February 5, 2007
Feb 05 00:49 Haws's Forgettable Memo Feb 05 02:41 U.S. To Insurgents: No More Mr. Nice Guy Feb 05 10:27 Webb's Mindless Meanderings Feb 05 12:07 Feinstein's Fiasco
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Haws's Forgettable Memo
You'd think that a Minnesota legislator would hire a staffer that could spell. After reading this memo, you'd have to wonder if his assistant knows about spell checker:
A key House committee gave its approval of a bill authored by State Representative Larry Haws of St. Cloud is that could possibly save local governments millions of dollars statewide. The House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee voted to pass on legislation calling for increased booking fees at Minnesota's county jails from $10 to $25; those booked and released would be charged as well. If a person is found not guilty, they will receive a full refund.Larry's a decent guy but I would've hoped that he'd paid more attention to spelling and grammar than this.
There will also be a waiver for offenders in poverty and unable to pay the booking fee.
"We've recently seen increased property taxes and user fees for school activities, state parks, and other public services," Haws said. "It comes down to who should deal with any further increases; criminal offenders or law-abiding taxpayers."
Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner, is supporting the bill along with the Minnesota Sheriffs Association.
In the year 2005, 7,981 people were booked in Stearns County and $25,866 was collected in booking fees. If Haws' booking fee proposal had been in place, taxpayers would have saved an estimated $50,000 more.
"It's a good thing whenever we can cover our law enforcement costs without having to pass those costs on to taxpayers," Sanner said.
Haws added, "This is simple and has tremendous cost-saving potential for county governments to turn user fees into "mis"user fees."
This is the most compelling case that we might need to spend more money on education.
Posted Monday, February 5, 2007 12:49 AM
No comments.
U.S. To Insurgents: No More Mr. Nice Guy
According to this Washington Times article, the U.S. military will combine with Iraq troops in a major offensive to quiet Baghdad.
Briefing a small group of foreign reporters, three American colonels who are senior advisers to the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad said a command center overseeing the crackdown in the capital would be activated today. "The expectation is the plan will be implemented very soon thereafter," a senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi army division said at a U.S. military base in Baghdad. It's going to be an operation unlike anything this city has seen," Col. Doug Heckman added. "It's a multiple-order magnitude of difference, not just a 30 percent, I mean a couple hundred percent" larger than previous offensives.One of the things that didn't get alot of attention in President Bush's surge speech was the announcement of new rules of engagement. I'd doubt that this offensive would be possible if the old rules of engagement were still in place. I'm not predicting victory yet but I have to think that this offensive has a better chance of succeeding than past offensives. I base that on Col. Heckman's description of the offensive being "a couple hundred percent" larger offensive than previous offensives.
Posted Monday, February 5, 2007 2:42 AM
No comments.
Webb's Mindless Meanderings
Yesterday, Jim Webb appeared on FNS with Chris Wallace. During the interview, Webb said a couple things that simply defy logic. Here's one example:
WALLACE: But let me ask you about that, this idea of yours, of regional diplomacy. What makes you think that Iran or Syria would have any interest in helping us out in Iraq?Anytime a Democrat is asked about Iran and Syria, they give the same answer: "it's in their interest" to help stabilize Iraq. That's utter nonsense. It's in Iran's interest to keep our troops pinned down so that we can't come after them.
WEBB: I think they're - I think if you break those two countries apart and look at them, I think there are reasons for them to come to the table on both. And I'm not saying that we are - we should be going to them on our knees or that we should be giving up on certain conditions. But it is in their interest.
Then Wallace read him back this Webb quote from 1986:
"If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind, it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time."When Wallace asked him to explain himself, here's the answer Webb gave:
The way that this war has been defined is a 20-year war. In fact, I got mail at the beginning of this war when I was opposing it, before we went in, basically saying you need to sit down and shut up because you're being disloyal to a president.I'd doubt that anyone thinks that Webb's explanation answers Chris Wallace's question. It's obvious that Webb knew that he'd been caught flip-flopping on the issue. It's equally obvious that Webb tried giving a meandering, evasive answer to not answer Wallace's question.
But when do you start talking? Twenty years from now? And particularly in a situation now where the - all the conditions that are being predicted if we withdraw from Iraq - and basically, by the way, they're saying precipitous withdrawal, and no one is saying that - are the conditions that those of us like myself were predicting would occur if we went in and are on the ground.
As bad as those answers are, here's the one that takes the cake:
WALLACE: I understand, but if I may go back to my question of the dangers of debating and fighting at the same time, which you said was the lesson you took from Vietnam. Some people say that's exactly what's going on right now.TRANSLATING WEBB'S STATEMENTS: I voted for Gen. Petraeus because I thought he was "qualified to be a commander." On the other hand, I think his plan doesn't make sense.
The Democrats, including yourself, voted unanimously a few days ago to confirm General Petraeus to lead all U.S. forces in Iraq...
WEBB: Right, right.
WALLACE: ... at the same time that they want to pass a resolution that would oppose the plan that he helped write for the troops he says are necessary to win.
WEBB: Well, you see, that's not an inconsistency. And I voted for General Petraeus. And I don't agree with the whole national - lack of national strategy that - this administration has not had a strategy. They continue to focus on the military side rather than diplomatic side.
WALLACE: But you don't see...
WEBB: Please, let me...
WALLACE: But if I might just - you don't see the inconsistency...
WEBB: I'm trying to answer your question, because there is not an inconsistency.
WALLACE: Why not?
WEBB: When the administration puts forward a general officer to fill a billet that exists, I will take a look at his qualifications and see whether I believe he is qualified to be a commander. That doesn't mean that I have to back a political strategy that impels him into motion.
That's typical Democrat doublespeak. How can Webb say that a general is "qualified to be a commander" but that his plan is totally wrong? That's like saying that you support the troops while saying that they're serving in a mission that isn't just wrong but it's unnecessary. As long as Democrats parade out anti-war doves like Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and John Murtha to berate the troops' mission, they should expect to lose the military vote by embarrassingly lopsided amounts.
Finally, there's this exchange:
WALLACE: Senator, don't Democrats want to, in the president's word, tear people down by raising taxes on the rich?We're in the midst of a robust economy and Webb's saying that "wages and salaries for workers are at an all-time low as a percentage of our national wealth." Riiighht. We believe you. They're lining up for soup lines because their dollars aren't stretching far enough. They're running to the welfare office because they're being squeezed so badly.
WEBB: The difficulty that we have in this country right now is this. Corporate profits are at an all-time high as a measure against national wealth. The average major corporate CEO, according to the Wall Street Journal, makes $10 million a year in compensation.
At the same time, wages and salaries for workers are at an all-time low as a percentage of our national wealth. And part of this is the internationalization of corporate America. Some of it's inevitable and some of it isn't.
But if you're an American worker looking at the situation in America today, you see three components working against you. One is that in the shift with technological expertise, white collar and blue collar people are seeing a lot of jobs going overseas where they can be done more cheaply. The corporation benefits. The worker loses the job.
The only problem with that is an article I read recently that said that GDP growth was still strong because consumers spending was growing at a steady pace. I'm sure that Sen. Webb will try explaining that away as not being contradictory, either. If he said that, people wouldn't believe him.
Then again, I'd doubt that many people that believe him now.
Posted Monday, February 5, 2007 10:28 AM
No comments.
Feinstein's Fiasco
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is having a fit because Republicans are threatening to filibuster the Biden-Hagel resolution. Here's what she's saying:
"It's obstructionism," said Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This is not tolerable in a situation where it's the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating."Sen. Feinstein hasn't explained why Democrats won't allow true debate between several different resolutions. Furthermore, she hasn't explained why Democrats aren't offering legislation binding a certain course of action instead of these spineless non-binding resolutions. After all, if this truly is the most important topic in the nation, shouldn't Democrats have something more to offer than just criticism?
The reality is that Sen. Feinstein is talking tough but she can't push it too far because she knows that the American people still prefer winning over the Democrats' various unilateral defeat options. She knows that the American people would make Democrats pay a price at the polls if they actually told the American people who they really are.
Frankly, Democrats are clueless about Iraq and the GWOT. Their only 'plans' are to oppose anything that President Bush is for and to be fore anything that President Bush is against. That isn't leadership. It's an indicator of the intellectual timidity and inferiority. Most Americans understand that Democrats aren't serious thinkers about the GWOT or other national security matters. Sen. Feinstein's statements just re-enforce that opinion.
"I think it's a terrible mistake to prevent this debate," she said. "If we can't get this done, you can be sure, a month or so down the pike, there's going to be much stronger legislation."That's tough talk but it's meaningless. That "stronger legislation" would also be filibustered. Besides, the Defeatocrats don't have the spine to tell people what they really believe. Furthermore, Congress has already said that they won't use the power of the purse while troops are in harms' way. Sen. Feinstein should learn that you don't threaten people when you don't have any leverage on them.
Posted Monday, February 5, 2007 12:08 PM
No comments.
