February 25, 2009
Feb 25 02:58 House GOP Introduces More Reforms Feb 25 09:09 Happy Birthday Time Feb 25 10:44 Reactions to Obama's Speech Feb 25 11:24 ***BREAKING NEWS*** Bredesen Might Reject Stimulus Money Feb 25 12:32 A Tale of Two Presidents: Will the Real Obama Stand Up? Feb 25 17:38 Great While It Lasted
Prior Months: Jan
House GOP Introduces More Reforms
House Republicans are establishing themselves as the party of smart action on the budget deficit. Tuesday provided another opportunity for the GOP to show they're serious about eliminating the deficit in ways that won't undercut important programs. Here's the details of the latest reform submitted:
Rep. Torrey Westrom and Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen have authored legislation to transfer some state prisoners to a private facility, saving Minnesota taxpayers millions of dollars while providing additional space needed to house sex offenders.There's no way that this bill gets passed without Gov. Pawlenty applying a bunch of media pressure on Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller. In fact, it's an uphill fight even then because the DFL doesn't want to do anything that offends their union allies.
The bills would transfer inmates from the state-owned, medium-security Moose Lake prison to Minnesota's lone privately run facility, Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton. A Department of Corrections budget document for the 2008 fiscal year shows savings could be millions of dollars annually due to Appleton's lower per diem rates.
Moose Lake reported to have 776 inmates as of Jan. 27. Minnesota already has a contract in place with Appleton, which has housed between 300-1,200 state prisoners over the last several years. Westrom's bill would simply put Appleton to greater use.
"Government spending has grown by about 140 percent since 1992 and this is one way we can change that trend. We need to be creative as we work to put our state back on sound economic ground and this is just one area where we've identified millions in savings," said House author Westrom, R-Elbow Lake.
There also is the $90 million to be saved by forgoing bonding appropriations for expanding the Moose Lake prison in order to accommodate Phase 2 of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Increased housing is needed to alleviate capacity pressure caused by heightened prosecution of sex offenders. However, the Department of Health is already leasing space from the Moose Lake prison and Westrom said it would make sense to free up existing beds in Moose Lake to satisfy the additional space DHS is calling for in the near future. This could mitigate any layoffs from closing the medium-security prison.
It's important that people know this:
The DOC report shows the Moose Lake price tag to be about $122 per prisoner, per day when health care and building costs are included. That makes Moose Lake one of the highest per diem rates among Minnesota prisons, according to DOC figures. By comparison, the DOC report indicates Appleton's rates are more than $21 cheaper each day excluding the building costs and $40-45 a day cheaper when you add in all the line items.This is why the unions will fight this legislation:
"Increasing our use of private prisons also could bring a healthy element of competition to the state-run facilities to operate more efficiently and extend the savings even further," said Senate author Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria. "I don't think the state will ever completely get out of the prison business, but a shared system of both privately and publicly managed prisons would help our bottom line."The last thing public employee unions want is a comparison in productivity and cost efficiency between them and privately run businesses providing the same services.
Here's a list of some of the other reforms the House GOP has proposed:
- Republicans proposed welfare reforms to save taxpayers' money and reduce fraud
- Republicans proposed the "Emergency Jobs Stimulus Bill" to give tax incentives for businesses that create jobs in Minnesota.
- Republicans proposed pay freezes for all public employees, estimated to save $1 billion
- Republicans proposed limiting state government spending to only available revenues: www.mnspendingfreeze.com
- Republicans proposed a 5 percent legislator pay cut
- Republicans proposed scholarships for students who graduate high school early, with a potential savings of $25 million or more to taxpayers
- Republicans proposed a plan to freeze the pay of all government employees at current levels
-
Republicans proposed several cuts to their own budget to lead by example as a start for balancing the budget deficit, including:
Reducing members' allotment of stationary and stamps; - Reducing the reimbursement for Internet and communications services;
- Repealing the Democrats' 2007 per diem increase; and
- Merging the House and Senate bonding committees.
Democrats blocked all of these budget-saving proposals.This isn't just proof that the DFL isn't providing leadership. It's far worse. It's proof that the DFL majority is playing the role of obstructionists. Let's tie this together with what's been euphemistically titled listening tour. Just Tuesday afternoon, I posted something that quoted Ann Lenczeweski as saying that those who spoke are "helping us find out what their values are, what's most important to them."
This is proof that this tour wasn't about finding out what's important to Minnesotans. If the DFL was interested in doing what's best for Minnesotans, the DFL wouldn't have voted down such an impressive list of the House GOP's cost-saving proposals.
That's inexcusable anytime but it's especially galling considering we're facing the biggest deficit in Minnesota history. The biggest outrage, though, is that, in 2007, the DFL ignored the GOP's warnings that the economy was slowing down and that they shouldn't spend the entire surplus.
When the DFL ignored that warning, they chose to not increase the various reserves built into the budget. That would've left Minnesota in much better shape going into this budget session. Instead, the DFL paid off their political allies.
One final thing that Minnesotans should be disgusted with is the fact that one of the first things that the DFL did when they gained control of the legislature was passing major per diem increases from an already generous level. Prior to the 2007 session, the House and Senate got $55/day. Almost immediately, the Senate jacked their per diem to $96/day. The House took a relatively modest increase to 'only' $77/day. How thoughtful of them.
The DFL actually needs a listening tour. They need one where they listen to the people that don't rely on government funding for their jobs. They need to listen to small business owners. They need to listen to the average taxpayer. The entrepreneurs I've talked with say that Minnesota is downright hostile to them. Many of the blue collar types are sick of paying for the most generous safety net provisions in the Midwest.
It's time that the DFL stopped with their obstructionist ways. It's time that the DFL actually showed a willingness to offer their own solutions to the deficit. It's definitely time that the DFL stopped being satisfied with status quo policies.
If the DFL doesn't start proposing real reforms that save the taxpayers' money, the GOP will be glad to put together a long list of cost-saving reforms that they tried passing. The GOP will happily tell Minnesotans that the DFL rejected these cost-saving reforms because (a) they wanted to stay loyal to their political allies and (b) the DFL was too interested in playing partisan games.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:00 AM
No comments.
Happy Birthday Time
The Lady Logician is celebrating a birthday today. Be sure to stop past her blog & wish her a happy birthday. Or send her something via Twitter or Facebook.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:09 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 25-Feb-09 11:42 AM
Thanks dear friend.
LL
Reactions to Obama's Speech
Here's Rep. Patrick McHenry's response :
I am encouraged by what I heard tonight from the President. He rightly criticized "short-term gains" at the expense of "long-term prosperity." This was my primary concern with the stimulus bill produced by Congressional Democrats, too much expensive pork and not enough real stimulus.Here's Rep. Kay Granger's reaction to President Obama's speech:
I stand ready to work with President Obama to "make the hard choices to bring down the debt," as he put it. The President told inspiring stories of ordinary Americans who are making hard choices. We should follow their lead together, and if we do, we can win fiscal responsibility for taxpayers and build a stronger economy.
The President can start by vetoing the Democrat majority's large increase in discretionary government spending, the biggest since the Carter Administration. It didn't help matters then, so why should we expect any different now?
The way to build "a new foundation of lasting prosperity" is not to continue spending lavishly on things that do not help Americans weather the storm or stimulate economic growth. Taxpayers simply cannot afford it. A $2 trillion debt is not a means to lasting economic prosperity."
I deeply appreciate the President's address to Congress this evening. There is no mistaking the serious challenges facing our country, both on the domestic front and internationally as we continue to tackle a troubled economy and a continual threat of terrorism.Here's Rep. John Sullivan's reaction to President Obama's speech:
All along, I, and my House Republican colleagues, have expressed our desire to work with the President. Reducing the deficit and controlling spending are areas we are firmly committed to working on with the President. However, we cannot ignore the impact that raising taxes and significant cuts to our Armed Forces will have on both our economy and national security.
Roughly 64 percent of those who are scheduled for a tax increase are small businesses. Job creation and growth will be severely stressed if we continue to ask our small business owners to bear an even greater burden to pay more in taxes during this tough economic time.
I remain confident and look forward to working with the President to get our economy back on track."
President Obama has pledged to cut the federal deficit in half during his first term, a tall order considering he doubled the deficit in one day by signing the largest spending bill in our nation's history into law, only to follow that up with an Omnibus spending bill this week that increases spending by almost $32 billion over last year. Government is growing, agencies are expanding and new government programs are a dime a dozen as the Democrats focus on spending in the 111th Congress."A good way to summarize President Obama's speech is to say that he's staked out a position of fiscal responsibility after he's signed the massive Generational Theft Act into law, after proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and after he's proposed bailing out homeowners who made bad decisions or who overbought and overborrowed.
There must be a mechanism to take wasteful spending off of the table. I recently introduced legislation which can put his ambitious call into action. H.R. 1023, the Federal Agency Program Realignment and Closure Act, creates a bipartisan commission designed to combat runaway federal spending, by reforming government agencies and programs and it will put Washington on notice that the days of an unaccountable and wasteful federal government must come to an end, and ultimately save taxpayers untold billions of dollars."
The 111th Congress will also present a chance for President Obama's administration to put its own stamp on a comprehensive energy policy America so badly needs. However, some of the policies being suggested by his administration and the Democrat controlled Congress could have a chilling effect on the price we pay to heat our homes and fuel our cars in tough economic times, placing jobs and American made energy resources at risk. Washington must always remember that business keeps our economy going, not government; we cannot allow unreasonable and excessive government regulations on our businesses during troubled economic times. As the only Oklahoman on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, I stand ready to ensure that Oklahoma has a seat at the table and will fight to ensure that our state remains a leader in the energy sector."
President Obama is right in that our nation is dangerously reliant on foreign oil, which is why I support an "all of the above" solution to our energy needs. I believe it is imperative for our country to expand refining capacity and increase onshore and offshore production of our domestic sources of oil and gas, clean coal, and safe nuclear power sources so that we can regain control of our own energy needs and lower the cost for consumers, while incorporating renewable sources such as non-food source biofuels, and wind and solar power into our existing energy portfolio."
We are a strong nation, filled with resolve and we will overcome whatever adversity comes our way, that is what America does best. Now is the time to put partisanship aside and to put the federal government back to work for the people. My Republican colleagues and I stand ready to work with President Obama to achieve this common goal."
President Obama's staking out a position of fiscal restraint after that spending splurge is akin to a bank installing cameras after the bank's been robbed 3-4 times. It's a 'better-late-than-never' gesture. It's just that he should've staked out the fiscal restraint position from his inauguration, then held fast to it.
Rep. McHenry was right in expressing his displeasure with the excessive wasteful spending in the Generational Theft Act. That bill is filled with payoffs for the Democrats' political allies. The Democrats wisely deny that it's a pork-based bill, though it doesn't withstand close scrutiny.
SIDENOTE: Rep. Joe Sestak told Sean Hannity last night that there isn't any wasteful spending in the bill. Rep. Sestak denied that money was appropriated for building a high-speed rail between Disneyland and Vegas. He denied that money would be spent on saving the marsh mouse in Speaker Pelosi's district. I'd love to know how he'd explain the line item in the bill simply marked SCIENCE.
Something that's bothering families and markets alike is the Obama administration's ignoring tapping existing conventional energy supplies. Families and markets understand that gas prices will jump again the minute the economy recovers. Families and markets understand that big increases in gas prices are justifiably characterized as hidden tax increases to families. They know that saps families' and businesses' buying power.
All of President Obama's happy talk about alternative energy solutions and fiscal restraint isn't playing well with the markets :
Stocks added to losses on Wednesday after data showed the pace of existing home sales unexpectedly fell in January, while bank shares slid on continuing worries over the fate of the sector.Financial experts aren't buying what President Obama is selling. It's that simple. They're betting that his calls for fiscal responsibility are empty gestures. They're betting that his reliance on green cars won't help us get through the energy crisis that they think is lurking just a few months away. They're also betting that the bailout a week M.O. of this administration won't significantly improve the economy.
The tone was set early by disappointment President Barack Obama shed little new light about how his administration would stabilize the economy in a major speech before Congress.
The lesson that President Obama must learn quickly is that one-time tax rebates won't inspire confidence and that the fastest way to inspire confidence is to get out of the private sector's way.
President Obama's speech last night didn't suggest that he'd learned any of those lessons. That's why the stock market's reaction is the most important reaction to President Obama's speech last night.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:52 AM
No comments.
***BREAKING NEWS*** Bredesen Might Reject Stimulus Money
Until this morning, Republican governors were the only people who hinted that they'd reject a portion of the money directed to the states from the Generational Theft Act. That's now history because Gov. Phil Bredesen, (D-TN), might reject part of the money in the stimulus package:
At the National Governors Association meetings in Washington, D.C., Gov. Phil Bredesen said this week that he might turn down relief for unemployed workers worth an estimated $143 million because of conditions placed on the money by Congress.Prior to this, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Barbour, Gov. Sanford and Gov. Palin were the only governors who had rejected a portion of the money being sent to the states or who were thinking about rejecting a portion of the stimulus money.
The stimulus package would also raise unemployment benefits by $25 a week for all workers, but in addition, lawmakers want states to expand the pool of people who can apply for benefits. That would put more pressure on an unemployment trust fund that is already trying to stave off insolvency.
"We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it," Bredesen said in an interview Monday with the Chattanooga Times Free Press. "We're in the position of going back to our legislature this year for changes in our tax structure just to keep our fund whole, and taking it to a new level may be too much of a lift for the legislature this spring."
That had gotten House Majority Whip James Clyburn and Sen. Chuck Schumer upset. Rep. Clyburn even said that rejecting part of the money was the equivalent of being a racist. (I wonder if he's willing to call Gov. Bredesen a racist, too. It's just a hunch but I'm betting that that won't happen.)
One thing that hasn't been talked about is that the Theft Act's unemployment provision is another attempt by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama to tell these governors how to run their states. Once this one-time money runs out, this turns into an unfunded mandate.
Unfunded mandates are nothing more than the federal government telling a state government that they know better how to govern their state government. That's insulting considering the irersponsible idiots (Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi) running things in DC.
It's time that these outstanding governors told President Obama that they won't accept hsi habit of signing off on unfunded mandates because they reject him telling them how to govern.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:27 AM
No comments.
A Tale of Two Presidents: Will the Real Obama Stand Up?
The House GOP has posted something comparing President Obama's previous statements with his speech last night . President Obama isn't the first president who's made statements that conflict with each other. In normal times, the opposition party points these out, then gets back to business.
These aren't ordinary times, though. The impact that has on President Obama is that it doesn't give him much wiggle room. Markets and families want consistent signals. Inconsistent signals cast additional doubt into a doubt-laden environment.
Here's what President Obama said in last night's speech:
President Barack Obama: "Not because I believe in bigger government ; I don't." ( Statement Before a Joint Session of Congress, 2/24/2009 )
Here's a list of his contradictory statements:
President Barack Obama: "... this plan will require significant resources from the federal government; and yes, probably more than we've already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater!" (Statement Before a Joint Session of Congress, 2/24/2009)If there's one thing I can't stand about President Obama's speeches, it's that he sets up strawman arguments. For instance, when he says that he rejects "the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity", he's insinuating that someone is making that argument.
President Barack Obama: "I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." (Statement Before a Joint Session of Congress, 2/24/2009)
President Barack Obama: "In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive." (Statement Before a Joint Session of Congress, 2/24/2009)
That's total fiction. It's an unpersuasive argument that seeks to cast Republicans in a bad light. It's an intentional mischaracterization on President Obama's behalf.
It's worth noting that the markets are rejecting President Obama's plan because they know that his plan will force tax increases. Some of these tax increases will be passed legislatively. Others, however, will be silent tax increases that will be in the form of high inflation.
SIDENOTE: The only way inflation doesn't ignite is if the economy doesn't experience a recovery.
President Obama is great at sending conflicting signals. Thus far, the stock markets have shown their appreciation for President Obama's conflicting signals by dropping almost 2,500 since he was elected.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:34 PM
No comments.
Great While It Lasted
I'm prone to listening to Dick Morris' opinions about President Obama's economic policies because he's paying attention to how Wall Street and small businesses are responding to President Obama's plans on taxing them into near-oblivion. To say that Morris isn't kind in his assessment of President Obama's speech in his latest column is understatement. Here's one of many criticisms Morris has about President Obama's plan:
How he plans to restore the nerve and confidence of our bankers as he castigates them is unclear. But, then, so is his program for financial rescue. One suspects that he knows full well that he will nationalize the banks. But even that step assumes that politicians can do what bankers can't: Act quickly, ruthlessly and honestly, never a notable attribute of elected officials.I've written numerous times that I don't have any confidence in President Obama's economic team, especially the men at the top. President Obama was inaugurated 36 days ago and he still hasn't explained his economic philosophy. He's talked about what he wants to spend money on but he hasn't explained the rationale behind it.
Treasury Secretary Geithner still hasn't put together a coherent plan for dealing with failing banks, leading Wall Street to wonder if this economic team knows what it's doing.
And then Obama affirmed that he'll support big tax increases on the richest 2 percent of American families. Disregarding the fact that these households already pay upward of half of all income taxes, while earning only a quarter of the national income, he has singled out the entrepreneurs, professionals, innovators and businesspeople of America for taxation.It's time that businesses stopped this taxaholic's binge. It's time that they told their employees that supporting irresponsible Democrats will lead to economic ruin. President Obama's scattergun economic approach is exactly the wrong approach. When Ronald Reagan started spending money on building up the military, he did it because he knew the importance of national security AND because he knew that this buildup would fire up the factories. He knew it was a win-win situation.
Oh, but he won't raise taxes until he's had a few years to stimulate the economy. How many in that 2 percent feel like one of those huge hogs in the Chicago stockyards, being fattened up to slaughter the next year?
When President Obama signed the bill into law in Denver, a portion of the money spent was actually worthwhile. The majority of it was overspending while a healthy portion of it was simply political payoff.
Can all this work? Can Obama get banks to lend even as he terrorizes them? Can he get the engines of our economy back to work even as he announces that he'll be taking away more of their earnings? Can he persuade the American people to accept bureaucrats deciding their health-care choices? And can his economic stimulus survive a huge increase in the payroll tax on the most productive citizens?The choices that President Obama is giving people are unappealing at best. They lead to a shrinking of individual liberty and personal prosperity. President Obama's policies will put immense burdens on people, burdens that won't likely shrink with time.
Probably not;Obama likely won't succeed. This speech will be viewed as his high-water mark, the time before we came to realize how flawed is his understanding of economics and how supreme is his commitment to expanded spending. It will be seen as a sort of age of innocence before we realized what he had in mind.
But it sure was a great speech...while it lasted.
Ask yourself this simple question: Do I trust myself to make the decisions that will make me prosperous or do I need President Obama to make those decisions for me? Before you make that decision, remind yourself that having President Obama make those decisions for you means that he'll charge a fee for making those decisions.
One last thing: If you choose the Obama option, just remember one thing: that liberty and prosperity were great...while they existed.
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:42 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Feb-09 08:08 PM
I like the supposed note from the business owner to his employees saying, in brief, "If my taxes go up, I will have no choice but to lay off some of you. In order to be fair, I will start with those who have Obama bumper stickers."
