February 18-19, 2008
Feb 18 03:35 Franking vs. Earmarks Feb 18 10:40 Taking the Gas Tax Debate to a New Level Feb 18 15:06 What a Crock Feb 18 18:23 Transportation Bill on Fast Track??? Feb 19 04:03 DFL Healthcare Reform Feb 19 11:58 Time for a Little Offensive Feb 19 16:34 Telltale Sign?
Prior Months: Jan
Franking vs. Earmarks
After Eric at Liberal in the Land of Conservatives talked about Michele Bachmann's use of the franking privilege, I offered a contrary view of things by talking about earmarks, not franking. That's ruffled some feathers, including chronic anti-Michele demagogue Eva Young accusing me of dodging Eric's statements by switching to another topic. Let me explain why this isn't dodging.
When senators & representatives send things out with their franking privilege, it's always meant to cast them in a positive light. That's a definite benefit of incumbency in winning re-election. That's just reality. Anyone that thinks that that isn't happening is naive. With that out of the way, let's get into why I didn't answer Eric on point.
I didn't answer on point because using the franking privilege won't have the corrupting influence that earmarks already have. When Eric talked about how virtuous it was that Tim Walz returned $100,000 in unused earmarking funds, I simply pointed out that 'Virtuous Tim Walz' voted to waste billions of dollars of the taxpayer's money by not voting to eliminate thousands of earmarks.
Those earmarks are a corruptive force. John Murtha is the poster child of the corruptive influence they have.
The bottom line is this: If Eric wants to portray Tim Walz as virtuous for returning $100,000, that's fine. All I'm saying is that it's only right that I point out how Rep. Walz voted to keep billions of dollars worth of earmarks in the budget. In fact, Rep. Walz hasn't voted for any anti-earmark amendments since taking office.
That gives the impression that he doesn't take fiscal conservatism seriously. It also might suggest that he's corruptible. I'm not accusing him of being corrupt, just that he's able to be corrupted.
Bottom line is this: I don't get upset with a politician using their franking privilege for political benefit. That doesn't cause them to be indebted to unreasonable special interest groups. I do get upset, though, with politicians that don't stand up to the corruptive influences of earmarks.
Posted Monday, February 18, 2008 3:35 AM
No comments.
Taking the Gas Tax Debate to a New Level
The Minnesota legislature is about to take up a "comprehensive transportation bill" which naturally includes billions of dollars in tax increases. I've had several conversations recently that have convinced me that this legislation is a stopgap measure at best. At worst, it's a total waste of time. One reason why it's a stopgap measure at best is because of the vehicles being built by Tesla Motors. Their sales pitch on the homepage of their website brags that the car is 100 percent electric, goes from 0 to 60 in less than 4 seconds, gets the equivalent of 135mpg, can go 220 miles on a single charge and costs .02 per mile to operate.
Considering that that's just one such 'vehicle of the future', shouldn't we be asking the DFL how it'll fund road & bridge repairs once these vehicles become the rule rather than the exception? That day is coming, most likely sooner than people think.
Let's also talk about something a little less dramatic than that. What happens when cars start meeting the higher CAFE standards enacted in the transportation bill that President Bush signed into law?
Let's ask another question: When more energy efficient cars start appearing, will that shrink the appeal of LRT & other mass transit options? I doubt that it'll eliminate the appeal but I'm certain that it'll shrink the appeal.
The point I'm attempting to make is this: raising the gas tax is fast becoming an antiquated system for funding road & bridge repair.
A truly forward-looking policy would include a discussion of toll roads, which necessarily necessitates a discussion of privatizing highways & bridges. A truly forward-looking policy would have many other options on the table.
It's obvious that the DFL policy is based on the 'We've always done it this way' 1960's approach to funding our transportation needs. As Gov. Pawlenty highlighted last week in his State of the State Address , it's time we stepped into the 21st century. It's time to replace the antiquated tax systems of the 20th century with forward-looking policies that make sense in the 21st century.
Originally posted Monday, February 18, 2008, revised 29-Feb 10:47 AM
No comments.
What a Crock
It's been awhile since I've fisked a Pelosi statement so this is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that. Here's the text of Pelosi's statement on FISA :
"All Members of Congress fully understand and support our responsibility to protect the American people and the need for the President, the Congress, and policymakers to have the best possible intelligence to fight terrorism."That's BS. Instead of starting the debate on the Senate bill that passed with strong bipartisan support, Pelosi's Democrats instead held a hearing on whether Roger Clemens had used HGH and anabolic steroids. Instead of debating the Senate bill, they took a vote that said former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten were guilty of contempt of the House.
"On Friday, a surveillance law insisted upon by the President last August will expire. Today, an overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted to extend that law for three weeks so that agreement could be reached with the Senate on a better version of that law. The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national consequences result."That's BS, too. Here's the truth :
House Democrats were unable to hold together their caucus on a key intelligence vote on Wednesday, as a coalition of Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and liberals helped defeat a measure to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the deadline approaches.You can't reconcile Pelosi's statement with the facts. It's like saying Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee were both telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Pelosi's statement is totally refuted by the vote that prevented an extension of the Protect America Act.
The measure, which failed 191 to 229 , would have extended the bill an additional three weeks to work out differences with the Senate on the issue of granting immunity to telecom companies which aided the federal government in wiretapping.
The Democratic bill was undone by strong opposition from Republicans and 34 Democrats , including both members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition who want to see a bill passed, and liberal members who oppose many other aspects of the wiretapping program.
"However, even if the Protect America Act expires later this week, the American people can be confident that our country remains safe and strong. Every order entered under the law can remain in effect for 12 months from the date it was issued."At best, we can say that we can't prove that we're weaker as a result of Pelosi's inaction. While it's true that warrants that've already been issued didn't expire when the bill expired, it's equally true that the NSA has to apply for a warrant if they want to surveil someone that wasn't already in their system.
"Furthermore, the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies. Unlike last August, the FISA court has no backlog of cases, and thus can issue necessary court orders for surveillance immediately."Ms. Pelosi makes it sound like FISA warrant applications can be filled out with the speed of light. A FISA warrant application takes a long time to fill out. It isn't like filling out a short form tax return. These applications are hundreds of pages long. After that, they're carefully reviewed. That's why so few of the applications have been rejected.
The simple truth is that Ms. Pelosi knows she screwed up bigtime and she's panicking in her attempt to spin this so she doesn't get her butt handed to her next November.
Posted Monday, February 18, 2008 3:09 PM
No comments.
Transportation Bill on Fast Track???
According to Tim Pugmire's article for MPR , the transportation bill will soon be making its way through the Minnesota legislature at the speed of light:
A multibillion dollar transportation funding bill is heading for a vote this week in the Minnesota House and Senate.While I'm certain that Mr. Pugmire is accurately reporting Speaker Kelliher's quote, I'm equally certain that Ms. Kelliher is as wrong as wrong gets. For me to believe that they've got the votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's impending veto, I'd have to go through a twisted thought process to arrive at that belief. I'd have to believe that:
DFL Legislative leaders have the bill on a fast track this session, because they say the road and bridge projects could help jump start the state's sagging economy.
The measure would raise the gas tax 7 1/2 cents per-gallon. Gov. Tim Pawlenty is expected to veto the bill, and the big question is whether DFL leaders in the House can get enough Republicans to support a veto override.
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said she thinks the votes will be there.
"I know that people want to take the courageous vote and be able to fund our transportation system. The need is out there," Kelliher said. "It's been clearly demonstrated that we're in a transportation crisis both in terms of funding and the condition of the system. And the time for action is now."
The House is scheduled to vote on the bill Thursday.
- 5 House Republicans would vote for a bigger tax increase this year than they voted against last year.
- 5 House Republicans would vote for the largest tax increase in state history at a time when polls show that 60 percent of Minnesotans don't want a gas tax increase of any sort, much less a tax increase of that proportion.
- these theoretical House Republicans would vote with an unpopular DFL and against a wildly popular governor at a time when taxes are the driving force behind both job approval ratings.
- these Republicans would cast that unpopular vote in an election year.
I believe it's "whistling in the graveyard" on the part of the majority. Their "take it or leave it" tactics have irritated common sense lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who want to move transportation ahead in our state. If the legislative majority felt they had the votes, House Speaker Kelliher wouldn't be wining and dining Urdahl and Heidgerken tonight. (I hope they at least get a good steak out of the deal.)Last January, I 'adopted' Steve as my state representative because I was impressed with how clearly he thinks things through. Since that time, he's only given me more reasons to trust him. I wholeheartedly believe that there are a whole bunch of freshmen Democrats who aren't that eager to vote for a wildly unpopular tax increase heading into their first re-election campaign.
This bill contains a 7.5 cents per gallon gas tax increase, a 1/2 percent sales tax increase, license tab fees, and much more. It's $8.4 billion in taxes and fees, almost $3 billion bigger than the bill Governor Pawlenty vetoed last year! And to make matters worse, they've told us there will be NO OTHER BILL offered or negotiated this session. Where is there even an ATTEMPT at compromise?
By the way, last year's transportation veto was UPHELD bi-partisanly: All Republicans and some DFLers voted to uphold the veto; no Republicans voted to override. Minnesotans have made it clear, they do NOT want massive tax increases at a time when our economy is tottering on the brink of recession. They rank the economy as their top priority, and transportation as a distant sixth. There IS middle ground to be had on transportation, but that's apparently not what the majority wants. They want to create a train wreck and blame it on the Governor.
State Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 15A
Here's something else from MPR's article that I couldn't help noticing:
Gov. Pawlenty has three days to sign or veto the bill after it passes both houses.
Frankly, I doubt that it'll take three hours for him to veto the bill, much less three days. It's my sincere hope that, once the bill is vetoed & the veto is sustained, that pressure would be put on legislators to get a good compromise bill put together so that we can break the cycle of all or nothing transportation bills.
To top that all off, here's what Brian McClung said on the issue :
"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.It's apparent to me that Gov. Pawlenty, Mr. McClung and company will be putting alot of pressure on vulnerable Democrats. Gov. Pawlenty's bully pulpit can cause alot of heartburn for wayward legislators should they choose to be defiant.
UPDATE: I just got an update on the Transportation bill making its way through committee. The word I've received is that the CPI adjustment provision has been removed & that the gas tax increase is now 8.5 cents per gallon.
That sounds to me like the DFL is scrambling. They seem to have abandoned their take it or leave it approach.
Originally posted Monday, February 18, 2008, revised 26-Jan 4:14 AM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 18-Feb-08 07:02 PM
It seems as though there might be some problems. Andy Apilowski has a post up listing those 5 Republicans that are going to vote for the sensible transportation bill.
I think I may send each of them my thanks. ;)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-08 07:56 PM
Two of those people won't vote for the bill. That's not just my opinion. It's the word I've heard from at least 3 other legislators.
As you'll notice, they've already changed the bill in committee. The tax increase autopilot has been removed & the tax increase is now 8.5 cents per gallon.
This unreasonable bill will be vetoed & that veto sustained. Once that happens, then you can expect the real negotiations to start.
DFL Healthcare Reform
Eric over at Liberal in the Land of Conservatives has a great post up comparing the healthcare reform packages advocated by Al Franken, Mike Ciresi & Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. I'll first critique Mike Ciresi's proposal.Here's what Ciresi's plan involves:
As your U.S. Senator I will work to create a system that's goals are to:Keeping people healthy by using preventative measures is a popular idea that probably tests out at 90+ percent. On the other hand, forcing the pharmaceutical companies to negotiate with Medicare will dramatically slice into their profits, thereby eliminating much of the incentive they'd have for investing R & D.
We will make this cost-effective because we will:
- Provide universal coverage
- Keep people healthy through preventative health care and early detection and cure of diseases ; before they become chronic problems
- Keep people affordably insured for their lifetime ; from job to job, and through retirement, and forever eliminate the term "pre-existing condition"
- Reduce error and waste by making a single, electronic record of a patient's history accessible to those who need it, when they need it, but with the highest level of security to protect our privacy Provide everyone with cost-effective medical, prescription and mental health insurance coverage at an affordable price, and which allows people to choose their provider and purchase more options
- Use the collective buying power of all Americans and their employers to provide quality insurance at an affordable price.
- Strengthen existing programs such as Medicare which covers seniors, SCHIP which covers children, and the VA that covers veterans.
- Require drug companies to negotiate with Medicare.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer goes quite a bit further in terms of specifics:
Health care reform depends on a willingness to confront the powerful healthI cringed when I read that this program would be "funded through progressive taxation." That's another way of saying MASSIVE TAX INCREASES. No thanks.
insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I support a national single payer health care system that will:
- Provide universal coverage;
- Control costs and end the for-profit health care system;
- Focus on prevention;
- Offer parity for physical and mental health needs;
- Anticipate chronic health care needs;
- Respond effectively to public health emergencies; and,
- Be funded through progressive taxation.
Here's what AMSA's study said about the upside & downside of a single-payer plan :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system,
universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include...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.
By their own admission, R & D would lead to less R & D, which translates into fewer breakthroughs. Some bargain.
Al Franken goes the farthest, saying:
We need to go to universal health care.One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the federal government can't "require every state to cover every one of its citizens." There's this constitutional principle. It's called the Tenth Amendment. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, it said that abortion was a constitutional right. The Roberts Court takes a dim view of people that don't respect the principle of federalism. That provision would be shot down in a heartbeat.
A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today's political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American. Here's mine:But universal coverage isn't enough. We must also address the quality and cost of care. I think we should start with the following measures:
- I would require every state to cover every one of its citizens, and the federal government to provide funding to fulfill that requirement. Each individual state would be free to offer a variety of options, as long as they add up to universal coverage, giving us 51 laboratories (if you count DC) to figure out which system works best.
- I would add one constraint: each state must cover every child 18 and under with a single-payer system similar to Medicare.
- And speaking of Medicare, I would fight to make Medicare a true single-payer system. Right now, we overpay insurance companies, who then turn around and cherry-pick only the healthiest seniors to cover. That's not fair and we should change it.
- Medicare should be allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on prescription drugs.
- Simple, secure, electronic medical records would cut down on errors and streamline care.
We should establish safe staffing levels for nurses ; when the people on the front lines of health care tell us that they need reinforcements to maintain their high standards of care, we should listen.- We should pass Paul Wellstone's bill ensuring full mental health parity.
You'll notice that these plans all view the pharmaceutical companies as villains. I don't want to see what would happen if these gentlemen got their wish, then found out that the resulting drop in revenue meant that they couldn't finish testing of a drug that would cure their child's illness or their mother's cancer. I'll bet that they wouldn't think that their plan was too good then.
They'd be wise to be careful what they wish for because it might come true.
Posted Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:06 AM
No comments.
Time for a Little Offensive
Thus far this week, much has been made about the DFL overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill. Next to nothing has been made of the fact that the DFL's scrambling is painting a much different picture. As I reported here , the DFL couldn't even hold their caucus together last year on the final override attempt. Here's what my adopted representative, Steve Gottwalt, said about that in his official statement:
By the way, last year's transportation veto was UPHELD bi-partisanly : All Republicans and some DFLers voted to uphold the veto; no Republicans voted to override. Minnesotans have made it clear, they do NOT want massive tax increases at a time when our economy is tottering on the brink of recession. They rank the economy as their top priority, and transportation as a distant sixth. There IS middle ground to be had on transportation , but that's apparently not what the majority wants. They want to create a train wreck and blame it on the Governor.Let me make this abundantly clear: I agree that we should call our representatives, especially if a squishy represents you. We should call Democrats, too. I just did that with Larry Haws. Where I part directions with people is when they don't consider the possibility that some Democrats might vote the way that their leadership wants them to.
It's also important to point out that not signing a pledge doesn't mean that these legislators are willing to sell us down the road. It simply means that they aren't signing the pledge. I'll cite this as my reason for not getting in a dither about these rumors: Gov. Pawlenty didn't sign the TPL pledge during the 2006 campaign. What he did do, though, was veto every tax increase that reached his desk. In fact, he relished doing that.
Steve also pointed out that the bill is changing in committee, saying that the automatic inflation adjustment was removed in committee, with the gas tax increase going from 7.5 cents in the original bill to 8.5 cents as it currently sits. They're changing it to buy votes, votes that they obviously don't have.
Here's another point to ponder: If the DFL had the votes to override, would they be wining & dining Bud Heidgerken & Dean Urdahl? Finally, consider this scenario: Imagine what impact it'll have if Gov. Pawlenty invited some of our squishies to a meeting. Imagine him saying how he'd be honored to be a special guest at these squishies' upcoming fundraisers. Similarly, imagine Gov. Pawlenty telling some DFL squishies how anxious he is to raise money for their opponent. That wouldn't have an impact on the final vote, would it?
My point is simple: It's time to stop this fetal position defensive. It's time to go on offense. We've got the ammo to do it.
Posted Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment 1 by Drew Emmer at 19-Feb-08 05:36 PM
Nothing woudl be better than offense right now. But where is the offense? Where is the sensible conservative solution to our transportation and transit issues? WHo has teh real bone fide numbers as to what we need to invest in roads and bridges to be reasonably safe? Where are the facts and figures that have people's reputations behind their veracity?
Same question on health care.
Same question on amending the constitution with the dedicated funding nonsense.
Where's the playbook coach?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Feb-08 06:10 PM
Where's the playbook coach? It starts with everyone doing the research into the issues that matter most to them?
Drew, We're entering a new era of campaigning, one in which doorknocking, lit-dropping & phone-banking are still important but one in which activists should be called on to research the things that matter most to them.
It takes time but it's something we must do because the left certainly isn't going to stop their offensive. The only way to counter their offensive is to ask the why questions that they don't want to answer in public.
Telltale Sign?
Earlier today, Michael linked to this article in the Bemidji Pioneer . Here's the section that I found most interesting:
Removing the controversial measure, called indexing, was done to get support, mostly among Republicans, for the funding package as it nears floor votes Thursday and an anticipated veto override attempt, the bill's authors said.If the DFL's support is so rock solid, why did they remove the indexing provision on the first day of hearings? If the rank-and-file DFLer's support for the bill was solid, they wouldn't have changed a thing.
As Steve Gottwalt told me later, they've also changed the gas tax increase from 7.5 cents over the duration of the bill to 8.5 cents. This tells me that they're scrambling. That doesn't mean that the bill won't pass; it surely will. What that does mean is that the situation is at least as fluid on the DFL side as on the GOP side . In fact, I don't think it's a stretch to think that it's more fluid on the DFL side.
Let's also arm ourselves with this important tidbit of information from the legislative auditor's office:
A summary of the audit's findings said despite MnDOT's "preservation first" policy, more than half of highway construction spending since 2002 has gone toward system expansion and less toward preservation.Obviously, there's alot to be done but it's equally true to say that we aren't facing the crisis that Steve Murphy & the DFL is saying we're in. Minnesota has a problem that needs to be solved. That's alot different than Steve Murphy hinting that more bridge collapses are inevitable :
That said, the audit said the structural condition of the state's bridges has gotten better since 2002. Meanwhile, highway pavements have deteriorated over that same period.
"We're going to have to swallow the bitter pill, take the political hit and raise these revenues," Murphy said, adding that another bridge collapse "is a likelihood, and we don't want that."Sen. Murphy is to hyperbole in Minnesota what Al Gore was to hyperbole in Washington in the 90's. After all the assinine things he's said , shouldn't we be questioning his credibility? Here's one of the things he's recently said that's worth questioning:
"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."Saying that a highly popular governor isn't "really a factor" is just plain foolish. Sen. Murphy's about to find out how big a factor Gov. Pawlenty is.
Posted Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 19-Feb-08 06:42 PM
Why did they remove the indexing piece? I believe it is called compromise, Gary.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't I guess.
So, given that the Democrats have conceded a piece, what are the Republicans willing to concede or accept in order to pass a transportation bill?
Comment 2 by Concerned at 19-Feb-08 07:41 PM
I would agree. Gary you seem to rail on the Democrats for a firm stand without compromise, but then rail on them for being weak because they compromise. Perhaps they knew well that they would need to compromise to get anywhere.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 20-Feb-08 12:55 AM
So, given that the Democrats have conceded a piece, what are the Republicans willing to concede or accept in order to pass a transportation bill?
Most Republicans would sign off on a nickel a gallon gas tax increase with extensive use of bonding.
Why did they remove the indexing piece? I believe it is called compromise, Gary.
Larry Pogemiller & Tony Sertich aren't compromisers. Pogie is especially famous for pushing so hard to get his way that he's made DFL women senators cry in telling them how they will vote.
Gary you seem to rail on the Democrats for a firm stand without compromise, but then rail on them for being weak because they compromise.
I'm not railing on them for compromising. I'm merely offering my opinion that they're scrambling to keep support from bottoming out.
Here's what it'd sound like if I railed on them dropping the inflation index:
"The DFL caved into the House GOP caucus."
Sounds alot different, doesn't it?
Comment 4 by Robert Haag at 20-Feb-08 02:22 PM
Dear Sir I really enjoy your Blogs. In reference to the transportation bill. Its interesting that when Delta and Northwest merge Northwest will be moving down here to Atlanta. Could this be a reflection of the unfreindly business climate in Minnesota? Keep the blog coming!
