February 4-6, 2010
Feb 04 00:51 Frustration Setting In In Crist Campaign? Feb 04 03:55 Michele Bachmann, The Constitution & The Rule of Law Feb 04 12:46 Dems' Victim Message Isn't Playing Feb 04 15:41 Budget Blogger Conference Call Notes Feb 05 03:36 Tinklenberg Writes Fundraising Letter For Tarryl Feb 05 19:58 Angry Al Re-emerges Feb 05 20:53 Dems: Please, Please, Please Take Bob Shrum's Advice Feb 06 03:17 Matt Entenza's Ego On Full Display Feb 06 07:28 Paygo: Fiscal Discipline or Political Cover?
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Frustration Setting In In Crist Campaign?
Based on some quotes from this Miami Herald article , I think it's safe to say that there's a bit of frustration setting into the Crist campaign. Here's what I'm talking about:
"I'm not really concerned about poll numbers. I'm concerned about the people," Crist said Monday in Miami, batting away questions about the former Florida House speaker's surging poll numbers at a news conference about bringing critically injured Haitians to the state.Politicians that tell us that they don't pay attention to polling, especially polling that shows them trailing by double digits, shouldn't be taken seriously. That's just their attempt to minimize the devastating effect that those polls are having on their campaign.
The governor's remarks in Miami echoed the swipe he took at Rubio last week in Tallahassee: "I don't have the luxury of going around the state and politicking all day," he said. "I'm going to do my job."
The only politicians that I might believe after saying that are principled politicians or true believers. Charlie Crist doesn't fit either description. What's worst for the Crist campaign is that Crist is losing credibility daily. In the quote above, he says that he doesn't have "the luxury" of travelling throughout Florida to go "politicking all day" only to have the newspaper note this:
His official calendar lately tells the story. A governor who used to routinely list one or two events a day, on Monday he had five scheduled events or meetings. On Tuesday, seven.Perhaps there's a justification for Gov. Crist's travels that doesn't include a purely political campaign motive but I'm not buying it. Gov. Crist is stepping up his travels because he's losing. It's just that uncomplicated.
The bad news for President Obama's favorite Florida RINO is that the only good that'll come from Crist's travels is a minor boost in Florida's tourist economy. Gov. Crist's difficulties aren't that he isn't travelling enough. It's that TEA Party activists are rejecting his message. Now that he's got a record that he has to defend, life is getting more difficult.
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio's biggest thing is to just keep working hard and keeping his message solid. That's obviously working, which means there isn't a reason to change. The bad news for Gov. Crist is that all the criticism in the world won't change the appeal of Rubio's message.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 12:55 AM
No comments.
Michele Bachmann, The Constitution & The Rule of Law
After reading about the DCCC's latest baseless attack on Michele Bachmann , I'm thinking that their motto is to "Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe." Here's the heart of their statement:
"Bachmann voted to protect bonuses paid to AIG executives with American tax dollars," said Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC press secretary in a statement. "This morning, Americans heard that AIG executives are getting $100 million in bonuses despite still owing taxpayers more than $100 billion. While Representative Bachmann protects these outrageous Wall Street bonuses paid for by President Bush's bailout, Bachmann does nothing to help hardworking families. Clearly, Representative Bachmann is more concerned about Wall Street, than Main Street."Last night, the WSJ's Stephen Moore confirmed that the bonuses being paid by AIG are to traders and that those bonuses are contractual obligations. An outside party, say for instance Congress, can't negate terms of existing contracts. Only a bankruptcy court can restructure contracts and then only if a company filed for bankruptcy.
It isn't that Michele is protecting "Wall Street executives." It's that Michele's voting for the rule of law.
It's worth noting, too, that Michele voted against the bailout because she felt that it was better if a bankruptcy court dealt with the problem rather than putting American taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $100,000,000,000 for bailing AIG out. BTW, had AIG been forced into bankruptcy court, that court could've negated or rewritten the contractual bonuses.
In short, Michele voted to maintain the rule of law while having bankruptcy courts deal with AIG's assets, something that bankruptcy courts specialize in.
Finally, voting against the tax on AIG bonuses is the constitutionally mandated thing to do. That narrow of a tax would be unconstitutional because it'd either violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution or it could be ruled that it represents a bill of attainder, also a constitutional no-no.
I'd suggest that Michele's progressive opponents contemplate JFK's quote :
Only a respect for the law makes it possible for free men to dwell together in peace and progress... Law is the adhesive force in the cement of society, creating order out of chaos and coherence in place of anarchy . John F. Kennedy, 5-18-1963Without a consistent respect for, and obedience to, the rule of law, there can only be chaos and anarchy. Societies ruled by chaos and anarchy are quickly swept into the dustbin of history.
Not surprisingly, Tarryl's been singing from the DCCC's hymnal or vice versa:
"Small business owners see Wall Street bankers getting big bonuses while they can't even get a loan to expand their business and create jobs. Families are praying that their jobs, or their health care, will still be there when they wake up each morning. Seniors and veterans and families are struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments to keep their house, in the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Depression."There's no doubt that too many people have been hurt during the financial crisis. Still, the crisis that rocked Wall Street is only part of the problem. Irresponsible spending at the state level hasn't helped the economy either. That's because too many states voted to raise spending during an economic downturn, then voted to raise taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending.
Had state legislatures not spent irresponsibly, we wouldn't be in the trouble we're currently in.
As Assistant Majority Leader in the Minnesota Senate, Tarryl voted for huge tax increases for small businesses and for irresponsible spending increases. Now Tarryl wants to blame conservatives rather than accepting responsibility for her inability to say no to the DFL's special interest allies.
There was a time when a politician could get away with that. There was a time when publications could paint a target on a politician's back and there wasn't much that politician could do to fight back. That's ancient history thanks to Al Gore's internet and the information superhighway.
Thank's to the information superhighway, the DCCC's trashtalking can be quickly discredited. Welcome to the new paradigm.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 4:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Feb-10 07:08 AM
You ought to step back and take a look, Gary. Bachmann has her base and might be reelected, but from how I see Obama talking lately the paying out rope might be ending and the word's been given your guys in DC, that it will not win November by saying fix the economy and fix it now and then constantly forestalling that. To say continuing to allow the wealthy to not pay fair taxes and that the Bush policy of not stopping the wealthy from screwing the poor and each other, what led to the economy being collapsed so that Wall Street wealth got more, funneled by the GOP in the White House through AIG to "too big to fail" operations that under the GOP got bigger - that those notions of good policy should be continued as a status quo, is to say what got the economy screwed up is fine with the GOP, that's not in my view a winning approach.
Clinton left with a budget surplus and had paid down the Reagan-Bush deficits. Then your guys ran up record new deficits with eight full years to do it on war without taxing by using the "credit card" instead, and are now saying "hold the line, business as before."
I think many voters might be dissatisfied by that and have a perspective beyond the beginning of 2009, where your folks want to artificially draw a line and say, "You've fixed nothing," while opposing unanimously fixing anything.
It's not that sound a way to win at the ballot box. That emperor's butt naked, Gary.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-10 08:38 AM
Eric, I NEVER want to hear the terms fair share & taxes connected again. That isn't the criteria that I'm worried about. The only criteria I'll use is whether the tax system helps creates jobs & prosperity. PERIOD.
What makes you think that Bush's tax cuts were about "screwing the poor"? "The poor" get the EITC plus they don't pay income taxes. That's getting screwed? That's insulting.
What led to the crash was Christopher Dodd & some wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator named Barack filibustering a bill that would've prevented the failure of Fannie & Freddie. The bill that Sens. Dodd & Obama voted for in September, 2008 was the exact same bill that they filibustered in 2005.
Details like this matter & I'll use this blog to tell the world about the Democrats' responsibility in the crash.
And I'll keep telling people about the great alternative plans that the GOP's Paul Ryan has put together. I'll let people know that they can be found at solutions.gop.gov, then I'll let them soak in the information & judge which party has better solutions.
Then I'll watch this November as Nancy Pelosi becomes a lame duck speaker & John Boehner becomes Speaker-Elect. Get used to it.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 04-Feb-10 07:27 AM
I don't know about Congress nullifying contracts. I'm still waiting to be paid for my GM stock. And I'm still waiting for those execs at Fannie and Freddie to take some kind of hit for putting the taxpayers on the hook for $6.5 TRILLION, while getting bonuses that make AIG look like Scrooge.
Comment 3 by eric z at 04-Feb-10 08:42 AM
Gary, I believe torture is outside of the rule of law. I have yet to see you or Bachmann denounce it. Have I missed a post.
Ventura said, "Give me a waterboard and a few hours with Dick Cheney and I will have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders."
But I suppose the GOP envisions a different set of rules for foreign nationals. With a foreign policy like that, winning hearts and minds to democracy is complex.
Comment 4 by eric z at 04-Feb-10 08:47 AM
Gary, Paul Ryan is a new name to me.
Can you link to earlier FreedomRing posts, or outside sources?
You drop names like that, and I cannot understand the underlying premises or conclusions without source access. I am open to reading, if you email links for Ryan, or post one or two in a comment.
GOP insiders might not need to ask, but I bet the independents the GOP wishes votes from have not heard of Paul Ryan either. And I am not being snotty. It's really a new name to me. I am sincere about that. I recall Reagan and "supply side" and David Stockman calling it "just trickle down" but the name Ryan was not a focus then, George Gilder was a name, I think.
Comment 5 by eric z at 04-Feb-10 08:53 AM
Gary, also from time to time you have alluded to Gottwalt having a coherent and detailed health plan.
Is anything like that on the web in one place? Does his issues statements on the campaign site go into any detail, or is there a better way to get to an underlying source?
It is guessing but you seem to have a coherent viewpoint so I presume that Ryan's general views and Gottwalt's on healthcare are integrated or at least overlapping.
Is it something where a link or two to SCSU Scholars has info.
I am not disinclined to read and try to understand. I simply don't know the sources that to you are core principle items you build on.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-10 09:11 AM
Here's the link to the fiscal notes on Steve's Healthy Minnesota Plan. Here's the link to the language to Steve's legislation.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-10 09:06 AM
Now that there's a law prohibiting torture, we should obey that law. Still, I'd rather we not have a law prohibiting the waterboarding of captured terrorists. According to Marc Theissen's great new book "Courting Disaster", waterboarding was used to break the will of KSM & Abu Zubaydah. After that, the CIA got tons of information that was later verified against information found on the computers that were captured with these terrorists.
Dems' Victim Message Isn't Playing
It's impossible to argue that the Democrats, including the Obama administration, play the 'everything is President Bush's fault' card. In fact, it's become a daily drumbeat message. The bad news for Democrats is that the law of diminishing returns is affecting that message's effectiveness.
Karl Rove uses his latest WSJ column to discredit the Obama administration's latest whining storyline:
In Baltimore, Mr. Obama criticized the GOP's response to last year's $787 billion stimulus package saying, "I don't understand...why we got opposition...before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas."People are noticing that Republicans put substantive alternatives together on the stimulus bill, health care and energy policy. They're noticing that the Republicans' plans are appealing. They're noticing that Republican candidates like Scott Brown and Bob McDonnell ran on a solutions-laden agenda.
In truth, the president met with congressional Republicans to talk about the stimulus package the day before the press said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey completed drafting the 1,073-page bill. What occurred was a photo-op, not an exchange of ideas. Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were scornful of Republican input.
The myth that the GOP is 'the party of no' is fading, too. Independents are noticing that the Democratic Party is the 'Party of No Ideas', which is why they're fleeing the Democratic Party in droves.
When Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price complained in Baltimore that the president kept saying "that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions," Mr. Obama shot back, "I don't think I said that."The 'Party of No' meme was this administration's justification for not including Republicans in health care or stimulus bill negotiations.
But of course Mr. Obama and his people have said that repeatedly. They did so starting in April, when White House aides swarmed Sunday talk programs to label the GOP the "party of no" and say that the party lacked both constructive ideas and vision.
Mr. Rove devoted this column to discredit President Obama's claim that the deficits are President Bush's fault:
Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.These figures aren't fiction. They're verified through the Budget committees. This information has been repeatedly used in newspaper articles. Yes, President Obama inherited a mess. No, the deficits aren't President Bush's fault.
You can't blame President Bush for bills passed after he left the White House. PERIOD. End of sentence. Independents know that. That's why this administration's whining about how President Bush ruined everything doesn't play in Peoria.
Until President Obama comes up with an appealing common sense agenda and until President Obama stops whining about the Bush administration, the Democrats won't snap out of the tailspin they're in.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 12:52 PM
No comments.
Budget Blogger Conference Call Notes
I just finished a BCC on President Obama's budget. Assistant Minority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio's 4th District took questions after making brief opening statements.
Congressman Jordan started by saying that there's a very real need to reform the budgeting process by dropping the current baseline budgeting and switching to zero-based budgeting or ZBB. Congressman Jordan said that it was imperative to do this because spending has increased by 84 percent since President Obama was inaugurated.
I asked the first question, which was about what I'm dubbing the AIG Tax. Specifically, I asked whether either gentleman thought it was constitutional, citing the Equal Protection Clause as one constitutional protection. Both Congressman Jordan and Congressman McCarthy said that the AIG Tax likely would be struck down if it ever passed and was signed into law.
Rep. McCarthy then added that "this administration hasn't worried about the constitutionality" of legislation they were working on. Rep. McCarthy then cited several provisions in the health care legislation. Specifically, he cited the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the individual mandates as not meeting constitutional muster.
Later, I asked about President Obama's spending freeze NEXT YEAR. I asked why people shouldn't demand that (a) the budget be cut, not just frozen and (b) the cuts come from the entire budget. Rep. Jordan said that we should definitely scrutinize President Obama's entire budget, not just 17 percent of it.
I said that it's important that we scrutinize the entire budget because it's insane to think that all the government overspending is contained in 17 percent of the budget. I said that it's important that we show Wall Street and the world that we're serious about getting our economic house in order.
On another note, the evidence I've seen since the budget was released suggests that Democrats are running away from this budget.
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 04-Feb-10 07:37 PM
That's weird, not one bit of OUTRAGE here at "Let Freedom Ring" about Republican Paul Ryan proposing a budget that gets rid of Medicare.
It's almost as if you were simply being OUTRAGED at the Democrats for cutting Medicare spending because they are Democrats.
Cue the excuse as to why cutting Medicare spending is way worse than getting rid of medicare entirely...
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 04-Feb-10 07:42 PM
Also particularly amusing is when you claim that the people are angry at Washington and Wall Street but then fall all over yourself to protect big business and their big bonuses. Gotta love me some selective populism!
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-10 10:23 PM
Eric, I'm not upset with Paul Ryan's plan because his plan actually lowers health care & health insurance costs. That's what happens when competition is introduced to the equation.
There's a difference between the Democrats' Medicare cuts & Paul Ryan's health care savings.
Furthermore, it's worrisome that a public school teacher didn't notice that I didn't defend Wall Street bonuses. I defended the Constitution & well-settled contract law.
I know that, in this instance, the outcome is the same but the underlying principles couldn't be more different.
Tinklenberg Writes Fundraising Letter For Tarryl
It isn't surprising that Tarryl Clark talked fellow former lobbyist El Tinklenberg into writing a fundraising letter for her. It isn't surprising that the DFL-endorsed candidate in 2008 would call Michele an extremist either. Still, it's funny watching how predictable the fundraising letter is. Here's a sample from the fundraising letter:
Divisive rhetoric and extreme right-wing views have become Michele Bachmann's calling card, and it's paid off for her. The far-right is rallying around it's darling, Michele Bachmann, filling her campaign coffers, in fact, Bachmann just announced that her campaign raised more than $1 million last year.I'd love to give Mr. Tinklenberg a shot of sodium pentathol, then ask him if it's an extremist viewpoint to vote to uphold the rule of law. Then I'd ask if it's extremist to vote against legislation that isn't constitutional.
Then I'd ask him if he thinks it's extremist for a congressional candidate to commit to voting for impeachment before articles of impeachment had been drafted:
"I [Elwyn Tinklenberg] would support a resolution for impeachment if it was brought to me. I would not introduce one. I think there are so many issues that have been waiting for resolution. So many issues that have to be addressed from the war to the economy to health care that we need to move on and move on aggressively." Source: Star Tribune, May 10, 2006I said it then and I'll say it now: Voting vote to impeach a president of the United States isn't something that happens very often. Promising that you'll vote for impeachment before articls of impeachment have been drafted is the political equivalent of a jury issuing a trial verdict before the attorneys have delivered their opening arguments.
Mr. Tinklenberg made that statement before the DFL's CD-6 endorsing convention. In fact, he said it because he knew that he was trailing Patty Wetterling badly and he was pathetically desperate to win.
QUESTION: What kind of spineless person would throw principles to the wind in an attempt to win a political endorsement?Here's another laughable quote from Tinklenberg's fundraising letter:
ANSWER: An unprincipled politician.
In fact, she skipped the House Republican meeting last week with President Obama to travel to California, rallying TEA Party activists and hobnobbing with the Orange County conservative elite instead of doing her job.It isn't surprising that Mr. Tinklenberg would call TEA Party activists elitists. It's just a stupid thing to say. The DNC has called TEA Party actisists part of "an angry mob", sore losers who can't get over the fact that Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008. Speaker Pelosi called TEA Party activists astroturfed activists. (I'd say that those astroturfed activists were effective judging by Bob McDonnell's landslide victory in Virginia and Scott Brown's improbable victory in Massachusetts.)
Tarryl Clark knows how to win in districts that have been tough for Democrats; she's already done it. She was elected to the State Senate in a special election to fill a previously Republican seat.That's true. Then again, it's worth noting that Tarryl won Dave Kleis's seat by pretending to be a moderate. I'd submit that Tarryl would find it infinitely more difficult to win this year with her liberal voting record of increasing taxes, both income and property taxes, on small businesses. Without the support of the business community, Tarryl would be fighting an uphill fight.
The bottom line to this is that Tarryl will probably raise alot of money but that she'll lose because Tarryl's voting record won't appeal to 6th District voters.
Posted Friday, February 5, 2010 3:36 AM
No comments.
Angry Al Re-emerges
The 'Angry Al' side of Sen. Franken surfaced during President Obama's visit with Senate Democrats:
Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration's failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.Everyone knows that health care is dead this session. Still, Sen. Franken won't let it go:
The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama's question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn't the only angry Democrat in the room. "There was a lot of frustration in there," said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.
In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to "finish the job" on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken's anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.Sen. Franken's temper is well-documented. Still, let's not dismiss Sen. Franken's less-than-stellar senatorial temperament and forget about President Obama's less-than-stellar leadership abilities. Simply put, Democrats like Sen. Franken and President Obama are ideologues. They aren't leaders.
That's why the American people are rejecting their policies. I've often said that ideologues "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Politicians like Sen. Franken, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama frequently overreach, thinking that their mandate reaches all the way to their special interest's wish list items.
Health care failed because (a) the American people vehemently opposed it and (b) Scott Brown's victory scared the daylights out of Democrats facing re-election in 2010 and 2012. It's nothing more complicated than that.
Sen. Franken isn't the only disillusioned far left lefty that's upset with President Obama. Dissatisfaction isn't difficult to find in the D-Kos diaries and other far left haunts.
That's what happens when you send a toy messiah to do a man's job. Put differently, smooth words might win elections but you can't govern without gravitas.
Posted Friday, February 5, 2010 8:02 PM
No comments.
Dems: Please, Please, Please Take Bob Shrum's Advice
There are few political consultants that have a bigger tin ear than Bob Shrum. That's why I'm beseeching Democrats to follow Shrum's advice in his latest column :
The President may speak and even seek bipartisanship, but he'll be met with a closed fist. So Democrats in Congress need a strategy of their own that goes beyond "every man for himself", or every woman, in the case of Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. They can't be on the defensive; they can't save themselves by fleeing their president or their principles. They have to draw clear dividing lines on their own terms with the Republican opposition. Put a series of big issues to a vote, giving the other side its chances to cooperate, or manifest its true character.First, let's note that President Obama can talk about bipartisanship (or any other subject) all he wants but the American people want positive results. Second, let's understand that President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's whining about "the failed policies of the last eight years" has lost its potency. The reality is that people haven't seen positive results, except if they're members of a public employees' union, from the stimulus bill or from President Obama's budget.
On the day when the Democrats lost their supposedly filibuster-proof Senate, and official figures showed an unexpectedly high number of new unemployment claimants, the still-majority party actually fought back. They issued a series of jobs proposals and announced that they intend to vote on them in the Senate next week. If the Republicans filibuster in lock-step, Democrats should attack that as a "no" vote on jobs, pure and simple. And maybe the newly minted lawmaker from Massachusetts, who claims that he's a "Scott Brown Republican," will realize that if he becomes a party-line vote for Mitch McConnell, he won't be reelected in 2012. He just might decide not to filibuster jobs.
Most importantly, people are transitioning to a belief that today's economic woes aren't the result of "the failed policies of the last eight years" but of the "the failed policies" of the past year. The people understand that President Obama didn't get us into this recession but they know that they hired him to direct us out of it.
Mr. Shrum's advice runs contrary to Scott Rasmussen's polling on what's getting people upset:
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.Polls vary about which issue is the most important issue but the deficit, the economy and jobs consistently poll as the most important issues. Shrum's advice of telling Democrats to run on another pork-filled stimulus bill is telling Democrats to run contrary to the will of the people.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just nine percent (9%) of adults put more blame on the unwillingness of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.
Ninety-four percent (94%) of Republicans and 91% of voters not affiliated with either major party place the blame on politicians, and two-thirds (66%) of Democrats agree.
That's certainly their right but it's a foolish strategy, one that isn't in touch with today's reality:
Eighty-six percent (86%) of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about the size of the federal budget deficit, including 65% who are very concerned. Only 12% are not very or not at all concerned about the size of the deficit.The bad news for Democrats is that running with a strategy that's centered on the belief that we aren't spending enough in this environment is stupid. The worst news is that changing courses now will be exposed as an election year attempt to get re-elected. I've said before that credibility matters.
In fact, I'm willing to say that credibility and consistency on fiscal discipline will matter more to voters this fall than all other issues combined. Election year epiphanies won't play well with people seeking consistency with regards to fiscal discipline. They aren't in the mood for gimmicks. They're demanding the real thing.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of voters also think the unwillingness of politicians' to cut government spending is a bigger problem than taxpayers' unwillingness to pay more in taxes.Families and small businesses are in the habit of setting sensible priorities. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid leadership team hasn't bothered with setting sensible priorities because they're mostly interested in passing everything on their special interest allies' wish lists. That's a shortcut to electoral disaster.
That's why I'm encouraging Democrats to take Mr. Shrum's advice. The more kool-aid that they drink, the bigger the disaster will be this November.
Posted Friday, February 5, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Feb-10 09:58 AM
"...they can't save themselves by fleeing their president or their principles."
That's the part I just find hilarious. They can't flee their principles, because they haven't any, and they can't flee their president because they're all Democrats. What they can do is what they always do, which is to dodge, spin and bloviate, none of which is going to serve them well in the current reality.
Matt Entenza's Ego On Full Display
Based on DFL gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza's FB statement , it's safe to say that he thinks higher of himself than Minnesotans do. It's also accurate to say that he's proud of raising taxes in 2005:
Apparently I'm quite a burr under the governor's saddle. My guess is it goes back to 2005, when then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and I helped force him to raise a tobacco tax in spite of his 'no new taxes' pledge. We saved health care for hard-working families who can't afford it and made sure our schools didn't endure further gut-wrenching cuts. We felt a little bad for the governor, so we allowed him to call the increase a 'fee,' but whatever you call it, it was the right thing to do for Minnesota.Political veterans have seen candidates say alot of stupid things during campaigns. It's another thing to say that political veterans, like myself, have seen candidates commit unforced errors like Mr. Entenza did in that statement.
Admitting that you've teamed with Dean 'Shave-The-Truth' Johnson to force a highly regressive tax increase on taxpayers at a time when people think that it's more important to cut spending than to raise taxes isn't the brightest political strategy I've ever seen. Still, that's precisely what Mr. Entenza did.
The move makes sense from the standpoint that Mr. Entenza did something to prevent himself from becoming the DFL's forgotten man. Entenza has plenty of money to spend but he's been hurt by his dismal showing in last Tuesday's DFL Straw Poll :
Kelliher and Rybak have clearly emerged as favorites on the DFL side, but the field remains a bit more muddied. State Sen. John Marty led the second tier of candidates with support from 9.6 percent of caucus participants. State Reps. Tom Rukavina and Paul Thissen each registered support from 7.2 percent of straw poll participants. They were followed by former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (6.7 percent), state Sen. Tom Bakk (6.3 percent), former state Sen. Steve Kelley (4.1 percent) and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner (2.1 percent).In all honesty, finishing that far behind the DFL's frontrunners puts Entenza towards the bottom of the DFL's bottom tier. I suspect that the DFL powers-that-be will start exerting pressure on Entenza, Bakk and Gaertner to get out of the race. Sen. Kelley didn't waste time before dropping out right after the precinct caucuses.
The good news for Matt Entenza doesn't have a self-esteem deficit. The bad news for Mr. Entenza is that he's got a drastic support deficit, one that he isn't likely to recover from.
FINAL QUESTION: Is is likely that a popular governor would think of a soon-to-be has been gubernatorial candidate as "a burr under the governor's saddle"? I'm betting otherwise.
Posted Saturday, February 6, 2010 3:21 AM
Comment 1 by Erling at 06-Feb-10 09:17 PM
Bakk and Gaertner's problem in polling low is due to lack of knowledge about these candidates. Entenza's low polling, however, is due to DFLers knowing all too much about this snake. The party chiefs are in love with his (wife's UnitedHealth) checkbook, but the rest of the DFL can't stand this Richie Rich trying to buy his way to Summit Avenue.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 06:24 AM
You oppose taxing tabacco?
You feel that the level of tax currently in place is more than a proper level?
On what grounds do you base a view on proper levels of taxing tabacco, Gary?
J. Ewing, is it "can't stand" or "don't trust" and whichever way you think proper, is Entenza still a player? And the more evidence you have beyond opinion to share, the better.
I think the post about yesterday's fish.
Paygo: Fiscal Discipline or Political Cover?
Cindy has an interesting post about Jim Matheson voting to raise the debt ceiling by a whopping $1,900,000,000,000. Theoretically, Rep. Matheson is a Blue Dog, though there isn't much proof of that recently. According to Cindy, Matheson wouldn't have voted for the bill without this provision included in the bill:
The rule, known as "pay-as-you-go" or "Paygo," was in place during the 1990s, the last time there was a federal budget surplus, and Democrats hope that it will spur a return in that direction.When Speaker Pelosi took over as Speaker, one of the first things they passed as a House rule was Paygo :
"The passage of statutory Paygo today will help usher out an era of irresponsibility and begin putting the country back on a fiscally sustainable path," President Barack Obama said, in a statement.
The House has voted to reinstate budget rules designed to curb the budget deficit.Here's the date on that AP article:
The vote was 280-to-154 to reinstate the so-called "pay as you go" rule. It requires that any increase in entitlement spending or tax cut be somehow offset so as to not to increase the deficit. Budget hawks say the move is a good first step toward restoring fiscal discipline.
updated 2:18 p.m. CT, Fri., Jan. 5, 2007My question is simple: Is the Democratic leadership committed to Paygo? If they are, why do they need to keep passing Paygo? Currently, the House can suspend the rules so they can ignore Paygo. Simply put, this isn't about fiscal discipline. It's about providing the Jim Mathesons of the world political cover.
It's another attempt by the Democrats' leadership to con the American people. They're pretending that We The People aren't smart enough to see through their facade. They're hoping that We The People will have forgotten their maneuvering when we enter the voting booths this November.
Let's send the Democratic leadership a message this November. In fact, let's change the Democrats' leadership this November, streamlining it by eliminating from their leadership the titles of Speaker, Majority Leader and Majority Whip, replacing them with the titles of Minority Leader and Minority Whip.
That's change I can believe in!!!
Posted Saturday, February 6, 2010 7:33 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Feb-10 08:24 AM
There are enough flaws in Paygo to drive Scott Brown's truck through. First off, tax cuts do NOT need to be paid for! It's silly. It says we can't cut taxes without raising taxes to pay for it! Second, if it only covers entitlement spending, the kind the government MUST spend, by "autopilot" laws, then you don't control that spending unless you change those laws or raise taxes to pay for something you should have already paid for. Discretionary spending, the kind Congress does have control over, could be cut, but it's far easier for Congress to "paygo" by increasing taxes. Finally, that horse has left the barn and died last winter, when Congress voted to spend over a Trillion dollars they didn't have, to buy things they didn't need and the rest of us couldn't use-- TARP and Stimulus. It's like having your spouse come home with a new boat AND a new car, claiming that the combined purchase saved you $5000 that you can now spend on something else.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 06-Feb-10 01:29 PM
"First off, tax cuts do NOT need to be paid for! It's silly. "
The thing is, tax cuts ARE paid for in the form of increased tax revenue. It has been proven time and time again that when taxes go down, the governments revenues GO UP!
LL
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 06-Feb-10 02:45 PM
Well, and that's the flaw in Paygo. It assumes static scoring-- that government spending helps the economy as well or better than leaving the money to be spent by private enterprise, and that taxing money out of the economy does not reduce economic activity. They assume they can double the tax on cigarettes or capital gains and no one will quit smoking or investing.
