April 29-30, 2009
Apr 29 09:06 Questions For David Fitzsimmons Apr 29 10:29 Will 2010 Be Another Big Democratic Year? Apr 29 11:20 Chessani Wins Again Apr 30 02:37 Pelosi vs. Pence Apr 30 12:15 AP Criticizes President Obama On Deficits Apr 30 13:48 DFL Votes to Protect Minnesota's Medical Monopolies
Questions For David Fitzsimmons
Last night, a dedicated reader of LFR asked me what I knew about David Fitzsimmons. I said I knew he was running for the Sixth District's Chair job but that's about it. This dedicated reader then told me there's a David Fitzsimmons who's listed as the Constitution Party's chairman.
Not willing to accept this as fact, I googled Fitzsimmons' name, adding the term of Constitution Party. There is a Campaign Finance Board entry listing Mr. Fitzsimmons as chair of the Minnesota Constitution Party. Unfortunately, the form doesn't say what year it's from. That's why I immediately googled the Constitution Party. Their current chair is Tammy Houle.
This information led to these questions:
- Has Fitzsimmons permanently left the Constitution Party? Or is this Mr. Fitzsimmons just seizing an opportunity?
- Does Fitzsimmons agree with the Constitution Party's platform ? If not, what parts of it does he reject and why does he reject it?
Considering he's running for the position of Sixth District Chairman, I think it's only fair that Mr. Fitzsimmons answered these questions.
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 29-Apr-09 01:39 PM
Why ask, Gary? What's the point?
Were they ever a factor in anything, if so, for those not knowing, perhaps posting some background or links would help.
Comment 2 by Cassie Mandrake at 29-Apr-09 04:07 PM
Mr Zaetsch,
There ISN'T any background. The document is admittedly undated, and could be on file with the CFB since the Constitution Party first filed back in 1999.
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/pcfatoz.html (jump down to C)
If this posting were "journalism," then the author would have called an officer or a spokesperson from the Constitution Party to confirm whether or not Mr FitzSimmons has any current or recent involvement or affiliation, which he does not.
He worked tirelessly in Wright County to return their Representatives to St Paul and continued working through the Senate recount. His energy and leadership was recognized and acknowledged in his election as Wright County Chair - for the Republican Party.
Asking if Mr FitzSimmons "is hiding his past" is not factual, objective or investigative. It is suspicious at best and slander at worst.
Slander (Merriam Webster) - the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
That seems to be the purpose of this posting. I will be watching for a retraction and an apology.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-09 04:21 PM
Cassie, Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a different definition, that of the word QUESTION. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of question:
a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.Is it wrong of me for being suspicious? Is it wrong of me to want the answers to some important questions?
FWIW, I had a conversation with Mr. FitzSimmons this afternoon. At the end of the conversation, I told him that I'm still supporting Jim & why I'm supporting him but that I thought I found his answers straightforward & informative.
(Does that fit the definition of slander?)
Comment 4 by Terry McCall at 29-Apr-09 06:41 PM
Wow. This is the type of character assassination that makes people detest bloggers. Innuendo, casting shadows, raising questions, how childish; if you don't like David Fitsimmons and you support the other guy have the balls to just say it.
I've been active in the GOP since the early 1990's. This sounds like the crap that the Arne Carlson wing would use against strong Conservatives. Did you support Arne?
I'm not a member of the Constitution Party but if Fitsimmons was a member I'd hardly hold that against him. They have long voted with us until we backed candidates who did not vote our own platform. We should be asking CP folks to join us again not distance ourselves from them.
Their Senate candidate got 9,000 votes in November. If Coleman had voted like a real Conservative they would not have run a candidate. Norm would be our Senator today.
Comment 5 by Leon Moe at 29-Apr-09 08:35 PM
Hey, if people disagree with what Mr Fitzsimmons has said or did. State your point and move on. You certainly do not need to add your selves to the growing list of people what would not make a pimple on any good American's buttox. Or do you!!
Leon Moe
Life Member
Disabled American Veterans
and a damn proud American!!
Comment 6 by Norann Dillon at 30-Apr-09 02:07 AM
Mr Gross,
This is awkward for me to respond publicly since I do not know you, but the tone of your posting does not match with my experience, and so I am compelled to reply.
If you were interested in hearing David's answers to your questions, why didn't you call him 'before' you choose to make a public posting? If you were "suspicious," yet you found his answers "straightforward and informative," then this posting does not pass Justice Potter Stewart's test for mere curiosity (know it when you see it).
As David has been running a vigorous and open campaign for well over a month, including appearing at multiple BPOU conventions and meetings, business cards in hand, and mailing a letter to every delegate with contact information and an invitation to reach him, it doesn't follow that you needed a public forum to ask your questions.
There is a difference between asking a question, and questioning someone. That distinction is more nuanced than the proffered definition, but not lost on the reader.
David is driven by the principles of our founding documents, and has consistently shown integrity. For any doubting his commitment to CD6 and the Republican Party, David is already demonstrating what he offers as Chair by appearing at BPOU meetings around the district.
I have had the privilege to work with David FitzSimmons through the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has brought leadership and direction to our chapter. I have full confidence that he will do the same in the Sixth District.
There's no question in that.
Norann Dillon
Secretary, RLCMN
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-09 02:24 AM
Norann, I hate to sound flippant but I don't much care about your Stewart question. If you dislike or question me, I'll just say it's a free country. Believe what you want to believe. I won't be crushed or elated either way. The sun will still rise in the east & set in the west.
Comment 7 by Cindy at 30-Apr-09 11:16 AM
I do know that he is a very busy man. Here is what he is involved in so far:
Wright Co. BPOU chair
Involved in the Conservative Counties movement
State Chair of the liberterium movement: Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/about/chapters/MN/)
Regional Director of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/MN/) Look on the right side of the page toward the bottom.
Running for 6CD chair.
Comment 8 by Rudy at 30-Apr-09 12:48 PM
Self-righteous pricks like the author of this blog are what is wrong with the Minnesota GOP. Go back to the Democratic Party with Norm Coleman and Arlen Specter.
First, however, please give me a full list of the candidates you support for party offices in the MNGOP. It will be the only litmus test I need to differentiate liberals from conservatives.
Comment 9 by Nathan Hansen at 30-Apr-09 01:24 PM
You should have called Mr. Fitzsimmons and asked him these questions. He is a nice guy and would probably be pleased to address any concerns you may have. In any event, I will take a former chair of the Constitution Party over a tax-increasing, stadium-supporting Neocon like Jim Knoblauch.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-09 01:34 PM
Actually, I talked with Mr. FitzSimmons yesterday afternoon.
BTW, calling Jim Knoblach, the architect of the budget that balanced a $4.2 billion deficit without raising taxes, a neocon is absurd.
Comment 10 by The Lady Logician at 30-Apr-09 08:22 PM
Eric - Why not ask? If it avoids a situation like we had in SD35 a few years back (where the chair and the deputy chair used the BPOU's money on an UNENDORSED candidate to the detriment of the endorsed candidate) it is well worth the effort.
Cassie - since when did ASKING a clarifying question become slander. I think you are a little overly sensitive here.
To every one else - I wish to no end that the Republican Party would get BACK to Constitutional principles. I have my concerns about a few Constitution Party principles but not badly enough to rule out voting for any of their candidates. HOWEVER, I do think that the questions are valid for someone who has left one party and is now running for an elected position in another. It is called doing ones DUE DILIGENCE - something that more voters in this country need to be doing. Maybe if you all did that instead of just reacting we could all learn more about one another - instead of creating further division...
Oh and Jim Knoblach a NEO-CON?????? Puhleese Nathan. Have you paid ANY attention to politics PRIOR to the stadium debate? Or is that the only issue you care about?
LL
Comment 11 by SRM at 30-Apr-09 09:16 PM
The Lady Logician said:
'HOWEVER, I do think that the questions are valid for someone who has left one party and is now running for an elected position in another.'
Hm, Coleman jumped from DFL to the GOP, but kept his liberal views. No due diligence there. McCain thought about going Dem in 2000, and is a liberal. I'd much rather have a former conservative CP chair than a liberal any day.
Cindy said:
'State Chair of the liberterium movement: Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/about/chapters/MN/).'
Um, the RLC is not a liberterium movement. (I can only assume you meant libertarian.) Republicans used to believe in liberty (personal freedom). Read the compact.
'Involved in the Conservative Counties movement.'
Who is the MNCCM?
The Minnesota Conservative Counties Movement was founded in 2007. Charter members are from several BPOU counties with some of the highest Republican voting percentages in the State. Pretty awful stuff there, and time consuming. One meeting a month.
I recall a recent BPOU convention in which some of the candidates running for positions had a pretty long list of things they were involved in.
Luckily, David can walk and chew gum at the same time. If it needs to get done, David will get it done.
And he won't go on vacation a week before the elections.
Comment 12 by The Lady Logician at 01-May-09 08:27 AM
SRM said:
Hm, Coleman jumped from DFL to the GOP, but kept his liberal views. No due diligence there. McCain thought about going Dem in 2000, and is a liberal. I'd much rather have a former conservative CP chair than a liberal any day.
Some of DID ask those questions of both McCain and Coleman - if you had read these pages before this you would know that! Some railed MIGHTILY against nominating both Coleman and McCain and we were roundly ignored. That is not going to keep us from continuing to ask. It is the wise thing to do - to ask questions and not back down from the critics who try to prevent you from asking....
LL
Comment 13 by SRM at 01-May-09 06:33 PM
LL,
I know many railed against Coleman and McCain, only to be ignored. That is part of the problem. The grassroots are being ignored.
My point was, why is the party ok with liberals coming in, but question someone from an even more conservative party than the GOP?
Many young people start out as Dems, and as they get older, become conservative, and switch parties. (Although some of these people still vote liberal.) ;)
The CP was started by people disenfranchised with the GOP leaning to the left. If these people want to come back home to help the GOP get back on track, why are we up in arms about it? We need conservatives, not moderates.
Asking questions IS good, and necessary, but I do think facts should be checked first. Going straight to the source is usually the first, and best thing to do.
Comment 14 by eric z at 05-May-09 02:15 PM
My first comment led this thread?
Who?
Who cares?
I think it was the most trenchant thing said in the comments.
Now Ron Paul's website is touting victory in MN 6 leadership matters and Triple-A is unhappy with an internal GOP vote, but happy with his improved weapons skill.
And at the other end of the zoo another IP individual wants to challenge that one IP individual who co-opted the DFL MN 6 poobahs last cycle, so she can co-opt them this cycle.
A zoo.
Each of the three parties has earned the "MN 6 respect" it gets. Mark Olson and Mary Kifmeyer, Tink the Revolving Door, it will not be soon enough that redistricting kills that Gerrymandered monster thing Ventura created to give his pal Barkley a chance to win an election, which he did not do.
The Sixth District, Michele Bachmann's district, has a Rep who so far from much of what I have seen reflects its wisdom and class.
Will 2010 Be Another Big Democratic Year?
Last night, one of the guests on Greta's show said that this figured to be another difficult year for Republicans. That doesn't fit with Rasmussen's recent generic ballot polling :
For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.I don't doubt that that last sentence is giving Democratic strategists gray hair. Though there's no doubt that we'll see fluctuations between now and Election Day 2010, there's also no doubt that the Democrats have misread the electorate. The Democrats' misreading the election results has helped put the GOP in better shape than we've been in a long time.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district's Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district's Republican candidate.
I credit the change in the generic ballot to three things: President Obama's radical agenda, President Obama's arrogance and the House Republicans' principled stand against Obama's radical agenda. Obama's radical agenda has given conservatives something to fight against while the House Republicans' principled stance against that agenda is giving conservatives something to fight for.
This information matters, too:
Democrats began the year holding a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009.For a party that's supposedly riding high after Benedict Arlen's defection, that's an awfully big swing in a negative direction for the D's. It isn't a stretch to think that this trend will continue.
Dick Morris, who considers Rasmussen to be the best public pollster, thinks that Obama's approval ratings won't last :
When the Obama administration crashes and burns, with approval ratings that fall through the floor, political scientists can trace its demise to its first hundred days. While Americans are careful not to consign a presidency they desperately need to succeed to the dustbin of history, the fact is that this president has moved, on issue after issue, in precisely the opposite direction of what the people want him to do.That's the type of base that the GOP can build on. If the GOP wants to become the majority party again, they need to be two things: the party of fiscal sanity and the party that actually listens to We The People. (More than anything else, that's what drove the Tea Party movement.)
Right now, Obama's ratings must be pleasing to his eye. Voters like him and his wife immensely and approve of his activism in the face of the economic crisis. While polls show big doubts about what he is doing, the overwhelming sense is to let him have his way and pray that it works.
But beneath this superficial support, Obama's specific policies run afoul of the very deeply felt convictions of American voters. For example, the most recent Rasmussen Poll asked voters if they wanted an economic system of complete free enterprise or preferred more government involvement in managing the economy. By 77-19, they voted against a government role, up seven points from last month.
And in the Fox News poll, the very same survey that gave Obama a 62 percent approval rating and reported that 68 percent of voters are "satisfied" with his first hundred days, voters, by 50-38, supported a smaller government that offered fewer services over a larger government that provided more.
There's alot of work to be done to rebuild the party but I'm encouraged by what's happened locally the last month.
Anyone thinking that this will be another big year for the Democrats simply isn't paying attention to the warning signs.
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:34 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 29-Apr-09 01:37 PM
Gary, there is discontent with a first hundred days that was merely allocating the spoils and reentering a bunch of Clinton people into things they'd not done well with when they had their earlier chance. You promise CHANGE, you don't deliver CHANGE, the worry is not the blue dog end of the Democratic spectrum it is the left, those who were willing to either wholly believe or to willingly for a short time suspend disbelief. The goodwill's been used, there's no healthcare reform, there's business as usual, and Obama is just another middle-of-the-road promisor, so far.
We await. We suspend judgment. But there is disappointment in the air.
Chessani Wins Again
This morning, I got an email update from the Thomas More Law Center on the military's case against Lt. Col. Chessani. Here's the text of that update:
This sentence should be highlighted:ANN ARBOR, MI ; Yesterday evening, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), sitting in Washington DC, denied without comment the government's motion for Reconsideration. Government prosecutors had asked that the unanimous ruling in favor of LtCol Jeffery Chessani, USMC, by a 3-judge NMCCA panel be reconsidered by all 9 judges. A majority of the 9 judges would have had to agree to take the case.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been representing LtCol Chessani since January 2007. He is also represented by detailed military attorneys LtCol Jon Shelburne, USMC; Capt Jeffrey King, USMC; and Capt Kyle Kilian, USMC.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, "This case has turned into a government vendetta against a patriotic Marine combat officer who loyally served his nation for over 20 years. We must also remember the sacrifices made by his wife and children while he left them to defend us during 3 tours of duty in Iraq, and during the First Persian Gulf War, and in the Panama Canal."
Thompson continued, "The lengths to which our own government will go to persecute one of its most loyal officers are outrageous. Every war needs a scapegoat, and it seems the government is intent on making LtCol Chessani that very thing. The Thomas More Law Center won't let them."
The criminal charges against LtCol Chessani stemmed from a fierce house-to-house, room-by-room combat action taken by four of his Marines after being ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. In that battle, 9 insurgents and 15 civilians were killed. LtCol Chessani was the battalion commander of the four Marines involved in the action. Every officer in Lt Col Chessani's chain of command, including his reviewing General approved and commended him for his actions until the publication of a Time magazine article months later charging the Marines with committing a massacre. Claims of a massacre were later proved to be untrue.
On March 17, 2009, the 3-judge panel of NMCCA unanimously vindicated the ruling by Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissing all charges against LtCol Chessani on the grounds of Unlawful Command Influence. LtCol Chessani is the senior-most officer criminally charged as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described "Haditha massacre."
In dismissing the charges against LtCol Chessani, Col Folsom described Unlawful Command Influence as the "the mortal enemy of military justice." But despite the solid legal basis for the ruling, the government appealed the decision to NMCCA. NMCCA heard oral arguments on the government's appeal on October 17, 2008. On March 17, 2009 the court ruled in LtCol Chessani's favor. The government appealed April 16, 2009. The Law Center responded to the Reconsideration appeal on April 24, 2009. [Click here to see Law Center's response.]
In seeking Reconsideration by the entire panel of NMCCA, government prosecutors argued that the 3-judge panel misunderstood the difference between an officer's rank and his billet (job). Essentially, the government argues that a full colonel in the Marine Corps could not unlawfully influence a Lieutenant Colonel if they held similar billet (job) positions.
The government now has 60 days to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). If the government loses at CAAF, they can seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. After all the appeals are over, the government can attempt to bring a new case against LtCol Chessani with a new convening authority (a new General overseeing the case if that new general so desires).
Click here to read the NMCCA's denial of the government's motion for Reconsideration.The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
NMCCA's Denial of Motion for Reconsideration
TMLC's Response to the Government's Motion for Reconsideration
Every officer in Lt Col Chessani's chain of command, including his reviewing General approved and commended him for his actions until the publication of a Time magazine article months later charging the Marines with committing a massacre.Let's remember that Lt. Col. Chessani is being persecuted for not conducting a full investigation into the Haditha firefight. That isn't credible considering the fact that "his reviewing general approved and commended his actions."
As troubling as that is, what's more troubling is that the military's court martial system isn't subject to judicial review or congressional oversight. Shouldn't the Constitution's protections extend to those who defend the Constitution and this great nation?
The government now has 60 days to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). If the government loses at CAAF, they can seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. After all the appeals are over, the government can attempt to bring a new case against LtCol Chessani with a new convening authority (a new General overseeing the case if that new general so desires).In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court can rule against the military but the military can restart the process with a new general.
That's isn't judicial review with teeth. That's artificial judicial review.
It's time that the military ended its persecution of Lt. Col. Chessani and SSgt. Wuterich. It's time the Pentagon admitted that they were driven by purely political reasons in pursuing criminal charges. Finally, it's time for the House and Senate Armed Services Committees reformed the entire court martial system.
Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 29-Apr-09 01:27 PM
It seems the DoD should look at what new AG Holder and the Justice Department did with the Stevens case. Gates is a carryover DoD head, but under new top leadership he should be prompted to have a new look. The post conclusion, how the UCMJ and civilian law balance, may be wrong, Gary, and you should research it more fully. Constitutionally, the President is Commander in Chief, and executive privilege and separation of powers have been argued in the past and every time it is unclear how the balance - a three way balance - should work. Each case has its own uniqueness. I could see an argument that the UCMJ is entirely "executive" in its administration and the judicial branch lacks "jurisdiction" with Congress having powers to define and limit judicial jurisdiction; e.g., in immigration matters there at one time was a question of judicial review of executive decision making on admission and expulsion from the country. I am talking vague memories from the 1970's, and laws may have been amended and new cases decided since then.
How was the Caley - My Lai case out of Vietnam ultimately resolved - at what judicial/DoD review stage? This Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-09 01:34 PM
I'm familiar with those arguments, Eric, & they're respectable arguments. Nonetheless, they aren't persuasive because they don't address the constitutional protections from acts of attainder.
Pelosi vs. Pence
Mike Pence spoke against House budget before they voted on President Obama's budget resolution. Here's the transcript of Rep. Pence's statement :
I rise in opposition to the Budget Conference Report because it borrows too much, spends too much, and taxes too much and the American people know it. At a time when every American family is sitting down around kitchen tables, making sacrifices and making the hard choices necessary to get through these difficult days, here in Washington, D.C. we see a Democrat majority and a new Administration bring forward a budget that will double the national debt in five years and triple the national debt in ten years. A $1.2 trillion deficit in 2010 and deficits of nearly $1 trillion a year every year for the next 10 years.Predictably, Speaker Pelosi spoke of the budget's liberal virtuosity:
The distinguished Majority Leader spoke of political courage on the floor just moments ago, but let me say there are no profiles in courage in this budget. The truth is, the Democratic majority and this Administration have brought to this floor the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. Congress should be doing what every American family is doing: cutting expenses, finding within themselves the faith and, yes, the courage to get through these times with sacrifice. Instead, here in Washington, D.C. it's more government, more spending, more debt and more taxes.
In just 100 days, the new Administration and this Democratic majority have decided to greatly expand the mistakes of the past. But we can do better. And I believe for the sake of our children and our grandchildren we must do better. Let's reject this conference report and start over with a budget that will lead to fiscal prosperity through fiscal responsibility."
Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honor to call Mr. Spratt a colleague. We say that from time to time about our Members, but never is it truer than in the case of Chairman John Spratt of South Carolina. He is a gentleman who has brought the values of our country, the principles of our great democracy to bear on writing a budget.What American priority is met by a budget that proposes federal spending equal to 27.6% of GDP in 2009? What American priority is met by a budget deficit of $1,875,000,000,000? You'll forgive me if I don't recognize those priorities.
Because of his leadership, today for the first time in many, many years, we have a President's budget on the floor that is a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a nation is reflected in this budget. It is a very happy day for our country, Mr. Spratt, because of your leadership.
Speaker Pelosi wasn't done with that BS-laden rant. Here's another BS-laden rant:
These three, education, health care and energy, are what the business community and other sectors of our community tell us are the investments that we must make in order to turn our economy around.If "creating a path toward lowering the deficit" is a priority, why is this budget 17 percent bigger than last year's budget? Couple that with a shrinking economy (It shrunk at an annual rate of 6.1 percent for Q1, FY2009 .) and you've got the recipe for growing deficits. According to this article , Rep. Paul Ryan thinks that the deficit projectsion are fiction:
So here we are today, with a budget before us that creates jobs, reduces taxes, and takes us on a path toward lowering the deficit. It does so in the most transparent way of any budget in our country's history and certainly in this Congress' history. And as it does so, it focuses on those three pillars of the Obama agenda, education, health care and energy.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said that Wednesday's news that the economy had shrunk by 6.1 percent in the first quarter highlighted the likelihood that the deficit numbers are even worse than predicted in the budget. "Put reality into the budget and the deficits and debt go much higher," Ryan said.Under the Democrats' unrealistic projections, each deficit is bigger than the record deficit under President Bush. That's significant because every economist worth listening to will tell you that growth coming out of a recession should be considerably more robust than in the midst of a recovery.
They'll also tell you that the best way to negate the recovery is with inflation. Reputable economists will also tell you that irrepsonsible debt levels suck money out of a recovering economy that entrepreneurs would otherwise use to expand their businesses.
I alluded to the CBO's projection in this post . Here's the CBO's projections:
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.This isn't the only instance where fuzy math has been employed by the Obama administration. Here's another example :
Obama Claim:When I saw the 150,000 jobs created or saved figure, I was more than skeptical. Here's what Sen. Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told Treasury Secretary Geithner:
"We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95% of all working families."
You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."There's no way I'll trust those figures, especially with the speculative nature of the figures. Adding to my skepticism is the fact that the Obama administration needs people to start thinking that the stimuilus plan actually did something. There's little proof that it's done anything more than add to our debt and paid off the Democratic Party's political allies.
Finally, it's put-up-or-shut-up time for Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. Their combination of inflation-creating do-nothing spending and their job-killing tax hikes will hurt families. Unfortunately, they chose to listen to their political allies instead of doing the right thing.
Meanwhile, Mike Pence and the House GOP leadership stayed true to their principles. Main Street will hate their Cap and Trade tax increase and Wall Street won't trust or like their nationalization policies. When Pelosi's and Obama's policies start hurting families and the recovery doesn't produce results, the people will take it out on them at the polls.
Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:40 AM
No comments.
AP Criticizes President Obama On Deficits
Just when I thought I'd seen it all, I read something like this AP article , which actually does a pretty good job factchecking President Obama. Here's the opening smackdown:
"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.President Obama can deny it if he wants but there's no denying that he's exploded the deficit. There's also no doubting that Speaker Pelosi and her Democrats helped run the deficit up to a staggering level.
It actually was him, and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years, who shaped a budget so out of balance. And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
His stimulus bill, which is $800,000,000,000 worth of pork, didn't get a single House Republican vote. Ditto with President Obama's budget blueprint. Those plans have nothing but Democrat fingerprints on them.
Here's one of Obama's talking points that the AP refuted:
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.It's interesting (deceitful, too) that President Obama talks about "one-time charges" even though he knows most of his stimulus and omnibus bill spending got added to the FY2010 budget's baseline.
I find it ironic that President Obama says that he doesn't want to own the car companies. This morning, President Obama all but fired Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli in announcing that Chrysler is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection :
The bankruptcy will be filed under a section of the law that allows a company to shed bad assets and some liabilities. The administration expects it to last only up to 60 days.Republicans were advising that Chrysler and GM should file for chapter 11 protections months ago. Earlier, he fired GM CEO Rick Waggoner. For someone with big problems on his hands, President Obama sure finds time to run car manufacturers.
Obama's auto task force in March rejected Chrysler's restructuring plan and gave it 30 days to make another effort, including a tie-up with Fiat. The company has borrowed $4 billion from the federal government and needs billions more to keep operating.
The UAW agreement, which would take effect May 4, meets Treasury requirements for continued loans to Chrysler Corp., and includes commitments from Fiat to manufacture a new small car in one of Chrysler's U.S. facilities and to share key technology with Chrysler.
We can't forget, too, that this administration's Treasury secretary asked Congress to pass legislation giving him the authority to take over major financial institutions if he alone deemed it important to do so.
Thus far, I haven't seen proof that President Obama cares about prosperity or liberty. In fact, all I have on the liberty front is proof that he's willing to take control of things that the government doesn't have the authority to take control of.
Whether he'll admit it or not, the Obama administration owns this economy. People won't blame him for creating this mess. They'll just affix blame on him for not having the right solutions for it.
Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:19 PM
No comments.
DFL Votes to Protect Minnesota's Medical Monopolies
That the DFL voted to protect Minnesota medical insurance monopolies isn't surprising. What's surprising is that the DFL thinks that they won't get punished for voting to protect the Minnesota Medical Monopolies.
Here's part of the text of the amendment Rep. Jennifer Loon offered:
"Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 62A.02, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:In other words, if a company has been approved to sell health insurance in Ohio, Michigan or Iowa, meaning that they've been properly vetted, the DFL voted to protect the monopoly that United Health, Health Partners and Blue Cross built.
Subd. 8. Right to purchase health coverage approved in other state. (a) Notwithstanding any other law of this state to the contrary, any resident of this state and any employer that employs residents of this state may purchase a health plan that has not been approved by the commissioner, if the health plan is permitted to be sold in any other state.
(b) Notwithstanding any other law of this state to the contrary, any insurance company, whether domestic, foreign, or alien, that is permitted to offer, sell, issue, or renew a health plan in any other state under the laws of that state, may do so with respect to that health plan in this state. The insurance company need not have a certificate of authority, license, or other authorization from the commissioner to do business in this state. This paragraph does not exempt the insurance company from compliance with chapter 303, relating to foreign business entities.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law of this state to the contrary, any insurance agent licensed or otherwise permitted to sell health plans in this state, or in a state in which the health plan is permitted to be sold, may sell to a resident of this state or to an employer that employs residents of this state any health plan permitted to be sold under paragraph (a) or (b), and is not, in connection with that transaction, subject to the laws of this state regulating insurance agents.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law of this state to the contrary, an insurance company and a health plan offered, issued, sold, or renewed by the insurance company under authority of this subdivision:
Central Minnesota voters should know that Rep. Larry Haws, Rep. Larry Hosch, Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba and Rep. Al Doty voted against Rep. Loon's amendment, which would've allowed greater commpetition, which drive health insurance premiums and health care costs down.
Eagan and Burnsville voters should know that Will Morgan and Sandy Masin voted to protect the Minnesota Medical Monopolies.
There's no excusing this. Voting to strengthen these monopolies isn't what their constituents want. These monopolies' lobbyist are smiling knowing that Reps. Haws, Hosch, Otremba, Doty, Masin and Morgan voted the way they wanted them to.
Earlier this month, I attended an event at the Good Shepherd's Lutheran Home in Sauk Rapids. At that event, Rep. Haws made a snide remark that the information he was dispensing was more reliable than "the blogs." Afterwards, I kiddingly asked him if he was taking a jab at me. He said he wasn't, then said that he wouldn't read my blog. That's Rep. Haws' right, just as it's his right to vote with the monopolies instead of the way his constituents expect him to vote.
Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:48 PM
Comment 1 by Nathan McLaughlin at 01-May-09 11:26 AM
Wondering if I have permission to post this on my site with proper credits of course?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-May-09 12:28 PM
You've got my blessing. Spread it far & wide. In fact, the farther & the wider the better.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-May-09 06:17 PM
Least common denominator policy is not sound policy.
Are we to ignore an entire Minnesota regulatory scheme, so that insurance plans can be fobbed off on folks that are unsound simply because Nevada or someplace without a conscience allows the health insurance equivalent of AIG in terms of fiscal responsibility, and a combination of Draconian and Kafkaesque coverage policy and requirements?
That's not very wise, is it?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 03-May-09 01:21 AM
Eric, Who says that these insurance companies & their policies aren't sound? What's the criteria being used for making that claim? Assumptions aren't facts. Next time, bring facts instead of making these insinuations.
