August 11-13, 2010
Aug 11 03:45 Payoff, Not Stimulus Aug 11 04:52 Dayton's Fuzzy Math Aug 11 10:40 Tarryl's In Trouble? Aug 11 18:02 Beyond Spinning Aug 12 12:31 SEIU vs. Tom Emmer & Target Aug 12 16:55 Common Cause's Selective Criticism Aug 13 06:04 Severson Endorsed by DFL SecState Candidate Aug 13 12:12 First Rasmussen Polling on Emmer vs. Dayton Aug 13 23:00 Here's the DFL's Job Creation Strategy
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Payoff, Not Stimulus
Way back when Congress was debating the stimulus bill, I said that it shouldn't be called ARRA, that PAPA would be the more descriptive acronym for the bill. FYI- PAPA stands for Political Allies Payoff Act. Nearly a year and a half later, the New Hampshire Union Leader has posted an editorial saying what I said way back then:
The bill the Senate passed last week is similar to the stimulus program that was supposed to spur long-term growth but had only a small, short-term effect and wound up mostly helping public employees and contractors. It directs money to Democratic constituencies, not the public at large.The NHUL is exactly right. This isn't about jumpstarting the economy. It's never been about jumpstarting the economy. The stimulus bill was mostly directed at the governing class, not the private sector. Specifically, it's directed at the public employee unions.
This is the basic problem with the government's "recovery" efforts. They are redistributions of wealth that don't stimulate the broader economy. Meanwhile, other Washington policies are discouraging private investment and business expansion. The economy sputters along while Washington Democrats dole out cash to their friends.
The problem with that is that there aren't enough public employee to create a demand in other sections of the economy. I don't doubt the administration's claims that they're seeing green shoots in the economy. That's what I'd expect from an economic plan that doesn't positively change economic behavior across multiple sections of the economy.
When the right economic plan is put in place, people should see most of the sectors getting going, either in succession or simultaneously. You shouldn't have to hunt for proof, at least not month after month, quarter after quarter.
There's another reason for states to be worried about this newest round of bailouts/stimulus. I just spoke with a retired state legislator who said that the new round of bailouts come with maintenance of service agreements attached. The statement that jumped out at me was when this retired state legislator said that "this money doesn't come with strings attached. It comes with cables attached."
Without this bailout, states would be forced to deal with economic reality. They'd have to actually set responsible priorities. With the bailout, they can keep travelling down the same irresponsible fiscal path that's gotten them in trouble.
It's time that states like California, Michigan and New York dealt with economic reality. It's time that the federal government got out of the business of bailing out states who've given extravagant pensions to public employees.
Until we get a Republican majority in Congress, states will continue getting bailouts. That's in nobody's best interests.
Posted Wednesday, August 11, 2010 3:50 AM
No comments.
Dayton's Fuzzy Math
With his primary victory secured , Mark Dayton's first step in the general election campaign is selling his tax-the-rich agenda to Minnesota. That's the steepest challenge he's ever faced. That's if his numbers added up, which they don't.
According to Dayton, increasing taxes on those families making more than $150,000 will increase revenues by $4,000,000,000. According to a retired state legislator I talked with, that figure is wishful thinking. This retired legislator said that, at best, it would raise an additional $1,000,000,000-$1,250,000,000 in revenues annually.
It's important to note that this retired legislator has read Dayton's proposal.
Dayton's agenda includes more than enhancing state revenues. Let's remember Dayton's promise to raise education funding "without exception, without excuses." Dayton's numbers can't be viewed in a vacuum, either. Let's remember that the next Minnesota gvoernor will be staring at a $5,800,000,000 deficit from the minute he's sworn in. That's only if that doesn't get adjusted with the next forecast.
To summarize this section, Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme will still leave him anywhere from $2,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 short of balancing the budget. That's before increasing education funding "without exception, without excuses."
That leaves Minnesota's voters with an important question. Will Mark Dayton make Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments permanent or will he raise taxes on people well down into Minnesota's middle class? It's my opinion that Dayton would rather drink rat poison than make Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments permanent.
I think Dayton would be much more inclined to raise taxes on alot more than "the rich." I think he wouldn't hesitate to pull that trigger because cutting spending is anathema to a Democrat. After all, the DFL couldn't pay off their political allies under a limited government model of governing. Without those taxpayer-funded payoffs, the DFL would be a different looking beast.
We know that isn't happening.
There is, I suppose, one other possibility, which is to raise taxes on the rich, then passing a number of regressive taxes on people. Either way, middle class Minnesotans would get hit with a tax increase under the Dayton plan at a time when they're worried about losing their jobs and/or their homes.
That's before considering the possibility that Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme doesn't change companies' behavior. It's likely that more companies would move out of Minnesota for better financial situations. there's a reason why 3M expanded in Texas, not Minnesota, why Marvin Windows expanded in North Dakota rather than Minnesota.
It's significantly more likely that Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme would drive businesses out of Minnesota than it is to balance Minnesota's budget.
Mr. Dayton, which is it? Will you raise taxes on Minnesota's struggling middle class or will you chase more businesses to other states? Minnesotans have a right to know because their jobs, their families' futures might be determined by your economic plan.
With so many important decisions potentially riding on Mr. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme, the least he should've done is used realistic math. The revenue numbers Mr. Dayton used aren't close to being realistic.
Combining his tax increase figures with his zeal for raising education spending and his stated position that he'll work towards a single-payer health care system, it's likely that Minnesota would face an unprecedented deficit, one that would chase job creators and families from Minnesota.
Considering the gloomy future Minnesota would face if Mr. Dayton's agenda were enacted, I'll opt for Tom Emmer's plan to restore Minnesota's prosperity. Opting for Tom Emmer's plan to restore Minnesota's prosperity is easier because I won't have to worry about businesses leaving the state.
Most importantly, I don't have to worry if he's using Dayton's fuzzy math.
Posted Wednesday, August 11, 2010 4:52 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's In Trouble?
I thought I was done writing about Maureen Reed when she dropped out of the CD-6 DFL primary . This morning, I'll admit I'm wrong, that there's alot more to write about Maureen Reed.
According to the Secretary of State's website , Tarryl Clark defeated Maureen Reed last night, with Tarryl getting 26,551 votes to Maureen Reed's 11,723 votes. Tarryl got 69.37 percent of the vote, Maureen Reed got 30.63 percent.
Tarryl should be embarrassed by these results. What this essentially means is that she didn't even get 70 percent of the vote against a dead woman walking candidate, someone who stopped campaigning THREE MONTHS AGO, someone who said that she was gracious in dropping out:
"The other DFL challenger, Tarryl Clark, has amassed more resources, and I feel that it is time for the DFL to unify behind one candidate in this race," Reed said. Reed asked her supporters to rally behind Clark and her "campaign to bring sensible leadership to the district."This was a gracious exit on Dr. Reed's behalf. She told her supporters to help Tarryl defeat Michele Bachmann. Instead, 31 percent of the voters in the MN-06 DFL primary voted against the only candidate still actively campaigning.
Beyond the embarrassment of running a lackluster campaign, Tarryl has a bigger problem. With results like that, there's no way she can be certain that her base is intact. If Tarryl hasn't secured her base with 12 weeks left until November's election, she's toast. If the base isn't secure, you can't afford to chase after unaffiliated voters.
What this tells me is that a significant portion of the DFL in MN-06 still agrees with Dr. Reed when she said that Tarryl was too liberal for the district. Though Dr. Reed distanced herself from those statements when she endorsed Tarryl, they still must be resonating with Dr. Reed's supporters.
Until Tarrl figures out an answer to this problem, her campaign will be fighting an uphill fight. Correct that. She'll be fighting a steep uphill fight. That's a terrible position to be in.
Posted Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:40 AM
No comments.
Beyond Spinning
Jared Bernstein's post on the White House Recovery Act blog can't be described as spin because it's so over-the-top that it'd make a Clintonista blush. It's that bad. Here's a sample:
John Boehner wants a lot of people to lose their jobs.This shows what this administration thinks of Ohio residents. This administration apparently thinks that if they say something, that people automatically believe it. They don't.
We were awfully surprised to hear Rep. Boehner come out for killing jobs en masse in his own state and district by stopping the Recovery Act on last Sunday's news shows.
The good news is that Leader Boehner didn't waste time taking Bernstein to task :
"The people of my district are looking at President Obama's 'stimulus' policies and asking a simple question: where are the jobs?," Boehner said in the release. "The fact is, the president's 'stimulus' spending spree is not delivering the results he promised it would, whether you're looking in Ohio or anywhere else in America."I wouldn't expect Mr. Bernstein to respond directly to Leader Boehner's shot about the Democrats' failure to create new jobs.
"A nation in our fiscal condition should be spending less, not more," he said, decrying Democrats' call to end tax cuts enacted under President George Bush that Boehner said would amount to a tax hike on 50 percent of small businesses in America.
"I hope Vice President Biden's economist today will provide the people of the Eighth Congressional District with an explanation of how raising taxes on small businesses will do anything but further hinder job creation in Ohio and across the country," he said.
While we're on the subject of jobs, it's a good time to ask why this administration seems to put a high priority on saving public employee union jobs while putting such a low priority on creating new private sector jobs. If this administration doesn't put a high priority on shifting their focus from saving AFSCME and NEA jobs to creating tons of high tech manufacturing jobs, unemployment will stay at 9 percent. It's just that simple.
Frankly, the American people don't care about the jobs that are being saved. They're worried about losing their homes and/or their jobs. The best way to put their mids at ease is to adopt pro-growth policies that invite investment, policies that make sense to put a job creator's money at risk.
That isn't happening right now. That's why the administration has to cling to the saved jobs meme.
Posted Wednesday, August 11, 2010 6:07 PM
No comments.
SEIU vs. Tom Emmer & Target
This Strib article raises questions about SEIU's radical agenda:
Members of the Service Employees International Union are taking aim at Target because the union contends it is a company that "seeks the business of immigrant families and then support[s] anti-immigrant politicians."I'd love seeing SEIU's proof that Tom Emmer opposes legal immigration. Or is it that SEIU thinks that our borders shouldn't be enforced?
For that matter, what caused the SEIU to think that Target "seeks the business of immigrant families"? I don't doubt that Target appreciates it when legal immigrants shop at Target but I've never noticed Target actively seeking the business of the immigrant community.
This memo explains alot about SEIU's views on international lawlessness:
Emmer supports Arizona's anti-immigrant law and legislation such as English-only bills. In 2007, he voted against the Minnesota DREAM Act, which would have allowed students who came to the state as the children of undocumented immigrants and graduated from Minnesota high schools to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.SB1070 isn't anti-immigrant. It's anti-illegal immigrant. I'll bet that SEIU cares about the United States' sovereignty. If they do, Javier Morillo's statement certainly sounds like he supports an open borders policy.
In 2006, Emmer authored legislation that would pre-natal care to immigrant mothers.
"Target has sought the business of immigrant families across this state ; and many of its profits come from the very people Tom Emmer has targeted throughout his career," said SEIU Local 26 President Javier Morillo. "We will rally outside of Target on Thursday with a simple message: Corporations who seek the business of immigrant families and then support anti-immigrant politicians will not be tolerated."
This SEIU-AZ statement certainly says that they don't care about border enforcement:
SB 1070 puts public service jobs at riskNowhere does this statement indicate any concern over enforcing the laws currently on the federal government's books. The unambiguous message is that they're only concerned about lost business for the union. In fact, there's more direct proof that SEIU doesn't stand for border enforcement. This post says everything about SEIU's lawless nature:
Arizona's economic health will be better able to withstand boom and bust cycles when it becomes less dependent on sales tax revenues. Until that day comes, however, sales taxes will continue to be a crucial part of our economy. Whatever our opinions on the immigration issue may be, the national and international condemnation of SB 1070 has already led to lost convention and tourism revenues that will further harm our state's efforts to put this recession behind us.
One of the nation's biggest labor unions, a major backer of President Obama, is condemning his Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement practices, protesting the use of deportation quotas for agents and expanded workplace audits.How many Minnesotans think that enforcing the U.S.-Mexico border is a "crazy, irrational polic[y]"? I'm betting that 3 out of 4 Minnesotans think that enforcing this nation's laws is both rational and mainstream policy. This SEIU statement is important reading, too:
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of Service Employees International Union, said SEIU members want DHS "to stop these crazy, irrational policies," while seeking to turn up pressure on Congress to take up overhaul legislation. SEIU is holding vigils and demonstrations Thursday in Oakland and Sacramento, Calif., and then in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, New York City and Minneapolis Friday.
"CCA is one of the biggest winners of our broken immigration system, taking in billions of dollars in government contracts to detain immigrants and perpetuate today's failed status quo." said SEIU Immigration Campaign Director Javier Morillo. "The company recognizes that an enforcement-heavy immigration policy is good for their bottom line and has spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to anti-immigrant politicians who push for enforcement at the expense of real comprehensive immigration reform."It appears as though today's SEIU protest at Target is just part of SEIU's protests of "enforcement-heavy immigration policy." SEIU just took this opportunity to cheapshot Tom Emmer's mainstream position of actually enforcing this nation's laws. Meanwhile, the SEIU has repeatedly opposed enforcing this nation's laws.
Morillo has done everything except say explicitly that he opposes the enforcement of this nation's immigration laws. Yet he's telling Minnesotans that Tom Emmer's positions on illegal immigration are outside Minnesota's mainstream.
We'll find out this November that Tom Emmer is solidly in Minnesota's mainstream and that SEIU and Javier Morillo is far outside Minnesota's mainstream.
Posted Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:31 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Aug-10 07:15 AM
Gary:
They don't realize that millions of Minnesotans already know the fact that Minnesota has been flooded with illegal aliens from Mexico. Don't they care that these people are driving and can't read the signs?
Don't they care that with expanded labor market that it's helps businesses to offer lower wages?
Oh I forgot these are their future mind numb union zombies that will show up at their rallies to get the government to spend money for their priorities.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Common Cause's Selective Criticism
About 2:00 Thursday afternoon, Common Cause MN posted this tweet:
commoncausemn Can't we have a real conversation about how fund elections in Minnesota? Special interests money corrupts our political process.I find that tweet highly offensive in light of their LTE in the Aug. 1 St. Cloud Times . Here's a sample of their LTE:
In our political system, a candidate's viability is measured solely by their ability to raise large sums of campaign cash, much of which comes from corporations and special interests, rather than the quality of their ideas or support from their district.It should be noted that Common Cause favors net neutrality, which is a euphemism for government-sanctioned censorship. Here's another sample of their LTE:
It's time we return to government of, by, and for the people, not government bought and paid for by special interests.
If big businesses want to invest in our government, let them pay their fair share of taxes rather than paying for politicians who'll write them special tax breaks. That's why it is time we replaced corporate-funded elections with Fair Elections.
We need to put elections back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Our leaders should work for us, not their corporate sponsors.
As long as politicians are accountable to the corporations and lobbyists who finance their campaigns, they're never going to be accountable to the people who elected them.Common Cause Minnesota's entire LTE is devoted to talking about corporate influences of elections. Nowhere does it mention how unions and independent expenditure groups like SEIU and the Alliance for a Better Minnesota influence and corrupt the process.
Let's establish some basics before launching into this discussion.
- The First Amendment trumps all other considerations. The First Amendment applies equally to corporations, unions and individuals. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say it only applies to individuals, meaning it applies to corporations, individuals and special interests.
- More speech is better than less. It means sifting through the information and the misinformation but that's part of a voter's due diligence.
- Total transparency is a must. Without that, voters can't do their due diligence and determine a person's or organization's ulterior motives.
Common Cause says that it's time for politicians to be accountable to the people who vote for them. I agree with that. Unfortunately, candidates like Mark Dayton and Tarryl Clark are supported so strongly by unions like EdMinn, SEIU, AFSCME and others that they're more likely to do the unions' bidding than doing their in-district constituents' bidding.
Until CCM stops with the selective criticism, I can't take them seriously. It's just that simple.
Posted Thursday, August 12, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Aug-10 07:09 AM
Gary:
I wonder how they reacted when Nancy called the House back into session for that $26 billion which the unions including AFSCME heavily lobbied for. That's a perfect example of their one sided bias since I don't recall any business that could get Congress to come back into session and pass a bill which can them $26 billion.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Colin at 13-Aug-10 09:35 AM
If that offends you, then it is the solemn duty of ALL Americans to offend you in order to protect our Constitution from you! Net neutrality is the exact opposite of censorship. It is the idea that phone and cable companies should not be allowed to discriminate against information providers by charging extra to certain groups.
As for unions, they have always given through PACs. Corporations have also always given through PACs. There is no difference there.
The Citizens United decision allows fascism in America. Now corporations are allowed to spend unlimited sums of other people's shareholder money in order to petition government to give up other people's taxpayer money. What's to stop a corporation from deliberately going bankrupt through massive political contributions in order to protect banks from regulation? 401k mutual fund holders have their share proxies voted for them by investment bankers. Those bankers have all the power they need to spend every penny of it on their own desires.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-10 11:05 AM
What a total idiot. Since when is the FCC monitoring the internet the "exact opposite of censorship"? Yeah, that's gonna free things up. (I didn't know that the internet limited my freedom of speech.)
Colin, you should reread the Bill of Rights. The rights contained there apply equally to individuals, unions & corporations. Does the Fourth Amendment apply only to individuals? Of course, it doesn't. Neither does the First Amendment. Free speech isn't fascism. It's the opposite of fascism.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 13-Aug-10 11:32 AM
Colin:
As an Union member I get lot of things mailed to me that supports the Democrats. And oh they send as part of normal union communications and claim it's educational materials paid for with my dues even though they are suppose to politically neutural.
So cut the bull! You know that the unions are getting special treatment from these people because they favor not oppose the polices that common cause wants.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Severson Endorsed by DFL SecState Candidate
Proving that common sense ideas transcend partisan lines, Dan Severson cheerfully accepted DFL Secretary of State candidate Dick Franson's endorsement. Here's the official Severson for Secretary of State statement:
DFL Secretary of State Candidate Endorses Republican Severson--Says Incumbent Secretary of State Mark Ritchie Must GoThis is the biggest news I've seen about the Secretary of State's race this year. I'll readily admit that Dick Franson doesn't have instant name recognition. That said, it isn't important that he does. What's most important is that Mr. Franson is a former DFL Secretary of State candidate who's now enthusiastically endorsing Doc Severson, the GOP Secretary of State candidate.
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn.-August 12, 2010-Dick Franson, a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidate for Minnesota Secretary of State who garnered nearly one in five rank-and-file Democratic votes in Tuesday's state primary, today endorsed Republican candidate Dan "Doc" Severson.
"Mark Ritchie is wrong on the most important issues relevant to the Office of the Secretary of State," said Franson. "He is wrong to oppose photo ID for voting , he is wrong to reject military ballots, and he is wrong to allow partisanship to cloud the office's official functions."
"As a veteran, I am appalled at Mark Ritchie's behavior in office, and I am proud to support my fellow veteran, Doc Severson," said Franson. "We need a Secretary of State who will execute his duties with precision, integrity, and discipline, and I believe that, with his military background, Doc will do this, whereas Mark Ritchie is incapable."
"I intend to campaign actively for Doc Severson, because we see eye to eye on the most important issues. I encourage all of the 70,000-plus voters who supported me in the primary to turn their support to Severson, too, and to get their friends to support him, as well," said Franson.
"I am honored to accept Dick Franson's endorsement," said Severson. "Dick is a man of integrity who has served our country with distinction in many ways and for many years. I look forward to having him on the team and campaigning with his support. Election integrity is not a partisan issue and Photo ID brings that integrity, which is why Dick and I support it."
What's more important than that is that Mr. Franson is enthusiastically endorsing Dan Severson's agenda.
Finally, this gives me the opportunity to write about something I personally saw at last week's Benton County Fair. At the GOP booth, there was a petition for people to voice their support for Photo ID. What I saw personally were 4 election judges signing the petition. When I asked why they supported Photo ID, they said that it would make their job smoother and because it'd streamline the voting process.
One election judge said that Photo ID would eliminate the paper logs where voters sign in and replace it with a scanner. When the ID is swiped through the scanner, the system would identify the registered voter, then instruct that voter to sign their name in a box much like what happens when you use a credit card at the grocery store.
Mr. Franson's endorsement proves what thoughtful Minnesotans have been saying for a couple years: that this isn't a partisan issue to most people. Consider the fact that 70 percent of Democrats want Photo ID.
It's only a partisan issue because Mark Ritchie is ideologically opposed to Photo ID. His opposition isn't rooted in anything resembling logic or facts.
Mr. Franson's endorsement is a big deal in this race. It tells Minnesotans that Mark Ritchie doesn't listen to common sense.
Most importantly, it tells Minnesotans that Dan Severson is firmly planted in Minnesota's mainstream.
Posted Friday, August 13, 2010 6:04 AM
Comment 1 by Wendy at 13-Aug-10 06:51 AM
Great news on the endorsement.
BTW, I worked as an election judge on primary day, and nearly everyone who came in offered me their driver's license.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-10 12:37 PM
Wendy, Thanx for that information & thanx for your service.
First Rasmussen Polling on Emmer vs. Dayton
After Rasmussen polling showed Mark Dayton leading Tom Emmer by a 45-36 margin, the Minnesorosphere quickly jumped into action, trumpeting the results as proof that this campaign is almost over. Here's a sample of that mindset:
RepRyanWinkler Dayton 45%, Emmer 36%, Horner 10%. Dayton is known, attacks won't move him much. Emmer can only drop further.Here's another tweet claiming this race is almost over:
JeffRosenberg RT @charlierybak: Ras has Dayton up 9 points, changes race from toss-up to lean Democrat. This could be over soon.That's a sample of the DFL's spin. They'd love it if they could demoralize Republicans. That won't happen, though, because we can't wait to vote for Tom Emmer. We're willing to work hard day after day to get Tom elected.
More importantly, we're backing the right agenda. When people find out that Mr. Dayton plans to dramatically increase taxes, independent voters won't support Mr. Dayton. When people find out that Mr. Dayton's numbers don't add up and that he'll raise taxes on people making alot less than $150K, people will rethink their vote.
Let's be clear about this: Mark Dayton's economic numbers don't come close to balancing the budget. Even if his projections come close, which they won't, he's still $3,000,000,000 short of balancing the budget.
That's before considering Mr. Dayton's promise to increase education funding "no exuses, no exceptions." Where will Mr. Dayton get the money for that spending? After all, Dayton will have already raised taxes on the rich. Will Mr. Dayton raise taxes on people making substantially less than $150,000?
Just minutes ago, MPP just posted this tweet:
MNProgressive Dayton, 45-36 over Emmer. <80%> MPP has been touting the possibility of dumping Tom Emmer. The last thing MPP wants is to talk about Mark Dayton's agenda. They don't want people to think about Mr. Dayton's agenda. That's the last thing they want. They don't want people to understand that Mr. Dayton's agenda is about paying for a twentieth century government. Progressives like the bloggers at MPP don't want people finding out that Tom Emmer and Annette Meeks reform agenda will usher in the next round of sustained prosperity. They especially don't want voters thinking about government that's responsive to the people.
These progressives have shown us what they fear most. They fear a competitive race. They fear a spirited exchange of ideas. Might that be because they don't have any appealing ideas?
Progressives are chomping at the bit for a progressive, tax-the-rich governor to fulfill their wildest dreams. They won't admit that their agenda will ruin Minnesota's economy but that's what a tax-the-rich scheme will cause.
Progressives' attacks are being used to hide their candidate's multiple flaws. It's a long time between today and Election Day. That's a long time to hide Mr. Dayton's radical policies and character flaws.
Posted Friday, August 13, 2010 12:17 PM
No comments.
Here's the DFL's Job Creation Strategy
Thanks to Tony Sertich's op-ed in this morning's St. Cloud Times and Mark Dayton repeatedly saying he'll tax minnesota's job creators into submission, we now have the outlines of the DFL's job creation strategy. Here's what Rep. Sertich said about the DFL's most recent job creation bill:On Aug. 3, Minnesota held its bond sale, putting up for bid state bonds that will fund ag loans, transportation projects, and various infrastructure improvements across the state. The sale was a resounding success, with competition among private bidders resulting in a historically low interest rate that will save Minnesota taxpayers millions of dollars.As fascinating as that was, this paragraph was most revealing:
The results of this sale made clear this year's quick and decisive passage of a bonding bill by House Democrats was exactly the right thing to do. Bids will now be let for projects such as road and bridge improvements, clean water and improvements to our state colleges and universities.
As many as 20,000 construction jobs will be created, as well as hundreds of spinoff jobs in areas such as manufacturing, materials supply, food service, health care and retail. Communities across the state benefit when workers come to eat at their restaurants, buy gas at their gas stations and shop in their stores.For more than 150 years, bonding bills have been exactly what Minnesota needed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Minnesota's businesses, workers and families can feel confident we will continue to make job creation our top priority, with a responsible bonding bill as the cornerstone.There it is!!! Rep. Sertich admits that the DFL's annual bonding bills are the Minnesota equivalent of a federal stimulus package. He's just admitted that we're spending money we don't have on projects we don't need. What Rep. Sertich didn't admit, though, is that the people getting the jobs are the DFL's union allies. Certainly, the IBEW and other construction unions benefit greatly from the DFL's spending our money. In return, the DFL benefits greatly from the unions' campaign contributions.
That's a pretty sweet racket if you can keep it a secret.
This setup also begs another question. Why does the DFL focus on the government spending money on creating jobs instead of government getting out of the way and letting the private sector create jobs?
The DFL's and Rep. Sertich's insistence on spending our taxes on annual stimulus bills is frightening enough. As bad as that failed economic model is, it's nothing compared with Mark Dayton's tax plan. Here's what Pat Kessler wrote about Dayton's tax-the-rich plan :Dayton's proposing as many as three new income tax brackets.that last sentence should tell you everything you need to know about Dayton's tax policy. If you spend a single day in Minnesota, you'll get hit with his tax increases. The only way to avoid Mr. Dayton's punishing tax rates is to leave the state permanently, which is exactly what the vast majority of snowbirds will do.
Singles and couples with incomes between $130,000 and $150,000 would pay "slightly more" according to Dayton. For those earning more than $500,000 a year -- a sharper spike. And at $1,000,000 and above: "significantly more" in income taxes.
Dayton says million dollar "homes" deserve special attention too.
Remember that $53 million home for sale on Lake Minnetonka ?
It's taxed at the same percentage as a $500,000 home in Fridley.
It's TRUE.
Currently, Minnesota has two property tax rates : 1.0 percent for homes valued under $500,000 and 1.25 percent for homes valued above $500,000.
Dayton would change that with a special tax on homes worth $1 million or more.
And ONE MORE THING:
Avoiding winter is one thing but if you're snow-birding to avoid taxes, your wings could get clipped. Minnesotans who live 6 months and 1 day outside the state currently don't pay Minnesota income taxes .
Dayton said that's over if he's elected: You live in Minnesota and pay taxes or you don't.
When Minnesota's snowbirds leave, two things will happen. First, Mark Dayton and the DFL will whine that those greedy snowbirds won't pay their fair share. (Nevermind the fact that it's their privately saved retirement money.) Next, Mr. Dayton's budget projections will be off by a significant amount. They're off already but they'll be off by a bigger amount when Sen. Dayton chases the snowbirds out of Minnesota.
Finally, during tonight's debate, Tom Emmer highlighted Mark Dayton's job creation weakness. Rep. Emmer talked about a mining company on the range that's gone through 5 yrs. of environmental studies and permitting processes. At the last DFL debate, Sen. Dayton said that it'd be ok with him if it took another 2 years to complete.
Tom Emmer said that it's immoral to stretch the permitting process out that long, especially with people on the range unemployed or in danger of losing their home.
I agree with that. What will those extra years of studies and waiting produce other than bigger debts and more foreclosures for the people of the Iron Range?
Simply put, we can't afford to put the DFL in charge of job creation. Rather than maintaining a construction-oriented economy that Rep. Sertich and Sen. Dayton favor, Minnesota needs leadership, both in the governor's mansion and in the legislature that seeks to unleash Minnesota's entrepreneurial spirit.
That will only happen if we elect leaders that trust the people rather than people who think government has a big role to play in the private sector.
It's time to reject the DFL's economic plans because they don't work. It's time to enthusiastically support the GOP because they're the only leaders who trust in Minnesota's innovators and entrepreneurs.
Posted Friday, August 13, 2010 11:00 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 14-Aug-10 07:11 AM
Maybe you've heard Rush talk about New York & NYC, which have relentlessly dogged him ever since he left for Florida. Audits every year even though he doesn't live there and avoids even travel there. Is this what we want in Minnesota?
Remember, in tax court, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-10 08:30 AM
I've yet to see anything worthwhile in Dayton's tax plan. nuff said?
Comment 2 by eric q at 14-Aug-10 09:18 AM
You misstate. Dayton said he'd tax the rich. Not the job creators.
Why anyone, despite years of evidence, would still cling to trickle down, but for the rich who prosper disproportionately under it, eludes my sense of common sense.
Yet it happens.
Emmer saying Dayton wanted to burden hard-working Minnesotans was particularly offensive.
There is no justification to equate the rich, who work the remainder of us hard, with the hard work they extract.
I have neither the time, inclination, or wealth to join any elite country club. Yet that is where Dayton says he would impose fairer taxation. You don't create jobs with a tennis racquet and gin and tonic.
Emmer saying pay and benefits are greater in public sector jobs exposes a truth - the people in control of the private sector are exploitative. Wow. Big surprise.
Yet Emmer does not see that the logic flowing from his one-trick-pony rhetoric indicts his position.
Gary, waitresses and waiters do work hard, I have seen busy restaurants and boorish patrons, and while they undeniably are hard working and NOT, despite Emmer misstatement, making a hundred grand waiting tables.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-10 12:11 PM
You misstate. Dayton said he'd tax the rich. Not the job creators.Not true. According to Dayton's website, anyone making more than $130K is considered rich & will be hit by the higher income tax brackets. That's reality. There are lots of small businesses that file as individuals that will be hit by Dayton's tax increases.
Last session, the DFL used a similar benchmark for rich in their end-of-session tax increase bill. The fiscal not from the Dept. of Revenue said that 57% of the people who'd get hit by the tax increase would be "small businesses & farmers."
You might not admit it but that's the statistical reality from the professionals at the Dept. of Revenue.
Comment 3 by eric q at 14-Aug-10 09:28 AM
Cullen Sheehan. The reporting is more and more that he is being turned to.
Will we get Emmer dressed up as Norm-lite?
Norm was already lite enough that he made Franken laugh.
Will this change boost Emmer polling numbers, or only alienate some of the loyalists that got him the nod over Siefert?
Any reading of the tea leaves?
Or do we all, even GOP insiders and pundits, wait and see?
I agree that there's much time between now and early November; and early polling is suspect.
Will it tighten and go to the wire, and can Horner get more than the regular - except for Ventura - ten percent --- if that?
My guess, Emmer will not alienate loyalists. They will believe that they see what he'll be doing, and know where he's from if elected.
My guess, Horner came across better on paper and in reporting - where the aim is that a closer three horse race will sell more papers and air time ads - but when I saw the three on stage together, he was the prodigal son.
Interesting how they had Dayton and Emmer together, centered between the two moderators, and Horner seated on an end, with a moderator between him and the other two.
MPR - staging stuff? No. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-10 11:47 AM
Eric, Cullen Sheehan couldn't change Tom's desire to be substantive if his life depended on it. Being substantive is who Tom is. Norm's a good guy but he was more personality-driven than Tom.
This is a strong Republican year. Tom still beats Dayton by 3-5 points. Last night's debate showed that Dayton didn't have the poise or temperament to be governor. When asked how he felt about President Obama's education reforms, like alternative licensure & Race to the Top, Dayton said that the first reform he'd recommend is to "restore the education funding that was cut over the last 8 years." That's his idea of reform??? Throw money to the unions, then bend over & genuflect, is Dayton's type of reform???
I wish I could be surprised but that's the most predictable answer I've ever heard.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 15-Aug-10 10:42 PM
Gary, thanks for the reply comment on Sheehan-Norm.
I agree on Norm being more style than substance - more hat than cowboy.
I have not seen enough of Emmer. I do not know whether your feeling that the GOP will have a strong election is ripe yet - I see it as premature. By mid- to late-September we will be better able to feel the pulse of the electorate.
With a higher marginal tax bracket kicking in at $130,000 and not that big a jump at that level, it is not burdensome.
I wish my income were $130,000 so that I could fret a bit over the tax level on the marginal thousands I make beyond that cutoff figure. It would be happy fretting, vs. having less.
I suppose a waiter and waitress, married, would be in at $200,000 and Emmer's taxing stance would appeal to them - all of them in that situation Emmer deemed common.
