August 19-22, 2010
Aug 19 00:44 Campaign Reporting 101 Aug 19 11:07 Whose Failed Policies? Aug 19 17:09 Barney Franks' Fannie/Freddie Flip-Flop Aug 20 16:37 What Was Sen. Dayton Thinking? Aug 20 04:33 Robbing Peter, Then Robbing Peter Some More Aug 20 05:42 About Dayton's DC Office Closing Aug 21 13:42 Is the Second Recession Bush's Fault, Too? Aug 21 18:46 The Personification of Desperation Aug 22 04:12 Sen. Dayton's Fuzzy Math Revisited
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Campaign Reporting 101
MNPublius's post about Michele Bachmann's recent radio ad isn't worth the bandwidth it's printed on. First, here's what Michele said:
Taxpayer money will essentially be laundered through the public employee unions, and spent to reelect those same Democrats this fall.Here's where they went wrong:
[T]he bill expressly states that the education funding must "be used only for awards to local educational agencies for the support of elementary and secondary education, for the 2010-2011 school year." The legislation also states that the money can be used only to pay school employees who would otherwise be laid-off or to rehire employees.Poligraph's statement isn't accurate. I agree that the money goes to teachers' salaries. Poligraph is right through that point. Unfortunately, Poligraph fails to consider the possibility (likelihood?) that EdMinn and the NEA might increase union dues that will get turned into campaign contributions.
,Bachmann is wrong to say that the state aid will be "laundered" through public employee unions and used to help reelect Democrats. In fact, the bill is clear that the money can only be used to keep teachers on the payroll.
That Poligraph doesn't consider that possibility indicates that their analysis isn't high caliber analysis. In fact, it indicates that Poligraph's analysis isn't trustworthy at all.
Since I started voting in 1974 and before, unions have jacked up dues in the spring and summer of election years so they can pump more money into the Democrats' coffers. This isn't news. It's the first lesson in the Campaign Reporting 101 textbook.
It's bad enough the Democrats treat people like little children. That's what they've done since President Obama's inauguration. It's worse when the media joins with President Obama.
If Poligraph wants credibility, it'll have to do better than this. In fact, this analysis, if it can be called that, is an embarrassment to their reputation.
Posted Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:44 AM
Comment 1 by Triple Threat at 19-Aug-10 08:57 AM
Another point is that the more teachers that are employed and not laid off or rehired, the more teachers there are to pay union dues. No bailout, less teachers, less union dues. Unions can also promote to their members how their efforts to elect a Democratic Congress secured the bailout money that helped the teachers get or keep their jobs and wouldn't you be glad to pay little bit higher union fee to such a successful organization? I wonder how anything gets done in Washington other than I'll pat your back, now you pat mine, no your back, no your back and so on and so on.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Aug-10 09:06 AM
I wasn't focused on that aspect, just on the part that Poligraph failed to report that some of the teachers' salaries WILL GO into the unions' campaign coffers, which is what Rep. Bachmann said.
BTW, from a purely curious standpoint, why have we always heard that the stimulus has saved the jobs of teachers, firefighters & police officers? Why haven't we heard that the stimulus has saved private sector jobs? Does President Obama plan on keeping on bankrolling state & local gov't with loans with money we don't have?
Whose Failed Policies?
Starting about 2 weeks ago, President Obama started using the campaign line that he wasn't going to 'give' Republicans the keys back to the car because "you don't know how to drive." Fortunately, that decision isn't up to the most radical president in a century. On item after item, President Obama has ignored the will of the American people.
The things that he's differed with them on aren't tiny items, either. The people were skeptical of President Obama's stimulus but they were willing to give it a chance to succeed. That grace period expired awhile back. The American people can plainly see that President Obama's stimulus package failed miserably.
In Q4 of 2009, the economy grew by a 5.7 annual rate, a strong showing until you looked underneath the numbers. Once the effect of the Cash for Clunkers program and the mortgage deal expired the stimulus spending spree ubsided, the economy grew by 3.7 percent in Q1 of 2010. The Q2 numbers were anemic to begin with and they've gotten revised downward since.
In other words, the economy is tanking again because President Obama's economic policies have failed.
Even with a favorable sampling of Democrats, President Obama's rating on the economy is terrible :
If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approving or disapproving of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?President Obama can talk all he wants about how Democrats pulled the car out of the proverbial ditch but the American people, many of whom are unemployed or in danger of losing their homes, aren't buying his schtick. Don't expect that to change between now and Election Day.
Approve- 41 percent
Disapprove- 56 percent
UPDATE: Change that last sentence. It just got worse :
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 500,000 in the week ended August 14, the highest since mid-November, the Labor Department said on Thursday.When will we declare that ARRA and Obamanomics has failed? Better yet, when was the last time this administration touted the private sector jobs ARRA saved? Correction: Will there be a first time that this administration will be honestly able to say that their policies created or saved private sector jobs? I'm betting that won't happen but anything's possible.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 476,000 from the previously reported 484,000 the prior week, which was revised up to 488,000 in Thursday's report.
This November, voters will reject Obama's policies in an historic election. Republicans will then install Paul Ryan as House Budget Committee chairman & Dave Camp as Ways and Means Committee Chairman, thereby restoring sanity to this nation's budget and tax policies.
Posted Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Aug-10 05:56 AM
If you want to boost jobs, then give the private sector employment relationship a boost - take the provision of healthcare out of employment dynamics and go single payer. Then, cost per employee is decreased, and the demand for employees will increase.
Single payer helps the private sector. Auto production in Canada is prosperous without company financing of healthcare.
Barney Franks' Fannie/Freddie Flip-Flop
Based on Rep. Frank's sudden reversal towards Fannie and Freddie, I'd say Rep. Frank is feeling the electoral heat from Sean Bielat. Before anyone starts guffawing, it's worth remembering that Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley by 10 points in Frank's district.
Here's a partial transcript of the video:
Frank 2003: I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and, even then, the federal government doesn't bail them out.Shift to interview with Neil Cavuto:
Frank 2005: This is not the dot com situation...but you're not going to see the collapse that people talk about when they talk about a bubble.
Frank 2006: Fundamentally, I don't think there's a crisis.
Frank 2008: I don't think that Fannie and Freddie are financially insolvent. I don't think that they need large bailouts.
Frank 2008: We had a degree of meltdown that very few people foresaw.
CAVUTO: Do you think that we'll still need a Fannie and a Freddie?Now back to Rep. Frank:
FRANK: Oh absolutely not. I think that they should be abolished.
REP. FRANK: So how can it be my fault that no bill passed from 1995 through 2006?I haven't seen any polling on the Bielat-Frank race so I won't predict the race's outcome but the externals are horrible for Frank. He's obviously feeling the heat from his financial sector supporters. With them, it isn't about ideology. It's about whether or not they're making money.
FRANK: No you interrupted me. What did I say that was inaccurate? Quote me correctly. I never said I wanted you to trust me.
Barney Frank has been one of the most arrogant legislators in DC. Prior to the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, supporters didn't seem to mind because he helped them make money. Now that they aren't making money, his arrogance might be wearing thin.
I'm still taking the an 'I'll believe it when I see it' attitude to this race but I'd be lying if I said I didn't love the thought of Frank getting ousted. Getting rid of Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the Democrat majorities in the House, Senate would make for a glorious Tuesday night this November.
Honestly, I'd settle for Speaker-Elect Boehner and Sen.-Elect Angle. Then again, I'd love seeing as many Corruptocrats lose that night.
Posted Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:18 PM
No comments.
What Was Sen. Dayton Thinking?
According to this Strib article , IP candidate Tom Horner clobbered Sen. Dayton on health care:
Another difference came over health care. Horner slammed Dayton's proposal for a single-payer health-care system as too expensive and politically unfeasible. "How can that possibly be an answer to health care reform?" Horner asked, noting that a progressive think tank estimates a single-payer system would cost $12 billion to $15 billion.Here's what we know:
We know that Sen. Dayton wants to raise taxes on "the rich." We know that the next governor must balance the budget after what's expected to be a deficit of almost $6,000,000,000. We know that Sen. Dayton's numbers don't add up to a balanced budget. We know that Sen. Dayton has promised to increase education funding "without exception, without excuses" too.
What we don't know is how Sen. Dayton intends to pay for all these things.
Trying to impose single-payer health care on Minnesota will be wildly expensive. It's impossible to pay $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000 for single-payer. That would be almost 50 percent of Minnesota's budget. Anyone thinking that that's possible should consider the fact that education is the biggest budget item at about 40 percent of the general fund budget. If single-payer is signed into law, education and single-payer will consume almost 90 percent of the current general fund budget.
This isn't just about Sen. Dayton's budget. This speaks volumes about his priorities. I haven't heard anything from Sen. Dayton that suggests that he's a centrist. The good news is that single-payer is a sop to his hardline activists. The bad news for Sen. Dayton is that single-payer's cost will turn off the unaffiliated voters he'll need to win.
I can't emphasize enough that Sen. Dayton's budget doesn't come close to balancing. His tax-the-rich scheme won't generate the revenue needed to balance the budget, falling at least $2,500,000,000 short. That's before adding in the additional education funding that Sen. Dayton's promised "without exception, without excuses" or single-payer health care.
That's before understanding that Rep. Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan would provide better coverage at a much cheaper price. Single-payer isn't a great thing. Canada is moving away from single-payer. They aren't changing to a U.S. model, to be sure, but they're definitely moving away from single-payer.
If we learned anything from his shutting down of his DC office, it's that Sen. Dayton's decisionmaking skills aren't good. If we've learned anything abut Sen. Dayton's budgeting, it's that it's part bad math skills, part ideological sops for the DFL's special interests.
The bottom line is this: Sen. Dayton wasn't thinking clearly when he said he favored a single-payer plan. His math was fuzzy prior to this declaration. This declaration turns fuzzy math into the rantings of an incoherent politician.
Posted Friday, August 20, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Aug-10 01:58 AM
Maybe the reason Mark Dayton wants to spend more on education is so he can go in for some remedial math? :->
Comment 2 by eric z at 21-Aug-10 05:50 AM
Impossible to do what's just?
Impossible to do what will circulate cash in the economy and stimulate job creation?
Lifting the burden of healthcare from employment relationships will lessen the cost per employee. That will increase the demand for employees. It is simple. It works.
And saying "impossible" could have been the song in the late ninteenth century, when the government was spending and giving land grants to stimulate railroad growth.
Not only possible, but a success.
Business prospered from having rail available.
Cargill could not have come to being without the transportation spending.
Healthcare cost abuse can be curbed. That's possible. Last year or last half-year cost roller coaster policy can be reexamined.
Instead of rationing healthcare by have and have-not, as currently done, ration it by coverage and extended coverage.
The insurers can sell the extended coverage. The wealthy can buy it. The corporations wanting to offer a bonus to recruit and retain top talent can include extended care as part of a bonus package.
But adding the burden of healthcare loss or hardship COBRA payments when out of a job - why do that unless you are as cruel as Pawenty in not springing immediately to accept for Minnesotans the $236 million of federal stimulus money there for the asking.
Why is Pawlenty doing this to us?
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 21-Aug-10 06:17 AM
OK, it is not "impossible" to do what's "just." All you have to do is crush a few words until they have absolutely no meaning, throw some incredibly bad math on top of it, and stir with a lack of critical thinking.
Take just one example: "Lifting the burden of healthcare from employment relationships will lessen the cost per employee." How? If you are going to turn right around and tax employers and employees to provide the more-costly Obamacare, how does that lessen the cost? All it does is further hide the cost from the consumer and distort the free-market controls on cost. You end up substituting arbitrary government rationing to contain costs-- producing /less/ healthcare, of lower quality. Dayton's fundamental premise is that a few intellectuals can make the right health care choices better than millions of individual patients and doctors can make for themselves. It cannot POSSIBLY work because nobody is that smart. Dayton isn't even smart enough to know that.
Comment 4 by James at 21-Aug-10 09:25 AM
It's a good think Mark is investing so much in remedial math as J. Ewing retorts. Why? It's obvious the author of this post needs a refresher. The cost estimates you cite are clearly not backed up by anything but let's assume they're good for the sake of argument. Would 15 billion be less than what all Minnesotan's are already paying for care? I ask this because if everyone has quality, affordable health care, like Marks proposal, the Minnesota Health Plan, than why would they, or their employers countinue to shell out the 30.7Billion they payed for all health care in 2006 (2006 is latest numbers: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpsc/hep/publications/costs/spendingprojections.pdf page 2)
It seems to me that under Dayton's plan the whole state would save 15.7 billion. I am sure the author of this post would live a 15.7 billion dollar tax cut to all Minnesotan's, so why is he against it?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Aug-10 09:44 AM
Assuming that you're right that Minnesotans would save "$15.7 billion", which you aren't, there's still a need to PAY FOR THAT STATE APPROPRIATION, right? There's no such thing as a free lunch, right? That's before arguing that single-payer is less expensive & provides better coverage than private insurance. Theoretically, it artificially provides cheaper prices (See Massachusetts & Medicare) but the bill gets passed onto those in private insurance. That's called cost-shifting. Also, to make up for the money that hospitals & doctors lose under single-payer, those hospitals & doctors will need a gov't subsidy, which will require a major tax increase. After all, states can't print money & their budgets need to balance at the end of their budget period.
BTW, let's remember that the bigger the gov't intrusion into health care, the bigger the cost shifts to private insurance. If states & the federal gov't would reduce their involvement in HC, prices would stabilize.
More importantly, if PEOPLE HAD TO BECOME HC SHOPPERS, their HC consumption habits would change dramatically.
In short, James, your theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It isn't worth the bandwidth that it's printed on.
Robbing Peter, Then Robbing Peter Some More
According to both the Strib and the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota , governments are spending your tax dollars to lobby government to spend more of the taxpayers' money. I'd call it robbing Peter to pay Paul but in both instances, the person whose pocket ultimately gets picked is the taxpayer's.
Here's what FFM originally wrote:
If federal lobbying records are any indication, Minnesota's local governments are increasingly turning to our nation's capital in search of funding for local programs. A Freedom Foundation of Minnesota analysis of Lobbying Disclosure Act filings finds that Minnesota's local governments and their associations spent at least $5.217 million lobbying the federal government from 2006 through the first half of 2010.[i] Annual lobbying expenditures have risen each year and are on pace to set a new record in 2010, with at least $729,000 spent the first half of the year.Here's how the Strib tried rationalizing the cities' lobbying:
So far in 2010, the biggest spenders have been the City of Minneapolis ($90,000), the City of Moorhead ($80,000), and Scott County ($60,000).
Of course, public sector lobbying still doesn't come anywhere close to private sector lobbying. For example, Minnesota ag giant Cargill Inc. has spent $932,887 on lobbying so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's one company outspending every city, town and county in Minnesota put together.When cities and counties lobby the Obama administration and the Pelosi regime, their expenses come from our local and state taxes. When the Obama administration and the Pelosi regime spend money on their public employee allies/campaign contributors, it's the federal government picking our pocket. We get ripped off twice by the people who theoretically serve us.
How isn't that about the public getting ripped off twice?
What's worse is when a Jim Oberstar votes for a federal earmark on something we don't need and a Tarryl Clark whines when Gov. Pawlenty says we don't need the earmark that Rep. Oberstar got. Let's remember that Rep. Oberstar asked for a nickel a gallon gas tax increase to pay for road and bridge repair after he and the other porksters larded up the $286,000,000,000 Transportation Bill with $24,000,000,000 worth of earmarks on things like bike paths in Rep. Oberstar's district.
It's time all levels of government got their grubby hands out of our pockets. It's time they focused on staying within the Constitution and appropriating money only for those things that are needs. That list is small. Things like parks and libraries aren't things that local governments need to fund. The Federal Highway Trust Fund shouldn't be used for bike trails, especially with lots of truly important projects needing funding.
It's time that someone told Minnesotans just how badly they're getting ripped off. God knows that won't happen if that responsibility is left to the Strib and Pi-Press. More and more, that responsibility is falling to bloggers and organizations like Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and Minnesota Majority.
Thanks to FFM's investigation, we now know that our local and state governments are double-dipping into our wallets. Don't be surprised if we see a major turnover this November. Other than those feeding at the public trough, people are tired of career politicians picking their pockets with both hands.
Last night, I spoke with a candidate about what was most animating the people. This candidate said that they're mostly worried about government spending too much, followed by job creation and getting the economy going without gimmicks like the federal stimulus plan.
Surely, the DFL won't stop picking our pockets with both hands. It's time for them to go. If they won't leave voluntarily, then it's time we shoved them out the door.
Posted Friday, August 20, 2010 4:33 AM
No comments.
About Dayton's DC Office Closing
Alison Rosholt's op-ed in this morning's Strib is first class spin. Here's what she wrote about Sen. Dayton's closing his DC office:
The safety of his staff and constituents was always of top concern to Dayton. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he regularly held meetings with his Washington staff to review office safety procedures. But the all-staff meeting he summoned in early October 2004 was markedly different. In a calm, somber voice, Dayton told us that he had recently reviewed top-secret intelligence reports alerting senators to the risk of an imminent terrorist attack in the nation's capital -- and against Capitol Hill in particular. He told us that he asked himself every morning whether he felt comfortable bringing his sons with him to the office that day. If the answer was no, then he said he could not expect us to come to work, either. After reading the intelligence reports that month, he told us he would not encourage his sons to even visit Washington, let alone join him in his Senate office.That certainly isn't what authorities said at the time. Here's what CNN reported at the time about Sen. Dayton's closing his office:
Moreover, Dayton said he could not bring himself to return to Minnesota for the October recess, leaving us and visiting constituents behind in the Washington office, vulnerable to the potential threat known only to him and a few others.
U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, closed his Capitol Hill office Tuesday until after the November 2 election, fearing a possible terrorist attack that could harm his staff or visitors.Here's what MPR wrote years later:
However, U.S. government officials said there was no new intelligence concerning a possible attack, and authorities said congressional members have not been advised to close their offices .
"There's no new threat or information pertaining to a threat that's come in. We continue to advise (people) to take caution...but there's no new information that we've put out," said Sgt. Contricia Ford of the U.S. Capitol Police.
Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, added: "We have not made a recommendation for any members of Congress to close their offices, and we do not have any specific threat reporting indicating that Washington, D.C., and the Capitol is a target."
The next year, Dayton attracted international attention when he shut down his Washington office a month before the November 2004 presidential election.Ms. Rosholt's account simply isn't credible. Certainly, DHS would've contacted DC's mayor had they discovered a credible, specific terrorist plot targeting Capitol Hill. The fact that Mayor Williams, a fellow Democrat, ridiculed Sen. Dayton by saying he wasn't sure "what frequency the senator's on" speaks volumes to Sen. Dayton's sensibilities, or rather, his lack thereof.
Dayton said he made the decision because of the threat of a terrorist attack.
" I'm just literally scratching my head ," said Washington D.C. Mayor Tony Williams in an NBC news report at the time. " I'm trying to figure out , I mean, you know, figure out what frequency the senator's on in terms of what he's thinking."
Sen. Dayton can't credibly point to a legitimate reason for closing his office. He's attempting to frame it as an act of compassion for his staff. It isn't compassion to send people away from the DC office if there isn't a legitimate reason for closing the office.
The reality is that more than 530 other lawmakers kept their offices open. Sen. John Warner, then chairman of the Armed Services Committee, questioned Dayton's office closing:
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Senate leadership has kept senators "fully apprised" of threats against the U.S. Capitol, but he has seen nothing to prompt the need to close his office.Here's John Cornyn's reaction to Sen. Dayton's office closing:
"Given the briefings I have received to date, I do not feel the need to alter our office work schedule, or to take extraordinary steps such as those announced by Senator Dayton," Warner said.
"Even when the Senate is out of session, we have a job to do to serve our constituents, and in the war on terror, we can't let non-imminent threats prevent us from doing our work."
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, echoed that sentiment.Perhaps most convincingly, this is Sen. Daschle's reaction:
"I know of no specific threat that would cause me to shut down the office," he said in a written statement.
According to a notice circulated among Democratic senators' staff, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, has asked the Sergeant at Arms to brief senators' chiefs of staff and office managers Wednesday about the threat level to the Capitol.If there was an imminent threat, why didn't some of the most senior senators in DC keep their offices open? More importantly, why did they issue statements saying that they hadn't heard anything of the threats that Sen. Dayton says he heard?
The notice added, " No one in Homeland Security has recommended closing offices or closing the Capitol building. The Daschle office will remain open ."
This isn't just Republican bombthrowers criticizing him. DC's Democrat Mayor Tony Williams, Sen. Tom Daschle, (D-SD), and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, (D-WVA), all expressed total confidence that Capitol Hill wasn't facing an terrorist threat, imminent or otherwise.
What I don't have trouble believing is that Sen. Dayton's shutting down his DC office is proof that he isn't stable enough to be governor. When you're the chief executive, whether it's governor of a state or the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, you're required to consistently make rational decisions.
I find it impossible for impartial people to trust Sen. Dayton's decisionmaking ability. I find it equally impossible to believe Ms. Rosholt's account. Too many other statements from DC's biggest power players suggest that Sen. Dayton's actions were irrational.
With all due respect to Ms. Rosholt, I'll trust them more than I'll trust her when it comes to Sen. Dayton's irrational behavior.
Posted Friday, August 20, 2010 5:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Aug-10 05:53 AM
Correct me if I am wrong.
As to time, wasn't that old office closure thing about the time Emmer was collecting DWI's?
Give it up.
It's old and it doesn't counter "Tax the rich."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Aug-10 09:13 AM
I'll gladly correct you. Tom Emmer's last CARELESS DRIVING CONVICTION was in 1991. Mark Dayton's closing of the DC office was in 2004. For the mathematically challenged, that's a difference of 13 years.
There's another significant difference between the men's difficulties. Tom Emmer never tried making excuses for what he did. His answer has consistently been that he made a mistake, that he's learned from that mistake & he's worked hard to make sure it's never happened again.
Meanwhile, Mark Dayton still hasn't said that his closing his office was an mistake. Instead, he brought in a staffer to put the most positive spin on it as is possible. His judgment still is questionable.
I agree that it doesn't tax the rich. In terms of hurting Dayton, this adds to Sen. Dayton's troubles. If you think that tax increases on anyone is a winning message this year, I pity you because this November will be a total shock to you. It'll shatter your worldview entirely.
Is the Second Recession Bush's Fault, Too?
Months ago, when the Q4 GDP numbers came out, the Obama administration touted how their stimulus bill had pulled the country back from the brink of a new Great Depression. The Q4 GDP was 5.7 percent annual growth rate, a strong showing.
After seeing first time unemployment applications jump to 500,000 this week and with Q2 GDP getting revised downward again to an anemic 2.4 and poised to be revised downward again to possibly 1.4 percent , it's obvious that the economy is slowing mightily, possibly slowing enough to bring us into a second recession.
The reality of it is that President Obama's policies and legislation are dragging the economy down.
People have said that there are too many unknowns for businesses, which is leading to job creators to sit on the sidelines. A legitimate argument can be made for that, especially with it being unknown whether the Bush tax cuts will expire or whether they'll pass Cap and Trade or Card Check. These obviously weigh heavily on the minds of entrepreneurs.
Still, I'm certain that a potent argument can be made that employers aren't jumping in because they know that labor cost are too expensive. They know that the cost of compliance with the financial regulations bill will be expensive. Ditto with Obamacare. It's to the point that Democrat pollsters and strategists are telling their candidates not to tout the main talking points about Obamacare :
"The fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House's first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed" to persuade the public, the consultants argued, based on polling about voters' attitudes and beliefs about the new health-care law. They advised the candidates to stay away from claims that the law will reduce costs and deficits. Instead, the Democrats should "use personal stories, coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level."People haven't forgotten President Obama's sales pitch that Obamacare would reduce health care costs and shrink the deficit nor have they forgotten Speaker Pelosi's asinine statement that they had to pass the bill for everyone to see all the great things that were allegedly contained in the bill.
There's no doubt but that President Obama has "owned the trend", as Greta van Susteren says, since passing ARRA. Though President Obama refuses to accept responsibility, that's essentially irrelevant because he's being overridden by the American people. People didn't complain when the Obama administration took credit for the 5.7 percent GDP in Q4, 2009.
Politically speaking, President Obama took ownership of the economy at that point. When the economy either dips into recession a second time or growth stagnates, which it's doing right now, will the Obama administration argue that the second recession is President Bush's fault?
We don't have to worry about the public. They'll, correctly, assign the blame to the Obama administration's anti-growth policies. The simple fact is that President Obama's policies have catered to public employee unions. It's been hostile to the job creators. That's why $2,000,000,000,000 of private capital has been sitting on the sidelines for a few months. That's why the Obama administration can't talk about anything except green shoots and jobs saved.
This administration can't point to robust private sector growth. This administration can't point to job growth outside the Beltway. This administration can't talk about unquestioned economic successes.
Think about it: This administration can't talk about any widespread economic success that their policies have brought to the American people. President Obama is the only president in the last 40 years that that can be said about.
The bottom line is this: There's no arguing that President Bush's policies contributed to the economy's decline, although there's plenty of blame to go around. The American people accept and know that. They also know that President Obama promised to fixed what ailed the American economy.
That's why his whining about the economy's struggles are all President fault has worn out its welcome. Whether the economy takes a second dip into recession or just barely avoids it, there's no question that President Obama's policies brought about the current downturn/recession.
Posted Saturday, August 21, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Aug-10 07:55 AM
My workstation needs a memory upgrade to work better with many applications open, many browser tabs open.
It's not Intel's or Microsoft's fault.
It's Bush, again. Him and Cheney and Rice. Some ghosts can haunt forever.
The Personification of Desperation
If ever there was a campaign tactic that's doomed for failure, it's the tactic that the Wisconsin Democratic Party is deploying against Sean Duffy . Here's what's being reported on the Democrats' stunt:
The campaign for the Wisconsin 7th District House seat being vacated by retiring Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey took a strange turn on Friday as the state Democratic Party claimed to have obtained a copy of Republican candidate Sean Duffy's as yet unannounced economic plan.This smacks of desperation. Sean Duffy has garnered endorsements from Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, which means that they see Duffy as a serious candidate with a legitimate shot at winning. RCP rates WI-7 as leans Republican .
"The Democratic Party of Wisconsin on Thursday got its hands on Sean Duffy's economic plan in advance of its planned release next week and found that, in it, Duffy has applied his life lessons of getting drunk on television and being a mediocre political appointee," the Wisconsin Democrats' press release said.
According to this article , this isn't the Democrats' first desperate attack against Sean Duffy:
Recently the campaign got ugly and desperate when The Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release on April 14, 2010 attacking Sean Duffy for being a white supremacist and used racial overtones to do it.Wisconsin Democrats know that this seat is lost if they can't muddy Sean Duffy through a prolonged smear attack, something that I'm familiar with as an observer of the Dayton family's attempt to buy the gubernatorial election for Sen. Dayton through a series of dishonest ads against Tom Emmer.
The press release stated, "Duffy was scheduled to appear at a Wausau Tea Party event Thursday alongside white supremacist Alabama militia Col. John Eidsmoe (Eidsmoe since canceled)." It continues, "But even before not answering questions about the Tea Party scandal, Duffy was not answering questions about his unexplained role at a Wisconsin Dells resort where he reportedly fled the scene after his wife got into a shoving match with GOP rival Dan Mielke. Shortly thereafter, his campaign manager either quit or was fired."
The Democrats, whether they're located in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Ohio, know that they're running uphill into a stiff headwind. They've been told to run away from the legislation they've passed. This administration's economic policies have stunk up the joint. That's the context in which this race is set in.
Is it any wonder that the Wisconsin Democratic Party is hurling one smear after another at Sean Duffy? It pains them to think that the seat that David Obey has occupied the last 20 terms will soon be held by Republican Sean Duffy. It's the Wisconsin equivalent of Martha Coakley losing Ted Kennedy's seat.
What's great to see is that the Duffy campaign gives better than it gets. check this response out:
Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm fired back with a press release. It stated, "In response to the baseless claims of racism thrown at Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm, said the Democrat Party of Wisconsin (DPW) owes the Republican congressional candidate and his family an apology. Today, the DPW and its Chairman Mike Tate accused Duffy, who is married to Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Mexican-American, of being a white supremacist."That's stunning. That isn't just a response. That's a Game. Set. Match. type of response. Seaholm's reply didn't just counterpunch. It delivered the knockout blow that takes that subject off the table for the rest of this election cycle. You can't respond more forcefully or more completely.
Seaholm said, "Sean Duffy is proudly married to a Mexican-American and together they have six wonderful children. The DPW crossed the line by blatantly playing the race card and insulting the Latino community. The Democrats owe the Duffy family an apology and Mr. Tate should resign immediately."
In that exchange between the Democrat Party of Wisconsin and Matt Seaholm, Seaholm is the clear winner. That doesn't mean that it's the last cheapshot that the Democrat Party of Wisconsin will throw at the Duffy campaign. They'll definitely throw more cheapshots at him. I'm not worried, though, because it's obvious that the Duffy campaign will consistently get the upper hand in these exchanges.
I suspect that this race is like other races across the country. The Republican is leading the race but they taste victory so intensely that they'll continue campaigning like they're 2 points behind with 3 weeks left in the campaign.
Put differently, it's better to be a Republican than a Democrat and Republicans will keep outworking Democrats through till Election Day.
Posted Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:52 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Aug-10 03:03 AM
I've noticed how quickly the Democrats turn to lies to demonize the opponent in a lot of races, and then complain loudly when their candidate is "smeared" by the truth.
It's good to see such tactics tossed right back in their faces. Going on the defensive is always the wrong approach.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 22-Aug-10 07:31 AM
On Sunday August 22, 2010 we might have seen a sign of the universe ending. J and Me are in agreement on something. One reason why the Republicans lost so big in 2006 and 2008 was because they weren't being agressive and forceful.
In 2006 Kennedy let Amy K steal the issue of fiscal responsibility. This was when the budget deficit was less the $200 billion. Now it's over a trillion dollars with all the spending that Amy K has voted for. I just hope our 2012 will candidate will throw it back into her face!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Aug-10 09:50 AM
It appears strange.
What's Duffy running for?
I have never heard of him. Nor Dan Mielke. What office?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 23-Aug-10 12:11 PM
Erik:
Can't you read. He's running for the 7th Congressional seat in Wisconsin currently being held by David Obey.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Sen. Dayton's Fuzzy Math Revisited
Sen. Dayton supposedly gave an impassioned speech to the DFL faithful at the DFL State Central meeting Saturday. Among the red meat items that he threw out there was this statement:
"It's fundamentally unfair, it's fundamentally wrong. Tom Emmer and Tom Horner think it's terrific, and Yvonne and I think it's terrible," he said to a roaring crowd of supporters, adding: "I think most Minnesotans who can afford to pay more taxes, the top 10 percent, are willing to do so...for the sake of the future of Minnesota. And on November second we'll find out."If it could be proven that the money we're currently spending is being spent efficiently and only on necessities, Minnesotans might agree to a tax hike. If it could be proven that there aren't ways to deliver needed services (think public safety, education) more efficiently, Minnesotans might agree to a modest tax increase.
They might but I wouldn't bet on it.
Suffice it to say that Minnesotans don't think state government spends money efficiently. They certainly don't think the money spent is always spent on necessities.
In Mark Dayton's Minnesota, every cent is spent on necessities and only for the most altruistic reasons. In Mark Dayton's Minnesota, money is never spent on excesses requested by special interest groups or by their lobbyists.
During the Almanac debate, Tom Emmer talked about streamlining the permitting process because Minnesota's process is time-consuming and expensive. When Tom cited the case of 2 farmers in Clay County who expanded their hog operation in North Dakota rather than deal with Minnesota's bureaucracy, Sen. Dayton said that he's "all for streamlining the bureaucracy."
Rep. Emmer replied that he'd followed Sen. Dayton's career and that he'd never seen Sen. Dayton wite or co-sponsor any legislation that streamlined any part of government.
When he was asked at the final DFL debate what type of education reform he supported, Sen. Dayton said that the first reform he'd implement would be to restore the funding that was allegedly lost during the Pawlenty administration.
Based on his conflicting answers, we're to believe that Sen. Dayton thinks that streamlining government is reform and that spending more money is reform, too.
In Mark Dayton's Minnesota, $3,000,000,000 in tax increases and $900,000,000 in spending cuts balances Minnesota's budget. In Mark Dayton's Minnesota, massive tax increases on Minnesota's job creators won't send those companies scurrying for greener pastures, that it'll actually spur job growth.
Minnesota can't afford Mark Dayton's fuzzy math . He hasn't proven himself as a policy expert. He hasn't proven that he'd handle our money well. He didn't make great decisions in Washington .
The only things we can prove are that a) he's addicted to public service, b) he's a trust fund baby and c) he's run away from challenges in the past.
There isn't anything in Sen. Dayton's career that suggests he's a leader. That's the history of a less-than-distinguished career politician. If you don't believe me, ask Sen. Dayton why he gave himself an F for his Senate career and why the NRA exposed his cop-killer bullet allegations as false .
Posted Sunday, August 22, 2010 4:14 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Aug-10 08:15 AM
Just say it: Dayton lied. When the DFL tried to pass their millionaire's tax a few years back, Pawlenty offered everyone the opportunity to "pay more for a better Minnesota." He even offered them public thanks and his personal gratitude. The grand total collected was... ZERO! So much for "most of us." I would wager my paycheck against his that Dayton himself doesn't pay a penny more than required.
Massachusetts has a voluntary higher tax rate. The last I saw, they had collected something like $4000, most of it from people who made a mistake on their tax forms.
Comment 2 by Charlie at 23-Aug-10 05:25 AM
Tom Emmer has trouble keeping track of his own votes. I wouldn't trust his account of anyone else's record.
As for all this reform waiting to happen: Gov. Pawlenty, who is still apparently in office, ran the state for eight years. What voters "believe" about their government isn't necessarily what is.
Pawlenty's offer was pure grandstanding. No tax system is voluntary and wouldn't work if it was, even if the entire world were run by Pawlentys.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-10 07:57 AM
Mark Dayton's legislative history is devoid of him streamlining anything. His recent comments about banning cop-killing bullets is a lie, as I pointed out here.
As for reforming government, it won't happen until the DFL's obstructionist majority is eliminated in the Senate. The obstructionist DFL Senate is where good reforms go to die, especially if they're health care related.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Aug-10 09:45 AM
Charlie - think of this - perhaps the entire world IS run by Pawlentys. A host of them, posturing differently, but Pawlentys at heart.
That would explain a lot.
