June 13-15, 2007
Jun 13 16:52 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Ratings Jun 14 03:40 Reid Convinces Pelosi That All Is Lost Jun 14 10:51 From Supporting the Troops to Berating the Troops Jun 14 22:53 Kandiyohi County Commissioners Dumping On Pawlenty Jun 15 04:05 Same Principles, Different Packaging Jun 15 09:01 Straight Talk From Serious Senators Jun 15 16:26 Sen. Lieberman's Dissent Jun 15 19:04 Washington Pols Unworthy of Our Trust
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Ratings
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has issued their report card on who best represented their interests. According to their report, the DFL Senate leadership team of Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark & Senate President James Metzen each got failing grades. Here's the criteria the Chamber used:
MN 2007: S.F. 1024 (Business Taxes), Final Passage The Senate Omnibus Tax Bill increases the statewide property tax, paid by commercial, industrial and utility property, and increases the tax on Minnesota companies that use the foreign operating corporation structure. The Chamber opposes S.F. 1024 as a whole, even though there are two items within the bill, an up-front exemption for capital equipment and the acceleration of sales-only apportionment, that the Chamber supports.All but 12 DFL senators voted against Minnesota small business owners 100 percent of the time. All DFL senators voted for tax increases of some kind.
MN 2007: S.F. 1611 (Income Tax), Final Passage The Minnesota Chamber opposes S.F. 1611, which creates a new 4th tax bracket for the individual income tax at 9.7%, the highest state income tax rate in the nation. This affects many small business owners that flow their business income through their personal income taxes.
MN 2007: S.F. 1986 (Transportation), Final Passage This is the Senate Transportation Finance bill, which the Minnesota Chamber opposes. The bill is heavy on taxes and fees for businesses. The Minnesota Chamber supports a more moderate package but this bill fails the cost-benefit analysis.
Similarly, the Chamber also issued its report card for the House. Of the four people who represent the Central Minnesota area, Republicans Steve Gottwalt & Dan Severson had perfect ratings with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Larry Haws voted against the Chamber's wishes 4 out of 5 times. Larry Hosch of St. Joe & Al Doty voted against the Chamber's wishes all 5 times.
It's worth noting that the DFL House leadership of Margaret Anderson-Kelliher & Tony Sertich voted against small businesses & the Chamber all 5 times, too. The easy conclusion to draw from these statistics is that the DFL's voting record this session was hostile to small businesses. They passed tax increases that would've strapped small businesses.
UPDATE: Here's the official breakdown of the Senate DFL:
Thirty three of the forty five DFL senators voted for all of the tax increases bills. Eight DFL senators voted for two of the three tax increases. The other four DFL senators voted for one of the tax increase bills.
Here's the breakdown of the House DFL on increasing taxes:
Of the 85 House Democrats, 63 voted for all 3 tax increases while 15 others voted for 2 of the 3 tax increases.
This simply reinforces what GOP activists already knew. To take this a step further, the House & Senate GOP leaders got perfect ratings from the Chamber.
Originally posted Wednesday, June 13, 2007, revised 22-Aug 12:04 PM
No comments.
Reid Convinces Pelosi That All Is Lost
We've known for awhile that Harry Reid has thought of the Iraq as a lost cause. Thanks to this article, we now know that he's convinced Nancy Pelosi that it's lost.
"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote. "The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops."Why should we believe Harry Reid about Iraq? (For that matter, why should we believe him about anything?) Harry Reid's had a defeatist attitude seemingly forever. The first time it showed up was when Reid bragged about defeating the Patriot Act:
"We killed the Patriot Act," boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV), to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote.He followed that up by saying the Iraq war was lost and now by saying that the surge has failed. The biggest difference is that Nancy Pelosi has joined him this time. This isn't surprising considering her top military advisor is 'Okinawa' John Murtha. It isn't that Americans think that Iraq is going well. It's that Pelosi and Reid have given voters a reason not to think of Democrats as serious about winning. That's because Reid and Pelosi, two of the most tone-deaf politicians in history, have misread voters. I'm betting that the voters don't like the idea of politicians that don't enthusiastically cheer for our soldiers' victories.
The other thing worth noting is that the surge troops aren't fully in place yet, though that's expected soon. In other words, Reid's and Pelosi's joint statement is an I'm sorry message to the Daily Kos/MoveOn.org Defeatocrats. Pelosi and Reid don't care about winning. They never have. If they did, they wouldn't have said the seditious things that they have, seditious things like "Twenty minutes ago, we defeated the Patriot Act."
That's why GOP activists must redouble their efforts to return the GOP back to majority status in the House and Senate and to put Giuliani or Thompson into the White House.
To do otherwise is to keep Reid and Pelosi in charge. That simply won't do.
Posted Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:41 AM
No comments.
From Supporting the Troops to Berating the Troops
Anti-war Democrats in the House, Senate and media have often said that they support the troops in Iraq but they don't support the mission. That policy has apparently ended:
A Democratic challenge to Gen. Peter Pace indicates that uniformed officers no longer are exempt from the partisan fire on Capitol Hill once reserved for civilian policymakers.This change in policy is disgusting. As this article notes, policy has always been to criticize the administration but to praise the military. The article goes on to say that Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters that "Pace's nomination would have been more contentious than other uniformed officers because he was the closest military adviser to the president on a failing war."
On Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the stunning announcement that he would not recommend Pace to serve a second two-year term as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Marine Corps four-star general had not been a target previously of Democrats' ire on the war, but Gates said lawmakers made it clear the confirmation process would be ugly.
The reality is that Democrats are caving into the whims of the Daily Kos/MoveOn.org wing of the party this time because that 'coalition' didn't get what it demanded with the last supplemental appropriation. They were demanding an end to the war. PERIOD. They were mightily upset when their gutless wonders didn't deliver. (What did they expect from a group that chose Harry Reid as their leader?)
Democratic politicians don't dare question their Daily Kos/MoveOn.org masters for fear that they'll turn off their campaign cash spigot. Setting good policy doesn't matter to that bunch. Not only are high profile Democrats like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin getting into the act of criticizing. Now a back-bencher like Ellen Tauscher is getting into the backstabbing act, too:
Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher said Wednesday she thought Pace was guilty of a dereliction of duty because of his support for President Bush's Iraq policy. Tauscher, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Pace lost standing among members in March when he said homosexual acts were immoral and that the military should not condone the behavior by allowing gays to serve openly. He later apologized, including in a personal letter to Tauscher, for expressing what he said were his personnel views.I'm certain that Levin's and Tauscher's declarations upset conservatives. If you're one of those upset conservative activists, the choice is clear: Get to work on restoring the House and Senate to GOP control. I'll illustrate my point by paraphrasing a friend: I know that Republicans aren't perfect but at least they aren't writing bills that'll get me killed. Put differently, voters seemingly have many choices. That's an illusion. In the end, the choice is binary. If you don't work to get Republicans elected, you'll have Democrats setting the agenda.
Tauscher said his comments on gays "showed his ignorance" and "had to be deeply discounted because they came from a man who had presided over a war that we got into on a lie and what I consider to be a serious dereliction of duty in having our troops and our readiness so destroyed by the policies of this administration."
That's something we can't tolerate.
Posted Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:52 AM
No comments.
Kandiyohi County Commissioners Dumping On Pawlenty
This WC Trib article reads like a DFL talking points memo. Shame on the commissioners for sounding like Tony Sertich on another diatribe.
County Board Chairman Harlan Madsen said Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill, and the Legislature's failure to override the veto, means taxpayers bear the burden of keeping transportation safe. "It's a disgusting process and a disservice from the legislative standpoint to counties," Madsen said. "They're throwing the money on our back."Actually, Gov. Pawlenty offered a sizeable transportation bill without raising taxes but the DFL was throwing a hissy fit for getting their heads handed to them. They're relying on their allies at the Strib & elsewhere to hide the fact that Gov. Pawlenty offered a superior option that spent more than the 'lights on' transportation budget & that didn't require a tax increase.
Simply put, the DFL should be blamed for whatever transportation problems there are because they were more interested in paying off their bureaucratic allies than they were interested in doing what's right for Minnesotans.
Commissioner Dean Shuck agreed the county should focus on keeping up the roads the county has rather than build new ones and that there's "no way around" raising local property taxes to maintain roads.Mr. Peterson's quote sounds like lines straight from Tony Sertich & Larry Pogemiller. As I said earlier, Gov. Pawlenty had a plan that didn't include raising taxes. The DFL deserves the blame because they took a 'my way or the highway' approach to legislation. They chose to ignore Gov. Pawlenty's proposal because they didn't want Minnesota taxpayers to know that he had a superior plan that didn't include a tax increase.
"That's what the governor wants us to do," said Commissioner Dennis Peterson, who was critical of Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill.
One last point needs to be made. The DFL spent last fall campaigning for yes votes to dedicate the MVST to the building of roads. They spent this session looking for ways to bond for the building of roads while using the money that wasn't spent on roads to pay off their political allies. In other words, the DFL tried playing a shell game & Gov. Pawlenty stopped them dead in their tracks.
For that reason alone, Gov. Pawlenty deserves a hearty round of applause.
Posted Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:53 PM
No comments.
Same Principles, Different Packaging
Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell announced that immigration reform will soon debated again. Though I haven't read the legislation, the fact is that it sounds like the old bill with a $4.4 billion bone for enforcement only legislators. Here's what President Bush said about that 'enforcement package':
"One common concern is whether the government will provide the resources to meet the goals in the bill. They say, 'It's fine to talk about it, are you actually going to do something?'" he said. "To answer these concerns I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site," he said. "By matching our benchmarks with these critical funds, we're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept."The question I have is whether they'll start building the wall with the money that's already appropriated. Last year, President Bush signed into law a bill that appropriated the money to build 870 miles of fence. Thus far, 11 miles of that fence has been built. If they build the entire fence at the rate that they're going now, they'll finish in 2058.
That's before the USCIS is beefed up enough to process the various visas that would be created. I wrote here about John Cornyn's op-ed about how understaffed they were at USCIS. As far as we know, this compromised compromise doesn't address that concern. Until we know that the money's been appropriated, the people hired & they're trained, we should hold off on any granting any temporary visas.
That isn't taking into consideration that we don't have a database built to check applicants against. If we can't verify the applicant's information, why should we issue visas?
The truth is that Kennedy, McCain and President Bush want this bill so bad that they're willing to do anything to entice enough people to vote for their bill. Frankly, actions speak louder than words and thus far, all we have are nice-sounding words. We haven't seen much in the way of action. Until we do, conservative activists should remind likeminded senators that we expect them to vote against cloture.
What we need is for everyone to call their senators and tell them that this bill won't reform the current system. We should tell them that this is just something to put their name on and call it reform.
Finally, it's time to tell them that we reject this bill because it's another 'Washington knows best' bill.
Posted Friday, June 15, 2007 4:06 AM
No comments.
Straight Talk From Serious Senators
That's what's featured in this Washington Times article. Frankly, that's what's been lacking in this debate. Unfortunately, the straight talk isn't coming from President Bush. The good news is that a group of serious senators are offering the straight talk:
"There's simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it," said Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-SC). "If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border-security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."DeMint isn't the only senator to speak frankly about the bill:
Yesterday, they said this new spending idea falls short because it is not a spending bill. "I tried to be very respectfully specific in the letter that I signed with Senator Chambliss," Mr. Isakson said. "The credibility question which we all have on this issue is significant enough that it merits that type of commitment."This bill sounds more like another round of smoke and mirrors politics. Fortunately, the good guys aren't buying into this grand scheme:
Earlier in the day, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican and a chief opponent of the bill, said he would use whatever procedural tools he can to block the bill from being revived, a powerful threat in a chamber where one member can delay or block action. "There are a number of senators who will utilize the powers of the Senate to avoid going back to the failed bill," Mr. Sessions said.I said last week that it's time to take this bill back to the drawing board and get serious about fixing the problem instead of signing off on a series of half measures that sound good and don't fix anything.
The other bit of good news is that this is just the first step. If the bill passes the Senate, it goes to the House, meaning that the liberal 'groups' will demand to be paid off with extra goodies in the bill:
But those in the grand bargain think they can coax the bill through and send it on to the House, where its prospects are less certain.The good news about that means that a conference committee would be needed and another shot at the bill after it comes out of the conference.
"Bush is clearly trying to buy some border security votes from the Republican senators. I think they've bought all the votes from the Democrats and this is the only place he can go," said Rep. Steve King, (R-IA). "He still thinks it's about whether you can make enough promises to sell the bill. What it's really about is the empty promises in the past."It's time to get active again. We've helped fight off some attempts to pass bad legislation. Now it's time to show these senators that we're serious about preventing bad legislation from ever passing.
More importantly, it's crucial for us to tell them what provisions must be part of the legislation. We need to prove that we're serious about getting a good bill passed.
Posted Friday, June 15, 2007 9:02 AM
No comments.
Sen. Lieberman's Dissent
Joe Lieberman's op-ed in this morning's Opinion Journal is must reading if you want to know the truth about what's happening in Iraq. Suffice it to say that he shames the 'Dunce-like Duo', aka Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, with actual facts on the ground. Here's a sampling of those facts:
When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal. Attacks on U.S. troops there have dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a day now, according to Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in Ramadi. Whereas six months ago only half of Ramadi's 23 tribes were cooperating with the coalition, all have now been persuaded to join an anti-al Qaeda alliance. One of Ramadi's leading sheikhs told me: "A rifle pointed at an American soldier is a rifle pointed at an Iraqi."This stands in stark contrast with Reid's and Pelosi's pronouncement yesterday. Here's the heart of their pronouncement:
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops."I wouldn't have Reid or Pelosi doing my taxes with math skills like that. They say that attacks on US forces have increased while Lieberman says that "attacks on U.S. troops there have dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a day now." With such conflicting statistics, someone isn't telling the truth. Based on past history, I'm not betting that it's Lieberman, especially since I've read other reports that talk about how Iraqi Sunnis have turned on al-Qa'ida in Anbar Province.
Rather than just leaving it at that, Sen. Lieberman throws this in to inflict more damage on Reid and Pelosi:
The recent U.S. experience in Anbar also rebuts the bromide that the new security plan is doomed to fail because there is no "military" solution for Iraq. In fact, no one believes there is a purely "military" solution for Iraq. But the presence of U.S. forces is critical not just to ensuring basic security, but to a much broader spectrum of diplomatic, political and economic missions, which are being carried out today in Iraq under Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy.Sen. Lieberman is stating what rational people have thought for months: that there isn't a 'military only' solution to Iraq and that there isn't a 'diplomacy only' solution either. To think that it's an either/or situation is foolishness.
The progress isn't limited to Anbar, either. Here's specific proof of that:
On Haifa Street, for instance, where there was bloody fighting not so long ago, the 2nd "Black Jack" Brigade of our First Cavalry Division, under the command of a typically impressive American colonel, Bryan Roberts, has not only retaken the neighborhood from insurgents, but is working with the local population to revamp the electrical grid and sewer system, renovate schools and clinics, and create an "economic safe zone" where businesses can reopen. Indeed, of the brigade's five "lines of operations," only one is strictly military. That Iraq reality makes pure fiction of the argument heard in Washington that the surge will fail because it is only "military."This information utterly destroys the Pelosi-Reid diatribe. Peace wouldn't have been restored and infrastructure improvements wouldn't be happening if the surge failed. This isn't complicated stuff. What it is is honest reporting of the facts on the ground. That's something sadly missing from Reid and Pelosi.
What's new?
Posted Friday, June 15, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment 1 by Steve at 15-Jun-07 04:41 PM
Great site, keep it up!
Please consider adding a link to the Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen for free to over 25 of America's to Talk Shows via Streaming Audio...
http://netradionetwork.com
Washington Pols Unworthy of Our Trust
I just finished posting something that illustrates Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's shrinking credibility here. Now I'm writing another article that illustrates President Bush's non-existent credibility on immigration reform. I'm basing this post on Thomas Lifson's op-ed, which is posted on RealClearPolitics. Here's the first section of Mr. Lifson's op-ed that jumped out at me:
President Bush is threatening to revive the failed comprehensive immigration bill in "improved" form. He is wasting his and our time. No amount of improving can make the comprehensive approach the best path for America to solve its immigration woes. Instead of a big bang approach to immigration reform, we need to adopt a different sort of change strategy for America, a step-by-step, or iterative approach, learning as we go, passing reforms in a logical sequence, and learning from mistakes along the way.It saddens me to think that this immigration bill's most vocal supporters are bent on not taking this issue seriously. My disappointment on their lack of seriousness is only exceeded by my disappointment at their thinking that they know best and their acting like they have a shred of credibility left on the issue of enforcing immigration laws. Here's Mr. Lifson's quote that most jumps out at me:
The politicians do not seem to realize how completely they have lost the confidence of the American people when it comes to stemming the flow of illegals across the border.That statement is spot on. Frankly, I'm not certain that they even care that they don't have a shred of credibility left. This, I'm afraid, points to another trend that I think will play out during next year's campaign.
The trend that I'm noticing is an anti-Washington wave building. This week's polls that showed Harry Reid's JA approval rating at 19 percent illustrates that point. The fact that President Bush's JA rating is in the low 30's is more proof that his policies aren't well-liked. The fact that Congress' JA rating is 5 points lower than President Bush's rating tells me that people see Washington insiders like Trent Lott, Ted Kennedy and John McCain as not worthy of their trust.
Once the trust between politicians and the American people is broken, it's finished. I'm convinced that that's why activists' reactions to this ugly compromise is seen in such a negative light. Polls show that that intensity isn't exclusive to Republican activists or Democrat activists. The intensity is high and it's coming from both sides of the aisle.
What this tells me is that candidates that give voters straight, logical answers will flourish. Similarly, those candidates that give evasive answers will be punished. (That's why I think Hillary won't do well and why Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney will do well.)
I'd also believe that Republicans will gain from this national mood if they show that they're serious about reforms throughout the political system. Here's how I can see that scenario playing out: I can picture Jon Bruning defeating Chuck Hagel in the GOP primary in Nebraska. Based on this report, I can also picture Lindsey Graham getting beaten in South Carolina:
People are talking about newly elected State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, son of the legendary "Cousin Arthur" Ravenel who represented the 1st CD in Congress for a decade, then came home and ran again for State Senate, from where he sought and found the funds for the new Cooper River bridge which not coincidentally now bears his name, challenging Graham in the primaries next year.Based on what I've read about Bruning and based on this information, I think that it's quite possible to knock off both Hagel and Graham in the primaries and to have Bruning and Ravenel keep those seats in GOP hands in the general election. Defeating Sens. Hagel and Graham would send a definitive message to wobblies throughout the GOP. Equally important is the fact that it'd send the message to voters that we're serious about cleaning up our image with actions and that we're serious about doing what's right for the American people.
I don't know how Graham is holding on in his upstate base (a very conservative area), but Ravenel would run up large majorities in the Low country and Grand Strand. His father is perhaps the most beloved politician in the state, and he is an attractive and conservative candidate.
If those things happen, the GOP will be (a) charting a new course for America and (b) giving people a reason to trust them on a variety of issues, including the GWOT and immigration.
That's a goal that's worth our sweat and hard work. It's a goal that's worthy of the party of Reagan.
Posted Friday, June 15, 2007 7:05 PM
No comments.
