February 23-24, 2009
Feb 23 04:26 Taking the Fight To The DFL Feb 23 11:18 The NRSC's Take on the Coleman-Franken Recount Feb 23 21:20 An Open Letter to Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller Feb 24 17:34 Different Perspectives, Differing Reports Feb 24 20:50 Pre-Grading Obama's Speech
Prior Months: Jan
Taking the Fight To The DFL
Sunday's St. Cloud Times included my Your Turn editorial . One of the great featurs on the Times' website is Story Chat, which is the Times' comment section. Since joining Story Chat, I've had an ongoing battle of wits with St. Cloud's former mayor, John Ellenbecker.
Though I wrote about President Obama in my Your Turn editorial, the subject eventually changed to Minnesota politics in general and DFL politics specifically. Here's John's comment that got the battle started:
Gary, speaking of credibility, why do Republican Minnesota legislators simply talk about taking a pay cut, why don't they actually do something, like give the money back? There is nothing that says GOP legislators can't simply give a portion of their salary back, and decline the per diems. Why don't they? If they donate the money back to the state, can't they even take a deduction on their income taxes?I know John pretty well, well enough to know that he likes picking fights with the most indefensible arguments imaginable. I'd put this comment in that category. Rather than taking a scattergun approach to the fight, I picked up a scalpel instead. Here's how I replied:
Perhaps you didn't know this but the House & Senate GOP held a press conference last week in which they announced a 5% pay cut for all constitutional officers, including Gov. Pawlenty.My point to taking this approach was to sway the relatively few independents on the board to my side of the fight. That's ALWAYS my goal. My goal on Story Chat is to never indulge in diatribes. It makes no difference if they're out-of-control or under control diatribes, either, because the goal is to win people over. Unfortunately, I don't always achieve that goal.
Perhaps you noted that Sen. Pogemiller spoke after Gov. Pawlenty's SoSA that he went there "to be inspired", to hear Gov. Pawlenty "talk about shared sacrifices" just days after he voted with Tarryl Clark against cutting their stamp allowance, which would've saved Minnesota's taxpayers $56K a year. Personally, I'd rather see things in writing limiting their wasteful spending.
In fact, whether I'm commenting on Story Chat or posting on LFR, the goal is to make the most persuasive argument possible with the goal being to turn independents and people that think that they're conservative Democrats into conservatives.
In this instance, I wanted to turn people against Pogie and Tarryl by highlighting the fact that their words don't match with their actions. In this instance, the action was that they voted against saving taxpayers' money while their words were preaching the gospel of shared sacrifices to the public.
One thing that I can count on John to do is to take arguments personally. John's cheapshot at the beginning is the indicator that I've gotten under his skin:
That is precisely what I was addressing Gary, I am sorry my comment went over your head. You see, it doesn't take legislation to cut a person's salary, that person can simply return 5%, or whatever amount they determine appropriate, to the state. If Republican legislators are serious, why haven't they begun returning 5% of their salaries, and declining their per diems? The Governor is also free to return 5% of his salary to the state. As I already noted, if they give that money back, they can even take a tax deduction on their income taxes, if they want to, they don't have to. Well, when do the Rebublican legislators and the Governor begin to lead, when do they begin to return 5% of their salary to the state? Actions speak much louder than words.Here's my response:
I hate to disappoint you, John, but your comments haven't gone over my head. I merely sidestepped your donation statements because I'd prefer that the pay cut was mandatory for ALL legislators.My point was to refocus the argument onto the fact that the entire legislature and the constitutional officers should accept pay cuts to do their fair share to balance Minnesota's budget.
When John asked why the GOP legislators weren't serious about taking a pay cut, I responded like this:
If Sen. Pogemiller says that there should be shared sacrifices for private sector employees & their employers, shouldn't public sector workers share in that sacrifice? Or should they be exempted from sharing in those sacrifices?Again, I'm pointing the conversation back to something that voters will remember. I'm reminding people that Pogie and the DFL are great at the posturing game but worthless at the action game. The wording of my question is such that I'm forcing the liberal, in this instance John, to defend the indefensible. I mean, how many people would want to tell independents that they think the DFL shouldn't share in the sacrifices that all other Minnesotans are facing? Before leaving the fight, I had to share this with the board:
John talks about Republicans getting serious but he hasn't said anything about how the DFL has sat on their hands & criticized Tim Pawlenty. They've voted down dozens of cost-saving proposals that the GOP has offered. They've even voted against repealing the Green Acres tax increases that Ann Lenczewski rammed through last year that potentially cost farmers tens of thousands of dollars in propert tax increases.Notice how I've stuck with my gameplan. I repeat the initial argument that the DFL tells the public that they're fighting for the little guy and the working stiff but they're doing nothing to keep spending under control, especially if it's money spent on themselves.
That's before we start talking about how DFL legislators, collected close to $200,000 worth of out-of-session, tax-free per diem but still can't offer any suggestions regarding the budget.
John's right that actions speak louder than words but the DFL's inactions speak loudest. If they refuse to lead but cheerfully shoot down the GOP's constructive proposals , then it's time they got run out of the majority so we can get down to business.
The saying goes "Lead, follow or get out of the way." It isn't "Lead, follow or obstruct."
By now, John's fully invested in this fight. Unfortunately, he's making the mistake of sticking with modified version of the 'legislators can donate 5% of their salary argument that he's been making. Here's the modification:
They don't need legislation; if they are truly serious about cutting their salaries. You can deflect the conversation to the DFL all you want, but if Republican legislators want to cut salaries, start by cutting their own, and they don't need to do anything to do so; they can mail their checks back to the state tomorrow.Here's how I hammered that one:
Legislation is needed if you think that ALL LEGISLATORS should have their pay cut. That's the position I'm taking...Secondly, how is submitting legislation doing nothing? Isn't crafting & submitting legislation what legislators do?Not able to resist adding insult to John's injuries, I add this to the reply:
The biggest difference between DFL legislators & GOP legislators is that GOP legislators actually try solving problems. The DFL??? All they do is whine about Gov. Pawlenty's budget, then shoot down serious proposals that would help solve the deficit. John, if that's the DFL's definition of action, they should get out of the way so we can solve this mess.That's one right between the eyes. Fortunately for me, John didn't apply the first rule of digging. Instead, he responds this way:
Those who advocate the change can lead by example. There is nothing stopping a single Rebublican legislator or the Governor from taking a 5% reduction in salary. Are you really saying that they should only do so if the DFL does the same? Is that how shallow their convictions are?Seeing blood in the waters is more than I can resist. I respond by asking this question:
John, are you suggesting that DFL legislators shouldn't accept pay cuts when families & businesses have had their wages & profits cut or eliminated? Should the DFL tell the public that everyone needs to share in the sacrifices, then exempt themselves from sharing in those sacrifices? That's the DFL's right but it's a morally & politically indefensible position.John's final shot was to say that "this sounds like a crisis." Not letting him get the final word in, I respond this way:
I can picture the DFL categorizing this as a crisis because the DFL hasn't had a solutions in ages. People that think things through, though, just propose effective solutions & move to the next issue needing solving.In all these backs-and-forths, I always returned to highlight the DFL's irresponsible actions and their lack of solutions to some big problems. That was my secondary goal the entire time. It's what seperates conservatives from the DFL's emotional replies.
While we were having this fight with a DFL activist, though, questions still dog Speaker Kelliher and Leader Pogemiller. Here's s set of serious questions that the DFL leadership doesn't want to answer:
- What hearings did you hold last summer?
- Why don't you have a budget proposal on the table after accepting close to $200,000 worth of out-of-session, tax-free per diem?
- What work product was produced during these hearings?
- How many hours did ou work on those days that you collected out-of-session, tax-free per diem?
That's all the reason I need for constantly peppering them with these questions.
Posted Monday, February 23, 2009 4:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Feb-09 07:55 AM
He has just handed you the perfect weapon for the bigger battle. If there is nothing stopping any legislator from voluntarily giving back 5% of salary, whether symbolic or believing it a real help in solving the problem, then there is absolutely nothing which stops anybody who thinks they pay too little in taxes from sending more in! In fact, we should assume they've already done that, and it obviously isn't enough. Cut the spending! See here:
http://www.looktruenorth.com/prosperity/growth/7037-ive-found-the-problem.html
Comment 2 by jim fisher at 23-Feb-09 07:46 PM
I agree with the other commenter. Turn it around by saying something like "John. i see your point on the pay raise issue. So, seeing as you guys want to raise income taxes, why don`t you take the lead and have your DFL buddies in the house and senate raise theirs first?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-09 08:07 PM
Guys, I disagree with both approaches because it gives the DFL's apologists an opening for getting into little tit-for-tat battles. That's the totally wrong approach because I want to keep the spotlight on THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, which is that the DFL doesn't have solutions to the deficit problems we're facing & that they'll oppose anything that interrupts their paying off their political allies.
The DFL must pay the price for being the party whose first priority is fighting for their special interests allies. The DFL must pay the price for being the party whose only solution to anything budgetary is job-killing tax increases.
Let's keep the message simple.
The NRSC's Take on the Coleman-Franken Recount
NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn issued this update to the other GOP senators explaining where the election contest is at:
Dear Colleagues,Something jumped out at me in this memo. Here's what jumped off the page at me:
I write to update you on Norm Coleman's election contest in Minnesota. Over the recess, there were conflicting media accounts as to both what is happening in the contest and what these events mean for Norm's case. This brief memorandum is meant to clarify any confusion, and to make clear that the bottom line has not changed: if the Minnesota Court fulfills its statutory obligation to certify the candidate with the highest number of legally cast ballots, we are confident that Norm Coleman will be declared the winner.
First, the number of unopened ballots that have never been counted in this race far exceeds the current 225 vote difference between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Approximately 3,500 rejected absentee ballots remain before the three-judge Minnesota Contest Court.
Second, original/duplicate ballots that were double counted during the recount stage heavily favor Al Franken; it's estimated by over 100 votes. Norm's team has provided direct testimony by Minnesota elections officials that votes were counted twice, and the Minnesota Court has yet to remove the double counted ballots from the recount total.
Third, multiple extraneous ballot issues remain unresolved by the Minnesota Court. For example, election night vote totals were used in the recount where ballots favoring Franken were "lost" (there's no evidence they ever existed), but election night totals were not when ballots favoring Franken were "found" after election night.
Finally, the Minnesota Court has now made clear that the number of illegal votes that are currently included in the vote count exceed the margin of Al Franken's "lead" by hundreds if not thousands. It seems straight common sense that illegal votes cannot be included in a final certified vote total. Yet last week's Friday the 13th ruling by the 3 judge creates exactly that possibility:
The Minnesota Contest Court ruled that 12 categories of ballots were "illegal" under Minnesota law. The problem is that the three judges themselves have previously allowed ballots they now call illegal to be counted. Additionally, this ruling makes thousands of ballots already included in the election night total illegal.
Specifically, the judges' order contradicts their own ruling three days earlier on seven (Franken weighted) ballots that allowed those ballots to be included in the count. Further, this order renders illegal nearly 100 of the 933 (Franken weighted) ballots counted by the Minnesota Canvassing Board during the recount and contradicts a stipulation the Board signed on February 3 that all 933 ballots were legally and properly counted. The Court is refusing to address these blatant inconsistencies despite the fact that they are charged with certifying the number of "legally cast ballots" in this race, a charge that, by their own definition, they are no longer able to keep.
As a former Texas Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice, I find the legal quagmire created by the Friday the 13th ruling, and the Minnesota Court's apparent refusal to address it, particularly troubling. Such widespread inconsistency not only creates state and federal constitutional problems, but saps voters' faith and confidence in the integrity of our election process. In order for the voters of Minnesota, and the members of this body, to have confidence in this contest's outcome the process in Minnesota must be uniform and it must be fair.
I know that you join me in my concern, and support Norm's fight.
Finally, the Minnesota Court has now made clear that the number of illegal votes that are currently included in the vote count exceed the margin of Al Franken's "lead" by hundreds if not thousands.The February 13th ruling creates a predicament for the courts because they didn't officially take their previous ruling off the books. That means that hundreds of votes that were counted for Franken because of one court ruling should now be removed by virtue of the latest court ruling.
Until now, I've resisted making a prediction because I thought things were too close to call. While I realize that Mr. Franken currently has the lead, it's becoming apparent that that lead is the result of cherrypicking ballots from Franken-friendly precincts. Let's review some important facts.
- The votes from the Franken-friendliest precincts have been added in already.
- The votes from the most pro-Coleman precincts haven't been counted.
- There are approximately 3,500 votes from these Coleman-friendly districts. That's more than enough to overtake Franken.
- Election officials have testified that some votes have been double counted.
- These double-counted votes have been from Franken-friendly precincts.
- If the three-judge panel finds this testimony credible, which I think they will, more ballots will be subtracted from Franken's vote totals than from Sen. Coleman's totals.
Posted Monday, February 23, 2009 11:18 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 24-Feb-09 08:01 PM
How should we weigh Senator Cornyn's comments between his experience as a Texas Supreme Court Justice versus as a partisan leader of the NRSC ? Clearly, the overall message is SEND MONEY , and since Coleman's legal team has indicated that they should end their presentation this week, why would they need more money ? Two reasons --- one, if Coleman loses, he pays Franken's legal fees; and two, for an appeal , which means Coleman lost at the Appelate Court level. Thus I do not share your optimism.
Doesn't it concern you that all of the decisions by the State Canvassing Board and now the Appelate Court have been unanimous ? Remember those groups had Republican-appointed participants ? Surely, the Appelate Court Justices know that their decisions will be reviewed; and yet no disagreements? That suggests to me that they are making decisions on strong legal ground. Having read of few of their rulings, they are adhering to established election laws. For those that oppose an activist court, these justices are not trying to write any new laws. Yet, that is what Coleman wants.
Regarding the pool of Coleman ballots, it appears to be shrinking. There are 168 signature mismatches between absentee ballot applications and ballots (which had been estimated to be 800). Also, a category of nonregistered voters, once about 1,200, has shrunk to 306. The current speculation is that Coleman's number is probably less than 2,000 of which Franken said 781 ballots that Coleman would like to see opened are acceptable to them. Although some of these ballots may have been cherry-picked, not all will be Coleman votes.
Further, when Franken presents his case, he has indicated that there are 804 ballots that he would like considered. Unlike Coleman, Franken knows (based on recent Court's rulings) what ballot catagories to bring forward. It is possible that Franken may offer as many ballots to be counted as Coleman.
Plus Franken has potentially 43 more votes that the Court has ruled are now accepatble based on lawsuits that individuals have brought forward. Coleman's target is now 268.
Cornyn brings up the question of the missing envelope of 133 ballots from a Minneapolis precinct which may result in a pick-up of 46 for Coleman. Cornyn fails to mention an equally troubling incident regarding 61 ballots from Becker County where election workers placed them in an unsealed box and left the box unattended. These were not counted on Election night but when they were located later that week, they were counted as part of the recount. Coleman gained at least 19 more votes from that group. Franken is challenging those votes claiming "there was no evidence to establish an appropriate chain of custody". IMO, both claims are valid
The duplicate ballot question may also not have that much of a mathematical impact. First the number is small, and second since it is unknown if the extra ballots were for Franken or Coleman, past judical rulings resulted in proportional reduction to all candidates.
I just don't see the numbers adding up for Coleman.
Sadly, the only that we know right now is that whomever represents Minnesota for the next five years plus will do so with the support of only 42% of the electorate. The election is tainted , not because of fraud but because of two weak candidates.
Coleman has presented an image of a sore loser who is bringing into the state a highly compensated legal team to game the counting methods in order to produce a favorable result. My concern is that the results of election will have less to do with voter intent than the competence of the candidate's legal team , and at this point, Franken's team appears to be winning , or he just has a stronger and more defensible case.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Feb-09 08:28 PM
Having read of few of their rulings, they are adhering to established election laws.With all due respect, they've allowed different counties apply different standards on absentee ballots. I don't consider allowing different ways of handling ballots as "adhering to established election laws."
Comment 3 by Minnesota Central at 22-Mar-09 09:31 AM
Gary,
Thanks for reading my prior comment.
I was hoping to see an update on how you see the situation not that the Election Contest Court has now heard all the witnesses and oral arguments.
Here's my thoughts on where it stands.
Franken had a margin of 225 at the start of the trial. During Coleman's lead Attorney Joe Friedberg's closing he said about Franken's case "They have proved the viability of a number of ballots to an absolute certainty where there can be no conceivable question but that most of the ballots they put in issue should be opened and counted." In effect, agreeing that the Franken campaign's list of ballots should be counted.
So during oral arguments, Friedberg has conceded that 252 ballots should be added. Since Friedberg's closing, the Franken team has finalized its list bringing the total to more than 380. Plus individual voters have sued to have their votes counted and the Election Contest Court has ruled that they should be accepted; therefore the minimum Franken margin is over 500.
Now, let's look at the Coleman arguments. There are three : #1. during the time from election night until the recount occurred a packet of ballots was lost; #2. since some ballots got damaged during the machine counting process, duplicates had to be prepared and potentially this could have lead to double-counting; and #3. rules were not applied consistently.
Let's give him 46 for the Minneapolis precinct with the lost ballots. [Personally, I agree with Coleman based on a prior case (Sparks-Schwab). It's a hard standard, and this court has held to past decisions and statutes. No doubt that voters did vote, but if the purpose of a recount is to prove the count, this cannot be done if the ballots are missing.]
Add to that the double-counting claim -- caused by possible human errors in labeling the duplicates and originals. Coleman thinks he should have a net gain of 61 votes based on his selected 10 precincts (the most often cited is the Mpls precinct with a 14 vote discrepancy), but he is ignoring there are also many precincts (where Coleman won (like White Bear Lake which had a 13 vote discrepancy) and thus potentially that net gain could be much lower.
Then there is the stringent rules applied in Carver County in accepting absentee ballots that could result in no more than 83 votes. (It is unknown if the County may have contacted the voters to correct the mistake and eventually the voter did participate.)
Adding it all up , is less than 200 .. and that assumes the judges agree with him.
So to win, Coleman must hope that the Court agrees to accept 1,359 ballots from Coleman's spreadsheet. However, considering how many blank cells are listed signifying that the voter wasn't registered; or the voter isn't currently in the Statewide Voter Registration System, etc. that shrinks his pool ,. to 6.
From what is stated above, it is not surprising that this week Coleman's attorney Friedberg said that he expects Franken to win , but that Coleman will appeal and then win.
Coleman's talks of appeals are a waste of time , especially if Franken's 225 vote margin is over 500.
Coleman wants to appeal based on violations of Equal Protection but that is not really relevant here. No voter was denied an opportunity to vote. However those that choose to vote via absentee had to follow certain procedures. In Minnesota, voting is a right, but to vote via absentee is a privilege. The Court should see that there was no bias since the procedures were followed successfully in approximately 280,000 cases but 2% of the participants had problems. The Coleman legal team agreed that many of these "problems" were legitimately rejected based on violations of the witness requirement, signature mismatches, non-registered voters, etc.
The main argument that is being made is that some counties applied a strict review while other counties were lax (if are there more than Carver County is unknown but that was the only one discussed in court). OK, except all candidates were subject to the same review by the county, so those that complied with the rules are probably in proportion to those that did not. This is not a case of a "class of voters" that are being denied , just random people who did not comply with procedures. The analogy would be that one county has a higher rate of ticketing speeders than other counties , it may be true, but if you followed the speed limit, you did not get ticketed , and if you did get a ticket, don't try an argue that you would not have been cited in other counties.
Materiality is also a consideration. If Franken's lead is 500 and Carver had 83 voters rejected due to strict application of the rules, then even if every voter had been a Coleman voter, Franken would still win. The purpose of an election is to determine a winner, not to determine the precise margin of victory.
I am glad that Coleman has taken his case to trial. The trial is proving that the multiple reviews by local election officials and re-enforced by the State Canvassing Board, Minnesota had a clean election. With 42% of the vote, Franken may be able to claim that he prevailed in this contest, but clearly the voters are not enamored with either candidate.
Let's end the claims of fraudulent and stolen elections and get on to seating a Senator.
An Open Letter to Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller
The DFL's leadership in the Minnesota House and Senate have failed to produce any meaningful reforms that would protect the taxpayers' wallets from an ever-growing government. It's time that we demanded an explanation for the DFL's inaction. That's why I'm drafting a letter to Speaker Kelliher and Senate Majority Leader Pogemiller. If anyone is interested in signing onto the letter, leave a comment to this post. Here's the text of my letter:
Speaker Kelliher and Senator Pogemiller,
We've known since last April that Minnesota would be facing a major budget deficit for the 2010-2011 biennium. We knew that because you voted to pass legislation that eliminated a $900,000,000 budget deficit for the current biennium. When the November forecast was announced, Gov. Pawlenty used his unallotment powers to eliminate another deficit for this biennium. This time, the deficit for this biennium was over $420,000,000.
Recently, it's come to the public's attention that DFL members of the legislature were paid a substantial amount of per diem for out-of-session hearings and meetings.
On the Senate side, the top 16 DFL legislators were paid a grand total of $99,648 for out-of-session hearings and meetings. With senators getting paid $96 per day in per diem, that's a total of 1,038 days of out-of-session per diem paid.
On the House side, the 14 biggest amounts of out-of-session per diem were paid to DFL representatives. The total amount of out-of-session per diem paid to these representatives is $65,142. Dividing the $65,142 by the $77 per day per diem payment gives you a total of 846 days of out-of-session hearings and meetings.
There are several reasons why I'm highlighting these per diem payments, the most important of which is to ask these questions:
The reason why your answers to these questions are so important to me is to know that the legislature is doing its fair share of work in finding solutions to Minnesota's budget deficit. If you aren't part of the solution, then you're really just putting up an unneeded, and unwanted, roadblock in the solution process.
- What work product did these DFL legislators produce during these hearings and meetings?
- Did the DFL give a high priority to gathering important budgetary information during these meetings?
- Did the DFL give a high priority to finding solutions to the budget deficit the highest priority of these hearings? If the DFL didn't put a high priority on that, why didn't they?
- Did the DFL give a high priority to identifying spending that was spent on wants, not needs? If the DFL didn't put a high priority on that, why didn't they?
- Did the DFL put a high priority on finding ways to save money without reducing service levels? If the DFL didn't put a high priority on that, why didn't they?
- How many hours did these legislators work, on average, each of these 1,884 work days? Less than 4 hours on average? Was it 4-8 hours? Was it more than 8 hours a day?
If you aren't part of the solution, then you all but mathematically insignificant to the process. With Minnesota facing a possible $7,000,000,000 deficit for the 2010-2011 biennium, Minnesota's taxpayers can't afford to have legislators be innocent bystanders. Minnesota's taxpayers need DFL legislators to be part of the solution process.
There's another set of questions that demand answers. These questions ask the DFL leaderhisp if they've voted against GOP-submitted solutions. (As you know, that's a rhetorical question.)
Why did the House and Senate vote against reducing the stamp allowance for each legislator from 5,500 stamps per legislator per year to 3,500 stamps per legislator per year? Had the Senate passed the measure, that would have saved Minnesota's taxpayers $56,280 per year. Had the House passed that reduction, they would have saved saved Minnesota's taxpayers $112,560 per year. Together, these measures would have saved Minnesota's taxpayers a grand total of $168,840 per year or $337,680 for this biennium.
While saving $337,680 falls short of balancing the budget by itself, it's still a significant step. It's especially important considering the fact that there isn't a single silver bullet solution to this deficit. Each time we find savings to these type of things, it reduces the need for painful cuts to important services.
Shouldn't DFL legislators put a high priority on finding budget savings of this size? Wouldn't that make the difficult decisions less painful?
Another question I have is whether the DFL majority will join Republicans in cutting their own pay and the pay of Minnesota's constitutional officers. Senator Pogemiller said he was disappointed that Gov. Pawlenty didn't speak enough about shared sacrifices during his State of the State Address. Isn't this the perfect opportunity for Senator Pogemiller to prove he's serious about sharing in the sacrifices that all Minnesotans are making during these difficult economic times?
An excellent first step in proving that you're willing to share in the sacrifices that all Minnesotans are making would be to return the per diem you were paid for this summer's and this fall's meetings. After all, we haven't seen proof that anything constructive got accomplished during those meetings.
The Star Tribune's Mark Brunswick reported that the DFL is "pinning much of their hope for short-term relief on a national stimulus package coming out of Washington." I don't doubt but that that's true. My question is why the House would reject Rep. Drazkowski's amendment to HF886. Rep. Drazkowski's amendment would have prohibited "Minnesota from accepting federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act if acceptance creates an ongoing spending obligation to the state."
Is it the DFL majority's intention to increase Minnesota's dependence on one time federal monies? Is it the DFL majority's intention to continually increase the overall size of government?
If it isn't the DFL majority's intention to continually increase the overall size of government, what proof can you provide that shows you are serious about putting taxpayers and job creators first?
Hasn't the DFL majority really provided abundant proof that their highest priority is to increasing taxes and the government's burden on Minnesota's taxpayers?
Senator Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher, I look forward to your reply. When I receive it, I will immediately publish it without editing. Please send your response to me at gmg425 at charter dot net.
Originally posted Monday, February 23, 2009, revised 11-May 12:26 AM
Comment 1 by kyle carlson at 23-Feb-09 11:17 PM
When can we make political careers paid by the hour? Punch a clock when your job starts and ends. Anybody in a political slot doesn't have to show anything to the public as far as accomplishments, what a crock! This is why we eliminated Dean Johnson out here in kandiyohi co.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 24-Feb-09 08:22 AM
Gary:
It's a nice long letter, but I can think of a few good questions.
* It's estitmated that the stimlus package might give the state three billion even less with some others. How are you plugging the rest of the gap.
* If Tim's budget is so wrong and misguided why haven't you produced the budget that is right and defends your priorties. I think the reason why you haven't is your budget will be considered even worse.
* For people to spend responsibily they have to create a budget and live with in it. Why won't you write a budget an act which millions of Minnesotans already do.
What do you think?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Dennis at 24-Feb-09 10:28 AM
According to my representative, Tim Kelly, all the DFL got from their recent rock-N-roll tour was "nothing more than group after group suggesting that we cannot cut their programs" with "little, if any, solutions." Which is what the DFL solicited them to come to their meetings to say. The DFL's tour was another example of their wasting additional tax dollars to get nothing. Now the DFL can come back with, see, we're right, the public wants more tax and spend. I thought we elected these people to lead. Instead we get from them, what do we do?, what do we do? They're just cowards.
Different Perspectives, Differing Reports
I wrote here that city governments spent time at the recent state hearings complaining about government mandates. In this Pi-Press article , Speaker Kelliher says that a central theme from the hearings is one of equity:
Nonetheless, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said after the meeting that a common theme that emerged from that hearing and 14 others in Greater Minnesota on Thursday and Friday was a "strong concern about equity." Citizens who attended the meetings seemed to understand that state leaders have to make cuts, Kelliher said. They just want those cuts to be made fairly.Here's what Pi-Press reporter Bill Salisbury observed:
In addition, she said, many doctors and small-business owners who oppose tax increases also asked legislators to preserve the state's safety net for its neediest citizens. "The meetings have been civil, and people are intent on listening to each other," she said.
Most came to criticize Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed cuts in health and human services programs. Personal care assistants, occupational and physical therapists, doctors, hospital administrators and group home operators all warned that the recession is increasing the need for their services, making this the wrong time for cuts.That doesn't sound like a call for equity. That sounds like what Rep. Pelowski called for in this email :
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.Speaker Kelliher is in a difficult position PR-wise. She can't sound too complimentary on Gov. Pawlenty's plan. She can't tell people that the DFL really wants to continue in status quo operation mode of appeasing their political allies. She can't tell people that the DFL will start passing job-killing tax increases by mid-March, with an outside shot of those tax increases being announced in late March.
Small-business owner Ted Harrison of Woodbury said he paid more in taxes than he received in profits last year, and "would have loved to use some of that tax money to hire more employees." He asked the legislators not to "balance the budget on the back of small businesses."Two weeks ago, I attended a townhall meeting held by Rep. Steve Gottwalt. Rep. Gottwalt invited the chairman of St. Cloud State's economic department, King Banaian, to give an update on what he saw happening economically in the Greater St. Cloud area. A part of King's presentation was that raising the marginal tax rate on those in the highest tax bracket by 1 point would increase revenues this year by $300,000,000.
Rep. Gottwalt acknowledged that that's a significant amount but that it's tiny compared with what's needed to balance the budget.
That's if you assume that businesses would behave the same way if their taxes got raised, which isn't a smart assumption.
Speaker Kelliher's PR problem got bigger after Rep. Ann Lenczewski said this:
Legislators didn't expect citizens to offer a lot of specific ideas on where to raise revenue or cut spending in a complicated $32 billion budget. But those who spoke are "helping us find out what their values are, what's most important to them," House Tax Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, said before the meeting. "That's helping us prioritize."DFL legislators asked activists and people who rely on government to supply the cash that's used to run their little organizations to flood the speaking roster. DFL legislators meet with these people on a regular basis. That leads me to this two-part question:
How does hearing people testify, people that DFL legislators talk to frequently, help DFL legislators guage public sentiment or establish their priorities? The DFL's professional advocates and local activists have the right to petition their government. It's just that their views won't give DFL legislators a balanced view of John and Jane Q. Public's priorities.
After the hearings have been finished, the only honest assessment of the hearings is that the DFL's army of professional activists gave public re-inforcement for the DFL's pre-ordained agenda.
Posted Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:34 PM
No comments.
Pre-Grading Obama's Speech
Politico.com has posted excerpts of President Obama's speech. Based on the selected excerpts, President Obama's speech deserves a C- at best. Here's the excerpt that's worthy of the lowest grade:
We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.The first, totally obvious question is where will President Obama get the cash that he'll need to accomplish these things. We're already facing deficits in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 for both FY 2009 and FY 2010.
Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.
Now is the time to act boldly and wisely, to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that's what I'd like to talk to you about tonight.
The next question I'd ask President Obama is what "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit." I'd especially like that answered since one of Sen. Obama's first actions in the Senate was to join Christopher Dodd in threatening to filibuster a bill meant to reform Fannie and Freddie. Specificially, is President Obama now criticizing the actions of Sen. Obama and Sen. Dodd for preventing the proper regulation of those mortgage brokers?
It's gratuitous, possibly even pretentious, for President Obama to say that "people bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway" after announcing a $75,000,000,000 bailiout of the people who "bought homes they knew they couldn't afford." It's gratuitous for him to talk about banks who pushed bad loans after his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, announced the incomplete plans for TARP II.
If President Obama wants to be taken seriously, he can't criticize behavior that he's subsidizing with one of his mega-billion dollar bailout packages.
Taxpayers should get infuriated reading this paragraph:
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.After signing legislation that wastes hundreds of billions of dollars that are little more than payoffs for his and the Democratic Party's political allies, President Obama shouldn't be taken seriously on fiscal restraint. Considering the trillions of dollars that Congress will spend or has spent on bailouts, all of which have caused financial institutions to panic, President Obama's priorities haven't been in order thus far.
While I admit that there's time to straighten those priorities out, it's difficult to see how the things that he's set in motion won't cause economic distress for the next 12 to 18 months.
President Bush wasn't the picture of fiscal restraint. Thus far, though, President Bush looks like a Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint fiscal hawk by comparison to President Obama.
I'm sure that President Obama's speech will be well-delivered and that he'll get high marks on presentation. Unfortunately, we've reached a crossroads, one where we need competence and credibility, not polished presentations.
Based on the strawman arguments that are becoming tradition in his speeches and the fact that President Obama's talk of fiscal restraint is fiction, I'd give this speech a D.
Posted Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:59 PM
No comments.
