June 1-3, 2007
Jun 01 01:39 A Trend Detected? Jun 01 09:17 Blame It On Bush, Part VII Jun 01 11:10 Juhnke's Whining Increases Jun 01 14:14 Thompson's Conservatism Quantified Jun 02 02:31 The Case For Fred Thompson Jun 03 15:17 Light Blogging Today Jun 03 19:59 DFL to Voters: We Failed So Give Us Veto Proof Majorities
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
A Trend Detected?
There's an old saying that goes something like this: sometimes, you've got to take the bad with the worst. Today, Democrats got bad news and the worst news from Iraq:
The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.This is the worst possible news for Democrats because two things are happening that threaten their consolidating power: things are improving in Iraq and the news media is reporting about it. The media reporting that the surge is working is the worst possible thing for Democrats. Now that that's happening, they can't pretend that things aren't improving.
The U.S. military congratulated Amariyah residents for standing up to al-Qaida. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said.Let's hope that there's new reasons for congratulating Amariyah residents Friday, too.
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 1:40 AM
No comments.
Blame It On Bush, Part VII
The Labor Department issued its monthly employment report this morning. The good news is that it's more good news for the economy:
Stock prices are rising in early trading. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 43 points in today's early going. The Nasdaq Composite Index is ahead eleven points and the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index is up more than six points.The bad news is that this report likely means that the Fed won't lower interest rates the next time it meets. This is just more proof that the President Bush tax cuts aren't working. Doesn't he know that Democrats prefer misery?
The key event of the morning was release of the monthly employment report showing the jobless rate holding steady at 4.5%. Payrolls growth was stronger, with 157,000 jobs added. That was the most in two months.
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 9:18 AM
No comments.
Juhnke's Whining Increases
Ever since he came on my radar screen, I've had a negative opinion of Al Juhnke. This WC Trib article just gives me more reason to think that:
During a legislative review Thursday in Willmar, sponsored by the Willmar Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, said he is "100 percent baffled" that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the tax bill. "To take down an entire bill because of that single factor is wrong," said Juhnke.Let's tear Rep. Juhnke's statements & arguments apart:
Property tax relief, tax credits that would help returning combat veterans, increased local government aid to cities, Willmar would've received $552,000 in aid and sales tax exemptions for the wastewater plant, tax credits to help dairy farms expand and fire relief for the Gunflint Trail are "all gone," said Juhnke.
The budget inflationary factor was "such a minor issue that the governor should have let it go," said Juhnke, in later comments.
Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar said he is "100 percent baffled" that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the tax bill.It isn't that complicated, Rep. Juhnke. It seemed like for every positive provision in the bill, there were two lousy provisions.
Property tax relief, tax credits that would help returning combat veterans, increased local government aid to cities..."all gone," said Juhnke.Rep. Juhnke, why was the LGA in the Tax Bill? According to all of the legislators that I talked with, that should've been in the Government Operations Bill because LGA goes to fund the operation of governments. The Tax Bill sets policy that the Minnesota Department of Revenue uses in preparing budget forecasts.
The budget inflationary factor was "such a minor issue that the governor should have let it go," said Juhnke, in later comments.Rep. Juhnke knows that that "inflationary factor" is important because it would provide the DFL with the political cover to do what comes naturally: raise taxes. If it's such a minor issue, why did the DFL keep it in the bill over Gov. Pawlenty's objections?
The reason for including LGA in the Tax Bill is apparent: Democrats wanted to put it in there for political campaign reasons. Notice how they're already whining about Gov. Pawlenty vetoing aid to the cities. This was a purely political decision.
I've done a fair amount of searching & I haven't found proof that shows that the DFL put a higher priority on helping out cities than on Election 2008. From what I've seen, they wanted the issue to campaign on. They weren't that interested in helping local governments.
If they'd included the LGA in the Government Operations Bill, Gov. Pawlenty likely would've signed it within minutes of it reaching his desk. As he said in his veto letter on the Tax Bill to Speaker Kelliher, he saw some positive things in the bill. He also said that he saw a number of things that were poison pills.
Rep. Juhnke's party chose to put partisan politics over the needs of the people. They should be fired next November for playing those types of games.
"We do not have a dictator in this state," said Juhnke. The Legislature is "more representative of what the people want than the executive corner is," he said.Let's demolish that statement right now. I agree that we don't have a dictator. That said, we have a couple people, Tony Sertich & Larry Pogemiller, who ran the House & Senate like dictators. They adopted a 'My way or the highway' approach to this legislative session from the first day of session.
I've used Rep. Dan Severson's interesting tidbit that fewer than 5 percent of the bills & amendments that the House Republicans offered passed. That's unforgivable. If Rep. Juhnke wants to argue that that isn't acting like a dictatorial, I have just one thing to say: Bring it on. I'll rip those arguments to shreds in minutes.
As for the legislature more closely representing "what the people want" than the Governor, I'll simply ask whether 'the people' prefer:
- government to grow at 19 percent of 8-10 percent;
- taxes where they are now or increased by $5 billion;
- taxpayers subsidizing illegal immigrants' college tuitions or if they'd rather see taxpaying Minnesota residents get that money.
Gimse said he agrees with the governor that inflation is not necessary when considering budget expenditures. He said most businesses don't include automatic increases in their expenditures when looking at future budgets.TRANSLATING JUHNKE: The state should put in place this inflation adjustment so we have the political cover to raise taxes.
Juhnke countered that businesses do consider expected increases in salary, fuel and supplies when projecting future budgets, and the state should put "responsible accounting practices back into place."
What we need are more legislators that don't accept a lobbyist's or bureaucrat's wish list, then characterize the wish lists as needs. The DFL didn't exercise a bit of fiscal discipline this session. That's evident from the 18+ percent spending increase that they vote for the state budget.
For the businessmen & women out there, picture this: Go tell your employees that you'll only give them an annual pay increase of 18 percent. How many of you think that the employees would think of you as the world's best boss immediately after they got the news?
Rep. Juhnke is a spending addict that needs to go into recovery ASAP. Then again, I think most of his colleagues should get treatment for that affliction, too. If they won't submit to that treatment voluntarily, voters should involuntarily commit them in November, 2008.
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 11:10 AM
No comments.
Thompson's Conservatism Quantified
Thanks to the Cato Institute, we have a way of evaluating Fred Thompson's conservatism. ( H/T RedState ) Let's get to Cato's evaluations:
The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo).Maintaining the third best conservative rating with the NTU is quite the statement. I'm certain that Sen. Thompson will tout that often.
While he sponsored or cosponsored legislation over the course of his career that would have resulted in a net increase in federal spending of $3.1 billion, that is the smallest increase among the contenders. (By comparison, John McCain would have increased spending by $36.9 billion).Conservatives have a number of misgivings about John McCain but he's voted against alot of excessive spending. That makes this comparison between Sen. McCain and Sen. Thompson all the more striking.
He has been a consistent supporter of entitlement reform, voting to means-test Medicare and supporting personal accounts for Social Security.Call me crazy but those sound alot like solid conservative credentials.
His record on free trade is solid. In the past he has been supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but has been critical of the current bill, shifting toward a "control the borders first" position. Still, he has not been Tancredo-like in his anti-immigration statements.Nobody's to the right of Tancredo on immigration so that isn't news. What is noteworthy is that he's consistently & clearly said that immigration reform must first include enforcement of the borders. That means building the wall first. Sen. Thompson is right in saying that the American people won't buy into immigration reform until they're convinced that the borders are sealed off.
On federalism, there may be no better candidate. His Senate record is replete with examples of his being the lone opponent of legislation that he thought undercut federalist principles. He took this position even on legislation that was otherwise supported by conservatives. He opposes federal action to prohibit gay marriage on federalist grounds, although he supports state bans. One blight on this record is his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind.Clearly, Sen. Thompson isn't perfect on the issues but I definitely like what I've seen. If he keeps this up, he'll garner alot of support with conservatives.
While we're on the subject of Thompson's qualifications, I have to take issue with a couple things that Dean Barnett said in this post. Here's one thing that I vehemently disagree with:
12) So how does Fred win?I emailed Dean about that statement. I said that it's foolish to think that someone that's polling this well can't raise money. Yesterday, I wrote about his conference call with 100 supporters. His goal is to start raising money on June 4th. He then plans on announcing his first day totals on June 5th, the day of the New Hampshire GOP debate, thereby getting alot of publicity without having to participate in the debate.
This is where things get dicey for Fred ; the actual roadmap to victory. Retail campaigning isn't his strength. If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire, he would have to score an overwhelming victory in South Carolina to get back on track. And, as an additional problem, because of his late start his campaign is likely to be money starved from the git-go. If he survives the initial primaries but in a weakened state, it's unlikely he'll have the money to compete seriously on Mega-Tuesday.
As for Dean's claim that "retail campaigning isn't his strength", I'd simply suggest that he's charismatic, plain-spoken, exudes gravitas and connects with people. Forgive me if I don't agree with Dean on that point either.
Originally posted Friday, June 1, 2007, revised 03-Jun 11:15 AM
Comment 1 by DrJonz at 01-Jun-07 04:01 PM
Run Fred! Run!
The Case For Fred Thompson
If you can't tell, I'm a big fan of Fred Thompson. This column is just the latest example of his grasp of the most important issues of our generation.
When Ronald Reagan was elected, he greatly empowered the private, congressionally funded effort and handpicked the Radios' top staff to bring freedom to the Soviet Union. Steve Forbes led the group.It's obvious that Fred Thompson gets it when it comes to putting the screws to terrorist-supporting, malevolent dictators. For years, I've been waiting for President Bush to actively attempt to undermine the mullahs with a real 'Radio Free Persia' radio station that worked like Reagan's 'radios' worked.
Cynics still say that the USSR fell of its own weight, and that President Reagan's efforts to bring it down were irrelevant, but Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev say differently. Both have said that, without the Radios, the USSR wouldn't have fallen. The Radios were not some bland public relations effort, attracting audiences only with American pop music. They engaged the intellectual and influential populations behind the Iron Curtain with accurate news and smart programming about freedom and democracy. They had sources and networks within those countries that sometimes outperformed the CIA. When Soviet hardliners and reformers were facing off, and crowds and tanks were on the streets of Moscow and Bucharest, the radios were sending real-time information to the people, including the military, and reminding them of what was at stake.
The key to undermining the Iranian mullahs is (a) letting the people know how malevolent the mullahs are and (b) telling the Iranian people that they shouldn't settle for being oppressed by mullahs whose only concern is maintaining power instead of looking out for the people.
I'd bet the proverbial ranch that he's already thought things through about how to use 'the Radios' to undercut Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
Then we won the Cold War. The USSR collapsed in 1991, and America relaxed. Military downsizing began and the Radios began to reduce broadcast air time to target countries.It's pretty obvious that Sen. Thompson would send a more ideological, pro-freedom message to those living in oppressed countries than the Bush administration is sending out. His saying "Look where it's got us" is a clear indication of his frustration with the Bush administration's message to the tyrants. It sounds like he's a strong believer in a Reaganesque foreign policy. Reagan didn't deploy troops but he certainly believed in making life miserable for oppressors, whether the oppressors were as formidable as the Soviets or as little of a nuisance as the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.
Now, of course, we know that the Islamofascists, many trained by the old Soviets, were making plans and plots of their own. Unfortunately, the plans to broadcast a pro-freedom message into Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Kurdistan and Ukraine were shelved or diluted. Reagan's ideological audacity was replaced with a more "diplomatic" tone.
And see where it's got us? Not only has Islamic totalitarianism spread without a true ideological challenge, many of the freed Soviet bloc countries are slipping back into repression. Russia is making the same old threats and even protecting Iran's efforts to build nukes.
I do know, though, that it's time for a new generation of Americans to stand up for freedom, like others before us. And this time, we'll have a whole new set of media technologies.One of the things that's obvious to me is that Sen. Thompson's grasp of and embrace of the new media technologies is impressive and uplifting. I'd go so far as calling him the first blogging presidential candidate. What's really great about that is that he understands how important it is to write his story without the Agenda Media's filter distorting the facts.
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 2:32 AM
No comments.
Light Blogging Today
Blogging will be light for most of today due to a touch of the flu & several other minor maladies.
Posted Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:17 PM
No comments.
DFL to Voters: We Failed So Give Us Veto Proof Majorities
That's exactly what this editorialist is asking for. The editorialist, Patrick Henry of Waite Park, would fit right in at the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. Check out Henry's summation:
Yes, the session could have been better. Perhaps more could have been accomplished, but I doubt it, especially because the Republicans in the Legislature didn't budge. Given the way the state Constitution arranges things, there's no way a governor can be thwarted unless both the Senate and the House are constituted so as to override a veto.I've got a better idea for the 2008 election. Instead of giving the DFL a veto proof majority to raise taxes & increase spending at unprecedented & unsustainable rates, let's return fiscal sanity to the legislature by returning the GOP to a majority in the House.
There's a project for the 2008 election.
- I'll guarantee you that they won't try increasing every tax in sight.
- I'll guarantee that they won't create new types of taxes.
- I'll guarantee that they'll try reforming the property tax system & reducing property taxes.
- I'll guarantee that they'll reform the health insurance system by introducing market-driven options.
Our system fills his veto pen with indelible ink. And he began this year with a supply of invisible ink. Remember, during his 2006 campaign, Gov. Tim Pawlenty did not recite his "No New Taxes" creed, so his claim of any kind of mandate, and especially a "no new taxes" one, is a political sleight-of-hand that may win him a slot on a national ticket but should infuriate Minnesotans, including those who voted for him.There's a simple explanation for Gov. Pawlenty's not repeating his "No New Taxes creed." He refused to say no new taxes because he didn't want to limit his options in case of a deficit. That said, he made it clear in all of his debates that he didn't believe in DFL-style tax increases. (By definition, DFL-style tax increases happen anytime that the DFL's special interest groups tell them to spend more money on them.)
Gov. Pawlenty's position on tax increases is the opposite of "political sleight-of-hand." He's maintained the same position for as long as I've followed Minnesota politics.
It's also noteworthy that every article or editorial talks about Gov. Pawlenty's supposed plans to be a VP candidate. The assumption that these editorialists & journalists make is that those alleged ambitions preclude him from exercising solid executive judgment on legislation brought to him. That's due in large part to the media's anti-GOP bias.
Even the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce supported a five-cent increase in the gas tax. It was not nearly enough to take care of the $1.7 billion a year needed for the next 20 years, according to the Department of Transportation, but at least a start. When the governor nixes a proposal that has even the Chamber's endorsement, you have to think his attention is beyond the borders of our state.This reads like the DFL's talking points & stump speeches. They repeat the lie about the veto of the "five-cent increase in the gas tax" but don't mention the $20 wheelage fee, the increased license tab fees, the 2.5 cent per gallon gas 'surcharge', the indexing of the gas tax for inflation & the bigger increases in license tab fees for new vehicles than for used vehicles.
One thing that GOP activists need to aware of is the DFL's editorial-writing barrage. We need to match them letter for letter. Our editorials must talk about our positive agenda for Minnesota's & America's future. Our editorials should also talk about the effects that the DFL's policies would have on our economy, our health care system & on our tax system.
Isn't it long past time that we got active in talking about the positive agenda we want to pursue? Haven't we spent far too much time whining about "big city liberals" & not enough about keeping taxes low & letting market forces provide solutions to our health care problems? We need to make those changes & we need to make them ASAP.
Posted Sunday, June 3, 2007 7:59 PM
No comments.
