs to go. He reminds me of a doddering old Sen. Howell Heflin during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Sen. Heflin was reading from the Democrats' talking points when Justice Thomas told him that he'd gotten his facts wrong. Sen. Heflin's response was first to flash a look of confusion, then saying that he was confused.
Sen. Heflin never ran for re-election again.
Unfortunately, Rep. Dingell will likely be re-elected as long as he wants to serve. The only things he's contributed to Congress and to Michigan is higher taxes and his being named, along with Rep. John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan's men of the year.
But I digress.
Seriously, I wouldn't doubt that Rep. Dingell thinks that people are upset for no good reason. Once you're inside DC's echochamger, the whole world changes. It's a world where Speaker Pelosi's words are treated as gospel. In the real world, it's the people's words that should be treated as reality.
The ultimate test would be to have Rep. Dingell talk with people on the street in Michigan, find out what their priorities and their worries are. Then I'd have him ask them whether they've ever attended a TEA Party rally. I'll bet that the TEA Party people that Rep. Dingell would talk with would know what they're upset about.
Who knows? He might actually learn something and become a public servant again.
Posted Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:27 AM
No comments.
Crist Watch
If Charlie Crist wants to commit political suicide, he's staring at a perfect opportunity to accomplish it. This morning, Kimberly Strassel says essentially what I said yesterday: that Gov. Crist would face a steep uphill fight if he chose to run as an independent. Here's what Ms. Strassel said on the matter:
Mr. Crist is struggling to navigate what could potentially be a devastating end to his political career. He's 20 points down against Mr. Rubio. Last week he vetoed a popular education bill as a favor to the state teachers union, repudiating a decade-long GOP effort to bring accountability to the state's schools. With senior Republican supporters abandoning him in droves, Mr. Crist is clearly tempted by a Quinnipiac poll showing he might still win a three-way Senate race as an independent.If Gov. Crist decides that he's running as an independent, he'll end his political career. Fundraising will be the least of his problem. Then again, Crist will benefit when he switches to independent. Here's what Time is reporting :
Such a poll, though, can't measure the impact on voter attitudes of Mr. Crist actually being seen to make such an opportunistic decision. In other ways too, an independent run looks better on paper than it does in reality. Mr. Crist currently has a sizable $7.5 million in the bank, but an independent run would likely shut the faucets to a trickle. In Florida's expensive media market, meanwhile, Mr. Rubio and likely Democratic contender Kendrick Meeks would benefit from a profusion of party and activist money. What's more, a switch could fuel third-party groups to begin a campaign calling on his Republican donors to ask for their money back.
In an admittedly political nod to Florida's powerful teachers' union, Crist called the measure, which would have eliminated tenure for public-school teachers and tied their pay to student test scores, "significantly flawed" because of onerous and vague criteria. But he then added that it was "sped through without meaningful input" from educators, and he likened the process to "jamming something down [people's] throats," just as Republicans, he added, accused Democrats of doing with health care reform.That's triangulation strategy. That's worked at different times but this isn't the time for triangulation. This is the time to be straightforward and principled. People aren't looking for a person to split the difference between the Republicans and Democrats because they've seen so-called moderate Democrats cave so frequently. They aren't buying the principled middle-of-the-road image.
Crist's veto infuriated GOP honchos, including his conservative predecessor, Jeb Bush, who had championed the bill as an extension of the school-accountability crusade he began a decade ago. But Crist's comments, say pundits, were meant as a cold mug of Earl Grey in the face of the conservative Tea Party movement that has done so much to scuttle his once powerful GOP Senate primary run, a campaign that National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Jesmer said, in a Monday memo, Crist should now give up. More important, pundits say, Crist was signaling his likely strategy as an independent: co-opt the Tea Party's language of frustration with America's tone-deaf and ineffectual political culture, but aim it at Republicans and Democrats alike.
The other thing that will decimate Gov. Crist if he switches is Jeb Bush. With the primary out of the way, Jeb won't feel the need to stay on the sidelines. Floridians still think highly of Jeb. Floridians still think of him as principled. With Jeb Bush criticizing Gov. Crist for flip-flopping on the education bill he just vetoed, Gov. Crits will look like the political opportunist that he is. That's just another nail in Gov. Crist's political coffin.
By the time November rolls around, Gov. Crist will be lucky to gather 10 percent of the vote. That's what happens to unprincipled political opportunists.
Posted Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:50 AM
No comments.
Rabid Right Wingers For Repeal?
When Michele Bachmann submitted a bill to totally repeal Obama, the DFL and the DCCC criticized her and tried belittling her in hopes of making her ripe for the pickings this November. Obviously, that hasn't worked. It'll be interesting to see what they'll say now that John Kline has committed to repealing Obamacare :
Rep. John Kline joined fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann today on the Club for Growth's list of lawmakers who pledge to repeal the health care bill.The Democrats' tactics will be predictable if Republicans repeal and replace Obamacare:
Signing the pledge compels representatives to "sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government."
As Kline spokester Troy Young summarized, "Repeal and Replace." But unlike Bachmann, who prides herself on being the first lawmaker to introduce a "repeal" bill, Kline has not yet signed on to similar legislation, Young said.
"House Republicans will not rest until we repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel," Rep. Mike Pence, head of the House Republican Conference, told me from Arizona, where he had gone to campaign for GOP candidates. "I believe that's the uniform position of the Republican leadership."The bad news for Democrats is that they think Obamacare is more popular than it is. This was evidenced Tuesday night when Democratic strategist Julie Menin said that "President Obama has 6 months to convince people" that Obamacare is great.
"People are livid," Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, said during a break from campaigning for Republicans in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina and New York. "They can't believe what this administration and Pelosi and the gang are doing."
"If we are not unanimous as a conference in being for repeal of 100 percent of Obamacare, then we're fractured as a party," Rep. Steve King, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, told me from Minnesota, where he was appearing at a rally with Tea Party superstar Rep. Michele Bachmann.
At the same time, the lawmakers are aware of what Pence calls the "rabbit snare" of a repeal-only strategy. "We repeal and start over," Pence emphasized. "Don't forget the 'and.'"
The lawmakers know what Democrats will say. They'll point to three things, banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions (which is years in the future), filling the Medicare prescription-drug "donut hole," and extending dependent medical coverage until age 26, and say, "Republicans want to take all those good things away from you." Obama has already issued a trash-talk challenge to the GOP: "Go for it.
That's the epitome of arrogance.
President Obama has given dozens of speeches on health care. The more he spoke, the more people rejected it. The notion that another 6 months of speeches will suddenly change people's minds is a foolhardy proposition. The American people have tuned President Obama out when it comes to health care. They aren't buying what he's selling.
People have called Michele Bachmann names since she started her political career. She keeps getting elected. The DFL's characatures of her are legendary. They haven't put a dent into John Kline's reputation, though, mostly because he's such a thoughtful policymaker.
Though there's a huge difference in their images, the reality is that there isn't a big difference between Michele's policy beliefs and John Kline's policy beliefs, especially when it comes to voting to limit government's intrusion into people's lives.
That's because they both strongly believe in keeping the federal government within the Tenth Amendment's limits . If something isn't part of the authorities enumerated in Article I, Section VIII , then the federal government doesn't have the authority to act on it.
Repealing the Democrats' health care law not only is the right thing to do according to the Constitution, it's the right thing to do from a policy standpoint. The DCCC and the DFL keep thinking that the Democrats' health care law is popular when it isn't. It especially isn't popular now that people are finding out that there's $670,000,000,000 worth of tax increases in the bill.
They'll hate it when they find out that the Democrats are attempting to impose price controls on health insurance companies :
Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.When the Democrats passed their health care legislation, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid said that health care and health insurance costs would start dropping because of the competition that was caused by their legislation. If that's the case, what's the justification for imposing price controls on health insurance premiums? Shouldn't we just let the legislation work its magic? After all, competition was the sure-fire cure all.
The truth is that John Kline and Michele Bachmann understood from the outset that the Democrats' plan was mostly smoke and mirrors, not competition and rewards. They've been telling us that the Democrats couldn't possibly keep the promises that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi made.
Michele was ridiculed for telling us what human nature dictated: that there was nothing in the Democrats' health care bill that changed human behavior. That's why it was utterly predictable that price controls would be needed. I predicted that several times. So did King Banaian and Ed Morrissey and anyone else that wasn't afraid to admit to the truth.
We need to repeal the Democrats' health care bill because it's always been about increasing the federal government's control over our lives. (That's another thing that John Kline and Michele Bachmann have in common: the vehemently oppose the federal government's control of our lives.)
Posted Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:53 AM
No comments.
Gloomy Outlook Predicted For 'Historic' Democrats
Based on this column by the WSJ's Daniel Henninger and this column by the Weekly Standard's Gary Andres, 'history-making' Democrats are in deep trouble. Here's what Andes wrote:
The American suburbs fueled the emergence of the Democratic congressional majority in 2006 and then helped expand it 2008. During those two election cycles, Republicans lost 24 incumbent or open seat races in these cul-de-sac filled districts.That doesn't sound good for the Democrats. In fact, it sounds downright ominous. Here's what Mr. Henninger wrote:
But now suburbanites are shifting again. As a result, many of these districts could swing back to the GOP, providing more than half of the forty seats Republicans need to capture the majority in the House.
The battle for the suburbs will determine if President Barack Obama continues to work with his own party as the congressional majority or if Washington reverts to divided government.
A Pew Research Center report just out, the one that says trust in government is at an "historic low" of only 22%, looks like the something else.This precipitous drop isn't surprising, given this administration's incompetence and the Congressional Democrats' corruption. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if the drop in the federal government exerting more control would've been bigger.
Dig past the headline of the Pew study and one discovers why Bill Clinton is insinuating that "demonizing" government could cause another Oklahoma City bombing. If these numbers are at all close to reality, something one can hardly doubt just now, the American people have issued a no-confidence vote in government, at both the national and state level. To the extent one believes in the "consent of the governed," consent is being eroded.
This report isn't bad news for the Democrats. It's Armageddon .
The survey compares views sampled in 1997 with now. The "now" is the Democrats' problem. The survey took place this mid-March. After one year of the charismatic, ever-present Barack Obama, after passage of the party's totemic health-care bill, after spending zillions on Keynesian pump-priming, the American people, well beyond the tea partiers, have the lowest opinion ever of national government.
A year ago, 54% said government should exert more control over the economy; a year later it's 40%.
SIDENOTE: This ties into the fact that Democrats ignored the American people. "Consent of the governed" isn't a quaint slogan. It's that the American people demand to be part of the loop.
Right now, the Senate is working on the financial regulations bill. It's apparent that the government didn't do its job of policing Wall Street. Adding new agencies to make really, really, really sure that the enforcement agencies do their job in the future doesn't inspire confidence.
The reason why that's important is because people are suspicious that this legislation won't solve the problem. It'll only help Congress thump its chest and that they fixed a crisis situation when they've done nothing of the sort. If they pass this bill without radically altering it, they won't have fixed anything.
If the McDonnell victory taught us anything last November, it's that people are thirsty for principled leadership and solutions. Putting the word reform into a bill's title doesn't mean anything to the American people because they don't trust that government will do the right thing .
If Democrats think that passing bills like health care and financial regulations will win over voters, then they're foolish. We want the real thing. We won't tolerate legislation that pretends to fix problems.
Democrats could cite one passage in Pew to mitigate this dire portrait. Historically, the report notes, whichever incumbent party is standing next to a big disaster gets pulled down in the undertow. Thus Bush and the Iraq war and Katrina. They can argue that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are getting hit with the legacy of the Bush downdraft and the after-shocks of the financial meltdown of September 2008. Once that passes, and after the inevitable November losses, the economy will stabilize and by 2012 the playing field will reset to normal.Mr. Hennniger is right on the money. I don't buy the notion that the Democrats' unpopularity is based on the economy or the first midterm of the Obama administration's tenure.
I don't buy this. Something unique happened in the first Obama year, about the last thing the Democratic Party needed: The veil was ripped from the true cost of government. This is the ghastly nightmare Democrats have always needed to keep locked in a crypt.
Yes, people are upset with the economy but it's much deeper than that. It's about the Democrats not keeping faith with the American people. It's about campaigning on the promise of going "line by line" through the budget to root out wasteful spending, then actually going on the biggest spending binge in American history.
It's one thing to have policy differences between an administration. Those differences aren't fatal. When people stop trusting an administration, which it's done with the Obama administration, and when the Pelosi-Reid Congress first trashes, then ignores the American people, the disconnect becomes irreparable.
It takes time and effort to build trust. It only takes a moment to destroy that trust. More than anything else, that's what this administration has 'accomplished'.
That's why the Democrats are facing a harsh awakening this November.
Posted Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:26 AM
No comments.
Obama to Wall St.: Without Change, We're Doomed
President Obama told Wall Street that changes need to be made to avoid another meltdown of the banking system. What he didn't tell them was that the changes that he's supporting do little to prevent another meltdown. In fact, they're many steps in the wrong direction.
President Barack Obama rebuked Wall Street for risky practices Thursday even as he sought its leaders' help for "updated, commonsense" regulations to head off any new financial crisis.Actually, President Obama knows that Republicans are right. The bill that the House passed includes a provision that gives the Treasury Secretary authority to bail out or take over financial institutions. Here's a summary of that provision:
"Ultimately there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or we fall together as one nation. So I urge you to join me," Obama said in a high-stakes speech near the nation's financial hub.
The president acknowledged differences of opinion over how to best protect bailout-weary taxpayers but denounced criticism from some Republicans who claim a Democratic-sponsored bill headed for Senate action would encourage rather than discourage future bailouts of huge banks. "That may make for a good sound bite, but it's not factually accurate," Obama said. He said the overhaul legislation would "put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts."
Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is "in danger of default" and whose failure would have "serious adverse effects on financial stability." This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a "substantial evidence" standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult.Heritage research has compiled a list of 14 fatal flaws in the regulation bill. Consider that today's must reading. Here's part of their list:
Fourteen FlawsDoes that sound like reform or business as usual? Based on these specific provisions, I'd say that this is just another business as usual bill with the word reform put into the legislation's title. Put differently, it's another type of RINO: Reform In Name Only. Based on this information, I'd argue that this is the opposite of reform because it gives too much authority to one person, the Treasury Secretary. Part of the authority he's given is to act unilaterally, both in terms of regulating and in terms of takeovers.
Among other things, the bill:
Creates a protected class of "too big to fail" firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a "Financial Stability Oversight Council," charged with identifying firms that would "pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter "material financial distress." These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, "Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy."[1]
Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is "in danger of default" and whose failure would have "serious adverse effects on financial stability." This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a "substantial evidence" standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult.
Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to "make available , funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution." Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm's shareholders, the firm's other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]-hardly a model to be emulated.
Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion "Orderly Resolution Fund" created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3]
Opens a "line of credit" to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.
These regulations and takeovers aren't subject to judicial review, congressional oversight and in terms of one person being able to write checks to financial institutions without consulting Congress. (BTW, that would make this provision of the bill unconstitutional because the Constitution gives the powers of appropriation to the Legislative Branch only. Congress can't give that authority away, either, because it isn't their's to give away.)
In recent days, the American people have learned of Goldman Sachs' extensive reach into the Treasury Department. With the corruption that's already been exposed, why would we think that a Treasury Secretary with substantial connections to Goldman Sachs wouldn't act in a way that would benefit Goldman Sachs to the detriment of its competitors? We certainly haven't seen proof that these regulators aren't corrupt.
It's time to shut this bill down. It's time that we told the American people that the only thing that this bill does is it gives the Treasury Secretary another tool to be corrupt.
With all due respect, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Posted Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:22 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 23-Apr-10 08:04 PM
Dear President Obama. You first. Regulate Fannie and Freddie, who are far worse offenders than any Wall St. firm. Do a good job, then we'll talk.
