July 1-4, 2010
Jul 01 03:24 Where's the Money Coming From? Jul 01 08:41 Is Holder Running Corruption, Inc.? Jul 02 00:11 Holder's Corruption Inc., Part II Jul 02 04:48 Dayton, Kelliher, Entenza Fight About Raising Taxes Jul 02 07:11 The Summer of Second Thoughts? Jul 03 05:49 President Obama's Tough Times Jul 03 18:44 Grayson Strikes Agan. (Literally) Jul 04 01:46 Is a Green Energy Future Imminent? Jul 04 04:43 Sweet Land Of Liberty
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Where's the Money Coming From?
The first thing I thought of after reading this WCCO article about Speaker Kelliher's plan to implement a single-payer health care plan in Minnesota was "Where's she getting the money from"? First, here's what WCCO is reporting:
Among the most dangerous health hazards for Minnesotans may be the one we don't see coming, the pink slip that sends us to the unemployment line. "When 214,000 Minnesotans are out of work, a large percentage of them are out of health care," said Anderson Kelliher.What's scary about Speaker Kelliher's proposal is that this initiative is based partly on her promise to John Marty in exchange for his support at the DFL's endorsing convention and partly because the majority of DFL politicians support a single-payer plan. Speaker Kelliher doesn't seem to have included a plan for paying for this ill-advised initiative.
Unemployment is a big reason the number of uninsured in Minnesota has ballooned to more than 400,000. It's also the reason why Anderson Kelliher is proposing the state take over health care, completely.
"This is a basic right that people should be able to have basic preventive care in the state of Minnesota," said Anderson Kelliher.
Kelliher is proposing a single statewide health plan that would replace every government program. It would cover every health care cost, and replace every premium, co-pay and deductible, and charge consumers based on ability to pay . But universal health care is a costly, and controversial, proposition.
What's more scary is that single-payer does nothing to reduce costs or real insurance premiums. When Speaker Kelliher says that people will be charged "based on ability to pay", people should hide their wallets. That either means that she's using this as a tool for redistributing wealth or that she's using this to buy votes or that she's using this for both.
What most people call health insurance isn't insurance, at least not in the same way we think of car- or homeowners-insurance. It's more accurate to say that health insurance policies with co-pays are prepaid health care. If patients don't see the real cost of medical care, they won't act with the same discretion as a person who's got "skin in the game."
During his GOPAC speech, Gov. Pawlenty illustrated the principle brilliantly by asking this question (I'm paraphrasing):
If I told everyone in this room that they should go to Walmart & pick out a TV & that they should send me the receipt so I could re-imburse them for their new TV, how many people would pick out a 12" black & white?
The point is that people won't pay attention to cost if they don't have to deal with actual costs.
Gov. Pawlenty said that Minnesota implemented a system that tells the public employee unions that they'll pay less by being smart health care shoppers. The way it works, if I understood Gov. Pawlenty correctly, is that the state pays a uniform price towards treatments and procedures. If a health care shopper chooses to go to a place that's expensive, they'll pay more out of pocket.
The result has been lower health care costs to the state and insurance premiums that have stayed flat 3 of the past 5 years for the shoppers. The patients/health care shoppers still have great coverage. The difference is that the state's cost has grown at substantially less than the rate of inflation.
That isn't a claim that Obamacare can make. That isn't a claim that Speaker Kelliher will be able to make if her crazy scheme got enacted into law.
Enacting single-payer into law will bankrupt the state while chasing what's left of the businesses out of the state. Why would a business stay in a state where their labor costs were increasing at substantially faster than the rate of inflation? People are already leaving Minnesota at an alarming rate.
Kelliher's proposal would just accelerate that process.
Furthermore, miracle cures are discovered at a substantially slower rate in single-payer plans. That isn't just my opinion. That's also AMSA's opinion , the American Medical Student Association:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:In AMSA's own words, reduced revenues would result in a "reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement." Why on God's green earth would people choose to do that? It's obvious that people appreciate the many miracle cures that the capitalists in the medical research profession have found. Many people's relatives wouldn't be alive if not for the robust capitalist R and D efforts.
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement .
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Costs will rise under Speaker Kelliher's plan, too, because there will be a shortage of medical personnel. The notion that quality will improve and prices will drop if we remove "the profit motive" isn't anchored in reality. It's based on wishful thinking.
There's a reason why Canada is moving away from their single-payer system. Maggie Thatcher had it right when she said that the problem with socialism is that you'll eventually run out of other people's money to spend. Canadians have finally discovered that their system is too expensive and the waiting lines are too long.
Speaker Kelliher apparently is a single-payer true believer. It would be unfortunate for taxpayers if she, or any of the DFL candidates, were elected and single-payer became the law in Minnesota.
It's important that Minnesota's voters understood what nasty financial straights they'd be getting into if they elected Speaker Kelliher. Taxes would skyrocket, as would health care costs and health insurance premiums.
NO THANKS.
Posted Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 01-Jul-10 06:48 AM
You're not counting the biggest cost-- the cost of human tragedy-- brought on by single-payer, aka a government takeover. Overheard by chance in a Canadian business recently: " Please come to that fundraiser for so-and-so, and bring everybody you know. We have to raise $13,000 so she can go to [the US] and get that [apparently life-saving] operation, because they [the Canadian single-payer government system] won't pay for it."
Comment 2 by Jack at 01-Jul-10 08:47 AM
Virtually all other advanced nations have some form of single-payer healthcare. All of them have better healthcare outcomes that we do and manage to cover all or nearly all their citizens at around half the cost of what we Americans pay. This is by far the most grossly misinformed and wrong-headed post I've ever seen you put out.
Single-payer health care would be a particular boon to Minnesota small businesses as it would reduce their premiums by a minimum of 20% and would eliminate all insurance-related obstacles to starting a business or hiring anyone who wants to work for them. The explosion of small business economic activity and growth would be enormous.
Your comments about slowdowns in drug company research are particularly absurd: 1) Most basic drug research is financed by taxpayers and performed by the NIH; 2) Drug companies spend three to four times more on advertising and physician incentives (i.e., bribes for prescribing their drugs) than they do on what you're calling basic research; and 3) Most of the "basic research" that drug companies do these days is in the form of making trivial reformulations of existing drugs for the sole purpose of extending the patent monopoly on old drugs. Patent extensions are one of the main gimmicks drug companies use to maintain their phenomenal 16% profit margins.
The single-payer Minnesota Health Plan would allow medical providers to negotiate drug prices on a statewide basis which would radically reduce costs to a level where sick people could actually afford to pay for them. This is as opposed to the Republican Medicare Part D boondoggle which gave drug companies hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money while preventing Medicare (but not the VA) from negotiating prices...typical Republican behavior of funneling huge amounts of our tax money to corporate welfare freeloaders.
Btw, in many of those countries with single-payer health care, people see their doctors far more frequently than Americans do in a system that still costs half as much as ours does and that keeps their people healthier than we do. It's our grossly inefficient fee-for-service payment system and insurance company admin overhead costs that make frequent trips to the doctor so expensive here in the U.S.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 01-Jul-10 08:53 AM
Jack, Please refrain from that misinformation. They don't have better health outcomes. Cancer survival rates are pathetic in single-payer countries while the survival rates are 25-40 points higher in the United States.
It's worth noting that the statistics you cite aren't collected the same way in Europe as they're collected here.
The statistics you cite are more propaganda than anything.
You should be ashamed of yourself for using such trash.
Comment 4 by Jack at 01-Jul-10 11:21 AM
Gary, since you focus on statistics, could you find an example of another advanced nation in which hundreds of thousands of illness-precipitated bankruptcies and foreclosures occur each year? Could you find an example of another nation in which 20 to 45 thousand (depending on your source) preventable deaths occur each year due to inability to obain healthcare? ...and don't give me any of that crap about how anyone can go to the ER--they don't do chemo or dialysis in the ER.
I've done quite a lot of reading on international health care systems and so far I've found no nation that has anything close to our horrendous record on allowing our broken health care non-system to destroy the physical, psychological and financial well-being of so many of our people. If you know of such a place, I'd like to know about it.
Comment 5 by Elizabeth at 01-Jul-10 11:41 AM
Thank you Jack for your insightful responses. Here in Minnesota we have compassion for each other; we care about each other. That is why I think we have one of the best chances in the nation at doing single payer first.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Jul-10 02:54 PM
Elizabeth, There's nothing compassionate about bankrupting a state & chasing away small businesses by the U'Haul load. There's nothing compassionate about a system that doesn't tell people to change to a healthier lifestyle. There's nothing compassionate about a system that, according to its proponents, causes medical research & manufacturing companies to slow the rate at which they produce life-saving drugs & procedures.
That's why, when there's a solid Republican majority in the Minnesota legislature, we'll implement true health care reform that reduces health care costs, gives people more choices & lowers health insurance premiums.
Comment 6 by Jack at 01-Jul-10 03:44 PM
Sorry, Gary, but Elizabeth's not buying your crap. Republicans have been stonewalling national health care since Teddy Roosevelt. At the national level, they have been solidly in charge of the government since Reagan and have demonstrated an iron-willed determination to prevent any attempts at providing health care for Americans to interfere with insurance and drug company profits.
Elizabeth, we will get single-payer and we'll get it a lot faster than the GG's of this world think. With well over two dozen other nations serving as living examples of how well single-payer works and how corrupt, expensive and ineffecive our system is, it's only a matter of time.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Jul-10 11:11 PM
Jack, I don't much care if Elizabeth won't accept history's lessons. That's her problem. The minute she shows me a place where single-payer has kept costs down without rationing care, I'll pay attention to her opinions.
Canada is moving away from single-payer because it's bankrupting them.
Further, I reject your lies that Republicans "have been solidly in charge of the government since Reagan". We've had divided government for at least half that time. You've lost the argument because you can't even get your basic facts straight.
Comment 7 by Jack at 02-Jul-10 05:27 AM
Gary, name one country that rations care more severely or more ruthlessly than the United States. Hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies and 45,000 dead each year due to the failure of our health care "system."
Name one country that is in more danger of being bankrupted by its health care system than the United States. At 17% of GDP, we pay twice what Canadians do.
Divided government, you say? You are perhaps unaware that Obama is the first real liberal President we've had since Jimmy Carter? You are perhaps unaware that the filibuster gives Republicans tremendous power to defeat anything Democrats try to do in Congress? You are perhaps unaware that the Republican party has the solid support of the real rulers of this country, the corporatocracy, as well as of the
Fox propaganda machine?
Get real, Gary!
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-10 05:34 AM
Gary, name one country that rations care more severely or more ruthlessly than the United States.Canada & England leap to mind. My friend Cindy has written posts about people waiting 12-18 hrs. in Canada just to see an ER doctor.
As for your BS about Republicans having "the solid support of the real rulers of this country, the corporatocracy", perhaps you should review the contributions Obama, Dodd, Frank, Mollohan, Murtha, Moran, Rangel, Kanjorski & Clinton got when they were hitting Wall Street up.
Comment 8 by Eric z. at 02-Jul-10 06:38 AM
Jack nailed it.
Everybody knows what he says is true.
Only the Republicans deny it, and the health-industrial complex lobbyists and talking heads.
They've a stake in the status quo.
Republicans like to keep unorganized labor on a short leash and having health coverage at risk in job change or job loss -- that's the boss's prescription, not the doctor's.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-10 07:22 AM
Eric, Don't bet on it. Single-payer is a disaster, with its higher taxes, higher premiums, no cost controls (cost controls aren't the same as price controls.) & rationing. Even its supporters admit that it reduces revenues, which translates into fewer life-saving miracle cures.
Single-payer kills people. That's a statistical fact, especially with cancer treatments.
Comment 9 by Joel Clemmer at 02-Jul-10 07:43 PM
There does not seem to be much room for dispassionate analysis and debate here. It may pay us to lift the vision to the big picture of our insurance company-based system vs the systems of other developed countries that utilize single-payer or a heavy regulatory regime that uses some of the single-payer tools.
The first thing to notice to the trend toward the single-payer end of the spectrum. Nobody is going the other way - toward the insurance company dominated regime. One suspects there is a reason.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-10 09:04 PM
Nobody is going the other way - toward the insurance company dominated regime. One suspects there is a reason.Actually, that isn't the truth. Canada is heading in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, if there is a reason why they're staying with single-payer, I'd argue that that reason is ideology, not pragmatism. If other nations put a higher priority on saying that everyone is insured than on a medical system that delivers great value, then that's proof that they're setting worthless priorities.
"Everyone else is doing it" isn't a legitimate reason for opting for an inferior medical system.
Is Holder Running Corruption, Inc.?
This weekend, I wrote about J. Christian Adams' quitting Eric Holder's
Part II, which airs Thursday, promises to be more explosive than the first part. If you haven't watched Wednesday's interview, and I suspect most have, you owe it to yourselves to watch it.
To recap, DOJ lawyers had already won the case. As Mr. Adams said, it was the easiest case he's ever prosecuted. In addition to the video of the thugs wielding night sticks right in front of the polling place, one of the eyewitnesses to the NBPP thugs' threats and intimidation was Bartle Bull, a longtime ally of Bobby Kennedy during the Civil Rights battles. Thanks to Newsbusters, we have a transcript of an interview he did with Bill O'Reilly . Here's the first part of that transcript:
O'REILLY: All right, federal authorities charged three Black Panthers with various election violations. But this week, those charges were dropped by attorney general Eric Holder. Some are not happy about it. With us now, civil rights lawyer Bartle Bull, who once ran Robert Kennedy's New York campaign for President and Jimmy Carter's as well. So you're an old liberal, right?Bartle Bull isn't a far right ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. His statements to O'Reilly were measured, evidenced by his saying that he couldn't "answer for what was between their ears" when O'Reilly asked what the NBPP's intent was.
BARTLE BULL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I'm an old liberal.
O'REILLY: Attorney?
BULL: I would say a John Kennedy Democrat. And I was a civil rights lawyer in Mississippi for a time. And I am a liberal.
O'REILLY: And that's interesting, because you are leading the charge here against these Black Panthers. Now what did you see yourself on election day? What did you see?
BULL: I saw two armed uniformed threatening men blocking the door to a polling place, screaming rudeness at voters.
O'REILLY: What was their intent?
BULL: I can't answer for what was between their ears.
O'REILLY: Well, what were they screaming, though?
BULL: I heard, well, one of them, for example, screamed, "Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
O'REILLY: Okay, did they have their Black Panther regalia on?
BULL: They wore jack boots, black boots, black combat boots, black paramilitary uniforms, black berets.
O'REILLY: All right, so they were intimidating as this young man who photographed them said. You concur with that assessment?
BULL: Oh, absolutely.
O'REILLY: And how many were there?
BULL: There were two at the place I was. I was at seven different polling places. At this place, there were two.
O'REILLY: All right, so you made your report.
BULL: Yes.
O'REILLY: And the federal government, the U.S. Attorney filed charges against three people. Now the charges have been dropped. Now we called Holder's office. And they said, here's what basically, this is not a quote, ladies and gentlemen, but here's basically what they said: It's just not big enough for us, it's not that important, we're letting it go. And you say what?
BULL: I think it's extremely important. I've worked in very difficult campaigns in Mississippi. I worked for Charles Ables when he ran for governor as the first black man. I was a civil rights lawyer in Hattiesburg who got arrested there practicing civil rights law. I worked against Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. I have never in my life, and I've seen nooses over trees outside polling places where I stopped voting in Mississippi. I have never, ever seen anyone blocking the door to a polling place with a weapon and yelling at people.
O'REILLY: All right. Now, if there are only three of them, is it worth the federal government's time and money to put them away?
BULL: Of course it is. Of course it is. The senior lawyer working on this matter, Christian Adams, said to me if this is not a case of intimidation, nothing is. Intimidation is Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That act was the keystone of all the civil rights legislation fought for and passed by the Kennedy's, Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King.
Bull's saying that he's "seen nooses over trees outside polling places" and that he's "worked for Charles Ables when he ran for governor as the first black man", that he "was a civil rights lawyer in Hattiesburg who got arrested there practicing civil rights law" and that he "worked against Strom Thurmond in South Carolina" certainly is an extensive listing of his civil rights bona fides.
It's obvious that Mr. Bull had a career as a civil rights attorney because he passionately believed that everyone should have the right to vote without fear of physical threat. Anyone that thirsts for justice is probably applauding Bartle Bull for his fighting the right fight against race-baiting thugs.
I can't imagine a more compelling witness at this type of trial than Bartle Bull. Couple his testimony with the video and I can understand why J. Christian Adams said that this was the easiest case he's ever prosecuted. You've got video that clearly shows two thugs in front of a polling place, one fitted with a night stick. That's certainly a menacing act.
In addition to the video, one of the premier civil rights activists/attorneys testified that he heard the NBPP thugs calling white people "crackers" and that he saw these men attempt to block certain voters from entering the polling place.
What I don't understand is why Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum, both Obama administration political appointees, would order this prosecution team to drop the case after they'd already won the case.
What's more intriguing to me is whether the orders to drop this case came from Holder himself. According to Mr. Adams, we know that, at minimum, Holder was briefed on the case being dropped after the conviction had been won.
This exchange between O'Reilly and Bull is illuminating:
BULL: I believe that President Obama owes the country an apology for this. And I will say why briefly in an sentence.It's certainly disgraceful that this administration has tried sweeping this case under the rug. I can empathize with Bartle Bull about that. There's no such thing as acceptable corruption. What's worst is that this isn't just corruption; it's racism, too.
O'REILLY: But he didn't have anything to do with it.
BULL: He appointed Eric Holder. And the president said four or five weeks ago that he believed that we should prosecute civil rights cases vigorously. And he's really talking about the ones who are on his side. I mean, if I may say, Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jack boots with billy clubs, block the doors of polling places.
O'REILLY: Absolutely.
BULL: And neither did Robert Kennedy. It's an absolute disgrace.
This article gives us more insight into the case and into the corruption within the Holder Justice Department:
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.The Holder Justice Department won't even tell the truth about Rosenbaum and King. Why should we trust them to do the right thing with this case? It's appalling, though not surprising, that this hasn't been the subject of a House or Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party ,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King , acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum , an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal .
Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."
"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."
If ever there was a subject that shouldn't be a partisan issue, it's racial justice. That subject should be beyond partisanship.
Unfortunately, it appears as though Mr. Holder isn't mature enough to get beyond playing racial politics.
Posted Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:49 AM
No comments.
Holder's Corruption Inc., Part II
Thursday afternoon, Megyn Kelly aired Part II of her interview with J. Christian Adams. (Follow this link to watch Part I, this link to Part II.) Following Part II of her interview of J. Christian Adams, Megyn then interviewed legendary civil rights attorney and former RFK confidant Bartle Bull because Bull was an eyewitness to the NBPP's threats and intimidation.
Before getting into today's interviews, let's recap what we learned yesterday. We know from the Election Day video and from yesterday's interview that 3 members of the NBPP, including one of their high-ranking officials, Minister King Samir Shabazz, intimidated white voters, threatened people by saying "now you'll know what it's like to be ruled by a black man, Cracker", and attempted to intimidate election officials.
We also know that the cases that were dropped were reviewed by Eric Holder, though it isn't known if he signed off on dismissing the cases. We know that Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, 2 Obama administration political appointees, ordered that the case be dismissed after the DOJ prosecution team won a conviction.
Finally, we know that the DOJ issued a statement saying that "the facts and the law don't support the case." This statement was issued after the DOJ prosecution team had won a conviction. What's telling is that the trial judge didn't rule that the law didn't apply or that the facts presented as evidence didn't measure up to the case.
Now, onto Megyn Kelly's interview of Bartle Bull. Here's a snippet of the interview:
BULL: The fact is that Mr. Adams was trying to enforce the law and, for the first time in our lifetime, the power of the administration of the United States of America was working against the Voting Rights Act. They were protecting the people who were abusing the law. What I saw, for example, was this guy, King Samir Shabazz, who was the head of the Black Panther Party -- he's the one with the baton -- he's the one who said to me and to a man who was with me "Now you will see what it means to be ruled by the black man, cracker."It's long past time to express our outrage and tell the federal government, OUR EMPLOYEES, (After all, they're supposed to work for We The People) to enforce the laws consistently regardless of race, political leaning or any other factor.
KELLY: So when the Department of Justice comes out, after winning this case, and says "the facts and the law and the evidence just aren't there to pursue this prosecution any further?
BULL: They were absolutely there. That's what they were afraid of. You're a lawyer. You understand this. I've been a lawyer all my life and the reality of it all was the section of the law was Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
KELLY: Voter intimidation...
BULL: Voter intimidation...And the fundamental point to me is Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy did not die to have uniformed thugs blocking the doors to polling places with weapons. And for the first time in our lifetime, the national administration is protecting the abusers rather than the voters.
KELLY: Why?
BULL: Because they want to maximize the vote. The New York Times reported one week before the election, on October 27, 2008, the New York Times reported that ACORN had registered 1,300,000 voters, of which, the Times said, 35 percent of which were fraudulent. That's over 400,000 ACORN voters. And this was an effort to protect those illegal voters and you do that by intimidating the poll watchers who were challenging them. And that's what was happening.
KELLY: Why would there be...J. Christian Adams sys there is now, in the wake of this Black Panther case being dropped, there is a mandate at DOJ, that the DOJ doesn't want the world to know about, that no voting rights cases, no voter intimidation case, from this point forward, if the defendant is black and the victim is white.
BULL: I have no way of knowing if that's the case but I know that the president of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, has violated his oath of office to enforce the laws of the United States because he's not enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which he swore to do.
KELLY: Is that incredible to you? As someone who has spent his life devoted to enforcing civil right laws, to...
BULL: It's a staggering outrage and it's exactly not the cause that people like Martin Luther King died for. He died to help people to vote. I was in Mississippi working on helping people to vote, where people risked their lives to vote , and here the administration is challenging that system.
KELLY: You know they seem to be trying to discredit Mr. Adams by saying he's a conservative and he doesn't like Mr. Obama. That seems to be what they're suggesting. And he's been critical of the administration. You konw, where does that leave us?
BULL: It leaves us in a terrible situation where the government is deciding which laws it will enforced based on its political opportunities in the next election. I think this next election will be very dangerous because all those illegal ACORN voters will are on the books all over the country and now, we're going to be intimidated from challenging their false votes.
KELLY: Do you have an agenda?
BULL: I have the same agenda as I had in the 1960s in Mississippi. I have the same agenda as I had in 1968, when I was Bobby Kennedy's New York state campaign manager, the same agenda I had in 1976, when I was Jimmy Carter's New York state campaign manager, and that is to have decent and intelligent government and fair voting all over the country.
It's time that we told this administration that we're demanding that theyput aside their political grudges and their racial prejudices and consistently enforce this nation's laws, especially as it pertains to the Voting Rights Act.
What the Holder Justice Department is engaged in is nothing short of evil. It can't be described as anything less than willful corruption.
Here's a not-so-bold prediction: this scandal isn't going away. It will be with us quite awhile. This story will get front and center attention Tuesday when Christian Adams testifies before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. I expect that's when some bombshells will drop.
At minimum, Holder should've investigated why the Black Panther case was dropped after Adams' team had won a conviction. I'd further investigate why Thomas Perez said that "This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people." In this MainJustice article , Perez admits that "the decision to drop the case" was "a judgment made by then-Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King." Here's what I found out about Ms. King:
NameThere's nothing indicating Ms. King was a career attorney at DOJ. There's sufficient information indicating that she was a political appointee.
Loretta King
Title
Assistant Attorney General (Acting)
Presidential Appointment Requiring Senate Confirmation
Organization Name
Civil Rights Division, Office of the Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Based on the information compiled, the political appointees in Eric Holder's Justice Dept. are corrupt and dishonest. Additionally, they've ordered that 3 convictions be dropped before the 3 racist thugs could be sentenced.
Finally, Holder's political hacks have been criticized by one of the most respected civil rights attorneys in U.S. history, Bartle Bull. He's criticized these political hacks because they didn't have the view that he did, which is within earshot of the racist thugs from the NBPP.
It's time to call Holder's DOJ what it really is: Corruption, Inc.
Posted Friday, July 2, 2010 12:24 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Jul-10 08:32 AM
Gary:
In 2007 the Democrats were outraged that President Bush fired US Attorneys (who technically were his employees and not Senate Schummer's employees) because they didn't go after cases that he wanted prosecuted.
Here some lawyers went and "WON" a case and the Justice Department after the fact has decided it wasn't a crime and it shouldn't have been prosecuted next. What's next some murder is going to released from jail because the government doesn't think that murder is a crime.
Where's their outrage? Oh I forgot it's a Democrat administration not to mention they're probly afraid that the blank panthers will come after them.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton, Kelliher, Entenza Fight About Raising Taxes
If there's anything that's predictable about the DFL primary fight, it's that Dayton, Entenza and Kelliher will fight to see who's the most liberal. Part of that fight is seeing who can raise taxes the most aggressively. Based on this Pi-Press article , I'd say that the first round winner is Mark Dayton:
Dayton has proposed closing the entire state budget gap by increasing income and property taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans. He would boost income taxes for individuals earning more than $130,000 a year and couples making more than $150,000, levy even higher rates on those earning $5 million and collect "significantly more" on incomes over $100 million.Dayton and Kelliher clearly are fighting the fight over how to fund a Twentieth Century government. It's fair to say that their first priority is in funding government, not creating prosperity.
Dayton said he would simply require the wealthy to pay the same share of their income in state and local taxes as lower-income earners pay. State Revenue Department tax studies have shown the wealthiest 10 percent now pay a smaller percentage of their income in state and local taxes than middle-income earners.
Kelliher and Entenza both criticized Dayton's plan because it would give Minnesota the highest top income-tax rates in the nation.
Kelliher, the DFL-endorsed candidate, said she also would raise income taxes on the wealthy, but not as much as Dayton. "I don't think it should be a 200 percent increase," she said.
Under Kelliher's leadership, the DFL-controlled House this year passed a $1 billion tax increase that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed. She voted for that bill.
That would solve $1 billion of the state's problem, Dayton said. "Where are you going to cut the other $5 billion?" he asked.
Kelliher said she would take a "balanced approach" that would include some budget cuts, closing some corporate tax loopholes, other tax increases on the wealthy and some delayed payments. She also said she would accept $1.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding that Pawlenty has rejected.
Minnesotans are tired of being treated like ATM's. Corporations and small businesses are especially tired of being treated that way. If Dayton or Kelliher ever got elected as governor, the rent-a-truck business would have its best year ever in Minnesota because there'd be a massive exodus on a scale just slightly less than the scale in the story of Moses.
The last thing that working folks are looking for are candidates that are more worried about funding government than creating jobs. If you listen to the DFL's trio, they're more likely to talk about tax fairness than they're likely to talk about tax and regulatory reform.
That's a definite weak spot for the DFL. I'm betting that if people were polled on whether they're more worried about tax fairness or establishing a tax system that promotes job growth and sustained prosperity, I'm betting heavily that people will opt for the promotes job growth and sustained prosperity option by a substantial margin.
Entenza said he would raise the top income-tax rate, currently 7.85 percent, to the level it was before a 1999 tax cut - 8.5 percent.Dayton's plan won't balance the budget, either. I'm highly skeptical that the tax increases will yield the additional revenue that the DFL's candidates are predicting, mostly because I'm betting that Minnesota businesses would quickly move to the Dakotas or Iowa.
Asked where he'd cut spending, Entenza said the state "can't afford two departments of education" and proposed merging the Education Department with the Office of Higher Education. He said he'd also find "better ways" to deliver human services.
But as moderator Eric Eskola noted, those proposals wouldn't save enough to balance the budget.
Minnesotans are wising up. They're figuring it out that they can't constantly be treated like ATMs. They're figuring out that the DFL's tax schemes don't end. As soon as they pass one tax increase, their special interest allies come calling. When the DFL doesn't say no, they're right back raising taxes.
Finally, the DFL whines about 'the rich' paying less as a percentage of their income one minute alot. What's aggravating is that the DFL hasn't hesitated in raising the most regressive taxes. If they 'need' the money, they'll get it from anywhere.
This year, more people are accepting my battle cry from last fall's TEA Party, which is NO MORE!!! That's why Tom Emmer will be our next governor.
Posted Friday, July 2, 2010 4:48 AM
Comment 1 by Eric z. at 02-Jul-10 06:32 AM
Dayton does look good.
Trickle down has been a proven failure, and the "leaving in droves" suggestion simply has never happened.
Dayton so far is the front runner.
I'd like to see Helmsley at UnitedHealth disgorge some cash back to the State so it could enact, fund and run Minnesota Health Plan.
"Governor Dayton" has a nice ring to it. Better than the current brand. And if another party has to be victor; Horner does not look that bad. Regular, real business people could vote for him - he is no extremist on social policy.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-10 07:19 AM
Trickle down has been a proven failure, and the "leaving in droves" suggestion simply has never happened.You're right. All it did was create a net 19,000,000 jobs. (Remember that Reagan inherited Carter's recession.
BTW, Eric, if the "leaving in droves" suggestion is fiction, then why does the IRS have a report that tells them where the people who left in droves moved to?
As for Gov. Dayton, don't get used to it. People are tired of being treated like the DFL's ATMs.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 02-Jul-10 07:15 AM
Here's a simple suggestion: If tax "unfairness" is such a crying issue, then why not simply LOWER taxes on lower income people, and leave them unchanged for "the rich"? Could it be that, in these trying times, everybody has to tighten their belts, EXCEPT government?
As for "leaving in droves," you are probably right. So long as tax-and-spend atrocities increase slowly, no one event will trigger the mass exodus of businesses (already a major business in itself, BTW). Instead, they will all strangle slowly, providing the same net disaster and just as certainly, but without the politicians' obvious fingerprints on the corpse's throat.
Comment 3 by R-Five at 02-Jul-10 06:27 PM
I wish we could get Americans to do their 2010 taxes before election day. If Rush is right, an additional 20 million filers will be paying AMT, not to mention all the Obamacare tax increases and expiring Bush tax cuts. We aren't going to have any money left to pay those DFL taxes.
The Summer of Second Thoughts?
I know that the Obama administration was gearing up their machine for their Summer of Recovery Tour but this morning's jobs report should put those plans to rest. Here's what we need to know:
Employment fell in June for the first time this year, reflecting a drop in federal census workers as the decennial population count began to wind down, economists said before a report today.If nothing else, this morning's jobs report will finish the discussion on whether the Obama/Pelosi stimulus worked. This morning's jobs report should prove beyond any doubt that the stimulus failed to jumpstart the economy. This information will undoubtedly cause alot of heartburn across the nation:
Payrolls declined by 130,000 last month, according to the median estimate of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. Private employment, which excludes government jobs, rose for a sixth consecutive month, the survey showed.
The pace of hiring signals it will take years for the world's largest economy to recover the more than 8 million jobs lost during the recession that began in December 2007. The turmoil in financial markets brought on by the European debt crisis raises the risk that employment will slow, depriving American households of the income needed to maintain spending.
"The recovery downshifted a gear in recent months," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York. Payroll gains will probably be "consistent with moderate growth in income and spending."
Figures from the Labor Department show the number of workers helping conduct the census dropped by about 230,000 from mid May to mid June, the period corresponding to the government's jobs survey. The decrease still left 344,000 people on the census payroll, indicating more cuts to come that will keep distorting the employment figures for months.Vice President Biden has made some outlandish statements the past 2-3 weeks about the recovery. This report still might not shut him up but it'll make it easier to ridicule him when he makes his bone-headed statements.
House Minority Leader John Boehner issued this statement about the jobs report:
This jobs report is a disappointment for every family and every small business who heard President Obama declare just weeks ago that our economy is 'getting stronger by the day.' The writing is on the wall for President Obama's 'stimulus' policies and everyone, taxpayers, economists, and the rest of the world, sees it but him. How much longer are we going to continue with this disastrous spending spree that is scaring the hell out of the American people and piling debt on our kids and grandkids? Instead of whining and making excuses, President Obama should stop turning his back on small businesses, start listening to the American people, and work with Republicans to put people back to work.Obamanomics is a disaster. What it isn't is surprising. This was utterly predictable.
"Taxpayers have had enough of Obamanomics: they want Washington to get out of their way and out of their pocket. Our economy will ultimately recover, but it will do so because of the hard work and entrepreneurship of the American people. Economists say we need to cut spending now to put people back to work, and Republicans have offered better solutions to do just that."
What's worse for the Obama administration is that this is just another thing where people will start questioning his competence on. Surely, Gibbs et al will attempt to spin this as Bush's fault or some such thing. What they won't do is privately question whether they should change direction. The good news on the change direction thing is that the American people will turn out in huge numbers to signal that they're changing course.
President Obama can lead, follow or get run over by a stampede of rational people who want their prosperity back.
Posted Friday, July 2, 2010 7:34 AM
No comments.
President Obama's Tough Times
President Obama delivered his first 'major' speech on immigration reform. Friday morning's Rasmussen polling shows that his approval index is nearing its all-time worst:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20.It's been a week President Obama wishes he could forget. He botched his immigration speech badly, getting criticized for delivering a GOTV speech in what was supposed to be a major policy speech. Instead of laying out a blueprint for moving forward on the issue, he criticized Republicans for not giving in to his policy demands. He criticized them for not accepting his special interest allies-driven immigration ideas.
The oil continues to spill into the gulf, infuriating Gulf Coast residents and his environmental base. His ineptitude in controlling the oil spill and his insisting that his ineptitude is proof that we need to pass the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States isn't winning voters over.
That's before talking about President Obama's handling of the economy, which shed 125,000 jobs in June. The administration is trying to put its best spin on this, saying that 83,000 private sector jobs were created. The American people aren't buying that. This far into a supposed recovery, the economy should be creating at least double that, if not triple.
That's before considering his disastrous speech in Racine, WI, in which he said that it's difficult to argue that his stimulus bill was working with the national unemployment rate at 9.7 percent. He then said that it could be worse, that the unemployment rate could've been 12, 13, possibly even 15 percent.
President Obama's advance team should be fired for not prepping him better. Racine's unemployment rate is 14 percent. Can you say OOPS?
Finally, the American people are figuring it out that the Obama administration is a solutions-free zone. He doesn't have a solution for cleaning up the Gulf, which is his administration's responsibility. He didn't enunciate his administration's solution to preventing the rampant violence in Arizona. It's painfully, painfully obvious that he doesn't have a plan for reviving the economy.
In the 1980's, Wendy's ran commercials with an old lady asking "Where's the beef?" Today, people are asking President Obama "Where's the competence?"
The jury is very much still out on that.
Posted Saturday, July 3, 2010 5:53 AM
No comments.
Grayson Strikes Agan. (Literally)
Alan Grayson, a disgusting, vile man if ever I saw one, has struck again:
This jackass represents, along with Fortney Pete Stark, all that's wrong with today's politicians. When a citizen journalist asks him for a comment, Rep. Grayson tells him that he'd "appreciate it if you didn't tape me without my permission."
Rep. Grayson, it's time that you learned a lesson about what it means to be a public servant instead of being the most disgusting politician this side of Al Franken. People don't care if you don't like being questioned. That's part of the job description. If you don't like being asked questions on camera, it's time you found a different occupation.
If this Congress put a higher priority on doing the right thing instead of playing partisan politics, an Ethics Committee investigation would ensue and Rep. Grayson would be expelled from Congress. Because this Congress isn't interested in holding its members accountable, We The People will expel Rep. Grayson this November.
Politicians like Reps. Stark and Grayson think that they aren't accountable to anyone, that they can say or do anything. That's evidenced by Rep. Stark asking a constituent how many people he planned on killing that day. What an outrageous thing thing to say. What's worse is that it's based solely on his bigoted worldview, not on anything substantive.
When politicians like Rep. Grayson think it's his right to not talk with reporters, when Rep. Stark thinks it's ok to ask outrageous questions based on his bigotry or belittle his constituents, it's time to fire these politicians.
It's time that their egos got put in place. We don't adhere to their rules and we certainly don't put up with their disgusting behavior. We won't put up with their disgusting behavior because they work for us with one caveat: If their actions indicate that they think they're better than us, we'll fire them. Then they won't work for us.
It's time that these arrogant politicians understood that they can't act that arrogant and get away with it. It's time that they learned that we will fire them because we demand that they be thoughtful people, not the latest version of a shock jock.
I'm betting that Rep. Grayson knows that he's getting beat this November so he's auditioning for a show on MSNBC. Rep. Stark's behavior is consistent with his history. He's always been disgusting and arrogant. He doesn't care about anyone other than himself.
Just like 1994, this House leadership and the Democrat rank-and-file need a House cleaning. We won't put up with arrogant politicians who mistreat their constituents. More than anything else, it's time to change direction and elect public servants rather than arrogant politicians.
Posted Saturday, July 3, 2010 6:48 PM
No comments.
Is a Green Energy Future Imminent?
Listening to the DFL's trio of gubernatorial candidates talk about it, you'd think that a green economy is imminent. Here's what Speaker Kelliher's website says about green energy:
Margaret will make Minnesota the national leader in clean energy by promoting policies that support the growth of producers, manufacturers, and maintenance and repair contractors throughout the state.Here's Matt Entenza's comments on green energy:
Minnesota has the opportunity to be an international leader in clean energy. We have the human capital and natural resources to do it; what we need is a leader who's willing to focus on it. When I'm governor, my administration will focus on clean energy to renew and diversify Minnesota's economy, create jobs and help our entire country move forward.Mark Dayton's website isn't finished with their green energy website but they're undoubtedly interested in green energy:
In Minnesota we spend $10 billion per year on energy - dollars that mostly leave our state, too often going to hostile dictators in the Middle East or South America. We should instead be spending our energy dollars here, on local energy sources that will never run out, and we should invest the profits on world-class schools and innovative 21st century technologies.
"Green" technologies mean cleaner energy, a safer environment, and new jobs. As Governor, I will lead the way to that future, and develop incentives that will bring green energy industries to Minnesota.The environmentalists would have us believe that we've practically run out of oil, that we must change our habits. That's what they've said since the 1970's. Back then, they whined about the environmental disaster awaiting us for building the Alaskan pipeline. They said that there was only a couple years of oil underneath Alaska's frozen ground. Thirty-something years later, they're still pumping oil our from beneath Alaska's soil and off its coast.
More to come soon, please check back.
That's before considering all the oil in ANWR.
The environmentalists will tell us that we use "25 percent of the world's oil" but that "we have only 2 percent of the world's oil." That's a bald-faced lie that John Hofmeister exposed in t his interview :
HANNITY: All right. Was the president of the United States telling the American people the truth, that we didn't have enough oil reserves in shallower waters or inland? Because I contend that that was not true.The truth is that there's more than enough oil and natural gas on the OCS, in ANWR and in the continental United States to last several centuries. That's before starting the discussion about clean coal technology.
HOFMEISTER: There is a misquote being used by the president and the administration through the campaign and to today. When they say the U.S. only has two percent of the world's oil reserves and uses 20 percent, we can't drill our way to energy independence, that is a myth. Because proven reserves is a narrow technical definition by SCC that doesn't include probable reserves.
What's really happening when Kelliher, Entenza and Dayton talk about the imminent green economy is that they're telling their special interest allies that they'll favor them through the tax code by picking winners and losers.
These days, that's known as crony capitalism and it isn't playing well on the national scene. Instead of playing the DFL's crony capitalism game, we should instead invest in tax and regulatory policies that favor no one but that help everyone.
In short, though the DFL's gubernatorial candidates are implying that the green energy economy is knocking at our door, the reality is that it's anything but imminent.
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 1:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Jul-10 07:00 AM
And all of that is before you even get to a definition of what "green" energy IS. If green means it doesn't produce CO2, then it is foolish to even talk about it, because fossil fuel contributions to global CO2 is very small, and CO2's contribution to global warming is unproven, and probably negligible.
If green means renewable, I ask what's the difference between "renewable" and 700 years supply? We have enough coal, natural gas, oil and uranium for that long, why the great rush to a "green energy" that cannot begin to compete in price and availability? A hundred years will see amazing developments in these new energy technologies, and we can wait.
Sweet Land Of Liberty
The United States of America has been called many things throughout its 234 years. The land of the free and the home of the brave is one of the names that I've long appreciated because it captures the United States at its best. It made me proud to be living in such a country.
Hubert Humphrey was an especially eloquent speaker when it came to delivering 4th of July speeches. Many was the 4th of July speech where Hubert reminded people that the United States was and is the only nation in the history of the world that enumerated as one of its goals the pursuit of happiness.
I started blogging when I noticed that I was living in historic times. At the time, Afghanistan had been liberated and their first democratic election was approaching. The Orange Revolution was getting started in the Ukraine. It was about 10 weeks before the "purple thumb elections" in Iraq. The Iraqi elections caused an uprising in Lebanon, which was quickly called the Cedar Revolution.
Here's Dictionary.com's definition for liberty:
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.While that's the 'book definition' of liberty, I have a different definition of liberty. Liberty is the force that gives people the ability to be all that they can be. It's the greatest motivator in the history of mankind. There's a reason for that.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
Liberty is the greatest motivator in the history of mankind because God created man with the spirit of liberty. George Bush and Ronald Reagan understood that because of their Christian background.
Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech was based on his understanding that the spirit of liberty couldn't be contained. Gorbachev tried to maintain the Soviet-style control over the Eastern Bloc of nations with gimmicks like perestroika and glasnost. I knew that the USSR was finished the minute Gorbachev tried substituting glasnost and perestroika for liberty.
The thirst for liberty can be subdued but only with sufficient military force. See Tiananmen Square or Iran a year ago. Short of sufficient military force, though, liberty will win.
This year, I was reminded of the importance of liberty thanks to seeing things through an immigrant's eyes. That immigrant's name is Sanu Patel-Zellinger. I was reminded of the importance of liberty because of her speech at last month's TEA Party. Here's the transcript of Sanu's speech:
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today,not just the chance to speak with you but also for the past two decades I have enjoyed living in America.On this birthday of our nation, it is my sincere hope that everyone sees the United States through the immigrant's eyes. Those who haven't experienced liberty appreciate it all the more when they're blessed with it.
My name is Sanu. I came to the US in 1991 from India. I got a job at Seagate Technology so I could pay my way through college, which I did, by working during the day and taking night classes.
In 1998, I became a United States citizen. I was as proud as could be to be a United States citizen. In this American Republic I found individual freedom, real freedom and opportunity. Thank you.
Over the years I have met many hardworking and generous Americans. America's strength and creativity come from the opportunities available to each individual, the freedom to pursue their dreams, and a Constitution that keeps a check and balance on government so we can preserve this. Thank you.
However, there are many things being offered to us today which are not opportunities.
Socialized medicine? No thank you!
Bailouts? No thank you!
Nationalization of private industry? No thank you!
Irresponsible spending with no accountability? No thank you!
This past year I decided to run for State Representative because I feel that we are not being properly represented in government. I am seeing the American Dream being destroyed by out-of-control spending, government debt and never-ending taxation. And I am seeing that many hard working Americans and their children are being punished with taxes to pay for it all.
I am willing to help the vulnerable in society. But I am no longer willing to be punished for being a responsible citizen.
I want to see an end to the misuse of taxpayer funds. I want to see a limited government that lives within a sensible budget just as we all do.
America was started with a great vision, the rights of the individual that cannot be destroyed by any majority.
A country where its people are free.
A country where hard work and personal responsibility are rewarded.
A country that others round the world would like to live in.
A country whose citizens dare to strive for the American Dream. What we have here is precious.
It is time we all stand up for this country of ours and it's great vision for all generations. It is up to us to preserve this free nation.
It takes only a generation to lose it all. Let us not lose it in our watch. President Obama definitely appears to be campaigning for us conservatives). We need to set the stage so that the American Dream remains in the grasp of all who are willing to work for it.
We have plenty to be proud of here. Let us band together to preserve this land of the free!
This year we have a golden opportunity. Let us seize it!
Let us leave behind a state and country our children and grandchildren will be proud to inherit.
Thank you for coming today. That tells me you care about our country. And I am proud to call you a fellow citizen. I am proud to be an American. I am proud to be one of you.
Thank you.
God bless America, each and every one of us. I sincerely hope everyone lives by the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us 234 years ago today.
Posted Sunday, July 4, 2010 4:49 AM
No comments.
