January 4-5, 2010
Jan 04 02:00 The Obama Administration's Mark Dayton Moment? Jan 04 11:53 Taking Sarah To Task Jan 04 23:36 Kelliher's Choice: Veggies or Dessert Jan 05 10:05 Obama Administration Doesn't Get It On Terror, Interrogations Jan 05 11:07 How's that Engaging the World Thing Going? Jan 05 15:01 The DFL's Leadership Pickle Jan 05 13:44 BREAKING NEWS!!! Jan 05 16:31 Greer Resigns Jan 05 17:42 There's a Name For That
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Obama Administration's Mark Dayton Moment?
Bill Kristol made several good points in this video:
Still, the thing that he didn't do is what I'll do here: The U.S. closing its embassy in Yemen is the U'S. government's equivalent of Mark Dayton shutting down his office a week before the 2004 elections based on information that no one else got.
This is yet another embarrassing moment for the Obama administration's national security team. Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that they were working closely with the Yemeni government in shutting down AQY. Days later, they're shutting down the U.S. embassy in Yemen.
This is a huge propaganda win for the jihadists. Democrats repeat the mantra that closing Gitmo is imperative because the jihadists use it in recruiting new jihadists. Obviously, the Democrats didn't learn from their Murtha/Clinton cut and run episode in Somalia.
If they'd learned from that, they'd know that the U.S. cutting short military operations told bin Laden that we were, in his words, "a paper tiger." It's impossible to think that the jihadists don't believe that the Obama administration is the newest American paper tiger.
Couple the embassy closing with arresting Abdul Mutallab instead of capturing and interrogating him and it's been a disastrous week for the Obama administration's national security team.
Posted Monday, January 4, 2010 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 04-Jan-10 09:37 AM
How important is an embassy in Yemen?
What's it prove?
Blackwater-Xe does not need one to advance the type of policy that seems intended for there.
Give me six good reasons for having an embassy in Yemen, and I will say closing it saves money. If people who don't want to be taxed want embassies all over, how are they to be paid for?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Jan-10 12:18 PM
Closing the embassy in Yemen tells the terrorists that (a) we don't think we can protect it & (b) we run at the first hint of danger. Back in late 2001 & early 2002, people talked about the Arab street & how "nothing succeeds like success." Then as now, people in Iraq & Afghanistan wanted to know that we were "in it to win it."
As for having an embassy there, it's vital because it confers legitimacy on the country, just like not having an embassy in Iran delegitimizes Tehran.
Taking Sarah To Task
It isn't often that I have to correct Sarah Janacek but I can't let Sarah's post about unallotment go without responding. Here's the first thing that I have to disagree with:
The chief distinction between Pawlenty's earlier rounds of unallotments and those he made last spring was that the spring 2009 unallotments were made during the legislative session, "before the [entire state] budget had been enacted," not when the Legislature was not in session. In so doing, Gearin wrote, "the governor crossed the line between legitimate exercise of his authority to unallot and interference with the Legislative power to make laws."It isn't factually accurate to say that the unallotments happened while the legislature was still in session. It's true that Gov. Pawlenty announced that he'd be forced to unallot if he couldn't reach an agreement with the legislature on a budget. I know that because it totally stunned St. Paul and the entire state. I wrote about it here .
It's worth noting that Judge Gearin overstepped her bounds. Here's the relevant portion of the unallotment statute :
If the commissioner [of finance] determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated , and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall , with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue .Based on the fact that we've now got a $1,200,000,000 deficit, I think it's safe to say that the Department of Revenue could tell back in May that the DFL's budget wouldn't leave us with a surplus at the end of the biennium. According to the statute, all that's needed is for the commissioner to determine "that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed."
That threshold certainly was met, meaning that Gov. Pawlenty followed the letter of the law with his unallotments. The DFL's whining notwithstanding, the law is the law. The DFL can stomp their feet and hold their breath until they're purple in the face but that doesn't change the fact that Gov. Pawlenty followed the law.
In talking with a number of Capitol insiders since Judge Gearin's ruling, I'm convinced that another court will strike down Judge Gearin's ruling.
Another thing that should be pointed out is Judge Gearin's scolding Gov. Pawlenty for allegedly not negotiating in good faith but then saying nothing about the DFL leadership's take-it-or-leave-it negotiating habits. I'm fine with both sides playing hardball, especially on such an important matter.
Judge Gearin's criticism of Gov. Pawlenty and her not criticizing the DFL forces me to question Judge Gearin's impartiality.
This isn't an argument that the unallotment statute is flawless. I'm just arguming that Gov. Pawlenty followed the law as it's currently written. That's the only option Gov. Pawlenty had in this situation.
To be fair to Sarah, though, she's right about this:
But for Pawlenty and the Republicans, and the state Constitution and the courts, the governor is the governor. If he doesn't want to raise taxes (or fees), he doesn't have to. He may veto or sign bills. The separation of power doesn't prescribe "compromise" on the core issue of raising taxes. The fact that Pawlenty has a constitutionally granted final say has driven the Democrats nuts.Once those TROs expire, if they aren't overturned first, Gov. Pawlenty can unallot. If the TRO expired tomorrow, Gov. Pawlenty could unallot immediately, not because it's during the right time period but because of the deficit we're currently facing.
Let's play this out. Assume that others aggrieved by unallotments also sue and get temporary injunctions. All hell's going to break loose.
I wrote here that this is tricky campaigning for the DFL, especially gubernatorial candidates like Speaker Kelliher. I've talked with some loyal readers of LFR who work at the Capitol. Their consensus is that Speaker Kelliher privately wants this trouble to disappear, even though she's publicly saying that Judge Gearin's ruling is a great thing for Minnesotans.
Originally posted Monday, January 4, 2010, revised 08-Feb 6:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Jan-10 11:22 AM
The relevant parts of the unallotment statute, with the law read as a whole to avoid any frivolous or absurd outcome, is for the courts to determine, and you to find out.
Keep in mind the words, separation of powers. They might prove relevant, even, most relevant.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 01:54 PM
If you read her ruling, Judge Gearin admitted that her ruling is moot because Gov. Pawlenty has the authority to unallot now that we're in the deficit.
I won't be surprised if Gov. Pawlenty's argument is that the DFL budget wasn't balanced so he was forced to act. The forecast 'surplus' was only $3,625. Gov. Pwlenty simply has to prove that the DFL's budget didn't balance, forcing him to act. Based on our $1,200,000,000 deficit & the $3,625 projected surplus, that shouldn't be difficult.
Response 1.2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 02:00 PM
Keep in mind the words, separation of powers.Eric, I'm fully aware of that term. for that to be pertinent, you have to prove that the legislature did its job of passing a budget that balanced for the entire biennium. They didn't meet that threshold. In fact, they didn't come close.
When the legislative branch refuses to meet its constitutional responsibility, then that responsibility drops into the governor's lap. If the DFL hadn't thrown together their hodgepodge of a budget, if they'd actually put together a real budget, they'd have a stronger case.
The fault lies with the DFL's leadership, not with Gov. Pawlenty.
Comment 2 by Sarah Janecek at 05-Jan-10 02:04 PM
Hey, Gary, I enjoyed my time in your woodshed, given your sound reasoned spanking. I now think what you flagged is where Guerin tripped up. Time of the announcement of the unallotments and the timing of the actual unallotments, themselves. That was her distinction, and days later, it now seems very weak. I trust, part of the Pawlenty's team's appeal.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 02:18 PM
Sarah, Thanks for those comments. I hope you understood that my disagreement wasn't at all personal in nature. I simply wanted to highlight that inaccuracy.
I think you're right about this being part of Gov. Pawlenty's appeal. I'm putting a post together right now that exposes a different premise, namely that the DFL didn't meet their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget that balanced. The report that I've read said that the DoR's forecast said that the DFL's final budget had a $3,625 surplus at the end of the biennium.
Considering the fact that we've already got a $1,200,000,000 deficit, it shouldn't be difficult to argue that the DFL didn't meet their constitutional responsibility, thus putting the responsibility in Gov. Pawlenty's lap.
You can't overstep your authority when the other party abdicates their responsibility.
Kelliher's Choice: Veggies or Dessert
According to some contacts at the Capitol, Speaker Kelliher and the DFL want to push an over-sized bonding bill the minute the session starts rather than dealing with the deficit that the DFL left us with thanks to their spinelessness.
The DFL leadership knew that they couldn't pass a tax increase because there were big splits within the DFL on increasing taxes . In addition to that, Rep. Gene Pelowski argued against increasing taxes :
Pelowski said lawmakers won't have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a "fiction" that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty's veto. "We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs,'" Pelowski said. "There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit."Speaker Kelliher knew that there weren't enough votes to pass a tax increase, then override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. She wasn't even close. Rep. Pelowski explained that with sufficient clarity a month before the end of session. There was no mistaking what the final outcome would be.
Knowing that she couldn't get a tax increase signed into law, Speaker Kelliher still insisted on raising taxes on small businesses rather than make the difficult decisions to balance the budget. In principle, passing an over-sized bonding bill is like picking dessert rather than eating your veggies.
That isn't leadership. That's the opposite of leadership. In fact, the DFL's idea of leadership is increasing taxes rather than setting responsible spending priorities.
For years, the DFL has called the bonding bill their jobs bill. It's nothing of the sort. Most of the jobs in the bonding bill are construction jobs. The DFL's 'jobs bill' is based on 'saving jobs' rather than on increasing entrepreneurial activity, which leads to sustainable private sector job growth.
I can make a respectable argument that the bonding bill is Minnesota's equivalent of ARRA, with most of the jobs being saved, not created. We've seen over the past eight months that ARRA has been a failure. I'm arguing that a bonding bill will be as much of a failure as ARRA has been in creating jobs.
The DFL's lack of leadership and their unwillingness to prioritize spending has hurt Minnesota's economy. The DFL's unwillingness to prioritize spending has led them to reflexively think of raising taxes as the solution to Minnesota's problems. Raising taxes isn't a solution. It's the problem.
It's time conservatives asked the DFL so-called leadership the difficult questions. Here are some questions that I'd personally like the DFL to answer:
- Why will a bonding bill improve Minnesota's economy?
- Will the size of the bonding bill hurt Minnesota's bond rating more than it'll help Minnesota's economy?
- What proof can the DFL offer as proof that bonding bills create sustainable private sector jobs? In fact, can they offer proof of this?
- Why did the DFL pass a budget that relied on tax increases on small businesses to balance the budget?
- Considering the fact that the DFL leadership knew that they didn't have the votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto, why did the DFL attempt, literally into the last hour of the session, a budget that relied on increasing taxes?
- Does the DFL put a higher priority on making sure people "pay their fair share" or on putting the foundations in place for a thriving 21st Century economy?
- How will raising taxes on small businesses make them more profitable?
- If small businesses aren't profitable, isn't it likely that Minnesota's economy will falter?
- What specific pro-growth policies have the DFL passed since retaking the House?
It's time that the DFL legislature changed priorities. It's time that the DFL's legislative leadership changed their priorities. It's time that they put down the pie a la mode and ate their veggies first. It's time that the DFL showed signs of fiscal responsibility.
If the DFL won't 'get religion', then we'll give them religion on being fiscally responsible next November. Either way, it's their choice.
Originally posted Monday, January 4, 2010, revised 05-Jan 8:16 AM
No comments.
Obama Administration Doesn't Get It On Terror, Interrogations
All weekend long, I've listened to one White House yes man after another essentially tell us that letting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab lawyer up lived up to the high moral standards of this nation. If I hear another one of these flacks say that the system worked or that we're doing the right thing by prosecuting terrorists as criminals, I'm gonna scream so loud, I'll wake up Yemeni terrorists.
That's only fair since some of the Yemeni terrorists are allegedly plotting terrorist attacks. I say allegedly since Abdulmutallab went silent after lawyering up. That's the thing about prosecuting terrorists as criminals rather than interrogating them while they have actionable intelligence.
Here's what Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan told FNS's Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Perhaps the most controversial step that President Obama took after the Christmas day terror attack was to charge Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant.When we captured KSM, the Bush administration interrogated him for roughly a month, during which time KSM gave us intelligence on networks, AQ infrastructure, financing, future plots already in the works and more. AFter the CIA felt that they'd gotten everything out of him, then they announced that he'd been captured.
He was cooperating with authorities. He was giving information about his links to Al Qaeda. But after he got a criminal lawyer, he reportedly stopped cooperating, stopped talking.
Why not treat him as an enemy combatant, put him in a secret prison, use the interrogation techniques that President Obama has specifically approved, and try to get more information out of him?
BRENNAN: Well, we have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure we maintain flexibility as far as how we deal with these individuals.
Now, let's get the facts on the table. He was arrested on U.S. soil on a plane on, in the Detroit airplane. He was, in fact, talking to people who were detaining him.
There were people who were arrested during the previous administration, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui; Padilla; Iyman Faris; others; all were charged and tried in criminal court and sentenced, some cases to life imprisonment.
Just because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process does not mean that they're...we don't have other opportunities to get information from them.
The intel officers put a high priority on keeping things as hush-hush as possible. They didn't want the terrorists to know that they'd soon be rolling up entire networks in the coming days. By treating KSM as the terrorist he is, intel got tons of information that they then used to devastate AQ networks in the Middle East, in Indonesia while thwarting a terrorist attack in Los Angeles.
Here's why it's important that we not let Abdumutallab lawyer up: now U.S. intel won't get important information that possibly would've help them to quickly 'connect the dots'.
What's worse is something that Mr. Brennan said:
Just because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process does not mean that...we don't have other opportunities to get information from them.Brennan elaborated on that point, saying implicitly that they'll get additional information from Abdulmutallab when they negotiate a plea agreement with this terrorist. EXCUSE ME??? This administration is now boxed into offering plea deals to terrorists for information they would've gotten had he been interrogated first, then prosecuted.
Michael Kinsley tries spinning the Obama administration's behavior in this NYTimes op-ed :
Members of Al Qaeda are not the only ones affected by this double standard. The most repulsive and obviously guilty child molester, or drug kingpin who may also have information that the government could use, gets American justice, while an innocent child killed accidentally in our pursuit of terrorists gets no justice at all. (This second part of the equation doesn't seem to bother the Cheneys and the Gingriches.) Any place you draw the line, it will be possible to come up with what lawyers call "a parade of horribles." Any line you draw can be made to seem absurd, because it is absurd. But the line must be drawn somewhere.This isn't a difficult task if you apply common sense. We mustn't forget that applying common sense is different than attempting to rationalize something. For example, Mr. Kinsley isn't applying common sense. He's attempting to rationalize the Obama administration's actions.
So why not draw the line to put an Abdulmutallab or a Shaikh Mohammed on the "war" side and treat him as an enemy combatant? Well, first, recognize that this has become a judgment call so the answer is no longer obvious or mandated by logic. Second, recognize that the national border is a "bright line," and if people captured within the United States are going to be treated as if they were somewhere else, provided that they are certified terrorists, things are going to get complicated quickly.
To clarify things, let's figure out what our priorities are. Setting the right priorities helps clarify things quickly. I'd suggest that a president's highest priority must be protecting innocent civilians without violating the Constitution. By setting that sensible priority, clarity is established.
As despicable as a drug kingpin and child molesters are, there isn't a question that the Constitution says that they have some constitutional protections. Their offensive actions are clearly classified as crimes. That can't be said about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab or KSM.
Abdulmutallab and KSM are part of a terrorist network. They've received terrorist training. KSM planned a terrorist attack. Abdulmutallab attempted to carry out a terrorist attack. They've committed acts of war. Neither followed the rules of war as defined in the Geneva Convention. That means that they aren't afforded the same protections as soldiers in uniforms.
That means that they aren't criminals. They're enemy combatants/terrorists.
The vast majority of Americans agree with me that we should find out as much about terrorist networks as quickly as possible, then act on that information by putting terrorist networks out of commission.
Defense attorneys' spin notwithstanding, you can't get that type of information out of a terrorist who's lawyered up and who's been Mirandized. As Mr. Brennan admitted, Abdulmutallab was spilling his guts until his defense attorney showed up. The minute Abdulmutallab lawyered up is the minute he went silent, thereby preventing the CIA and FBI from getting actionable intelligence on terrorists based in Yemen who are plotting other terrorist attacks.
It's time that this administration put a higher priority on gathering intelligence from terrorists than on Mirandizing terrorists. Until that transition happens, the United States won't be protected as well as it possibly can be.
That's an unacceptable response to the terrorists' stated goals. It's time that this administration got serious about gathering intel from terrorists. That would prove that they get it.
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:49 PM
No comments.
How's that Engaging the World Thing Going?
President Obama emphatically and repeatedly told American voters and 'the world' that his administration would re-engage with the world. Implicit in his foreign policy speeches was that by not being a George Bush unilateralist, 'the world' would help us with important things like Iran and stopping nuclear proliferation.
The Obama administration's naivete has been repeatedly been exposed, starting with Iran belittling the Obama administration by outright rejecting Obama administration overtures.
After the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack, President Obama ordered heightened security at U.S. airports. He also asked for worldwide cooperation. Based on this article , he isn't getting worldwide cooperation:
On the first day of what was supposed to be tighter screening ordered by the United States for airline passengers from certain countries, some airports around the world have conceded they had not cracked down.Thus far, President Obama's re-engagement policies haven't worked. First, he pulled missile defenses from Poland and the Czech Republic in hopes of Russia putting pressure on Iran. Instead, Putin's puppet essentially said "Thanks for the gift. No thanks on pressuring Iran."
The U.S. demanded more careful screening for people who are citizens of, or are flying from, 14 nations deemed security risks. But enforcement of the U.S. rules appeared spotty Monday.
"Everything is the same. There is no extra security," said an aviation official in Lebanon, one of the countries on the list. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
The Obama administration made overtures towards Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. On the last day before the deadline, Iran said No Thanks.
Now the Obama administration has told airports around the world to be more careful screening passengers who are headed for the United States. Apparently, they've said no, too.
This was predictable.
I've repeatedly said that it isn't important to be liked by the world, that it's important to be respected. That's what I call the Reagan Principle. President Reagan knew the value of putting a steel fist inside a velvet glove. The Obama administration has the velvet glove part right. In fact, I'd argue that it's too enamored with velvet gloves.
Based on their actions, I'm beginning to wonder if the Obama administration doesn't believe in a policy of hiding a velvet glove inside a velvet glove.
Whatever the case, it's time President Obama focused less on befriending the world and spent more time focusing on demanding the world's respect and cooperation. If he doesn't make that transition, then the United States' reputation around the world will suffer greatly.
It's important that the terrorists understand that there is a downside to attempting terrorist attacks against the United States.
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:49 PM
No comments.
The DFL's Leadership Pickle
This Winona Daily News op-ed does something that Judge Kathleen Gearin didn't do and what the Strib won't do. It appportions blame to the DFL for not putting a serious budget proposal together:
On Wednesday, a judge ruled Gov. Tim Pawlenty had overstepped his authority when he "unalloted" budget items in order to keep the state financially afloat. The ruling, which only pertains to a $2.7 million portion of budget, has huge implications for Pawlenty, the Legislature and the state. While it could mean that a governor may not use unallotment as a budgeting strategy, it might also mean the state won't have enough money to pay the bills.The DFL didn't put together a budget that balanced. They threw a bunch of things together, got a ruling that said there'd be a tiny, almost invisible surplus left at the end of the biennium, then fled the scene of their crime. The proof is there for Minnesotans to see.
Think government shutdown.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Speaker of the Minnesota House Margaret Anderson Kelliher hailed the ruling as a victory for Minnesotans, further showing how out of touch she is with the state.
A potential shutdown is now a victory?
Even worse, she's willing to celebrate the fact that her own party was unwilling and unable to solve the budget crisis.
The problem seems to be one of leadership, the DFL, especially in the House, was outmaneuvered when it sent the budget bills to Pawlenty. Only a judicial technicality seems to be stopping Pawlenty from doing what he had to do, balance the budget.
While we find fault with many of the decisions Pawlenty made as he cut his way to a balanced budget, he was, after all, doing what the Legislature wouldn't do. The problem with the leadership in the Legislature is that no one is willing to say "no."
The DFL refused to say no to their special interest allies. They tried to manipulate their Misery Tour hearings so that newspapers would report that a grassroots swell of support was forcing them to raise taxes instead of cutting spending. When that didn't happen, the DFL panicked.
After the failed Cherrypicked Testimony Tour ended, Speaker Kelliher couldn't even keep her people together on raising taxes:
I've just confirmed that Rep. Poppe and Rep. Pelowski were the DFL legislators who voted with all 47 House GOP legislators to sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the Tax Bill.During a conversation with the Lady Logician , I had a 'lightbulb moment' when I said that the DFL's highest priority was to figure out how to fund government and that the GOP's highest priority is to build a 21st Century economy.
Thanks to Derek Brigham's graphics and my collaboration with Derek on the wordsmithing, we now have a great visual reminder of the difference between the two parties:
That's what's possible when a little innovation is mixed with some leadership. You won't see that type of leadership or innovation from the DFL because the DFL doesn't have leadership. They just have leading voices.
It's important to point out something else from the Winona Daily News op-ed, namely that the DFL refuses to say no to their special interest allies. If the DFL won't say no to their allies, then Minnesota votes will elect people who will represent their priorities and their policy preferences.
I'd bet the ranch that small businesses aren't happy with the DFL's tax increases directed right at them. I'll bet that same proverbial ranch that there aren't many Minnesotans who'd support all of the health insurance mandates if they knew about them.
During the next month, this blog will feature op-eds outlining the GOP's vision for Minnesota. Soon, I'll demolish the DFL's ability to accuse the Republican Party of being the "Party of No." Soon, the GOP's leadership will be on full display.
Finally, the DFL can't tell Minnesotans their vision, partly because the DFL isn't a party of ideas, partly because what few ideas they have aren't appealing. This year, especially during the session, the DFL's shortcomings will be exposed.
Technnorati: Vision , Leadership , Tim Pawlenty , Economy , Small Businessee , Prosperity , MNGOP , Speaker Kelliher , Tax Increases , Deficits , DFL
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:09 PM
Comment 1 by Duke Powell at 05-Jan-10 03:57 PM
Excellent post, Gary.
After reading Geain's decision and studying the unallotment law, it became readily apparent that the Judge rewrote the history of the ending of the last session. Further, this indicates that she did so in order to make the Governor the Boogy-man in this dispute and, by doing so, erecting a straw-man argument.
Its frustrating. But the Winona paper should be commended for attempting to correct the record.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 04:02 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Duke. When media outlets do their job, I'm usually the first to compliment them on their doing their jobs.
In reading Judge Gearin's ruling, it was abundantly clear that she didn't hesitate in criticizing Gov. Pawlenty. It was equally apparent that she wasn't interested in criticizing the DFL for their part in this fight.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 05-Jan-10 07:51 PM
Gearin's decision awaits review by people whose competence in judicial decision making I trust more than the argument of pundits.
To say the legislature did not make a reasonable package is to substitute your judgment for their collective thinking, and they faced an electorate and won. Neither you nor I have done that.
Your definition of reasonable seems to be they did not cave in to Pawlenty. He's governor. Not King. He has limited constitutional power and my suggestion is you are looking at the wrong branch when it comes to lack of reasonableness.
One unreasonable person is all it takes Gary. We've got that, the itinerant wannabe. Had he acted reasonably, used the veto, called a special session, etc., there'd be no constitutional mess.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 08:46 PM
Your definition of reasonable seems to be they did not cave in to Pawlenty.You're not even close to right. First, the political reality is that the DFL didn't have the votes to pass a budget with a tax increase. DFL Reps. Poppe & Pelowski voted against overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
Rather than working with Gov. Pawlenty on some things, the DFL leadership chose to play chicken & lost. BADLY. The end of a session frequently comes down to who's better at playing hardball. Simply puit, Gov. Pawlenty had the upper hand.
That doesn't make Gov. Pawlenty king, just a great chess player.
Judge Gearin's ruling is flawed from a proof standpoint. Her ruling said that Gov. Pawlenty did the unallotments during the session. That isn't accurate. He ANNOUNCED he's use unallotments if he couldn't reach a compromise with the DFL. The GAMC unallotments won't even happen until February.
Furthermore, the statute doesn't state that there's a time when a governor can or can't unallot, though it's obvious that he can't unallot until a budget is passed & signed into law. The statute, which I've read, only states that if the commissioner of the Dept. of Revenue determines that there won't be enough revenue to pay for the things that've been appropriated, then the commissioner must notify the committee of the situation, then unallot WITH THE PERMISSION of the governor. PERIOD.
The commissioner quickly determined that the DFL budget wouldn't come close to generating the revenues needed for their spending. That's what happens when the forecasted surplus is $3,625.
Had the DFL put together a more responsible budget, they'd have a stronger leg to stand on. As it is, they're paying the price for their stubbornness.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
The Obama administration is suspending its transfer of Gitmo detainees to Yemen:
The U.S. will not transfer any detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Yemen right now, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.This is predictable, especially considering the public's outcry over this policy.
Ninety detainees in Gitmo are from Yemen, which is combating a resurgent Al Qaeda.
Alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is also said to have gotten training in Yemen before carrying explosives on a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. His attempt to detonate the bomb was foiled when his device malfunctioned and he was tackled by a passenger.
"One of the very first things Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula used as a tool was Gitmo," Gibbs said. "We're not going to make transfers to a country like Yemen that they're not capable of handling (the detainees). While we remain committed to closing the detention facility, the determination has been made that right now any additional transfers to Yemen is not a good idea."
The announcement comes as President Obama misses his original deadline for closing the facility, a pledge he made on his first week in office.
Gibbs said court trials will begin for several individuals currently in Guantanamo Bay.
Public outcry doesn't guarantee that this administration will change courses. Think health care.
What this means, other than doing the right thing, is that President Obama wants to get this off the table so he can refocus his efforts on health care negotiations. I haven't seen proof that fighting terrorists is this administration's highest priority. Quite the contrary. It looks like it's a fair distance down President Obama's list.
Regardless of President Obama's motivation for this policy swith, it's the right thing to do, which is my first priority.
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:48 PM
No comments.
Greer Resigns
Kyle Trygstad is reporting that Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer is resigning from his post:
Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer announced today he is stepping down from his post amid complaints about his service, including the misappropriation of money, though he maintained he was not asked to resign by the governor or any other GOP leader. Greer admitted the party's internal battle between the conservative and moderate wings weighed on him, and he finally decided over the last couple days he could no longer effectively lead.In stepping down, Greer left in a less than graceful manner:
"Over last six months there have been a very vocal group in our party that has been very active in seeking to oust me as chairman," he said. "They have distorted facts, the misspending of money, and talked about my support of Governor Crist for the U.S. Senate race...These distractions and attacks within the party is not what we should be doing."First, let's look at Greer's campaigning for Crist. This post highlights what Greer was willing to do to get Gov. Crist elected:
Is it so hard for Charlie Crist to simply say he supported the stimulus package and that while it was far from perfect, he thinks it did a lot of good for the people of Florida? Now, state party chairman Jim Greer is adding to the credibility gap.This proves that Chairman Greer isn't a man of integrity. It's important to note that it's a longstanding tradition for chairmen of political parties to not endorse candidates. That's a bipartisan tradition, too, borne out of the belief that people should decide, not leadership.
"If [Crist] had been a congressman, he has said many times, he would have voted against it," Greer said on Ron Sachs' video show.
Wrong.
"Gov. Charlie Crist, now a U.S. Senate candidate, said Tuesday he would have made the "pragmatic" decision to vote for the $787 billion federal stimulus bill, differentiating himself from fellow-Republican opponent Marco Rubio and the man he is trying to replace, Mel Martinez."
Greer's statements, combined with his association with Gov. Crist, gives undecided activists more reasons to support Marco Rubio. Let's remember that Gov. Crist hasn't been consistent about the stimulus plan. First, he campaigned with President Obama in support of the plan. Obviously, he's quoted as saying that, had he had a vote, he would've voted for the stimulus plan.
That's before reminding ourselves that Crist once made the foolish argument that he didn't endorse the stimulus legislation :
"I didn't endorse it," Crist told CNN host Wolf Blitzer. "I - you know, I didn't even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians."Here's what Crist said on Hardball:
Speaking of the stimulus, Crist said, "It's going to help (Floridians') children. It's going to help their traffic situation. It's going to help produce more jobs here in the Sunshine State. That's a perspective that I have to have as, in essence, the CEO of Florida. And that's why I support it."It's time for Chairman Greer to exit stage left. It's time for Gov. Crist to follow Greer's lead.
I'm not on a political purity purge. I'm just interested in putting people of integrity in leadership positions.
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Jan-10 07:44 PM
I think this is one of the more interesting things you are examining, the Florida GOP internal party situation.
I think we both agree that each party is in disarray, and that the two party system and the incumbent advantages with lobbyist money being everyone's drug of choice in DC is making the system of checks and balances work wrongly. And the polarizations are caused by an inoperative and flawed system; not by personalities of the people in the elective offices. They cannot all be as selfish and awful and tolerant of corruption as they turn out looking.
Your belief seems to be that the GP will rebound by closing ranks against the Dems, while the Dems kill off one another, per lobbyist working the puppet strings.
Were the theory correct, how long would such a change last given the same hands control the GOP puppet strings in DC - not necessarily identical hands, but close enough to not matter?
Do you really believe grassroot reform within either party is feasible - or just some dream?
Look at Bachmann on the Financial Services Committee - taking the cash from Wall Street.
How's that different from Barney Frank, when you strip things to essentials?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 05-Jan-10 08:07 PM
For context:
/marcorubio.com/marco-101/
Any thoughts about pros and cons of what is said there; never mind the infighting dimensions which is of more interest within the GOP than to the general population.
Is it a clear agenda?
What are the plusses and minuses?
Who's financial hand will he have to kiss and kneel to, were he to win? That might be the most interesting question.
The progressives in the Dem camp seem unwilling to assert any rights of leadership in their comparable situation of dissatisfaction with the appeasers.
The GOP might be onto something.
There's a Name For That
C-SPAN's CEO Brian Lamb sent a letter to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid requesting that they permit C-SPAN to cover the conference committee's deliberations with their cameras:
The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.What's happened since Mr. Lamb's letter went public is so surreal that I'm waiting for the Twilight Zone music to start playing. Here's Speaker Pelosi's response:
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.
"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.
" There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience ," she said.I can't stop laughing. I thought I'd never hear anything as boneheaded as Janet Napolitano saying "the system worked." Obviously, I underestimated the Democrats' ability to make themselves look like idiots because Speaker Pelosi's statement is nothing short of bizarre.
That's before we get to Robert Gibbs's reply to a question about whether President Obama had lived up to his campaign promises to televise negotiations on C-SPAN :
"I do not believe the American people have lacked for information on what's in these bills, the political and policy arguments around different people's positions, I think that's been well documented," Gibbs said.First, the question wasn't about whether the American people have been kept in the dark. It's beyond dispute that they have. The question isn't about whether there's been a complete airing of the Democrats' and Republicans' policy positions. They haven't. In fact, that's beyond dispute, too. The question was whether the Obama administration would hold the negotiations behind closed doors.
I don't normally say something this provocative but I can't stand this anymore: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are really awful liars. President Obama repeatedly, emphatically said during the campaign that health care negotiations would be "televised on S-SPAN" so that people could see which people were carrying the drug companies' water.
Speaker Pelosi isn't stupid enough to think that this has been an open process, much less the most open process in legislative history. The only way she can say something like that with a straight face is by being a total bald-faced liar. If Ms. Pelosi doesn't stop telling these types of whoppers, the American people will tire of her lies and strip her of the Speaker's gavel.
It's one thing for the American people to disagree with an administration's policies. It's another when they don't trust an administration and the Speaker of the House from the same party. Once a politician loses the people's trust, it's usually all downhill from there.
Let's hope that that's what's happening here.
Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010 5:48 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Jan-10 07:36 PM
You seem to be saying they think that politically it is a greater advantage to pass something and call it reform than to have integrity or at least the appearance of integrity. If that's what you are saying the question you have to honestly answer Gary, is it a defect of the individuals or of the system they are working within. Replacing people is too easy an answer if the problem is systemic, as I believe it is.
With all the Tea Party gusto, why have not you, Bachmann, the others really faced and taken on the lobbyist problem.
Bachmann, okay easy answer, she's taking the money to run a campaign aimed at keeping the job.
You Gary, why not shoot where it's needed?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-10 08:27 PM
Eric, I'm NOT anti-lobbyist per se.
The point I'm trying to make is simple, that Nancy Pelosi & President Obama are liars.
They're intent on passing something, not that solves an important problem, but because it's what the Democratic Party has wanted to accomplish for three quarters of a century.
Obama, Pelosi & Reid are intent on passing legislation that the American people are overwhelmingly rejecting.
More than anything else, that's what's fueling the TEA Party movement: that people who theoretically work for us don't care what we want. To Obama, Reid & Pelosi, we're just people to be courted each election cycle.
NO MORE!!!
NO MORE!!! will we be ignored.
NO MORE!!! will our opinions & our research & our solutions be there there'd to the side.
Eric, I've got friends who are infinitely better policymakers than the people currently serving in DC.
I know you won't believe it but Rep. Bachmann is one of the brightest policymakers around. Give her a chance. Think her policies through. I think you'll be surprised.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 06-Jan-10 10:08 AM
There would have been at least a coherent health coverage bill, had the appeasement not been forced on the many, by the few. If the GOP had shown any bipartisanship, the likes of Ben Nelson could have been told to take a hike. Instead, the GOP pushed everyone else, well beyond a clear majority, a 60:40 split instead, to reach that supermajority by having to appease the likes of Nelson.
The GOP plus Nelson, is 100% responsible for the misearble thing that Nelson did -- without the GOP positioned as it was, he never could have robbed the fisc. It was tolerated because the GOP forced it upon all the reasonable people in the clear majority - forced a super majority to get something done.
The GOP is responsible for all the garbage that happened. 51 senators would have had something better and more coherent.
