April 9, 2007
Apr 09 01:59 A Change In Course? Apr 09 02:24 Mookie's Return Apr 09 10:00 The Inevitable Collision Apr 09 13:24 Sen. Clark Eyeing Higher Office? Apr 09 17:29 They Think We Won't Notice?
Prior Years: 2006
A Change In Course?
Much like the French, Democrats in Washington have started waving the white flag on Iraq:
The Senate will not stop paying for the Iraq war or relent from insisting that President Bush keep pressing the Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence, a top Democrat said Sunday. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Service Committee chairman, took issue with an effort by Majority Leader Harry Reid to limit war spending after March 2008 as a way to end U.S. involvement.In other words, they've decided that pushing defeatist or restrictive legislation is a loser. I knew that a month ago. All their bluster meant nothing. I wonder if they didn't do it this way just so they wouldn't have to face supporters during their week long Easter break. It makes alot of sense when you realize that funding the troops will be ancient history when their Memorial Day recess comes.
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."
Reid, (D-NV), said last week that if Bush rejects the Democrats' legislation, he would join with Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-WI), one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid's latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008.I've said before that the Democrats were a House (and Senate) divided. I won't be the least bit surprised to see moonbats like Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders whine about a clean supplemental. My thoughts on that are simple: WHATEVER!!! I don't care about the whining. I just want the Defeatocrats to give the Petraeus Offensive time enough to defeat the terrorists.
"We can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back within four months," Levin said. "If that doesn't work and the president vetoes because of that, and he will, then that part of it is removed, because we're going to fund the troops. And what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement, which they, the Iraqi leaders, have set for themselves," he said.
Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ), said it is unacceptable to set a goal and timetable for withdrawing the troops. He said lawmakers who support that are basing it on a false notion that the Iraqis are not listening to the United States. "I was over there about a month ago. We saw the reaction of the Iraqis. They are cooperating with us. So that's old news that they're not cooperating. That's one of the reasons this new surge strategy is working," he said.The movement isn't much but Democrats are slowly being forced to change their talking points. They've been talking about how President Bush had to change direction and that we're stuck in a civil war. As violence decreased, the Democrats were forced to change their talking points. Sunday's op-ed by John McCain can't help Reid and Co. sell their defeatism, either.
Posted Monday, April 9, 2007 1:59 AM
No comments.
Mookie's Return
Muqtada al-Sadr has urged his Mahdi Army to start fighting US forces but to avoid fighting the Iraqi troops.
Radical cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, ending weeks of tacit cooperation with American forces, called for renewed efforts to drive U.S. forces out of Iraq on the eve of a major anti-American rally in Najaf today. Thousands of supporters, mainly Shi'ites, were streaming into the central Iraqi city for the rally, according to reports from Najaf, while Iraqi authorities closed the capital to all vehicle traffic during today's anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.This might work in our favor. At the end of the initial offensive, many of Saddam's loyalists just didn't fight, instead just blending in with their surroundings. When Sadr fled to Iran and with Murtha, Reid and Pelosi clamoring for a date certain defeat withdrawal, a possibility existed that Sadr could ride the Petraeus Offensive out from friendly Iran. Now that President Bush has made it clear that he'd press onward in Iraq, Sadr's back making headlines.
Even before the rally, defiant handbills appeared in the shrine city bearing Sheik al-Sadr's official seal, the Associated Press reported. The warning appears to signal an end to eight weeks of tacit cooperation with the U.S. military, which has permitted a reduction in Shi'ite militia violence under the Baghdad Security Plan. "You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," said the statement, which also urged the cleric's followers to end sectarian infighting and turn all their efforts on the Americans. "God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them, not against the sons of Iraq," the statement said.It'll be interesting to see how the Mahdi Army responds to orders from the man who commands them from Tehran. I can't imagine that they'll be too enthusiastic in getting pounded by MNF and Iraqi forces while their 'leader' hides in exile.
Posted Monday, April 9, 2007 2:24 AM
No comments.
The Inevitable Collision
At this point, it looks like a collision over the budget & tax increases seems more like a sure bet than a question. Nonetheless, let's take a look at what's at stake in the 'Great Minnesota Debate' on these issues, as described in this Strib article:
"The impact of 'No New Taxes' is clear," said Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. "Someone else has to pick up the tab. That's not honest and not fair, particularly to the middle class."I don't blame Sen. Clark for trying to make the case for the DFL's policies. That's just politics. What I don't like is that she broke her promise to me that the DFL Senate would hold serious oversight hearings to identify the amount of wasteful spending. If they'd held oversight hearings, they would've found out that several MnSCU schools charge in-state tuition rates to all of their students. If they were serious about being fair to the middle class, how could the Senate propose the Dream Act, which would've given in-state tuition to illegal aliens? I noticed that the entire text of the Senate bill was underlined, meaning that it's been changed. That should tell you how far the DFL was willing to go.
Those discounted tuitions are subsidized by taxpayers. In other words, parents who struggle to send their children to college are paying the subsidy for these students. Sen. Clark would be wise not to complain about what's fair & what isn't, especially when her colleagues pass bills like the DREAM Act.
That isn't the only looming fight that's looming:
After a brief burst of bipartisan cooperation early in the session that produced a leading-edge renewable energy package and $20 million in tax relief, relations began to deteriorate when DFLers challenged Pawlenty's assertion that the state has a $2.2 billion surplus.The DFL has proposed over $4 billion in new taxes, ranging from a new income tax bracket to a property tax increase on commercial property to a gas tax increase to letting counties add a wheelage fee to increased fees on license tabs to a proposed constitutional amendment to increase the state sales tax to taxing cosmetic surgery.
That money, they said, amounted to $1 billion in unrecognized inflation and another $1 billion in one-time funds that should not be used for ongoing spending. Pawlenty's finance department later backed off referring to the money as a surplus, instead choosing the words "available revenue."
That laid the groundwork for DFLers to declare tax increases a necessity, crucial to their goal of lowering property taxes, raising spending on schools from pre-K through college, catching up on overdue road projects and improving mass transit.
Taxpayers should know some other things, too. Mike Hatch said that we could invest in all of Minnesota's priorities without raising taxes during his acceptance speech at the DFL state convention:
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, "we can do this without raising taxes."Another thing that taxpayers should know is that DFL leaders kept talking about not increasing taxes, even after the election. Here's a collection of quotes from the DFL leadership that Michael Broadkorb has put together:
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, who is expected to be the new House Speaker, said the Democratic caucus is fiscally conservative and does not plan any major tax increases.In addition to Michael's research, let's also not forget that the DFL hid their intention of increasing taxes until they proposed massive tax increases:
'We know that taxes are an important component of attracting and keeping businesses , so we will be looking at those issues very closely,' she said. 'I don't foresee any major changes in our taxing structure as it relates to business.'" Source: The Business Journal, November 13, 2006
"She [Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher] said she did not expect House Democrats to try to raise the state income tax, which House Republicans succeeded in cutting twice shortly after they took control of the House in 1998. 'We are a very fiscally moderate caucus,' she said." Source: Pioneer Press, November 9, 2006
Minnesota Democratic senators knew in February they would suggest raising taxes to fund their top priorities, but first talked about it publicly last week and on Saturday passed a nearly $1 billion income tax increase. The tax increase was kept under wraps to direct attention toward education needs, the Senate's education finance chairman said.As I said then, Sen. Stumpf is spinning the tax increase issue when he said that they hesitated to talk about tax increases because they wanted to talk about education policy. They didn't talk about the massive tax increases because they knew that the minute they did, they'd take a major hit in the polls.
"There is a hesitancy on keeping the center of focus on taxes rather than investment," Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, said Saturday after senators approved his bill adding $444 million to education funding while raising income taxes on the richest.
At the end of the day, expect almost all of the DFL's 'work' to get shot down by Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen. In other words, the DFL legislature started with a flurry of silly bills, then progressed to a series of out of control spending measures to finally proposing massive tax increases. A number of their tax increases paint a bullseye on small businesses' chest. Forgive me if I don't see the wisdom in their decisions.
Their creating the new income tax bracket & increasing commercial property taxes would have the effect of causing a statewide recession that will drive businesses to South Dakota or give them a reason to close their doors.
Minnesota's taxpayers, whether they're middle class or "the wealthiest 1 percent", can't afford that type of foolish tax policy.
Posted Monday, April 9, 2007 10:00 AM
No comments.
Sen. Clark Eyeing Higher Office?
Tarryl Clark is maintaining a high profile, especially for essentially being a freshman legislator, which is why MPR is wondering if she's got ambition for higher office:
For her part, Clark said she's not planning to run for anything in 2008. But she's not ruling it out either. She said many people have suggested she run for the U.S. Senate, the 6th District congressional seat or even governor in 2010. "I've always operated under the thought, how can I do the best, how can I make the best difference and what's the best way to do that," Clark said. "And if I end up deciding the best way to do that is running for another office, I will do that."That's how a politician says that they'll seek higher office in the near future. The truth is that St. Cloud's activists of both parties thought that her being elected to the Assistant Majority Leader position was done so she'd have higher name recognition when she runs against Michele Bachmann in 2008. There's some even bigger spin in the article:
After his election as majority leader, Sen. Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, gave Clark several key responsibilities, including hiring leadership staff and dealing with the media. Assistant leaders have traditionally taken low profiles. But Pogemiller said he wanted a partnership.The truth is that Pogemiller knows that he's got a nasty temper that won't play well in public. According to someone working at the Capitol, Sen. Pogemiller's forte is bullying people to voting his way. This isn't news to anyone who's followed Sen. Pogemiller in the past. Rumor has it that Sen. Clark stepped forward after there wasn't a rush to be Sen. Pogemiller's 'partner' at the Capitol.
In the meantime, Clark said her strategy is to do the best job she can as a state senator and assistant majority leader. She said there's a lot of work to be done.Unfortunately, I agree with Sen. Clark that "there's a lot of work to be done", especially at this late stage of the session. The DFL legislature in both houses have wasted their time passing legislation that dramatically increases tax burdens & spending. They've wasted time in the sense of provoking a showdown with Gov. Pawlenty, who's said that he'll veto tax increases. Had the DFL stuck with their statements of not intending on raising taxes, there might be less chance of a special session:
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, who is expected to be the new House Speaker, said the Democratic caucus is fiscally conservative and does not plan any major tax increases.Last June, I questioned whether you could believe that Democrats wouldn't raise taxes in this post. Based on their track record, it's obvious I was right in questioning the DFL on tax policy. Here's what I said last June:
'We know that taxes are an important component of attracting and keeping businesses , so we will be looking at those issues very closely,' she said. 'I don't foresee any major changes in our taxing structure as it relates to business.'" Source: The Business Journal, November 13, 2006
"She [Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher] said she did not expect House Democrats to try to raise the state income tax , which House Republicans succeeded in cutting twice shortly after they took control of the House in 1998. 'We are a very fiscally moderate caucus,' she said." Source: Pioneer Press, November 9, 2006
I agree that restoring education funding can be done without raising taxes. That said, does anyone in their right mind think that Democrats won't raise taxes? I'll believe that the day I get photos of a leopard rearranging the spots on his fur. Believing that a Democrat won't raise taxes instinctively is like believing that making sudden movements towards a cobra won't get you bit. You can believe it all you want but reality is reality.Isn't it time that Sen. Clark bear a significant amount of blame for these policies? I'd say that it's time that Sen. Clark was judged on her actions, not her words. Thus far, her actions tell us that she's willing to increase our tax burden while increasing our spending without eliminating wasteful spending. Is that the type of person you want representing us in DC or in the Governor's Mansion?
I'll guarantee you that isn't the type of person I'd want representing me there.
Posted Monday, April 9, 2007 1:24 PM
No comments.
They Think We Won't Notice?
According to this article, Tina Liebling thinks that we won't notice the shell game that the DFL is playing with property tax 'relief'. Here's what she said:
Rep. Tina Liebling, a Democrat from Rochester, said the overriding goal of the DFL House caucus is to make the tax system more fair to the middle class. That's why Democrats have proposed a fourth-tier income tax aimed at couples making at least $400,000 and singles who earn $226,000. The added revenue would be used to fund property tax relief.Here's the fine print that the DFL doesn't want you to know about:
"These are people who make the very highest incomes in Minnesota... Our proposal is to charge more in income taxes, not a huge amount more, but to raise their level somewhat to give tax relief to 90 percent of Minnesotans," Liebling said.
House Tax Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski says that everyone would benefit from the House DFL plan. The property tax relief isn't guaranteed, though:In other words, the DFL wants to sell their income tax increase on small businesses by telling voters that they'll use that money to fund property tax 'relief' that might not happen. They don't tell taxpayers that their property tax relief might vanish if the DFL's spending increases negates all of the increased tax revenue. Another thing that they aren't telling taxpayers is that the 'cost' of their income tax increase might cause a statewide recession, which would negate the DFL's middle class tax relief package.However, that relief will not come if money is not available to fund it.
The Senate approved its $35 billion-plus version of the two-year budget before heading home. It's built on a foundation of income and businesses tax increases, totaling $1.5 billion over the next two years.This weekend, I linked to this WC Trib article where I specifically highlighted this question:
Is a 9.8 percent increase in the state budget, as Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposes, enough? Or should it rise 18.7 percent, as Senate Republicans figure Senate Democrats want?An 18.7 percent increase in the state budget is unheard of. The budget that we're currently operating on calls for $31 billion. The budget that the Senate just passed is for "$35 billion-plus." According to my calculator, that's a 14+ percent increase in state spending.
King has a great quote & question. First, here's the quote:
"The impact of 'No New Taxes' is clear," said Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. "Someone else has to pick up the tab. That's not honest and not fair, particularly to the middle class."Here's the question:
Pick up what tab? Sure, if you assume all spending must be done, somebody has to pay. But you don't have to spend. Spending is a choice , be it your eating out budget ($96/day) or the higher education budget. YOU ORDERED THE SPENDING, IT'S YOUR TAB.King, Thanks for nailing the DFL like that. Neither body of the DFL-dominated legislature has attempted to identify a penny of wasteful spending in this biennium's budget. Despite that lack of congressional oversight, they're telling Minnesota's taxpayers that the DFL/Education Minnesota beast needs more money. What's most appalling is that the DFL's tax increases might damage small businesses and actually cause a revenue shortfall by pushing Minnesota's economy into a statewide recession.
It's time that every taxpayer calls their legislators to tell them that they'd better reconsider their free-spending ways. Legislators who've voted for the DFL's tax increases voted for the much higher spending, too. It's time that we told these legislators that they'll be put on the electoral endangered species list if they don't make a dramatic change ASAP.
It's time that we told them to "put down their fork" & to "step away from the table."
That impasse threatens to disturb the delicate atmosphere of bipartisanship that both parties have tried to project. Sviggum said he had no doubt that DFL leaders were pursing a "path of conflict," but he remained confident that it would not lead to a special session.With all due respect to this reporter, there hasn't been any "atmosphere of bipartisanship." I think back to Tony Sertich's indictment where the DFL House voted down 25 of the 26 GOP amendments to the House Permanent Rules. Many of the GOP amendments had DFL support but Tony wouldn't have any of that, instead referring the amendments to the Rules Committee, which he chairs. Needless to say, he hasn't energetically pursued hearings on the GOP's amendments. The more accurate statement would be to say that he's buried them with the intent of never giving them a fair hearing.
Liebling said DFL proposals for property tax reform should meet with Pawlenty's approval, because they are essentially revenue neutral. "We are making what we consider to be a very well-balanced, thoughtful proposal with the hope that he would go along with it," Liebling said.Cut the crap, Ms. Liebling. I've used Ann Lenczewski's quote to prove that the DFL's property tax relief proposal is smoke & mirrors. It's time that stopped playing that game. It's time that you started telling the truth to the taxpayers.
Most importantly, it's time for the freshman DFLers to start planning their retirement. They've followed their masters around like little puppies on a very short leash. They campaigned as moderates but they've governed like their ultra-liberal masters. It's time that they were made for siding with their masters instead of siding with the taxpayers.
Posted Monday, April 9, 2007 5:32 PM
No comments.
