August 24-27, 2007
Aug 24 04:22 'Non-Partisan' Mark Ritchie to Speak at DFL Fundraiser Aug 24 05:16 Another Marine Deserves a Murtha Apology Aug 24 18:55 Fisking Tarryl's Latest 'Masterpiece' Aug 25 03:25 Fisking Rahm Emanuel Aug 26 04:32 Special Session Is a Waste Of Time, Money Aug 27 01:08 The DFL Concern For Transportation Aug 27 03:06 The Voice Of Sanity? Aug 27 10:51 Gonzales Quits Aug 27 12:18 How Low Can It Get?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006
'Non-Partisan' Mark Ritchie to Speak at DFL Fundraiser
According to Larry Schumacher's Democracy at Work blog, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will be the featured speaker at a DFL fundraiser for SD-14 & SD-15 Democrats. The fundraiser will be held on Sept. 16, 2007 at St. Cloud's Ace Bar, which is about half a mile from my house. Ritchie has made some statements in the last couple of years that are less than credible once you know more about Mr. Ritchie's past roles. Here are the statements I'm specifically referring to:
",the office of Secretary of State must operate in a non-partisan manner." Source: Mark Ritchie press release, June 7, 2005While Ritchie says that the office of Secretary of State should operate in a non-partisan manner, it should be noted that he's listed as a founder and advisor to the Campaign for America's Future, one of the left's most partisan organizations. CAF shares office space in Washington, DC with Americans United for Change, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and USAction. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is run by Tom Matzzie, who also chairs MoveOn.org. This office space is located on K Street, the lobbyist capitol of the nation's capitol. That information alone should send up red flags.
"I will protect your vote by restoring trust and nonpartisanship to the secretary of state's office," Source: Pioneer Press, November 1, 2006
Americans United for Change is targeting this list of Republicans for defeat in 2008:
Michelle Bachmann (MN-6), Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4), Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1), Steve King (IA-5), Scott Garrett (NJ-5), Bill Sali (ID-1), Brian Bilbray (CA-50), John Doolittle (CA-4), Roy Blunt (MO-7), Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6), Steve Chabot (OH-1), Tom Davis (VA-11), Thelma Drake (VA-2), Vernon Ehlers (MI-3), Mike Rogers (MI-8), Dean Heller (NV-2), Jon Porter (NV-3) and Peter Roskam (IL-6).If that doesn't shred Mr. Ritchie's statement about restoring nonpartisanship to the Secretary of State's office, there's more. During a debate last fall, Ritchie said that he didn't believe in requiring voters to show their ID in registering to vote:
Democrat Mark Ritchie, who in 2004 led a nationwide voter registration initiative, said requiring photo identification would disenfranchise poor citizens, seniors and college students who might not have access to documents required to get a picture identification card.Mr. Ritchie's position isn't unique in the Democratic Party. In fact, it's the DNC's official position. With voter fraud running rampant since 2004, you'd think that requiring a picture ID to register would be the common sense approach to preventing voter fraud. Obviously, that approach doesn't interest Mr. Ritchie or the DNC. It isn't coincidence that Democrats have been the only political party who've been convicted of voter fraud. If Mr. Ritchie won't discourage voter fraud, how can he restore "trust and nonpartisanship to the secretary of state's office,"?
This raises several questions. Here are the questions I most want answered:
- Shouldn't St. Cloud voters of all stripes distance themselves from a secretary of state that won't act affirmatively to prevent voter fraud?
- Shouldn't Minnesotans demand that the legislature pass laws that prevent voter fraud?
- Why should we believe that a man that's attended more DFL fundraisers in his first eight months in office than his predecessor attended in eight years is interested in bringing a nonpartisan approach to his job?
Most importantly, wasn't Ms. Kiffmeyer known for her nonpartisanship? Only a few far left bloggers have alleged that Ms. Kiffmeyer was partisan. Those allegations aren't worthy of consideration since those bloggers never cited any specific partisan actions that Ms. Kiffmeyer took.
Secondly, as noted earlier, Mr. Ritchie is a longtime liberal activist. That's certainly his constitutional right but I find it difficult to believe that a longtime DFL activist can turn a light switch and become nonpartisan.
Mr. Ritchie was president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. It was while he served as president of that organization that he was named as an advisor/founder to the Campaign for America's Future.
If that isn't enough to convince you that he's a liberal activist, consider this information:
Mark Ritchie, who heads the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which played a critical role in getting farm and food safety groups into the Seattle coalition, is even more blunt. "If Seattle is the high point of this movement, we're in trouble," he says. "Everything that happened in Seattle has to be seen as a prelude to a much larger, much more effective movement to change trade and economic policy in the U.S. and around the world."'Nonpartisan' Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was an organizer for the tumultuous protests at the 1999 meeting of the WTO in Seattle. Other than the immigration protests of March, 2006, the 1999 WTO protests were the biggest protests since the Vietnam era.
Based on this information, it's impossible to think that Mr. Ritchie suddenly turned a light switch and became nonpartisan. In fact, it's insulting for him to suggest that he isn't a highly partisan liberal activist.
I wonder how St. Cloud voters would react if they knew that Mr. Ritchie was a longtime DFL activist. I wonder how they'd react if they knew he didn't think that preventing voter fraud was part of the Secretary of State's job description.
I don't think they'd think too highly of him if they knew that about him.
Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 4:22 AM
Comment 1 by David Baker at 25-Aug-07 01:46 PM
Big deal. Voter fraud is non-existent. It's a pretty thin thread you use to tie Ritchie to groups such as MoveOn. Same applies to your attempt to go from heading the IATP to "organizer for the tumultuous protests". Find something real to alarm us about.
Another Marine Deserves a Murtha Apology
The Washington Post is reporting that Lt. Col. Paul Ware is recommending that LCpl. Stephen Tatum shouldn't be court-martialed. LCpl. Tatum is yet another Haditha Marine that Rep. John Murtha accused of cold-blooded murder. As such, Rep. Murtha owes yet another Haditha Marine an apology.
The shootings began after a bomb blast killed one Marine and injured two others as the unit drove a convoy through Haditha. The Marines then killed a group of men who were in a car nearby before heading into two houses in the vicinity. Ware found that Tatum was following his rules of engagement when he fired his rifle in the two houses.Col. Paul Ware doesn't deny that LCpl. Tatum killed civilians in "House 1 and House 2." What Col. Ware is essentially saying is that LCpl. Tatum killed these innocents because the insurgents amongst the innocent civilians. As such, LCpl. Tatum did what he was trained to do. Ware is saying that Tatum obeyed the ROE.
"What occurred in house 1 and house 2 are tragedies," Ware wrote. "The photographs of the victims are heart wrenching, and the desire to explain this tragedy as criminal act and not the result of training and fighting an enemy that hides among innocents is great. However, in the end, my opinion is that there is insufficient evidence for trial. LCpl Tatum shot and killed people in houses 1 and 2, but the reason he did so was because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder."
Col. Ware's recommendation doesn't automatically mean that LCpl. Tatum won't be court-martialed. That decision rests with Lt. Gen. James Mattis. However, considering the strong wording of Col. Ware's recommendation, I can't see how Gen. Mattis could justify the court-martial of LCpl. Tatum.
This is just more proof that John Murtha's accusations of May 17, 2006 weren't based on facts that surfaced as part of the initial NCIS investigation. Murtha's allegations are the result of Murtha's willfully ignoring the US Constitution's guarantees of the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and due process. Murtha's accusations are now being exposed for what they are: an appeal to the anti-war extremists known as the
A congressman's oath of office includes the pledge that they will uphold the Constitution. Clearly, that oath meant little, if anything, to Rep. Murtha. Rep. Murtha didn't care that he was destroying the reputations of Justin Sharratt, Stephen Tatum and Capt. Stone.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Rep. Murtha should resign from office or be involuntarily driven from office for violating his oath of office. He's disgraced the Marine Corps. He owes Mssrs. Sharratt, Tatum and Stone personal apologies. He also owes the USMC an apology, too.
I'm calling on thoughtful people of all political persuasions to pressure Rep. Murtha into resigning. If Rep. Murtha doesn't resign, then I'd call on these same thoughtful people to call their representative and demand that they file an ethics complaint against John Murtha. Once that complaint is filed, I'd ask these people to demand that the House of Representatives vote for Rep. Murtha's expulsion.
That's the only honorable thing for them to do. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi will ever let it go that far.
When voters go to the polls in November of 2008, we should hold anyone that shields Rep. Murtha from ethics sanctions. Anyone that willingly protects a man who disdains the US Constitution isn't fit for elected office.
Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 5:18 AM
Comment 1 by Winston Smith at 24-Aug-07 08:33 AM
First Murtha, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, who's calling today for our troop levels to be cut at least in half next year.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace24aug24,0,43964.story?coll=la-home-center
Why do they hate the troops, Gary?
Comment 2 by Walter E. Wallis at 26-Aug-07 08:42 AM
Murtha should be recalled to active duty and tried for improper command influence.
Too much to hope for a dishonorable discharge but I will settle for a BCD and forfeiture and demotion all the way.
Fisking Tarryl's Latest 'Masterpiece'
My state senator, Tarryl Clark has written a 'liberal masterpiece' of an editorial in today's St. Cloud Times. Now I'm about to demolish it with a well-deserved fisking. Let's get started.
We know there were enough concerns about the design and condition of the bridge to call for increased inspections. These inspections went on for 17 years and led to a recommendation to reinforce the bridge to avoid a collapse. That recommendation was not followed. Instead, a repair of the road surface and more inspections of critical beams were approved by the state Department of Transportation. The resurfacing was under way while the critical beam inspections were suspended at the time of the tragedy.Tarryl, the state legislature has the ability to earmark funds for all kinds of silly mandates that pay off political allies. The DFL-dominated legislature could've mandated that MnDOT fix the I-35W bridge. Nothing stood in the way of that.
People drowned in flooding in southern Minnesota. Raging waters destroyed homes, businesses, roads and bridges.How will a special session make waters recede in southern Minnesota? The implication of Tarryl's statements are that a special session, indeed only a special session, will make southern Minnesota whole again. That's insulting and she needs to be called on it. Tarryl's said some silly things in the past but this might be the silliest thing she's ever said.
There is no longer a debate about whether we need a special session; rather the question is what critical issues we should take care of during that session.
We are at risk of losing entire towns in southern Minnesota.
There isn't a need for a special session if Pelosi's and Reid's congress does their job properly in appropriating disaster relief money for southern Minnesota. It's that simple.
We also have bipartisan agreement there is a huge revenue shortfall in funding needed for transportation. MnDOT records show there are $1.7 billion in unmet needs for each year in the next 10 years.Is this the same MnDOT that recommended that we inspect the I-35W bridge more frequently? Here's what Dan Dorgan told WCCO News:
"Recent inspections in 2005 and 2006 found no evidence of additional cracking in the bridge or growth in the pre-existing cracks. So, for those reasons, we considered the bridge fit for service," said Dorgan.It should be noted that Mr. Dorgan is the "Bridge Engineer for the Minnesota Department of Transportation." I certainly won't blame Mr. Dorgan for the bridge's collapse. He isn't any more to blame for it than a theoretical lack of funding caused the bridge to collapse.
My point in questioning Tarryl's statement that MnDOT says there are $1.7 billion of unmet transportation needs is to challenge MnDOT's, and Tarryl's credibility. King has frequently asked what the DFL definition of need is. He's still waiting for that definition. I think Marty Seifert comes closest with his definition of budget targets:
The sum total of all of the special interests' wish lists.Needs is a subjective term. As such, I'm more than a little suspicious of politicians who say that we aren't spending nearly enough on "unmet needs." That's usually their way of starting a conversation about the need for tax increases. Simply put, that won't fly with me.
I believe Minnesotans expect action, and believe "the sooner the better." The Legislature and the governor have a responsibility to begin addressing these legitimate safety concerns now.Sen. Clark, I don't believe any such thing. In fact, whenever I've talked with people, whether it's in the grocery stores or at the fair or elsewhere, people talk about getting our priorities right. They're appalled when I tell them how much money Rep. Oberstar wasted on bike paths and other low priority items instead of using it to keep our bridges and highways safe. The voters I've talked with have been equally appalled with the money our state legislature has wasted on LRT projects instead of keeping our roads and bridges repaired. They're appalled to find out that the DFL wants to waste money on the LRT extension to Rice that will serve a maximum of 5,000 riders per day.
Quite simply, waiting until next year's session is an unnecessary delay. It's time for all of us to pull together and do the right thing.
When I tell them that the figures being talked about are just for building that extension and that we'll need to subsidize the route for the rest of its life, they're incredulous.
The broad consensus is that Minnesota's taxpayers that I've talked with want the legislature to get it right. The taxpayers that I've talked with don't want politicians doing something for the sake of doing something, which is how they view a special session at this point.
Posted Friday, August 24, 2007 6:56 PM
No comments.
Fisking Rahm Emanuel
There's an old saying in politics that if you're about to be run out of town, it's best to get out in front and pretend that you're leading a parade. That's what looks like Rahm Emanuel is attempting to do with this NY Times op-ed. Earmark 'reform' is the subject of Rep. Emanuel's op-ed. In it, he claims that Democrats have reformed earmarks, which is a joke considering that they're the party of Robert Byrd, John Murtha and Jim Oberstar.
Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage.It takes real chutzpah to say that the "new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified" after David Obey voted for earmark reform, then refused to obey the rule he'd voted for:
The new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified. Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks must certify that they have no personal financial interest in them. Any private entity that might benefit must be clearly reported. Each of these reforms is now mandatory, in stark contrast to previous practices.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks'', lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states, in documents that accompany spending bills.I don't know how Rahm Emanuel can say that Democrats have cleaned up the earmark process after David Obey is caught ignoring the supposed reform measure that they'd passed. As the article says, billions of dollars of requests will be added to the bills in conference. I'd like Rep. Emanuel to explain how anything has changed. Simply put, this Democratic congress is a 'business as usual' bunch.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.
Such requests total billions of dollars.
Let's also remember that John Murtha threatened Rep. Mike Rogers on the House floor after Rogers challenged Murtha's earmark of $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA:
"I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever," Mr. Murtha allegedly told Mr. Rogers in a "loud voice." He referred to the pet projects lawmakers often tuck into large spending bills.Does that sound like true earmark reform? If there was true earmark reform, John Murtha would have a nervous breakdown. He wouldn't know how to function in the House. When Murtha threatened Mike Rogers, Murtha threatened a former FBI Special Agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago Bureau's organized crime unit. It isn't smart to threaten FBI special agents, whether they're retired or not.
"This is not the way we do things here," Mr. Rogers replied. "Is that supposed to make me afraid of you?"
"That's the way I do it," Mr. Murtha said.
It's worth noting that most of John Murtha's campaign contributions come from people working for companies that Murtha has directed earmarks towards.
Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes.I wonder if Rep. Emanuel is referring to the earmarks that Jim Oberstar has put into the various transportation bills that have taken money from the Highway Trust Fund to build bike trails. If he wasn't referring to that, then I wonder if he was referring to the earmarks that Alan Mollohan directed to charities that he created.
Emanuel's comments notwithstanding, the Democrats' version of earmark reform are just one reason why voters have turned against them. That said, here's the biggest whopper that Emanuel told:
Bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process is a significant reform, a pledge we made and a pledge we kept. And it's one we've extended to lobbyists, by barring them from providing gifts or trips to members of Congress and by increasing reporting requirements for their meetings and their campaign money-raising activities. To overlook or dismiss the impact of these reforms adds to the public's cynicism about government.Technically, he's right that they've kept the pledge. It's worth noting, though, that they had to drag David Obey kicking and screaming to the table. If they were so intent on keeping their pledge to reform the earmark process, then why did it take an offer from Porkbusters, via Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, to sort through 36,000 earmarks?
Rep. David Obey says that there's not time to look at the 36,000 earmark requests in the House.The best way to think of Emanuel's op-ed is to think of it as perfect lining for the bottom of a bird cage. Otherwise, it's a total waste of paper.
Porkbusters is offering to help!I read with interest news reports that you may only include earmarks in last-minute, un-amendable conference reports, as opposed to amendable House appropriations bills, because you and your staff reportedly need "extra time to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests members have submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year."
You have also been quoted you as saying: "I think we have a helluva lot more ability [to root out bad earmarks] than the individual working alone."
Chairman Obey, I share your concern about unworthy projects receiving federal funding due to a lack of careful and thoughtful evaluation, and I agree that one individual working alone would have a very hard time completing this task in a timely manner.
Therefore, I would like to personally volunteer my time to help you and your staff in evaluating this year's earmark requests.
As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 36,000 earmark requests publicly, I and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of federal funding and which may have value to the taxpayers.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these 36,000 earmarks requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for these requested projects, the least we can do is help you evaluate their merit.
Posted Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:26 AM
No comments.
Special Session Is a Waste Of Time, Money
Based on this Strib article, it's obvious that Gov. Pawlenty should avoid calling a special session. Here's just one reason for not calling a special session:
Lobbyists already have been wandering the Capitol halls and hitting the BlackBerrys to push their pet issues. The lobbyist representing bars and bowling alleys, for instance, is urging legislators to consider resurrecting a bill to allow for electronic pulltabs, dangling the promise of more than $800 million in revenues as a way to side step a gas-tax increase.Why on God's green earth should we give these lobbyists another shot at legislators? It isn't that I think these lobbyists are evil or anything. It's just that I know that these lobbyists are perfectly willing to use the bridge collapse and the flooding to get their bills passed.
That's just one reason why Gov. Pawlenty shouldn't call a special session. Another reason for not calling a special session became apparent Saturday night. That afternoon, I spotted Drew's post about Gov. Pawlenty's constitutional authority in emergencies. Here's what Drew posted about that:
12.36 GOVERNOR'S POWERS TO FAST PROVIDE EMERGENCY AID.This section of the Minnesota Constitution says that Gov. Pawlenty has the authority to do whatever is necessary to get the recoveries started. The only question that remained was whether there was enough money to get the job done. Saturday night, I got that question answered. According to the Minnesota House Fiscal staff, there is almost "$350 million in the Cash Flow account."
(a) The governor, during an emergency or disaster and notwithstanding any other law, may:
(1) enter into contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat the disaster by protecting the health and safety of persons and the safety of property and by providing emergency assistance to the victims of the disaster; and
(2) exercise the powers vested by this subdivision in the light of the exigencies of the disaster without compliance with time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law pertaining to:
(i) the performance of public work;
(ii) entering into contract;
(iii) incurring of obligations;
(iv) employment of temporary workers;
(v) rental of equipment;
(vi) purchase of supplies and materials, for example, but not limited to, publication of calls for bids;
(vii) provisions of the Civil Service Act and rules;
(viii) provisions relating to low bids; and
(ix) requirements for the budgeting and allotment of funds.
(b) All contracts must be in writing, executed on behalf of the state by the governor or a person delegated by the governor in writing so to do, and must be promptly filed with the commissioner of finance, who shall forthwith encumber funds appropriated for the purposes of the contract for the full contract liability and certify thereon that the encumbrance has been made.
In other words, a special session is a waste of taxpayers' money. We should remember that the operating expense of a special session is estimated at $20,000 per day. Obviously, that doesn't include the cost of legislation passed and signed.
True to form, Democrats are ladling on the hyperbole:
"Avoiding a special session at this time would be a political move, not in the best interest of Minnesotans and our children who will be riding in buses on our state's roads in just two weeks," wrote Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL-Minnetonka, in a newspaper commentary last week.It's worth asking why Sen. Bonoff and her Senate colleagues didn't push for more funding of bridge repair. The DFL's transportation priorities during the regular session could be summarized this way: Increase taxes, build more transit lines and add lanes to existing highways to alleviate road congestion. 'Mundane' things like road and bridge repair weren't on their radar.
That doesn't mean that the DFL is to blame for the I-35 bridge collapse. It simply means that their transportation priorities are screwed up.
Sen. Bonoff's quote uses the time-tested DFL tactic of playing on people's heartstrings to sell their agenda. It doesn't make for a compelling argument. The Strib article includes some useful information, though it includes some nonsense, too:
Pawlenty does have broad executive powers to respond to the emergencies himself, even without input from the Legislature. But a special session could have advantages from his point of view.Passing a gas tax is only part of the equation. As we saw repeatedly, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the DFL's tax increases. Meanwhile, Marty Seifert kept the House GOP caucus united. Because they stayed united, there were able to thwart the DFL's attempts to override Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes. As a result, the GOP scored a decisive victory.
The Legislature passed a transportation bill with a gas-tax increase in it earlier this year. Pawlenty vetoed it. The Legislature could return in regular session in February and pass a new transportation bill with a gas-tax increase of their choosing, confronting Pawlenty with a politically risky choice.
But with everyone under pressure to act sooner in special session, Pawlenty might be able to negotiate the sort of "reasonable gas-tax increase" that he said he wanted in a private letter to legislative leaders last week. Signing that now might put him in a better position to resist proposals for larger tax increases next year.
As for taxes, that's winning issue for the GOP, both at the federal and state levels. Vetoing tax increases isn't a "politically risky choice", as the Strib suggests, especially if it's a gas tax increase. As Michael so aptly pointed out here, Minnesotans don't take kindly to a gas tax increase:
According to new KSTP/Survey USA Poll, 57% of Minnesotans do not support a gas tax increase for roads and bridges. 38% support an increase, while 5% are not sure. Of the 38% that support a gas tax increase, 47% think it should be raised less than 5 cents.The truth is that the House GOP caucus is united on the issue of tax increases, partially because Tony Sertich and the House DFL employed a 'my-way-or-the-highway' approach rather than actually working with the GOP from time to time. A strong bond formed as a result of having to stick together because that's what was needed to keep from getting trampled. That bond won't unravel easily, though some RINOs are 'stepping up'.
Posted Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:32 AM
No comments.
The DFL Concern For Transportation
After I finished watching the Twins defeat the Orioles, I decided to check the Minnesota Senate's website to see how much time the Transportation Committee spent on various bills. What I found was appalling, especially in light of the outcry there is for a special session. Here's what I found out:
The Transportation Committee held:
- 1 hearing in January that lasted under 2 hrs.
- 2 hearings in February; the first hearing lasted 1 hr., 31 mins., the second lasted 2 hrs.
- 1 hearing in March, lasting 2 hrs., 47 mins.
- 4 hearings in April; the first meeting lasting a mere 42 mins., the second meeting lasting 1 hr., 50 mins., the third lasting 1 minute, 24 seconds, the fourth meeting lasting 1 hr., 49 mins.
That's a grand total of 8 meetings in 5 months, for a total time of 12 hrs., 40 mins.
According to the notes, the January meeting was about making seat belt violations a primary offense (S.F. 16). After that, the members introduced themselves to each other.
The first hearing in February focused on Motor vehicle operators child restraint systems use requirement expansion. (S.F. 122)
The second hearing in February focused on Mobile (cell) phone motor vehicle moving violation fine increase. (S.F. 247)
The only hearing held in March dealt with 19 bills, ranging from HazMat restrictions to load restrictions to renaming a highway for Dallas Sams to EMS personnel communication headsets to hearing from the congestion reduction task force to the Omnibus Transportation Policy Bill.
The first meeting in April dealt with ATV youthful operation and passenger requirements. The second meeting dealt solely with the Omnibus Transportation Policy Bill. The third meeting lasted 1 minute, 24 seconds. I'd doubt they did more than clear their collective throats before that hearing was gaveled shut. The last Senate Transportation Committee hearing of the 2007 regular session was held on April 25. It dealt solely with runway safety and with the Airport Zoning Advisory Task Force.
I think it's interesting that most of the hearings didn't deal with highway construction or repairs. Clearly, the Omnibus Transportation Policy Bill dealt with those issues. Based on the minutes from the hearings, those issues didn't get more than 3-4 hours of attention in committee for the entire session .
That's quite an indictment against the DFL in general and Steve Murphy in particular. Furthermore, this information suggests that the DFL didn't put a high priority on bridge and highway reconstruction or on expanding existing highways.
Let's also remember Sen. Murphy's now-infamous quote about the Omnibus Transportation Policy Bill:
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."If a person based their opinions solely on this information, they'd have to conclude that the Senate DFL expended alot of effort in increasing taxes. They'd also have to conclude that they didn't expend much effort in passing legislation that repaired roads and bridges.
People can argue about this or that policy. It's impossible to argue against timelines that tell people how little time was spent on legislation that mandated road and bridge repairs.
Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment 1 by Fact Checker at 27-Aug-07 08:33 AM
You are quite simply a liar. In under 15 seconds, I followed your link to the Senate's homepage and discovered that the Senate Transportation Committee met twice in January, 4 times in February, 5 times in March, 5 times in April, and now twice in August. This doesn't even begin to count the countless hours committee members spent in conference committee meetings negotiating a budget bill.
Please stop lying. I know there is no accountability on these blogs, but don't you owe something to the idiots who might believe for one second you know what the heck you are talking about?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-07 11:53 AM
Some fact checker you are. I went to the minutes for Transportation committee hearings during the 2007 legislative session. There is only record of one hearing in January which lasted 1 hr., 31 mins. That was on Jan. 11. According to the minutes posted:
there were 2 hearings in February, on the 13th & 22nd.
there was one hearing in March, on the 29th
there were 4 meetings in April, on the 11th, 13th, 14th & 25th.
Don't you ever call me a liar again or I will humiliate you. I don't tolerate people who make such baseless allegations.
Comment 3 by Fact Checker at 27-Aug-07 02:25 PM
Here is a link to all the committee hearings held by the Senate's transportation committee:
http://www.senate.mn/committees/2007-2008/transportation/update.htm
I apologize for calling you a liar. It doesn't appear this was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts on your part. I hope this helps clarify things for you.
The Voice Of Sanity?
For the second time this month, the SC Times Editorial Board has sounded like the voice of sanity in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse. Here's the first section that caught my eye:
Calling for a special session now, without knowing specifically what needs fixing, equates to parents discovering their child has a fever and asking the doctor to start treatment without a thorough diagnosis.Compare that 'prescription' to Sen. Tarryl Clark said in her editorial:
We are at risk of losing entire towns in southern Minnesota. The metropolitan area has a huge hole in its transportation system that has a daily effect on people's lives and commerce. We must act now in both of these areas and also we should address the larger infrastructure issues the bridge collapse has made real.While the Times Editorial Board sounds like the voice of sanity, Sen. Clark sounds like the voice of panic. I've always been of the opinion that the people in the biggest hurry make the biggest mistakes. Over a decade ago, I was watching George Will and Carol Simpson talking about something during the roundtable discussion of the 'This Week With David Brinkley' show. After a couple back and forth exchanges, Ms. Simpson said "Surely we must do something", at which point Will replied "More mistakes have been made in the name of 'doing something'" than all other reasons combined.
When I compare Sen. Clark's statements with the Times Editorial Board's statements, it's impossible for me not to see the Times in George Will's role and Sen. Clark playing the role that Carol Simpson played all those years ago.
In addition to that voice of sanity, the Times makes another astute observation:
The cause here is clear: Mother Nature. The solution is simple. Craft state-based aid packages that supplement potential federal relief. The state and many of these legislators have experience in such cases. They should be able to do what's needed in short order in a special session.Passing a flood relief package shouldn't take much time at all, especially if the package has been negotiated prior to calling a special session. If the package is negotiated prior to the special session, then it shouldn't take more than a day.
Here's the last thing that the Times said that I totally agree with:
Again, though, make sure the details are known before convening, and keep the agenda strictly to flood aid.I'd add two steps to the process: Have the bill's language agreed to prior to the special session and have the bill posted online prior to the special session so that legislators can read the bill prior to the convening of the special session. If that's what happens, there's no reason for a lengthy, meandering special session.
Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 3:06 AM
No comments.
Gonzales Quits
And not a minute too soon. Though I haven't seen proof that he did anything illegal, his stewardship of the DoJ hasn't earned him applause from any group. According to the Politico's Mike Allen, Solicitor General Paul Clement will serve as the acting attorney general:
The acting attorney general will be Solicitor General Paul Clement. He "can stay in that position for quite a while," a senior administration official said.Democrats have always needed someone as a target for their vitriol. Gonzales was their latest target. Now that he's gone as the poster child of Bush administration ineptitude, Democrats will have to find a new target. It sounds like Mr. Clement has some impressive credentials so I'm thinking that DoJ is in good hands.
That would avoid a bruising confirmation fight. Some Democratic senators have vowed not to confirm a Gonzales successor.
Clement was an editor of the Harvard Law Review before clerking for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. He later served as chief counsel of the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights and was a partner in the Washington office of King & Spalding.
This starts the rumor mill as to who will replace Gonzales. The most popular name being bandied about is DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. His term at DHS has been less than stellar so it's difficult to see him doing much better than Gonzales. I'd hope that President Bush would find a fresh face who hasn't been tarnished by the Bush administration.
Here's a sampling of what Democrats are saying about Gonzales' resignation:
"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV).As over-the-top as Conyers' statement is,it isn't the most over-the-top statement. That 'honor' goes to this statement:
"He has exhibited a lack of candor with Congress and the American people and a disdain for the rule of law and our constitutional system. I strongly urge President Bush to nominate a new attorney general who will respect our laws and restore the integrity of the office." - Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
"It is a sad day when the attorney general of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers...If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts." - Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., House Judiciary chairman.
The Justice Department under Gonzales "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence." Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.It's a joke to hear the most partisan politician whining about the justice system being "corrupted by political influence." I don't recall Sen. Leahy's registering his indignation when Bill Clinton fired all of the US attorneys. Having Sen. Leahy complain about partisanship is almost as laughable as hearing Sen. Schumer whining about partisanship.
I'm thankful that this chapter of the Bush administration is coming to a close. It's time to move on.
Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 10:52 AM
No comments.
How Low Can It Get?
Despite Democrats' railing against President Bush's economic policies, revenues keep pouring into the nation's coffers. It's gotten so bad that the CBO is revising its forecast for this year's budget deficit again. If their prediction becomes fact, Democrats will have a tough task telling voters that 'the rich aren't paying their fair share.' Here's the grisly details of CBO's revision:
Thanks largely to economic growth spurred by the Bush tax cuts, the federal deficit continues to shrink significantly.Last year's budget deficit came in at $247.7 billion. In fact, if CBO's forecast is accurate, it will mean that the annual budget deficit will have been cut by almost $160 billion in two years. The budget deficit for 2005 was $318.7 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the deficit for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will be about $158 billion, well below the $250 billion recorded the previous year.
If that trend continues through FY2008, it isn't inconceivable to think that the budget deficit could drop into the $75 billion range. I'm not predicting that because I'll leave the economic forecasting to King. That said, I certainly can't say that it's an unachievable accomplishment, either.
There are some things that could reverse this trend. Here are two things that the LVRJ cites that would have a dramatic effect on the deficit:
In addition to uncertainty over the current credit crunch and the wildly fluctuating stock market, the Democratic Congress has threatened to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, which could undermine the economic progress the country has enjoyed in recent years.I'd be lying if I said that the Democrats' agenda was the only thing that stands in the way of a rosy economic picture. That said, I'd really be lying if I said that the policies listed wouldn't have a dramatic, negative effect on the economy and therefore the deficit. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the deficit because they'd endanger derail us from our current path of economic growth. It's that simple.
Too, the Democratic presidential candidates all seek to impose their own, expensive version of socialized medicine on taxpayers.
This helps set 2008 up as a year to debate whether we want to raise taxes and stall out our economic growth or whether we want to keep in place the policies that are leading to a balanced budget while we're fighting a war.
For that matter, it's a time when we can debate whether we want an administration that will aggressively but legally surveil terrorist communications or whether we'll put the judicial branch in charge of terrorist surveillance programs.
If the 2008 election focuses on prosperity through tax cuts, national security and a stable Iraq, then Democrats will face a difficult challenge.
Posted Monday, August 27, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment 1 by kb at 27-Aug-07 10:14 PM
I posted a little about this today, Gary. I don't know that the economic growth continues at this pace. I haven't forecasted an outright recession yet, but I believe a slowdown is in the near-term outlook.
One might argue that the prospects for higher taxes should Democrats control both executive and legislative branches might be one reason for the slowdown. The credit crunch, however, makes that a difficult story to tell.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-07 10:59 PM
King, I don't disagree that we might be heading for a recession. While it'd be difficult for Republicans to blame that recession on Democrats' tax increases, it wouldn't be that difficult to make the case that it'd deepen & lengthen that recession.
