December 4, 2008
Dec 04 10:10 When Patrick's Right, He's REALLY Right Dec 04 10:42 Knaak Mocks Franken's Claims Dec 04 11:38 Coleman Campaign Withdraws 650 Challenges Dec 04 13:26 NFLPA Sues NFL Over Suspensions Dec 04 12:42 The Chamber's Response Dec 04 13:08 BREAKING NEWS: Budget Deficit $5.2 Billion Dec 04 17:45 Republicans' Response to Budget Forecast
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
When Patrick's Right, He's REALLY Right
It isn't a big secret that I'm a big fan of Patrick Ruffini's because he's one of the smartest people in the conservative movement. Patrick said something in this post that is vitally important if we're hoping to rebuild the conservative movement. Here's what Patrick said that jumped off the page at me:
Being out of power will give conservatives to emerge from under the shadow of the Republican Party. A big reason why the right has stagnated online is that being in power has given the right little of substance to do. All the decisions were being made for us in Washington, everything from where the GOP should stand on immigration to campaign strategy. When everything you need to know about candidate recruitment and how the GOP targets races is written down in a binder at the RNC, there's little for volunteers to do other than follow orders . That's not very inspiring to grassroots activists. To appropriate something Soren told me over email once, more stuff for volunteers to do equals more volunteers .One key principle of teambuilding in business is letting the employees own their projects. That means management setting the goal, then letting the employee or group of employees come up with their own solution. That's something I encouraged when I was a supervisor. My motto was "Do whatever you want as long as you make me look good at the end of the day."
We stopped being the party of ideas, which chased volunteers away. Employing a top-down management style where the RNC dictates what we do nationally and the state parties dictate what we do at the state level is the wrong approach because it's the polar opposite of being activist-based.
Another thing that's problematic in the RNC's approach is that they've told locals who the candidate is. This resulted in lots of activists getting upset with the RNC because they felt like they were the RNC's on a state party's rubberstamp. That isn't the right model to follow.
Another thing that we've done poorly recently is that we haven't made the best arguments for our policies. What's worse is that we haven't focused on the most important issues confronting people. When we make our best arguments on the most important issues confronting people, like the House Republicans did in August, public opinion was with us on an important issue.
That's understandable for several reasons. First, when we make our best arguments, we're the smartest people in the room. Second, that's when we look like leaders. Third and most importantly, that's when people realize that we're on their side. There's an old saying amongst Christian missionaries that say "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. That fits here perfectly because making the best arguments on the most important issues tells people that supporting us is the best thing for them.
In finishing, the day that we abandon our top-down form of seudo-activism and we start thinking issues through and making the best arguments is the day the GOP will be the dominant party again. That's the goal I intend to work towards. Anyone who wants to join in achieving that goal is welcome to join. There's always room for more.
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:12 AM
No comments.
Knaak Mocks Franken's Claims
My appreciation for Fritz Knaak is growing daily. This post on the Political Animal is a great illustration why I appreciate him.
Throughout the recount, the Franken count has had Franken looking better than the counts that don't include any challenged ballots. Yesterday, when the vote gap appeared to be 344 votes, to Coleman's advantage, the Franken campaign reported that Coleman was up by only 50 votes.The Franken campaign's claims aren't credible. The vast majority of their challenges have been frivolous. That's the official term. I'd rather call them ridiculous, insulting or absurd.
And today, when the gap using Secretary of State numbers appears to be 303 votes, to Coleman's advantage, Franken campaign attorney Marc Elias says Franken is leading in the recount by 22 votes. It's the first time Franken's folks have claimed a lead since the start of a recount.
Fine, said Coleman campaign attorney Fritz Knaak, We're ahead by 2,200 votes. "I have no evidence for this," he said at a news conference. But no matter, "I like the sound of it so here it is."
Knaak's statements mocked Team Franken's claims by using absurdity to highlight Team Franken's absurdity. That's a time-tested tradition that's served people well.
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment 1 by marchmoon at 04-Dec-08 04:53 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Frankenmath to just assume that all challenges will be resolved per the election judge's original determination? That seems a more credible starting point than excluding all the challenged ballots.
Coleman Campaign Withdraws 650 Challenges
Sen. Coleman's campaign issued the following statement announcing their withdrawal of 650 challenged ballots:
ST. PAUL - Today Fritz Knaak, lead recount counsel for the Coleman for Senate campaign, announced the Coleman campaign will withdrawing 650 ballot challenges this afternoon. Knaak also reached out to Al Franken's lead recount counsel this morning, requesting a meeting to discuss how both campaigns can reach a mutual agreement to further reduce the number of challenged ballots that will be brought before the state's canvassing board.It's significant that Coleman's campaign is the only campaign to call for a meeting of the two campaigns to further reduce the number of challenged ballots. That's a sign of statesmanship and goodwill. It isn't surprising that those qualities have been absent from Franken's campaign.
Knaak stated, "Today, in the spirit of working to remedy an excess of challenged ballots, we will voluntarily withdraw 650 challenged by the Coleman campaign. This morning, I left a voicemail, and sent an email, to Franken campaign attorney Marc Elias regarding challenged ballots. We are doing so this in the spirit of reaching out to their campaign so we can sit down early next week and discuss what process we can agree to in order to winnow down these challenged ballots. At the end of the day, our mutual goal and obligation ought to be the people of Minnesota and their representatives on the Canvassing Board, as well as local election officials, to find a spirit of cooperation to reduce the number of challenged ballots to a true and meaningful number that can be fairly evaluated by the Canvassing Board."
I suspect that public opinion will force Franken's campaign to eventually meet with the Coleman campaign to resolve this. If Franken's campaign refuses to meet and resolve this issue, the Canvassing Board will resolve them. Resolving this prior to the next Canvassing Board meeting, which I'm planning on liveblogging, would be a good faith gesture on Franken's behalf, something that would be appreciated by the Canvassing Board.
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Dec-08 09:51 PM
I think it's a sign of what side is more confident they are going to win. The only reason the Coleman campaign has to keep their challenges is so that Franken can't claim he's ahead.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
NFLPA Sues NFL Over Suspensions
According to this Pi-Press article , the NFLPA is suing the NFL over their suspensions of 6 players. Here's the details on the NFLPA's lawsuit:
The NFL Players Association filed suit against the NFL today in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis to lift the suspensions of five players, including Minnesota Vikings defensive tackles Kevin and Pat Williams, for violating the league's steroids and banned substances policy, claiming the league failed to inform the players the diuretic they were using violated the policy and therefore jeopardized the players' health.It's common knowledge that the NFL failed to disclose the fact that Bumetanide, a banned substance according to the labor agreement, was in the diuretic known as StarCaps. It reeks that the NFL withheld this information from the union, then suspended six players for using the banned substance that the NFL failed to disclose to the players union.
The union's arguments mirrored those made by the Williamses' attorneys Wednesday night in winning a temporary restraining order in Hennepin County District Court that allowed the two Vikings stars to return to practice at Winter Park today and put them on track to play in Sunday's game at Detroit.
The NFLPA is suing under the Labor Management Relations Act to vacate the six players' suspensions handed down Tuesday by Jeffrey Pash, executive vice president of the NFL and the commissioner's designated hearing officer.
"At no time did the NFL warn NFL players or the NFLPA of the presence of Bumetanide in StarCaps and potential health risks of the product," the suit said. "Further, it was completely improper for Mr. Pash to be the hearing officer to determine whether the suspensions were valid. Mr. Pash could not be a fair arbitrator in these unique circumstances in which his office was directly implicated."
Furthermore, it's insulting that the NFL was the arbiter on whether the suspensions that they imposed were valid suspensions. Comparing the NFL's appeals system with the US judicial system is a picture in contrasts. When a person appeals a court ruling in US Court, they go before an appellate court. They don't go before the same judge for their appeal.
The players' appeals were handed down by Mr. Pash, which should eliminate Mr. Pash from ruling on whether the suspensions are valid. If the NFL was interested in being impartial, they'd agree to have an independent board rule on the legitimacy of their suspensions.
What's worse is that the label for StarCaps doesn't mention that Bumetanide is an ingredient in the product. How were these players supposed to know that they were taking a banned product? The NFL has hidden behind the insane statement that it's the players who take final responsibility for what they put into their bodies.
The final absurdity is that Bumetanide is on the NFL's banned susbstance list because it allegedly masks steroid use. Supposedly, the NFL's goal is to reduce steroid use. It's absurd to think that Pat & Kevin Williams used Bumetanide to hide their use of steroids. Had Pat Williams & Kevin Williams suddenly gotten larger, that's one thing. I've been watching them since the Mike Tice era, which ended after the 2005 season.
The Williams Wall has been their nickname since the Vikings signed Pat Williams with good reason. (Personally, I prefer my nickname of the Monsters of the Middle better but that's another story for another post.) They've been the best defensive tackle combination since they joined forces. They've been oversized and athletic from Day One of their first training camp together.
The point I'm making is that it's clear that they aren't using steroids. They've been big for at least 5 years.
One rumor that's been floating around is that the NFL will drop the suspensions because they don't want to have their testing protocols & procedures made public through discovery.
The NFL's suspension appeals system is a joke. It needs to be reformed instantly and dramatically. If one person is both the judge, jury and appellate court judge, it seems to me that that doesn't meet the minimal due process standards that our Constitution guarantees.
That's what should determine the outcome of this appeal.
UPDATE: The Strib's Judd Zulgad just posted the NFLPA's official statement on their lawsuit against the NFL. It's must reading. Here's the statement's text:
The NFLPA today filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Minneapolis challenging the suspensions of three New Orleans Saints players and two Minnesota Vikings players under the NFL Steroids Policy. The lawsuit claims a breach of duty on the part of league-appointed doctors and the NFL lawyer administering the policy who failed to warn players or the NFLPA that Starcaps, a legal, over the counter product commonly used for weight reduction, contained a substance which is prohibited by the program. These doctors knew as early as 2006 that use of Starcaps could cause a player to test positive under the program, after taking the unusual step of testing that product on their own initiative . The lawsuit requests an immediate injunction against the suspensions so that the five players can continue to help their teams reach the playoffs this season.If the NFL had an affirmative responsibility to notify the NFLPA of products that use banned substances, then the NFL has a big problem on their hands. Whether that's the case is for a judge to decide. Nonetheless, the NFL's actions are troubling at minimum.
Richard Berthelsen, Acting Executive Director and General Counsel of the NFLPA, stated: "We are taking these steps today in hopes of keeping these players on the playing field. We strongly believe that the doctors and the NFL should have told us and the players what they knew about Starcaps, but for some unknown reason they failed to meet that duty . "
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment 1 by Bike Bubba at 04-Dec-08 02:03 PM
I don't get why they're taking diuretics if they're not trying to hide something, personally. Or at least it isn't intuitive that healthy young males would need a diuretic for health reasons.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-08 03:13 PM
They're taking the substance to lose weight.
Comment 3 by Bike Bubba at 04-Dec-08 06:59 PM
But usually a few extra pounds on the D line are a good thing, Gary. Moreover, water loss prior to competition leads to cramps--not what you want to do when your job is to chase the QB around and give him hugs for a few hours each Sunday.
If they didn't let them know, of course, you're right that they don't have the right to expel people. The science of what's going on here, though, doesn't make sense.
Comment 4 by Mr. D at 04-Dec-08 08:42 PM
Here's why they want to lose weight, BB -- a lot of players have a weight clause and they lose money if they don't make weight. I don't know for sure about this, but I'd be willing to wager that Pat Williams has a weight clause in his contract -- remember that a few years ago he was put on the shelf by the Vikings during training camp until he made weight.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-08 10:03 AM
Mr. D, That's exactly right.
Comment 6 by eric z. at 05-Dec-08 10:32 AM
Gary, you don't like labor law, even when the deck's stacked against the workers, in favor of the boss?
What kind of Republican are you?
There's the bargaining agreement, and it defines a legal context - do's and don'ts, terms and conditions. Most labor collective bargaining agreements include arbitration, and specify how it is done.
The union gave the league the right to arbitrate, per contract.
You don't like freedom of contract?
It's a Constitutional guarantee, in both the federal and State Constitutions.
Later in the article is where it got interesting.
What is the extent of the "implied duty of good faith and fair dealings" in a collective bargaining agreement, that's one key question.
Then, is this one unique? With the revenue sharing and all, and the specialty skills, etc.
If it were left to me with a clean slate, I would say there was an implied duty to inform the union, if not individuals in the bargaining unit, at least the union of the full extent of medical knowledge the league officials had; and failure to do that was fault excusing the players now at risk.
However, precedent might be against that. The bosses always have more cash to hire better lawyers; etc., and that leads to precedent against workers.
It's how it is, Republicans are that way. You howl about this, but criticize the auto workers getting the best collective bargaining agreement they could - so much for consistency, eh?
Comment 7 by Bike Bubba at 05-Dec-08 12:14 PM
Mr. D, that makes at least a little bit of sense. I would suggest it also explains why 50 is a "ripe old age" for NFL linemen. Someday somebody is going to sue the NFL on one side for allowing them to take all those drugs that disabled them by age 35, and on the flip side it's going to be somebody who sued the NFL for trying to punish them for using those same drugs five years earlier.
I don't envy the NFL on this one. Lawyers got 'em coming and going.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-08 05:30 PM
The NFL is caught betwixt & between on this. According to ESPN's Mark Schlereth, the NFL had an affirmative responsibility to notify the NFLPA that StarCaps contained Bumetanide.
Schlereth also said this is a PR disaster for the NFL because they're "always preaching that the players' safety" is their top priority. He said they don't have any credibility after this because they withheld information that could've potentially caused physical harm to the players using this product.
Frankly, I think some attorneys are licking their chops at the opportunity to sue the NFL for negligence.
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-08 12:47 PM
However, precedent might be against that. The bosses always have more cash to hire better lawyers; etc., and that leads to precedent against workers.
Collective bargaining agreements are invalid if they violate the Constitution's protections. It's that simple.
In this instance, the person who issued the suspension also ruled on the viability of the suspension.
I don't know how that doesn't violate these players' due process rights.
The Chamber's Response
Last night, I posted an update to this post stating that Sen. Tarryl Clark's statement was taken out of context. I stated in that update that Teresa Bohnen had contacted me to talk about my post & Tarryl's statement. Teresa just sent me her official statement on yesterday morning's meeting. Here's the text of Teresa's statement:
I was surprised to see the report in this blog about the Chamber of Commerce Executive Dialogue Group Meeting that occurred Wednesday morning. The meeting was closed to media. Group members felt free to express themselves, their ideas and input to our elected officials. In turn, the elected officials felt free to express their impressions and expectations of the coming legislative session without media scrutiny, as well.
Senator Clark said the words reported in this blog, however she was interrupted during a pause, and did not complete her thought. The direction of the discussion changed and we did not return to Senator Clark's specific comment.
Teresa Bohnen
President, St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce
Originally posted Thursday, December 4, 2008, revised 05-Dec 10:20 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Dec-08 10:14 AM
"The meeting was closed to the media."
What's wrong with sunshine.
That canard, if on camera, open to the press, thee will be both grandstanding and hesitancy to speak bluntly, if true, says an awful lot about the quality and integrity of the people in the process.
If they have to hide under a hat to speak their minds, what exactly are they selling, when on the record?
It bothers me greatly.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
BREAKING NEWS: Budget Deficit $5.2 Billion
According to this Pi-Press article , Minnesota faces a $5.2 billion deficit:
Minnesota economists are forecasting the state's revenues will come up $5.2 billion short of projected spending between now and June 2011, according to sources and reports. The hole in the budget will mean lawmakers and the governor will have to scramble during the legislative session to fill in the gap by cutting spending, raising taxes and fees, using reserve funds or some combination of all three. The forecast deficit will be the state's largest ever, in dollar terms, and would represent a gap of about 14 percent of the state's total $38 billion budget.Let's remember that the DFL passed spending bills in 2007 that would've increased spending for the current biennium by 17 percent. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed those spending bills and the House GOP sustained those vetoes. Otherwise, we'd be facing a substantially bigger deficit. That's frightening considering the fact that $5.2 billion is the biggest deficit in state history.
"It's terrible," said Senate Finance Chair Dick Cohen, DFL-St. Paul, after a briefing with state officials. He would not share the forecast numbers with the Pioneer Press.
The shortfall between now and June 2009 is expected to be $426 million, according to the Associated Press. For the next two-year budget cycle, which lasts through June 2011, the deficit is projected at $4.8 billion, according to a source and other reports.
At what point do Minnesotans understand that the DFL have been terrible stewards of the taxpayers' money? People rightfully criticized the Beltway GOP for spending like drunken sailors in 2006. The Beltway GOP, though, look like fiscal hawks compared with the DFL legislature.
At some point, Minnesotans need to ask what their priorities are and how best to achieve those priorities. It's time that Minnesotans asked whether the DFL's tax-increasing policies and their public works-oriented economic model is helping Minnesota become a prosperous state. If it isn't, then it's time to chart a new course. In my opinion, that won't happen with the current DFL leadership. In my opinion, we'll need a clean break from the DFL's economic policies.
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 1:08 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Dec-08 02:29 PM
14% doesn't sound like much, considering that AFTER Pawlenty's vetoes, the budget went up just about that amount in the last biennium alone. All we have to do is to cut spending back to what it was in 2006, sorta like the DFL wants us to do with greenhouse gasses.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-08 03:16 PM
That isn't factually accurate, Jerry. The budget that Gov. Pawlenty signed called fof a 9.3 percent increase. A 9.3 percent increase is about $3 billion less in spending than a 17 percent increase would've been.
I'd call that substantial & then some.
Comment 3 by TitanTrader at 04-Dec-08 03:39 PM
Is there anywhere citizen's can find out how much our state budget has grown over the last ten years.
I have just spent an hour looking. How can you fight the big spenders when you can't even find out how much they spent?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-08 04:16 PM
http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/financial/fu
This should help.
Comment 5 by TitanTrader at 04-Dec-08 06:50 PM
Thanks gary, I finally found this, I would hope you would pass it on.
http://www.mnspendingfreeze.com/facts.html
Republicans' Response to Budget Forecast
Here's the text of the GOP's official statement on today's budget forecast:
Budget turns from huge surplus to historic deficit in just two yearsI said in this post that the DFL passed a series of omnibus spending bills in 2007 that would've increased spending over the biennium by 17 percent:
ST. PAUL, December 4, 2008 ; Two years ago, upon the news of a $2.2 billion state budget surplus, House Republican Leader Marty Seifert offered a clear warning to the new House DFL majority that they could not spend their way to a better economy.
"At every step of this multi-billion dollar plunge from a huge surplus to a historic deficit, House Republicans warned Democrats that their spending habits were unaffordable. Our calls for fiscal responsibility were repeatedly ignored, and today we learned that the result of letting Democrats control the purse strings is the worst budget outlook in state history," Seifert said after the Department of Finance announced that Minnesota's government faces a $5.2 billion budget deficit.
Seifert said that in order to get Minnesota back on solid financial ground, one of the things the House Republican Caucus would focus its efforts on is reducing the harmful effects that the government can have on the economy. That all starts, he said, with preventing tax increases.
"Under-taxation did not cause this deficit," he said, adding that "increased taxes are stop-sticks on the road to prosperity. If that's what Democrats intend to offer as a solution, it's going to be a long ride to a balanced budget."
But he also said that he sees areas where the two sides can find common ground. "If they are sincere, Republicans have a multitude of ideas for reforming government that we'd like to work with them on. It's time to grow jobs and healthy families, not government and taxes."
Responding to Governor Pawlenty's proposed reductions to the current budget, Seifert said the Legislature needs to get right to work on January 6, 2009, before problems with the current budget spiral completely out of control.
"The longer we wait, the fewer our options," he said.
Let's remember that the DFL passed spending bills in 2007 that would've increased spending for the current biennium by 17 percent. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed those spending bills and the House GOP sustained those vetoes. Otherwise, we'd be facing a substantially bigger deficit. That's frightening considering the fact that $5.2 billion is the biggest deficit in state history.Had the DFL gotten its way, spending would've increased an additional $2.5 billion over what was scheduled to be spent. That additonal $2.5 billion likely would've increased the deficit by the same amount.
A loyal reader of LFR at the Capitol sent me some additional rumblings. Here's the most significant rumbling in this reader's notes:
The DFL keeps promoting bonding as a job creator, but even if we do NO BONDING at all in the next two years, we're above our traditional limit of what is considered affordable for debt service , thus risking our credit rating.In January, 2007, Speaker Kelliher said that she'd characterize the DFL Caucus as a fiscally moderate caucus :
"We're a fiscally moderate caucus," Kelliher said of the sprawling 85-member majority that now includes significant numbers of moderates from the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.The DFL's actions certainly don't match up with Speaker Kelliher's statements. Here's another rumbling from the Capitol:
Debt service : The forecast assumes a small bonding bill this year and a $725 million bill next year. But, because of some complicated troubles in the bond market that I don't understand, even if the Legislature passed NO bonding bill in 2009 or 2010, the state would still be above the traditional 3 percent limit.Last year, the DFL originally passed a bonding bill that far exceeded the 3 percent limit. The orignal bill called for $925 million. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty trimmed that to $717 million with his line-item veto. The legislature eventually passed a supplemental bonding bill worth $95.4 million.
Each year, the DFL passes what it calls a jobs bill. Unfortunately, it's nothing of the sort because it doesn't give small businesses an incentive to increase their entrepreneurial activities. It just increases the debt load on the next generation.
It's time that we shifted from a public works-oriented jobs bill to an entrepreneurial-based jobs bill. Until we have a more even-keeled revenue stream and sustainable spending levels, we'll be constantly afflicted with the feast or famine surplus-to-deficit-back-to-surplus cycle. That's the irresponsible way of putting budgets together.
Posted Thursday, December 4, 2008 5:45 PM
No comments.
