February 22-24, 2008
Feb 22 05:21 Today's Vote, Tomorrow's Debate: A Summary Feb 22 12:43 DFL Still Spinning Transportation Bill Feb 22 16:48 Pawlenty Vetoes Tax Increase Bill Feb 22 18:47 DFL Demagogue Express Has Left the Station Feb 23 07:43 The Right Policy, The Wrong Question Feb 23 19:23 Steve Gottwalt: Making A Difference Feb 24 02:14 The High Price of Mismanagement Feb 24 10:07 Spinning the D's FISA Failure Feb 24 11:45 Don't the Taxpayers Count?
Prior Months: Jan
Today's Vote, Tomorrow's Debate: A Summary
It's been a long, long, long, long day. My mind is just a little frazzled but I can't stop until I summarize the day's events.
First of all, I thought that Mark Buesgens summed it up perfectly when he ridiculed the DFL for saying that this major tax increase would create jobs. His Churchill quote was perfect. Here's that quote:
"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."That was nothing short of brilliant & directly on point. That's the same point Gov. Pawlenty made when he made this quote :
"What my DFL friends don't understand is you can't government your way to prosperity. You have to have a real economy."Overall, I thought that Buesgens had a strong day, coming up with some rather salient points. His saying that "This bill is bad for families. This bill is bad for our economy. This bill is bad for Minnesota" is exactly right. His saying that the DFL is "overburdening our families" left a MARK that won't soon be forgotten. As good as that stuff is, it wasn't Mark's best line of the day. This was my favorite:
"There's more spin happening than on a well-oiled tilt-o-whirl."He said that in the context of lawmakers talking about compromise. As I said then, let's remember that last year's bill was $5.5 billion in tax increases. This year's is $7.5 billion. That isn't compromise; it's highway robbery.
I also thought that Rep. Westrum did the GOP a valuable service by asking Bernie Lieder if there were any reforms in this bill. When Rep. Lieder said that there weren't, Rep. Westrum lit into him for not trying to find new solutions for Minnesota's transportation problems. As I said in the liveblogging post, this establishes, again, that the DFL is the Status Quo Party.
Early in the debate, Rep. Marquart tried making the argument that this bill will cut property taxes. Paul Kohls would have none of that, asking if there was specific language in the bill that mandated that. Rep. Marquart's answer that "it's on every page!" got hammered hard. When Marquart admitted that "This money can be used instead of proprerty taxes", I thought Game. Set. Match. Rep. Kohls' questioning got Marquart to move from making definitive, categorical statements to talking in possible maybes. Thinking back on that, I'm realizing that Kohls was conducting a brilliant cross-examination of Marquart.
Tom Emmer abused Bernie Lieder, too, asking why they won't promise an immediate property tax cut. Rep. Lieder says that "this was debated last year", even admitting that "there is a difference between property tax relief & property tax cuts." I hope that gets blasted all over the airwaves. I'll bet that John Q. Public won't be too thrilled finding that out. (Can you imagine the DFL promising property tax relief, then the GOP candidate promising property tax cuts? I think that might put the liberal in a bit of a deficit, don't you?)
The point we need to hammer on is the license tab fee increase. The DFL touted it as only applying to new cars. That myth was exposed today when the DFL had to admit that it also applied to used vehicles not currently registered in Minnesota. Rep. Kohls also pointed out that the license tab tax increase on a new Ford F-150 pickup truck costing $35,000 would be over $800 over 4 years. He then stated that a new Chevy Tahoe costing $45,000 would see their tab fees increase by over $1,200 over 4 years.
I've never owned a new vehicle so I don't know how much license tab fees are on new trucks but I'll guess that it's in the $400 per year range. If that's the case, this tax increase almost doubles their tab fees.
UPDATE: I just talked with Bill Kuisle about that. Here's what he found:
From the billIn other words, the licensing fee on a $40,000 vehicle would jump to $500. Considering the fact that vehicles that aren't registered in Minnesota will be subject to this tax increase, let's ask a simple question: How many people will buy Arizona or North Dakota used vehicles & get shocked that they're getting hit with this tax increase, too? After all, the DFL's telling everyone within earshot that this tax increase only applies to new vehicles. I suspect that alot of people will be upset when they buy an out-of-state used vehicle & get hit with this tax increase.
Subd. 1a. Passenger automobile; hearse. (a) On passenger automobiles as defined 13.32in section 168.011, subdivision 7, and hearses, except as otherwise provided, the tax shall 13.33be $10 plus an additional tax equal to 1.25 percent of the base
value .
(h) The annual additional tax must be computed upon a percentage of the base
14.32 value as follows: during the first and second years year of vehicle life
14.33 shall be computed, upon 100 percent of the base value; for the second
year, 90 percent of 14.34 such value; for the third and fourth years year, 80 percent of such value; for the fourth 14.35 year, 70 percent of such value; for the fifth year, 60 percent of such 14.36 value; for the sixth year, 50 percent of such value; for the seventh year, 40 percent of 15.1 such value; for the eighth year, 30 percent of such value; for the ninth year, 20 15.2 percent of such value; for the tenth year, ten percent of such value; for the 11th and each 15.3 succeeding year, the sum of $25.
Rep. Marquart was another DFLer that got abused during Thursday's debate. His statement that "This will create jobs" doesn't stand up to KSTP's study :
- 19 percent or 6,200 of the jobs are "high-paying construction jobs"
- 47 percent or 15,510 of those jobs are "indirect jobs"
- 34 percent or 11,220 of those jobs are "general economy jobs"
Rep. Marquart also paid for making this quote:
"Counties & cities can now use this new funding rather than burdening homeowners."That statement is true but misleading. They can use "this new funding" that way but they don't have to. They can also use it to increase spending even higher. The bill doesn't stipulate that the city only gets this money if they promise to hold spending down.
I got a hearty chuckle when Rep. Marquart quoted a local government official in his district saying that the lack of funding "forced them" to spend money. I'll simply ask if someone bribed them or if it's more a case of them choosing to spend more.
Another significant thing we should highlight is the DFL defeating Mark Olson's amendment that would've mandated offsets to the tax increases. Here's the message that sends: "This is all about increasing taxes." I can't see a bit of proof that the DFL is the least bit concerned about overburdening Minnesota's taxpayers. I've seen lots of proof that they're putting a higher priority on increasing taxes.
Finally, we've got to remind people what this bill is. According to Rep. Kohls, "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."
Posted Friday, February 22, 2008 5:21 AM
Comment 1 by TitanTrader at 23-Feb-08 01:58 AM
Great job Gary, I update your live posting all day. maybe I'll hear you later today on The Final Word.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-08 06:52 AM
Great job Gary, I update your live posting all day. maybe I'll hear you later today on The Final Word.
That's entirely possible. :)
DFL Still Spinning Transportation Bill
As I said in this post , I loved Mark Buesgens' quip that "There's more spin happening than on a well-oiled tilt-o-whirl." Based on this WC Trib article , it's apparent that the DFL hasn't stopped spinning yesterday's vote:
Supporters of the bill framed it as a dramatic compromise and the result of nearly two-dozen concessions made over the past few days.Last year's bill was $5.5 billion. This year's bill is upwards of $7.5 billion. Where's the compromise with that? Alice Hausman praised Bernie Leider for being a visionary leader in putting this bill together. That was the most bizarre statement of the day. I don't doubt that Bernie Lieder is a nice man but a visionary leader he isn't.
Steve Drazkowski had it right when he said that "There is nothing courageous about reaching into your neighbors pocket to pay for things."
Here's another good bit of spin:
"This time, I believe there is sufficient bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate to override the Governor's veto," said Rep. Aaron Peterson, backing up Sertich. "We will provide Minnesotans with the leadership they have been asking for on our state's ongoing transportation crisis."Rep. Peterson might believe that but that doesn't make it so. What is Rep. Peterson basing his opinion on? Wishful thinking? Were there bribes being accepted? Does he also believe in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny, too?
Beliefs are fine but I'd rather base my opinions on facts.
I'd further argue that it isn't leadership that grabs people's money feed the government. That's highway robbery.
Originally posted Friday, February 22, 2008, revised 26-Jan 4:17 AM
No comments.
Pawlenty Vetoes Tax Increase Bill
I just got a Google Alert saying that Gov. Pawlenty has vetoed the
ST. PAUL -- Gov. Tim Pawlenty rejected a $6.6 billion transportation funding package today as Democratic lawmakers look ahead to the vote that really matters: an attempt to overturn the governor's veto.This sets up an override showdown that's likely to start Monday. The House DFL did tons of armtwisting yesterday but still couldn't gather the 90 votes needed to override Gov. Pawlenty's promised veto. I'm higly doubtful that they'll be able to get the extra vote needed to override in the House.
In his veto letter to House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the governor wrote that "while there is broad consensus that the state needs to build on the record level of transportation funding we have provided over the past five years, this bill is an overreaching, massive tax increase that will further burden Minnesotans during already difficult economic times."
As usual, Steve Murphy, this blogger's best 'Senate friend', provided this quote:
Sen. Steve Murphy, the Red Wing DFLer who authored the bill, said the package creates jobs, fixes bridges with structural problems and provides funding for road safety.When Al Gore left the national stage, I worried that there'd be a dearth of liberal hyperbole. At the time, I didn't know that Steve Murphy existed. It's obvious that Sen. Murphy more than adequately makes up for Algore's hyperbolic rants. His quote insinuates that the GOP alternative bill wouldn't address the needs that the DFL bill does. That's arrogance in the first degree. It's also wildly inaccurate.
"This is serious business," said Murphy, DFL-Red Wing. "Lives are at stake, and in greater Minnesota hundreds of lives are at stake."
I can't let Sen. Murphy's statement about this megatax bill creating jobs go either. KSTP's Tom Hauser put together a video that utterly debunks Sen. Murphy's claims.
Here's Gov. Pawlenty's quote on why he vetoed the bill:
"There's a whole bunch of reasons why this bill is oversized and too burdensome on Minnesota taxpayers," Pawlenty said.The DFL proved yesterday that they put a higher priority on expanding government than they put on protecting taxpayers' wallets. I'm confident that that will be a major theme during this fall's campaign. Here's one damning quote in Gov. Pawlenty's veto letter to Speaker Kelliher:
In addition, I am disappointed that the majority caucuses in both bodies chose to ignore my concerns & repeated offers to work together on a compromise, comprehensive transportation package.We've known since the start of the 2007 session that the DFL isn't interested in compromise, that they prefer confrontation over compromise. Yesterday's confrontation (I won't call it a debate) is just the latest proof of that.
Originally posted Friday, February 22, 2008, revised 24-Mar 1:42 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Feb-08 05:00 PM
silly question. If the veto override vote is 89 to 44 last time I looked 89 beats 88 (44 X 2) which means the veto is overriden. Unless vote 134 is a person who will vote no making the no count 45 meaning 90 is needed!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by AAA at 22-Feb-08 05:45 PM
No triumphalist spin until the veto is overridden.
The long arm of the DFL is pestering every single one of the 44. This isn't about politics. This is about the prosperity of MN.
Please don't speculate that they can't do it unless you are darn well sure.
I've received messages from Legislators saying that they are getting tons of calls from contractors and other special interests who stand to benefit, and that they are very convincing.
We'll use this against them in October. As for now. We need to hold the 44 til Monday, so please don't give anyone the impression that they don't need to call and urge to Sustain!
Please back down on the everything is taken care of angle. It is going to be one hell of a tough weekend. Don't give readers one single reason to think they don't need to get motivated and CALL!
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-08 05:49 PM
Walter, it takes 90 votes to override, not two thirds of the people voting.
AAA, Marty was just on Jason's show. He said that some executive decisions are being considered if the Wayward Six vote to override.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 22-Feb-08 05:58 PM
Walter - It is highly likely that Rep. Lesch will vote to over ride the veto just because he is a partisan hack. If he does indeed change his vote, that is 90.
AAA - you are correct we do need to make sure that we confirm those that voted the right way yesterday as well as hammer on those who strayed from the path. However, I don't think things are as dark as you say they are. Did you hear Rep. Siefert on Jason Lewis' show tonight? While he is not taking any vote for granted (and he shouldn't) he didn't seem to be as alarmed as you are about the prospects. He has a couple of tricks up his sleeve that he has yet to play.
Meanwhile, everyone had best be calling their reps AND Rep. Siefert to let them know that we do not need to be taxed anymore.
LL
DFL Demagogue Express Has Left the Station
In my last post , I said that I was worried that Algore's departure from the national stage would cause a shortage of hyperbole. I said in that post that that was before I knew about Sen. Steve Murphy. It's now apparent that the DFL Demagogue Express has left the proverbial station. There are enough easily refutable quotes in this article that I can't pass it up. The first quote that I'll highlight is this quote from Speaker Kelliher:
"I would want to bring the governor back from irrelevancy for the rest of the session- those are his words," said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, in answer to a reporter's question whether a successful override in the House would render Pawlenty irrelevant.I can't figure out why Speaker Kelliher thinks that Gov. Pawlenty is irrelevant to this process. That's just plain nuts. He's vetoed each of the massive tax increases that Kelliher and Co. have sent him. In essence, she's saying that Gov. Pawlenty is irrelevant because he's standing with working families in fighting the DFL's latest attempt to implement a regressive tax system.
"I've always said it a different way, that the chief executive decided to take himself out of this debate," said Kelliher, who believes House Democrats have the votes to override the governor, an action possible on Monday (Feb. 25).
Minnesotans of all political persuasions should call Speaker Kelliher demanding to know why she, along with House Majority Leader Tony Sertich & other DFL legislative leaders, are trying to implement such a regressive tax system that's hurting Minnesota's working poor. Here is the contact information for Speaker Kelliher & her Legislative Assistant:
Speaker of the HouseI'd also strongly advise that everyone contact their representative, whether they're Republican or Democrat, urging them to vote to (a) sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto & (b) not ruin Minnesota's economy. Follow this link to the House Directory to find your legislator.
Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL) 60A
(651) 296-0171
E-mail: rep.margaret.kelliher@house.mn
Legislative Assistant: Dianne Ruppert (651) 296-4279
As ridiculous as Speaker Kelliher's "irrelevant" quote is, it pales in comparison to Sen. Steve Murphy's outright lie:
Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, expressed unhappiness over the governor's veto. "I am extremely disappointed in the governor's veto of this transportation investment that would do much to improve the safety of our state's roads and bridges and bolster our state's economy. This veto clearly demonstrates that the governor has no plan for transportation in our state," said Murphy.There's only one way I can respond to Sen. Murphy's quote:
Sir, You're a bald-faced liar who should be run out of the Senate the next time you're up for re-election, if not sooner. It's one thing to say that you don't like Gov. Pawlenty's plan but it's quite another to say that he doesn't have a plan.To say that Gov. Pawlenty doesn't have a "for transportation in our state" ignores the transportation plan that House Minority Leader Marty Seifert offered Wednesday. Rep. Seifert consulted with Gov. Pawlenty while putting this plan together, something that the DFL apparently isn't interested in doing.
I'm demanding that the Senate DFL leadership to renounce this wildly inaccurate statement ASAP. It is beneath the standard of honesty that Minnesotans demand of their public officials.
Sen. Murphy has a history of making wild statments about transportation, which he hasn't been held accountable for. The most egregious is his statement that "'We're going to have to swallow the bitter pill, take the political hit and raise these revenues,' [State Senator] Murphy said, adding that another bridge collapse 'is a likelihood , and we don't want that.'"
It's time that the Senate DFL leadership reined this disgusting person in. Thus far, they haven't shown that that's what they want. In fact, Majority Leader Pogemiller & Assistant Majority Leader Clark done more to encourage him to speak out rather than rein him in.
That's an indicator as to where the DFL's priorities lie. They'd rather have a member of their leadership telling lies than working with Gov. Pawlenty on a bipartisan transportation package. They'd rather pass regressive tax increases that damage working families than prioritize spending. They'd rather side with their special interest allies than with working families.
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.
Originally posted Friday, February 22, 2008, revised 24-Mar 1:54 PM
No comments.
The Right Policy, The Wrong Question
Yesterday, the St. Cloud Time ran my Your Turn editorial . Editor Randy Krebs gave it a great title, calling it "Republicans have best plan to fix state transportation". I'll admit that I wasn't thinking of that showy of a title but I agree that the House GOP's plan is the best.
One of best (and most annoying) parts of these editorials is the comments that ensue. Former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker, with whom I graduated, makes a point of taking me on with his questions. Yesterday was no exception. Mr. Ellenbecker must've read my previous post because took exception to this Seifert statement:
Republicans looked to wasteful inefficiencies in state government spending as a source of revenue for transportation.Here's how he framed his artificial argument:
Where, specificly, are you taking the money from to put into transportation? WeI took exception to John's question because it assumes that all money budgeted is efficiently spent. Here's how I responded:
cannot discuss the merits of where it is coming from until you identify where it is coming from. Please, tell us specificly were the money will be coming from so we can discuss whether that source is the appropriate source of revenue. Thank you.
Can you say that every penny is efficiently spent ? The money first belongs to We The People , not the politicians.In Ellenbecker's world, the money belongs to the government first. I'd been arguing all day that the DFL shouldn't have been heaping a greater tax burden onto We The People , especially when the economy isn't strong.
Instead of slipping the question, though, let's give John his answer. The MnSCU Board is vastly overbloated. While attending Steve Gottwalt's townhall meeting Last weekend, a former professor at SCSU said that the MnSCU Board employed 500-600 people. This gentleman said that Arizona & Kansas ran their boards with 15 people & 55 people respectively.
This former professor's biggest pet peeve, other than all the unneeded people, with the MnSCU Board is that most of the people are drawing overbloated salaries, many in the 6-figure range.
Personally, I've got another major problem with the MnSCU Board: they don't report to & aren't accountable to the various universities; they answer to the politicians. They set policy based on the good of the entire system first, the needs of each individual university second. That's a bassackwards way of setting policy.
In a nutshell, this is the monster that we're fighting. It's time that we stopped the government's business as usual operations. It's time that We The People started picking people that do the people's bidding instead of doing the government's bidding.
Now it's time for me to do my part in that. It's time to get ready for the Benton County BPOU County Convention.
Posted Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:43 AM
No comments.
Steve Gottwalt: Making A Difference
This was a busy week for my adopted representative, Steve Gottwalt. That's reflected in his email update. Here's the first highlighted point in Steve's e-letter:
On Tuesday, we announced "Justin's Bill" (HF2639), which represents landmark, bi-partisan legislation I've authored to help crack down on the illegal online trafficking of prescription drugs. A broad group of stakeholders and supporters gathered for a news conference to announce Justin's Bill on Tuesday morning at the Capitol. Later that day, the House Health and Human Services Committee gave the bill unanimous approval, and it now awaits action by the whole House.First off, my heart goes out to the Pearson family. I can't imagine the pain they've suffered because of this. My thoughts & prayers go out to the Pearsons. One other thing needs to be mentioned. Dan Pearson is to be applauded for forging through the pain to make a difference for Minnesotans. Families all across Minnesota should thank him for his pursuit of a solution to this disturbing problem.
Justin's Bill is the result of tremendous efforts on the part of many people, and has strong, bi-partisan support in the House and the Senate. It's named after the deceased son of Clearwater resident, Dan Pearson, who brought the issue to my attention last year. Following an injury, Justin Pearson became addicted to prescription pain killers he was able to easily purchase online in large quantities without any medical evaluation. The impact of the drugs eventually claimed his life on a Christmas morning. Statistics show this is a growing trend and a public health concern. We know this legislation will save lives.
Let's also note that Steve makes time to get out & listen to his constituents. If he hadn't made himself available, it's anybody's guess if he'd have heard from Mr. Pearson. Not only did Steve listen to Mr. Pearson, he responded to his problems by authoring the bill that will, as Steve puts it, "save lives."
In Steve's brief time as a legislator, he's gotten an incredible amount of common sense legislation passed, especially considering the fact that he's a freshman in the minority party.
The next thing highlighted was Thursday's war over the transportation bill. Here's part of what Steve wrote:
The bill, as amended, heaps $6.6 billion in new taxes on Minnesotans, and represents the largest single tax increase in state history. It includes a 8.5 cents per gallon gas tax increase, license tab fee increases, and sales tax increases for metro and outstate residents. Both the House and Senate passed the bill Thursday, mostly along party lines. I voted against it and Governor Pawlenty has already vetoed it; it is too large and relies too heavily on new taxes and relies too heavily on new taxes. It's even bigger than the $5.5 billion bill Governor Pawlenty vetoed last year!The message is simple: the DFL won't prioritize spending. Their lone priority is to raise taxes & pay off their special interest allies. Much was made all day about this or that group had issued a statement supporting the transportation bill. Steve Gottwalt fought with Marty Seifert & the House GOP Caucus to prevent the DFL from heaping a huge tax burden onto Minnesota's families.
I fully intend to vote in favor of a transportation bill this session, but not this one. We need a reasonable, responsible transportation bill that moves us forward without breaking the backs of hard working Minnesota tax payers, especially as they face rising prices on nearly everything, and tough economic times. I have listened to the people of our district, and the vast majority have told me they do not want a gas tax increase. The vast majority have specifically asked us to reprioritize state spending to meet transportation needs, instead of raising new taxes. We need responsible leadership, willing to look at the $34 billion state budget, and prioritize to live within our means. HF2800 does not call for any spending reductions from other areas of the state budget, it relies almost entirely on new taxes, which sends the message that your Legislature can't make the tough decisions and prioritize spending. Instead, the bill foists that burden onto already strained Minnesota taxpayers.
Steve ridiculed the DFL's talk about reaching a compromise, saying in a statement that it wasn't a compromise to go from a $5.5 billion package to a $7.5 billion package.
I just went to the House TV archives website & transcribed the stemwinder speech that Steve gave. I'll bet that you agree with everything Steve said. Here's that transcript:
Activists, Steve's speech & Marty's speech are the blueprints to victory. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce signed off on a bill that We The People think stinks. We The People need to tell our legislators that we'll take it personally if they sell our interests down the river like this. We The People need to tell our legislators that their decisionmaking has to be informed by what will give us the best shot at prosperity.Rep. Gottwalt: So this is the best that we can do. This is the best bill that we can put together. It represents compromise. I don't know. Did they approach our leadership? I don't know how much discussion there was with the Governor's office. This represents compromise. Let's see. We had a veto & an uphold on a $5.5 billion package last year. This one's at $7.5 billion. So that's the best that we can do. That's compromise. And instead of talking about compromise & getting something real done in the way of compromise for transportation, we're debating 'We've got spirit, yes we do. we've got more spirit than you on transportation issues' that are vital to the state of Minnesota.
What a crock. Now when I was elected to represent the citizens of my district, Madam Speaker & members, I had this funny idea that I was supposed to listen to them & that what they said to me was important to me. You know what my constituents have told me, members? They don't want a gas tax. they're barely able to stomach a nickel. Ten cents is completely out of the question. And we're sitting at 7.5 cents. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, ok now, my constituents have told me in big numbers, in phone calls & emails & letters, my pre-session survey:Please we're approaching economic uncertainty. My fuel bills are going up, grocery bills are going up, my gas bills are going up. Inflation is going up. We may be heading to $4 a gallon. That's the prediction for this summer. This isn't hyperbole, this is what our families are experiencing. And instead of going back to them & being able to explain to them that we, as legislators, have practiced good intestinal fortitude & we
looked at our budget & we prioritized transportation because it's so important, we're going back to them & saying "You know, out of a 10 percent budget increase & a $34 billion budget, we can't find anything less important that we could move over to make room for transportation funding. Zero in this from general funding. C'mon Representatives. So now I've got to go back to my constituents, if I were to support this, & say "We can't make the big decisions. We can't prioritize spending. We're going to make you pay the price."
It's all new taxes, members, all of it. All new taxes. And this is the approach that's gotten next to nothing done for transportation time & time again. But to stay on mark here. I'm going back to my constituents that told me no new taxes, figure it out, prioritize your spending decisions & give us the transportation funding we need & I'm going to say "No, no, no, no. We can't do that. You're going to pay hundreds & hundreds of dollars more per family & thousands more dollars when you buy a new vehicle because we can't prioritize here at the state legislature & look at our budget & find room in it for transportation that's so important. That's the message back to my constituents.
Now on the bonding bill that we're gonna discuss soon, maybe next week, you know, we're gonna talk about things like festivals & dolphin pools but no, no, no, we can't spend any bonding money on transportation. That's fake money. That's putting it on the backs of our children & grandchildren. But we can do it for dolphins & Shakespeare festivals & for God knows what else that we're gonna be voting on next week. Is that the message that I'm supposed to take back to my constituents? Members, this is why I'm going to urge you to vote no on this bill, so we can get to real compromise & a real moderate package that's based on real prioritization.
Let's put a little bit of our general fund dollars in there. Let's find a way to base our increased support for transportation on something other than more new taxes on Minnesotans who are fed up. They're seeing their prices go up for everything else & now we're gonna throw this on their backs, too, & cry 'Victory for Transportation.' That's just flat out disappointing. Members, if you can sell that to your constituents, you're a better salesperson than I am. And I'd love to see your sales sheet. But if not, I encourage you to vote no on this bill & hold out for something better. Let's show that we can really prioritize & come up with something better. This is not the best we can do.
As Steve so eloquently states in his speech, the transportation bill doesn't give us the best shot at prosperity. As such, the House GOP Caucus should vote to sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
Originally posted Saturday, February 23, 2008, revised 24-Feb 9:31 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 23-Feb-08 07:55 PM
Steve still hasn't responded to my email wondering if he endorses the view of Leo Pusateri that some constituents deserve to be laughed at.
Comment 2 by TitanTrader at 24-Feb-08 01:37 AM
Steve still hasn't responded to my email wondering if he endorses the view of Leo Pusateri that some constituents deserve to be laughed at. BOO HOO, I wouldn't respond to you either. I may even think of getting a restraining order against your lame self.
The High Price of Mismanagement
Thursday morning, Minnesotans will find out how big the budget deficit is. Most legislators expect it to top $1 billion. It took just one year of DFL mismanagement to turn a $2.163 surplus into a $1 billion deficit. That's a pathetic record to campaign on. Imagine what we'd be staring at if the first DFL budget had become law. Last year's budget increased spending by 9.6 percent. If the DFL had their way, the spending increase would've been close to double that.
It's time to broadcast to voters everywhere that the DFL won't make difficult decisions. It's time to tell them, as Steve Gottwalt so forcefully did , that the DFL isn't interested in setting sensible priorities. It's time we told Minnesotans that the DFL would rather do what their special interest allies want than to stand up for Minnesota's families.
In 2006, the DFL campaigned on no tax increases, on being fiscal moderates. Instead, they've passed budgets that would've created the biggest budget deficit in Minnesota's history. Instead, they would've passed the largest tax increases in the state's history. In short, it's time to remind Minnesota's voters what Mike Hatch said in his acceptance speech after getting the DFL nomination for governor:
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, " we can do this without raising taxes ."I titled that post "Does anyone believe them?" for a reason. I didn't think that the DFL could help but propose huge tax increases. It's only a matter of time before some scientist disovers that it's part of their genetic code.
Isn't it time for us to take the gloves off & highlight how Gov. Pawlenty's plans are vastly superior to the DFL's & that Gov. Pawlenty's plans don't increase taxes? Shouldn't we be about the business of embarassing the DFL for their daily mismanagement of the Legislature?
Most importantly, it's time that conservatives everywhere, whether they serve in the legislature or if they're party activists, started pointing out all the different tax increases hurt the little guy that the DFL claims to fight for. It's time that we demolished that myth.
If they were for the little guy, they wouldn't have increased license tab fees as dramatically as they did. And don't let them get away with saying that the tab fee increase only affects new cars. Rep. Eastlund got Bernie Lieder to admit that the increased fees applied to used vehicles that aren't registered in Minnesota . Lots of used car lots buy vehicles from outside Minnesota, with lots of them being from North Dakota, Texas & Arizona.
If we make this election a referendum on the DFL's incompetence & coldheartedness, we'll go a long ways toward retaking the House. To do that, we'll need every GOP activist to spread the GOP's message. That necessarily means that we can't have people sitting this one out to 'teach them a lesson'. That means that the people that sat 2006 out had better return with a fire in their belly.
We can't afford another two years of incompetent DFL leadership. In fact, we can't afford the year of DFL mismanagement that we've already had.
Posted Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:14 AM
No comments.
Spinning the D's FISA Failure
Matthew Continetti has a great column up on the House Democrats' failure to renew the FISA bill that lapsed. Harry Reid & Dick Durbin have tried defending the lapsing of this important reform. Here's something that Durbin said:
Says Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, "The FISA law--even if we do not change it, gives ample authority to this president to continue to monitor the conversations of those who endanger the United States."That doesn't pass the laugh test. If FISA were adequate in its 1978 version, then why was it changed in the PATRIOT Act? That's the one thing that Sen. Durbin isn't willing to answer. Herre's some more Democrat spin:
Says House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes: "We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution." Democratic national-security-adviser-in-waiting Richard Clarke writes that "FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies."Rep. Reyes' statement is pure spin. There's nothing in that statement that's defensible. Rep. Reyes would have us believe that to renew the Protect America Act would violate the principles of the Constitution. Simply put, I'd ask him to explain why he thinks that renewing the PAA would lead to the "suspending the Constitution"? As a follow-up, I'd ask this: if the bill requires "suspending the Constitution", why did it pass? Why didn't it the courts overturn the bill if it was unconstitutional? The courts didn't overturn it because it wasn't unconstitutional.
As for Richard Clarke's statement, Mr. Continetti simply says this:
But any new wiretaps the government seeks will have to go through stringent FISA procedures, which require the government to show "probable cause" that a "U.S. person" is a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power" before a search warrant targeting him can be issued. And this is troubling becausem pace Richard Clarke, the old FISA didn't and doesn't work.Thank you, Mr. Continetti. The average American knows that this reform was needed to protect us from future terrorist attacks. The American people, by an almost 3-to-1 margin, think that it's ok to conduct warrantless intercepts of terrorists. Here's why this debate is even taking place:
The FISA court decided that calls or emails merely routed through the United States were, in fact, domestic communications falling under the "probable cause" evidentiary standard. It didn't matter that the target and the recipient of his communications might both be abroad, if the electrons zipped across the United States, as they often do in a globally networked world, then a warrant was required to listen in. By the miracle of technology, Abu Omar and Mullah Mohamed in Pakistan could both be "U.S. persons."Mr. Continetti accurately states the legal opinion of FISA judges. The notion that intelligence surveillance is domestic just because it's routed through a US switch is absurd. There isn't a thinking person that would buy that spin if it came from Ms. Pelosi or Sen. Reid.
Meanwhile, the ACLU and the tort bar filed lawsuits against the telecommunication companies that had cooperated with the U.S. government in the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Naturally, the telecoms, fearing that they soon would be paying damages, grew wary of cooperation with the government. And some of the FISA judges, the same folks often accused of "rubberstamping" the executive's wishes, raised the bar that needed to be met before counterterrorist surveillance could begin. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that by summer 2007, "We were in extremis, because we had lost...about two-thirds of our [surveillance] capability."God forbid there be another terrorist attack on the United States' homeland but if it happens, I'll be on this computer attaching the blame to the trial attorneys' lobby and their liberal enablers. God forbid that they swat the trial attorneys aside for being the parasites that they are. God forbid that they tell the telecom industry that it's ok to help protect the US homeland without fear of attorneys suing them into the economic grave.
Here's the truth that emerges: Democrats crave trial attorneys' campaign contributions more than they care about protecting America against future terrorist attacks.
That's the cold, hard truth that Democrats can't spin.
Posted Sunday, February 24, 2008 10:08 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 25-Feb-08 10:08 AM
Too bad the California Republican Party spent its entire advertising budget this year campaigning for more slot machines in Indian casinos or there would be more outrage. Its going to take another terrorist attack for the chickens to come home to roost on this one. Meanwhile we should all be campaigning to have a large, luxurious halfway house built in the Pacific heights neighborhood of San Francisco to house those poor victims of George W Bush's nightmare concentration camp in Guantanimo in the style that they deserve. the problem now is that the Reps have gone almost as soft as the Dems on this one. They make a few squeaks but their not ready to stand up and fight. The Obamassiah will fix everything.
Don't the Taxpayers Count?
After reading the Times Editorial Board's editorial , I'm stunned at how little they expressed their care for taxpayers. Here's how they open their editorial:
So for the third time within three years, here Minnesota sits.Needless to say, I didn't let this go without criticizing their thinking. There's two problems that I immediately detected. The first problem is obvious: Why do 70 percent of the politicians support this bill while 70 percent of the taxpayers think it's an awful idea? Isn't that a perfect illustration of the serious disconnect between politicians and the people?
A massive and much-needed transportation package has the support of almost 70 percent of legislators. Seventy percent!
Yet a handful of elected officials somehow see themselves and their partisan political agendas as more important than what a large majority of legislators, and, we believe, rank-and-file Minnesotans, know this state needs.
The other major disconnect is between the Times Editorial Board & the facts. Why would they think that "rank-and-file Minnesotans" believe that passing the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history is what "this state needs"? Polling certainly doesn't indicate that. Days after the I-35W bridge collapse, KSTP published a poll showing that Minnesotans overwhelmingly opposed a gas tax increase. Here's what I posted on that poll:
Many politicians have called for the gas tax increase to shore up aging highways and bridges.Things haven't changed much since then. KSTP conducted another poll right before the session started. Here's the first question & the response they got:
"This is really a call to action and this is a duty that we need to fulfill on behalf of the memory of people who've lost their lives," House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said.
But so far, it appears most Minnesotans don't agree. Fifty-seven percent of people surveyed say the state should not increase the state gas tax. Only 38 percent say it should go up. Of those who want a gas tax increase, 47 percent would prefer an increase of less than five cents. Another 35 percent say they would pay 5 to 7 cents. But few would pay more.
The KSTP poll surveyed 500 adults. 57 percent said no to any tax increases. Of the 38 percent that said the gas tax should be increased, 59 percent said they'd only support it if it was for a nickel per gallon or less. According to my trusty calculator, 79.4 percent of those people polled said that they'd only support a gas tax increase of a nickel or less per gallon.
Do you think the state gas tax should? Or should not? Be increased to pay for improving the condition of our roads and bridges?Here's the second question:
36% Should
59% Should Not
5% Not Sure
By how much do you think the tax should be increased?According to the most recent polling, 575 of the 700 people polled think that the gas tax either shouldn't be raised or raised less than a nickel.According to my trusty calculator, that's 82 percent wouldn't support the House Transportation bill's tax increases.
64% 1-5 Cents
23% > 5 Cents
12% Not Sure
Again, I go back to my opening question. Don't the taxpayers matter in the DFL's decisionmaking process? Don't the taxpayers matter to the Times Editorial Board's decisionmaking process? They say that they think "a large majority of legislators, and, we believe, rank-and-file Minnesotans" support the biggest tax increase in Minnesota's history yet the facts don't bear that out.
If the DFL persists in staying this far out of touch, they'll be in for a rude awakening this November. You can't oppose the will of 80+ percent of the people on the big issue of taxes & expect to win seats in the House. It just ain't happening.
Originally posted Sunday, February 24, 2008, revised 24-Mar 1:47 PM
No comments.
