December 10-13, 2009
Dec 10 01:59 What Are You Thinking? Dec 10 04:57 Pawlenty On LGA Unallotments Dec 10 19:25 Robert Borosage: The Failed Stimulus Didn't Throw Away Enough Money Dec 11 04:30 Michele Bachmann Interview Notes Dec 11 05:08 Gov-Elect John Kasich? Dec 13 02:29 Who's Fault Is That? Dec 13 10:45 Democrats All Talk About Fiscal Responsibility Dec 13 20:47 That's Good News For Democrats?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
What Are You Thinking?
If there's a question that Dick Morris asks in his latest column , it's whether the Democrats are really stupid enough to pass health care. Here's a sample from his column:
Will you listen to the elderly who absorb 40 percent of medical care and not to the AARP, which you have bought by way of a promise to eliminate Medicare Advantage?The only historic thing that'll come from this health care legislation is an historic electoral defeat for the Democrats in 2010.
Will you listen to the doctors of America, two to one in opposition, and not to the AMA, which you have bludgeoned into submission via your threats of reimbursement cuts?
Will you stop to examine how, as Democrats, you can vote to slice $500 billion from Medicare and cut home healthcare? Former comrades-in-arms, former party-mates, do not commit party-cide by passing this bill!
Is this to be your epitaph? That you put all healthcare under government control? That your legacy is to be the waiting list to see a doctor? That the memorial to your public service is to be the denial of care at a bureaucrat's whim?
One of the things fueling the TEA Party movement is DC's unwillingness to listen to We The People. Voting for this legistlation when it's getting 38 percent support only pours white gas onto the 'Washington won't listen' fire. Voting against the will of the people won't help Democrats get re-elected. It'll usher alot of them, both in the House and Senate, into unexpected retirements. Further, it'll make the possibility of President Obama being a one-term wonder that much more likely.
People are furious that Washington isn't listening to them. I've heard pundits say that President Obama's re-election hopes are tied directly to the economy. I'm not buying that. First, people understand that, at the core, he's a radical who won't hesitate in pushing a radical domestic agenda. Paradoxically, oeople understand that he's hesitated in making important national security decisions.
What's difficult for me to understand is why so-called moderates like Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson haven't rejected this legislation out-of-hand. The only thing that makes sense is that these senators aren't true moderates, that they'll enthusiastically support a radical leftist agenda, then talk a good centrist game.
After the 2008 election, the Ruy Teixeiras and the Markos Moulitsas of the world declared that the United States was now a center-left nation. I said then what I'm saying now: the United States is still a center-right nation.
I'll also point out that it'll be proven true that for every action, there's an equal reaction. If the Democrats push a radical agenda, there will be a dramatic reaction to their overreach, a reaction that will produce some rather unpleasant election cycles for Democrats.
Few things bother TEA Party activists more than seeing politicians pursue policies that they can't defend and/or explain. The Democrats can't explain what's in this legislation, much less defend what's in their legislation. That's why it's difficult explaining why this legislation has gotten this far without it getting defeated, a fate the Democrats' legislation richly deserves.
Posted Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Dec-09 08:38 AM
Here's where blogs such as yours do an invaluable service. Time was that Democrats could put a high-sounding name on a bill, like "The American Energy Security Act" and everybody took it at face value, and as a good thing. Now people can be informed what is really in the d&*((&() thing. It makes a world of difference when a politician has to face an informed electorate. It's a GOOD thing.
Pawlenty On LGA Unallotments
Wednesday, Gov. Pawlenty's office issued a press release concerning LGA funding. Here's Gov. Pawlenty's statement:
By making this decision, Gov. Pawlenty is putting the DFL leadership on the spot. He 'spared' cities and counties from LGA cuts for now. The DFL will undoubtedly try passing job-killing tax increases that affect only 'the rich'. They won't do this to fix the economy but to make 'the rich' pay "their fair share" of the burden.GOVERNOR PAWLENTY ANNOUNCES DECEMBER LOCAL AID PAYMENTS WILL NOT BE UNALLOTED
Saint Paul - Governor Tim Pawlenty today wrote to city and county leaders to inform them he does not intend to take executive action to reduce local aid payments later this month.
Last week, state budget officials announced a $1.2 billion deficit for the current two-year budget period. Governor Pawlenty stated he will work with the legislature to resolve the shortfall, but had said because of the timing of payments, that a portion of the December local aid payments could be unalloted.
In his letter, Governor Pawlenty said, "Given the imminent expected payment of December local aid, I have determined that additional local aid program cuts, if any, should be focused on future payments." The Governor noted that if the legislature is unable to pass appropriate budget reductions, future aid payments would likely be reduced.
Approximately $437 million in local aid payments are scheduled to be sent to cities and counties later this month. Those payments include local government aid (LGA), county program aid (CPA), market value homestead credits (MVHC) and other local aid programs. LGA and CPA payments are delivered in two separate payments in July and December. MVHC payments are sent out in October and December.
Funding totals for those programs in 2009 were:
*Local government aid (to cities): $481.5 million
*County program aid (to counties): $194.9 million
*Market value homestead credits (to cities, counties and townships to reduce property taxes): $197.1 million
Approximately 45 percent of the state's population, 2.4 million Minnesotans, lives in communities that receive no LGA payments. In 2009, 92 cities with a combined population of nearly 1.4 million people and the state's townships, with 980,000 residents, received no LGA.
Governor Pawlenty has requested that legislative leaders start committee hearings immediately to craft budget reductions that could be enacted promptly at the beginning of the legislative session that gets underway on February 4, 2010. The Governor has also ordered state government agencies to begin holding back a portion of their spending for possible cuts.
The DFL has a habit of asking the wrong question. The wrong question is whether "the rich" are "paying their fair share." The right question is whether their policies will make Minnesota's economy flourishes and whether Minnesotans of all demographic groups are prospering.
Clearly the DFL's irresponsible spending habits are driving people from the state. The DFL's tax policies are driving seniors from the state. The DFL's tax policies are having a direct effect on Minnesota's economy. Tom Bakk argued that in this post :
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border .If increasing the tax on alcohol is driving shoppers into shopping in Wisconsin, then it isn't a stretch to think that distillers might move to Iowa to save $29,650 annually in fees.
It's time that the DFL admitted that their policies aren't working. Their policies are adding an unreasonable tax burden on Minnesota's taxpayers and small businesses. It's time we got Minnesota's spending under control. That's the only way companies will move here.
Thanks to Gov. Pawlenty, we're starting to get things corrected. Let's keep heading in the right direction.
Posted Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Dec-09 08:17 AM
What an a*****e.
Trying to posture local governments against other needs, by saying he would not cut LGA unless the legislature does or does not do such-and-such, HIS way.
The man is an absolute disaster.
That lawsuit over how he abused the intent of the unallotment statute by creating an unbalanced budget from a balanced one the legislature fashioned, over the Constitutionality of such trashy actions, needs to be pushed big time by the legislature.
First thing back, the legislators need to fix that unallotment statute and its wording, AND pass legislation that would unfund for the balance of term in office, the salary of any governor and his/her direct administrative staff, if that governor does not spend funds as directed and budgeted by the legislature.
Cut off the head of the snake and the snake will die.
Pawlenty, so far, has been the biggest recommendation that the state switch to a parliamentary system.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Dec-09 10:07 AM
First thing back, the legislators need to fix that unallotment statute and its wording...If they do, he'll veto it & it will be sustained by the House GOP. INTERESTING TIDBIT OF INFORMATION: The Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled on unallotment. This fight is finished. Pawlenty has solid legal footing for doing what he did.
GET OVER IT!!!
Secondly, the joke budget that the DFL finally passed included a forecasted $3,625 surplus at the end of the biennium. In other words, the DFL put together a hodgepodge budget that even journalists didn't take seriously. The DFL legislature, for all intents & purposes, didn't meet its constitutional responsibility. It'll be impossible for the DFL to argue that Gov. Pawlenty created the deficit when their own forecast said that there'd be a $3,625 surplus at the end of this biennium.
The judges will take one look at that & rightly say that the DFL knew that that $3,625 surplus wouldn't exist with the way the economy is still shrinking.
Comment 2 by eric z at 11-Dec-09 08:37 AM
Gary, dead wrong.
The Minnesota State Supreme Court has NOT ruled on unallotment.
Look it up. The Rukivena case was a lower court determination, on differing facts. It did not deal with a governor-manufactured abuse of an emergency statute.
The case is online, if you can find it. You and your King need to get facts straight.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-09 10:13 AM
First off, the budget never was in balance. Gov. Pawlenty's veto didn't create the deficit. Passing a budget that includes a tax increase & that anticipates a $3,625 surplus after at the end of the biennium at a time when state revenues were continuing to decline isn't a balanced budget. Had Gov. Pawlenty signed the DFL's irresponsible hodgepodge of a bill that included the tax increase, we would've had a 7-figure deficit BEFORE LABOR DAY!!! That's with FY2010 starting on July 1.
All other arguments are meaningless.
Robert Borosage: The Failed Stimulus Didn't Throw Away Enough Money
Ultraliberal activist Robert Borosage has posted something at the Huffington Post that essentially says that the Democrats didn't throw away enough of your money:
President Obama is sensibly focused on jobs, unveiling a new initiative yesterday in the wake of the jobs summit. Elements included everything from new infrastructure spending to "cash for caulkers," tax breaks for weatherizing homes, as well as aid to cities, states and the unemployed. The president suggested that the $200 billion recouped from the banks in the TARP program could be used to both to reduce the deficit and help finance the initiative.I'm not buying that President Obama is focused on jobs. I don't believe it because he's doing a repeat of the failed stimulus bill. How will aid to cities and states and the unemployed create jobs? I'd suggest that continuing to spend irresponsibly is why people give President Obama a failing grade on the economy :
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% believe the president is doing a good or excellent job on the economy following the announcement last week that unemployment in October rose to 10.2 percent, the highest level in 26 years.With only 2 in 5 voters giving President Obama a passing grade, Democrats should be worried. This information should scare President Obama:
The partisan divide on the question, as is often the case, is startling. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats say the president's handling of the economy is good or excellent. Only 10% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either party agree.If, a year from now, only 1 in 4 independents thinks that President Obama is doing a good job with the economy, Democrats will have a disastrous day the first Tuesday next November.
President Obama must know that people are rejecting his policies because he had a temper tantrum over the economy today :
President Barack Obama challenged congressional Republicans to back up their criticism of his economic recovery plans with academic expertise, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters Wednesday.While I don't think it's particularly difficult to find economists who disagree with President Obama's stimulus plans, I was struck by the fact that President Obama didn't tell Republicans to find businessmen who are critical of his economic policies. I'll guarantee that you could find dozens of small business owners within an hour who'd disagree with President Obama's, and the congressional Democrats', policies. Given half a day, I suspect you could find enough disenchanted or angry small business owners to fill Madison Square Garden.
Speaking at the White House following the president's morning discussion on job creation with bipartisan congressional leaders, Cantor said Obama defended his agenda against criticism that it was too expensive.
"He challenged us to bring in economists to make the case that we ought not be spending right now," said Cantor, who characterized the talks as "cordial" and "more in-depth than usual."
But, the Virginia Republican added: "We can't keep spending money we don't have."
I'd further add that, had I been in the room when President Obama challenged Rep. Cantor to "bring in economists to make the case that we ought not be spending right now", I would've replied that PRESIDENT OBAMA said that we don't have any money left. I then would've mentioned that the Chinese have repeatedly lectured his administration to stop spending, reading Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton the riot act about this administration's spending.
Cantor brought to the White House a copy of the House Republicans' "No-Cost Jobs Plan," which includes proposals such as a domestic discretionary spending freeze and halting new regulations on business.I posted about President Obama's irresponsible spending habits way back when they were debating the first stimulus bill. At the time, Republicans accused the Obama administration and congressional Democrats that the legislation being discussed was nothing more than a spending bill. Here's President Obama's reaction :
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third-ranking House Republican, went after the administration more sharply in his post-meeting remarks. "It's clear this administration doesn't get it," he said. "It's time for new ideas."
"So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"Mr. President, it's obvious that the first stimulus bill failed. While I'm certain that plenty of public union employees liked it, I'm equally certain that a majority of entrepreneurs aren't impressed with your policies. I'm certain, too, that the majority of the unemployed aren't impressed with your policies. Dumping fistfuls of freshly printed cash into the economy isn't what's needed to stimulate this economy.
Giving entrepreneurs a consistent, long-lasting incentive to put their money at risk would help immensely. Cutting wasteful spending, which is what most of the spending President Obama has proposed is, would improve entrpreneurial confidence, too, since this type of spending leads to two things. Either President Obama's spending will result in huge deficits and high inflation or it'll lead to gigantic job-killing tax increases.
It's hurting President Obama to preach tax cuts on Monday, then talk about health care the next day. People know enough about the health care bills to know that it's filled with major tax increases.
The EPA threatening the economy with excessive regulation of CO2 won't strengthen the economy or create jobs, either. The EPA's threats against the U.S. economy gives further ammunition to President Obama's critics that he's more interested in pursuing a radical ideological agenda that he's interested in pursuing a pro-growth economic agenda.
Whether the stimulus bill is large like the first stimulus or whether it's small, by comparison, like this one, there's just one reality: Following the same pattern as the failed stimulus of February won't create jobs. It'll only funnel more money into the Democrats' allies' wallets.
That won't help create jobs. It'll only help bankrupt the country.
Posted Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:53 PM
No comments.
Michele Bachmann Interview Notes
Thursday afternoon, I interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann about H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. One of the first points Rep. Bachmann made was that it centered too much power in the executive branch.
According to the legislation's language in Section 1101, the "Council and the Board are authorized to receive, and may request the production of, any data or information from members of the Council, as necessary (1) to monitor the financial services market place to identify potential threats to the stability of the United States financial system." The "Council and Board" are allowed to demand information from financial instituions without getting a search warrant.
When I asked whether this might constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Rep. Bachmann said that it might indeed constitute a violation of a company's Fourth Amendment rights.
Rep. Bachmann also pointed out that this legislation would codify into law a bailout clause. She pointed me towards a document that the House GOP leadership put together titled "10 Reasons to Oppose H.R. 4173." That document quotes Rep. Brad Sherman, (D-Calif.), as saying this:
The bill establishes a permanent bailout authority or, as Rep. Brad Sherman (DCA) described it, "TARP on steroids."In other words, this legislation authorizes the president to spend money without going through the appropriations phase. That means that it eliminates Congress from debating the merits of whether the money should be spent. That should bother people immensely considering how irresponsible this administration is with its spending.
Rep. Bachmann said that this bill worries her more than any other bill she's fought against, "including the national energy tax and health care." That statement stunned me more than a little because I've seen how hard Rep. Bachmann has fought against the national energy tax and against Pelosicare.
The reason for Rep. Bachmann's worries are legitimate. She's worried about how much authority this legislation puts into the executive branch's hands. She said she's also worried about foundational constitutional principles that aren't being taken into consideration. In addition to the possible Fourth Amendment issues, the bill also ignores the principle of checks and balances. Unquestionably, that's part of the foundation that our Constitution is built on.
Despite all the worries Rep. Bachmann has about H.R. 4173, she remains encouraged that people are waking up to the threat posed by this administration's trampling of the Constitution.
Last weekend, Rep. Bachmann held her annual Christmas Party here in St. Cloud. During her brief presentation, she spoke about how encouraged she was by what she called the formation of "a liberty coalition." By that, Rep. Bachmann said that people of all political stripes are waking up to the fact that it isn't ok to write laws that ignore the Constitution's foundational principles. She noted that people of all political stripes don't want too much power given to the executive branch.
As a result of this administration's overreach, people are understanding why we need to adhere to the wisdom of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
On another note, Rep. Bachmann said that the administration is selling the health care legislation by saying that they have to pass the bill or else their base will abandon them, which will lead to their defeat. (It's important that I make clear that the reference to the elections was done in the context that that's how Democrats were selling health care. At no point did we talk election strategy or using the issue for political advantage.)
I interjected into the conversation that they're doomed if they pass this bill because independents are breaking against Democrats because they're spending too much and because people are rejecting the Democrats' health care legislation by wide margins :
Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that Americans don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. A majority, 57 percent, oppose the health care reform legislation being considered right now. About a third of Americans, 34 percent, favor the reforms.I consider this to be proof that people nationwide are worried about the level of spending that's happening and their worries about the Democrats' health care legislation.
Check back to this blog next week for a new series that I'm researching. The series will be about H.R. 4173, going through it section-by-section to provide you with the specific provisions to the bill that either concentrate too much authority in the executive branch or that ignore constitutional protections or that don't have the proper checks and balances codified into the legislation. (HINT: I just started and I've already found more provisions that I find troublesome.)
Posted Friday, December 11, 2009 5:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Dec-09 08:25 AM
So you're saying operating a financial institution, operation, whatever is a right and not a privilege where conditions on the privilege can be imposed?
Which side of the road do you drive on, your license does not permit you to choose. You follow the rules of the road.
It's a license to operate prudently, with other peoples' money. Not a license to steal.
That idea that "Fourth Amendment" rights against regulation exist, is a total crock.
Comment 2 by eric z at 11-Dec-09 08:31 AM
Who do you suppose Bachmann is taking marching orders from, on this hummer? I'd guess there could be a quid pro quo on past [and expected future] campaign money, for one who takes the "right" position on matters before the committee.
Just a thought.
If you operate a mine, you have to follow mining law.
If you operate a trucking firm you have to know state and federal rules and regulations.
If you run a septic tank pumping operation, you cannot go to the local stream and discharge your pumper truck.
If you run deals with other peoples' money, you face accountability constraints; and the recent past has proven that if the accountability standards are too lax; hell breaks loose.
AIG. Remember how there was no way to make them fund the promises they made to the rest of Wall Street?
This Fourth Amendment stuff is more batty Bachmannalia. What's between that woman's ears; codfish stew or something?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-09 10:26 AM
Eric, I'm ashamed that you've taken that position. To rummage through a company's books on a whim is unconstitutional. Just because there is a law on the books that says it's ok doesn't mean the Constitution permits it.
Legislation doesn't trump the Constitution. PERIOD.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-09 10:28 AM
BTW, your analogies about trucking companies, septic tank companies, etc., are irrelevant to this arugment because they don't violate any constitutional protections.
What a crackpot argument!!! Shame on you.
Comment 5 by John Wesley Hall at 11-Dec-09 10:59 AM
I don't see the Fourth Amendment connection your talking about. If one is on the Council, it is talking about getting records from the Council members, apparently voluntarily, to prevent financial meltdown. Don't want to share information? Then don't join the Council.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Dec-09 11:03 AM
The major financial institutions don't have the option of joining the Council or not. That's why your claim of voluntary isn't valid. It's voluntary at gunpoint.
Comment 6 by eric z at 12-Dec-09 06:58 AM
Here is the URL on Thomas, for the bill for people who would want to read what the bill says before or in parallel to what you say about it.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4173:
You don't like the FDIC? It's an industry financed pool for working out failed institution situations to protect bank depositors to quell runs on banks, bank panics.
I question how they operate and the need for sunshine on who gets to bone pick on the failed operations, and would like to see Ron Paul push to audit FDIC also, on a regular basis - congressional oversight - as with the Fed.
But to dislike putting buffers into place against the worse damage of business cycles, why not?
And if you say it is all bad, what answer do you have to how things like the final year of the Bush-Cheney term and the Paulson raid on the Treasury and Fed, that kind of manipulation; the AIG bailout, do you say keep on track, it got us there once and can do it again, or do you reform things?
If reform and you dislike what's been passed by the House, what's your better idea?
But start with the legislation you are attacking, give the link. It's fundamental to do that.
Comment 7 by eric z. at 16-Dec-09 07:09 PM
Comment 4 - What's your beef Gary, we are already there.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/12/13/the-makings-of-a-police-state-part-iv/#more-1155
They already can see business records, ""relevant to an investigation" under Section 215 of the so called "Patriot Act." Between the dotted lines, a quote of a quote from there:
....................
Anticipating that the debate over reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act will soon come to the Senate floor, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify key information about how the law's "business records provision" has been used. They last sent a classified letter in June asking for the same thing, but claim they've received no response.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the "business records provision," relaxed the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered "relevant to an investigation."
Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it's not clear exactly what information they're talking about, since even a description of the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has obtained by its use.
....................
That item ended:
"I can go on and fill page after page with facts, cases, and examples of our government's current and worsening state when it comes to transparency, thus to its degree of accountability to we the people. However, I think you get the picture and the picture is crystal clear. Therefore I expect many of you feel the outrage building up, and the desire to bring about real changes bubbling inside you. Because if these points don't sound outrageous and if they don't make the state of our liberties look dire and pathetic, then we are all in deep trouble. If we accept secret budgets, if we say 'okay' to secret courts, if we shrug off secret hearings and reports, if we unquestioningly pay for secret operations, if we assume indifference to a government operating and hidden in pure secrecy,then we deserve to be a nation of liberty-less servants serving the masters in a secret government, and live in denial of having become inhabitants of a true police state."
Try sometime, Gary, to get info from the government via FOIA. It's like pulling hen's teeth.
Gov-Elect John Kasich?
Ted Strickland's lackluster term as Ohio's governor appears to be headed for a screeching halt according to Scott Rasmussen's latest polling :
Unemployment in Ohio has jumped to 10.5%, the state is wrestling with an $851 million budget shortfall, and Governor Ted Strickland has proposed delaying a tax cut approved in 2005. Add it all together, and it's a tough environment for the incumbent Democratic governor who now trails his expected general election opponent by nine percentage points in an early look at the 2010 race.In Septermber, Gov. Strickland and Rep. Kasich were tied. Since then, the economy has continued tanking both in Ohio and nationwide. Independents have abandoned Denmocrats in dramatic totals, as evidenced by the Virginia and New Kersey governors races.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Ohio shows Republican John Kasich getting 48% of the vote while Strickland picks up just 39%. Three percent (3%) say they'd prefer a third-party candidate, and 11% are not sure who they would vote for. In September, the two men were essentially even.
Meanwhile, Rep. Kasich has been working the state hard, preeching the gospel of limited government, tax cuts and responsible priorities. That message is just what the people want from government. A poll about a month ago said that, for the first time in recent history, a majority of people wanted government to just get out of the way, rejecting government taking care of their needs.
John Kasich's history of balancing the federal budget 5 straight years while working with Bill Clinton in creating 22,000,000 jobs must look like manna from Heaven in these uncertain economic times. John Kasich's common sense conservatism and his ability to connect with people are dramatically different than Ted Strickland.
These statistics won't help Gov. Strickland:
Strickland currently wins support from just 69% of the state's Democratic voters and trails by 25 percentage points among voters not affiliated with either major party.OUCH!!! If you aren't winning 85+ percent of your party's vote as an incumbent, you'd better pray that you've got strong support with independents. Nothing says "Gov. Strickland's in trouble" more than those statistics.
Obviously, there's several political lifetimes between today and Election Day, 2010, but if I had to pick between whether I'd rather be in Kasich's shoes or Gov. Strickland's right now, I'd pick Kasich's position.
Posted Friday, December 11, 2009 5:11 AM
No comments.
Who's Fault Is That?
Democrats are whining that Sen. McCain has started voicing opposition to their misguided legislation . Here's one of their pathetic arguments:
Democrats say Mr. McCain is part of a broad Republican effort to kill the health-care bill, President Obama's top agenda item, and deal a devastating political blow to the administration. Mr. McCain disagrees, contending that the legislation in its current form is simply bad policy, but he appears to be relishing the political combat.That's what's called a feeble attempt to distract from the real issue. The American people have repeatedly, and LOUDLY, told Congress to kill this bill and start over. They don't want the huge tax increases. They don't want to get shoved off of their private insurance. They certainly don't trust the federal government to run health care efficiently.
If Republicans defeat the bill, it'll be because, like Sen. McCain says, it's awful legislation. If it's bad legislation that isn't appealing to Democrats, the Democrats only have themselves to blame for that. Republicans had a slew of great ideas. Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi didn't care about those ideas and kept Republicans from participating in negotiations. President Obama didn't help with that either, meeting just once with Republicans. Not once did President Obama negotiate with Republicans in good faith.
If the Democrats' legislation fails, which is a distinct possibility, it'll be because the Democrats (a) put together an awful piece of legislation and (b) took a my-ideological-way-or-the-highway approach to jamming the legislation through. Had the Democrats taken a more centrist approach, they likely would've attracted a number of Senate Republicans.
The fight didn't get easier when Richard Foster from the CMMS issued a report on Medicare saying that health spending would increase :
Republicans assailed the analysis, however, focusing on the increased spending of $234 billion from 2010 to 2019 that Foster noted, as well as various conclusions in his analysis that access to Medicare services could be jeopardized as the system grows to accomodate more Americans. Foster also found that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans from 57 million to 24 million, which Republicans said still represents a failure.Proposing to expand Medicare and Medicaid was a foolish, possibly desperate stratgy on Reid's part. Doing that alienates two of the people he'll need to win over: Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman. If Sen. Reid can't get Snowe or Lieberman, this legislation dies in the Senate, which is what's most important.
"We had representations that the purpose of this health care reform was to decrease, to move down the healthcare costs. Now we find that this bill significantly increases the national healthcare expenditures," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "It appears the Reid bill clearly fails that test and gets an 'F' on the issue of vetting the healthcare costs down and on the issue of insuring everyone."
If this legislation dies, the fault will be Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's and President Obama's. It'll be their fault because they insisted on pushing an ideological agenda rather than putting a common sense plan together.
The proof that the people blame Democrats for this is found in Scott Rasmussen's latest polling for President Obama:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16. That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.It's pretty dramatic when only 1 in 4 people strongly approve of a president's handling of his job, especially in that president's first year. President Obama's approval ratings should tell Democrats that they shouldn't worry about what President Obama says. For that matter, Senate Democrats should ignore Harry Reid's marching orders, too, because he's history after next November.
If the Democrats' health care legislation fails, it's the Democrats' fault because they didn't put a sensible bill together. It's just that simple.
Posted Sunday, December 13, 2009 2:36 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-09 05:37 AM
Seems to me that the single most salutory point in the whole process is to drag this debate out as long as possible before it fails. The more people learn about it, the more they dislike it and the Democrat donkey it rode in on. If it passes or fails now, folks might forget how awful it is before November. Kudos to McCain for stirring the pot.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-09 07:28 AM
Jerry, Until now, House & Senate Democrats have heard the people & still did what they did. Until now, they didn't care.
It's my belief that the Medicare expansion is a bridge too far & now it's finally falling apart.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-09 08:04 PM
I'm all in favor of it falling apart, just that I want the circus to go on for a while.
By the way, I heard Markey (of Waxman-Markey) say today that the climate change "deniers" want to turn the debate into a "tree ring circus." I thought that was funny, considering that the "consensus" has been shown to be a bunch of clowns.
Democrats All Talk About Fiscal Responsibility
President Obama has talked alot about getting the deficits in order. The omnibus appropriations bill he's about to sign proves that he's all talk:
The 1,000-plus-page bill brings together six of the 12 annual spending bills that Congress had been unable to pass separately even though the new fiscal year began Oct. 1 because of partisan roadblocks.President Obama's talk about reducing the deficit is intellectually dishonest. Increasing the federal budget by 10 percent this year proves that he's the most fiscally irresponsible president of my lifetime. Nobody even comes close. Simply put, President Obama's talk last February about cutting the deficit in half is a bald-faced lie:
It includes $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in mandatory payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as well as an estimated $3.9 billion for more than 5,000 back-home projects sought by individual lawmakers in both parties.
The bill increases spending by an average of about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, NASA and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers.
President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation's projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.It's impossible to cut the deficit in half when you're increasing the budget by 10+ percent a year. That's after increasing spending last year through last year's omnibus spending bill. President Obama's talk and congressional Democrats' talk about fiscal responsibility is exactly that: talk.
The fact that the bill that President Obama is about to sign includes a pay raise for federal workers is disgusting, too. They're already making out like bandits compared to the rest of us:
A review of federal salary data by USA Today shows that employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped by 5 percent during the recession's first 18 months. That's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted. During the same 18 months of the recession, the private sector lost 7.3 million jobs.At a time when we're in the deepest recession since the Great Depression, at a time when we're running the biggest deficits in history, it's disgusting to see government fat cats gorging themselves on our money. The Democrats OWN THIS PROBLEM.
USA Today says the trend to six-figure salaries is taking place throughout the federal government due to substantial pay raises and new salary rules. The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.
But the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said the measure restores money for programs cut under former President George W. Bush such as popular grant programs for local police departments to purchase equipment and put more officers on the beat.Dick Durbin is a liar. Programs weren't cut under President Bush. That that's the Democrats' argument is feeble and disgusting. The last budget President Bush submitted was the first budget that topped $3,000,000,000,000. In President Obama's first year, that record's been shattered. It's now close to topping $4,000,000,000,000, an increase of almost 33 percent . This year's deficit will certainly be as big as last year's.
It's blasphemy to say that a 33 percent increase is needed for any reason. That argues that there wasn't hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in last year's budget, something that no person could argue and retain any credibility. It'd take a Dick Durbin to make that type of argument.
It's important that conservatives and independents alike defeat as many Democrats as possible. It's the only way we'll restore fiscal sanity. It's the only way we'll avoid having Moody downgrade our bond status from AAA to AA. What I've read is that only banana republics have AA bond ratings. The United States has never had anything but a AAA bond rating.
President Obama's and the congressional Democrats' spending habits are unprecedented and irresponsible. Most importantly, their deficits are unsustainable.
That isn't a picture of fiscal responsibility.
Posted Sunday, December 13, 2009 10:51 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-09 12:16 PM
It's easy to cut the deficit in half if you QUADRUPLE it in your first year in office. Kinda like those con-game sales you see where everything is "50% off." If these Democrats were in private business, doing what they're doing, they would not only be bankrupt but in jail.
Comment 2 by CottonMan at 13-Dec-09 08:06 PM
It was high taxes (Tea Tax) that started the American Revolution & Americans are ready to take another stand. Our congress no longer represents you or me, just big government.
Finally, someone just wrote a great book on a small town, that stands up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It's a political thriller that's about todays attacks on our freedoms. Just read it & see what's coming nxt 3 years.
www.booksbyoliver.com
That's Good News For Democrats?
When I read this article , I couldn't help but think that these must be terrible times for Democrats. Here's what supposedly passes as good news for Democrats:
GOP leaders would like to dismiss the refusal of the Ohio Republican Party's screening committee to endorse former U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine of Cedarville for attorney general as meaningless in the so-called big picture.The suggestion that there's an "intraparty battle" that's potent enough to split the Republican Party of Ohio is utter foolishness. The supposed split isn't showing up in the Kasich vs. Strickland race. I wrote here that Scott Rasmussen's latest polling has Kasich leading by 9 points. (Imagine how big his lead would be if there wasn't this terrible intraparty split!!! SARC)
Maybe it is.
It also could be just the tip of an intraparty iceberg that has the potential to sink Republican hopes for a triumphant 2010 after miserable showings in 2008 and 2006. DeWine is vying for the GOP nomination for attorney general against Delaware County Prosecutor Dave Yost. Yost is running to DeWine's right as the true conservative and the screening committee decided not to pick between the two of them.
I thought that Mike Dewine would be Ohio's next attorney general. When then finish counting the votes, he still might be. That Ohio's screening committee hasn't endorsed a candidate tells me that there's a tightly contested race, nothing more.
Yost is appealing to the Tea Party movement and others who believe the party lost its way with DeWine and other pseudo-Republicans who cooperated too much with Democrats, didn't hold the line on spending and generally forgot what they were supposed to stand for.I don't know what fiscal conservatism has to do with being attorney general. It's certainly a plausible strategy for Yost to employ but it's difficult to figure out why being a fiscal conservative makes Yost more qualified for being Ohio's chief law enforcement officer.
"We want smaller government. We want our government to support the free market rather than curb it," said Rob Scott of Kettering, a Republican who worked for Ken Blackwell in the 2006 governor's race and now is president of the Dayton Tea Party.
Now Senate Republicans won't even give Strickland the votes to fill a measly $851 million hole, measly when you're talking billions of dollars, in the state budget.The reason why Senate Republicans won't "give Strickland the votes" is because, surprise, surprise, Strickland wants to eliminate the deficit by raising taxes. (Ain't that a shocker?)
Strickland's remedy to his failed economic plan, along with President Obama's unpopularity, is pulling Republicans together, whether it's in Ohio, Minnesota or other states.
I suspect that William Hershey's writing has more to do with wishful thinking than with reality. That's what it's come to with Democrats.
Posted Sunday, December 13, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-Dec-09 09:23 AM
I think what has people so upset is that Mike was one of those RHINO's that kept destroying the Republican senate along with the 45 democrats staying united and conducting a filibuster.
People saw nothing good happening in the Senate (like it seemed like everyday it was ready to try to sneak amnesty in for illegal aliens) and that's why Mike lost because Republicans stopped wanting to support him.
Unfortunately Ohio in anger give us Mr. Brown who is a left winger who doesn't care he's destroying the country.
At least once in awhile Dewhine cared about the country.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-Dec-09 04:03 PM
Walter, DeWine a RINO?
Shame on you. That guy is as great a nuisance as any GOP types around ever. Is Dan Quayle a RINO?
DeWine is Quayle, one state over, better at spelling. a bit less photogenic.
...............
A digression, Gary. What about that rookie Viking Draft class?
Harvin out. Yet, Loadholt, Brinkley and Sanford starting. Each doing well. Loadholt having started every game so far.
The defense shut Cinci down.
It is as productive a draft as any I have seen. And Sullivan, second year as a starter from day one, this year.
Cook, once a starter, as a backup.
Defensive tackle, strong on downs when Pat Williams sits. All kick returns by a backup receiver, from somewhere in the last three drafts.
Erin Henderson suited up, special teams.
Darius Reynard [sp?] do you recall which draft, of last three?
Who's left, from Tice times? Kleinsasser? Who else?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Dec-09 08:32 PM
Actually, Kleinsasser was a 2nd round pick under Denny Green. Reynaud was taken in the 'Jared Allen' draft in the 6th round, which would've been the 2008 draft. (IIRC, I think they got Jaymar Johnson in the 6th rd in the same drat.)
Right now, defensive tackle is a position of strength & then some. They move Robison inside in their nickle package to rush the passer. ( Allen, Edwards & Robison were all 4th round picks, with Allen getting picked by the Chiefs.)
Comment 3 by eric z at 14-Dec-09 04:06 PM
Tice times - Kevin Williams. Tice and Red got that one right.
