December 3-6, 2009
Dec 03 01:01 Start Popping the Pocorn Dec 03 05:28 Aaron Ament's Selective Outrage Dec 04 00:57 McCarthy-McCotter BCC Notes Dec 04 02:21 Pogemiller Still Short On Solutions Dec 05 02:27 SEIU's System Dec 06 03:01 The Woman With a Bullseye On Her Back Dec 06 08:44 Forget the Bonding Bill, Fix the Economy Dec 06 09:49 Copenhagen Compromised
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Start Popping the Pocorn
CQPolitics is reporting that Maureen Reed won't abide by the DFL endorsing convention for Rep. Michele Bachmann's seat. This isn't a total surprise as there were some hints last week that that's the path that she'd be taking:
I told Isaacson that that sounded pretty close to declaring that Reed will run in the primary if Clark gets the endorsement. He replied that that decision has not been made but:Here's what CQPolitics is reporting:
"I would say that we're getting a lot closer to making that decision. I would expect that some decision will be made about that in the near future."
Physician Maureen Reed, a Democratic candidate for Minnesota's 6th district, announced Wednesday evening that she will not abide by the state party's endorsement process, all but guaranteeing a competitive primary that could complicated Democratic efforts to unseat Rep. Michele Bachmann (R).It isn't often that the endorsed candidate loses a primary. Couple that with Tarryl's slew of union endorsements and it makes for an uphill fight for Dr. Reed. The thing that'll even things out a bit for Dr. Reed is the fact that she's raised a fair amount of money thus far.
State Sen. Tarryl Clark is the favorite to receive the party nod at the Democratic-Farm-Labor convention next spring, a part of the party process in Minnesota. Most, but not all of the time the candidates who do not receive the party endorsement withdraw from the race.
Here's a portion of Dr. Reed's letter to supporters:
"After fully analyzing the situation, I have decided that if I do not receive the endorsement at the convention this spring, we will proceed to the DFL primary election.Dr. Reed has shown herself as having sharp political elbows when it comes to Tarryl. She isn't hiding the fact that she considers Tarryl to be too liberal for the district. It's a belief I share with Dr. Reed. I haven't made it a secret that Tarryl's voting for the biggest tax increases in Minneosta history defines her as one of the most liberal politicians in St. Paul. I haven't made it a secret that I think her spending habits clearly define her as one of the most liberal politicians in St. Paul the last 3 years.
We used thoughtful consideration to reach this conclusion since I have such a great deal of respect for the dedicated individuals in the DFL who generously give their time working to improve our state and nation. However, the Sixth District is unique in that it is more moderate and independently minded in its political leanings than the state as a whole. In fact, we conducted a poll which showed that the profile of the Democratic primary voter is more diverse in political philosophy than those who participate in the conventions.
Recent campaign results in the Sixth District show that a big-tent Democrat who appeals to independent voters has the best chance to defeat Michele Bachmann."
It's still difficult to picture Tarryl losing to Dr. Reed in the CD-6 primary because of all of Tarryl's union endorsements but that doesn't mean I think Dr. Reed won't put up a good fight.
That's why I'm stocking up on popcorn.
Posted Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Dec-09 08:15 AM
It was pretty clear months ago that there was going to be a primary. This removes all doubt, and in effect concedes that polling or phoning Reed did convinced her that Clark would be endorsed.
"We used thoughtful consideration to reach this conclusion since I have such a great deal of respect for the dedicated individuals in the DFL who generously give their time ..." as you've quoted. The "we" then "I" structure is interesting.
Mark Twain disliked the "editorial 'we'" and said it should be used only by true royalty, pregnant women, and people with tapeworms.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Dec-09 12:15 PM
Eric, I agree that Reed's opting for the primary was predictable. I thought the news in the story was Dr. Reed's continuing to paint Tarryl as too far left to win in CD-6.
Tarryl can't be happy with that development.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 03-Dec-09 01:54 PM
Two words to give Maureen and her followers hope.....
JASON CHAFFETZ!
Pass the popcorn Gar.....
LL
Comment 4 by eric z. at 04-Dec-09 09:52 AM
Gary, that's not news either that Reed has taken up the thing you've been saying from the GOP camp, that Clark is "too liberal" for the district. It's been said by her camp before. It is counterproductive to defeating Bachmann, given the likelihoods, and I cannot see it as at all helpful to Reed attracting DFL voters by being critical of another DFL contender when being critical of Bachmann is the point - and so very, very, very easy given Bachmann's headline-grabbing conduct and all.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 04-Dec-09 09:54 AM
I guess the old saying, "shooting herself in the foot," applies to this tactic from Reed's camp.
It offends.
It is unhelpful to her own chances.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-09 02:42 PM
Eric, I'm betting that Dr. Reed thinks it's possible to criticize both Tarryl & Michele Bachmann.
I've called Tarryl a hardline liberal because that's what her voting record says.
Voting for EACH of the BIGGEST TAX INCREASES IN MINNESOTA HISTORY says hardline liberal.
Voting for huge spending packages that would've left us with a $10 billion deficit last year, not a $6.4 billion deficit.
I agree that Dr. Reed's tactics aren't likely to help her with DFL voters.
Aaron Ament's Selective Outrage
Prior to this post, most people probably haven't heard about Aaron Ament. I certainly hadn't heard of him prior to this. Ament is one of the founders of Stand Up America PAC. According to this article , Stand Up America PAC has targeted Michele Bachmann, Joe Wilson, Eric Cantor, Jean Schmidt and John Campbell. This is what Mr. Ament thinks of activists he disagrees with:
"Michele Bachmann's willingness to empower hooligans for partisan political purposes is wrong and must stop," Ament said last week. "Bachmann's refusal to take full responsibility for amplifying the most hateful voices in our country means that we cannot expect her to rein in the disgraceful behavior that has made her a national television star and one of the top recipients of far-right cash."SAY WHAT??? Several busloads of everyday Minneostans showed up in Washington, DC, along with other people from across the country, scared that PelosiCare would destroy the best health care system in the world. As their reward, Mr. Ament characterized them as "partisan hooligans" and "the most hateful voices in our country."
The Democrats have tried characterizing protesters as haters, partisan hooligans and angry mobs. It isn't surprising that independents are fleeing the Democratic Party like Democrats were toxic waste. Similarly, it isn't surprising that conservatives are fired up like they haven't been since the fall of 2004.
Operatives like Ament likely will keep characterizing activists of all stripes in hateful terms. If that happens, the Democrats will alienate all but their most rabid far left base.
It's one thing for Democrat operatives to call Rep. Bachmann and Rep. Wilson names. Unfortunately, that's fairly common. It's another when Democratic operatives like Ament call mainstreet American "partisan hooligans" and "the most hateful voices in our country." That's the fastest way to alienate large swaths of people.
Extremists like Ament don't hesitate to call people names. They also don't hesitate in hurling accusations like this :
Stand Up America PAC has begun its petition and online advertising campaign imploring Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to take full responsibility for the illegal and disgraceful rally she organized this month on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.Stand Up America PAC is referring to an accusation that Michele violated a House rule :
Bachmann's site urged people to come to the Capitol rally "and tell their Representatives to vote no" on the health-care reform bill. House rules prohibit members from using their sites, which are funded by taxpayers, to conduct "grassroots lobbying or solicit support for a Member's position."That's an absurd rule and I'd doubt it would withstand constitutional muster. I don't have a problem with House rules prohibiting politicians from using their official websites for purely electoral purposes. That's clearly wrong. Obviously, that isn't what happened here.
Here's the other problem that liberals are talking about:
CREW also alleges that Bachmann and her allies may have violated other House rules by holding a rally without a permit. News reports suggest the event's organizer's made an effort to call it a press conference, for which a permit wouldn't be needed.This is another First Amendment issue. Congress doesn't have the authority to tell people that they have to get a permit to peaceably assemble. By requiring a permit, the governing majority would theoretically have the right to say no to citizens speaking out against their agenda. That CLEARLY doesn't fit with what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
It's Stand Up America's right to go off on ideologically-driven diatribes. It's the rights of CD-6 voters to tell Stand Up America PAC to take a long walk off a short pier by returning Michele Bachmann to Washington, which is precisely what's likely to happen.
The Democrats' PACs were effective the last 2 election cycles but their hysteria-based tactics won't work this time, mostly because people have seen the Democrats' corruption and because they've seen the Democrats' ineptitude in growing the economy and in creating jobs. People have seen how irresponsible Democrats have been in their spending.
All the money in the world won't help the Democrats this cycle because they've pursued an agenda that's far too radical for the people's liking. Good riddance.
Posted Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Dec-09 08:10 AM
It's not the speech, it's the place.
They can speak whatever they want.
For an event, at a place, get a permit.
What's hard about that? It's not rocket science.
As in you want to book the dome, book it, don't just show up.
It is property, and the custodians can set access rules. That's why you or terrorists cannot freely move about the national Capitol, or freely enter the White House.
It is a question of orderliness, not speech. Bachmann acted in a disorderly manner.
Do you think Bachmann's chief of staff was axed over failure to get the permit, or resigned as having had enough of the job or a better opportunity? Have you any info about that staff change, its basis and timing?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 06-Dec-09 01:54 PM
eric:
The difference between what Michelle did and what Nancy did a couple of weeks earlier is great.
Nancy held a press conference and denied the public who was opposed to the health care bill the right to go the steps we as the tax payers own!
Michelle asked Americans to show up and remind the lawmakers who is boss. CREW is made because they don't have people who are willing to do that. When the left holds an event like this the people who show up are paid. The people who showed up for Michelle's event gave up their time and pay voluntarily.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McCarthy-McCotter BCC Notes
Thursday afternoon, I participated in a blogger conference call with Assistant Minority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Thad McCotter. It was immediately understandable why Rep. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee.
The topic du jour was jobs, specifically why the Democrats' stimulus hadn't produced any and why it isn't likely to create any anytime soon.
Rep. McCarthy said that Democrats are changing their tune on the stimulus bill, saying now that it's more of a "stabilization bill." This explains why they're now planning a second stimulus bill (which they're calling a jobs bill) that's expected to cost approximately $300,000,000,000.
The first question I asked their opinion on was how much of the current unemployment was due to the irresponsible spending. I said that entrepreneurs know that the irresponsible spending will quickly lead to higher taxes, higher inflation or higher debt, each of which is the enemy of small businesses.
Reps. McCarthy and McCotter said that that's had a negative effect on job creation and economic growth. Rep. McCotter mentioned that massive deficits were drying up credit markets, which were impeding additional economic expansion, too.
I followed that question up by telling them that I've posted numerous times on this blog that we aren't seeing job creation because nothing in the stimulus bill is designed to increase entrepreneurial activity. Rep. McCarthy said that that's the chief argument that Republicans used when debating the stimulus back in January and February.
Another blogger asked whether the impending specter of elections was changing the mood of Democrats. Rep. McCotter said that there was a noticeable difference. He then said that "when politicians returned after the stimulus vote, Republicans were smiling and Democrats weren't." He then said that after the Cap and Trade vote, Democrats' frowns were bigger and that the Republicans' smiles were still there. Finally, Rep. McCotter said that the Democrats' frowns were bigger still after they returned from their districts after their health care vote. Rep. McCotter said that throughout all the votes, Republicans have returned from their districts smiling.
In my opinion, they've got good reason to smile. The people are turning against Democrats. The bad news is that the people are turning because they're afraid of what lies ahead for them, whether it's delaying their retirement or whether they're afraid that they won't be hired anytime soon or whether they're afraid that America won't return to time-tested ways of growing the economy.
Two other things worth noting: Rep. McCotter said that he held a townhall meeting on a Saturday but he didn't get an announcement out for it. In a city of 300,000, 3,000 people still showed up for it. Secondly, people he's talked with are worried that Democrats care more about ideology than they care about putting people back to work.
It's time that the Democrats ditched their ideology-based economics plan. It's time that Democrats admitted that their stimulus plan is an expensive failure that's piled up debt faster than it's raised unemployment.
Finally, Reps. McCarthy and McCotter said that the possibility of the Bush tax cuts expiring is pouring cold water on businesses' plans to expand and hire. Personally, I think the fastest way to start growing the economy is for the Obama administration to announce that they won't let the Bush tax cuts expire and that they're dropping Cap and Trade and their health care legislation. If those three things happened, you'd quickly see the economy take off.
This won't happen because the minute the Obama administration made that announcement is the minute the Democratic base would abandon him.
The House GOP has returned to being the party of ideas. More importantly, they've returned to being the party of solutions. Follow this link to read more about the House GOP's common sense, main street-oriented solutions.
Posted Friday, December 4, 2009 1:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 04-Dec-09 09:48 AM
Perhaps it might be helpful to other readers and not me alone, were you to indicate what "BCC" is. You use it only once, in the headline, as if all should know.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-09 02:43 PM
BCC = Blogger Conference Call
Pogemiller Still Short On Solutions
Larry Pogemiller has thrown more than a couple hissy fits over Gov. Pawlenty's economic policies. In all the time that I've been watching, I've yet to hear him articulate a plan on what a Pogemiller economic plan would look like, though I suspect that it'd start with raising taxes and spending more money on education.
According to this post from the Strib's Pat Doyle , Sen. Pogemiller still doesn't have a plan:
So what should McElroy's Department of Employment and Economic Development be doing that it's not?Here's the sentence that stands out from that post:
"Create jobs," Pogemiller said.
Government efforts to create jobs have had limited positive impact.
The program McElroy oversees, called JOBZ, has been criticized by the Legislature Auditor and others for giving tax breaks where they aren't needed while overstating what it has accomplished and understating the cost.
But it doesn't appear that DFLers have been more successful at the economic development game. The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, a pet project of former Gov. Rudy Perpich, spent millions over the years on projects like the Iron World museum and Giant's Ridge ski resort that produced a small number of mostly low-paying jobs.
It remains to be seen if current DFL leaders can come up with a plan that succeeds where others have failed.
Government efforts to create jobs have had limited positive impact.It isn't surprising that government isn't proficient at creating long-lasting, high-paying private sector jobs. Governments can't create private sector manufacturing or service industry jobs. Entrepreneurs are the only people that create those types of jobs. To expect anything less is foolish.
Incredibly, the DFL's jobs bills have relied heavily on government spending. It isn't surprising that Minnesota's economy has lagged the last decade. Couple their reliance on government spending to create jobs and their excessive (some say obsessive) reliance on "the rich" on "paying their fair share" and you've got a recipe for disaster.
The DFL has talked about the need for an efficient transportation system and a great education system. I don't disagree that they're important components of a vibrant economy. There isn't a conservative in Minnesota that'd disagree with that. Where conservatives part ways with the DFL is that the DFL thinks that's a great economic plan. It clearly isn't.
If regulations and tax burdens are too high, there won't be enough entrepreneurial activity at the end of the road or enough businesses to supply jobs when people graduate from Minnesota's schools. We've seen taxes cost Minnesota some high-paying jobs :
Jeff Williams, the company's CEO and founder, said VitalMedix's relocation will enable it to benefit from Wisconsin's friendlier business climate, including its tax investment credits law that encourage financial support from so-called angel investors.VitalMedix left for Wisconsin because Minnesota's tax laws made it difficult to raise capital. The DFL defeated Rep. Keith Downey's bill that would've started an angel investment tax credit in Minnesota's tax code. That simple change could've prevented high-paying jobs from leaving Minnesota and landing in Wisconsin. Rep. Ann Lenczewski, the DFL chair of the House Taxes Committee, spoke out against Rep. Downey's bill.
"The investment climate (in Wisconsin) for small (biotech) companies like ours is more favorable" than Minnesota's, said Williams, previously CEO-in-residence of the Venture Center at the University of Minnesota. "Right now, it is more difficult to raise money in the Twin Cities for small companies."
It also doesn't help that the DFL's spending habits are as irresponsible as they are. Businesses that think spending increases are inevitable also think that tax increases can't be far around the corner. Setting the right priorities and saying no to the special interests is the only way to get spending and taxes under control.
The minute entrepreneurs don't have to worry about the DFL legislature's irresponsible spending habits is the minute Minnesota's entrepreneurs will start investing and growing high-paying, permanent, jobs.
Posted Friday, December 4, 2009 2:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Dec-09 07:38 AM
The most basic fallacy of liberals is to assume that the government has all the money, and that spending it is the only economic activity that can occur, when in fact the only money government has it must first take from somebody, thereby decreasing economic activity. Depending on what the money is spent on, the best government can do is to "break even" with what private enterprise would have done with the money, had it been left in their hands.
SEIU's System
Doug Grow's post on the SEIU's endorsement process reveals alot about the SEIU. Thanks to Dr. Maureen Reed's challenging Tarryl Clark in a primary, we now know alot more about this process:
On Sept. 9, Reed appeared before a group of union leaders representing the East Central Area Labor Council. One member of that body was from the SEIU. The screening was held at RJ's America Grill in St. Cloud.Frankly, Morillo's defense isn't persuasive. It sounds like it was rigged in Tarryl's favor. (I'm not accusing Tarryl of doing anything unethical. I'm just suggesting that the SEIU was predisposed to supporting her.)
Morillo says that body represented the SEIU.
The Reed campaign knew there was an SEIU member on the interviewing board, "but that was not an SEIU process," Isaacson said. "That's not how they have screened candidates in the governor's race."
Counters Morillo in an email, "They can believe whatever they want, but the fact is this: The Reed campaign does not determine SEIU's process. SEIU members and their elected representatives do. Candidates love our process when they get endorsed, they hate it when they don't."
Morillo also said that the union's process can vary from race to race. In this case, he said it was the combination of Reed's poor performance (from a union perspective) in St. Cloud on Sept. 9 and Clark's favorable record with the union that led to the SEIU decision to endorse Clark.
The fact that SEIU changed the rules of the game stinks to high heaven. If they want to support Tarryl, that's their right. It's just insulting to pretend otherwise. I'd be perfectly fine if SEIU issued a statement saying something like this:
Dr. Maureen Reed has a promising future in politics but we think Tarryl Clark provides us with the best shot of defeating Michele Bachmann. That's why we're endorsing Tarryl Clark. We urge DFL activists to join us in uniting around Tarryl Clark.
Instead, SEIU is playing games with the process. If there's anything that people don't like, it's when they think the game is rigged. That's what SEIU's endorsing process appears to be.
I support Michele Bachmann because she's a fiscal conservative so this is the furthest extent I'll go with regards to Dr. Reed. Still, I'll praise her for sticking to her principles. Dr. Reed should be praised for that.
Posted Saturday, December 5, 2009 2:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Dec-09 01:18 PM
I don't like Pawlenty, or his new PAC or what it will likely be used for, but he can run it as he likes without me carping as long as no election law is violated. I complain about how he handles his official duties, but his private sector stuff, that's his business. Not mine.
The Woman With a Bullseye On Her Back
Saturday afternoon, I attended Michele Bachmann's Christmas party in St. Cloud. There she revealed what I already knew: that Speaker Pelosi has painted a big bullseye on Michele's back. I think that's because Speaker Pelosi hates Michele's principled opposition to Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda.
Michele's principled opposition to Speaker Pelosi's agenda is why liberal special interest groups are painting a big bullseye on Michele's back, as Kathy Kersten writes here :
The buzz among Washington insiders is that Bachmann will be "the next Musgrave." Guy Short, Musgrave's former chief of staff, expects Democrats to pump millions of dollars into Minnesota to try to take Bachmann down in 2010. Her adversaries, he says, will work to drive up her unfavorable ratings to the point where voters finally growl, "Anybody but Bachmann."That's already started, thanks to the Soros-funded CREW accusations. CREW's accusations are filtering out to other organizations, one of which I wrote about here :
Stand Up America PAC has begun its petition and online advertising campaign imploring Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to take full responsibility for the illegal and disgraceful rally she organized this month on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.There's just one flaw with Stand Up America PAC's accusation. It doesn't have anything to do with the truth:
Last month, she put a press release about a health care "House call" on her congressional website. After the event took place, CREW charged that she had violated House ethics rules, and the media, which routinely characterize CREW as a neutral watchdog group, picked up the story. A spokesman for the House Administration Committee confirmed that Bachmann had conformed to House rules.That won't stop Soros-funded yappers because they aren't interested in the truth. They'll say anything that they think will help defeat a principled conservative, especially principled conservatives like Michele.
What the Soros organizations haven't figured out is that their smear campaigns won't work this campaign. Admittedly, they work in normal years. THIS ISN'T A NORMAL YEAR. What's important to people this cycle is fiscal conservatism. Simply put, tons of money in a campaign is helpful only if it's used to put out an appealing message. The Sorosphere can't overcome the hurdle of the Democrats' radical agenda.
John Q. Public HATES Cap and Tax. John Q. Public HATES Obamacare. (That's why it's only getting 38% approval.) John Q. Public isn't just mildly upset with those tax increases. They're upset to the Nth degree with the Democrats' irresponsible ideological agenda because it's bankrupting America.
I've said that Soros-funded organizations are dirtbag organizations. They're highly unethical. Their first priority isn'tthe truth. Their highest priority is doing whatever is needed to get other radicals elected. If that means lying, then that's what'll happen. Without hesitation or regret, they practice slash and burn politics.
When Stand Up America PAC accused Michele Bachmann of violating House rules, they didn't bother checking with the House Administration Committee. If they had, they would've known that their accusation wasn't the truth. A simple call would've resolved the issue. Stand Up America PAC didn't even meet that minimal benchmark. How pathetic is that? More importantly, how telling is that?
It's almost as if Stand Up America PAC isn't interested in the truth.
Minnesota voters won't be heading to the polls until November 2010, almost a year from now, but this machine is already pouring megabucks into a TV ad campaign attacking Bachmann. In the ad, an actress portraying the congresswoman greets voters with oil oozing from her hands. A frightened baby wails, and constituents glare with disgust at the sticky handprints she leaves on their backs. The message? Bachmann is a shill for Big Oil.In addition to being ethically flexible, these Soros-funded organizations aren't particularly bright. When energy independence was the chief issue in August, 2008, people agreed with the Republicans' motto of Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less by a 3:1 margin. Running ads that tell people that Michele's for energy independence isn't exactly doing Tarryl a favor. In fact, it's probably hurting her because it brings up her voting against lifting the Minnesota moratorium on nuclear power plants. I wrote here that Tarryl's vote likely had more to do with gaining favor with the environmentalists than it had to do with sound energy policy:
By keeping that moratorium intact, Tarryl voted to keep the myth alive that we can replace baseload energy production with alternative energy products. In my estimation, Tarryl's vote was politically motivated. She voted this way because she wanted to curry favor with the environmentalists. In my estimation, Tarryl's vote didn't have anything to do with responsible energy policy. The reason I think that is because Larry Haws, Larry Hosch and Al Doty all voted to lift the moratorium.Every time that a liberal special interest group accuses Michele of being beholden to Big Oil, they're giving me a perfect opportunity to remind people that Tarryl's beholden to environmental extremists. I know this district a little. Based on that knowledge, I'm betting that Tarryl won't like the results she gets from these special interest ads.
That's why cookie cutter special interest ads don't work well. It's as if they think the oil companies are hated nationwide. That's isn't close to being majority opinion nationwide.
If these special interest groups want to spend money on ineffective ads, that's their First Amendment right. It's just that they won't get much bang for their buck.
That's because Michele Bachmann, the lady with the bullseye painted on her back, is a dynmaic politician with a large, passionate group of supporters. She's also got a titanium spine to not crumple when the special interests take cheapshots at her.
Posted Sunday, December 6, 2009 3:01 AM
No comments.
Forget the Bonding Bill, Fix the Economy
DFL leadership is salivating thinking about passing a $1,000,000,000 bonding bill when they should be prioritizing fixing Minnesota's economy:
House Speaker and 2010 gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said during one of the flurry of press conferences following Wednesday's release of the November economic forecast that she would like to see the bill make its way through the House within the first few weeks of the session, which begins Feb. 4.The DFL always thinks of the bonding bill as their jobs bill. It should be thought of as a repairs and build a few new things bill. The bill hasn't added permanent jobs in forever. I quoted the STrib's Pat Doyle in this post as saying this:
"The two biggest advantages of passing a bill early have to do with Minnesota's economy, and the fact that there are a lot of Minnesotans in the construction trades, the building trades and related architectural trades out of work right now," said Kelliher, who announced the formation of a bipartisan jobs task force in August to help spur job growth. "To really make any sort of impact for next year, passing the bill early will be important."
So what should McElroy's Department of Employment and Economic Development be doing that it's not?St. Cloud Rep. Steve Gottwalt offered this opinion of what does and what doesn't create jobs:
"Create jobs," Pogemiller said.
Government efforts to create jobs have had limited positive impact.
It's tough to create jobs with ANY state program where the taxes and regulations on businesses just keep increasing! Sen. Pogemiller should be held accountable for the manner in which DFLers have helped shackle a huge ball and chain around the ankles of DEED and Minnesota businesses with their endless push for tax increases, cap-and-tax, fees, undue regulatory burdens and massive expansions of government programs. Minnesota's business tax and regulatory climate is ranked among the ten worst in theThe DFL has ignored much of what the business community has suggested in creating jobs, mostly for ideological reasons. They haven't implemented business's highest priority items in years. It's time they either started doing those things. If they aren't willing to start creating a positive business climate, then We The People will replace them with people who will start fixing Minnesota's economy by getting out of the entrepreneurs' way.
nation!
If Sen. Pogemiller sincerely wants jobs, he should ask the businesses that create them what they need. They will tell him loud and clear: "Get off our backs and out of the way, and watch us go to work!"
The DFL's happy talk about creating jobs with the bonding bill ignores fixing what's wrong in Minnesota, namely Minnesota's tax code and the DFL's habit of spending too much. Infinitely more can be done to putting people back to work by killing the DC Democrats' health care legislation and by extending the Bush tax cuts than by anything that the DFL can do at the state level.
Those two things are incentivizing entrepreneurs to not invest in growing their businesses and hiring people. Meanwhile, back in Minnesota, the DFL tinkers around the edges in hopes of providing an expensive stopgap measure. If the DFL insists on sending Gov. Pawlenty an oversized bonding bill, which I'm certain they will, then I'm confident that he'll apply his line-item veto pen. At that point the only question will be whether he line-items out $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 from the bill. (After all, someone's got to be the adult in St. Paul.)
The DFL won't fix the underlying economic problems because they think that their system of overtaxation and irresponsible spending works. Businesses are fleeing Minnesota, which should be a warning sign to the DFL. The fact that North Dakota kept spending under control, cut taxes and now has the lowest unemployment in the nation to the point that they're recruiting workers from Ohio should be warning sign to the DFL, too, but it isn't.
That's why, at this point, I think the only thing that will get their attention is a 2 X 4 up topside their heads. If that's what it takes, then let me be the first to apply the solution because the DFL's disaster ain't getting it done.
Posted Sunday, December 6, 2009 8:44 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Dec-09 10:18 AM
Gary:
Great post but you left out an interesting angle. Next year there is talk Minnesota might have to borrow in the short term for the current budget cycle. Won't having to put bonds out for an extra billion dollars only add to the interest costs.
It seems like given the fact that we have to borrow it should be automatic not to do a bonding bill or reduce it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 06-Dec-09 01:19 PM
In my most fervent wishes are that the session would indeed be short. The DFL would concede that a bonding bill, adding to current unsustainable spending, would be a bad idea, and that they could save a lot of money by just going home on day 2. Or they could concede that the Obamulus money sent to Minnesota was all of the infrastructure and jobs spending we needed, and go home on day 2. Or they could just say that we aren't going to add to the budget problems and let Pawlenty just unallot the rest of the budget shortfall, and go home on day 2.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 07-Dec-09 08:39 AM
I did a word search on the post, Gary. A missing word is "how." How do you fix the economy? How can you feel assured your policy will not make things worse? How do you fairly state your premises, underlying your conclusion of how to fix things?
How?
Let more bridges fall? Let traffic increase with road miles not keeping pace? Abandon transit expansion?
Specifics, not hot air???
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-09 10:22 AM
Eric, I'm not opposed to properly maintaining transportation infrastructure. I'm just opposed to the extra taxes for light rail that are imposed on exurban communities. Had the DFL just gone with a nickel a gallon gas tax increase, they would've gotten 25 GOP votes.
How do you fix our economy? Let's start by lowering business fees. A distiller's license in Minnesota is $30K per year. In Iowa, it's $350. Where do you think they'll start a distillery? Next, let's cut corporate taxes like they did in NoDak. Thirteen of their fifteen biggest employers are health care related, the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent & they're having to recruit people from as far away as Ohio to fill the open jobs. Another thing we can do is put our financial house in order. Businesses see the out-of-control spending here & know that the DFL will try 'taxing the rich' to pay for their spending binge. Rather than trying to stay ahead of that, they're just opting to stay away from Minnesota.
BTW, that isn't my opinion. That's information from Tom Gillaspie, the state demographer.
Copenhagen Compromised
George Will's column on climate change is the best explanation of what went wrong with the science supposedly supporting climate change. Here's a blast that's certain to leave a mark:
The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."There's no proof that these 'scientists' go where the information takes them. For these 'scientists', every tidbit of data is proof of global warming. Fortunately, some people appear to be taking the scientific process seriously :
The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars, and substantially diminished freedom.
Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.The next paragraph is the most telling:
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN's main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week's climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.That paragraph is what fear sounds like. It's also what a guilty conscience sounds like. Al Gore and his followers in the scientific community have told us that the debate is over, that consensus of the (supposedly) most brilliant minds on climate change had been reached and that the world would end if their recommendations were followed like they were etched in stone on Mount Sinai.
Anytime a skeptic pointed to data that ridiculed their findings, the scientific community ridicule the scientists rather than argue the merits of their findings. The Met Office sounds like they aren't even certain that the underlying data is accurate, which casts their conclusions in doubt. Let's prove this by illustration.
Let's suppose, instead, that a physician is given information from diagnostic test. The physician uses that information and the relevant case histories to determine a diagnosis. If the physician suddenly learns that the information from the diagnostic test might be significantly inaccurate, it isn't unreasonable to think that that physician might rethink things. That physician might even start over.
Let's return to the climate change scientists. Since their public position is that everything points to global warming that's sure to end the world unless we dramatically change our habits, no re-examination happens. Their remedies don't change. Their remedy constantly remains the same: a massive redistribution of wealth through an oppressive cap and trade bill is THE ONLY THING that will save Planet Earth.
People are increasingly skeptical of the all-data-points-to-the-end-of-the-world worldview. The net result is that Cap and Tax is dead in the water for the next 3-5 years minimum.
I can't do better than Will's summation so I'll just leave you with this:
Copenhagen is the culmination of the post-Kyoto maneuvering by people determined to fix the world's climate by breaking the world's, especially America's, population to the saddle of ever-more-minute supervision by governments. But Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth's last chance, until the next one.
Posted Sunday, December 6, 2009 9:55 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Dec-09 11:10 AM
The situation for the Warmists (a cousin to the Luddites) is even more dire, once someone breaks through the Grand Deceit. IF this re-examination of the data proves that the globe, indeed, has been getting warmer for the last 400 years (almost certainly) AND IF the warming trend actually accelerated over the last 40 years (maybe), there is still ZERO evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible! The idea that humankind can prevent global warming is only possible if humankind is causing it! There is no evidence on the horizon that would prove this sine qua non causation, and considerable evidence to the contrary already here.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 07-Dec-09 08:35 AM
The inescapable fact is that since the start of the industrial revolution, and the population gains since then, the amount of carbon dioxide added to the environment by people has increased vastly. How that works out long term, for climate, is uncertain because there's no reliable long term data. So the answer is to be what you claim to be, be conservative. Don't vastly bloat the carbon dioxide levels even more, while not knowing the consequences. It is haphazard to do otherwise, except for the end time nuts, who want to hasten their rapture. Sane folks would, if thinking it over, prefer sane policy that would minimize potential adverse effects.
