June 16-21, 2010
Jun 21 02:29 Oil Spill Commission a Travesty Jun 16 05:33 President Obama's Dishonesty, Ineptitude On Display Jun 16 09:38 Begala: 'This was Obama at his finest' Jun 17 05:25 Stimulus Money Pays For Buses, Next Generation Pays For Stimulus Jun 18 06:56 President Obama's Banana Republic Jun 19 08:14 Clark, Meffert Throw Constitution's Protections Under Campaign Buses Jun 20 03:16 Minnesota's Businesses Put EdMinn In Political Crosshairs
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Oil Spill Commission a Travesty
According to this article , the commission investigating the BP oil spill is almost entirely devoid of people with a technical understanding of oil rigs:
The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about "America's addiction to oil." One member has blogged about it regularly.If the goal is to find out what caused the explosion, then this commission is a complete waste of time. Though this information is disturbing, it gets worse:
Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background, but it's in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.
The commission has yet to meet, yet some panel members had made their views known.I've got a suggestion for President Obama. Have the commission publish its 'findings' today, then disband it. The minute they've been disbanded, let a team of experts investigate (a) what caused the explosion and (b) why the governmental agencies and President Obama didn't do their jobs.
Environmental activist Frances Beinecke on May 27 blogged: "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil." And on June 3, May 27, May 22, May 18, May 4, she called for bans on drilling offshore and the Arctic.
"Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy," Beinecke wrote on May 20.
Two other commissioners also have gone public to urge bans on drilling.
Co-chairman Bob Graham, a Democrat who was Florida governor and later a senator, led efforts to prevent drilling off his state's coast. Commissioner Donald Boesch of the University of Maryland wrote in a Washington Post blog that the federal government had planned to allow oil drilling off the Virginia coast and "that probably will and should be delayed."
We don't need another political CYA commission wasting tens of millions of dollars on a report that's essentially written before their first meeting. What we need is an explanation of why the Obama administration didn't react with any dispatch in preventing the environmental damage to Louisiana's wetlands and Florida's beaches.
Let's have genuine oversight hearings in Congress that ask questions of Ken Salazar and Janet Napolitano on why they didn't immediately respond to the crisis. Let's ask the White House why they didn't waive the Jones Act. Let's also ask them why their EPA demanded an EIS before approving the building of a single berm that would've prevented the environmental damage to Louisiana's wetlands.
This commission's goal appears to be to recommend that we eliminate or dramatically reduce America's use of fossil fuels and replace it with green energy alternatives.
That's foolish because people understand that switching to a green energy policy isn't realistic. People thinking that all will be fine if we replace gas pumps with ethanol and coal-fired power plants with windmills are kidding themselves.
It's time to disband this commission. It's time that we discussed the safety lessons that we can learn from the BP spill. The most important prevention mechanism we can put in place is to start drilling in shallow water or on good old terra firma. Had BP's Deep Water horizon well been drilled in 150 feet of water or in ANWR instead of in 5,000 feet of water, this wouldn't have been much more than a blip on our radar.
Coming to think of it, we wouldn't need a commission to study that, either. All that's needed to reach that conclusion is a look at existing safety records.
Posted Monday, June 21, 2010 2:33 AM
No comments.
President Obama's Dishonesty, Ineptitude On Display
One thing obvious from President Obama's speech about the BP oil spill is that President Obama wasn't particularly forthright. Put another way, President Obama's speech contained a couple whoppers. Here's an example:
Because there has never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That's why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge, a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.Unless President Obama called the Dutch and the British to ask for their help, which his administration had previously rejected, and unless he's quietly waived the Jones Act so that foreign skimmers can help with cleaning up the Gulf, I'm more than skeptical of President Obama's statement.
As a result of these efforts, we've directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that's expected to stop the leak completely.
Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it's not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.
Let's ask these simple questions: if President Obama convened this panel of experts immediately after the explosion, why are balls of crude oil still washing up onto Louisiana's, Mississipi's and Florida's shores? Why are Lousiana's wetlands and great fisheries ruined.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of viable solutions coming from concerned citizens from across the nation. I've seen the demonstrations on TV news shows.
Here's other questions worthy of an answer: Why hasn't this panel of experts brought forth a suggestion that's been acted upon? If they have made some suggestions on how to clean up the mess, why haven't they worked? If there have been suggestions made and tried, why have they failed so miserably? If they've failed miserably, what's the use of this theoretically elite panel of experts?
Frankly, I'm questioning whether this panel is aggressively pushing themselves for a solution. I'm not certain that this panel exists but if they do, they're more window-dressing than anything else.
Here's another statement worthy of ridicule:
But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes.That's BS. By refusing the Netherlands' and the British's offer for skimmer ships, they've already done less than they could've done.
Here's another statement worthy of ridicule:
From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history, an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost 40 years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and clean up the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf.That's a nice list of statistics but there isn't a solution in sight. Louisiana's wetlands are covered in crude oil. Fisheries have been ruined.
TRANSLATION: This speech has several purposes. The first purpose is to convince the American people that I'm doing my job. The second purpose of this speech is to recite a set of statistics to indicate activity in solving this problem. The third purpose of this speech is to push cap and trade legislation, which the Senate won't touch it's a political loser, especially for those who are up for re-election this November.
This speech was so awful that trusted allies like MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman ridiculed President Obama :
Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."Just like the Iran Hostage Crisis exposed President Carter as impotent and without a solution for a problem that the federal government is tasked with, this spill is showing the nation that President Obama is impotent in responding to one of the federal government's basic responsibilities, protecting our nation's environment. (Yes, it's the federal government's responsibility to fix this mess because it happened in federal waters.)
Matthews: "No direction."
Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."
Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."
Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."
Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."
Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."
Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."
The truth is that President Obama is infinitely more passionate about passing his agenda than he is about solving our nation's problems.
If President Obama won't provide solutions to the crises that this nation faces, then it's time to start thinking about who we should replace him with in November, 2012. We're a nation of problem-solvers. The last thing we need is a president who won't think in terms of solving problems or fixing the economy.
Posted Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:39 AM
No comments.
Begala: 'This was Obama at his finest'
Proving once again that he's a first rate political hack, Paul Begala used his op-ed to essentially give President Obama's speech an A+:
His high school teammates called the future president "Barry O'Bomber" for his proclivity for launching long-range jump shots, and tonight he took yet one more high-pressure shot from downtown. Nothing but net.This guy is a blithering idiot. Either that or he thinks we're stupid enough to fall for his BS. Or both. Mr. Begala's statements don't ring true, especially considering how many devout lefties criticized the speech . In their criticisms, Mssrs. Fineman, Matthews and Olberman said that President Obama didn't look presidential, that he didn't provide enough specifics.
The timing of when you shoot a tre is important: the later they come in a game, the more they matter. Three-pointers are the dagger that can put the game away or bring a team back from the dead. Tonight's speech was the latter.
As one who has been critical of the president's response to the disaster so far, I was enormously impressed with this speech. Obama communicated his personal commitment, and the commitment of the entire country, to the people of the Gulf region. He called for a new energy economy, one that creates more jobs and costs fewer lives. Perhaps most important, he made accountability a presidential priority. BP must be punished; the people of the Gulf must be made whole; the American coastline must be reclaimed.As one who's still highly critical of President Obama's mishandling and lack of seriousness about the Deep Horizon spill, i found his statements more than a little dishonest and his priorities out of touch with the American people, especially those living along the Gulf coast.
People along the Gulf coast listened to last night's speech in hopes of hearing a plan on how the federal government would start cleaning up Louisiana's wetlands and prevent the oil from washing up on Florida's, Mississippi's and Alabama's beaches. Instead, President Obama used a third of his speech touting his job-killing tax-increasing, pie-in-the-sky, 'someday-somehow-we'll-get-there' legislation. This is actually how President Obama talked about switching to a green energy economy :
All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny, our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.Instead of coming up with a concrete plan to clean up the pollution in the Gulf, President Obama is putting a higher priority on legislation that would somehow, perhaps magically, create thousands of new jobs and eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.
If that's the definition of looking presidential, then I'll focus my attention on getting someone elected who's more interested in being a leader. This paragraph tells us how low Mr. Begala's expectations were:
If Marshall McLuhan was right, then for this presidential address the setting was the message. For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama sat behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office and addressed his fellow Americans. From that room presidents have sent millions of Americans to war. They have sought to heal broken hearts, to remake our government and revive our economy. Barack Obama has, at turns, done all those things, but never from the Oval Office. Even before he opened his mouth he communicated the most important message: dealing with the Gulf oil disaster is, as Joe Biden would say, a BFD.The setting didn't fit the speech. It isn't that the Oval Office isn't a setting of grandeur that speaks of the authority of the presidency. It's that the magnificence of the setting spoke volumes about the littleness of this president. As Mr. Begala said, the Oval Office is where presidents have announced the sending of troops off to war. It's a place where special announcements get made.
It isn't a place where the Salesman-in-Chief pitches his latest push for legislation that will ruin our economy and kill jobs.
This column speaks volumes about why President Obama keeps looking smaller and smaller almost on a daily basis.
The scary part of this is that Mr. Begala might be right. This might be the best we can hope for from this embattled president.
Posted Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:45 AM
No comments.
Stimulus Money Pays For Buses, Next Generation Pays For Stimulus
When President Obama signed ARRA into law in February, 2009, much was made about how the money would jumpstart the economy. After almost 2 years later, St. Cloud will finally reap the 'rewards' of the bill :
The Canadian bus company New Flyer presented the city of St. Cloud with four new transit buses on Wednesday. New Flyer has manufacturing plants in St. Cloud and Crookston.What a rip-off. St. Cloud gets 4 buses, which it may or may not need. In exchange for that, future generations get stuck with the debt.
Vice President Joe Biden visited the St. Cloud factory in late 2009 to discuss how the economic stimulus would help companies like New Flyer turn tentative orders into firm ones. But, despite the stimulus money, the company still needed to lay off 270 workers, 70 of which came from the St. Cloud plant.
Last Sunday, Tarryl Clark told WCCO's Esme Murphy that Michele Bachmann's vote against ARRA was a vote "for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans", a silly accusation if ever I heard one. Tarryl then told Ms. Murphy that she was the fiscally responsible candidate in the race.
Clearly, Tarryl signalled that she would've voted for ARRA had she been in Congress. If Tarryl would've voted for the bill, what she would've voted for was $862,000,000,000 of wasteful spending, most of which would've paid for states to not prioritize their spending, a few dollars which would've paid for some road projects and the rest of the money going towards things like this.
I don't know whether St. Cloud needed more buses but I'm certain that we didn't need them so badly that we needed to pile tens of thousands of dollars of debt onto the next generation to buy them, especially considering the fact that New Flyer laid off employees despite the 'infusion' of stimulus money.
This is proof positive that ARRA is a failure from almost every perspective. Here's a list of ARRA's 'accomplishments':
- ARRA money didn't prevent New Flyer's layoffs, which happened anyway.
- The economy got worse, with unemployment getting worse after President Obama signed the bill.
- Rather than jumpstarting the economy, the economy continued its recessionary path.
- Perhaps the worst of the 'accomplishments' is that much of the money spent is money that got added to the baseline of FY2010's budget.
"This company is an example for the future," Biden told the crowd. "We want to invest, not just in getting people jobs right now. What we want to do is lay a foundation for the 21st Century. Lay a foundation in areas that will allow us to grow in ways that will allow us to continue not only in America but lead in the world." Biden and the Obama Administration are using New Flyer as an example of how the economic stimulus will work.Unfortunately, the stimulus bill is an example of how the stimulus bill has worked:
But, despite the stimulus money, the company still needed to lay off 270 workers, 70 of which came from the St. Cloud plant.It's time to swap out the Congress we have now for a pro-capitalist Congress so we can get the economy going again.
Posted Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:40 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 17-Jun-10 09:31 AM
Hey Gary, since when is 1 year and 4 mos. "almost 2 years"? Seems to be closer to a year than it is two years but maybe you have a different way of rounding than me. Is it the new method where we want to use the rounded number that fits into our argument better? I'm just curious...
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 17-Jun-10 09:36 AM
Oh and one more thing. Are you going to criticize Tim Pawlenty at all since he used that supposedly wasteful spending to balance the state budget.
I get that you are Captain Ahab and Tarryl Clark is your white whale and you will stop at nothing to attack and destroy her but maybe just maybe you could stop your epic quest and be honest about something.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-10 07:21 AM
First things first, Eric. Tarryl Clark isn't a principled politician. That's what allows her to make such foolish statements for purely political gain. Anytime she says something that isn't grounded in solid constitutional or economic principles, she should expect to get criticized.
ERIC, WITH ME, IT'S ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES!!!
Second, I didn't like Pawlenty using ARRA money, partially because it was money we didn't have, partially because of the maintenance of service agreements that the money was tied to.
I also knew that fighting that fight was useless because the DFL legislature wouldn't solve the deficit without using the money.
Rather than fighting a losing battle, I chose to fight for other things rather than wasting time.
President Obama's Banana Republic
Yesterday, Rep. Joe Barton, (R-TX), did the right thing in characterizing President Obama's getting BP to cough up $20,000,000,000 " a tragedy in the first proportion ." He was also right in calling it a shakedown.
Welcome to President Obama's banana republic rules. The rule of law was just sidestepped in favor of crony capitalism.
Let's be perfectly clear. I'm not proposing to let BP off the hook. It's quite the opposite. I'm just opposed to letting a political appointee dole out $20,000,000,000 based on anything other than established law.
Men are corruptible. The courts aren't. Am I certain that the Obama administration won't play favorites with this money? Not hardly. I wouldn't trust them, or any other administration, to dispense the money to the people who have sustained damages from this oil spill.
The Obama administration's strong-arm tactics is playing out here in Minnesota, where Michele Bachmann made a statement aimed directly at upholding the rule of law :
On a blog aimed at conservatives, Bachmann was quoted as saying she supported lifting a liability cap on legal claims against the company, which has taken heat over a blown-out well spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, some of which is washing up on beaches throughout the region and threatening fisheries, wildlife habitat and the tourism industry.Predictably, Tarryl Clark misused that quote for political advantage:
"But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there 'We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced,'" Bachmann told the Washington Post's blog. "And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest; they've got to be legitimate claims."
"Holding BP accountable for this disaster is not 'fleecing' it. It's making sure they do what's right by the citizens of the Gulf whose livelihoods are threatened and by all Americans who want the Gulf cleaned up," Clark said in a statement released Thursday.In siding with President Obama's banana republic rules, Tarryl is saying that she won't protect or defend this nation's constitutional protections of due process.
"Congresswoman Bachmann has made it clear where she stands: with BP, and against us."
There isn't any due process rights when a political appointee, not the independent judiciary, determines who gets the money. A political appointee can make awards based on political pressures or arbitrary priorities. The independent judiciary makes financial awards based on codified, well established laws.
Tarryl's statement is pure grandstanding. It proves that Tarryl won't hesitate to throw the Constitution under the bus if she thinks there's a political point to gain. It proves that Tarryl will say anything if she thinks it's what people want to hear.
Tarryl didn't take a principled, objective approach to solving this difficult problem. Instead, she did the political grandstanding thing in cheapshotting Michele Bachmann for political gain.
Rep. Barton shouldn't have apologized for making his comments during yesterday's committee hearing. Rep. Barton would've been better of if he'd followed Michele Bachmann's lead in simply explaining that he wants the courts to administer the law, not a political appointee.
Posted Friday, June 18, 2010 7:07 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck at 18-Jun-10 10:12 AM
Once you start apologizing and retracting, it makes it appear as if you were in the wrong and not principled. Stand strong and the opposition goes away because you can't argue against truth.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-10 11:25 AM
Chuck, I agree with standing strong but you're wrong if you think that'll make opposition disappear. That ain't happening because the DFL & DNC will attack because that's what they're about.
Clark, Meffert Throw Constitution's Protections Under Campaign Buses
Yesterday, I wrote that Tarryl Clark was grandstanding by saying Michele Bachmann would rather stand with BP than with the people whose lives have been adversely affected by the oil spill. Now Jim Meffert, the DFL-endorsed candidate to oppose Erik Paulsen, is criticizing Erik Paulsen for not denouncing Rep. Joe Barton's statement yesterday. Here's Meffert's attack quote on Erik Paulsen:
"The real 'tragedy' today is that the leaders who are supposed to be standing up for Gulf Coast residents and holding BP accountable are instead rushing to BP's defense," Meffert said in a statement. "Rep. Barton should be ashamed of his words today, and I am calling on Congressman Erik Paulsen to ask Barton to step down step down from his leadership post as the Ranking Member of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee."Following the DFL's playbook of me-too politics, Tarryl Clark immediately mischaracterized Michele Bachmann's statement . Here's what Tarryl said:
Meffert continued, "As Paulsen has done nothing so far to help resolve this crisis, the least he can do now is denounce Barton's comments and pledge that none of our tax dollars will be used to bail out BP or help clean up their mess. This disaster cannot become the taxpayers' problem."
"Holding BP accountable for this disaster is not 'fleecing' it. It's making sure they do what's right by the citizens of the Gulf whose livelihoods are threatened and by all Americans who want the Gulf cleaned up," Clark said in a statement released Thursday. Congresswoman Bachmann has made it clear where she stands: with BP, and against us."This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has inserted itself into judicial matters. They interjected themselves into the GM bailout, essentially strongarming secured bondholders out of the picture so they could shovel the money to this administation's UAW allies.
Tarryl Clark's and Jim Meffert's 'ends-justifies-the-means' thinking goes against the oath they would take if elected to office, namely that they would protect and defend the Constitution..."
It's guaranteed that Tarryl Clark and Jim Meffert would be furious if the Bush administration denied people their due process rights like the Obama administration is denying BP their due process rights.
Having a president ignore the rule of law is a dangerous precedent. Ben Stein wrote eloquently about it in this post :
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.During the Nixon administration, many illegal wiretaps were conducted because President Nixon ordered them to happen. Many of these wiretaps were on anti-war protesters. The FBI didn't bother going through the judicial system.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM. When I called the White House press office to ask under what law or regulation Mr. Obama was acting, I was told he did not need a law. If the government put a lot of money into GM, it could call the shots at GM, I was told. But under what authority, I asked. "None needed," was the final answer.
The common refrain from the FBI was something like "We didn't get court approval because the president gave us permission." Almost all of those wiretaps were thrown out and many of the criminals operating within the anti-war movement saw their convictions thrown out or their cases dismissed outright.
This administration is repeating the Nixon administration's high-handed actions by saying they don't need constitutional authority to assign to itself the judiciary's responsibilities. It isn't within their authority to usurp another branch of government's responsibilities.
With their statements, Tarryl Clark and Jim Meffert are saying that they're ok with this administration violating the Constitution. With their statements, Tarryl Clark and Jim Mefferts are essentially saying that they're ok with BP being denied their due process rights because BP doesn't deserve constitutional protections.
That's a dangerous proposition because that's an ends-justifies-the-means argument. That's especially dangerous because it's an argument too often decided by an autocrat, which isn't in keeping with the United States being a constitional republic, complete with checks and balances.
It's rather disgusting that Jim Meffert and Tarryl Clark didn't hesitate in throwing the Constitution's protections under their campaign buses in an attempt to win their elections.
I won't hesitate is saying people who don't hesitate in stripping people of their constitutional protections aren't fit to serve in Congress. We've seen too many ends-justifies-the-means politicians. It's time to eliminate those politicians ASAP.
Posted Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:14 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Jun-10 09:04 AM
Gary:
Isn't it amazing what these Democrats seem to be ignoring.
Lets see the President not waiving the Jones Act so we can have foreign ships with experts attacking the sludge (thus reducing the damage)
Lets see Bobby Jindahl who needed federal waivers to try to build barriers to keep the oil away from Louisiana and not getting them.
Lets see the Coast Guard inspecting ships that are helping in the clean up and ordering them off duty because they don't have fire extinguishers and life jackets.
I think we can go on, but it seems like the Obama government doesn't have their act together. Where's the criticism for that?
Not to mention I'd like to know where is the law that creates the fund before courts determine liability and that allows a federal official to give out the funds. How can BP say they're making people whole when their intial money might not go to people who have real claims?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall at 20-Jun-10 06:18 PM
I have never liked Democrats or Republicans very much (actually my phone has been tapped under both parties). There is no question the US has become a surveillance and the only solution is for citizens to speak out loudly and persistently (until the current administration shuts the Internet down). At present I am a bit happier (and enjoy more privacy) living in exile in New Zealand. I write about my close encounters with US intelligence in my recent memoir THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE.
Minnesota's Businesses Put EdMinn In Political Crosshairs
According to this Pi-Press article , Minnesota's business community is planning on making education reform a high profile priority this election cycle. That doesn't mean that they're taking the DFL's side on this issue:
Minnesota business leaders are wasting no time attacking DFL state lawmakers who voted against offering alternative routes to teaching. Business-backed political action committees have sent out mailers to voters in districts where vulnerable Democrats are up for re-election. The fliers accuse the incumbents of putting their "union boss loyalty ahead of our children's future."EdMinn has made clear that they're opposed to a number of education reforms. Their president, Tom Dooher, hasn't attempted to hide his influence on education issues. That caused Rep. Mark Buesgens to issue a statement on EdMinn's corruption, which I wrote about here:
That's a direct shot at lawmakers' ties to Education Minnesota, the statewide teachers union. The group has been criticized for blocking various education initiatives this past session, including one that would have provided broader pathways into teaching.
"Voters are already with us on this issue," said Charlie Weaver, executive director of the Minnesota Business Partnership. "We just need to tell them their legislator is not with them. We are going to point out how severely out of step these legislators are."
The head of a committee table in the Minnesota Legislature is no place for a registered lobbyist, according to State Representative Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan. Buesgens, who formerly chaired the House Education Policy and Reform Committee, criticized Democrat legislators for allowing Education MinnesotaWe know that EdMinn doesn't stand up for the best interests of the children because they frequently follow the lead of their parent organization, the NEA. We know that the NEA doesn't put children first because they pressured Rep. David Obey into ending the DC Scholarship Program, thereby sentencing low income children to violence-riddled government schools. Here's what the Washington Post editorialized on the subject of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program:
President and registered lobbyist Tom Dooher to sit at the table with legislators during Tuesday's hearing on Minnesota's "Race to the Top" application.
"Special interests have absolutely no place at the committee table, no matter who they represent," Buesgens said. "This one in particular has consistently stood in the way of education reform and spent millions upon millions of dollars over the years to elect reform-averse legislators. Putting him at the head of the table for all to see sent a clear message, like having Vito Corleone watching over his foot soldiers."
According to Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board records, Dooher is registered lobbyist number 2005, having first registered on June 18, 2007. Board documents also show that the EdMinn PAC gave $155,700 to the Minnesota DFL House Caucus in 2008, the most recent election year.
"Special interests do not run the Legislature, or at least that's what we are told. But apparently if you are willing to fork over enough cash, Democrats can find room for you at the head of the table. It's a disgrace," Buesgens said.
EdMinn PAC and Education Minnesota are technically separate entities, but the PAC's 2008 year-end report shows $691,320 in income from Education Minnesota coming in monthly installments of $57,610. The report also shows the union giving the PAC "miscellaneous income" totaling $93,946 that was "used to record staff time."
"They are one and the same in every way that matters, and today they got to lord over the Legislature," Buesgens said. The fact that the DFL allowed EdMinn a place at the head of the table between the House and Senate committee chairs speaks volumes as to their influence on DFL policies.
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.Whether we're talking about alternative licensing for teachers or school vouchers, it's apparent that EdMinn and its parent organization have fought for teachers first, administrators second. Only after that is improving educational outcomes for kids a consideration.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities, such as a trip to China for her son, made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.
EdMinn professes to want a quality teacher in every classroom and that class sizes be smaller. These are worthy goals. Still, with a teacher shortage looming , EdMinn and the NEA are resisting alternative licensing. Here's what we're facing in terms of the teacher shortage:
A historic turnover in the teaching profession is on the way. More than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement. America will need two million new teachers in the next decade, and experts predict that half the teachers who will be in public school classrooms 10 years from now have not yet been hired.Despite the fact that we're on the doorstep of a teacher shortage, the DFL/EdMinn coalition won't pass a reform that would help alleviate this dire situation.
The Search for Qualified Teachers
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, The Baby Boom Echo Report, 1998
- Nationwide, some 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the next 10 years because of teacher attrition and retirement and increased student enrollment.
- By 2008, national public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, an increase of nearly 2 million children over today. Enrollment in elementary schools is expected to increase by 17 percent and in high schools by 26 percent.
- In high-poverty urban and rural districts alone, more than 700,000 new teachers will be needed in the next 10 years.
Allowing professionals without education degrees to be teachers in Minnesota was the most contentious education issue in the 2010 legislative session. A measure calling for alternative teacher licensing narrowly failed on the House floor and never made it to the full Senate for a vote.It's time for EdMinn to put up or shut up. Let's see proof from a neutral party that shows alternative licensing lowers teachers standards. I'm skeptical that EdMinn can produce a study from a truly neutral party showing that their claims are accurate.
The measure had broad support from education groups, organizations representing communities of color and business leaders who argue it would help the state attract more diverse, qualified teachers and close the achievement gap. Education Minnesota argued the measure would lower teacher standards.
Tom Dooher, president of Education Minnesota, said the union would counter the attacks. "What we're going to have to do is make sure our members are involved at the grassroots level and backing candidates we support," Dooher said.Despite EdMinn's fight against common sense reforms, they're fighting a losing fight:
He noted that the chamber and other business groups outspend the union when it comes to lobbying. And now they will when it comes to political campaigns. "We can't outspend them," Dooher said. "But we are going to continue to get the message out there. The public understands high standards are important, and kids are an invaluable resource."
Business leaders say public opinion is backing them on education issues, and they're not going to let up this year.The dirty little secret is that there's alot more professionals who'd like to be teachers after retiring and parents of school children than there are EdMinn activists. If EdMinn and the DFL don't change their policies, many teachers and administrators will soon be eductation lobbyists and activists.
In a recent survey by Decision Resources Ltd. of Minneapolis, respondents by a 2-to-1 margin said the state teachers union was more interested in "protecting their members' salaries" than the quality of education.
And a 5 Eyewitness News/Survey-USA poll released in May found 55 percent of adults surveyed said Minnesota should make it easier for people currently working in other careers to become teachers.
We can't afford to sit idly by without resolving this teacher shortage. If the DFL continues playing its role of education reform obstructionist, they'll soon be on the outside looking in.
Posted Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Jun-10 06:44 AM
Two thoughts, first, I am astounded that you, Gary, are one of the EdWatch Al & Julie Quist crowd.
Second, I think they made Drew Emmer pull his blog because he, more than you who are restrained and, had said who they really are.
Drew's Uncle, Tom Emmer, appears wanting to distance himself from the more hateful dimensions of uber-right rhetoric.
Remember how some of that ultra-venom got out last cycle, via emailing by the GOP sign maker in Ramsey to Deborah Hedlund, the Hennepin County District Judge with last place rankings among the members of the bar?
Minnesota Independent still has reporting of that online from the 2008 cycle, but I do not believe the entire distribution list was published. Some interesting names, no doubt about that.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-10 10:45 AM
Eric, It's time that you base your criticism on substance, not personalities. You're better than that. If my policy beliefs are similar to those of Al & Julie Quist, then I'mn cool with that because I've reached this conclusion after thoughtful consideration of the various facets of education policy.
Comment 2 by R-Five at 20-Jun-10 07:02 AM
To restate your own words, there is no teacher shortage per se, just a shortage of rent-seeker teaching certificates. But we must nonetheless be careless not to swing the door open too widely.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 20-Jun-10 12:39 PM
Gary, independent of, is a fine qualification, and similar or parallel to is also a position.
One thing you ignore - the state agency having jurisdiction is and for years has been under GOP control.
Have you no criticism there? They, within confines set by the legislature, make the rules.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-10 04:19 PM
Actually, the group you're refering to isn't that much under GOP control. That's been the DFL's storyline & it's perception. It isn't reality. Republicans have had more than a few complaints with this organization.
Comment 4 by Eric Austin at 21-Jun-10 01:29 PM
You know Gary, I am going to hold my tongue about a lot of this post because you don't know anything about education or how to reform it to make it better. However, I can't let your little challenge go unanswered:
http://outstatepolitics.com/archives/10265
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jun-10 03:34 PM
How condescending of you, Eric. Nobody but educators know how to reform education, right? Only enlightened educators know. How convenient.
Comment 5 by Eric Austin at 21-Jun-10 04:44 PM
No, Gary, not "nobody but educators". I was specifically talking about you. You don't know anything about reforming education beyond the talking points fed to you by others.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jun-10 10:53 PM
Eric, You accuse me of blindly accepting Republican talking points. It's odd that I haven't seen you disagree with a single thing that the EdMinn leaders have proposed. Perhaps if you grew a spine & stood up for competition & alternative licensing, I might listen.
