April 21-22, 2009

Apr 22 08:43 Steve Gottwalt Criticizes DFL Tax Increases

Apr 21 00:45 A Conversation With Dave Thompson
Apr 21 09:02 Unveiling the DFL's Regressive Tax Increases
Apr 21 10:48 Another Next-In-Line Candidate?
Apr 21 14:32 Affidavits Filed Against AG Swanson

Apr 22 00:05 I'm With Juan On This
Apr 22 07:59 Tom Bakk Admits Tax Policy DIRECTLY Affects Behavior
Apr 22 12:17 Apologies Forthcoming?

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008

Steve Gottwalt Criticizes DFL Tax Increases

My adopted state representative, Steve Gottwalt, issued a statement this morning criticizing the DFL's tax increases. Here's the opening part of Rep. Gottwalt's statement:
ST. PAUL - State Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, said he is shocked by the number of anti-business bills being pushed by the [DFL] House majority this session. With Minnesota facing a $6.4 billion budget deficit, Gottwalt said the best thing the Legislature could do this session is help more residents find work.

"Besides solving our budget deficit, the most important task lawmakers have this session is to approve policies that help retain and create jobs," Gottwalt said. "Instead, Minnesota House Democrats are repeatedly proposing job killing tax increases."
I just posted a criticism of the Senate DFL's job-killing tax increases . At the heart of that post is this question for Tom Bakk:
If people are willing to travel across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border to save $20 in liquor taxes, why does Sen. Bakk think that a small business wouldn't move across the Minnesota-South Dakota border to save $50,000 a year in in come taxes?
Here's the next part of Rep. Gottwalt's statement:
Gottwalt listed several House proposals that could significantly hamper the way employers conduct business:

HF 2031, which prohibits Minnesota from purchasing products from the Willmar-based Jennie-O Turkey Store at the request of unions. Gottwalt said if Democrats succeed in blacklisting this Minnesota business, there would be nothing stopping them from going after any business at the request of unions or other special interests.

HF 644, which sets mandates on companies with city contracts, regulating who they must hire, but exempting union labor contracts .

HF 612, which mandates sick leave benefits for all employers.

~ HF 1959, which regulates minimum wage standards for workers whose tips plus a $6.55 hourly wage do not equal $12.

HF 84, which changes the Consumer Fraud Act to allow anyone to sue a firm for fraud by claiming they represent a public benefit in filing the suit.



Gottwalt added that the real job killer is the $4.4 billion tax increase proposed by House Democrats. That includes a new income tax bracket. The new 9-percent bracket would place Minnesota among the nation's highest income taxes.

"Keep in mind 92 percent of small businesses in Minnesota pay taxes through personal income taxes, meaning that any income tax increase will directly hurt our small employers and economic recovery," Gottwalt said. He noted the House Democrats have also proposed eliminating JOB-Z incentives that have helped the St. Cloud area attract and retain hundreds of good paying jobs and economic impact.
I'm appalled that the DFL is attempting to blacklist Jennie-O Turkey products just because the DFL's union allies told them to do that. I don't give a damn how much DFL politicians get from unions. Trying to cripple a business is the embodiment of corruption. The DFL's willing participation in this corruption says that they'll sell their soul for campaign contributions. By itself, that's repulsive and disgusting. That they sell public policy to the highest bidder is worse.

It's also instructive that the DFL would put mandates on companies that aren't unionized but then exempt unionized businesses of those exact same mandates. That's another example of corruption that won't be tolerated. It's downright disgusting that the DFL frequently sells its soul to the unions in exchange for their help in GOTV operations.

Rep. Gottwalt is right in identifying the new tax increase bracket as a job-killing tax increase. I'd dare the DFL to prove that businesses that leave Minnesota create Minnesota jobs. In fact, let's invert that. Let's have the DFL majority prove that businesses that leave Minnesota don't shrink Minnesota's job growth potential.

Here's the final paragraph to Rep. Gottwalt's statement:
"We have job losses piling up by the thousands, and yet Democrats have offered no ideas on how to grow private-sector jobs," said Gottwalt. "This is a time when we need to grow jobs to rise above this recession and revive state revenues. Adding to Minnesota's already heavy tax burdens will only put us in a deeper hole. I'm not sure they understand the realities with which so many in our area live each

day."
I join Rep. Gottwalt in asking why the DFL majorities in the House and Senate insist on increasing taxes when businesses and people are already leaving Minnesota because of the oppressive taxation and insane regulations. That type of policymaking isn't just wrong. It's insane and it needs to stop ASAP.

Fortunately, our goalie is reliable and Marty's Republicans steadfast on sustaining our goalie's upcoming veto.

Finally, it's long past time that we ended the DFL's pro-union corruption. Blacklisting companies that aren't unionized is the embodiment of corruption.


Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:43 AM

No comments.

A Conversation With Dave Thompson

Over the weekend, I quietly extended an invitation to Dave Thompson in the hopes of finding out more about why he wants to be the next State Republican Party chairman. Monday afternoon, Mr. Thompson and I connected for that interview.

I started the interview by giving Dave Thompson the opportunity to tell me what he thought was needed to rebuild Minnesota's Republican Party. Mr. Thompson said his first priority was to start telling Minnesotans in a clear way what the Republican Party stands for. Mr. Thompson was quick to point out that he wasn't just talking about the party's platform but also about its core principles. He then said that we must be the party of limited government and the party of reform.

I stated that the Minnesota GOP would prosper if we earned the reputation of being the party of fiscal restraint instead of just talking about it during campaigns. To my delight, Mr. Thompson agreed with that. He then directed me to his blog post simply titled "Political Courage". Here's what he said in that post:
I am not on the "A-party list" with many of the folks I criticized. Some policticians, even some within the Republican Party, avoided appearing on my shows because they knew I stood for principles and positions for which they did not. And I think the best way to predict a person's future actions is to look at how they have behaved in the past. Knowing one's past track record is the only way to know whether they will stand up in the face of criticism from the "home team." Today, more than ever, you need a leader who has a steady hand at the helm and can navigate a clear and consistent direction for all Republicans in Minnesota.
That's the type of leadership we need. In the past, our chairmen have said whatever the top-of-the-ticket candidates told them to say. That hasn't worked well lately, to say the least. Principled leadership is precisely what the Minnesota GOP needs right now.

Another important priority for Mr. Thompson would be to stay in contact with outstate Minnesota. He said setting up regular meetings so he could find out what each district's highest priorities were. Mr. Thompson specifically said that talking with people on the Iron Range and northwestern Minnesota would be a priority if elected.

Next, Dave Thompson talked about getting rid of voter vault and putting a better system in place in its stead. That's something that every BPOU and CD chair would agree with. I said that that was the right priority, especially since we found El Tinklenberg listed as 'leaning Republican' as recently as 2007.

Then we got to the topic that I care most about: communications. This is the part of the interview where it became more of a conversation. Dave said that we have to "get away from the tit-for-tat sniping" that we've gotten involved in in the past. I responded by telling him a story from the 2006 campaign between Michele Bachmann and Patty Wetterling. In October, two candidate debates were schedulec for the same day, the first at the Elk River Chamber of Commerce, the later one sponsored by the St. Cloud Chamber.

Instead of participating in the debates, Patty Wetterling chose to campaign with NATO Gen. Wesley Clark. The MNGOP team sent out a memo talking about Ms. Wetterling campaigning with "failed Gen. Wesley Clark." They sent out a factsheet of criticisms of Gen. Clark. I told Dave that I was appalled at the factsheet. I said that people wouldn't "walk into a voting booth and say that they couldn't vote for Patty Wetterling because she campaigned with Wesley Clark." I said that I put a statement post with this simple message:
Today, Patty Wetterling campaigned with Gen. Wesley Clark rather than defend her agenda of tax increases on small businesses in front of audiences of small businessmen.
After I said that people WOULD remember that, Dave Thompson replied that voters would indeed remember that.

He then pointed me towards this video:



Dave said he wouldn't have worked off the talking points. Instead, he made the argument that identical ballots were ruled on and that some of them were rejected and others were accepted as valid votes.

I told Dave that that's what I called a 'Game, Set, Match' answer because that's where the debate begins and ends.

One thing that we agreed on is the need for our candidates, our elected officials and our activists "to consistently make the best possible arguments on the most important issues of the day." While many of our state legislators are good at that (Tom Emmer, Steve Gottwalt and Laura Brod leap to mind), our activists are often lacking. That needs to improve because, as Dave and I agreed, the activists are the party's evangelists. We're the people that talk to neighbors, co-workers and friends about the important things in life.

Dave enthusiastically agreed with me when I said that it's important in framing issues in as personal of terms as possible. I said that, during the immigration debate, Sean Hannity talked frequently about millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. I told Dave that I took a different, more effective approach. Instead of citing cold statistics, I talked in terms of how much in extra property taxes illegal immigrants were costing people in Phoenix, AZ and San Diego, CA.

I said that the minute I told people that illegal immigrants were causing proprty taxes to skyrocket is the minute I'd have people's undivided attentions. Dave agreed with that.

In summation, I appreciated the fact that Dave made such a large chunk of time available for this interview. I appreciate it even more that he answered my questions on point and that he didn't answer in politic-speak. Mostly, though, I appreciate the fact that Dave Thompson is a principled conservative who is great at articulating the conservative message.

More than anything else, that's why I'm endorsing Dave Thompson to be the next chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party. We need Dave to help rebuild the party and we need him to constantly articulate our conservative principles.


Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:45 AM

No comments.

Unveiling the DFL's Regressive Tax Increases

Yesterday, the DFL leadership unveiled this year's Tax Bill. To absolutely no one's surprise, it included tax increases. Lots of them. While preaching about needing a "more progressive tax system", they've given lots of proof that there aren't any tax increases that they don't like. Here's a rundcown of the tax increases in their bill:

  • Cigarette Tax: $204 million tax increase
  • Alcohol Taxes: $209.1 million tax increase
  • Boats, ATVs & Snowmobiles: $10.5 million tax increase
  • iTunes Tax: $3.17 million tax increase
  • Gift Tax: $20.6 million tax increase
Not only is the DFL willing to directly increase taxes, they're also willing to let counties be 'co-conspirators':
Local Option Sales Tax: $391 million
This tax increase is unforgiveable because (a) it's a permanent increase, (b) there's no guarantee of permanent property tax relief and (c) it's yet another regressive tax increase from the DFL.

Sadly, there's another tax increase in this bill, this time on the creators:
Income Tax: $467.7 million tax increase
The DFL better ask one simple question before thinking about creating this new income tax bracket: How many businesses will leave Minnesota as a result of this tax increase? It's time that they admitted what's been brought out in testimony: that their tax increases are driving businesses to South Dakota and other states.

If this portion of the Tax Bill becomes law, it's guaranteed that a number of businesses will leave this state. We can't afford to have capital leaving Minneosta at any time. It's especially important to keep capital in Minnesota at this time. Without job creators, where will the new jobs come from that we'll need for economic recovery?

The DFL's talking point talks about people "paying their fair share." They never talk about the businesses that are leaving or the job loss that's a result of their leaving. Their talk about job growth is artificial. Their tax increases are real. So are the resulting job losses.

FINAL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: 1) When will the DFL's tax policies create sustainable prosperity? (2) Will the DFL's tax policies ever create sustainable prosperity?

At this point, I won't bet a thing that the DFL's tax policies will create prosperity, much less give businesses a reason to expand or move here. Fortunately, this Tax Bill is destined for a deserved veto. Fortunately, 47 stout-hearted House Republicans will sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto.


Originally posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009, revised 27-Apr 2:37 AM

No comments.

Another Next-In-Line Candidate?

PIM has officially endorsed Tony Sutton to be the next chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party.

Let's be perfectly clear about something: I don't have an axe to grind with Mr. Sutton. I think he's done a great job straightening out the mess Ron Carey left him. Tony deserves our thanks for straightening out that mess.

I don't consider the fact that he's done a great job straightening out Ron Carey's mess to be a qualification for being State Party Chairman. After talking with a number of activists about Mr. Sutton, I'm worried that he doesn't have the requisite communications skills. I haven't seen proof, either, that Mr. Sutton won't devote too many resources to top-of-the-ticket candidates.

That's a major red flag with me!!!



The Carey years produced a top-down mentality. Honest people readily admit that that model put our party years behind the DFL. Nothing I've heard about Mr. Sutton suggests that he doesn't share that mentality. More importantly, nothing suggests that he'd correct that problem. Based on my interview of Mr. Thompson , I'm totally certain that he doesn't share that top-down mentality. Based on my interview of him, I'm confident that Dave Thompson is committed to correcting those problems.

That's the biggest reason why I enthusiastically endorsed Dave Thompson.

Another question I have is whether Tony Sutton has the public presence that's required of state political party chairmen. I DON'T HAVE THAT QUESTION with Dave Thompson. Dave's got that department down in spades. In fact, that's another major strength of Mr. Thompson's.

Put differently, I want Dave Thompson speaking for conservatives, especially when he's on stage with Brian Melendez. As an activist, I demand that our state party chairman has the obvious gravitas needed to go toe-to-toe with Brian Melendez or to ridicule Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's policies. I demand a heavyweight in that office.

I know that Dave Thompson fits that description.

Another thing that impressed me about Dave is his commitment to consistently making the best arguments on the most important issues of the day. I'm tired of the daily tit-for-tat noise that passes for MNGOP communications. THAT'S GOTTA STOP ASAP!!!

In my interview with him, Dave Thompson promised that it would end, then offered proof that it would end if he's elected as the state party chairman. In fact, looking back on the interview, Dave Thompson re-inforced that principle numerous times.

I really take exception to Sarah's article. Specifically, I take exception to this statement:
Thompson knows nothing of the nuts and bolts work it takes to run a political party and elect candidates.
Based on my extensive interview with him, I'm totally confident Dave Thompson knows what "it takes to run a political party and elect candidates." During our interview, Dave spoke about the need to stay in contact with the BPOUs throughout the state. Dave spoke about recruiting appealing conservatives for every legislative district in the state. Dave spoke about the need to stay in contact with conservatives on the Iron Range and with conservatives in northwest Minnesota.

I also thought Sarah's use of this line was a cheap stunt:
I'm betting Thompson drops out shortly, too.
This is the equivalent of a reporter asking a presidential candidate if he'd consider his chief rival as a running mate. It's a statement that's intended to tell GOP activists not to take Dave Thompson's candidacy seriously. It's an old political tactic that serious conservative activists should instantly and wholeheartedly reject. It's a statement that Ms. Janacek needs to apologize to Dave Thompson for.

Finally, I've gained a reputation for thinking outside the box. It's a reputation I'm proud of. In my opinion, outside-the-box thinkers connect with people. Next-in-line people don't. Our presidential ticket was proof of that.

John McCain needed Sarah Palin at his side so there'd be a detectable pulse at his events. If she wouldn't have been there, he would've been written off the day after the convention.

Tony Sutton has loyally served our party. For that, we should thank him. Dave Thompson has the gravitas and the star power to be the best state party chairman in recent history.

Should we vote for the next-in-line candidate or should we vote for the candidate with gravitas and star power? That isn't a difficult decision.

Voting yes for Dave Thompson is the best way to rebuild the Minnesota Republican Party and restore it to full health.


Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:48 AM

Comment 1 by Wolfgang Anacon at 21-Apr-09 12:45 PM
Gary,

In case you hadn't figured out yet, Sarah, Mikey and Tony have circled the wagons, and if you're not in, you're out, consequences be damned.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-09 01:08 PM
Gee!!! Ya think???

Comment 2 by Shoebox at 21-Apr-09 01:22 PM
I've got to wonder...if Thompson was really as vacuous as Sarah says, why waste the electrons? A simple endorsement would have done. My take is that there is prehaps some concern within the circled wagons?

Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-09 01:33 PM
Shoe, If the chairman's race was merit-based, it wouldn't be a monumental fight. I don't say that with animus towards Tony Sutton. It's just that I've gravitated towards Dave Thompson because he's a great communicator OF THE RIGHT MESSAGE, because he's got a stage presence that'll win people over & because he outlined to me a framework within which he'd work to rebuild every part of our party.

In this post, I described Dave as having gravitas. It isn't unlike the feeling I got when I endorsed Fred Thompson.

In both instances, I said that they were the people I wanted on stage debating core conservative principles.

Neither Thompson speaks in politicalspeak, something that's important in turning independents into conservatives & turning squishies into solid conservatives.

Comment 4 by Brent Metzler at 21-Apr-09 01:38 PM
One point I see in your post is the concern that Sutton would devote too many resources to top-of-the-ticket candidates. I guess I would expect and hope that the state level party would focus their resources on state level races and issues.

We have multiple levels in the party that I think should be focusing on their level of responsibility. The group that should be responsible for my BPOU is my BPOU. For my congressional district, it should be my congressional district's responsibility to promate and elect candidates.

If the State Party puts the resources into my BPOU, they and my definition the rest of the state has a say in who my BPOU promotes and elects.

Basically, I think that the State Party should make sure that the congressional districts and BPOU's know what they are supposed to be doing, and make sure that they are doing it and then mind state level business.

I want the state party next year to be focused on electing a GOP Governor and that is basically it

Comment 5 by Shoebox at 21-Apr-09 01:47 PM
Can't agree with you more Gary. The issue, in my humble opinion, is not about building a better "machine." Clearly, that is an element. However, if Obama has shown us nothing it is to prove the old adage of "they don't care how much you know until the know how much you care." My point is that if, as a party, we don't get back to effectively communicating the principles we stand for, hold to them, and educate folks on how/why they are important and for the most part, the same as the ones they live their own lives by, we will never "out machine" the Dems. We need the communication piece greatly improved. As to the "machine" part, isn't that why we also have an Executive Director?

Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-09 02:17 PM
I'll respectfully disagree, Brnet. I want the state party to be extra involved in helping us retake the Minnesota House of Representatives.

I view that as an imperative because of the importance of redistricting.

I also vehemently disagree with this statement:

I think that the State Party should make sure that the congressional districts and BPOU's know what they are supposed to be doing, and make sure that they are doing it.

Let the local party do what they do best, elect local legislators. Last year, the party operative in St. Cloud kept reminding the locals of their obligation to work for McCain.

Top-down control freak operations don't mesh well with grassroots operations.

Comment 7 by Brent Metzler at 21-Apr-09 02:32 PM
Top-down control freak operations don't mesh well with grassroots operations.

Gary, than I actually think you agree with me.

Comment 8 by Twice Blessed at 21-Apr-09 03:25 PM
I totally agree that the next in line mentality for our state Republican leadership and candidate for that matter has not worked. I am sick of hearing that the qualifications for someone is that they show up for everything and have been working for the party for years. That in itself does not sell me. In some cases, it turns me off.

I want new blood, people are who ready to shake things up. The status quo is not working.

Comment 9 by J. Ewing at 21-Apr-09 05:09 PM
I don't agree that there is something wrong with the "next in line" mentality; I prefer to pick the person best qualified for the job, AFTER we define what the job is. Tony Sutton is a capable administrator that knows the Party apparatus. We have a communications director in charge of "message," but no one in charge of defining that message. Tony has been most active in Platform matters, working cooperatively with the grassroots on it for many years. That doesn't qualify him, but he shouldn't be DISqualified just because he's got the experience. I don't want to elect somebody just to "shake things up," either. That usually just results in an awful lot of broken crockery that I'm not sure we have time to clean up.

I'm not jumping on any of the bandwagons yet, and I think they all have their positive qualifications, but I'm still of the mind that I do not care who wins. I will be looking for the person with the best, most specific and workable PLAN for reaching our goals-- taking over the legislature and all of the statewide offices, just 19 months from now. And if the new chair doesn't have that plan, we had best be finding the person who does!

Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-09 10:13 PM
Jerry, Part of my interview with Dave was his telling me of his plan to (a) communicate the party's message to the BPOU leaders, (b) stay in contact with outstate leaders so he knows what they need & (c) schedule regular meetins with CD chairs & other party leaders so there could be a dialogue on things that were happening throughout the state & a dilogue on what's working & what isn't.

That's a terrific plan that relies on the grassroots' active participation.

Finally, I'll keep repeating this until election day: We should be asking THE QUESTION of which person's abilities translates best into the chairman's position. That's THE ONLY QUESTION that matters.

In my opinion, that person is Dave.

That doesn't mean Tony shouldn't be thanked for the great work he's done. It's fitting that we be grateful for all he's done. We should also do everything we can to find things for Tony to help with.

I want the MNGOP to start growing again. To accomplish that, we need EVERYONE outworking the DFL. It's my opinion that we'll win big if we outwork & outcommunicate the DFL & if we have everyone working hard.

Affidavits Filed Against AG Swanson

According to WCCO's I-Team report , Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson has reason to be worried. Here's a big reason why she should be worried:
The WCCO I-TEAM first told you about expensive, sound-proof doors in the Attorney General's Office. Now there are allegations of unethical and unlawful behavior from two former lawyers in the office speaking publicly for the first time.

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson issued a press release response but refused to sit down with WCCO for an interview. And the State Legislative Auditor has just reopened an investigation based on the sworn testimony of several lawyers who have not spoken out before now.

Paul Civello was a Medicaid fraud attorney under former DFL Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch and his successor, the DFLer Swanson. "It was always political mode," said Civello.

In an interview with the I-TEAM, Civello said employees were routinely pressured into working on high profile cases intended only to bring publicity and political attention to the boss.
We've long suspected that Lori Swanson wasn't acting in an ethical manner. I suspected it after reading Amy Lawler's response to Ms. Swanson.

Ms. Swanson would be wise to not underestimate Jim Nobles' investigation could cause. Answers to Mr. Nobles's questions must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If Ms. Swanson's answers don't meet that threshold, she can potentially be prosecuted for perjury. Here's something else that Ms. Swanson should be worried about:
Civello makes the claims in a sworn affidavit, in which he describes "misconduct" by two successive Democratic Attorneys General, the top law enforcement officers in the state. In one case, said Civello, a lawyer was hired under a different title in order to receive federal funding.

Another attorney, who still works in the AG's office, writes in a memo that "this amounted to fraud."
If this allegation is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then I'll be among the first people demanding a thorough housecleaning of the AG's office. I've had it with the last two chief law enforcement officers in Minnesota being ethically defective. They work for us, at least in theory. Based on the extensive reading I've done on their actions, it's more accurate to say that they work for political gain and public glorification.

NO MORE!!!

Regardless of what happens with Jim Nobles' investigation, the DFL has held that office for a couple decades too long. Much like the US House of Representatives in 1994, the AGO has become the embodiment of corruption. It isn't a stretch to say that there's a foul stench radiating out from the AGO.
The new investigation comes at the request of Democratic State Representative Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park and State Representative Tom Emmer, R-Delano.

"Someone has made very significant allegations of wrongdoing, illegal activity in that office," said Emmer. "Those allegations need to be investigated; they need to be determined. One way or the other there needs to be a determination: are they credible or are they without merit."
Allegations of unionbusting, creating a hostile work environment and other allegations have swirled around the AG's office since the Hatch era. We The People demand answers. It's just that simple. Another thing we demand is that these types of tactics stop ASAP:
Swanson declined WCCO's request for an on-camera interview, but she is hitting back; hard. In an unusually blunt written response to Civello's claims, Swanson calls him a "bitter" man, part of a group of disgruntled former employees who, she said, "wallow in despair."

But other former employees are rallying to Civello's defense. "It's a typical vicious attack that I've become accustomed to seeing from Lori Swanson and Mike Hatch," according to Martin Carlson, a lawyer who worked in the Attorney General's Consumer Enforcement Office.

Carlson describes an atmosphere of intimidation, where he says all employees were asked to work for the headlines. "The adage was: Once the publicity's over, the case is over," said Carlson.
These types of tactics need to be eliminated from the AG's office. That won't happen with a slap on the wrist to AG Swanson. It'll only happen if we clean house.

It's time to sound this battle cry:

Get out the brooms.


Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:32 PM

No comments.

I'm With Juan On This

Juan Williams is spot on with this post on President Obama's signing the omnibus spending bill that eliminates school vouchers for DC school children. I said in this post that that provision in the omnibus bill was Democrat David Obey's telling DC's underprivileged children that "It's for the unions." That's totally unacceptable. Here's Juan's take on the matter:
But over the last week I find myself in a fury.

The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation, improving big city public school education, get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship. If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics, it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America's black and Hispanic students.

This is critical to our nation's future in terms of workforce preparation to compete in a global economy but also to fulfill the idea of racial equality by providing a real equal opportunity for all young people who are willing to work hard to succeed.
It's impossible to disagree with Juan on this. I, too, was filled with outrage when I read about Obey's putting the NEA's interest ahead of DC's underprivileged youth. If there's anything worth getting fighting mad about, that's it. If our politicians are willing to throw underprivileged children aside to earn brownie points (and campaign contributions) from the NEA, then that's a relationship that must be destroyed. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE!!!

As a nation, we say that the three inalienable rights given to us by our Creator are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By telling DC's underprivileged children that they'll have to try and learn in violence-riddled schools, Democrat David Obey is telling them that two-thirds of their God-given rights don't apply to them.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that keeping DC's underprivileged children in violence-riddled schools is helping them. Anyone arguing that would get laughed out of a thoughtful discussion on the issue.

I don't often take a moral stance on political issues but I'll make this the exception. Depriving these children of a chance to have a life-changing education is EVIL!!! It isn't just bad policy. It isn't just throwing people under the bus for political contributions. IT'S EVIL!!!

David Obey would do well to backtrack on this issue. The NEA, if it wants to have more than 8 percent support, had better change directions on this. This isn't change I can believe in. It's change I'm liable to start bitch-slapping people over, starting with David Obey.

We The People DEMAND that underprivileged children have their basic needs met. If David Obey or other elitists attempt to prevent children from getting a basic need provided, that's where a moral society has the affirmative responsibility and the duty to meet these children's needs.

According to Juan's post, the DC Voucher program was working:
What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.
To me, this study is a great argument for a total transformation of education policy. That's a total no-brainer. It's unforgiveable that the NEA dictates ecucation policy to Congress. They represent the teachers, not the entire education system. Presumably, each congresscritter represents children in his/her district. It's these congresscritters's responsibility to be the children's voice in DC.

This is the type of thing that's causing the tea parties. People are getting upset that Congress isn't looking out for the folks, the innocents or for the most vulnerable. If Congress won't do what's right on this important issue, then we'll have to retire the people sentencing these children to a failed school system.

That's the only option in a just nation.


Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:08 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Apr-09 07:27 AM
This is even more insane/stupid/evil than even you know. Someone today has discovered that the total cost of DC schools, per pupil, is $26,000 per year, which is $2000 HIGHER than tuition at the toney Sidwell Friends Academy where Obama's daughters go. The vouchers actually cost LESS than the most exclusive private schools. So, better education at less cost, and the downside is.... what? More liberty and happiness?

Tom Bakk Admits Tax Policy DIRECTLY Affects Behavior

When I read this AP article in the St. Cloud Times, I couldn't believe my eyes. In this article on the DFL Senate's tax bill, DFL Senate Tax Chairman Tom Bakk inadverently admits that tax policies, especially ill-conceived tax increases like the DFL Senate's proposal, impact taxpayers' behavior. Here's what Sen. Bakk said:
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.
The first question I'd have for Sen. Bakk is why he thinks that increasing alcohol taxes would cause Minnesotans to buy their liquor in Wisconsin but raising small business taxes won't cause Minnesota small businesses to relocate to South Dakota.

If people are willing to travel across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border to save $20 in liquor taxes, why does Sen. Bakk think that a small business wouldn't move across the Minnesota-South Dakota border to save $50,000 a year in income taxes?

The point is that businesses and people are frequently doing that. That isn't opinion. That's what Tom Gillaspie, Minnesota's demographer, has testified to.

The next logical question cuts to the heart of DFL policy: If the DFL knows that people and small businesses are leaving the state because taxes are too high already, why is the DFL pushing to increase too high taxes even higher?

It's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The DFL majority increasing already too high taxes while people are leaving and expecting them to stay is the definition of insanity.

Isn't it time that we restored sanity to St. Paul? Isn't it time that we told the DFL that its tax policies are killing jobs? Isn't it time that we told the DFL that they need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a different tax policy that doesn't drive people and businesses from the state?

Annette Meeks is exactly right : Had the Tea Party rallies been held after the DFL's announcement of their tax increases, "the crowds last week would look like the warm up act for the gigantic group of tax protesters that would assemble all across the state." Don't think that this wasn't their intention from the start.

Regardless of when the DFL announced their misguided tax increase strategy, the end result will be the same: House Republicans sustaining Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the DFL's misguided tax strategy.

Finally, there's only one way to guarantee the DFL's crazy tax policies never get enacted. That's by returning the House and Senate to GOP control.


Originally posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009, revised 09-Sep 12:23 AM

No comments.

Apologies Forthcoming?

The Lady Logician has jumped all over John Reilly's admitting that his estimate on how much the Democrats' Cap and Trade tax increase costs in this post . This information hits at the heart of Democrats' misinformation campaign:
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the "cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases]," Reilly wrote. "So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy."

In other words, Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners...
In other words, Reilly's estimated cost ignores costs that will be incurred AND it assumes something that isn't provable, namely that this Demmocratic congress will return the $3,128 in the form of a tax rebate. The Lady Logician also included this important admonition to the post:
The Tax Day Tea Parties were just the beginning. Now is the time for every citizen to make sure that their legislator (state and federal) hears from them regularly - whether they agree with you or not! Make sure that the will of the voters are known in St. Paul, Salt Lake City and Washington DC! Make sure that your cap and trade supporting governors like Pawlenty and Huntsman know that you are NOT PLEASED with their signing on to a scheme that will take more and more of your hard earned tax dollars away from the more important things like private charity and your own family.
There's no such thing as an acceptable green tax increase. P-E-R-I-O-D. It's even more repulsive to think that these governors are thinking about it in the current economic climate. Let's hope We The People can influence these governors' policies.

Captain Ed is all over this , too:
In order to believe that the Obama-predicted revenues pulled out of the energy industry won't impact the consumer, either one has to believe that energy producers won't pass along those costs in price hikes (which is ridiculous), or that the Obama administration envisions a profit-sharing plan in which the money all goes back to the consumers. The latter is equally ridiculous, and demonstrably so. In the first place, Obama has already hiked federal spending $400 billion in the next fiscal year, and even his own OMB predicts trillion-dollar deficits for the next decade after that. Massive rebates might sound great to Republicans, but Democrats will never, ever agree to them. In any case, with these deficits, the money for rebates technically doesn't exist.

Besides, the money has already been earmarked. Obama himself said he would use the money for massive government expenditures on renewables research. Other Democrats counted on the money to fund health-care reform. No one in the administration or Congress ever envisioned giving the money back to the consumers, directly or even indirectly.
Majority Democrats howled when Republicans told the American people how much President Obama's and Congressional Democrats' Cap and Trade program would cost each family. These Democrats, led by Prime Minister Pelosi, called Republicans liars for citing the $3,900 figure. Will they now offer a public apology for calling Republicans liars after having their disastrous tax policies exposed? Anything can happen but I'm not holding my breath waiting for Pelosi's Democrats to do the right thing.

Pelosi's Democrats admitting that they demagogued an environmental issue would represent a change in direction. It would also be proof that miracles can happen.


Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:22 PM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Apr-09 02:19 PM
As I've said before: How does having the Obama administration suck $2 Trillion out of the economy do anything for the elimination of global warming?

Comment 2 by Your Pants are on Fire at 22-Apr-09 04:09 PM
Huh? Republicans said it would be a tax. Those items you point out are not taxes, but things people buy with their own money, not what the government taxes. Why can't you people be honest?

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-09 07:13 PM
What's your explanation to this?

At the meeting, Jason Furman, a top Obama staffer, estimated that the president's cap-and-trade program could cost up to three times as much as the administration's early estimate of $646 billion over eight years. A study of an earlier cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by Mr. Obama when he was a senator estimated the cost could top $366 billion a year by 2015.That sounds like a tax to me. Maybe it isn't a tax on whatever planet you live on but I'll bet the vast majority of Minnesotans would agree with me.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

December 2011 Posts

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 01-Dec-11  Why did Common Cause MN get involved with TakeAction Minnesota? 01-Dec-11  Was this week the turning point? 01-Dec-11  Mitt's attacks are stale, predictable, ineffective 01-Dec-11  Minnesotans hear good news on budget, whining from Rep. Winkler 01-Dec-11  Mitt sends in Chris Christie to attack Newt 02-Dec-11  Hugh's missing something vitally important 02-Dec-11  Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME are rigging child care unionization vote 02-Dec-11  That's President Obama's definition of prosperity? 02-Dec-11  BREAKING NEWS: Romney won't debate Newt one-on-one 03-Dec-11  What Romney, Obama don't get about elections 03-Dec-11  Cain Suspends Campaign 04-Dec-11  Will's longstanding hatred of Gingrich boils over 05-Dec-11  Judge Lindman scuttles Gov. Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME forced unionization sche...
Read more

November 1-2, 2017

Image
Nov 01 06:50 Refugee resettlement, Masters' question Nov 01 08:07 Why Ed Gillespie will win Nov 01 13:27 The refugee resettlement racket Nov 02 08:07 Civility at a City Council meeting? Nov 02 08:45 Why Ed Gillespie will win, Part II Nov 02 09:32 Donna Brazile vs. Hillary Clinton, DWS Nov 02 10:48 Newt: the experts are wrong Nov 02 17:35 Let the tax battle begin Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Refugee resettlement, Masters' question Much has been written about the controversial finish to the Oct. 23 St. Cloud City Council meeting. One thing that's been the topic of discussion is that the Goerger resolution felt like an ambush. That's certainly the position most of Councilman Johnson's supporters have. After Councilman Goerger's introduction of his resolution and after it was seconded, Councilman Johnson rightfully complained that h...
Read more