April 3-4, 2008
Apr 03 00:03 Does Anyone Trust Them? Apr 03 09:03 The Final Nail In Reyes' Argument? Apr 03 10:06 Court to McDermott: Pay Up Apr 03 15:31 Context, Context, Context Apr 03 15:57 More Bills Heading for Vetoes Apr 04 05:03 DFL to Pawlenty: We'll Fund the Wish List, You Be The Adult Apr 04 10:27 Tarryl Clark: We Need Stable Funding, Stable Spending Apr 04 14:39 Typical Washington Runaround
Does Anyone Trust Them?
The Minnesota Legislature has lived within a self-imposed 3 percent limit since 1979 on bonding bills. That's when Gov. Perpich & the legislature met with bond houses to establish a rule to stay within so that Minnesota's bond rating would remain high. This year, the DFL-dominated legislature is bent on breaking that limit by nearly $100 million. Rep. Alice Hausman tells us not to worry. Here's the most memorable thing she said:
In previous years, lawmakers have confined their general obligation debt to 3 percent of the state's general fund budget.Does anyone think that the DFL will stay with the plan for smaller bonding bills in the years to come, especially if Minnesota's economy is still faltering? Before answering that, consider these facts:
The February forecast lowered the amount to $885 million. Because lawmakers borrowed $60 million in the transportation funding bill that passed earlier this session, the guideline limits borrowing to $825 million, according to state Finance Department officials.
Hausman, however, said the state can borrow $925 million and remain within the 3 percent guideline. She said the bill sets lower assumptions for borrowing in the future.
"There's an argument to be made for a larger bill this year and a somewhat lower level in future years," Hausman said.
Mike Hatch, the DFL's gubernatorial candidate, told people that we could spend more on important projects without raising taxes . Here's what I said then:
Believing that a Democrat won't raise taxes instinctively is like believing that making sudden movements towards a cobra won't get you bit.Before the 2007 session, Tarryl Clark said that there wouldn't be much money for new initiatives. Maggie Kelliher said that they wouldn't raise taxes. Just a few days after the budget forecast came within $37 million of being right on, Democrats submitted one tax increase after another. Steve Murphy even bragged that his bill was filled with tax increases :
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsorIf that isn't enough proof that the DFL is perfectly willing to lie about increasing taxes and spending, then I've got 6.6 billion other bits of proof that they shouldn't be trusted.
of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion
a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes
in this bill."
The DFL hasn't given us proof that they'd stay within spending and taxing guidelines. That's why I won't trust them to be fiscally responsible.
Let's remember that the DFL passed a budget last year that would've increased spending by upwards of 17 percent. Should we really trust them to be a fiscally moderate bunch? Everyone's entitled to their decision. I just know that I won't trust the DFL any further than I could throw them if I had two broken arms & a bad back.
The DFL hasn't earned my trust with their actions. They've said one thing and did another too many times for me to trust. Until their actions match their promises, I won't trust them.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 03-Apr-08 06:46 PM
I heard the greatest quote on the radio this evening. One of the DFL legislators called on Governor Pawlenty to "compromise" on the bill saying that the increase was "only 4%" and that signing the bill would be the "ultimate in compromise"....
SAY WHAT?!?!?!?!? Capitulation is now compromise???????
LL
The Final Nail In Reyes' Argument?
Yesterday, I wrote about Silvestre Reyes' counterpoint op-ed in the Strib. Here's the portion of the counterpoint that I found particularly objectionable:
As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.I my post, I said this:
This has been the Democrats' line of attack since the bill was introduced. It was bogus then. It's bogus now.I followed by asking this question:
Why does Chairman Reyes think that this is about "warrantless spying on Americans"?This morning, I checked out the language in the PAA just to verify that the legislation didn't deal with "warrantless spying on Americans." Here's what I found :
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.If our government wants to tap someone's phone, they need a judge to sign a warrant. That's been the law since before I was young.
What this confirms for me is that Chairman Reyes used that wording because he couldn't justify Pelosi's inaction with the truth: that this bill isn't getting passed because the trial lawyers don't want it passed.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:04 AM
No comments.
Court to McDermott: Pay Up
Yesterday, Judge Thomas Hogan ordered Rep. Jim McDermott to pay Rep. John Boehner the damages stemming from a 1998 lawsuit. Here's the gist of Judge Hogan's ruling:
A federal judge in Washington has ordered Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott to pay more than $1 million in attorney's fees awarded to Minority Leader John A. Boehner as part of a protracted lawsuit involving an illegally taped cell phone call.There's alot of history behind this ruling. Here's a nice summarization of that history:
U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Hogan ruled that McDermott, D-Wash., must pay $1,053,181, plus $520,761 in interest to Boehner, R-Ohio.
Boehner sued McDermott in 1998, accusing him of leaking the contents of a conference call that a Florida couple had illegally taped from Boehner's cell phone in 1996.What's hillarious is McDermott's statement after being notified of the ruling:
In the call, Republican leaders, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia (1979-99), discussed responding to ethics allegations against Gingrich, who served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999.
McDermott at the time was the ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel.
The attorney's fee payment comes on top of $60,000 in damages that McDermott already has paid Boehner out of his legal expense fund.
In December, McDermott paid Boehner $50,000 in court-ordered punitive damages, $10,000 in statutory damages and another $4,169 in interest, according to public disclosure filings. The payment was made shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in Boehner's favor.
"While the amount of damages assessed in this case is significant, I submit that defending the First Amendment is beyond measure and worth every penny," McDermott said in a statement, adding, "With the end of this case, another threat against the First Amendment has been met and turned back.""Another threat against the First Amendment has been...turned back"? That's so far out there that I'm speechless. This guy is an idiot if he thinks that this had anything to do with the First Amendment. In fact, the irony from this ruling couldn't be better timed.
Rep. McDermott just got hammered for $1.5 million for accepting a tape of a conversation that was done without a warrant. In fact, it wasn't done by a law enforcement agency. It was intercepted by a retired Florida couple. This ruling happened at a time when Democrats are accusing President Bush of wiretapping Americans without a warrant. That irony wasn't lost in this IBD editorial :
Compare that with Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., ordered on Monday by a federal court to pay nearly $1.2 million to House Minority Leader John Boehner, after breaking federal wiretapping laws.This isn't unprecedented. Democrats have long accused Republicans of voter suppression. The only trouble with that is that Democrats are the ones that've gotten convicted of voter fraud. Democrats are the ones who've vandalized GOTV vehicles in Milwaukee. Democrats are the ones who marched into GOP victory offices in Florida to intimidate GOP volunteers.
McDermott had disclosed to reporters a secret tape of a 1996 cell phone conversation between Boehner and other GOP leaders about a House ethics committee reprimand of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In late 2006, that same ethics panel found McDermott's actions "not consistent with the spirit of the Committee's rules", but didn't discipline him. McDermott remains in Congress today.
Considering the McDermott case, not to mention disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer using state police to gumshoe the State Senate GOP leader, it's not President Bush abusing power to hurt political adversaries; it's Democrats.
The reality is that Democrats are close to being the thugs that they accuse Republicans of being.
Here's Steve Beren's statement on McDermott's disgrace:
"Today is April Fools Day, and it is time for Jim McDermott to stop fooling around. It is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes McDermott from office. Jim McDermott should cut a check, pay the fine, and resign now! The time has come for McDermott to go. When you look at the record of this case, you have to conclude that McDermott has placed himself above the law. A member of congress ought to be a citizen representative, with the highest ethics and deepest patriotism. McDermott's unethical behavior, unworthy of any citizen, is absolutely unworthy of a member of congress. His flagrant disregard of his legal and ethical responsibilities disqualify him from office. Of course, this is the same McDermott who opposes our troops and opposes a victory strategy in the war against Islamic terrorism. So when McDermott puts himself above the law, it's hardly surprising."I wholeheartedly agree, Steve. It's long past time to dump Jim McDermott.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2008 10:08 AM
No comments.
Context, Context, Context
Yesterday, I posted Larry Pogemiller's YouTube video . It's one of the most outrageous YouTube's I've seen. This afternoon, Janet is posting about it too. When Jeff Johnson wrote an editorial about this, Sen. Pogemiller immediately responded with this editorial :
I was a little surprised to learn that a Republican Party leader in the St. Cloud area chose to write to the Times about remarks I made to my constituents weeks ago at my town-hall meeting in Minneapolis. ("Pogemiller's words show laws of land are obsolete," Wednesday.) My surprise turned to disappointment when I saw the author also chose to strip my remarks of any context, so please allow me to fill in the gaps.Bear with me a little while I make my point. I attended a health care forum in St. Cloud in early January. The event was hosted by Tarryl Clark. Sen. John Marty was the special guest that evening. During that meeting, Sen. Marty said that "We have to start looking at health care as a community need, just like we view the police department or the fire department." After the meeting, a woman who identified herself as a retired nurse from the St. Cloud VA Hospital told me that the VA system was a perfect illustration of how well socialized medicine works. That was her term, not mine.
It's true that I said, "It's simplistic and naive to say people can individually spend their money better than government." I went on to say, "I don't care how rich you are you can't build a freeway system by yourself." I also said, "you can't build a public educational system by yourself."
The point is obvious. In a democracy we join together to provide police and fire protection, road and schools. It is simplistic to suggest that we can do these things on our own.
Larry Pogemiller
Senate Majority Leader
Minneapolis
Still later, a woman with the GMHCC gave me a factsheet on Sen. Marty's health care reform legislation. It was a single-payer system. In other words, state-run health care.
Now Larry Pogemiller expects us to believe that, while talking amongst hardcore DFL activists, that he wasn't speaking from a socialist/utopian mindset? We're to believe that he's simply misunderstood, that his statements were taken out of context, that he's a capitalist at heart?
I've yet to see anything from the DFL legislature that proves they're capitalists. I've seen more than a few bits of proof that they've got socialist tendencies.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment 1 by Wendy at 04-Apr-08 06:26 AM
Funny that Senator Pogemiller should mention that we join together to provide police and fire protection.
My husband used to be the commander of the bomb squad for Minneapolis. He was nearly killed by a blast wave during a training exercise three years ago. The city council has turned its back on us - they see no need to provide support, either financially or emotionally, for our family.
Our state rep, Mary Liz Holberg, has been trying to help us at the legislature, to stop Minneapolis from abandoning our family, but Minneapolis buried the first bill.
Apparently we need to come together for everything except for taking care of a disabled cop and his family.
http://www.wulffden.com/dan
More Bills Heading for Vetoes
According to Gov. Pawlenty, the DFL refuses to learn their lesson with taxes and spending. This afternoon, he's upset with the DFL's major budget-balancing bills:
As the Minnesota House and Senate prepared to pass their major budget-balancing bills today, Gov. Tim Pawlenty warned that lawmakers are "putting together bills that they know are not acceptable to me" because they tax and spend too much.That's only the half of it:
Pawlenty said their bills are "filled with stuff that defunds my priorities" and doesn't solve the state's projected $935 million budget deficit.
In addition to the budget bills up today, Pawlenty criticized a tax bill passed by the Senate and a public works measure approved by both houses on Wednesday. The Senate tax bill includes a $150 million tax increase to help plug the hole in the budget, and the bonding bill would spend $100 million more than a state debt-management guideline allows. (The House and Senate bonding bill sponsors contended they could spend more without exceeding the guideline by stretching out the payment schedule.)It's obvious that the DFL would rather rattle their sabres than actually work on a bipartisan solution. Once again, they're heading down the 'My-way-or-the-highway' trail. It's a given that Gov. Pawlenty will veto the tax bill and the deficit-reduction bills. The DFL won't override his vetoes. At that point, they'll be forced to compromise. That means that the DFL will have wasted a bunch of time on legislation they know won't become law.
"So they're playing true to form," the Republican governor said of the Democrats who control the Legislature. "Tax and spend is what their agenda is...
"While the rest of country trying to live within their means, the economy is growing slowly and folks' household paychecks aren't growing very fast, Democrats in the state of Minnesota feel bent on raising taxes and growing spending way beyond the economy. That's not appropriate or responsible, and I'm not going to stand for it.
I still haven't figured out if Gov. Pawlenty will veto the bonding bill or if he'll use his line-item authority to trim a ton of fat from it before signing the bill. Part of me hopes that he uses the line item on the bonding bill, then vetoes the deficit-reduction and tax bills outright.
Either way, one thing should be clear. This November, it's time that voters told the DFL that they reject their unsustainable spending habits and their outrageous tax increases.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment 1 by TitanTrader at 03-Apr-08 06:07 PM
I thought Gottwalt was your adopted Representative. I wonder what excuse he'll give for voting for this pig of a bill.
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 04-Apr-08 09:56 AM
I talked to my Rep last night (who voted against the bill). This bill was designed to paint the Republican Reps into a corner. If they vote for the bill it can be used against them in the campaign and if they vote AGAINST the bill it can be used against them in the campaign. It was a no-win situation.
In our case there is money in that bill for a REGIONAL law enforcement training center...something that can be used by the entire metro area. It will be lost because the greedy Democrats wanted to bring home the bacon to their CITIES.....
LL
Comment 3 by TitanTrader at 04-Apr-08 11:15 AM
"It was a no-win situation".
In that case I would vote for fiscal responsiblity, but then I am a principled person.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 04-Apr-08 11:37 AM
Agreed and thankfully my Rep did.
The problem is that there is some spending that IS necessary (the regional training center for example). The spending WILL stimulate the economy....it's all part of that evil trickle down theory that President Reagan advocated...remember that?
I will say that this spending won't have the long term effect that say tax cuts will, but you throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying no spending at all.....
LL
DFL to Pawlenty: We'll Fund the Wish List, You Be The Adult
When it comes to the bonding bill, the DFL's strategy is simple. They'll fund the wish lists but they'll leave the leadership part to Gov. Pawlenty. Gov. Pawlenty told the legislature that $825 million was the limit for the bonding bill. The House and Senate agreed to a $925 million bill. Despite their lack of leadership and bipartisanship, it's clear that the DFL plans on blaming Gov. Pawlenty and the GOP for whatever happens. Here's Tarryl Clark's spin on their bonding bill:
Sen. Clark's comments are extremely partisan, which I've come to expect from her. The DFL fills the bill with tons of pork, essentially telling Gov. Pawlenty that he'll have to use his veto pen to do the job they should've done.Last week, Sen. Tarryl Clark, the assistant majority leader in the Senate, criticized Pawlenty's role in the bonding bill debate, calling him a "touch-and-go governor. The governor is able to line-item veto without him coming to us and saying, 'Here is my...bonding bill,' [which] he did not," Clark said, defending the projects in the bill. "He can take out that big pen he likes so much."
Winkler shares the same feeling, saying that "the governor hasn't exactly been willing to come to the table. He drew a line in the sand and said go figure it out." Clark concluded her remarks Friday by saying: "We need him to be here."
Alice Hausman hinted that she was willing to negotiate with Gov. Pawlenty. Her willingness didn't matter, though, because Keith Langseth was obstinant about the size of the bonding bill:
By many accounts, Hausman and the House DFL leadership were somewhat held hostage by Langseth and Democratic Senate leaders. In light of the state's budget forecast earlier this session, which predicted a $935 million deficit this year, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, acting on the recommendation of the state's economist Tom Stinson, said that he would not sign a bonding bill that was larger than $825 million. Langseth, it was repeated on both floors, would not come down below $925 million in general obligation bonds, even though Hausman and many of her DFLer cohorts were willing to go lower.It's time that we spotlighted Sen. Clark's lack of leadership in reining in Sen. Langseth. She's the Assistant Senate Majority leader. I've seen no evidence that she exerted any pressure on Sen. Langseth to drop his $925 million price tag. On the contrary, her passivity apparently indicates that she agrees with the bill.
At this point, I haven't seen any leadership from Sen. Clark to keep spending under control. What I have seen is her exerting her leadership in driving spending & taxes up.
In other words, she's acting like the lobbyist she used to be. That's hardly the type of leadership St. Cloud needs when revenues are shrinking.
Originally posted Friday, April 4, 2008, revised 07-Apr 6:30 AM
No comments.
Tarryl Clark: We Need Stable Funding, Stable Spending
After reading Tarryl Clark's March 18th statement on the economy , I'm left scratching my head. Here's what's puzzling to me:
Given the decline in Minnesota's economy since 2002, it didn't come as a surprise that the state's budget deficit ballooned to $938 million this February.
In making those choices, we should set priorities and pursue strategies that take into account the immediate, along with the long-term effects, of budget decisions. We need to do more than just balance the budget; we need to help make Minnesota stronger and more prosperous.
As I pointed out here , the DFL hasn't set priorities:
When it comes to the bonding bill, the DFL's strategy is simple. They'll fund the wish lists but they'll leave the leadership part to Gov. Pawlenty. Gov. Pawlenty told the legislature that $825 million was the limit for the bonding bill. The House and Senate agreed to a $925 million bill. Despite their lack of leadership and bipartisanship, it's clear that the DFL plans on blaming Gov. Pawlenty and the GOP for whatever happens.
Where do we see setting priorities in this bonding bill? With all due respect to Sen. Clark, that's a Christmas wish list, not a list of prioritized spending project that will strengthen Minnesota's economy. How will spending $11 million on a new gorilla renovation at Como Park strengthen Minnesota's economy? How will spending $70 million on planning the next phase of the Central Corridor Light Rail. Here's what Larry Howes said about the Central Corridor project :
"This won't do any jobs," Howes said, twisting the DFL spin on the bonding as a "jobs bill." "This will just hire lawyers and planners and advisers. This won't put a shovel in the ground."
I'd further suggest that Sen. Clark might have more credibility if she hadn't voted for every major tax increase & each unsustainable spending increase last year. When someone votes to increase spending by more than 17 percent during this biennium, it's safe to say that talk about prioritizing spending is just that: talk. It's time Sen. Clark realized that you don't have credibility until you walk the talk.
I'd further suggest that the House GOP & Gov. Pawlenty warned what would happen if the DFL's spending spree was signed into law. Now those predictions have been proven true. Sen. Clark & her DFL colleagues can't say that they weren't warned.
BTW, had spending increased by that amount, we wouldn't be facing a $935 million deficit; we'd be staring at a multi-billion dollar deficit.
That's what happens when legislators put us on a rollercoaster ride of spending. Isn't it time that Sen. Clark lived up to her admonitions?
Originally posted Friday, April 4, 2008, revised 16-Apr 5:28 PM
No comments.
Typical Washington Runaround
I just tried contacting Rep. Reyes' office in the hopes of getting a clarification on his March 20 Strib op-ed. Instead of getting a clarification, I got typical Washington runaround. Here's what Chairman Reyes said that I wanted clarified:
As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I am committed to taking this fight to the terrorists, but I remain convinced that we can do that while stopping this administration, or any administration, from conducting warrantless spying on Americans. Our responsibility includes not only the safety of the American people but also the safety and sanctity of the American Constitution. We must protect both.The question I wanted answered was this: What does the PAA have to do with the wiretapping of Americans?
Instead of the clarification, here's what I got:
Initially, I visited Rep. Reyes House website. After a bit of searching, I finally found his contact information. Rather than just submitting my question via contact form, I decided to call his DC office.
The gentleman who answered the phone gave me the phone number of the House Intelligence Committee. He then said to call them for a clarification.
A young lady answered the phone. I explained to her what I was looking for. She explained that I would have to either fax them my question or to write a snail mail letter to get my question answered. I asked the young lady if they had an email address. She said that the House Intelligence Committee didn't have an email address, that all contact had to be through fax or via snail mail. When she mentioned snail mail, I was tempted to ask if they still got their mail via covered wagon but I thought that might a little harsh.
I told this young lady that I'd been given this number by Rep. Reyes' office with the assurance that they'd be able to help. She said that they'd given me the right information, then she told me that she couldn't answer my question. Meanwhile, I'm wondering how Reyes' office had given me the right information since I wasn't getting my question answered.
Frankly, the impression I was left with was that of a sloppy operation. This wasn't a professional operation by any stretch of the imagination.
UPDATE: I contacted Chairman Reyes' office again. I was told by an intern that there were only interns in the office this afternoon and that they can't answer questions on intelligence matters. (That much I'd figured out already.) He said that "There are many illuminating articles in the NY Times" and other sources that talk about American wiretapping.
I know that there's lots of those types of articles out there. That still doesn't explain what FISA has to do with wiretapping Americans much less warrantless wiretapping of Americans' communications. That's the point of my inquiry.
After doing this digging, I'm not at all confident in Chairman Reyes' leadership abilities or in the committee's ability to handle intelligence-gathering matters in the 21st Century. Just the notion that a House or Senate committee isn't set up with an email address, especially the intelligence committee, is downright scary.
Posted Friday, April 4, 2008 2:40 PM
No comments.
