June 23-25, 2009
Jun 24 00:23 Big Spending vs. Real Solutions Jun 23 20:52 And The Leader Is... Jun 23 03:52 The Most Expensive Reform In U.S. History? Jun 24 02:54 Mr. Krinkie Joins the Fight Jun 24 10:59 National Energy Tax Notes Jun 24 14:44 Tarryl's Fabrications Jun 25 00:02 Good Luck Michael Jun 25 06:40 Finishing Tarryl's E-Letter Off
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
The Most Expensive Reform In U.S. History?
Max Baucus and his allies are attempting to shove the most expensive 'reform' down our throats. They must be defeated because we can't afford it. Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, (R-AR), is skeptical of the single-payer plan:
Former Rep. Asa Hutchinson warned those at the event of the costs of some proposed health care reform bills. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one bill drafted by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would cost more than $1.5 trillion to implement.The Obama administration has already buried us in tons of debt thanks to his budget, the omnibus spending bill and with his stimulus bill. Now he wants to dump several more tons of debt on us for health care reform that will deliver an inferior product to the American people?
"They talk about a $1 trillion price tag, and then they try to...tell you they're not going to raise taxes but will save $1 trillion by increased efficiencies," Hutchinson said. "Do you all believe that can happen with a government-run program? I don't think that can happen."
Only in Washington, DC could something be called reform when it delivers an inferior product at a higher price. That's what's happening here. This isn't speculation, either. That's what Rep. Charles Boustany told me about his dealings with the Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracies when he was a heart surgeon.
Another thing that's guaranteed with any health care bill that Ted Kennedfy or Nancy Pelosi writes: tons of costly mandates. When I interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan , I asked him about the negative impact that government mandates have. Here's what he said on that:
Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?That's a no-brainer. We can either let a bureaucrat decide what's the best health insurance policy for us or we let the health care consumer and their physician decide what's best. In every type of product, custom made is superior to one-size-fits-all.
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions ; and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
Why should we settle for Ted Kennedy's one-size-fits-all plan when we have Paul Ryan's custom built plan available?
Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:56 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Jun-09 06:42 AM
We have a health care "system" that costs too much because people cannot tailor coverage to their own individual needs, and insurers have to deal with too many government mandates. so our solution is to create a new national system that applies to EVERYBODY, and has even more mandates, run by a government bureaucracy with no accountability?
Comment 2 by Ben at 23-Jun-09 08:30 AM
Is anyone protesting ABC's prime-time infomercial for Obamacare at KSTP TV tomorrow?
Big Spending vs. Real Solutions
Yesterday, President Obama held a press conference in which he recited the same tired litany of rationalizations that he always gives. After President Obama's snoozer, House GOP Leader John Boehner used the opportunity to contrast President Obama's fiscally irresponsible plan with the House GOP's plan to re-invigorate the economy:
Our nation has lost nearly three million jobs this year, yet the President did not lay out a clear path for how his Administration will keep its promise to create jobs for middle-class families and small businesses. House Republicans have offered better solutions to create jobs, control spending, and curb the debt. Unfortunately, Democrats have taken a go-it-alone approach, choosing old-style Washington politics over the new way Americans expected after the last election.Ed Morrissey has a devastating live blog account of President Obama's presser. Here's one of Ed's best zingers:
Today the President again claimed that the Democrats' government takeover of health care would not force Americans off of their current plans, yet independent analysts have reported that at least 23 million Americans would lose their coverage under the bill drafted by Senate Democrats. House Republicans have introduced a better alternative to make health care more affordable and accessible, ensure that Americans can keep their health plan, and keep doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats, in charge of critical and personal medical decisions.
It is unfortunate, at a time when millions of Americans are struggling in today's economy, that the President would continue to support a national energy tax that will ship millions of American jobs overseas and force Americans to pay energy costs that he has acknowledged will 'skyrocket.' The House GOP's 'all of the above' energy plan will create more jobs, lower energy costs, and clean up our air and water.
The President continues to underscore the need for all stakeholders to have a seat at the table as we craft key reforms in Washington. I hope Democrats in Congress hear that message and work with Republicans to expand affordable health care, forge a cleaner and more reliable energy future, and create more jobs for middle-class families and small businesses.
13:02 - Tapper notes Obama's "Spock-like" answer on the public plan, and challenges him on employer retreat on private plans. Instead of answering, Obama first asks Tapper if he's making fun of his ears with the Spock reference. Obama says that a public plan that "feeds at the public trough" would do that, but that a public plan can deliver better administrative performance. Er, then please explain Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.Here's Ed's best zinger:
13:13 - Do we need a second stimulus package? "Not yet,we need to see how effective the first stimulus will be." Obama also says that no one predicted how bad the economy would tank, but in fact, many people did , and said that big-government programs wouldn't help in any case.BINGO on all counts. There wasn't a shortage of people who predicted that the stimulus bill wouldn't provide a jolt to the economy. At one point, I ridiculed it by saying that it was more honest to call it PAPA, aka the Political Allies Payoff Act.
Economists weren't the only people predicting ARRA's failure, though it's fair to say that none of the people predicting ARRA's failure were Obama apologists.
The Obama administration can't afford another stimulus bill from a PR standpoint. Passing another stimulus bill would be an admission that their policies have completely failed. It's the political equivalent of throwing one's hands up in the air and yelling. People would notice that admission. They wouldn't think Hopenchange at that point. They'd be thinking panic and anger; panic over what direction the country is heading in and anger for having been duped by a smooth-talking lightweight.
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:24 AM
No comments.
And The Leader Is...
Kurt Zoellers has just been elected to replace Marty Seifert as the House GOP Leader. Congratulations to Kurt. I'm confident he'll do a great job in his new job.
Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:52 PM
No comments.
Mr. Krinkie Joins the Fight
Phil Krinkie has dealt with alot of budget issues in his lifetime. Now that DFL legislators and DFL gubernatorial candidates are whining, Mr. Krinkie has opted to critique their whining in this article . One of his first critiques is of my senator, Tarryl Clark:
Next up was the chief whiner for the Senate DFL Majority Caucus, Sen. Tarryl Clark, referring to the governor saying: "He's not a czar, he's not an emperor, he's not a grand poo-bah." This after the Legislature spent five months in St. Paul and couldn't produce a balanced budget.Tarryl played a significant part in the DFL leadership's anti-reform agenda. Tarryl voted for budget cuts but she didn't propose any sweeping reform initiatives that would've saved taxpayers money while keeping service levels high.
Anyone can cut spending. It takes innovation to find ways to save money while keeping service levels high. If there's anything that's missing from the DFL leadership, it's innovation.
What is all the whining really about?Last week, Tom Hanson got under Larry Pogemiller's skin by asking him what the difference was between Gov. Pawlenty's shifts and the DFL's shifts. Sen. Pogemiller didn't like that because he had a temper tantrum right during the hearing. Sen. Pogemiller tried intimidating Hanson but Hanson wasn't having any of that. Now Phil Krinkie is making the case that these accounting shifts have been happening for some time.
1. The $1.77 billion K-12 Education Shift: This accounting gimmick has been around since the state ran into budget problems in the early 1980s. Instead of making payments to school districts in June, payments are delayed until August. The payment delay has been used several times in the past and was even included in the DFL's legislation passed this Session. Let's stop whining about this! It's become an accepted practice in the halls of the Capitol.
The DFL isn't the party of ideas. I'd argue that they're the party that won't say no to their allies. EVER. The DFL is the political party of the perpetual spending binge mentality.
I don't see that image playing well in 2010. In fact, I think that image will be toxic by the year's end.
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:54 AM
No comments.
National Energy Tax Notes
Speaker Pelosi has scheduled a vote on the National Energy Tax for this Friday. The Hill Magazine is reporting that this is one of the riskiest moves of her tenure as Speaker. I'd say that the details of the legislation tell us that this is all about the tax increase because it isn't about the environment:
Democratic aides said leaders had been building up to this decision as they monitored negotiations between Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) over the weekend.By giving the Agriculture Department the authority to "develop and monitor offset and land use provisions the legislation creates", the Democrats are admitting that their primary goal isn't cleaning up the environment, that it's really about increasing taxes on people that they don't agree with.
At press time, Waxman and Peterson emerged from a meeting with the Blue Dog Coalition and announced that they reached an agreement. "We have something that I think works for agriculture," Peterson said.
The crux of the deal is a concession from Waxman to allow the Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop and monitor offset and land use provisions the legislation creates. Waxman said he would not only retain the votes of the environmentalists, but also gain votes from those who represent the agriculture community.
I've said from the outset that the National Energy Tax wasn't about the environment, something that Bob Weisman verified with this quote:
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."This won't play well for Democrats politically. For instance, how do you think Michigan or Ohio voters will respond to rising home heating bills while they're unemployed and while their states are running deficits that limit how much help they'll be able to provide for people?
Andy's right in saying that the media will never be able to accurately call Collin Peterson a moderate again . He struck a deal essentially to stay out of Nancy's doghouse. Collin Peterson has tried portraying himself as a reasonable moderate. There's proof in his voting record that he's nothing more than Pelosi's lapdog.
Earlier this year, Peterson opposed Pelosi on the stimulus bill, something that said he opposed wasteful spending. Now we've got proof that he's opposed to wasteful spending but that he doesn't have a problem voting for massive tax increases. If that's the definition of a moderate Democrat, then I'd rather side with rabid right wing ideologues. At least I'd know that I wouldn't get killed with tax increases.
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:01 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's Fabrications
I just skimmed through Tarryl Clark's latest e-update . In it, she made some misstatements that need correcting. Here's the first misstatement needing correction:
It has been just over one month since the Governor announced he was ending negotiations and would go it alone on budget cuts.It's patently false to say that Gov. Pawlenty's statement was the end of negotiating because negotiations took place throughout the weekend. Just because Tarryl didn't like what she heard during those negotiations doesn't mean that the negotiations didn't happen . Rejecting his counterproposals isn't proof that negotiations ended during Gov. Pawlenty's press conference.
It's obvious that the DFL leadership didn't expect Gov. Pawlenty to be the adult who would do what Minnesota's Constitution mandates. The DFL leadership didn't expect Gov. Pawlenty to tell them that he was tired of the stunts that they were playing.
Let's remember that the only balanced budget that the DFL put together and passed didn't pass the legislature until there were only minutes left in the session. Let's remember that Sen. Bakk's tax increase bill still would've left Minnesota with a $500,000,000 deficit. Rep. Lenczewski's tax increase bill would've left Minnesota with a $1,200,000,000 deficit. The initial conference committee report would've left Minnesota with a $1,700,000,000 deficit.
If the DFL wanted to be taken seriously, they should've put a serious proposal on the table before the clock was about to expire. If the DFL wanted to be taken seriously, the DFL shouldn't have played for a special session and a government shutdown. The dirty little 'secret' is that they were hoping to force a special session in the hopes of forcing Gov. Pawlenty into accepting a massive tax increase.
What Gov. Pawlenty did with his press conference was that he put a shot across the DFL leadership's bow by saying he was taking their negotiating gun out of their hands. He said that the DFL's games were scuttled.
Here's another interesting thing that Tarryl said:
Unallotment is meant to be a scalpel, not an ax and it is meant to be used at the end of the two-year budget cycle, not the beginning. It is for unanticipated budget shortfalls, not ones created by vetoes and a refusal to negotiate.Again Tarryl plays the 'Gov. Pawlenty refused to negotiate' card. That's a fabrication. That's pure spin. It's provably false because he made a counterproposal after the news conference that the DFL rejected. Tony Sertich characterized the counterproposal as not being a serious counteroffer.
Tarryl says that unallotment "is meant to be a scalpel" that shouldn't be used except in the final year of the biennium. The statute doesn't have language in it that would indicate that. Quite the contrary :
Subd. 4.Reduction.(a) If the commissioner determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed , the commissioner shall , with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the Legislative Advisory Commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.I'm pretty certain that there isn't anything in the unallotment provision that says it's only supposed to be used at the end of the biennium. I'm pretty certain that the part that says it can be used if "the commissioner determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated." It further states that the commmissioner can't use this authority unless he's received the governor's approval or until he's consulted with the Legislative Advisory Commission.
Commissioner Hanson got Gov. Pawlenty's approval. Commissioner Hanson then consulted with the LAC last week. In fact, during that meeting, he and Sen. Pogemiller had a spirited exchange on Gov. Pawlenty's deferred payments to K-12 education vs. the DFL's deferred payments to K-12 education.
Here's another bit of Tarryl's spin that needs debunking:
And make no mistake the Governor's cuts will cost us jobs across the state, jobs in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and colleges. Police and fire will be reduced and libraries and parks will not be spared. And in the end the cuts alone won't be enough. This year for the first time Minnesotans will pay more in property taxes than income taxes. That is a direct result of this Governor's policies and the Governor's unilateral cuts will only make it worse.Any city council or mayor that cuts public safety first shouldn't hold their jobs beyond the next election. In fact, council members or mayors that start by cutting public safety budgets should be forced to resign ASAP because they've proven that they can't make thoughtful decisions.
The DFL has made repeated efforts to say that Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments will trigger immediate, dramatic increases in property taxes. Mayor Les Heitke and Mayor Dave Kleis are proof that setting the right priorities will allow them to weather a storm without raising property taxes or cutting public safety. Hospitals, clinics and nursing homes are capable of setting thoughtful priorities, too. They should do so so that they don't have to cut jobs.
Instead of laying people off, perhaps these employees would be willing to accept a plan where they're furloughed for a short period of time like 1 or 2 weeks. There are probably other ways of keeping these people employed. It's time that the DFL thinks that a cut of any sort automatically leads to their preconceived notions.
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:44 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 24-Jun-09 06:43 PM
At the risk of over-slicing her baloney, one more time on this scalpel vs axe metaphor. The constitution simply says you can't bounce checks. Unallotment, yes, allows this to be done more thoughtfully, but it must be done. Whether done by 1000 scalpel nicks or 10 axe cuts, the total effect must be the same.
The size of the deficit was the DFL's choice, so if anything, it was Taryl Clark that chose the unallotment tool, not Pawlenty.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Jun-09 06:59 PM
Bingo!!! Let's deal with reality. Had there been some question on whether the budget would balance, then I would've recommended that Gov. Pawlenty hold off on unallotment, though I'm positive that he would've done that without my advice.
This wasn't a close call. When the spending bills equal $34,000,000,000 & expected revenue was $30,700,000,000, it's not exactly going out on a limb.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Jun-09 10:08 AM
He could unallot the Lt. Guv, and nobody'd miss her. That would be a saving.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jun-09 10:34 AM
Using that logic, Minnesota would be better off if he unalloted Lori Swanson & Mark Ritchie so Swanson couldn't terrorize her employees & Ritchie couldn't sit idly by while watching St. Louis County & Hennepin County use one standard for accepting absentee ballot & watching Stearns County use the right standards.
Good Luck Michael
By now, I'm sure that the word has spread that Mr. Minnesota Democrats Exposed, Michael Brodkorb, will be making his last post next Tuesday, June 30.
To say that Michael isn't loved by everyone is, of course, understatement. Liberals hate him because of the misery he's caused. (I'm not sure Matt Entenza doesn't flinch when he hears Michael's name.) Some Republicans have had heated disagreements with him, too.
What nobody can say, though, is that Michael hasn't impacted Minnesota politics. Regardless of what your opinion is of Michael, there's no questioning whether Michael gave it his all in getting as many Republicans elected as possible. Starting July 1, getting as many Republicans elected as possible will become part of his official responsibilities.
I wish Michael, and Tony, the best of luck in turning their responsibilities into realities. They'll need our help and our hard work. I, for one, pledge to give them my best. So may we all.
Good luck Michael. I hope you're successful in your new job.
Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:02 AM
Comment 1 by MDE Exposer at 25-Jun-09 05:17 AM
I wonder if Michael's successor will continue to allow death threats and links to kiddie porn to be posted on MDE?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Jun-09 10:04 AM
I posted on a comment over there, I believe he was right and the judge wrong in his litigation with Blois Olson, that it was a SLAPP suit if the statutory remedy is braodly interpreted and the qualifying status is read in light of the evils that the legislation, Minn. Stat. Ch. 554, was intended to correct. Bloggers should be protected from SLAPPs. You included of course, Gary. What you are doing is "public participation" in the most general and favorable sense of the word - enen when I disagree and carp.
This link to the statute Brodkorb pursued but lost on:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=554
The judge ruled he and blogging were outside of the coverage. At one point he had litigation papers posted on the MDE blog.
I don't know if he tendered his defense, ever, to Mike Hatch, per Sect. 554, subd. 2(4). I doubt it.
Comment 3 by Bats Right, Throws Right at 25-Jun-09 09:24 PM
Eric, didn't Brodkorb win that case. Blois certianly failed at silencing him, but Brodkorb's identity was disclosed.
Now, looking at "MDE Exposer's" post above yours - that's a use of slander to threaten and intimidate. Isn't it Tommy Johnson?
Finishing Tarryl's E-Letter Off
Yesterday, I dissected Tarryl's e-letter update in this post . Though I stand by the things I said, despite the objections of a lefty blogger who shall remain nameless, there are a couple things I'd intended to address that I'll address in this post. The first thing that I'll address is this statement:
Unallotment is meant to be a scalpel, not an ax and it is meant to be used at the end of the two-year budget cycle, not the beginning. It is for unanticipated budget shortfalls, not ones created by vetoes and a refusal to negotiate.While it's true that Gov. Pawlenty's unallotment is the biggest in state history, it's worth pointing out that the DFL leadership's lack of seriousness in solving the deficit is unprecedented, too.
It isn't accurate to say that the DFL didn't submit a balanced budget. It's accurate, though, to say that the first balanced budget they submitted to Gov. Pawlenty passed the Senate with minutes left in the session. It's equally accurate to say that the Tax Bill that passed was a hodgepodge bill, filled with a litany of tax increases and spending shifts.
That final bill was such a mess that veteran journalists like Tom Hauser let people know that he didn't take it seriously by telling people watching his At Issue show that there still was a $2,700,000,000 deficit that Gov. Pawlenty had to deal with.
Tom Hanson noted in this letter that, even with the tax increase that was passed with minutes left to go in the session, there would be a significant shortfall with just tax increases:
Dear Governor Pawlenty:According to the text of HF2323 , the Conference Committee report included significant shifts for K-12 education. The bill was so bad that Rep. Pelowski, (DFL-Winona), and Rep. Poppe, (DFL-Freeborn), joined with the House GOP in voting against it.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of reductions necessary to balance the state's general fund budget for the upcoming biennium. Based on the recently completed general fund statement, the enacted budget spends a projected $2.676 billion more than available for fiscal years 2010-11. No budget reserve remains to help mitigate this shortfall.
In other words, a thoughtful argument can be made that Gov. Pawlenty's actions are justified because the DFL didn't meet its constitutional requirements. I've been watching Minnesota politics a long time but I've never heard of the legislature not passing a budget that didn't balance before the end of session.
In other words, extroardinary situations require extraordinary actions.
Here's another section of Tarryl's e-letter that needs scrutinizing:
The Governor is trying to mimic a shift normally done by the legislature, but his efforts are not the real thing. The legislature must act to restore those funds or the shifts become cuts and districts are left holding the bag. Taken together the loss of federal funds and the need to repay the districts will reopen a gaping shortfall of $4.9 billion, $7.3 with inflation, in the state's budget. This is a fiscal mess the Governor's plan leaves for a future governor and legislature.First, the DFL legislature did pass a set of shifts to K-12 education. They're part of HF2323, the last bill passed in the 2009 session. Second, the DFL leadership wasn't bashful about using one-time money to balance the budget:
DFLers are pinning much of their hope for short-term relief on a national stimulus package coming out of Washington , suggesting the money can be used to fund infrastructure and construction projects that bring immediate job opportunities.That was in an article written in late January by the Strib's Mark Brunswick. Now Tarryl is complaining that Gov. Pawlenty is using one-time money to solve this biennium's deficit. Frankly, it's time that Tarryl and the rest of her DFL cohorts figured out better arguments because these arguments are intellectually feeble.
Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Jun-09 07:04 AM
I'm still just totally baffled by this "money coming out of Washington" BS. How did the money GET to Washington in the first place, and if it never got there, how can Washington be doling it out? How can Minnesota, or any other state, balance a real budget with fictitious dollars?
Comment 2 by R-Five at 25-Jun-09 06:06 PM
Just who is Taryl Clark or any politician to decry how the unallotment law was intended to be used? I'm sure those who wrote it those many decades ago never anticipated the level of fiscal irresponsibility the DFL has adopted.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jun-09 08:20 PM
BINGO!!! The Constitution says that the legislature has to pass a balanced budget. The DFL did their best to avoid doing that. Now they're whining because their tactic backfired.
They won't get any pity from me. They tried something risky & it failed. When you play a high-risk, high-reward gambit, you have to accept the consequences when the risk doesn't pay off.
