April 23-24, 2009
Apr 23 01:50 Let's Summarize Apr 23 23:09 There's No Hiding This Apr 23 18:20 Hornstein to Jennie-O: You're Blacklisted Apr 24 07:59 Rep. Pelowski Rips DFL Tax Increases Apr 24 08:45 Pelosi Doublespeaks With Forked Tongue Apr 24 11:31 The Portrait of a Coward Apr 24 16:40 Pawlenty to DFL: Make My Day
Let's Summarize
There's a battle raging in DC over whether rabid Democrats will hold a show trial, about whether President Obama's DoJ should prosecute members of President Bush's DoJ for writing legal opinions on harsh interrogation techniques. Based on this post , it's safe to say that Powerline's John Hinderaker is outraged:
Barack Obama has now changed his mind and, going back on the main theme of his election campaign--post-partisanship! What a joke--says that Eric Holder will decide whether to prosecute Justice Department lawyers for writing legal opinions that Eric Holder now disagrees with. (I'm curious to see what criminal statute they will claim the DOJ lawyers violated. To my knowledge, authoring a legal analysis with which Eric Holder disagrees is not a crime.)Let's get down to the most basic basic. The Constitution DEMANDS that the commander-in-chief protect us from enemies, whether they're ecoterrorists, a dying superpower or Islamic fanatics.
Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush's most important responsibility was preventing another 9/11. That's what he successfully did, thanks to harsh interrogation techniques and NSA intercepts. We know this through Marc Thiessen's article :
For example, critics of the program say enhanced interrogation does not work because detainees will say anything to get the techniques to stop. Not so, says Abu Zubaydah. The released documents quote Zubaydah explaining that "brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardships."The simple truth is that the interrogations worked. They prevented another major terrorist attack. To the best of my knowledge, that fits into the commander-in-chief's responsibility of "protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Note the prominence of the word ALL. Notice, too, that it doesn't say that this is voluntary, as in a suggestion. Notice that it's an affirmative responsibility. As in ALWAYS.
In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can, and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything and anything they know. The CIA's job is to give them something to resist, so they can do their duty and then speak freely about planned attacks.
This previously unknown information is why the program was so effective, and its effectiveness was confirmed by the documents the president released. The documents note that after 9/11, mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed underwent enhanced interrogation, he gave up information that helped thwart an al-Qaeda plot called the "Second Wave," in which a cell of East Asian terrorists were to highjack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles .
Politicians can't prohibit, or put limits on, those things that the Constitution mandates.
Only people who care more about image than they care about human life would argue with that. That's what Gary Kamiya does in this article . The title of the article is telling:
Torture works sometimes -- but it's always wrongThe subtitle gives him a little wiggle room:
The "ticking bomb" scenario only happens on TV. Those, like Dick Cheney, who cite it are leading society down a fatal slippery slope of abuse.First, let's address Mr. Kamiya's statement that the ticking bomb scenario leads "society down a fatal slippery slope of abuse." IT DOESN'T!!! There's never been proof of his assertion.
I'd love to agree with Mr. Kamiya but he's wrong. The ticking bomb scenario doesn't happen often in real life but it's happened in real life. Here's the proof:
According to our intelligence community, other plots stopped thanks to enhanced interrogation include: a plot to hijack airplanes and fly them into Heathrow Airport and downtown London; a plot to blow up our consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and our Marines camp in Djibouti; and an al-Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for attacks on the United States. If it were not for these techniques, there would be craters in Los Angeles, London and Karachi to match the one in downtown New York.With all due respect to the pantywaists that get the vapors at the thought of using enhanced interrogation techniques, saving thousands of human lives is infinitely more important than "maintaining our image in the world."
Maintaining our image in the world is a nicety; protecting our citizens from terrorist attacks is a constitutional imperative. That's quite a difference in importance.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:57 AM
No comments.
There's No Hiding This
Thursday afternoon, I participated in a blogger conference call with Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers (R-WA) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on the cap and trade legislation that's working its way through the House.
Rep. Scalise said that there are numerous parts of the bill that have provision numbers but don't have language explaining what happens in those provisions. Once such provision is a section explaining how credits are traded. (It's just a hunch but in a bill titled cap-and-trade, knowing how credits are traded would be an important provision. Then again, people didn't know what was in the stimulus bill before the House and Senate passed it.)
Rep. Scalise also addressed the issue of job creation in yesterday's hearing. Rep. Scalise said that EPA Administrator Jackson talked up the green jobs that would be created under Cap-And-Trade. When Rep. Scalise pressed Administrator Jackson on how she arrived this jobs figure, she admitted that she didn't know how the administration arrived at that number.
UPDATE: I checked for a transcript of that exchange and found it here :
REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created ; green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?That's a stunning admission. What Ms. Jackson just admitted is that the Democrats are making up numbers to sell Cap-And-Trade. Ms. Jackson just admitted, in sworn testimony, that she doesn't know how many jobs Cap-And-Trade will create.
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would ; that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term "millions." Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.
Rep. Scalise said that the National Association of Manufacturers has done a study on jobs created. Rep. Scalise and Rep. John Shimkus addressed that in this exchange with Administrator Jackson:
REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you're obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won't lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don't make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.Let's put these exchanges in context: The EPA administrator started by saying that her boss, our president, made the bold statement that Cap and Trade would create millions of jobs. The minute she was challenged, though, she admitted that she didn't know how HER DEPARTMENT arrived at the job creation numbers. Furthermore, Rep. Shimkus told Administrator Jackson that 35,000 coal mining jobs were lost in Ohio as a result of EPA regulations done under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I'll go first and ;
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: ; if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios ; quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That's what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn't happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent,
,REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs ; coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.
While I won't say that this testimony proves that jobs will be lost, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'll trust NAM's job loss figures more readily than I'll trust Administrator Jackson's or President Obama's job creation numbers. I'll further state that I can't prove that this administration's job creation numbers aren't pure fiction created purely for public consumption.
This administration just got caught telling something that, at best, can't be proven and that, at worst, is an outright fabrication.
When my representative, Michele Bachmann, invited Chris Horner to speak at St. Cloud State, the St. Times' article quoted Bob Weisman , professor of meteorology at St. Cloud State. Here's what Professor Weisman said:
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."It's 2 + 2 time. Based on Administrator Jackson's testimony, we aren't certain that Cap and Trade will create the green jobs like President Obama claims. We also know, based on Professor Weisman's statement, that Cap and Trade won't really "bring down global warming." According to this report for the National Association of Manufacturers, jobs would be lost as a result of Cap And Trade:
Key Finding: Based on the allowance price profiles derived for the two ACCF/NAM cases, S. 2191 is projected to yield significant employment loss due to the loss of revenues resulting from higher fuel and electricity costs. In 2020, job loss is projected to range from 1.2 million (Low Cost case) to 1.8 million (High Cost case) jobs/year, and from 3 million jobs (Low Cost case) to 4 million jobs in 2030.Summarizing everything, it looks like this: Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration say Cap and Trade will create jobs but they can't prove it. Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration say Cap and Trade is good environmental policy but a professor of meteorology says the only way Cap and Trade will impact temperatures is if we cut emissions by 40 percent. Meanwhile, NAM insists that green jobs won't produce a net gain in jobs. Quite the opposite: There might be a significant loss of jobs, which likely would hurt America's job growth and economic growth for at least a decade.
Under S. 2191 the U.S. economy would begin to shed approximately 850,000 jobs a year by 2014 under the low cost scenario (see Figure 5). This is primarily a result of higher carbon prices resulting in higher fuel costs for industry and higher cost to industry to comply with emissions limits. As the cap becomes more restrictive and the economy has less freedom to deal with reducing emissions, carbon prices and fuel prices increase rapidly, leading to greater job losses of between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and between 3 and 4 fewer million jobs in 2030 (see Figure 5). These job losses are net of the new jobs which may be generated by increased spending on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and carbon capture and storage.
Why should Cap and Trade be implemented when the potential job losses could be significant? Why should we sit silently while legislation is enacted that has marginal impact on climate change? Why shouldn't we defeat this bill when this legislation would cause families' energy bills to skyrocket?
MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Put down the kool aid, Back away from the envirowhackos. Screw your head on straight. And by all means, think things through instead of listening to the environmental extremists.
Originally posted Thursday, April 23, 2009, revised 24-Apr 12:27 AM
No comments.
Hornstein to Jennie-O: You're Blacklisted
Yesterday, I wrote about HF2031 , Frank Hornstein's bill that blacklists Jennie-O's Willmar factory. Mitch Berg picked up on it yesterday, adding some timely statements. When I signed off of my computer last night, I'd pretty much forgotten about HF2031. After having breakfast with King this morning, we both realized that this shouldn't be a one-day, afternoon-only story. This legislation, authored by Frank Hornstein in the House and authored in the Senate by Ellen Anderson, is a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional. This bill doesn't stand a snowball's prayer in hell of having any effect. Here's the text of Hornstein's bill :
The state of Minnesota and its departments and agencies shall not purchase products from Jennie-O Turkey Store or its subsidiaries until Jennie-O Turkey Store or its subsidiaries ceases all alleged unfair labor practices, whether past or present, that are prohibited by section 8(a), subsections (1) and (3), of the National Labor Relations Act.TRANSLATION: Businesses that aren't union-friendly will be punished by the DFL majorities in Minnesota's legislature.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
HF2031 is legislation with a thug's mentality. It's the DFL majorities telling Jennie-O Turkey Store that they'll use their official positions to hurt a business because it isn't unionized. That's Chicago-style thuggishness. It's the type of politics that can't be justified. It's outright corruption. It's putting a boot to the neck of a private company whose employees rely on their jobs to feed their families, pay their mortgages and put money aside for their children's education.
I don't detect a hint of concern on Rep. Hornstein or Sen. Anderson or on behalf of the union. That's disgusting behavior on these people's behalf. They should be shamed for their thuggish behavior. There's no place in American politics for this type of politics.
It must end ASAP.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:20 PM
No comments.
Rep. Pelowski Rips DFL Tax Increases
Rep. Gene Pelowski broke with his DFL colleagues Thursday, criticizing Rep. Ann Lenczewski's Tax Bill. This Winona Daily News article tells the story:
Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, condemned the DFL House tax proposal in particularly harsh terms Wednesday, calling it "dead on arrival" at the desk of Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The Minnesota House and Senate have different plans to balance the $4.6 billion state budget shortfall using tax increases, which DFL leaders say must happen in conjunction with spending cuts, to sustain vital services. A Pawlenty spokesman called the DFL Senate proposal an "extraordinary tax hike that will negatively impact everyone's pocketbooks and kill jobs."Rep. Pelowski's condemnation indicates that the DFL won't override Gov. Pawlenty's promised veto. Pelowski's criticism guarantees there won't be any Republicans jumping ship. What incentive is there for Republicans to defect if DFL leadership is abandoning the bill? Rep. Pelowski deserves credit for dealing with reality.
The House proposal would generate $1.5 billion in 2010 and 2011 by hiking alcohol and tobacco taxes, removing certain deductions from the tax code and boosting income taxes on wealthy Minnesotans. The far-simpler Senate proposal would net $2.2 billion by increasing income taxes across-the-board on all taxpayers. Both bills may be voted on by the full House and Senate in the next week.
Pelowski said lawmakers won't have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a "fiction" that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty's veto. "We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs," Pelowski said. "There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit."
Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, says many lower- and middle-class Minnesotans will actually pay less in income taxes under her proposal. Lenczewski noted the governor supported increasing cigarette taxes Pawlenty called it a fee in 2005, and has allowed some cities and counties to adopt local taxes, another provision of her proposal. "The House has fashioned its tax bill to figure out: What can the governor support?" Lenczewski said.Here's a compromise for Rep. Lenczewski: I'll convince the House GOP it's in their best interest to accept Rep. Lenczewski's lower- and middle-class tax cuts. In return, Rep. Lenczewski needs to talk her DFL colleagues to agree to the GOP's corporate tax cuts.
That way, both sides get a little of what they want. What could possibly go wrong?
Let's get serious here. The DFL is wasting time with tax increases because they're getting vetoed the instant they hit Gov. Pawlenty's office. Rep. Pelowski is right in saying that the DFL should make more constructive use of their time. Time's running out and the DFL plan, if that's what it can be called, consists of across-the-board budget cuts, one-time stimulus money and oversized job-killing tax increases.
It's time the House DFL got serious about solving the deficit problem and putting us on a path to prosperity. The DFL's plan does neither, which is why it's just a matter of time before it's rejected for not being a serious plan. Rep. Pelowski almost sounds conservative in this statement:
Pelowski stopped short of saying he wouldn't back any tax increases, but said he would do so only if an increase were supported by Pawlenty, who has vowed to hold the line on taxes. "Minnesotans should be presented with the best we can do with the resources we have," Pelowski said.That sounds alot like the language used by the Live Within Our Means legislators. It'd be a welcome sight to see more DFL defections from the House DFL's job-killing tax increase bill. What the DFL should do, but likely won't, is pick out ideas from this pdf document . If the ideas have merit, which I think they do, the health care reform ideas alone would eliminate most of the current budget deficit.
That's what serious policymakers should be looking for. It isn't coincidence that it's the manual that the House GOP is operating from.
Steve Gottwalt sent me this email about 1:00 am this morning:
This evening, as we were ready to debate the Omnibus State Government Finance Bill, the House Democrats did one of those things most people back home never read or hear about -- and which shows why we are still trying to balance our budget with less than a month to go.There's alot of of unseriousness running through the House DFL 'leadership' (Yes, I'm using the word leadership loosely.) I've said it before but it's worth repeating: prioritize is the longest 4-letter word in the DFL's dictionary. Instead of spending the first three months of the session identifying wasteful spending, most of which is directed to their political allies, the DFL waited until the last minute before springing their hair-brained ideas on the legislature.
They threw out a proposal to borrow a billion dollars on the taxpayers backs to cover for their lack of willingness to show leadership, and cut government spending. It would have placed billions more debt on the backs of Minnesotans on top of the all the federal deficit spending already heaped upon the next generation of Americans. This was a purely political amendment designed to score political points. They wasted two hours on the House floor playing politics when what we need is leadership! If this sounds partisan, I apologize, but it is the truth. We have been waiting for the Democrats in charge of the Legislature to work with us on real solutions, and instead they're playing "gotcha" politics with time running out. If there is a special session, here is the reason. To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement.
By the way, I voted against the amendment. Our deficit is already too big, and we shouldn't be making it bigger.
-Rep. Steve Gottwalt
Instead of playing gotcha politics, the DFL should get serious and start supplying serious solutions to the deficit problem. Frankly, we can't afford having the DFL majorities being unserious partners in solving this problem.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out Andy's post on the DFL's political stunt.
Originally posted Friday, April 24, 2009, revised 10-Feb 3:09 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 24-Apr-09 12:15 PM
do the Democrats really want to make us like California which has double digit unemployment already or New York?
I guess so!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pelosi Doublespeaks With Forked Tongue
Give Speaker Pelosi credit for being a talented lady. She's the only woman I know in the House who can get briefed about the enhanced interrogation techniques, then tell the press that she knew nothing about them. Politico's Glenn Thrush giver Speaker Pelosi a spanking in this post :
Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding, but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using "enhanced" interrogation techniquesThat first paragraph is her personalized use of Bill Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' line. To believe Ms. Pelosi's story that she'd heard the justification for using harsh interrogation techniques but that she didn't ask Bush administration officials whether they'd started using the techniques is laughable. Ms. Pelosi's explanation implies that she sat through later briefings like a potted plant without asking questions. It's insulting.
"In that or any other briefing,we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used," she told reporters today.
Earlier, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing probes into the use of waterboarding - after reportedly failing to raise objections during a briefing on its potential use in 2002.
"Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," Boehner told reporters at his weekly news availability.
Why should I believe that she'd sit through these briefings without asking a question? Should I take that at face value, then believe that she was there in body only? If that's the case, doesn't that tell us that she's a mindless rubberstamp?
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, (R-MI), didn't take Ms. Pelosi's statement seriously :
But Rep. Peter Hoekstra, currently the ranking Republican on the House intelligence panel, described her comments as the "lamest of lame excuses," saying she could have gone to then-Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt to discuss her concerns. "The minority leader has the same type of clearances that she has," said Mr. Hoekstra, of Michigan. "Guess what - so does the president."Sen. Kit Bond was similarly unimpressed with Speaker Pelosi's answers:
Within the past three years, Mr. Hoekstra said he "can think of at least specifically three or four cases" in which he raised concerns about an issue with Minority Leader John A. Boehner or former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. In a couple of instances, he was granted an audience with then President Bush.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond, ranking member of the Senate intelligence panel, called Mrs. Pelosi's comments "frightening."Those who follow such things can't take Ms. Pelosi's statements seriously. Like I said before, it's the 21st Century equivalent of President Clinton's 'I didn't inhale' line. Nobody will take Ms. Pelosi's statements seriously. Nobody shouild take Ms. Pelosi's statements seriously.
"The idea that a 10-year veteran of the intelligence committee would just rubber-stamp a program she thought was illegal or morally wrong is frightening, especially when the claim comes from a member who has never been afraid to challenge publicly the Bush administration," said Mr. Bond, Missouri Republican. "As members of Congress we have the constitutional authority and responsibility to take serious our oversight role."
Let's hope Ms. Pelosi gets the respect she deserves.
Posted Friday, April 24, 2009 8:50 AM
No comments.
The Portrait of a Coward
When House Democrats refused to let a Republican-picked witness testify alongside Al Gore, they essentially said that Al Gore is too cowardly to debate climate change in a serious, non-demagogic arena. This article outlines the Democrats', and Al Gore's cowardice:
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.Democrats, like Mr. Gore, are afraid to discuss climate change on the merits. They refuse to let science enter into the debate. Cap and Trade isn't environmental policy. As I outlined here, it's a tax increase masquerading as environmental policy. Let's review what Bob Weisman said about Cap and Trade:
"The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face," Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. "They are cowards."
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had "chickened out" and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."House Republicans aren't taking the Democrats' insults sitting down:
WASHINGTON ; U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and every Republican member of the committee, today asked committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey, R-Mass., to call witnesses selected by the Republicans under Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.Al Gore got rich off his demagogic movie. It's a shame he didn't use part of that money to hire a research staff that's interested in real science instead of hiring a staff of political hacks and spinners. He probably didn't think that would land him an exalted role within the Democrats' lunatic fringe.
"As you know, this legislation will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, and every commodity and service that requires energy for its production or transport," the lawmakers wrote. "Rising prices will lead to significant job losses that will not be offset by any small number of low-paying green jobs. This legislation will export our jobs and our manufacturing sectors overseas. And this bill will do nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
"Hasty decisions on incomplete legislation never seem to produce the desired outcome, and we had hoped that we would not have to assert traditional minority rights under the House Rules to request a day on which we might all hear from some who have not been permitted to testify," they added.
The committee heard from 54 Democratic witnesses and 14 Republican witnesses this week.
A copy of the letter can be found here .
QUESTION FOR DEMAGOGUE-IN-CHIEF: If this is such a settled matter, and if there's a consensus on this, why wouldn't you debate Lord Monckton and permanently silence your critics?
If the data is clear, provable and compelling, I'd run TOWARDS this debate. I'd want to publicly annihilate my opponent. I'd want to publicly humiliate him. There'd be nothing that could prevent that matchup.
That's IF the data was clear, provable and compelling. It isn't, which is why Mr. Gore can't distance himself from this, or any other, debate on this subject.
Posted Friday, April 24, 2009 11:36 AM
No comments.
Pawlenty to DFL: Make My Day
It isn't often that Gov. Pawlenty makes public statements on budget negotiations as the end of session nears. That's why his admonition to the DFL with this little time left in the session is so noteworthy. Here's what the Pi-Press is reporting :
After remaining mostly silent while the Democrats who control the Minnesota Legislature wrote their tax and spending bills, Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Thursday broke his hush with a bang, blasting DFLers for failing to rein in soaring health and welfare spending and making it clear he will veto any tax increase bill that reaches his desk.The DFL's insistence on imposing draconian, and counterproductive, tax increases on a state that's losing people and small businesses to other states is mind-boggling. The DFL mantra tells you where their priorities are. The DFL mantra of wanting everyone to "pay their fair share" isn't about setting the right priorities.
But Pawlenty said the gap between his and the Democrats' budget-balancing plans is "closable" and they can finish their work by the May 18 constitutional deadline.
Democrats have proposed increasing taxes by $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion over the next two years to help plug a $4.6 billion hole in the state budget.
"They're going to be very disappointed if they send me bills that increase taxes. They're going to get vetoed," Pawlenty told reporters during a briefing in his Capitol office. "The Democrats need to stop thinking up a tax increase every day and start focusing on how they can contain and reduce spending."
Pawlenty said the DFL tax bill that the Senate will vote on today would give the state the "distinct dishonor" of having two of the 10 highest income tax brackets in the nation. "It's almost laughable on its face," he said.
If we polled the people who make up the 8.2% of Minnesotans who are unemployed, would they want their legislators more worried about whether everyone "paid their fair share" or would they worry more about tax policies that increased entrepreneurial activity? (Translation for DFL: entrepreneurial activity = job creation and prosperity.)
Let's also ask another question and make this observation: The blueprint that the DFL is following is eerily similar to the blueprints that Michigan and California used. Michigan's and California's legislatures aren't interested in fiscal restraint. In a fight between fiscal discipline and higher taxes, these states picked higher taxes time after time. Without hesitation.
If you think that my comparison is over-the-top, consider what Assistant Senate DFL leader Tarryl Clark told Tom Hauser days into this session :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.Apparently, Tarryl thinks that finding $500,000,000 worth of cost savings is a herculean task. Fortunately, the House and Senate GOP caucuses don't see it as being such a herculean task. In fact, they're touting these reforms as a legitimate way of reforming our way to a balanced budget.
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million. That's still not very big compared to what the size of the overall problem is.
Let's remember that Tarryl made this statement AFTER Gov. Pawlenty submitted several cost-saving measures the first week of the session. If he hadn't, it isn't a stretch to think that Tarryl wouldn't have been talking in terms of finding costsavings.
Minnesota's choice is simple: Lose jobs while the DFL worries whether job creators paid their fair share or support the people who want spending under control and taxes low and job creation high.
BTW, Larry Haws' public works-oriented economic stateview doesn't seem to be the best choice according to this information:
Since 2005, the Minnesota Legislature approved almost $4 billion of big government projects through bonding bills and higher taxes. The advocates of these bills have claimed that these projects would create scores of thousands of construction jobs.I've said this for years: If entrepreneurial activity isn't driving a state's economy, that state isn't heading in the right direction.
But we have lost 51,000 jobs in every sector of the construction industry in every year since this latest spending spree began.
We have many choices but only one best choice. This time, the DFL's choices of higher taxes and higher unemployment rates is the wrong choice.
Posted Friday, April 24, 2009 4:40 PM
No comments.
