March 10-11, 2007
Mar 10 10:08 Why Rudy? Mar 10 13:50 Tim Walz: Independent Voice In Washington? Mar 10 15:04 This Is Fiscal Moderation? Mar 11 08:06 Now We're Starving Transportation? Mar 11 11:12 Grab Your Wallets ( Still Ongoing) Mar 11 12:29 Strib Doing the DFL's Dirty Work Mar 11 18:23 Reporters, Democrats Left Without Plan B
Prior Years: 2006
Why Rudy?
That's the title of Salena Zito's latest column, a must read if ever I saw one. Salena starts her column by interviewing conservative heavyweight Rick Santorum on why Rudy's leading at this point. Here's Santorum's answer:
"It appears to me that Rudy is going aggressively after the conservative vote," says Pennsylvania Republican and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. "He has not ceded that ground to anybody."Rush has said that "The difference between Giuliani and McCain is that McCain's been running for president, Giuliani's been running for the Republican nomination." Based on Sen. Santorum's quote, I'd say that Rush's analysis is spot on, which is as surprising as finding out that Bill Gates made more money last year.
Santorum, known nationally for his social conservatism, says Giuliani does a good job of reminding people how he governed as a conservative on crime, welfare and taxes in New York City.
The truth is that Rudy's won social conservatives like myself because he's promised to appoint Supreme Court justices in the Scalia-Thomas-Alito mold and because he's given a compelling explanation for fighting the jihadists. He's also won conservatives over by showing that he understands the need to defeat the jihadists. As Ms. Zito explains, there's lots of reasons to vote for Rudy. Here's some more:
Speaking recently to members of the Hoover Institution here, Giuliani explained his positions on tax simplification, entitlement reform and school choice. That same night, he traveled to the heart of Virginia -- a troubled red state that is leaning blue.After last November's election, I was upset by the ideology-free campaign that Republicans waged. Rudy's saying that "I try as best as I can to explain my ideas of governing" is music to this conservative's ears. I've had lots of conversations with Republicans, including activists, legislators and staffers, where I've told them that conservatism, when explained properly and passionately, is still the dominant force in politics today.
Later he told me how important it is that his campaign be idea-driven.
"When I speak, I try as best as I can to explain my ideas of governing," he said. "Take the members of the Hoover Institution. I think of them as a group that has done an exceptional job, changing the intellectual climate of the country. They have made it possible for ideas that would generally be considered to be too conservative to actually become mainstream, acceptable ideas about cutting taxes, supply-side economics and fiscal discipline."
I've also told these people that I'll gladly fight the good fight but I need ammunition, the more the better. Based on Rudy's quote to Ms. Zito, Rudy would give me ammunition galore in fighting for his candidacy. It sounds like he isn't bashful about touting his conservative credentials, which will win over conservatives, too.
Back in 2000, Mark Shields said that Republicans donating money to Rudy so he could defeat Hillary were doing so even though there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two. That's pure hogwash. As we've seen, Hillary has adopted so many different positions on the Iraq War because it's all about staying on the right side of the polling for her. That isn't leadership. That's what you do if your goal is to hide your true beliefs long enough to get elected.
That stands in stark contrast to Rudy's public statements. He's outlined his beliefs and stuck to them. He hasn't changed his beliefs just because the polls tell him that the war is unpopular. Instead, he's explained his ideas in the hope of winning people over to his side.
In his introduction of Hizzoner, George Will said that Rudy was "a man for whom pugnacity was a political philosophy." That's exactly what we need in our next Republican president. George Bush is a fine man and I'm grateful that he's twice been elected president rather than John Kerry and Al Gore but he's turned the other cheek far too often to inspire movement conservatives. Based on what we're seeing, turning the other cheek won't be part of Rudy's governing style.
That's why I'll enthusiastically support Rudy all the way to his inauguration.
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:09 AM
No comments.
Tim Walz: Independent Voice In Washington?
Anyone who remembers last fall's campaign remembers Tim Walz saying that he'd be "an independent voice in Washington." Except that he's been anything but independent since getting there. If truth in advertising laws applied to politicians, Walz' campaign theme would have to be changed to "Nancy Pelosi's lapdog" or perhaps "Tim Walz: I do what I'm told". Here's more proof of Walz' vanishing independent streak:
Rep. Tim Walz, (D-MN), said Friday that he would vote for the House Democratic leadership's proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq if the measure stays in its current form. The leadership revealed its proposal Thursday, and the Congressional Progressive and the Out of Iraq caucuses offered an amendment to it. The leadership proposal would require troops to withdraw by fall 2008 and included benchmarks for the Iraqis.I don't recall Tim Walz voting against anything that the House leadership has proposed. If anyone remembers something that he's voted against Ms. Pelosi's wishes, feel free to make a comment correcting me. I'd be hard pressed to agree that he represents MN-1's dominant beliefs. In fact, I'd say it's impossible to make that case. This time, he won't be running in a strong anti-Republican year. This time, he'll have a radical voting record to defend. This time, he'll be defeated by Dick Day.
Frankly, I think that there's alot of Tim Walz-like Democrats, i.e. Democrats who won because of the anti-Republican fervor sitting in Republican districts, who won't win a second term. I suspect that Nick Lampson won't win re-election in Tom DeLay's old district. I'd bet that Tim Mahoney won't win re-election in Mark Foley's old district.
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:50 PM
No comments.
This Is Fiscal Moderation?
We all remember Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's quote that " We're a fiscally moderate caucus." If you're like me, we got a hearty chuckle out of that quote. Now that their 'moderation' is taking the form of legislation, it's time to change our disposition from one of amusement to one of total seriousness. Here's the legislation that should strip the facade of fiscal moderation away from the House DFL:
Late in the day, Early Childhood Learning Finance Division met, and heard a bill chief authored by the division's chair, Rep. Nora Slawik. The bill addresses child care needs to such a great extent that the cost to Minnesota taxpayers goes from $140.5 million in the first biennium, to a whopping $723 million in the fourth year. That would more than eat up ALL the surplus revenue!Sorry that I don't have a House File number for the bill. That said, this is the type of legislation that we'd better beware of because I'm betting that Democrats will load the budget up with a number of these types of bills. Think of them as 'Trojan Horse' legislation: legislation that looks somewhat reasonable until you look at the details. In this instance, the bill's initial cost is $35 million the first year, $105+ million the second year, $300+ million the third year & $723 million the fourth year.
In other words, the first biennium cost is $140.5 million. The second biennium cost to taxpayers is in excess of $1 billion. Yes, that's BILLION. That's a 700 percent growth in spending. Anyone's paycheck increasing that fast?
In committee, Steve Gottwalt asked this simple question: "How will we pay for this."
Rep. Slawik gave this simple, chilling answer:
"These are the needs and maybe we need to start talking about "tax increases" to pay for these things."Frankly, Slawik's answer should send a chill down every taxpayer's spine. The reason why it should is because this type of reckless spending will create a new budget deficit.
When Gov. Pawlenty was inaugurated, the state faced a $4.6 billion deficit. Following that disaster, the state returned to what's best described as a right-sized budget. Think of it as the government equivalent of a stock market correction. In other words, we returned to a budget sanity. Now that we've got a surplus, Democrats like Rep. Slawik are asking for us to be taxed more so they can spend us into another deficit.
That isn't fiscal moderation. It's fiscal insanity. It's time we ran these spendaholics out of the legislature before they've picked our pockets clean. We can't afford this level of "fiscal moderation."
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:04 PM
No comments.
Now We're Starving Transportation?
Friday, I posted Sen. Sandy Pappas' quote that " We are starving higher education." According to this Strib article, I find out that we're starving transportation, too. Here's how I know that we're starving transportation:
Prominent road and transit advocates say the state is running $1.7 billion a year behind on its transportation needs.This is what the Strib calls reporting? This is the DFL's basis for raiding our pocketbooks? This is disgusting. The DFL & the Strib should be ashamed of themselves. Since when is it wise to base our needs on what "advocates" say we should be spending? Give me a break. This isn't the first time we've heard that an advocate has testified that spending must increase:
Many economists have questioned the exclusion of inflation in Minnesota's budget forecasts. Paul Anton, a member of Minnesota's Council of Economic Advisers and the chief economist for the research unit of St. Paul's Wilder Foundation, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that he believed that if the Legislature did not pass this bill legislators would be "making a conscious and deliberate choice to mislead the public about the true financial condition of the State of Minnesota."According to conversations I've had with economists, Anton shouldn't be on the MCEA because he's an advocate, not an economist. Look at Anton's claim that if the legislature didn't pass a bill with an inflation escalator, they'd be "making a conscious and deliberate choice to mislead the public about the true financial condition of the State of Minnesota." Compare that with this statement:
Pogemiller has been noncommittal this session. What DFLers want most, he said, is an "honest accounting" of state finances. Spending targets released last week remain within the state's forecasted revenues and, he said, give everyone a good look at what's affordable without tax increases. "If they want more spending," Pogemiller said, "members will have to propose new revenue."Larry Pogemiller & Paul Anton, two advocates of dramatically higher spending, both infer that Minnesotans aren't being told the truth about Minnesota's financial health, inferring that Gov. Pawlenty & House & Senate Republicans are deceiving the public. Mr. Pogemiller's behavior is as shameless as it is predictable. The budget forecast has been shown to be very accurate. Furthermore, here's what King Banaian, a real economist, said about Mr. Anton's statement:
That is a misleading statement. The governor is following the law. The law was passed by the Legislature. Why? As I posted before, it's only a misimpression if you think a government spending program is entitled to meet the same level of activity, not just the same level of dollars, as was once voted. Each Legislature is therefore able to tie the hands of future Legislatures to that level of service. Who's doing the misleading?Here's what King said about the bill:
The bill should be rejected -- the current system actually works quite well, protecting almost all of government spending while allowing gradual adjustment of the budget to shifting priorities.What's equally bothersome is that a Republican has thrown in with them:
"All I know is that if we don't get a transportation bill passed, we're going to come back [after the 2008 election] with a lot less members in the Republican caucus," said Rep. Ron Erhardt, R-Edina, sponsor of the gas tax and the half-cent sales tax for transit.It sounds like the Twin Cities' legislators of all stripes are bent on dramatically increasing transportation spending. Rest assured that the vast majority of that increased spending will be spent in the Twin Cities, too. What should tell you that these legislators are making the numbers up as they go is that the DoT said, in January, they needed an additional $1 billion of funding. The Strib article quotes "prominent road and transit advocates" as saying we need an additional $1.7 billion annually.
Here's a set of questions that taxpayers should be asking of their legislators:
- What are you basing your projections on?
- How many road construction projects were suggested? Of those suggested, how many made it onto the list of needs?
- Why should Minnesota taxpayers accept as needs the DoT's wishlist?
Minnesotans continue to be concerned about their state and local tax burden.In other words, the GOP is on the side of the taxpayers by standing up to the DFL's demands for increased taxes. In fact, I'd bet that lots of people would flock to the GOP if they promised & delivered property tax cuts. Here's another poll question that should bolster our position:
In this survey, 54% percent of Minnesotans stated that the state's tax burden is too high , 42% believe it is just right and 2% believe the state's tax burden is too low. Meanwhile, 47% percent of Minnesotans report taxes and fees are growing faster than their income, 36% report their taxes and fees are growing (but not as fast as their income) while 9% reported taxes are going down compared to their income. Of those who reported their tax burden is increasing, 84% identify property taxes as the leading cause of those increases.
Minnesotans continue to support solving the past state budget deficits without raising taxes.Of course, this poll won't stop the DFL from proposing vast new amounts of spending & taxation.
By a margin of 70-28%, Minnesotans agree that the Governor and Legislature were right to try to avoid general tax increases while dealing with the budget deficit. This support cuts across party lines; for instance, a majority of self-identified Democrats (59-39%) and Liberals (55-44%) continue to support this approach to solving the recent state budget deficit. Of the 28% who disagree with this approach, less than half say important state programs were cut as a result of not raising taxes.
Thankfully, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has promised a veto of any tax increases.
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:06 AM
No comments.
Grab Your Wallets ( Still Ongoing)
Earlier today, I wrote something about the Strib's article on the impending onslaught of DFL tax increase legislation. As much as I wrote on the subject, I didn't nearly cover everything in the Strib article. Let's return to the article:
A budget stretched thinThink of the dilemma that they've just described. There's only one sentence that you need to focus on: "interest groups that say their turn has finally come." That tells you everything you need to know. These groups think that they can propose any legislation they want & get their wishlist accommodated because they've got the votes. This is the line that says the DFL is being pushed into spendaholic territory by supportive special interest groups.
DFL leaders in both houses remain wary of tax increases. Kelliher is contending with a fractious majority that includes new swing-district suburbanites, old-timers starved from eight years in the minority and interest groups that say their turn has finally come.
Frankly, that paragraph tells me that Democrats don't really know how to say no. On anything. I can't honestly say that they've never met a spending increase they didn't like because they seem to hate any spending increase that Republicans make. (So much for the spirit of bipartisanship, huh?)I can honestly say that the DFL has never met a DFL-sponsored spending increase that they didn't like.
But that would leave just a little more than $500 million in new spending for everything else in the state.Ms. Murphy, which people asked you if you'd support tax increases? Were they strong liberal activists & lobbyists? More to the point, why would you support increasing taxes when we've got a huge surplus? I know that the DFL is saying that this $2.16 billion surplus is illusionary but you can't really think that, can you? I can't imagine you say that behind closed doors, like when you hold your caucus meetings.
That prospect doesn't sit well with representatives such as Erin Murphy, a freshman DFLer from St. Paul. "When I ran, people asked me, 'Are you willing to support a tax increase?'" Murphy said. "I said yes, if the money would go toward education and health care and roads and property taxes."
Let's be clear about something else, too. These spending rates are only sustainable when we're enjoying economic growth. We'll return to massive deficits the minute we hit a recession. Shouldn't we consider that we can't spend like this if we don't want to deal with massive tax increases AND budget cuts every few years?
Think about something else: The DFL has proposed legislation that starts with modest initial 'investments' in the first biennium so that it can be justified to voters in 2008. Nora Slawik's child care legislation is a perfect example of this. The first biennium's bill to taxpayers is a sizable $140.5 million. The taxpayers' bill for the second biennium is over $1 billion. I've nicknamed that type of legislation 'Trojan Horse legislation'. King calls that legislation with "lots of junk in the trunk".
Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, said that part of the reason DFLers appear so divided on tax increases is the political danger they carry. "It's hard to raise taxes," Huntley said Friday. "We know what needs to be done. We can't do most of what needs to be done on health care without a tax increase. But it takes a lot of political courage."Rep. Huntley is partially right. Raising taxes is politically risky. He's wrong, though, in thinking that government has the solution to fixing our health care systems. Based on what I've heard from various legislators, Huntley prefers a government-run single payer solution over a market-based solution. It's predictable that you see the need for tax increases if you don't consider market-based solutions to health care.
Steve Gottwalt is an advocate of incentivizing businesses to provide health care through tax credits & deductions. The reason that's a superior plan is because businesses will watch premium & copay costs. They'll also ask different providers to bid on the right to provide health care.
There's no way on God's green earth that governments do that. Simply put, they just start a program. Shortly thereafter, they just start feeding the beast. That isn't fiscal moderation. That's fiscal insanity.
Isn't it time that we stopped to consider the merits of each spending proposal? Isn't it time to think that most of these spending increases are wishes, not needs? Isn't it time that we just said no to wasteful government spending?
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:12 AM
No comments.
Strib Doing the DFL's Dirty Work
This morning's Strib is particularly repulsive because of its over-the-top liberalism. I've posted two articles already on one Strib article. Now I'm writing something about the Strib's hit piece about Marty Seifert. Notice how they accept without question Tony Sertich's outrageous quote:
"I get that it's about critiquing and complaining, but he's all about throwing bombs rather than working on solutions," said Seifert's principal foil in the House, Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm, also in his early 30s.Actually, Mr. Sertich, Seifert's plan is to keep your spendaholic DFL colleagues from spending the state into another record budget deficit. At the rate that the DFL is proposing unjustifiable spending, it wouldn't take long before we'd have another full blown budget crisis.
To say that Rep. Seifert doesn't care about solutions is preposterous & outrageous. It's also pure BS. (That's short for Barbra Streisand.) Sertich is one of the least trustworthy politicians I've ever seen in action. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him if I had two broken arms & a bad back. For Sertich to say that Seifert isn't interested in "working on solutions" is a bald-faced lie. It also shows how fiscally irresponsible the DFL is. Let's consider some things:
- The DFL thinks that a huge $2.16 billion surplus, in addition to a 9/3% spending increase isn't enough to meet the state's needs.
- The DFL thinks that we need a plethora of tax increases, totaling over $1 billion , to meet our needs.
- The DFL thinks that spending $500,000 on a recreation center in Upsala is a wise use of taxpayers' money.
- The DFL thinks that 'We're starving higher education " by 'only' increasing the higher education budget by $296 million.
- The DFL thinks that we're starving transportation by spending $1.7 billion a year less than we 'need'.
- The DFL thinks we need a new child care program , introduced by Nora Slawik, that costs $35 million the first year , $105 million the second year, $300+ million the third year & $723 million the fourth year.
- The DFL thinks that we need to pay them a per diem of $77 a day in the House & $96 a day in the Senate.
It seems to me that Mr. Sertich's 'search' for solutions is too expensive & too ineffective for most taxpayers' tastes.
I'd also ask Rep. Sertich why the DFL has proposed major spending & tax increases but they haven't offered a list of spending cuts of wasteful government spending?
"He ties us up when we ought to be doing committee work and a lot of time is really being wasted," said colleague Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis.That's a veiled reference to the day Rep. Seifert led the GOP's debating of the DFL's attempt to prevent transparency in government. One major complaint that day was that Sertich's Rules Committee was preventing numerous reforms. Another major complaint was that Sertich wouldn't agree to a proposal that would've forced each House member from voting on per diem increases. As I said here, Mr. Sertich prevented numerous reforms. Here's a prime example:
FAIR NOTICE ON BUDGET BILLS: Under current rules, the majority is required to announce by 5:00 on the preceding day when major finance bills will be considered by the full House. Under the DFL's proposed rules, that would be cut to two-hour's notice on the day of the bill hearing . Rep. Dean Simpson (R-New York Mills) asked the House to expand that to six hours' notice so that citizens with an interest in the bill could be outside the House chamber to provide expertise and guidance to Representatives on the House Floor. The DFL killed the A-32 amendment with a procedural motion by a 79-50 vote.In other words, Rep. Sertich said that giving 2 hours notice is enough for voting on major spending bills. How can Rep. Sertich say that when the previous rule gave legislators almost 16 hours notice? Here's another Sertich gem:
SET TAX CEILING BEFORE PASSING SPENDING BILLS: The DFL rejected Rep. Olson's proposals to require the House to approve a tax bill before passing spending bills if the House's proposed spending targets were higher than revenue projections in the State's economic forecast. The amendment lost by an 88-45 margin.In other words, Mark Olson thought that setting taxation levels before setting spending targets would be a good thing. Rep. Sertich thought otherwise, which is how they can propose tons of irresponsible spending, then figuring out how big of a tax increase they'll need to pay for their irresponsible spending. If that's Rep. Sertich's idea of a solution, I'm betting Minnesota's taxpayers can't afford many Sertich 'solutions'. I'm also betting that most Minnesota taxpayers would appreciate Rep. Seifert's attempts to provide transparency into their government & sanity to their government's spending habits.
I'd bet the ranch that Minnesotans prefer Seifert's, & the MNGOP's, solutions to governance over the DFL's irresponsible approach to governance.
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:30 PM
No comments.
Reporters, Democrats Left Without Plan B
That's a title that would work for Robert Kagan's Washington Post op-ed. If you enjoy sarcasm, then Mr. Kagan's op-ed is must reading. Here's a taste of his sarcasm:
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.In other words, "leading journalists were wrong. BADLY WRONG. The surge is working. What's worse for Democrats in the Agenda Media and Congress is that reports are filtering out from a plethora of sources. The worst news for Democrats is that voters are noticing, which can't help the presidential aspirations of Obama and Hillary. In fact, it's got to have Hillary worried because she'll have to change back to her hawkish face, at least until the Nutroots idiots demand more loyalty to their defeatist agenda.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
This can't be helping Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha, either. The more that this information is written about in the NY Times and Washington Post, the more difficult it'll be for Murtha to spout his lies with impunity. In fact, I'd say that Murtha's appearance on MoveCongress.org was his 'jump the shark' moment. I suspect that his constituents will view him a bit differently from this point forward.
More importantly, the shrinking violence in Baghdad are giving the Maliki government a chance to stabilize and gain credibility as a real government, not a proxy for Iran's mullahs. Now that conditions have changed, the oil revenue-sharing deal is almost finalized, giving the Sunnis more reason to stop their portion of the sectarian violence.
Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals, that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back, a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."Yes, the war has changed, though the Democrats will deny it. Instead of greeting good news from Iraq with open arms and big smiles, they've greeted it with silence followed by denials by Pelosi and Murtha. It's a shame they're so invested in the U.S.'s defeat. I'd love having everyone pulling for victory. That's what the Greatest Generation did.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask everyone to cheer for victory. Unfortunately, there's a bunch of Defeatocrats that won't cheer for victory.
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 6:24 PM
No comments.
