March 11, 2008
Mar 11 00:06 Why Weren't They Removed Before? Mar 11 00:49 My Pat Toomey Interview Mar 11 02:02 A New Era of Bipartisanship? Mar 11 08:34 NY Times Giving Hillary Too Much Credit Mar 11 14:13 NY GOP Upping the Ante on Spitzer Mar 11 17:59 Immigration Taking Center Stage Mar 11 23:04 Another Swanson Bombshell
Why Weren't They Removed Before?
Check out this part of Sen. Tarryl Clark's latest e-letter:
Tax Bill Sent to GovernorIf these were so contentious, why were they included in last year's tax bill? Better yet, why were they removed from this bill? I suspect that this is the reason why:
New deductions could be available for Minnesota taxpayers this year
The Legislature worked together to pass a tax bill this week that could mean new deductions for some Minnesota taxpayers filing their 2007 taxes.
The bill is a rehashing of last year's tax bill that was vetoed by the Governor after session adjourned. I supported this bill because it contains the more non-contentious items that gained agreement from the Governor and House Republicans.
Provisions that caused conflict among the House, Senate, and Governor were removed in order to process the bill in a timely and cooperative manner.
Accountability Initiatives Introduced for Open and Honest GovernmentLarry Schumacher asked some rather interesting questions , questions that he didn't get real good answers to:
I joined Sen. Rest, Rep. Simon and other legislators at a Capitol press conference on Wednesday when we released our initiatives for budget reform, openness and accountability. The wideranging proposals being introduced are all a part of a larger movement to ensure that government is open and honest. There are five core principles to guide the budgeting process. These principles state that Minnesota government should:Many members of the Legislature have authored the proposals that correspond to those principles. Those proposals included: requiring inflation in the budget forecast, expanding access to budget information, protecting state employees from discipline for providing information they believe to be true and accurate to improve public service, and several other initiatives, including revitalizing Minnesota Milestones. I'm working with other lawmakers on this bi-partisan initiative and will have more information on it in our next issue.
- Deliver straight talk and open books
- Use honest accounting and realistic budgeting
- Cut bureaucracy and reward innovation
- Be required to deliver results
- Set clear priorities and plan for the long run
From that list, it should be apparent that the "reforms" proposed all seem to fall on the executive branch of the government (currently occupied by Gov. Tim Pawlenty).There's a number of reforms that don't appear to be in this bill that should be. Anyone who watched last year's House session knows that there's need for a Fair Notice provision in the rules. Last year, 500-1,000 page omnibus spending bills were coming out of conference committee & were voted on almost immediately.
So I asked what reforms and increased accoutability would legislators face as a result of these proposals."Well, the Legislature would receive better information, and that would lead to us being accountable for making better decisions," Rest said.What about legislative compensation reform, a subject of some controversy and at least one lawsuit currently before the courts that alleges lawmakers' per diems amount to a back-door pay raise that circumvents the state Constitution?"There's lots of areas we could've gotten into," said Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park (who, BTW, was the only legislator I found who takes no per diem or other rembursements). "We'll leave that to another time and another group to work on."
As I said in this post , Tony Sertich made sure that Dean Simpson's amendment didn't pass.
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.When I see the DFL letting these things become law, then I'll believe that they're serious reformers. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:07 AM
No comments.
My Pat Toomey Interview
I've long been a fan of the Club for Growth blog . I recently contacted CFG to see if Pat Toomey would grant me an interview. I was told that, while scheduling an interview would be difficult, Mr. Toomey was willing to do a brief 'email interview'. Here's that 'email interview':
Q: Every conservative knows abut the Repork Card. What are some of the other tools that the Club for Growth uses to spread its message of fiscal conservatism?When I read that CFG has state chapters, I checked their website to see if Minnesota had a chapter. When I didn't find a state chapter listing page, I called them for more information. The young lady I spoke with said that CFG didn't have a Minnesota chapter. However, she said that CFG often agreed with the work that Phil Krinkie & the Taxpayers League of Minnesota does.
The Club for Growth uses a number of other tools. For example, we issue an annual congressional scorecard that grades congressional members on how they voted on a number of important economic issues. Last year, our scorecard includes votes on government spending, taxes, free speech, regulatory issues, free trade, and property rights. Members receive scores ranging from 0 to 100 with a score of 100 indicating the highest support for pro-growth policies. Last year, three senators and six representatives received perfect scores. You can check out last year's scorecard here , and we hope to release the 2007 congressional scorecard soon.
During the year, we also send all congressional members "key vote" alerts when a particularly important economic vote is coming up with an explanation of the issue and what is the pro-growth position.
Over the past year, we have tackled a number of other important issues. We organized a petition in support of free trade and in opposition to tariffs on China. We got this idea from a petition organized in 1930 protesting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed by President Herbert Hoover, imposing massive tariffs on a wide swath of industries. Since the 1930 petition was signed by 1,028 economists across the country, we also gathered 1,028 signatures from economists, including four Nobel Prize winners, and ran the petition as a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal. We also held a press conference publicizing the petition.
We have also been very involved in the presidential race, issuing white papers on each of the major candidates. These papers provide readers with a comprehensive report of the economic records of the various candidates. These white papers, which can be viewed on our website, were instrumental on helping voters and the media discern which candidates truly represent economic conservative values.
These are just a couple of things we have done over the past year. We hope to continue to play a major role in the presidential race and continue to educate the public and members of congress about the importance of pro-growth policies.
Q: Do you believe that earmark reform is an issue that will resonate with American voters this November? Why or why not?
Yes. Grassroots conservatives are fed up with ridiculous wasteful spending that goes on in Congress and you are beginning to see that grassroots sentiment reflected in congressional activity. Last year, only eighteen congressional members eschewed earmarks. Only two months into the new year, a growing number of congressmen are taking an earmark moratorium, with the list currently at twenty-five House members and six Senators, including Rep. Henry Waxman, the first House Democrat to reject earmarks. The Club for Growth maintains a list of these congressmen, updated as appropriate, which you can see here . It is clear that congressional members are beginning to realize that this is an issue that is important to voters.
Q: What is the Club's position on the Fair Tax proposal of Gov. Huckabee?
The Club has not taken a position on the Fair Tax versus other reform proposals. We believe that the current tax system is too burdensome and too complicated and badly in need of reform. Both the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax would be a drastic improvement over the current system.
Q: Will the Club for Growth limit its influence to the national races or will they take an active role in some state legislative races?
The Club for Growth only gets involved in national races. There are state chapters across the country that take an active role in state legislative races.
Q: What can the Club for Growth do to help highlight state tax reform proposals? For example, here in Minnesota, Gov. Pawlenty is putting together a "21st Century Tax Reform Commission" because our tax code is perfectly set up for a "1960's economy & demographic."
The Club for Growth focuses on national issues. Our state chapters operate independently and often get involved in the kind of state proposals you're talking about.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:42 AM
No comments.
A New Era of Bipartisanship?
Bipartisanship is breaking out all over the place. Tony Sertich is saying that Gov. Pawlenty's plan to close the $935 million deficit isn't "dead on arrival ." Meanwhile, Gov. Pawlenty is offering his assistance:
His proposed cuts to higher education institutions, which would save the state $54 million in 2009, are also likely to be unpopular.That sounds good to me. If the administrators can't identify any waste in their budgets, then their qualifications need at. If they truly believe that their budgets are all 100 percent justifiable, then taxpayers should ask them to justify their budgets line item by line item.
On Friday, officials from the University of Minnesota and the MnSCU college system said the cuts would be a problem. "It's a momentum stopper," said U chief financial officer Richard Pfutzenreuter.
Pawlenty said that shouldn't be so. "It is a relatively small percentage of their overall budget on the heels of a very large increase," the governor said. "If they need some help identifying where to cut, we are happy to make some suggestions to them starting with administration in both institutions."
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:02 AM
No comments.
NY Times Giving Hillary Too Much Credit
In this article , the NY Times gives Hillary much too much credit for being a team player. Here's what they said that I find laughable:
As much as anything, the Clinton campaign was concerned about launching an attack that could provide ammunition to Republicans should Mr. Obama become the party's nominee. Bad enough that Mrs. Clinton should fail in her bid to become the second Clinton and first woman to be president. Worse if she should end up being blamed for the failure of Mr. Obama's attempt to become the first African-American president.P-U-L-E-E-Z-E.
I'd bet the proverbial ranch that that consideration isn't a blip on the radar screen with Hillary. She's willing to tear apart the Democratic Party to achieve her goal of being president. Hillary couldn't care less what she says about Obama because he's just another object standing between her and the White House.
These are the Clintons. That's how they play. They haven't stopped attacking Obama because they've suddenly gotten campaign 'manners'; they've stopped attacking Obama because he's effective parrying their attacks to his advantage.
The Times essentially did a 180 with this paragraph:
But has the Clinton campaign crossed a line? Attacks that once seemed off-limitsLet's see if I've got this straight. Hillary's afraid to attack for fear that she might give Republicans ammunition to use against Obama...except that she keeps attacking him, thereby giving Republicans ammunition to use against Obama? It's just another case of intellectual whiplash straight from the NY Times.
suddenly were pushed to the front of the stage. Embroiled in an increasingly tough fight and frustrated at Mr. Obama's success and what the Clinton campaign claimed was coddling of him by the media, she began launching the very kind of attacks that will almost certainly be raised in a fall campaign should Mr. Obama win the nomination. She attacked his ethics and suggested that Mr. McCain would do a better job of protecting the country in a time of danger.
The Clintons are right in thinking that Obama has been coddled by the major media. He hasn't faced tough scrutiny. The truth is that there isn't much Obama substance. To the casual observer, Hillary's positions are nearly identical to Obama's. With that being the case, it mostly comes down to personality. The minute it got to that, Hillary was at a significant disadvantage.
The bad news for Obama is that it won't make it to that point with Sen. McCain. Hillary talked about her eight years of 'experience' in the White House. John McCain can talk about being a major political force for the past quarter century. Most reasonable people recognize that he's got a serious plan for dealing with the terrorists. Hillary couldn't point to that for fear that she'd lose the anti-war left if she sounded too hawkish.
The bottom line is that Hillary isn't attacking Obama with the vigor she once did because he's effective at turning it to an advantage, not because she's suddenly worried about the good of the Democratic Party.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:35 AM
No comments.
NY GOP Upping the Ante on Spitzer
In a brilliant move, NY Republicans are demanding that Eliot Spitzer resign or face impeachment charges. Here's the details on this development:
State Assemblyman James Tedisco (R-Schenectady) told CBS 2 HD that he spoke with Lt. Governor Paterson Monday evening and that the two discussed Paterson taking on a new role of leadership, leading Tedisco to believe that action was "forthcoming."The last thing Democrats want to do is defend a corrupt politician heading into elction season. The last thing that Howard Dean wants to be dealing with is the RNC campaigning on the Democrats' culture of corruption. Redstate's California Yankee is now saying that Spitzer will attempt to " pull a Clinton " and stay in office:
Tedisco said if Spitzer does not resign according to a deadline that's been imposed, state Republican leadership will call for impeachment proceedings to begin.
Spitzer, though, was clearly examining his legal options Monday night; a spokesman said the governor had retained the Manhattan law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, one of the nation's most prominent.
Washington Post correspondent, Libby Copeland, reminds us that we have seen it all before:I'm waiting for Obama to use this against Hillary if she brings up the Rezko-Obama connection. I don't think that he'd bring the subject up but he might use it to deflect Hillary's attacks.
First, we watch the news conference. There's Spitzer, with his wife by his side. He says, "I want to briefly address a private matter." Then he expresses remorse (albeit vaguely) and promises to "dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."
Then, we call Mark Geragos, the high-profile criminal defense attorney, who, as it happens, has not actually seen the news conference. He proceeds to describe the news conference that he has not seen.
"You've got to have the dutiful wife and you have to have the 'it's a private matter,' " Geragos says. "And remorse for the past and plans for the future."
[. . .]
"If you don't have the spouse with you, the signal sent is one of abject debauchery and guilt," says Eric Dezenhall, a crisis management consultant. "When the wife or the family is with you, that suggests, well, somebody close to this person loves them and thinks they're worthwhile."
The early signs suggest that, unlike former New Jersey Governor McGreevy, Spitzer will pull a Clinton and fight to remain in office.
If Republicans run as the political party that wants to eliminate corruption , aka earmarks, that will defeat the jihadists, that will push true ethics reform and that also highlights the Democrats' culture of corruption (with poster children like John Murtha, Eliot Spitzer and Al 'I won't pay my workers comp insurance' Franken, this shouldn't be that difficult to do.), the Republicans can win back independents that didn't like the GOP's corruption.
This part of the article speaks volumes about the screwed up mindset in this country:
Despite the expectations of a resignation, some experts say Spitzer should take the time to weigh his options before stepping down.While I agree that Gov. Spitzer needs to "resolve his relationship with his wife", he can't do that while running the state and preparing for trial. (Yes, he will be prosecuted. All that's left is for him to get indicted on federal charges.)
"This is one of the most intelligent, brightest elected officials in the region. You don't change governors of New York lightly, and I think it would be a mistake to act precipitously," political consultant Joseph Mercurio told CBS 2 HD.
"I think first things first, he has to resolve his relationship with his wife. He has to look to his rabbi and make personal decisions first," Mercurio said. "It's really initially up to him before the rest of us react."
As for Spitzer being "one of the most intelligent, brightest elected officials in the region", I'll simply question whether Gov. Spitzer is bright when he gets caught on tape soliciting a high-priced prostitute.
John Podhoretz has more on Mr. Spitzer here . It seems that Mr. Spitzer is more devious than bright.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:14 PM
No comments.
Immigration Taking Center Stage
Based on this AP article , I'd say that Nancy Pelosi and her House leadership team are caught betwixt and between. Here's what the AP is reporting:
Republican leaders hope that by pushing the bill, endorsed by 48 centrist Democrats and 94 Republicans, they can drive Democrats into a politically painful choice: Backing a tough immigration measure that could alienate their base, including Hispanic voters, or being painted as soft on border security in conservative-leaning districts.This is a big deal. If this coalition can get 218 signatures on their discharge petition, then Pelosi's hands will be tied. They'll have to debate the bill.
The plan is fraught with political risks for both parties. A full-blown immigration debate could call attention to Republicans' divisions at a time when their expected presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, is fighting to gain the trust of the GOP base.
McCain, R-Ariz., played a prominent role in failed legislative efforts to grant some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here a path to legal status, which conservatives deride as "amnesty." He now says he would consider such a plan only after the borders have been fortified.
House Republicans are eyeing a bill by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would do just that, as well as mandate that employers verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.
Leaders are expected as early as Tuesday to use a parliamentary tactic that would eventually force a vote on the measure if 218 lawmakers, a majority of the House, demand it. Republicans are pressuring Democratic backers of the measure, including several first-termers and dozens from swing districts, all facing tough re-election fights, to defy their leaders and sign the petition.
"Lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats would like to see something done," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the No. 2 whip, said Friday.
The move would be a rebuke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who opposes the Shuler bill unless it's paired with measures to allow undocumented workers a chance at legal status and allow legal immigrants to bring more family members to the United States. Democratic leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft an alternative that could dissuade their more conservative members who back Shuler's bill from joining the GOP effort to press forward on it.
Pelosi doesn't want to get caught in this situation because it's a lose-lose situation. That's also why the AP is reporting that this would be a rebuke of Ms. Pelosi. (BTW, the fact that the AP is reporting it that way is telling by itself.)
With poll after poll showing that 70+ percent of the people demand that the border be secured first with the fence, this is a big issue that has the potential of splitting the Democrats and embarrassing Ms. Pelosi. It's both good policy and good politics.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:00 PM
No comments.
Another Swanson Bombshell
(H/T: Michael )
MPR's Tim Pugmire has posted this article on Lori Swanson's management of the Attorney General's office on the MPR website. Her's what sparked their reporting:
An attorney who has been trying to organize a union in the Minnesota Attorney General's office has been forced off the job. The move comes days after she went public with her concerns about office management. Assistant Attorney General Amy Lawler was placed on administrative leave Monday night. Lawler shared her concerns about the office and the need for a union in an MPR News story that aired last week. But a deputy to Attorney General Lori Swanson insisted Tuesday that Lawler was not punished for union activity.Lori Swanson has been ethically challenged since the moment she took the oath of office. The House voted twice to investigate the allegations that Ms. Swanson was involved in union-busting. Heres's some specifics on the alleged union-busting:
Last month, Lawler and two colleagues sent a letter to their boss, Attorney General Lori Swanson, urging her to recognize the will of the staff to organize a union. Lawler also shared her concerns in an MPR News report that aired last week.As troubling as that is, it gets far, far worse:
She described a climate of anti-union intimidation and retaliation that was driving away many talented attorneys. Swanson declined to comment on those allegations.
During an interview, Lawler also described wrestling with ethical issues in her job. She said one issue came up when Swanson directed her to quickly file lawsuits against mortgage foreclosure consultants even though the attorney general had no defendants in mind.It's difficult to find any ethical behavior in the AG's office. How can a DFL AG not supporting the right to form unions? It's difficult to write fiction this bizarre. It isn't a stretch to think that Ms. Swanson has all the gracioiusness that her mentor & predecessor had. In fact, it's impossible to think that she doesn't have the same ethical 'upbringing' that her predecessor had.
"And that was kind of the case across the board," she said. "She's just have an idea about a lawsuit, and she'd want it filed as quickly as possible. The biggest was she wanted people who'd be willing to appear at press conferences."
It's time that the legislature undertakes a vigorous investigation into the allegations swirling around the AG's office. That means a real investigation, not Tony Sertich tabling the investigation the minute it hits the Rules Committee.
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:04 PM
No comments.
