June 22-24, 2010
Jun 22 03:34 WH, Kyl Immigration Fight Goes Thermonuclear Jun 22 05:26 Emmer Pushes Federalist Principles, Liberals Revolt Jun 22 15:20 Tarryl's Truth-Telling Troubles Continue Jun 23 03:58 What Is ABM Hiding? Jun 24 01:24 Did Tarryl Go Too Negative Too Early? Jun 24 03:54 Will This Tide Sink the Democrats' Ship? Jun 24 11:02 Four Peas in a Liberal Pod
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
WH, Kyl Immigration Fight Goes Thermonuclear
During a townhall meeting last Friday, Sen. Jon Kyl said that President Obama told him that enforcing Arizona's border would give Republicans less incentive to work with him on amnesty comprehensive immigration reform. According to this article , the fight between the Obama administration and Sen. Kyl has gone thermonuclear:
The White House denied the claim on Monday.The facts speak for themselves. Sending 1,200 National guard troops is a photo op deployment. It isn't a deployment aimed at stopping the drug cartels' reign of violence in Phoenix. If the Obama administration was serious about stopping the violence, they would've sent 10,000 troops and they would've gone on the offensives against the drug cartels.
"The president didn't say that and Senator Kyl knows it," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. "There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system."
But Kyl's office stood by the senator's account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, "There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them." He said Pfeiffer's call for comprehensive immigration legislation "only confirms" Kyl's story.
While Obama has pledged to send an influx of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Kyl said in the clip that the president made clear to him that border security is just a political tool in the broader goal of passing an immigration package through Congress.
The violence won't stop until this administration starts making the drug cartels pay a heavy price for their illegal activities.
With this escalation, it's clear that this administration got stung by Sen. Kyl's statements. If they weren't having an effect, they wouldn't say a word.
UPDATE: I participated in a blogger conference call with Sen. Orrin Hatch Monday afternoon. The call first focused on Sen. Hatch's two bills to repeal the individual and employer mandates from Obamacare. Nonetheless, I was able to ask Sen. Hatch about the immigration standoff between Sen. Kyl and the Obama administration.
Specifically, I asked if the statistics on continued violence in Phoenix didn't prove Sen. Kyl's case. Clearly energized, Sen. Hatch said that the statistics and the continued violence indeed proved that this administration wasn't doing its duties.
Sen. Hatch then said that the 1,200 people being deployed to our southern border wasn't even serious, saying that he did't even think Sen. McCain's request for 6,000 National Guard troops probably still wasn't enough.
In my followup, I asked Sen. Hatch if the 1,200 troops weren't just "photo op troops" designed to take some political pressure off President Obama. Sen. Hatch said that that's exactly their intent.
Expect this fight to intensify because Sen. Kyl is fighting to protect Arizonans and President Obama has too much to lose in this fight.
SIDENOTE: If there's a battle between President Obama and Sen. Kyl over who's more credible, this isn't a fair fight. Sen. Kyl's history is filled with honesty and measured statements whereas President Obama's brief presidential history is filled with important broken promise after another. This isn't a fight President Obama can win.
This administration's best bet is to retreat. If this administration picks a fight against Sen. Kyl, they'll hurt Democrats nationwide. They'll force Democrats to decide between running away from this administation or suffer humiliating defeats.
That's a foolish strategic ploy if ever I heard of one.
Posted Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Jun-10 07:47 AM
Gary:
The fun part is that the White House blasted BP's person for taking one day off to go to an yacht race. Lets see the same weekend Obama went to a baseball and golfed. It seems like the White House is walking around claiming what we know is reality even when reality messes with their version of reality.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Emmer Pushes Federalist Principles, Liberals Revolt
Based on the left's reaction, you'd think that Tom Emmer's op-ed in Sunday's Strib was utter blasphemy. In reality, Tom Emmer's op-ed was nothing more than his standing by the federalist principles advocated by this nation's Founding Fathers:
These days, when people talk about government, they often mean the federal government.Thanks to the Founding Fathers' clearheaded thinking, they amended the Constitution to include a Tenth Amendment, which essentially says that the federal government should only involve itself in the things that are codified into the Constitution as federal responsibilities. Those things that the Founding Fathers didn't assign to the federal government as responsibilities were left to state and local government to deal with.
That's too bad, because there is a reason why America's Founding Fathers put together a system that recognized the importance and separate roles of the national, state and local governments.
Simply put: In a country as diverse as the United States, it makes no sense to centralize all power thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C. But that is precisely what has been happening for the last 70 years. Things have gone so far that soon bureaucrats in Washington will be making decisions about what and how much health care each individual can get.
It may seem old-fashioned, but I happen to think that the Founding Fathers had the right idea.
To listen to Eric Black tell it , though, you'd think Tom Emmer's opinions on the Constitution were without merit:
Emmer favors an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would block federal laws from taking effect in Minnesota unless the congressional enactment was accepted by the Minnesota Legislature and the governor. In fact, the application of a federal law would require an affirmative vote by a two-thirds supermajority of each house of the Minnesota Legislature, and a signature by the governor to take effect in Minnesota.The text of Emmer's bill said that Minnesotans would be immunized against "any federal laws that exceed the federal government's enumerated powers" if they approved this amendment to Minnesota's Constition. In other words, this constitutional amendment would stand opposed to the federal government's improper power grabs such as those seen in the Obamacare legislation.
Yes. Really. As a legislator, Emmer was not the chief author but one of three leading co-sponsors of the proposed amendment. Read it for yourself. The text of the proposed amendment is here. Laws enacted by the Congress to apply to the whole country would not take effect in Minnesota unless they cleared that triple hurdle. And let's face it, given the current state of American politics, nothing with the least whiff of controversy is going to pass. One third of either house, or a governor by him/herself, could erect a symbolic fence that would prevent the latest laws from Washington from taking effect in Minnesota.
That wasn't the extent of Black's tizzy:
Presumably, if Minnesota could do this, other states could too. And the system of national laws would become a patchwork of laws that applied in some states but not others.Actually, it isn't "almost certainly unconstitutional." The Tenth Amendment deals specifically and directly with this issue:
There is this problem with the idea, though. It is almost surely unconstitutional (federal unconstitutional). It's hard to imagine that Emmer or the other sponsors think the U.S. Supreme Court would let it stand.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Black can't even get this part right:
If I'm wrong about the constitutionality, it's also pretty hard to see how the United States could continue to function as one nation, if each state was free to pick and choose which national laws they wanted to abide by. I know that Emmer favors a Minnesota opt-out from the provisions of the recent health care law. And it gives me a headache trying to picture the complications if some states were in and some were out. But that possibility pales compared with others that can easily be imagined. If this proposed new level of state nullification was adopted and Congress raised a federal tax, would it be up to each state to decide whether they felt like paying it or not? If Congress enacted a military draft, could those crazy peaceniks in Wisconsin decide it didn't apply to their boys? Could southern states opt out of civil rights laws?First, if the Tenth Amendment was applied properly, SCOTUS would rule unconstitutional any federal laws governing things not affirmatively and specifically assigned to the federal government. As such, there wouldn't be a need for states to opt in or out of federal laws that overstepped the U.S. Constitution's authority.
Second, the Sixteenth Amendment gives the federal government the authority to levy taxes:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.Third, in the case of a military draft, that's rather simple. Since Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution assigns responsibility for the military to the Executive Branch, the draft would be easily assigned to the federal government.
David Lillehaug's resply to Emmer's op-ed is misguided because it misrepresents what the Supremacy Clause is about. Here's what the Supremacy Clause says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Here's Lillehaug's unpersuasive argument from his op-ed :
In fact, it runs head-on into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that federal laws "shall be the supreme Law of the Land," notwithstanding anything in a state's constitution or laws to the contrary.This is one of the liberals' favorite arguments. It's also as incorrect as incorrect gets. Overlooked by liberals is the clause stating that the laws must be "made in Pursuance" of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Supremacy Clause to apply to federal laws that didn't comply with the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the Supremacy Clause wouldn't apply to laws if they violated the Tenth Amendment.
The correct interpretation of the Surpremacy Clause was to ensure that international treaties that were ratified were to be treated as the law of the land. Another correct interpretation of the Supremacy Clause was that it made the Bill of Rights the law of the land. It prevented states from writing legislation that violated any of the Constitution's amendments.
For instance, when Washington, DC wrote a law that banned guns, it was struck down as violating the Second Amendment in the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense...We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."Simply put, a local government can't write a law that violates the U.S. Constitution, which is what the DC gun ban did. Similarly, states and cities can't write laws that strip away any of the federal Constitution's potections.
What's insulting is Lillehaug's tone as exemplified here:
As any fifth-grade student could tell Emmer, a federal law becomes effective throughout the nation when passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution provides, or even hints, that state legislatures and a governor must agree to opt in before a federal law is valid. As a lawyer, Emmer should be presumed to know at least as much about the U.S. Constitution as a fifth-grader.Perhaps Mr. Lillehaug can explain why the federal government can enact laws that infringe upon a state's sovereignty without violating the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps he could but I wouldn't bet on it. Perhaps Mr. Lillehuag should get Janine Turner's daughter Juliette to teach him about the principles of federalism.
While Juliette isn't a fifth-grader, she is a mature 12-year-old who has extensively studied the Federalist Papers. That means there's a good chance she knows more about the constuction of the U.S. Constitution than the esteemed Mr. Lillehaug.
At the end of the day, federal legislators who've sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution have done more to mangle it than they've done to live within its limits.
Thank God for principled constitutionalists like Tom Emmer, Janine and Juliette Turner. Without them, federal legislators and liberals like Mr. Lillehaug might continue mangling the Constitution.
Posted Tuesday, June 22, 2010 5:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jun-10 07:58 AM
A good solution would be for Congress to comply with the constitution. One of the "radical" Republican Congressmen has introduced legislation every year-- the Enumerated Powers Act-- which would require each bill presented to Congress to carry, as its first finding, the Constitutional provision permitting Congress to legislate in the area of the legislation. It would sure solve the budget problem in a hurry.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jun-10 09:35 AM
The Enumerated Powers Act is a political stunt. I'd vote against it.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Jun-10 05:49 PM
Tom Emmer's opinions ARE without merit. He's being an idiot.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-10 12:25 AM
Eric, Tom's understanding of the Constitution is pretty solid. It's right in line with the Founding Fathers' thinking.
For proof of that, compare Tom's thoughts with the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are invaluable since they're where we learn about what the Founding Fathers thought about, & wrestled with, before finishing the Constitution.
No emanations or penumbras there. Just thoughtful, rigorous, internalized discussions.
Comment 4 by Josh at 28-Jun-10 08:23 AM
Gary, can you point me to a particular Federalist Paper that supports Emmer's views? Both you and Eric make broad claims without any warrants to support them.
Tarryl's Truth-Telling Troubles Continue
When it comes to the BP issue, it's apparent that Tarryl Clark can't speak without telling a whopper. This post on The Hill's blog is additional proof that Tarryl will say anything to get elected. She won't even get the basic facts right:
Despite repeated opportunities to apologize or back down from her misguided opposition to efforts to hold British Petroleum (BP), and not taxpayers, accountable for the costs of their oil spill, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann continues to stand up for BP. It's outrageous.
What's outrageous, Sen. Clark, is your lying about this basic fact: Michele Bachmann has stated, both officially and repeatedly, that BP should pay for every bit of damage that they've caused. I wrote about it here :
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.
"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."
Let's see. First, the Obama administration shuts down deepwater drilling against the recommendations of genuine experts but BP should pay for their unemployment? That isn't justified. Second, Michele says that BP should pay for all legitimate claims but Tarryl thinks that's "standing with BP"? That's logic only a liberal can sort through.
That 'logic' isn't only found in Tarryl's BP statements. It's important that we remember that Tarryl is the one that said not voting for the Recoveryy Act (and its billions of dollars in defits and outrageous spending increases) was " a vote for higher taxes ." To those of us who've followed Tarryl, this isn't surprising. She's always said whatever she thinks people want to hear rather than standing on principle.
The first time I met her was at a townhall in January, 2007 . At that time, Tongue-tied Tarryl told Leo and I that she was a big proponent of zero-based budgeting, that she'd make sure meaningful budget oversight hearings would be conducted and that, of the first six bills that the Senate DFL submitted, each complete with a major tax increase, only one was sanctioned by the Senate DFL leadership.
Six short weeks later, Tarryl not only sanctioned each of those tax increases, she'd enthusiastically voted for them.
The ironic thing about Tarryl's voting against the Recovery Act is a vote for higher taxes is that Tarryl cast the 34th and deciding vote for a $435,000,000 tax increase . It's ironic in the sense that Tarryl thinks voting against the biggest pork-filled bill in U.S. history is a vote for tax increases but a vote for a genuine tax increase is being fiscally responsible.
This November, voters will remember that Tarryl repeatedly voted for major tax increases on small businesses and families. They'll remember that she also voted for a 17 percent spending increase in 2007, wiping out a $2,163,000,000 surplus in the DFL's first year back in control of the Minnesota legislature.
It's time that voters held Tarryl accountable for voting against the interests of her district's small businesses. It's time we exposed Tarryl's penchant for stretching the truth about how she'd fight for the Sixth District's small businesses. How would she do that? By raising their income taxes? Or by voting to not repeal Obamacare, which will hurt Minnesota's health care system of innovation?
For all her talk, Tarryl Clark has a history of raising taxes and increasing spending at unsustainable rates while supporting the unions' agendas instead of supporting her constituents. If that's how Tarryl wants to fight for us, I'm confident that she won't represent us in DC in 2011.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 22, 2010, revised 03-Mar 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 23-Jun-10 05:48 PM
Bachmann has bigger troubles with the truth. And her BP love, it is a disgrace. The costs of enterprise should be kept with the enterprise. Not socialized. She's not quite like Jindal on the spill responsibility while he's wanted to shrink and shrink the federal budget; but, in other ways Bachmann is worse. She makes up things. Tells fibs.
What Is ABM Hiding?
Back on May 27, I wrote a post titled "Alliance For Better Minnesota Not Concerned With Telling Truth." Included in that post was this link . This morning, I decided to check up on the website and see if the Alliance for a Better Minnesota had posted anything new on their Tom Emmer's Minnesota website.
Imagine my surprise when I couldn't access the link. When I googled the Tom Emmer's Minnesota website, the first search result had a url of www.tomemmersmn.org/, which demanded that I sign in. The signon window contained this message:
To view this page, you must log in to this area on www.tomemmersmn.org:80:When I first accessed ABM's post about big corporations, this is what they'd written:
Members Area
Your password will be sent unencrypted.
Settle in high flying corporate executives, because Tom Emmer's Minnesota is going to be more fun than your last trip in a golden parachute. Here in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we believe that paying for good schools and hospitals is the job of the unwashed masses. That's why the slightly regressive taxes of the past have been replaced by a massively regressive tax code in Tom Emmer's Minnesota.What a difference a little exposure makes. Isn't it creepy that, after I'd written about ABM's questionable statements, ABM now limits access to their website?
In Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we don't even care if you have your interns set up post office boxes all over the world to avoid paying your taxes. Even if those funds would go to fund nursing homes and other medical facilities, in Tom Emmer's Minnesota we want nothing to get in the way of the gobs and gobs of money coming your way - not even fair play.
Rest assured, my very rich friend. This isn't just a one-time deal. You can trust that in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, solid investment in good schools, nursing home facilities, clean lakes, fixing roads or health care for "regular folk" will never get in the way of your extreme wealth and stealthy tax maneuvering.
I mean, what is ABM hiding? What are they writing about Tom that they only want their members to see? Have they continued writing things about Tom that they still can't verify? Are they still writing things that are fiction, not truth?
Minnesotans, I'll ask a simple question that's worth pondering. Do you want to live in a Minnesota that's strongly influenced by a corruption machine like ABM?
It's painfully obvious that ABM isn't interested in debating the important issues facing Minnesota's small businesses and middle class families, that they're only interested in posting the most disgusting, untruthful things about Tom Emmer.
It's time for people of all political stripes to band together and reject ABM's politics of personal destruction. You want to have a heated debate over policy issues? Let's have right at it. The feistier the better. That's debate in the finest traditions of Minnesota politics.
What isn't in the finest traditions of Minnesota politics is when an organization like ABM establishes a website whose only purpose is to smear candidates with outright lies just so they can advance their radical agenda.
If the DFL wants to prove that they reject ABM's politics of personal destruction, they'd better state their disgust clearly and to return all campaign checks they've received from ABM-related PACs.
If the DFL doesn't distance themselves from ABM, then we'll know that they approve of ABM's politics of personal destruction. That, indeed, would be a sad day in Minnesota politics.
UPDATE: I just approved a comment from ABMAF (the Alliance for a Better Minnesota Action Fund) saying that they were just updating to a new version of Wordpress. They've now returned to spewing the same inaccurate things as before.
Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:25 PM
Comment 1 by ABM Action Fund at 23-Jun-10 07:35 AM
We were just updating to the newest version of Wordpress.
http://TomEmmersMN.org is back up educating Minnesotans about Tom Emmer's record of slashing health care and education funds while local and middle class taxes skyrocketed.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Jun-10 05:45 PM
Emmer got some interesting write-ups over the weekend. Eric Black at MinnPost was unduly gentle about Emmer's constitutional amendment thing. It ignores federalism, as if secessionists had won the Civil War.
And his litigation history. WOW.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Jun-10 08:00 PM
Black's post showed how little he knows about the Constitution & the principles of federalism.
I thought that David Lillehaug embarassed himself with his explanation of the Supremacy Clause.
Did Tarryl Go Too Negative Too Early?
Having paid a fair amoung of attention to Tarryl Clark's campaign thus far, one thing's fairly obvious: that she's done some polling and that she's trailing.
That's the only explanation for her going this negative this far from the election.
During Tarryl's interview with Esme Murphy , Tarryl argued that Michele's vote against ARRA represented a vote for higher taxes:
During one of her answers, Tarryl said that Michele "voted for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans when she voted against the Recovery Act."I'm fairly certain that this is Tarryl's feeble attempt at defending herself for literally casting the deciding vote for a major tax increase aimed straight at small business owners.
While I admit that it's an understandable tactic, that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly effective tactic. Attempting to defend yourself for doing the indefensible is difficult, if not impossible. The best way, in fact the only way, to stave off criticism for casting that deciding vote would've been to not have voted for it.
Tarryl is running an ad criticising Michele for her statements about BP. According to this article , Tarryl became the first "Democratic candidate to incorporate the issue into a television ad." In the ad, Tarryl accuses Michele of standing with BP, now with the people. The dirty little secret that Tarryl doesn't want people to notice is that Michele was fighting for President Obama to follow the rule of law rather than using threats and intimidation to 'persuade' BP to coughing up multiple fists full of dollars.
Shouldn't we demand that the people who write our laws afford everyone their constitutional protections, starting with their due process rights? Shouldn't we expect our lawmakers to avoid ends-justifies-the-means strongarm tactics?
Let's be blunt. People who don't avoid ends-justifies-the-means strongarm tactics simply can't be trusted. People who rationalize the use of ends-justifies-the-means strongarm tactics are the people who moisten a finger before making a decision. We can't afford more of those types of politicians. We've got a glut of them already.
It isn't surprising that Tarryl's going this negative this quickly. Most likely, her campaign consultants are telling her that her only chance of defeating Michele is if Tarryl keeps the attention away from Tarryl's voting record.
If word ever got out that Tarryl's got an exceptionally liberal voting record, she'd be history, at least in this district. More than anything else, that's why Tarryl started going negative that early.
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:24 AM
Comment 1 by ewj at 24-Jun-10 10:10 AM
What "rule of law" was MB fighting for?
To infer she was not defending BP is quite strange of you. Her words clearly are that BP should be tougher with the President.
Your comment about end-justifies the means is contrary to many of your posts. Just read your own "Exposing Holder's & Brennan's Incompetence" piece.
I read just about all of your posts, disagree with most, but as always love that we live in a country where people can actively disagree.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-10 10:19 AM
EJ, The courts, not President Obama's political appointee, should be monitoring who gets compensated for their losses. I want the courts divvying up that money because they aren't into the crony capitalism that most of President Obama's supporters are into.
MB as you call her was fighting for the courts to settle this dispute, determine who should get reimbursed & monitor the reimbursements. That's called due process & the rules of evidence. When those constitutional principles are applied, crony capitalism can't exist, much less flourish.
The Obama system if riddled with crony capitalist opportunities. No thank you for those 'opportunities'.
Comment 2 by Jack at 24-Jun-10 01:42 PM
First off, your comments about crony capitalism in the Obama administration are pure BS. The Obama administration can't touch either the Reagan administration of the Bush II administration in terms of doing favors for friends.
Your suggestion that Kenneth Feinberg is any less capable of distributing funds for BP settlements than he was for 9/11 settlements under Bush II is also nonsense. That's the only way to ensure compensation for those whose incomes have been trashed by BP's criminally negligent behavior. Anyone who occasionally reads a newspaper should know that Louisiana crab fishermen will have little or no chance going up against BP's corporate legal staff. Standard corporate denial and delay tactics would draw out the legal proceedings for decades.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-10 02:00 PM
Jack, Open your eyes. You think that Obama's bailout of the UAW via the GM bailout wasn't predicated on unfairly advantaging the UAW? You think that his refusal to waive the Jones Act isn't designed to help unions? You think that ARRA wasn't designed to fill the public unions' coffers?
There isn't an Obama policy that isn't predicated on helping outside-the-mainstream special interests. That's the definition of crony capitalism.
If there's proof that BP's behavior was criminal, bring it forward. If you think that BP wouldn't be willing to sign onto a court-supervised plea bargain, you're ignorant.
As for Mr. Feinberg's handling of the 9/11 settlements vs. this situation, it's comparing apples with oranges. With the victims of 9/11, Mr. Feinberg only dealt with victims of 9/11. In this situation, there's special interests that will want their fair share of the money.
Comment 3 by Jack at 24-Jun-10 03:00 PM
Gary, set aside your anti-union bias and open your eyes. The GM bailout was designed to save one of the last major U.S. manufacturing operations as well as the millions of jobs dependent on hundreds of independent GM suppliers. It's very convenient for you conservatives to sit on your hands and do nothing while Bush brought the nation to the brink of disaster and then claim that everything would be hunky-dory if only Obama had simply done nothing to pull us back from the brink.
The same for ARRA. The suggestion that it was passed mainly for the benefit of unions is bizarre. What's your evidence for that statement?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-10 10:18 PM
Part of ARRA was $4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities" & $400+ million for replanting grass on the National Mall. What's the chances of that bid going to non-union labor? Nil.
As for the UAW bailout, it wasn't to save GM. Had GM not been forced into the bailout, they wouldn't have gone out of business. They would've filed for reorganization in bankruptcy court, which they then would've used to renegotiate the UAW's pension plan.
At the time of the bailout, the 'legacy costs' were costing GM more money than their payroll. In other words, it was costing them more money to pay pensions & benefits to retirees than the people on the assembly lines.
Pull your head out of your backside & find out that the UAW was a major contributing factor to GM's demise.
As for doing nothing, that wasn't an option. Wake up & get ALL the information. The GOP put together a stimulus package that, according to CBO, cost half the money of ARRA & would've created twice as many jobs as ARRA was projected to create.
Instead, President Obama told Republicans that he'd won & he was rejecting their proposals. The economy is still crap, unemployment skyrocketed & future generations are crippled with $3 trillion worth of new debt in just a short 2 years of what we can only hope will be Obama's only term in office.
Those are verifiable facts. Get a grip Jack.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 24-Jun-10 07:30 PM
Jack:
You obviously must be a visitors to planet Earth since your post #5 doesn't make sense.
Chrysler was a UAW shop to and the government forced a foreign company to buy them. That doesn't sound like saving an American company which you site as the purpose of this bailout.
Obama in the process to do this bailout broke the rules of secured bond holders to force them to take a deal where they weren't the primary receiver of the funds and lost tremondous value.
You say this saved millions of jobs. If GM had closed Ford cars built in the United States would've gone up. Toyota built cars in the United States would've seen their sales go up. What he did was perserve UAW union jobs in states like Michigan, Ohio, Missiouri, and Wisconsin which he needed support.
Oh and he spent billions of our tax dollars to do. No wonder why he wants to steal billions of dollars from BP to fund more the government will help you crowd for their vote.
So welecome to Earth Jack.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Jack at 25-Jun-10 06:48 AM
Mr. Hanson,
Thanks for pointing out that the government did not save Chrysler. That's an excellent example disproving Mr. Gross' contention that the reason for saving GM was to save union jobs. As for your point that Chrysler was treated differently than GM, the reason for that should be fairly obvious, but if it's not, here's a hint: when was the last time Chrysler was a viable, standalone entity? You conservatives seem to have a strange way of thinking--first you decide what you want to believe, then you concoct any sort of simple-minded justification for believing as you do. Apparently jamming a square peg into a round hole is no big problem for you.
To Mr. Gross, your question about what's the chance of neigborhood stabilization going to non-union workers? first I'd say chances that the major part of that money went to union workers is pretty slim and, secondly, what's your big beef with putting union workers to work anyway? They're every bit as American as you are and they need work. By the way, how much of that ARRA money did Pawlenty use to plug the holes in his (yet another) phony atttempt at achieving a "balanced budget?"
As for that $3 trillion in new debt, most of which was spent in an effort to prevent us from falling into a Bush/Republican-precipitated Great Depression, $3 trillion is also the estimated eventual cost of Bush's attempt to conquer and colonize Iraq. And it's important to note that Obama's spending was nearly all plowed back into the U.S. economy whereas Bush's war expenses were a gigantic waste and whereas the long-term cost of caring for so many disabled U.S. vets will be a loss to the economy for many years to come.
I suggest you'd be much better off worrying about getting your own head out of your own backside, as it doesn't seem capable of doing much constructive thought tucked away in there.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jun-10 08:15 AM
Jack, Please don't be that stupid. I talked specifically about GM because GM was bailed out so they wouldn't file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections. Had GM filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protections, the courts would've allowed GM to renegotiate the UAW's pension & benefits packages.
That's the facts & you can't disprove it.
As for your apocolyptic whining about how President Bush drove us to the edge of another Great Depression, I'd say that's more than a bit overblown. In a deep recession? I'll buy that. On the verge of another Great Depression? Conquer & colonize Iraq? You can't be serious.
The money spent in ARRA and the budgets didn't get spent on the military. It got spent increasing the budgets of HHS, the Dept. of Education & other cabinet offices that deal with domestic policy.
Comment 6 by Jack at 25-Jun-10 01:04 PM
Gary, you don't have a clue what would have happened if GM went to bankruptcy. Many of those suppliers would have gone under, besides which, there is no good reason to screw the UAW out of their pensions anyway. They were negotiated by GM in straightforward labor negotiators. The notion that union members are not entitled to the same contract protections that other Americans are entitled to is completely indefensible.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jun-10 08:58 PM
Jack, With all due respect, I've read what would've happened in the opinions of top economists like Stephen Moore, Keith Hennessey & King Banaian. Don't assume what I know or don't know.
As for the benefits, the UAW negotiated them at a time when the economy was humming along. Now that Bush ran the economy into the ground & Obama has put it flat on its back, everyone is tightening their belts. Except the unions. They're essentially telling the people currently working there that they don't care what happens to them as long as they get their cut.
Don't get used to being in the majority. That'll end this November. That isn't my prediction. That's the prediction of Democratic pollsters like Doug Schoen, Peter Hart, Stan Greenberg & Patrick Caddell.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 27-Jun-10 12:52 PM
Jack:
Thank you with your posts like 8 and 10 that clearly show that you're a liar.
You tried to claim earlier that Obama had saved jobs. When you conceded my point that Chrysler was bought out (forced by the government instead of going to bankruptcy to re-work their pension and health care programs by the way) it showed that Obama did that.
As for your claim of what Bush did and what Obama did.
The spending on the war of terror might be one hundred billion per year less than a trillion dollars total. So there's a lie about the war on terror.
You claim that Bush didn't blow money back into the economy. What you fail to take into account the tax cuts by not taking the money and than allowing it to flow to where profits and productive uses will take place. If the tax cuts costs trillions by liberal standards than George Bush by your own admission flowed trillions of dollars into the economy.
The worse deficit under Bush was just $400 billion. Obama is predicting over trillion dollar deficits. Bush at least made some effort to keep spending down. Where's that Obama that said he will go over the budget and remove the waste. Oh that's right Obama is the guy who did a trillion dollar plus health care bill, a $800 billion stimulus bill, exploded spending over $4 billion dollars.
Boy you tell more whopper of lies than Obama.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will This Tide Sink the Democrats' Ship?
To say that Democrats are running into a strong wind is understatement. To say that Democrats are being further hurt by President Obama's incompetence is additional understatement. Polling conducted by Peter Hart and Bill McInturff indicates surly voters are the rule, not the exception:
Americans are more pessimistic about the state of the country and less confident in President Barack Obama's leadership than at any point since Mr. Obama entered the White House, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.The statistic that jumps out most at me is the 7-point drop in people who think the economy will improve within the next year. With the Democrats controlling everything, they're going to get blamed for not fixing the economy. Predictably, the Democrats are blaming everything on President Bush. Predictably, voters are asking "Why haven't you fixed things"?
The survey also shows grave and growing concerns about the Gulf oil spill, with overwhelming majorities of adults favoring stronger regulation of the oil industry and believing that the spill will affect the nation's economy and environment.
Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure.
Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years.
The results show "a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. "The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats."
Karl Rove's WSJ column highlights other difficulties for Democrats:
The most important indicator is the president's job approval. In the Real Clear Politics average of the last two weeks' polls, President Obama has a 48% approval and 47% disapproval rating. This points to deep Democratic losses. The president's approval rating last November was 54% when his party was trounced in New Jersey and Virginia.Right now, people are questioning President Obama's competence. People started wondering about his competence when it became obvious that the stimulus didn't revive the economy. When people saw the corruption in the MMS, coupled with the federal government's inaction in protecting Louisiana's wetlands and the Florida beaches, people wondered if this administration could solve problems.
On the economy, a mid-June AP poll reported that Mr. Obama has 45% approval, 50% disapproval. That's a dangerous place for any president when jobs are issue No. 1.
The problem is worse in swing areas. Last week's National Public Radio (NPR) poll of the 60 Democratic House seats most at risk this year showed just 37% of voters in these districts agreed Mr. Obama's "economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis and are laying a foundation for our eventual economic recovery"; 57% believed they "have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses."
Mr. Obama also suffers because his handling of the catastrophic Gulf oil leak has undermined perceptions of his competence. Both national and Louisiana polls rate Mr. Obama's handling worse than the Bush administration's Katrina response, widely viewed as a tipping point in that presidency.
Add to that the mess in Afghanistan and you've got a three-ring circus of disasters, all of which is causing people to question President Obama's competence.
Then there is the intensity gap, which is particularly important in midterms. In Gallup, 45% of Republicans are "very enthusiastic" about voting this fall versus 24% of Democrats. This staggering 22-point gap is the largest so far this election year. And in the NPR survey of 60 swing Democratic districts, 62% of Republicans rated their likelihood of voting as 10, the highest. Only 37% of Democrats were similarly excited.That's before factoring in how independents have abandoned Democrats en masse or before considering the fact that Democrats are starting to lose Democrats.
In 1994, Republicans gained a net of 52 House seats. While I won't predict a similar result this year, I won't rule it out either. Right now, voters are looking for candidates that they think are competent because they rightly see Washington as the cradle of incompetence.
The bottom line is this: If things don't dramatically shift in the next 131 days, Democrats will experience an awful election night.
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:59 AM
No comments.
Four Peas in a Liberal Pod
The people who keep touting Tom Horner as a mainstream Republican who got chased from the MNGOP because Republicans are far right extremists can't like this article , especially with Bill Salisbury reporting this:
The four gubernatorial candidates who participated in a forum Wednesday on women's issues sounded like a quartet.Intellectually honest people won't hesitate in saying Mark Dayton doesn't sound like a Republican. They simply won't. Combining that fact with Bill Salisbury's reporting that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Tom Horner and Mark Dayton leads to only one conclusion: that Tom Horner is as liberal as any of the DFL gubernatorial candidates.
The group, DFL candidates Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza and Margaret Anderson Kelliher and Independence Party endorsee Tom Horner, were all singing the same tune during an appearance before a predominantly female crowd at the downtown Minneapolis YWCA.
This information dispels the notion that Republican Party politicians are too far right. Tom Horner is who he's always been: a liberal who chose to call himself a Republican.
The candidates who showed up all favored spending more on early-childhood education, enforcing pay equity laws more strictly, cracking down on sex trafficking and providing financial aid for victims of domestic violence.Where's the difference between Horner and the other liberals? That's a straightforward question that the DFL won't answer. Instead of giving a straightforward answer on it, they'll likely continue saying that Tom Horner is a good Republican who got run out of a party that's moved too far right.
They agreed far too many children arrive at kindergarten unprepared to succeed, which leads to failure and expensive remedial classes later.
Entenza and Horner cautioned that the next governor's first job will be to erase a projected $5.8 billion budget deficit.
After getting the deficit under control, Entenza said, early-childhood education would be a top priority.
Horner echoed that sentiment. "My No. 1 priority, the first dollar we spend ought to go into early-childhood education."
Declaring, "I am passionate about early-childhood education," Kelliher went a step further, promising to seek a dedicated source of funding that could only be spent on educating children from birth to age 5.
Dayton said while he and the other candidates are in "rhetorical agreement" on the issue, he's willing to raise taxes to pay for preschool programs. "It is about priorities...and it is about money," he said, "and that's why I've committed more than any other candidate by far to raising revenue, principally by raising taxes on the richest Minnesotans and making them pay their fair share of taxes, so we can take Minnesota away from being last to first" in early-childhood education.
There's just one problem with that DFL storyline: it's utter nonsense. There's more truth to the fact that today's DFL will say or do anything, whether there's a hint of truth to the statement or not, to keep or gain power. Truthfulness is incidental in their minds most of the time.
That's why Tom Emmer will win this November. Unlike the DFL's slick maneuvering, with Sen. Dayton being the exception, Tom Emmer will openly talk about his positive agenda for Minnesota. Tom will openly talk about the need to have government do the essentials well and for government to get out of the way the rest of the time.
Tom's positions are main street positions, though the DFL would have you believe that they're extremist positions. When the Republicans' statewide candidates (Emmer, Meeks, Severson, Anderson and Barden) take their Unity Tour next week, people will hear firsthand that these are common sense-filled candidates that relate easily to Minnesota's Main Street priorities.
That's a claim the 4 liberal peas in a liberal pod can't say.
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:02 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Jun-10 12:53 PM
Tom Emmer should especially in the debates where Horner shows up should always refer to them as Democrat Horner. That's what Horner is.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
