February 20-21, 2008
Feb 20 02:55 A Laughable Comparison Feb 20 04:33 Court Rejects ACLU Feb 20 10:14 When Did Hillary Lose the Nomination? Feb 20 18:52 All That Matters Is Hope? Feb 21 01:16 Now That's a Solution Feb 21 02:03 The Page is Turned Feb 21 11:08 Liveblogging the Transportation Debate
Prior Months: Jan
A Laughable Comparison
Ed Rollins is an old pro to GOP politics but he's starting to sound a little incoherent. In this Washington Post article , he compared Huckabee hanging around to Reagan fighting Gerald Ford all the way to the convention:
Meanwhile, Huckabee's campaign manager was gleefully proclaiming the possibility that the former governor could force an all-out fight at the Republican National Convention this summer. "It'd be great fun," Ed Rollins said on CNN.With all due respect to Mr. Rollins, that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever heard from a political operative. In 1976, Reagan kept the delegate count extremely close, to the point where there was still some doubt about who'd get the nomination. At the time, some reports said that there might be as little as 20-30 delegates separating Ford from Reagan. Both men could make credible claims that they could win the nomination. That clearly isn't the case in this race.
Rollins said in an interview that Huckabee is staying in the race out of an obligation to voters and because he believes in following the rules that have been laid out.
The veteran campaign strategist compared Huckabee's long-shot bid to Ronald Reagan's attempts to defeat incumbent Gerald R. Ford in 1976. Reagan lost that effort, but it paved the way for his conservative revolution four years later.
After tonight's primaries, McCain leads Huckabee by just under 700 delegates. McCain has almost 950 of the 1,191 delegates needed for nomination while Huckabee was just 950 delegates short of capturing the nomination.
Let's clarify this, though. I'm not calling for Huckabee to drop out. I'm calling for him to stay in so that the pundits have to devote part of their time to talking about Republicans instead of talking about Obama vs. Hillary all night. This gives McCain lots of air time to start honing his message prior to this summer's start of the general election.
Polls right now are meaningless for the most part. When it gets to be a one-on-one matchup, that's when things will start shaking themselves out. McCain will have the advantage of either painting Obama as too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief or painting Hillary as too polarizing. I doubt that Obama's empty change message will play well beyond the Democratic base.
That's if Hillary doesn't drag this out to the convention. Pat Caddell brought up an interesting scenario tonight on Hannity & Colmes. He said that the Clintons wouldn't be easy to push off the stage at this point. He said it's a definite possibility that they'll appeal to Obama delegates to vote for Hillary at the convention. He also said that Hillary is already trying to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention. Since she was the only top tier candidate on the Michigan ballot, she'd get a huge boost from that plus a big delegate count from Florida.
Should that happen, would we see the superdelegates side with the Clintons? There's alot of things to be settled before summer. One thing that's settled, though, is the GOP presidential nominee.
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:57 AM
Comment 1 by Plumb Bob at 20-Feb-08 10:59 AM
I doubt that Obama's empty change message will play well beyond the Democratic base.
You are mistaken in this. The 21st century so far has been a very unsettling time, containing two very serious economic "bubble bursts," massive auditing frauds, destruction of the World Trade Center, periodic uncovering of terror cells operating within the country, gasoline and food skyrocketing to unheard-of prices, war heros exposed as frauds, and a war which we're told was unnecessary. No, I'm not blaming the Bush administration for all this, but it's been a troubling time, and a common denominator of all these events is "things are not as good as they seem."
Given the near-universal distress and uneasiness this has produced, somebody who looks clean, smart, educated, and calm, saying "We're going to change things and make them better," has a natural appeal that most of us have to think to resist -- and lots of American voters in the middle are not so great at thinking to resist their emotions.
No, an uncomfortable number of independent voters will not see through the Obama Scrim of Hope, mostly because they very badly don't want to.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Court Rejects ACLU
Isn't that a splendid headline? It's the first thing that popped into my head after reading the headline to this AP article :
Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to WiretapsHere's what they're talking about:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.This is a major win for the intelligence community and a huge setback for the ACLU and their fellow litigants. The impact of Tuesday's ruling is that there's another legal precedent that says warrantless surveillance isn't illegal. That's the predictable outcome if you believe that the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches.
"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping. A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.
The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.
There's a lesson to be applied to this year's election. This lawsuit's path through the judiciary shows the difference between activist judges and strict constructionist jurists. This all got started when Anna Diggs-Taylor ruled that the NSA's intercept program violated people's First Amendment rights of all things. Once it got to the 6th Circuit, though, Diggs-Taylor's ruling was toppled , setting up a potential hearing in the Supreme Court.
Anna Diggs-Taylor is a Carter-appointed judge with strong connections to the ACLU. For that reason alone, she should've recused herself from this case. Failing to do that, she should've been removed from this case.
Now that her ruling has been overturned and all their appeals options used, we can get back to surveilling terrorists and hopefully preventing future terrorist attacks.
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:36 AM
Comment 1 by Bob Collins at 20-Feb-08 06:10 PM
The case was dismissed, not on the merits of the wiretapping, but on the standing of those bringing the suit. Since a person can't prove that communications had been monitored, absent a warrant, how would a person gain standing in a court?
Doesn't this imply that if you don't know what the government is doing to you, then the government hasn't hurt you?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Feb-08 06:27 PM
Doesn't this imply that if you don't know what the government is doing to you, then the government hasn't hurt you?
Comment by Bob CollinsNot necessarily.
When Did Hillary Lose the Nomination?
According to Richard Adams, Hillary lost the nomination on Feb. 6 . Here's his reasoning behind his opinion:
We didn't know it at the time, but February 6 was the day when there began a big blank gap on the Clinton campaign calendar. Because her team of battle-tested veterans failed to plan for much of anything after Super Tuesday. We now know that the Clinton campaign blew so much of its cash on the February 5 multi-state primary that it had little left in the tank for what was to follow, forcing the candidate to loan herself $5m and spend valuable time last night on television trying to raise more.Mr. Adams makes several valid points, one being that they blew alot of their "cash on the February 5 multi-state primary." I suspect that they initially thought that she'd wrap up the nomination that night.
I'd argue, however, that Hillary lost the nomination before the first ballot was cast. I'd submit that she lost the nomination at the debate debacle at Drexel . That's the night Hillary went from inevitable to roadkill. Yes, she won primaries after that but those were more islands of hope in a turbulent sea than anything else. Here's the Politico's account of that fateful night:
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers' licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.That was the night that the entire nation got to see her avoiding saying anything substantive to the point that she painted herself into a corner. That's the night that America got to see that she'd try to be all things to all people, at least verbally. That's the night that we got proof that her words mean nothing, that she'll say whatever she needed to but that she'd do whatever she pleased when it came time to implement her agenda.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: "I did not say that it should be done."
NBC's Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: "You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"
"You know, Tim," Clinton replied, "this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.'"
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. "Unless I missed something," he said, "Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them."
Barack Obama added: "I was confused (by) Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face."
Here's another of Mr. Adams' observations that are worth considering:
So strongly did the Clinton campaign assume that Super Tuesday, with its 1,000-plus pledged delegates up for election in more than 20 states, would be the effective end of the nomination campaign, that it failed to have a Plan B. Organising for the string of caucuses that followed Super Tuesday? Opening field offices in the smaller states? Drumming up the extra fundraising needed to pay for it? None of it, or not enough of it, got done. And as a result, when Super Tuesday failed to deliver the knock-out blow that Hillary Clinton expected, her campaign was exposed to a series of rapid jabs in places like Maine, Virginia and now Wisconsin - states the Clinton campaign should have competed in strongly, not lost by double digits.The time-tested cliche that "Pride goeth the fall" fits pretty good here. Hillary spent so much time thinking that she was the prohibitive frontrunner that she got sloppy. On the other hand, Obama spent so much time as the underdog that he was used to fighting for every delegate. It isn't that dissimilar to the 1980 Olympic hockey teams of the Soviets and our "Miracle on Ice" team.
It's still not certain what she'll do if she doesn't win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania but it's certain that she won't go down without a fight. The simple truth is that the Democratic nomination is more about personalities than about substance.
That's a dynamic that's just too difficult for her to win even if she didn't implode in Philadelphia.
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:17 AM
No comments.
All That Matters Is Hope?
By now, everyone across the nation has either heard or seen Kirk Watson's national television debut. Something tells me Team Obama won't ask him to appear on national TV again anytime soon. Here's the video of Chris Matthews grilling Watson:
Here's the transcript:
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"Until now, I've worried about the Obama campaign's ability to attract huge crowds. While I'm still worried about defeating him, last night might mark a turning point in the campaign. Sen. Watson essentially told the nation that Barack Obama is a smooth talker but that he isn't a doer. Sen. Watson's essentially said that all Obama has to peddle is hope itself.
State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."
Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is
offering the American people right now."
Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."
State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."
Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"
State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."
Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?"
Let's phrase it differently. Obama is a charismatic figure. He's clearly a better campaigner than Hillary. He's also sadly lacking any accomplishments & sadly lacking in the gravitas department. I might get proven wrong but I've got to believe at some point, people will start thinking that this isn't a campaign for prom king, that it's a campaign to be the leader of the free world in a most troubling time.
The biggest question this campaign will answer is whether voters want the charismatic, though unqualified empty suit or if they'd prefer the substantive fighter. I think I know but it'll be interesting to see this play out.
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:37 PM
No comments.
Now That's a Solution
I've heard lately from DFL bloggers that, since the DFL had dropped the indexing provision in the transportation bill, why wasn't the GOP willing to compromise. It's a fair question that deserves a fair answer. Here's the GOP's reply to that line of questioning:
Saint Paul -- (February 20, 2008) -- House Republican Leader Marty Seifert today unveiled a $7.6 billion plan that invests in Minnesota's state and local transportation system without raising taxes.No sooner had Rep. Seifert offered the report than Majority Leader Sertich tabled it. Later today, I got around to looking at the chart contrasting the GOP's approach to fixing our transportation system & the DFL's approach. Here's one statistic that jumped off the page at me:
"The Republican plan invests more than seven times as much in local road and bridges than the Democrat plan," said House Republican Leader Marty Seifert. "Our plan uses reliable, long-term funding to sufficiently build and maintain our transportation systems without burdening taxpayers and while keeping healthy commitments to other areas of government."
The Republican plan puts $450 million directly into local roads and bridges as compared to the $60 million offered by the Democrats. It places $2.2 billion into state highways as compared to the Democrat plan which $1.8 billion. It allows for a constitutional amendment for people to vote to authorize GO bonding for state roads and bridges, which opens $2.7 billion over 10 years for transportation purposes. Finally it provides the Minnesota Department of Transportation with the spending authority they need for the federal funds the state is getting for the I35W bridge collapse.
Republicans looked to wasteful inefficiencies in state government spending as a source of revenue for transportation. Seifert said state government spending continues to grow and the Democrats have yet to look within for the revenue needed to fund priorities.
"The $34 billion budget and $2.2 billion surplus last session provided us with the revenue to make these investments. Unfortunately, the push for taxes misplaced fiscal responsibility and transportation funding lost out to increases in welfare spending," Seifert said.
Seifert said the House Republican Caucus is driven by sensible transportation solutions that cultivate accountability measures and analysis for any transportation proposal. The Republican plan authorizes studies to be conducted for the construction and betterment of safe roads and analyze price consequences. It repeals the best value law, and uses the lowest responsible bidder for department construction projects.
The Republican plan will be offered as a Minority Report today. Seifert said House Republicans are committed to reaching a compromise that benefits that state's transportation system without burdening taxpayers.
"Bipartisan compromise means more a simple yes vote on the final bill. The Democrats did not involve Republicans in the development of their proposal, and have spent more time finding five members to override a veto than working with us on a compromise," Seifert said. "Republicans believe the taxpayer deserves to be represented in this debate and will continue our push for increased transportation funding without tax increases."
Leased vehicle sales tax (MVST) allocations:Why wouldn't we want most of that money going to maintain bridges & build roads? Here's another statistic that caught my attention:
DFL: 25% of MVST funds go to roads, 75% to transit
GOP: 60% of MVST funds go to roads, 40% to transit
Trunk Highway BondingWith bond interest rates being so inexpensive, why wouldn't we want to leverage our money that way? Here's another stark contrast:
DFL: $1.8 billion
GOP: $2.2 billion
Local road & bridge bonding:In my opinion, the biggest difference between Republicans & Democrats on transportation is that Democrats want to heap bigger tax burdens on working families while Republicans want to keep tax burdens as low as possible. I suspect that that'll make for some interesting soundbites during Thursday's Transportation Bill debate. If they have the videostreaming the debate, I plan on liveblogging that debate.
DFL: $60 million
GOP: $450 million
Technnorati: Marty Seifert , Bonding , Bridge Repair , Republicans , Tony Sertich , Gas Tax , Tax Increases , MVST , Transportation
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Feb-08 08:41 AM
To answer your question, it seems obvious that the Democrats just want to increase taxes, and any pretext will serve that goal. What the money buys for the people (not that THEY matter, so long as we can keep fooling them) can be decided later.
The Page is Turned
That's the title of Richard Collins' post at Redstate . Trust me, it's must reading. The subtitle goes a long ways toward explaining why Hillary's in such a difficult position:
Her unique blend of arrogance and stubbornness has been her undoingI couldn't agree more, though I can add alot more to that. I've long maintained that Hillary's personality would sink her ship. Identity politics plays a big role in Democratic campaigns. Apart from being Bill's wife, Hillary simply doesn't have an identity.
It's a scary thought to think that the Democrats' most qualified candidate this year was Joe Biden. Even he had more personality than Hillary. For me, though, I still return to two things that fit into this meme.
When Hillary made the talk show rounds, when she'd be asked about something she didn't particularly like, she let out 'The Cackle'. Not just once, either. Then it got played on O'Reilly and other talk shows. 'The Cackle' had all the appeal of fingers grating against a chalkboard.
As I said here , though, her drivers license debacle will be seen as the cause of her fall. The drivers license debacle fits perfectly into Mr. Collins' meme. Hillary obviously thought that she shouldn't get pinned down on anything, a typical Clinton habit. That's the epitome of arrogance. The downside of leaving yourself wiggle room is that you sometimes get caught saying opposite things in a short period of time.
Here's the most significant point Mr. Collins makes:
Hillary has a long history of refusing to acknowledge obvious truths and stubbornly clinging to her own version of events. This pattern can be found in the scandals and failures of her husband's administration and in her faltering presidential campaign. It is a constant in any even perfunctory review of her public life.For eight years, the Clintons thought that they could do whatever they wanted. They got away with alot of things that likely reinforced their thinking. What they didn't realize is that time had moved on and that they weren't the 'Golden Couple' anymore. Now they're finding out that Obama is the new Golden Child who can do no wrong.
Bill and Hillary's time in Arkansas, and in the White House, were - at the very least - filled with numerous instances of questionable judgment and a regular refusal to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety. But any and all criticisms were immediately branded as personal attacks and as somehow illegitimate.
When questions arose Hillary's first response was always to stonewall and deny. She would then move on to deceptively incomplete responses, if not outright lies. Any release of information, when it did come, came grudgingly and always as a last resort.
That has to just frustrate the Clintons, especially Hillary since she'd planned on a coronation. This is a perfect example of why it's never smart to underestimate your opponent.
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 AM
No comments.
Liveblogging the Transportation Debate
In just a few minutes, the debate will begin on Bernie Lieder's transportation bill. I'll be liveblogging it off of the House videostream. Stop past frequently for updates.
According to the House videostreaming website , they'll be covering the House Capitol Investment Finance Division meeting at 2:15, though I'd think that that's tentative. This debate might last longer than that. I'll keep the most current notes at the top.
6:10 - Final vote: 89 yeas, 44 nays. The bill is agreed to.
6:07 - Steve Drazkowski is now ripping the DFL, saying that "There is nothing courageous reaching into your neighbors pocket to pay for things." He's right. That isn't leadership.
5:55 - Marty's now ridiculing the DFL about them being "fiscal moderates." "I don't care about all the special interests who've endorsed this plan. I worry about how this will impact the people who will have to pay the bill." "You did not campaign on multi-billion dollar tax increases." He's giving a very impassioned speech, one that must be rebroadcast & shown at every BPOU meeting from now until Election Day.
5:45 - Rep. Gottwalt is now speaking. He's railing about how we aren't prioiritizing spending. He's talking about how families are being asked to prioritize spending while the legislature refuses to prioritize. He then says "Next week, we'll be talking about the bonding bill, where we'll be talking about bonding for festivals & dolphins." "Tomorrow, we'll go out & talk about compromise & how we got something done for transportation. We can do better than this."
5:38 - Rep. Hausman is now calling Rep. Lieder a visionary leader. PULEEEZE. He's an old-fashioned, tax-increasing liberal. That isn't visionary.
5:32 - Rep. Lieder says that Rep. Westrum "should get his facts straight", that he shouldn't just rely on anecdotes. Rep. Westrum gets into Rep. Lieder's face, saying that "I don't know why the contractor would lie to me", especially since he was for the gas tax increase.
5:21 - Rep. Westrum is asking Rep. Lieder if there are any reforms in this bill. Rep. Lieder is saying that there isn't. Rep. Westrum is now criticizing Rep. Lieder for not including reforms in the bill. This should be highlighted going forward. The DFL is now identified as the Status Quo Party.
5:09 - Rep. Olson again making the case that the bill shouldn't get a final vote until after the forecast. He's right in saying that this bill is all about increasing taxes.
4:59 - Bud Heidgerken now speaking. It sounds like he's signing onto the bill. It's time for him to go. Now he's arguing for higher metro sales tax increases.
4:57 - Rep. Kohls is now going on about how we can prioritize spending, shifting the money from other programs. "This bill isn't a compromise. This bill is the biggest tax increase in recent Minnesota history."
4:51 - Rep. Kohls nails it. "The biggest tax increase in Minnesota history. The biggest tax increase in Minnesota history." "This bill isn't about a nickel gas tax increase. This bill is about a 8.5 cent per gallon tax increase." "Representative Hortman, I'll use your figures. I'll use your figure of $6.5 billion in tax increase." "If I bought a Ford F-150, the tax increase would be $800 over 4 years." "This bill isn't a compromise. This bill is a tax increase."
4:43 - Tony Sertich is now saying that this bill needs to be rushed because it creates 30,000 jobs. I'd politely state that Rep. Sertich needs to watch KSTP's study that says that the 30,000 figure is a bunch of hooey.
4:39 - Joyce Peppin: "I am disappointed in the lack of bipartisanship on this bill."
4:30 - Rep. Olson is criticizing voting on this bill before the state budget forecast. rep. Olson's now made a motion to lay the bill on the table until after the budget forecast is out. The motion does not prevail by a 37-96 vote.
4:19 - Jim Abeler is now talking about 34 pages of foreclosures in his newspaper. Abeler hsa now announced that he'll vote for this bill.
4:15 - On to debating the bill. Rep. Buesgens speaking: "Winston Churchill said that trying to tax their way into prosperity is like a farmer standing in a bucket, then trying to lift the bucket up by the handle." God bless Rep. Buesgens. Now he's onto talking about "overburdening our families." "This bill is bad for families. This bill is bad for our economy. This bill is bad for Minnesota." AMEN!!!
3:52 - We've heard alot about compromise. Let's keep in mind that this isn't true compromise. Last year's bill called for a $5.5 billion tax increase. This year's bill calls for $7.5+ billion in tax increases. That isn't compromise. That's highway robbery .
3:40 - Rep. Howes reported that his LA got a threatening email. Speaker Kelliher directed Rep. Howes contact security so they deal with that. A note to people: Let's put pressure on legislators but let's keep things civil. That said, I'm kinda curious what Rep. Howes characterizes as threatening.
3:35 Late lunch break over. Things were getting kinda tedious & I was getting hungry, too. Hopefully, the debate will pick up now.
3:09 - Rep. Steve Gottwalt just sent me this quote for public consumption:
You cannot tax your way to prosperity. We still have among the top tax burdens in the country. That's COSTING us thousands of jobs! We need a reasonable, responsible transportation bill, and that's clearly up to the DFL leadership.2:32 - Rep. Brod: "We shouldn't be making these decisions without having the information on how this impacts cities' budgets." God forbid that the DFL does something based on facts!!!
2:16 - Rep. Buesgens is ripping the new definition of "compromise". He says that "There's more spin happening than on a well-oiled tilt-o-whirl." Rep. Buesgens is saying that this isn't compromise. If it were, we'd be talking about the interests of working families & the interests of government. AMEN, REP. BUESGENS!!!
2:14 - Marty is challenging the DFL. He's askin why outstate Minnesota, where incomes are lower, gets charged more in gas taxes than Metro Minnesotans, where incomes are higher.
1:40 - The roll is called on the Olson offset amendment. Final vote is 41 yeas, 92 nays. Amendment is not adopted.
1:30 - Mark Olson has offered an amendment that would mandate offsets to the tax increases in the transportation bill. After initially raising a point of order on the Olson amendment, Rep. Solberg withdrew it after getting an explanation from rep. Olson.
1:25 - Laura Brod is encouraging a yes vote so that we prioritize bonding on roads & bridges before we bond for "nice-to-haves". The vote on the Olson Amendment is tallied: 40 yeas, 93 nays. The amendment is not adopted.
1:15 Mark Olson has brought an amendment forward that would force the DFL to prioritize spending. Rep. Kohls is now speaking, advocating passing the Olson Amendment. AMEN TO THAT!!! Rep. Olson states that this amendment was part of the Minority Report that Rep. Sertich tabled yesterday.
12:55 - Drew has a great post that we shouild take a look at. I'll do that myself when I'm done liveblogging.
12:49 - Roll is called on Buesgens' amendment. Final vote is 27 yeas, 104 nays. Amendment is not adopted.
12:46 - Here's an interesting tidbit of information .
12:42 - Rep. Buesgens is ridiculing the funding formula. Funding should go to where the most usage is.
12:39 - Roll called on Kohls amendment. Final vote is 34 yeas, 98 nays. Amendment is not adopted.
12:29 - Rep. Emmer: "Thank you, Rep. Marquart, for answering the question that you wouldn't answer before."
12:25 - Rep. Kohls amendment being introduced. "If we're going to raise taxes, then let's put the language into the bill" that'd guarantee property tax relief. Rep. Marquart is calling for Rep. Kohls' amendment be defeated. Money quote:
"With an extra $100,000, we can do alot more."Additional quote:
"This is not a zero sum game."12:24 - Roll call vote on Rep. Burns' amendment called. Final result is 54 yea, 79 nay. The amendment fails.
12:15 - Rep. Burns is proposing an amendment to vote on the sales tax increase. Rep. Seifert calls for a roll call vote. A roll call vote will be held. That's a brilliant move, something that forces representatives to go on the record.
12:04 - Michael will soon be liveblogging from the floor , taking over for Cindy, who's now doing a BTR show.
11:59 - Rep. Buesgens is up now. Here's Cindy's take:
Quick update - Rep. Buesgens is making a great point about how this bill is not about more money for roads and bridges if we are saying that the bill will reduce cities and counties spending on roads and bridges! (Mark is part of her BPOU.)11:55 - The tack that the DFL is taking is that these tax increases will prevent property tax increases. They're stating this categorically, then when confronted by republicans, they say that this money can be used for this purpose.
11:51 - Rep. Lieder is getting a bit defensive after Rep. Emmer's questions. Rep. Emmer is now going after Rep. Marquart for saying that property taxes will drop. Rep. Marquart won't make that promise because he can't.
11:50 - Tom Emmer is asking why they won't promise an immediate property tax cut. Rep. Lieder says that "this was debated last year", that there is a difference between property tax relief & property tax cuts.
11:47 - Rep. Kohl is tearing into Rep. Marquart, saying that this bill doesn't cut property taxes.
11:41 - Rep. Kohls is asking Rep. Marquart where in the bill it is that the increased transportation funding will lead to lower property taxes. Rep. Marquart says that "it's on every page..." Rep. Marquart isn't addressing the fact that there aren't caps on property taxes in this bill. Rep. Marquart: "This money can be used instead of proprerty taxes." Question to Rep. Marquart: Doesn't that mean that the city can just spend the money without slowing down spending?
11:39 - "County & cities can now use this new funding rather than burdening homeowners" with property tax increases. (Can't they choose to prioritize spending?) Mayor Ebbert (?) says that his city "was forced" to spend money.
11:33 - Rep. Marquart: "This will create jobs. This will stop property tax increases." Rep. Marquart doesn't explain that cities can choose to not increase spending.
11:29 - Rep. Eastlund asserts that many dealers in his district buy cars from North Dakota. Rep. Eastlund then says that many used cars will be affected by the increased tab fees. Circle this one on your scorecard because it changes the debate.
11:27 - Rep. Heidgerken asks Rep. Lieder about speculation about a buyout on the LRT.
11:26 - Rep. Heidgerken asks Rep. Lieder about the license fee. Rep. Lieder says that the new fees won't increase as long as the vehicle is registered in Minnesota.
11:25 - Copies being made of the author's amendment.
11:23 - Lieder keeps repeating that transit doesn't have a dedicated funding mechanism (aka tax). We get it. Move on.
11:20 - Cindy's got this right :
11:12 and it is time to rumble. HF2800 is on the floor. Rep. Lieder (DFL Crookston) calls it a "safer roads" bill? If there is money going to "transit" then it is NOT a roads bill ! Roads and bridges, roads and bridges, roads and bridges....it's that simple guys!11:17 - Bill eliminates the Ventura caps on license tabs.
11:12 - Lieder "This bill is really a safer roads & bridges bill. This is really a balanced bill. We tried to keep it as balanced as possible."
10:55 - "The House will come together." So sayeth Speaker Kelliher.
10:50 - Is something big happening behind the scenes? That's what Cindy & I are wondering. This is getting boring. At this rate, we should expect a vote someime right before the Easter recess.
10:25 - While you're waiting for the fireworks to start, go read Michael's post on Marty's comments about the armtwisting going on.
10:20 - Lady Logician is liveblogging this, too, assuming they ever get started.
10:10 - People are still filing in & milling around.
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 21-Feb-08 03:42 PM
Do you think the Capital Investment Finance Committee is meeting?
LL
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Feb-08 04:12 PM
Something tells me it isn't. LOL
