February 15-17, 2008
Feb 15 03:23 What Took Them So Long? Feb 15 11:01 President Bush Lambasts Irresponsible Democrats Feb 15 11:54 Senator Coleman Responds Feb 15 16:50 What's a Jobkiller? Feb 16 02:22 A Bump In The Road? Feb 16 02:57 Who's The Taxpayer's Watchdog? Feb 17 00:06 What Bipartisan Transportation Bill? Feb 17 15:19 Let the Horsewhipping Begin
Prior Months: Jan
What Took Them So Long?
Peter Wehner has an op-ed in the WSJ that talks about what John McCain needs to do to win in November. Here's one of the points in his 5-point plan:
Third, turn Mr. Obama's strength into a weakness. Right now Mr. Obama is presenting himself as a figure who floats above politics. His allure is based on inspiring but vague calls for hope and unity. This airy appeal can and needs to be firmly strapped down to the policies Mr. Obama would put in place. This requires defining Mr. Obama's invocation of "change" for what it is: orthodox liberalism.In my discussions with other conservatives, I've maintained that 'The Fours' are a great lesson for running winning campaigns. When I talk about 'The Fours', I'm referring specifically to 1984, 1994 and 2004. What 'The Fours' had in common is that each of those campaigns were highly idealistic.
Mr. McCain, meanwhile, can be the man of substance, specific policies and reform. Presenting himself as that man, however, won't be easy. In the past, Mr. McCain has shown a lack of interest in economic and domestic issues. But it is essential now for his success. His policies need to be creative, aimed at everyday concerns, and show intellectual rigor. Remember that among the GOP's greatest electoral successes in recent decades (Ronald Reagan's election as president in 1980 and the Republican capture of Congress in 1994) were based on philosophical contrasts. Pale pastel campaigns (George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996) are a road to defeat.
When Reagan ran for re-election, he laid out a vision of America as the "shining city on a hill." He re-iterated his ideals, saying that the Soviet Union had to be defeated, that taxes had to be kept low and that America had to stay strong economically and militarily.
In 1994, Newt put together the Contract With America with the help of Frank Luntz. It was a visionary statement filled with long-needed reforms. Its value was in defining who they'd be if given the majority. That bunch pushed through a ton of reforms that are still in place to this day.
Likewise, George Bush's re-election strategy in 2004 was brilliant in that he talked about going after the terrorists, confirming strict constructionist judges and keeping taxes low. It gave conservatives a reason to work hard for him.
That's the opposite of the 'Dole Model', which was based solely on his honor and integrity and little in terms of a Dole agenda.
The biggest thing that John McCain needs is a forward-looking agenda to rally around. Part of that agenda is his strategy to kill the terrorists. People still want to know that the next Commander-in-Chief will protect them from future terrorist attacks.
Another part of a McCain agenda should be a combination of killing earmark-laden bills and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. People love tax cuts but they don't like irresponsible spending of their taxes.
President Bush achieved his highest ratings when he was at his idealistic best. Let's translate that to 2008. Campaigns must be about the future. They can't be about the past. If McCain's campaign pitch is solely focused on being the guy who pushed for the surge, he won't be the next president.
The best thing he could do is announce that he wouldn't sign an immigration bill if it didn't include tough sanctions on companies who knowingly hire illegal immigrants or if there wasn't sufficient funding for building the border fence and beefing up the border patrol.
If McCain lays out a reform-minded agenda based on low taxes, tight fiscal policy and a principled, muscular national security policy, he'll go a long ways towards winning the White House.
Posted Friday, February 15, 2008 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by Steve Ross at 15-Feb-08 02:49 PM
Obama doesn't salute the flag of our country nor any of the armed forces that protect his muslim ass so why all the fuss about this guy who hides the fact that he is a MUSLIM Just put it out there. How about the radical things he did in Chicago when he forced workers to join his union or there wuld be trouble. It's funny how this campaign of his is all sugar coated. He or his people don't want thigetting out. The press will bother Britany or Paris but GOD FORBID they get a hold of this
President Bush Lambasts Irresponsible Democrats
Yesterday, President Bush tried getting Ms. Pelosi and her minions to pass the FISA reform bill. Instead of taking their responsibility seriously, they left for vacation. Here's President Bush's statement :
Good afternoon. This Saturday at midnight, legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised. It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.Before leaving, he took this question:
Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They've had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.
Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.
Now it's the House's turn to act. It is clear that the Senate bill would pass the House with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can put partisanship aside, and pass a good bill. There's no reason why the House cannot do the same, and pass the Senate bill immediately.
Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail, and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill.
I am scheduled to leave tomorrow for a long-planned trip to five African nations. Moments ago, my staff informed the House leadership that I'm prepared to delay my departure, and stay in Washington with them, if it will help them complete their work on this critical bill.
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications. Our intelligence professionals are working day and night to keep us safe, and they're waiting to see whether Congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or tie their hands by failing to act. The American people are watching this debate, as well. They expect Congress to meet its responsibilities before they leave town on a recess.
Q Mr. President, I realize this is a sensitive matter, but I'm wondering if there's a way you can spell out for the American public what the practical impact may be, if this law expires, on our intelligence professionals, say, next week.Yes, Democrats are playing politics with this bill. If there's another terrorist attack that could've been prevented by passing this bill, that blood will be on Ms. Pelosi's and House Democrats' hands. PERIOD. The House had over six months to put together a clean bill. Instead, as I posted yesterday , idiots like John Conyers were making foolish statements like this:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope it doesn't. But clearly, there will be a gap. And of course, we won't be able to assess that gap until the time. Step one is, I guess you got to come to the conclusion that there's a threat to America, or not a threat. And evidently some people just don't feel that sense of urgency. I do. And the reason I do is I firmly believe that there's still people out there who would do us harm.
Secondly, I know that the tools that I've just described are necessary to protect us. Why? Because we need to know what people are saying, what they're planning and what they're thinking. And the tool that I have just described has been very effective.
Thirdly, people are wondering why companies need liability protection. Well, if you cooperate with the government and then get sued for billions of dollars because of the cooperation, you're less likely to cooperate. And obviously we're going to need people working with us to find out what the enemy is saying and thinking and plotting and planning.
And so it's a -- to me it's a -- I guess one way to look at it is, some may not feel that same sense of urgency I do. I heard somebody say, well, this is just pure politics. No, this is what is necessary to protect the American people from harm. And I recognize there hasn't been an attack on our country, but that does not mean that there's not still an enemy that lurks, plans and plots.
And one of the reasons we've been effective is because we put new tools in place that give our professionals that which is necessary to protect us. This is a different kind of threat than we've ever faced before, it's a different kind of war that we're fighting, and it requires a different approach.
Again, I'll repeat to you that the Congress took a look at this issue and decided that the tools were necessary to give to our professionals last -- late last summer. And if it was necessary late last summer, why is it not necessary today? What has changed? Well, the threat hasn't gone away. It's still there, it's still real, and we better be worried about it as a nation. And the House has now got time to go out and get the deal done.
Yesterday, a couple of days, votes ago in the Senate made it abundantly clear that Republicans and Democrats can come together and put a good piece of legislation together and get it passed. And the House leadership has an opportunity to do that now.
House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said lawmakers should not be "stampeded" into approving permanent legislation now, saying more time is required to examine documents among other things.Stampeded??? Let's get serious. Representatives have had months to "examine documents." Instead, they did nothing to close the gap that was created by a FISA appellate court ruling. As a result, intelligence officials will be faced with this scenario :
Mr. McConnell, lead negotiator for the administration in lobbying for the bill, said in an interview that the court's restrictions had made his job much more difficult.House Democrats weren't the only people causing problems. Hillary and Obama couldn't be bothered to vote for the bill that passed the Senate yesterday, though Obama voted for several amendments to the bill that would've weakened our intel-gathering capabilities.
"It was crazy, because I'm sitting here signing out warrants on known Al Qaeda operatives that are killing Americans, doing foreign communications," he said. "And the only reason I'm signing that warrant is because it touches the U.S. communications infrastructure. That's what we fixed."
This is a wake-up call to all the apathetic conservatives who are considering staying home in November. Staying home in 2006 to "teach them a lesson" put Ms. Pelosi in a position of power to let the Protect America Act lapse. I hope you won't have to live with the guilt of not having done everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks.
Posted Friday, February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
No comments.
Senator Coleman Responds
About a month ago, I sent an email to Sen. Coleman concerning the Iraq War. This week, Sen. Coleman took the time to send me this email explaining his thoughts on what's been accomplished this past year & what still needs to be accomplished. Here is Sen. Coleman's email in its entirety:
Dear Mr. Gross:Sen. Coleman made several points worth highlighting. I took special note, as did Sen. Coleman, of the soldier from Prior Lake when this soldier said that "Everybody thinks I fight all day over here. But I help kids, I build roads, I spend time with Iraqis. I'm more of a social worker or construction manager than anything."
Given your interest in Iraq, I thought I would take this opportunity to share with you my observations about the latest developments in that country and the region.
I recently returned from my fifth visit to Iraq. As always, I was deeply impressed with the incredible sacrifices Minnesotans in uniform are making there every day. They should make us all very proud.
While in Iraq from January 4-6, I participated in wide ranging discussions with military commanders, diplomats, and senior Iraqi political officials concerning the role of the U.S. in Iraq and the necessary steps the Iraqi government must take toward reconciliation. We have a lot of important decisions to make in the next six months about our military presence in Iraq. General Petraeus has already said that we could reduce our troop presence to pre-surge troop levels by early summer, and we need to look at the longer term as we get close to that time period.
The main message I took away from my time in Iraq is that tangible progress was made during 2007. Violence and casualties are decreasing. The Iraqi government, along with Iraqi citizens, are taking more responsibility for their future and hope is returning to the shattered country.
I also spoke with a number of Minnesotans during my visit. One of them, a soldier from Prior Lake, said something that really stayed with me. He said, "Everybody thinks I fight all day over here. But I help kids, I build roads, I spend time with Iraqis. I'm more of a social worker or construction manager than anything." A year or two ago, it would have been hard to imagine a soldier in Iraq describing his day to day operations as "social work" instead of combat.
2007 ended with hope in a country that hasn't had it in a long time and I believe 2008 can and should end with the U.S. military moving toward a secondary, "overwatch" role. The security gains we have made as a result of the surge have laid the groundwork for Iraqis to step into the leadership role required of them. We need to continue to push them in that direction as we move off the front lines and into supporting responsibilities.
Of course, we are still confronted by many great challenges in Iraq. The message I delivered to the top Iraqi leaders I met with was that America has opened a door of opportunity that Iraq must walk through - and they need to do so with a sense of urgency. I told them our willingness to fight al Qaeda will never weaken, but that our willingness to serve as referees between warring sectarian factions has come to an end. I firmly believe that the U.S. needs to continue to hold Iraqi political leaders accountable to specific benchmarks for success towards political reconciliation.
I continue to believe that decisions about troop levels must be made based on input from our commanders on the ground and our troops in the field. But I also believe that Americans need to be assured that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that our current level of commitment in Iraq is not permanent. An important policy area I discussed on this trip was a long term agreement between our two countries on the status of our presence there. President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki agreed in November to work out a bilateral agreement on our forces in Iraq by July of 2008. This will be an extremely important agreement that will determine our force structure for years to come. As a U.S. Senator, I expect to be fully consulted and fully engaged as we move forward with a new agreement on U.S. forces in Iraq.
I am convinced that the United States will have a long term presence in the region - a fact recognized by people on both sides of the aisle. But this is not a struggle we can complete on our own. It will require the commitment of Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations to a constructive future for this fledgling government and its people. To accomplish our long term goals, we need a surge in diplomacy in Iraq and in the region. We must work with Sunni Arab nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates which have an important role to play in the fight against Al Qaeda.
What is clear is that we need to provide our troops on the ground with the resources they need to defend themselves. It is unfortunate that some insist on conditioning critical funding for our forces on arbitrary withdrawal timelines that would handcuff our generals and embolden our enemies. While I agree we need to continue to pressure the Iraqi government to move toward reconciliation, we also need to provide our military leaders with the tools they need to implement this strategy.
At the end of the day, the most striking thing about a visit to Iraq is the courage, skill, and patriotism of our soldiers. I call on all Minnesotans to rededicate ourselves to supporting them and their families before, during, and after their deployments.
Again, thank you for your interest in this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate
That certainly isn't the type we read about last year. Stories of this nature are being printed more frequently but it still isn't happening with great frequency.
I also took note of this:
2008 can and should end with the U.S. military moving toward a secondary, "overwatch" role. The security gains we have made as a result of the surge have laid the groundwork for Iraqis to step into the leadership role required of them.For all the Democrats' talk about the things that haven't happened, there sure is alot of things that have happened that need to be highlighted. This is one of those things that must be highlighted so that Minnesotans can make informed decisions.
Finally, this is the thing that needs to be highlighted the most:
It is unfortunate that some insist on conditioning critical funding for our forces on arbitrary withdrawal timelines that would handcuff our generals and embolden our enemies. While I agree we need to continue to pressure the Iraqi government to move toward reconciliation, we also need to provide our military leaders with the tools they need to implement this strategy.I'll work hard to get Sen. Coleman re-elected because he believes in victory in Iraq. His political opponents don't.
I'd like to thank Sen. Coleman for typing this out himself rather than delegating the responsibility to one of his able assistants.
Posted Friday, February 15, 2008 11:56 AM
No comments.
What's a Jobkiller?
Disgraced blogger Noah Kunin's article in the Daily Planet says that Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen is harmful to Minnesota's economy. Here's how Mr. Kunin opens the article:
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty waved his veto pen like a sword at his State of the State address, but the labor community sees that sword as cutting jobs, not cutting taxes.Why does the executive director of AFSCME Council 5 Eliot Seide think that think that preventing wasteful government spending is a jobkiller? Why shouldn't the money be left in the hands of private citizens & small businesses? I'd further ask if the public sector has a more consistent record of job creation than the private sector.
"The Governor's veto pen is a job killer." said one AFSCME member after listening to Pawlenty's threat to veto proposed legislation that would invest tax dollars in transportation.
"I was looking for,something that would help our members to afford to move ahead instead of back with paychecks and take home (pay)." said [Carol Nieters] a representative of the SEIU noting that paychecks for teachers in the central part of Minnesota have gone down while health care costs have gone up.
Here's portions of Speaker Kelliher's comments after Gov. Pawlenty's address:
- "We're ready to pass a Capital Investment & Jobs Bill so that we can start breaking ground on public projects all around the state."
- "We need to make sure that our roads & bridges are safe & that Minnesota can start moving again. We won't allow more bridges to fall down."
- "Kids & families also must be guaranteed that they can get affordable, portable health care. No one should have to worry that if a loved one is sick, that their financial security is at risk.
- "Illness is now the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. We need to change that & we can do that by working in a bipartisan way to make more high quality health care a reality in Minnesota today."
- "I think the Governor's speech was long on inspiration but short on substance."
"We were hoping that the Governor would say something about producing jobs & dealing with the recession that we're in & dealing with the deficit we're in & by talking about investing in services that will create a better economy for all Minnesotans. We were very disappointed that all it had were empty slogans. The Governor's veto pen is a job killer & that's not good for any Minnesotan."The transportation bill isn't a bipartisan bill by the wildest stretch of the imagination. Mr. Seide is right that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it twice. The fact that the legislature didn't override his veto either time says that it was supported only by the DFL. Had there been true bipartisan support for the transportation bill, Gov. Pawlenty's veto wouldn't have been sustained.
"The transportation bill...has been passed on a bipartisan basis twice. The Governor talked about that. He's gotten a bipartisan bill twice. He's vetoed it twice & the way that the Governor sets up transportation, it creates more burden on the property tax. The Governor wants a fair transportation bill. He's gotten one twice, he's about to get one again. He needs to sign the bill."
Consider the fact that the DFL only needed 5 GOP votes in the House to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. They didn't get those 5 votes either time. (Wouldn't it be interesting to hear Mr. Seide's definition of bipartisan support?)
Here's SEIU Council 5's official statement :
"Governor Pawlenty's veto pen is a job killer. Chronic disinvestment has created an economy that doesn't work," said Eliot Seide, director of AFSCME Council 5, a union of 43,000 workers in Minnesota.I'm not surprised at these statements. Nonetheless, it's stunning to notice that these statements' don't talk about the private sector economy whatsoever. If you only listened to Mr. Seide & Ms. Nieters, you'd never know that a private sector economy existed.
"Tax equity can raise the revenue to revive our economy. Let's get the wealthiest Minnesotans, who earn over $400,000, to pay their fair share of taxes. Let's close tax loopholes for corporations that ship our jobs overseas. Then, let's invest that revenue in transportation, education and health care ; the things that create jobs and sustain our quality of life."
I'd further challenge Mr. Seide's contention that public investment in "transportation, education and health care" are the things that create jobs or "sustain our quality of life." In fact, I'd suggest that they take money out of taxpayers' & entrepreneurs' pockets, thereby creating a drag on Minnesota's economy.
The more I read the DFL's, & their political allies', talking points, the more I realize that they view the private sector as a necessary evil to pay for public works projects.
It isn't difficult to recognize that the excessive tax burden that's the true jobkiller, not Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen.
Posted Friday, February 15, 2008 6:18 PM
No comments.
A Bump In The Road?
Brian McClung, Gov. Pawlenty's spokesman, is predicting a bumpy road ahead for DFLers who are thinking about voting for the latest major DFL tax increase. Sen. Dave Senjem is thinking the same thing.
A collision between the two parties might be unavoidable. GOP Senate Minority Leader Dave Senjem of Rochester said Democratic leaders have signaled a plan to introduce essentially the same transportation funding bill Pawlenty vetoed last time around.Mr. McClung is asking the right question. I've said before that it's time that Gov. Pawlenty & GOP legislators started pointing out all the tax increases that DFL legislators are voting for. I think it's also worthwhile to ask how the taxpayer's money is benefiting them.
"I'll be curious about which legislator, especially in the House of Representatives, when they're up for re-election in about nine months, if they're going to raise their hands and put the jumper cables to the wallets of Minnesotans and give them a big shock," McClung said.
I've coined a phrase that I'm using anytime I'm talking about the DFL's transportation strategy. I'm calling it the 'My way or no highways ' approach to fixing Minnesota's roads & bridges. As long as there's a CPI adjustment provision in the transportation bill, there's zero chance of Gov. Pawlenty signing it. As long as there's a CPI adjustment provision in the transportation bill, there's zero chance that the House GOP team won't sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
Here's Dan Severson's take on the bill:
Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, said he hasn't been approached on that level, but he didn't seem happy with the way the bill left the House Transportation Finance Division he serves on this week.As I've said before , the thought of automatic tax increases without voting for them disgusts me. If the DFL wants to raise taxes, they should be forced to defend those increases each time they face the voters. Here's the part that should raise the taxpayers' red flags:
Key Republican amendments that went unheeded would have reduced the amount of gas tax revenue that could go to bike trails by $91 million and required voter-approved referenda if counties outside the Twin Cities metro area want to join in on the transit sales tax increase, instead of allowing county boards to make the call.
Severson also said indexing the gas tax will have to go if there's any hope of drawing Republican support to the bill.
"Sometimes, we just need a jump-start," said DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher. "We are ready to put Minnesotans back to work."It doesn't sound like Speaker Kelliher is confident that any jobs will be created with their plan. As I said earlier in this post, taxpayers should be demanding what their taxes are buying them. They have a right to know if their money is being wasted or being used efficiently.
Anderson-Kelliher couldn't say how many jobs the combined bills would produce, but said she hopes it at least would make up for the 23,000 jobs the state lost in the last several months. The state needs to do its part to kick-start a construction industry where scores of workers risk losing their jobs because of a "dried up" housing and condo market, she said.
Based on Speaker Kelliher's evasive answer, I'd say that taxpayers shouldn protest their money being spent on the DFL's wish & a prayer plan.
Pawlenty's priorities also differ with Democrats on the makeup of the public works bill, which authorizes selling bonds for major construction projects. The governor's legislation commits a record 40 percent of the funding to transportation infrastructure projects. But in the process, it squeezes out funding for local projects like those favored in Rochester. Going into the session, Rochester leaders hoped to secure partial state funding for its $70 million renovation of Mayo Civic Center.
Which Minnesotan doesn't think that fixing the roads rates as a higher priority than other items on the bonding bill? I'm not saying that renovating the Mayo Civic Center shouldn't be funded. Frankly, I don't know if it's a worthwhile expenditure. I'll leave that to the legislators & Gov. Pawlenty. All I'm saying is that bonding bills shouldn't be treated like a rich kid's Christmas wish list.
That money should be spent with caution, too.
Posted Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:22 AM
No comments.
Who's The Taxpayer's Watchdog?
My friend Eric at Liberal in the Land of Conservatives posted something about Friday morning's editorial about Michele Bachmann & her use of the franking privilege. In his post, Eric questioned King's interview of Karen Cyson, who wrote an editorial about Rep. Bachmann's use of her franking privilege. I need to respond to this part of Eric's post:
Yes, Mr. Banaian, Bachmann and other representatives in Congress have a budget for this kind of material and have every right to use that budget. Unfortunately, you are mistaken in saying that this money is going to be spent anyway. There happens to be a representative to the south of us who graciously returned upwards of $100,000 in unused office funds back to the U.S. Treasury to help pay down the burgeoning debt (it's not much, but it seems to be $100,000 more than Michele Bachmann has returned). Perhaps, Mr. Banaian, if Michele Bachmann spent a little less money sending out glossy mailers and more time working for the people of the district, then she too would have some extra office funds to send back to the U.S. Treasury.With all due respect to Eric, let's talk about who's the bigger porkmeister. According to the Club For Growth's Repork Card , that "representative to the south of us" who returned a fistful of money also voted against all 50 anti-pork amendments offered this year. By comparison, Rep. Bachmann voted for 48 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. Those anti-pork amendments would've eliminated billions of dollars of federal spending.
Based on the math, it isn't difficult to see which of these legislators is the taxpayer's friend & which one isn't.
Posted Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:41 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 16-Feb-08 11:34 AM
The problem is, Gary,that you are avoiding discussion of the issue at hand. Michele Bachmann's use of the franking privilege. Really the only thing this proves is that Bachmann refuses to use or advocate for money that may benefit her district and its constituents while spending wildly on personal items that inevitably benefit only herself.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-08 02:34 PM
The problem is, Gary,that you are avoiding discussion of the issue at hand. Michele Bachmann's use of the franking privilege.
I'm not avoiding it as much as I'm ignoring it. Franking is a good thing, not bad. If you think that there should be tighter limits on franking, then you need to make the case for smaller franking budgets, which I'm ok with.
The point I was making was that Walz sent $100K back instead of sending out the mailings but then voted to waste money on tons of earmarks.
Furthermore, earmarks aren't a good thing. They're nothing more than re-election slush funds. In the case of Jack Murtha, they're a corruption machine.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 16-Feb-08 05:23 PM
The pieces Michele Bachmann sent out using the franking privilege were all campaign pieces. None were the useful type of mailers that the Franking Privilege is for. The reason for this is Michele Bachmann is a Do-Nothing congresswoman, doesn't have substantive news to report.
Bachmann has a pattern of feeding at the public trough when it suits her. Remember when she charged the taxpayers for her cable tv bills?
The earmark issue is a separate issue - and I agree with the Muse, you are changing the subject to avoid the issue.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-08 09:02 PM
The pieces Michele Bachmann sent out using the franking privilege were all campaign pieces. None were the useful type of mailers that the Franking Privilege is for. The reason for this is Michele Bachmann is a Do-Nothing congresswoman, doesn't have substantive news to report.Eva, Get a life. I've yet to see a franked mailing that didn't have a campaign purpose. I know that you're smart enough to know that.
Your feelings against Michele are well-documented. Saying that she's a do-nothing congresswoman is a feeble attempt to hide your one issue hatred of Michele. It's further proof of your hateful anti-Bachmann agenda.
You're certainly quoted alot but you certainly don't say much.
As for not addressing Eric's point on point, there's a reason for that. It isn't worth addressing. If people are upset with congress using their franking privilege for campaign purposes, then they should be downright outraged with earmarks, which are nothing more than taxpayer-financed re-election slush funds.
What Bipartisan Transportation Bill?
Yesterday, I posted some comments from Eliot Seide's response to Gov. Pawlenty's State of the State address in which he talked about Gov. Pawlenty twice vetoing a transportation bill that had bipartisan support. I've also posted Doug Magnus's editorial in the Worthington Daily Globe in which he takes Speaker Kelliher to task for not working on the transportation bill on a bipartisan basis. Here's part of Mr. Seide's statement:
"The transportation bill,has been passed on a bipartisan basis twice. The Governor talked about that. He's gotten a bipartisan bill twice. He's vetoed it twice & the way that the Governor sets up transportation, it creates more burden on the property tax. The Governor wants a fair transportation bill. He's gotten one twice, he's about to get one again. He needs to sign the bill."Here's the key portion of Rep. Magnus' editorial:
Kelliher doesn't want the Legislature's Transportation Contingency Appropriations Group (TCAG), an eight-member group she co-chairs, to authorize MnDOT to spend nearly $200 million in federal funds that was sent from Congress following the I-35W bridge collapse. This is after she reneged on a December agreement saying she would call a January meeting to review MnDOT's financial status.Now I find this in the Bemidji Pioneer :
We're now in February, and MnDOT's still waiting for the authorization to spend $200 million of additional federal transportation funds. That means $55 million in construction projects across the state will soon be delayed.
Kelliher says decisions by an eight-member committee of lawmakers should be reserved for emergencies.
The $200 million that arrived from Congress comes from a fund called the "Emergency Relief Program." Don't you think a funding decision regarding the collapse of a bridge carrying 141,000 vehicles a day qualifies as an emergency?
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said some House members are looking to make at least one change in the measure. As written, it calls for the gasoline tax to rise with inflation, but some lawmakers want that provision removed.Here's the other thing from Rep. Magnus' editorial that we shouldn't ignore:
Kelliher, House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, and Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said that if GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoes the measure, as expected, lawmakers will not see another transportation funding bill this legislative session.
However, Kelliher said that if the House sustains a Pawlenty veto, there may be an attempt to override it a second time.
The Speaker mentions a transportation bill is coming. Where is it?It's apparent that the DFL doesn't want a transportation bill, that they'd rather campaign on the issue this year. Frankly, Republicans should purchase big megaphones for the DFL because a transportation tax increase isn't the type of issue that the DFL should want to run on.
I'm the Republican Lead on the House Transportation Finance Division and I haven't seen or been asked to offer suggestions on how to make this year's bill better , or more likely to be signed into law.
I'd welcome the opportunity to negotiate and put together a transportation bill that truly is good for all of Minnesota. I previously authored a comprehensive transportation funding bill that was supported by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. That project specific bill included funding for Highway 60. Kelliher seems to know about Highway 60 issues; I'd be interested to see if her secret, no-negotiations-necessary bill addresses this need.
Posted Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:06 AM
No comments.
Let the Horsewhipping Begin
Nancy Pelosi's Democrats left Washington, DC for their district's comforts without passing the FISA reform bill. In fact, they didn't even debate the Senate bill that passed with 68 votes two days earlier. Pelosi's collection of irresponsible legislators should be tarred and feathered in their hometown and national press every day that they aren't in session. Investors' Business Daily has started that tar and feathering with this editorial. Here's the key paragraph:
Congress has had nearly seven months to renew and update this vital law. Yet just look at what the House of Reprehensibles was wasting its time with last week, when it should have been working night and day on FISA.They didn't stop there:
The Senate-passed bill that Pelosi and House Democrats consider less important than wedding receptions and steroids abuse got a bipartisan majority of 68 votes in the Senate last week. Much of it was written by a liberal Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.Pelosi's bunch care more about collecting campaign contributions from their nutroots crazies than they care about preventing the next terrorist attack. (I'm not saying that they don't care whatsoever about national security. I'm simply saying that, with their actions, they've just put the crazies' campaign contributions as their higher priority.)
The bill gives U.S. intelligence agencies "the tools they need to track down terrorists," as Rockefeller noted. It also provides retroactive immunity to telecom carriers being sued for assisting in the terrorist surveillance program.
Firms such as AT&T (NYSE:SBT) (NYSE:T) , Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) and Verizon (NYSE:VZC) (NYSE:VZ) face lengthy litigation, and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, spearheaded by the ACLU all because they helped save lives
As Rockefeller, a foe of most of the president's policies in the global war on terror, pointed out, "The companies believed their cooperation was necessary, legal and would help stop future terrorist attacks."
Ms. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership will attempt to spin this but the American people have just witnessed with their own eyes Pelosi's Democrats walk away from solving an important problem. Rest assured that that will become a campaign issue, if not the major campaign issue this fall.
You can rest assured that the freshmen Democrats that got elected in swing districts will take alot of heat for sitting on their hands. Freshmen Democratic senators stepped out on several issues. Why aren't freshmen Democratic representatives stepping out and taking the initiative on this? Here in Minnesota, we should be asking why Tim Walz did nothing while the Protect America Act expired. Ditto with CAIR's congressman Keith Ellison. They should be asked if they just didn't care about national security or if they sat silent to be obedient to Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers respectively. As such, we're left with no other option than to conclude that they're lapdogs for their superiors.
If they were bipartisan leaders, they would've reached out to Republicans to force a vote on the Senate bill passed last week. They didn't. Frankly, I didn't expect much from either of these gents. I knew that it was all posturing when Walz said that he'd be "an independent voice for Minnesota." Since getting elected, he's voted the way Nancy Pelosi has wanted him to. That isn't to imply that she's had to order him to vote that way. I think it's played out that way because he's far more liberal than the image that he's tried to craft.
Elsewhere, Republicans should be stepping up the pressure on Joe Donnelley, Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill of Indiana, Nancy Boyda in Kansas, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, Jason Altmire and Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania why they didn't take constructive steps in protecting us. If they aren't going to take national security issues seriously, then that needs to be repeatedly pointed out.
I'd specifically recommend that we push these representatives on the issue of immunity for the telecoms. If A T & T, Verizon and other telecoms have to worry about getting sued for diing their part in preventing terrorist attacks, they'll stop cooperating with the NSA. At that point, our intelligence gathering will become much more difficult and less productive.
Any representative that doesn't take their most important responsibility seriously shouldn't be part of the 111th Congress in 2009. We're in a fight with a determined enemy. To do anything less than our best isn't acceptable.
Posted Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:38 PM
No comments.
