April 5-6, 2008
Apr 05 15:28 Larry Haws Talks Budget Targets, Tarryl Dodges Tough Questions Apr 05 18:10 Unanimously Endorsed Apr 06 06:34 Their Worst Nightmare? Apr 06 14:11 Will 'The Tribes' Unite?
Larry Haws Talks Budget Targets, Tarryl Dodges Tough Questions
This morning, I attended a townhall meeting hosted by Sen. Tarryl Clark & Rep. Larry Haws. By the time I left, I was wondering if I'd been transported into the Twilight Zone. I'll start my explanation by telling you part of Larry Haws' opening statement. Here's the statement that got me reeling:
"I know you can't tax your way to a good economy."My first thought was "If that's your belief, then why have you voted for most of the biggest tax increases in state history"?
One of the first speakers from the audience identified himself as Kevin Lenave. He quickly got things headed in the right direction, first saying that "it's obvious that we've got the money to fund our needs." Kevin then went onto say that the legislature needs to focus on funding needs, not wants. (Had King been in the audience, it's likely he would've walked over & asked to shake Kevin's hand. I was in the audience & I did shake Kevin's hand.)
Larry's reply was simple: "There's no question that we have to prioritize." Upon hearing that, I wondered where that Larry was when I attended the League of Women Voters' Education Forum last fall. Here's what Larry said in response to Steve Gottwalt's call for prioritization:
Let's start with some of the most memorable quotes from the Forum. The first memorable quote was from 'Grandpa Larry' Haws. Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say "Maybe we do need to prioritize."Quite the contrast, huh? The difference was that this was after the DFL legislature had initially voted to increase spending 17 percent for the current biennium. 'Prioritizing Larry' didn't appear until the DFL spent the $2.163 billion surplus. 'Prioritizing Larry' didn't appear until we were facing a $935 million deficit.
It isn't a stretch to think that we've had a roller coaster ride between extremes because we haven't had persistent budget hawks. It's obvious that we need that type of budget hawk to steer the budget away from the peaks & valleys of soaring deficits, followed by significant surpluses. It's time that we funded our needs & limited funding our wants.
Sen. Clark & Rep. Haws asked for suggestions on how to close the budget deficit. That's when I stood up & asked 2 simple questions:
"Why didn't the legislature pass budget targets last year? Why didn't the legislature pass the Tax Bill first?"Larry's response was that he's all in favor of passing early budget targets & early passage of the Tax Bill. I thought to myself "Wow. It's good to know that Larry's in favor of following the Constitution.")
At that point, Tarryl said that "It's difficult to get inside someone's mind on why they did or didn't do something. Then she said that they "actually did pass an overall budget target." I don't recall that happeneing so I talked with King. He doesn't remember targets getting passed either. I told him that I remembered them talking on Final Word about how the budget process was all out of whack because the legislature didn't pass budget targets. King said that's his recollection, too.
If the legislature won't tell the governor how much they plan on spending, then it's the governor's responsibility to veto bills until they make reasonable spending requests. Anytime you pass a series of budget bills that would jump state spending 17 percent in 2 years, the average person would agree that that isn't making a reasonable spending request.
A small businessman in the audience, Dan Hollenhorst, asked why the legislature started with a $30 billion budget, then spent the $2.2 billion surplus, then ask for suggestions on how to dig out of this mess. Before Dan could ask the second part of the question, Tarryl cut him off. What's worse is that she didn't give him a straight answer.
After the meeting was over, I talked with Dan. We decided to approach Tarryl together to follow up on our questions. We both patiently waited while she talked with some of her liberal supporters. Right before Tarryl got to us, she announced that she had another meeting to get to so she had to leave.
At that point, Dan & I were frustrated. We were about to get stiffed after being patient. When we noticed that she stopped to talk with another person in the hallway, Dan & I decided to walk over & pose our questions. After Tarryl promised Dan that she'd look into his questions, I tried asking her a question but she re-iterated that she had to get going. After I started walking out, I noticed that she had gone back to talk with Larry Haws & a woman wearing a Joan Dorscher button. (Dorscher is the DFL-endorsed candidate to run against Steve Gottwalt.)
As we walked out, I reminded Tarryl of our conversation at the first townhall meeting in January, 2007. I asked why they hadn't done the oversight hearings last year in committee. I told her about Mindy Greiling saying during the House budget bill debate Thursday night that they were using commission hearings to find budget savings. That's when I asked her why they weren't doing that in committee during session.
My initial question was a fairly straightforward question. I think we can agree that Tarryl's answer wasn't a straightforward answer. She said that "we're a part time legislature" to which I replied that people had gotten 220-230 days worth of per diem. Tarryl said that "that's alot longer conversation" before getting into her car.
Frankly, Tarryl didn't respond well to difficult questions all morning. She tried avoiding difficult questions like a vampire avoids wooden stakes. She completely dodged my questions. Rest assured that I'll email her my questions this weekend. I will expect straight answers from her then. I'll let you know if she responds.
I'm not holding my breath. She didn't respond to my email after Gov. Pawlenty's State of the State address. That doesn't reflect favorably on her, especially in light of Tony Sertich taking the time to personally send me his take of Gov. Pawlenty's speech.
UPDATE: Right before the meeting, I asked Larry Haws what he thought Gov. Pawlenty would do with the bonding bill. Larry said "I don't think he has the guts to line-item out anything so he'll probably veto the whole thing."
Posted Saturday, April 5, 2008 8:37 PM
Comment 1 by kevin at 05-Apr-08 10:08 PM
Actually, the budget went from $31.5 billion to $34.5 billion (roughly).
Unanimously Endorsed
This afternon, at the Sixth District GOP Convention, Michele Bachmann received a unanimous endorsement to return to Washington.
"You have given me an honor and a privilege to serve you," Bachmann told the near-full crowd of delegates. "I tell you in all honesty, I have voted the way I said I would vote. I have kept my word to you. If I am blessed enough in 2008 to be re-elected, I will keep my word to you."Last Thursday, Sixth District DFL Party Chairwoman Nancy Schumacher said that she thought Rep. Bachmann was vulnerable :
"I think the voters of the Sixth are frankly quite embarrassed by Mrs. Bachmann on some of her recent antics," said Schumacher.Bob Olson likely doesn't stand a chance of getting the DFL nomination. Elwyn Tinklenberg, the likely DFL endorsee, has a number of things that'll plague him, especially his career as a lobbyist and his past support of impeaching President Bush.
"I think as long as us Democrats get our message out to the swing voters, we have a terrific chance this year," she said.
It'll be difficult for him to say that he's a moderate after saying that, while he wouldn't pursue impeachment of President Bush, he would vote for impeachment if articles of impeachment were presented.
The Sixth District is a strong conservative district. When then State Sen. Bachmann ran for the open seat, a national magazine said that MN-6 was Minnesota's "Bible Belt." While I'll admit that Tinklenberg is a better DFL candidate than Patty Wetterling was in 2004 & 2006, that doesn't mean I think he's capable of defeating Michele Bachmann.
Posted Saturday, April 5, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 06-Apr-08 06:10 PM
It was unprecidented that convention organizers banned the media from filming the speeches. This wasn't democrats filming the speeches as you claimed on Political Muses blog - this was the St Cloud Times.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Apr-08 11:17 PM
Eva, Here's the comment I left on Eric's blog:
I don't recall Republicans being allowed into DFL conventions to record their every word.
For the record, political conventions are private matters. I'm strongly opposed to filming the grassroots level conventions.
I didn't say that Democrats wanted to film yesterday's speeches, though I know some tried doing that last week at the CD-2 convention. The CD-2 organizers kicked that person out, thus making yesterday's actions precedented.
Let me repeat myself: I'm opposed to the filming & taping of these conventions because they're private functions.
The point I was making about Democrats was that I know of numerous attempts to tape their events were met with strong resistance. If we had an open door policy at GOP events, the DFL would tape them but they still wouldn't let us tape their events.
It's time that you got a real life, Eva. Everything the GOP does is wrong in your eyes. The thought that you call yourself a Republican is laughable. You & Arne Carlson are birds of a liberal feather. Go flock with the liberals.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 08-Apr-08 11:47 PM
Gary - you are making a straw man argument here - it's not the DFL that's trying to tape here - it's the media - the St Cloud Times and MPR. It's unprecidented for a state party to bar media from video-taping/audio taping party conventions.
For the record, I think the DFL should allow for taping of their upcoming 6th District convention - I do NOT think these are private affairs because they are vetting candidates for public office.
According to MPR, they were not allowed to tape the convention either.
If you'd read the DB blog, you'd know that I'd criticized the 6th District DFL when they tried to have a debate between the candidates that was open to activists only - and not open to the press. They later backed down, after this was leaked to the St Cloud Times.
You may have noticed that I did not personally go to this convention (and I much enjoyed not going to it). I very much appreciated that reporters were covering it.
Fundraisers in both parties tend to be closed to the media (I wish they weren't - because that's where light really ought to be shone).
Gary - it's laughable that you ask me to get a real life. You blog as much as I do.
Their Worst Nightmare?
According to this AINA article , Nancy Pelosi will soon have to confront her worst nightmare.Here's what AINA is referring to:
Well, we have some real bad news for Ms. Pelosi. Seems a new National Intelligence Estimate is out. And it says what she fears most: The situation in Iraq is much improved. We're winning. The U.S. has made "significant progress in Iraq since the last assessment in August," according to the Associated Press, quoting a "senior military official." That official also discussed the major progress made in healing sectarian rifts in Iraq. Recall that last August, the NIE spoke of big security gains as a result of the 30,000 troop "surge," proposed by President Bush in February 2007 and implemented by Petraeus last spring. That report and Petraeus' subsequent testimony to Congress sent Pelosi, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and other anti-war Democrats into a rage. Hillary Clinton even accused Petraeus of lying. With the new NIE, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi and the others will no doubt be apoplectic. They're terrified we might actually win this war. Where would that leave them? We know, we know: We need to show a little sympathy here. Antiwar Democrats just can't seem to catch a break, what with so much good news coming from Iraq.I doubt that Democrats will attack Gen. Petraeus directly like Hillary did. I suspect that it'll be a more insidious approach, saying things that calls Gen. Petraeus' integrity into question through innuendo rather than direct accusation. Whatever their tactic, this will be a moment for John McCain to shine. Look for Sen. McCain makes Hillary look petty and divisive. He should make the most of the opportunity to look presidential. It's a perfect time to look the part of Commander-in-Chief. I'd also let the media do some of the work for him. They're naturally drawn to dramatic events. This won't be any different. They'll be running with film of Gen. Petraeus' testimony. They'll also focus on the presidential candidates' responses to Gen. Petraeus' testimony.
Ms. Pelosi, Sen. Reid, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are in trouble because the surge is working. Their sniping remarks won't change that fact. They hitched their political defeat. Now they'll have to suffer the consequences of that decision.
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2008 6:35 AM
Comment 1 by Alec at 07-Apr-08 10:04 AM
The NIE is out, but we cannot see it. We just have to take Bush's word, and he has never lied or misled before!
I was in Baghdad in 2004-2005, and Basra was the vacationland soldiers wish they could be deployed to. It seems to have gotten worse.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-08 10:21 AM
I was in Baghdad in 2004-2005, and Basra was the vacationland soldiers wish they could be deployed to. It seems to have gotten worse.Oh really?
Will 'The Tribes' Unite?
That seems to be the ultimate question raised by Michael Barone in this article . Here's how Mr. Barone sets his arguments up :
Exit polls have shown that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has produced deep divisions among Democratic constituencies. It looks something like tribal warfare. Whites have voted, if you average the results from the states, 53 percent to 39 percent for Clinton; blacks, 80 percent to 17 percent for Obama; Latinos, 58 percent to 39 percent for Clinton; Asians, in California (the one primary state where they're numerous enough to gauge), 71 percent to 25 percent for Clinton.As important as those statistics are, they pale in comparison to the questions raised in this paragraph:
The differences in voting by the young, overwhelmingly for Obama, and the elderly, overwhelmingly for Clinton, are as large as any I can remember in either a primary or general election. Upscale voters are heavily for Obama; downscale voters are heavily for Clinton.
As the contest has continued, increasing percentages of Clinton and Obama voters say they wouldn't vote for the other candidate against John McCain.
Polling suggests that the Democratic nominee may not be able to count on the losing candidate's tribes in November. Academics and young people and blacks may not turn out in extraordinary numbers for Clinton, as they have for Obama, and the upscale may prefer McCain to a tax increase.My first question to these observations is whether these divisions can be overcome. I suspect that there will be significant 'healing' but that there won't be full healing. In a close election, which this figures to be, that might give Sen. McCain a significant advantage.
Similarly, Jacksonians, the elderly, the downscale and Latinos may prefer the very Jacksonian McCain to Obama. All of which should worry the super-delegates who must determine who wins the Democrats' tribal war.
It's also likely that Sen. Obama's appeal to moderates and independents has taken a hit from the Pastor Wright fiasco. These voters are casting a more wary eye towards Sen. Obama because they don't like it when a candidate's words don't match his actions. Sen. Obama's passivity in the Pastor J-Wright fiasco has called into question how decisive he'll be.
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2008 2:12 PM
No comments.
