February 1-6, 2008
Feb 01 18:30 Norm's Messsage To Caucus-Goers Feb 03 23:14 The Greatest Super Bowl Ever Feb 03 23:58 I'm With Mitt Feb 04 13:16 Serious Blogging Resumes Today Feb 04 14:31 Gov. Pawlenty Irrelevant? Feb 05 04:57 Singlepayer Silently Goes Nationwide Feb 06 18:49 Pawlenty vs. DFL Legislature Feb 06 13:07 Happy Birthday, Mr. President
Prior Months: Jan
Norm's Messsage To Caucus-Goers
Posted Friday, February 1, 2008 6:30 PM
No comments.
The Greatest Super Bowl Ever
I've watched the vast majority of Super Bowls, including the Steelers' 35-31 win over the Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII . Until tonight, that was the best Super Bowl in history.
This game surpassed that game by far. What made the Giants' win so incredible was that the Giants' defense shut the Patriots' offense down most of the game. During the Patriots' fourth quarter touchdown drive, Fox put up a graphic saying that the Patriots scored on 53 percent of their drives in the regular season but that the Giants had held them without points on 6 of their 7 drives.
It'a also fitting that Plaxico Burress caught the game-winning TD pass. The big story early in the week was Plaxico's prediction that they'd win 23-17. Tom Brady's reaction immediately after that was one of indignation. To their credit, Michael Strahan and Osi Umenyiora came to their teammate's defense, saying that it'd be foolish for a player to say that they thought they'd lose.
The game also marked Eli Manning's coming out party. He looked pedestrian in their home loss against the Vikings. He looked poised tonight against a veteran team that's used to winning in the game's final moments.
To their credit, the Patriots rallied to retake the lead with 2:42 left. That set the stage for Eli Manning's historic drive & Plaxico Burress' game-winning TD reception.
It'd be a mistake, though, to not give the Giants' offensive & defensive lines a huge amount of credit. Frankly, they outplayed the Patriots' linemen all game long. Jason Tuck led the Giants' pressure against Tom Brady, harrassing him all night. In fact, the Giants sacked Tom Brady more tonight than any other game this season. Prior to tonight, the Patriots had given up 21 sacks in 16 regular season games.
Steve Spagnolo's defense kept Brady flustered & off-balance all night. Don't be surprised if this was the last game that Spagnolo coached for the Giants, either.
Better luck next time, Patriots.
Posted Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:14 PM
No comments.
I'm With Mitt
Yesterday, I announced on NARN's Final word that I'd caucus for Mitt Romney Tuesday night. I'll do everything in my power to encourage others to do the same.
It isn't a secret that I was a Fredhead from Day One. I said numerous times that he was the conservatives' gold standard. He had almost impeccable federalist credentials. I knew that he'd appoint strict constructionist judges. He had a strong record of voting for tax cuts and reforming entitlements.
I've also been critical of Mitt Romney, especially citing his flip-flops. One thing that I've always believed, though, was that he's an extremely intelligent man. Anyone with a history of accomplishments like he has must be intelligent. I've always thought, though, that he was reliably in the conservative camp on immigration, which isn't a minor thing.
It isn't a big admission that John McCain has been stronger on Iraq, That said, we're well on our way to victory in Iraq, nullifying McCain's biggest strength.
Another plus Romney has over McCain is in their decision-making process. Mitt Romney will pore over significant amounts of data before making a decision. Clearly, that isn't what John McCain does. In fact, it's mystifying to me how he can say that the debate is over on manmade global warming. The facts simply don't bear that out. As George Will said recently, when did anyone have to say that the debate is over on whether the earth is round? We know that because we've got irrefutable visual proof of that.
Other considerations factored into my decision: John McCain is a disaster on a whole host of important issues. He still hasn't let go of his Shamnesty bill. If he had, he wouldn't have hired Juan Hernandez to be his Hispanic outreach director. He still thinks of McCain-Feingold is constitutionally solid law event though a key portion of the bill was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
I suspect I wasn't alone in being uncomfortable in hearing McCain talk pejoratively that he served out of patriotism, not profit, as though profits are evil.
While the GOP candidates clearly didn't like Mitt, it's equally clear that Johhn McCain's smugness and not-so-straight-talk weren't winning people over.
Simply put, a President McCain has a couple strengths, numerous risks and little upside. A President Romney has numerous strengths, few risks and significant upside.
In the final analysis, that's what made the decision to support Mitt Romney a relatively straightforward choice.
PS- Remember that a vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrats' agenda.
Originally posted Sunday, February 3, 2008, revised 04-Feb 8:20 PM
No comments.
Serious Blogging Resumes Today
Blogging has been light the last 10 days. For that, I offer this simple explanation: I've been fighting a nasty sore throat & a chest cold. Today, though, I return to serious blogging. There's alot to accomplish; most importantly, we need to rally to Mitt Romney. Here in Minnesota, we also need to stop the "affordable health care" is a constitutional right crowd.
As I wrote here, that's the battle we can't afford to lose . Here's some of the most egregious misinformation from one of the single-payer advocacy groups:
Q: How much does this overhead add up to?Last week, I sent a copy of that factsheet to legislators, BPOU chairmen & women, & numerous bloggers. When I talked with King about the factsheet, he was forced to laughter over the part about Medicare's overhead being only 1-2 percent. He said that that's just one of the canards the universal health care lobbyists use. The way they get away with it is because they don't factor in the overhead of operating a hospital or health care clinic.
A: Up to 30 percent or more, which means that only 70 percent of every dollar spent for health insurance is available for actual health care. With a Single-Payer system, these costs could actually be used for health care. The savings amount to $630 billion per year, which is way more than enough to provide comprehensive health care for the 54 million uninsured and underinsured.
Q: Well, aren't these overhead costs just the cost of doing business?
A: No. Medicare's overhead is in the 1 to 2 percent range. This means that 98 cents on the dollar goes to health care.
Most importantly, conservatives need to jump aboard the Romney express if they object to granting amnesty to illegal immigrants or if you care about keeping taxes low and government spending under control.
Remember this: A vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrats' agenda.
Posted Monday, February 4, 2008 1:17 PM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty Irrelevant?
According to Senate Transportation Chairman Steve Murphy, Gov. Pawlenty isn't relevant in the transportation debate . He's about to find out that he couldn't be more wrong.
The Minnesota Legislature's upcoming battle over transportation spending could lack a key element of most Capitol funding decisions: negotiations with the governor.Steve Murphy is a blogger's dream because he's a quote machine. If Sen. Murphy thinks that Gov. Pawlenty is irrelevant, then he's about to get schooled on just how relevant a popular governor is this session.
After more than three years of failing to reach a deal on transportation funding with Gov. Tim Pawlenty and six months since the Minneapolis bridge collapse, top Democratic lawmakers say they'll take a different route this year.
The 2008 legislative session convenes Feb. 12, but Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party lawmakers already are working on a road, bridge and transit funding bill and plan to send it to the governor early in the session.
Pawlenty's role
Those ongoing discussions do not involve Republican Pawlenty.
"He's not really a factor," Senate Transportation Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said of Pawlenty. " He wants us to compromise to his position; that's not going to happen. We're going to pass a bill, the governor's going to veto it, and we're going to try to override it."
He's also about to find out just how unpopular tax increases are with taxpayers. If Sen. Murphy thinks that GOP activists will stay silent while he tries railroading a $1.5 billion a year tax increase, then he's a bigger idiot than I already thought. Here's what Tony Sertich said about their upcoming fight with Gov. Pawlenty:
Pawlenty's "hard stance has kind of taken him out of the debate," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm. "Since the beginning, he's been the roadblock, and he's consistently, I think, taken himself out of the negotiations , but if he's willing to enter back in, we're always willing to listen," he said.Notice that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Tony Sertich & Sen. Murphy. Notice that Gov. Pawlenty is willing to compomise a little but that Sen. Murphy is taking a 'my way or the highway' approach to unnecessarily increasing taxes.
McClung said: "We're willing to back off of our long-held position against any tax, and then we would expect them to reciprocate."
It won't be difficult for Minnesotans to notice that (a) Gov. Pawlenty is being reasonable & (b) the Democrats want to dramatically increase taxes. I'll be surprised if that won't make life difficult for DFL candidates & DFL freshmen running for re-election the first time.
A recent decision by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce to support a 7.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax hike also could change the dynamic at the Capitol this year. Previously, the influential business group backed only a nickel-per-gallon increase.This changes the dynamic but the DFL would be foolish to think that this gives them the ability to do whatever they want. FWIW, I fully expect them to misread the situation & to try passing their major tax increase.
State Chamber President David Olson said business leaders are frustrated with the transportation stalemate and funding advocates' "all-or-nothing approach." The chamber will wait to release its full plan until after the legislative session begins.
Posted Monday, February 4, 2008 4:32 PM
No comments.
Singlepayer Silently Goes Nationwide
In my post titled " The battle we can't afford to lose ", I cited a study done by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) on the viability of a single-payer healthcare system. Here's the 'study' that AMSA did for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:At the time, I ridiculed the study for saying that "the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development" and for saying "The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care." What they've just said is that the single-payer system would all but eliminate R & D spending and that they'd dramatically restrict profits for healthcare providers.
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
As alarming as that study is, AMSA is tied into something far more sinister and widespread than just single-payer. When I visited AMSA's website, I found a link to an article about an upcoming event being held in Brooklyn , NY. Here's the opening paragraph of that article:
On Feb. 23, from 2 to 4 p.m., the Weaving the Fabric of Diversity Committee of First Unitarian Church of Brooklyn will present "Crisis in Health Care," a forum open to the community. Health care is one of the hotly debated topics in the presidential race this year. At this forum, experts in the field will explain how health care is an ever-worsening crisis in New York and America, and lead a discussion of proposed solutions.One of the panelists at this forum is Nisha Agarwal. Here's what the article says about Ms. Agarwal's area of expertise:
Nisha Agarwal is a staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), a non-profit civil rights law firm that specializes in access to health care, environmental justice and disability rights. She will focus on improving access to health services for patients whose English is limited and who require interpreter services.This article essentially says that Ms. Agarwal will speak about improving access to healthcare to illegal immigrants. Simply put, that article says that AMSA thinks illegal immigrants should have access to taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. It isn't a stretch to think that GMHCC also shares that opinion.
She will also address the impact of hospital closures and mergers and how this has added to the disparity of health care available to New York City's poor and minority residents.
Here's something else that AMSA believes :
The most visible victims of America's decision to treat health care as a privilege are the 45 million Americans who lack insurance. In contrast to prevailing stereotypes, 80% of the uninsured are hardworking Americans who are employed or come from working families. However, they are unable to obtain insurance through their work either because their employer does not offer it, their employer does offer it but the employer share of the premium is too expensive, or they are not eligible for health insurance (e.g. they are part-time or have not worked long enough at the job).That's from a page titled "The Case for Universal Health Care." It's apparent that AMSA thinks like John Marty that " healthcare should be thought of as a community need ", not as a product that people should buy. I strongly recommend that everyone read the entire AMSA report. It's as informative as it is scary.
Based on the information contained in this post, AMSA and their allies have a simple agenda:
They want to implement a system that gives Mexicans more incentive to illegally enter the United States. They also will have to increase taxes to pay for the disastrous single-payer healthcare system currently employed by our neighbors to the north.
Isn't this motivation for attending tonight's precinct caucuses? If we stay home tonight to teach the Republican Party a lesson, won't we pay through our wallets for the next generation or more? Here's my simple admonition to you:
Get to the caucuses & tell AMSA and their allies that we won't tolerate their radical agenda.
Posted Tuesday, February 5, 2008 5:11 AM
No comments.
Pawlenty vs. DFL Legislature
Earlier this week, I said that Steve Murphy & Tony Sertich were foolish for saying that Gov. Pawlenty was irrelevant in the upcoming transportation debate . Aside from him being a highly skilled politician, Gov. Pawlenty is viewed far more favorably than the DFL legislature :
The poll of 917 Minnesotans found 55 percent approved of Governor Pawlenty's job performance, while 39 percent disapproved. The results also show the second-term Republican governor has admirers across the political spectrum. Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the Humphrey Institute, said Pawlenty is a popular leader.Here's how the DFL legislature is viewed:
"He's doing very well of course among Republicans with 84 percent supporting him. And also among independents," he said. "Even among Democrats, who you might think have a particular axe to grind with the governor, he's getting a 37 percent approval rating with the Democrats. And I think that's generally very goods news for the governor."
While poll respondents clearly approved of the governor's job performance, they reached a split decision on the DFL-controlled Minnesota Legislature. Forty-six percent approved of its performance compared to 44 percent who disapproved.Here's how Speaker Kelliher tried spinning this news:
Jacobs said chief executives are typically viewed more favorably than legislative bodies.
"Well, I think it's positive," said DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher. "It's looking like folks are generally happy with the job we're doing here in the Legislature."I'd instruct Ms. Kelliher that the DFL's approval rating will shrink again when Sen. Murphy re-introduces his $1.5 billion per year transportation tax increase. Last year's Transportation Bill brought Sen. Murphy onto my radar because of this quote:
Kelliher, who's preparing for the start of the 2008 session next week, said the approval rating for the Legislature is probably higher than it was last summer.
"That tells me that people are responding to the hard work that we're doing and we're going to keep doing it" she said. "That's the thing. It's going to be a fast paced session. There's going to be a lot to do. And it's going to be very much focused on these core and basic issues to Minnesotans."
"I'm not trying to fool anybody,"~ said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."~When people find out that Gov. Pawlenty is offering a moderate-sized gas tax increase & that the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's plan resembles Gov. Pawlenty's plan more than the DFL plan, people will turn against the DFL's plan of raising lots of taxes. I haven't seen any polling on this but I'm betting that there isn't that big of an appetite for raising taxes to pay for additional transit funding at this time.
I think it'll be difficult for freshmen DFL legislators to vote for a big tax increase heading into their first re-election, too. If these legislators sitting in borrowed seats vote for a big tax increase, they're essentially voting for their defeat.
The bottom line is that Gov. Pawlenty has a higher JA rating than the DFL legislature because he's pushing a more appealing agenda and because he's a superior politician. That dynamic isn't likely to change anytime soon.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 6, 2008, revised 11-Feb 2:53 PM
No comments.
Happy Birthday, Mr. President
With today being Ronald Reagan's birthday, I thought it would be a perfect time to remind people of his wisdom and the principles that drove his policies.
The Great Communicator's wisdom was uncanny. He had a habit of standing conventional wisdom on its head. He was able to do this because he'd thought the issues through to such an extent that he was the expert, at least on the strategic level. Reagan then picked people that were skilled tacticians to deal with the day-to-day things.
King at SCSUScholars and I are teaching MOBsters the value of Reagan's saying that "Your 80 percent friend is not your 20 percent enemy." The wisdom behind it is that Reagan's conservatism was principled, not dogmatic. He knew how to get people to his side of an issue.
I'll always remember another thing Reagan said during his farewell speech on January 11, 1989:
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.AMEN TO THAT, MR. PRESIDENT!!!
I can't think of a better time to ask the readers if they'd rather have freedom or regulation. I can't think of a better time to ask readers if they'd 'We The People' telling the government what to do or if they'd rather have an insulated bureaucrat telling them what to do. I can't think of a better time to ask readers if they shouldn't demand that all our leaders consistently preach Reagan's Gospel of liberty, which he rightly states came from the Constitution.
Here's another passage that typified Reagan's thinking:
And in all of that time I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation , from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.A hallmark of Reagan's speeches was that, while he would take credit for crafting the policies, he gave We The People all the credit for the achievements. As George Will wrote about Reagan right before he left office, Reagan had an uncanny knack of knowing when to give America a grandfatherly pat on the back to reassure people that they were on the right track.
Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology.
Let's also dispel some of the negative myths about Reagan. Democrats at the time often called him an "amiable dunce." That didn't deter Reagan from keep doing what he'd set out to do. It also didn't prevent him from working in a principled way with Tip O'Neill to get things done.
The truth is that Reagan was years ahead of the Washington crowd . He honed his skills giving speeches for decades. He knew policy cold. As he demonstrated in his Farewell Speech, liberty and prosperity was the driving force behind his every policy decision. Washington insiders don't think that way. Their mindset is focused on how they can control people's lives.
Reagan sought to deregulate as much as possible. Contrast that with McCain-Feingold, which inhibits the free speech abilities of We The People . Contrast that with how Hillary and likeminded liberals want to take control of the healthcare industry. Bureaucrats by nature are control freaks. Reaganite conservatives by nature think in terms of keeping Americans as free as possible.
Here's what happened as the result of Reagan's wisdom and policymaking:
Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.This isn't meant as a way of saying 'we've done great things, now it's time to rest on our achievements'. Quite the contrary. Freedom and prosperity are one decision, one policy away from inhibiting shackles and shrinking prosperity. Congressional control freaks won't stop thinking of ways to inhibit We The People. It's logical, then, that We The People push back against the inhibitors.
Finally, it's important that Republicans and seeking independents understand that there's a strong libertarian, federalist streak in Reagan's conservatism. Reagan, like Barry Goldwater before him, wanted the government closest to the people to make the most decisions because that's when government is most accountable. When government is scrutinized closely, wasteful government spending shrinks dramatically. That, in turn, helps us stay as free as possible.
Twenty years after Reagan's leaving office, his governing principles are as sound today as they were then. That's because they're grounded in eternal truths.
Isn't it time that the GOP returned to the Reaganite formula of shrinking tax burdens and expanding liberty?
Posted Wednesday, February 6, 2008 1:29 PM
No comments.
