March 14-16, 2010
Mar 14 02:10 Gophers Dominate Purdue, Reach Big Ten Finals Mar 14 17:45 I Figured That Mar 15 01:23 Axelrod's Target Audience Mar 15 02:19 Seifert Changes Mind; What's His Motivation For Changing? Mar 15 08:17 Debunking the White House's Myths Mar 15 10:45 Geraghty the Genius Mar 16 00:23 Retaliation or Responsible Governance? Mar 16 13:08 King Makes It Official
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Gophers Dominate Purdue, Reach Big Ten Finals
Following Saturday's game against Purdue, I was left wondering where this Gophers team was hiding all season. It seems like the Gophers are finally finding their stride.
Saturday's game was one of the most dominant performances I've watched. Devoe Joseph, forced into the starting lineup when Al Nolen was declared academically ineligible, ran the offense smoothly while contributing 10 points, 7 rebounds and 4 assists. Colton Iverson and Ralph Sampson III dominated inside, with Sampson leading the Gophers with 13 points, followed by Iverson contributing 11 points.
Most importantly, the Gophers' defense was stifling. Damian Johnson and Paul Carter took turns terrorizing Purdue with their athleticism on defense. Iverson and Sampson altered shots all day while usally limiting Purdue to one shot. Most of Purdue's shots chipped paint off the rim. Purdue finished the day with a 27.6 percent shooting percentage.
So dominant was their defense that, with 4 minutes left in the first half, CBS announcers Clark Kellogg and Jim Nantz were still wondering if Purdue would break Northwestern's record for fewest points in the first half. That's because the Gophers forced Purdue into an 11 minute scoring drought in the first half. For the record, Northwestern still holds the record with 6 points in the first half. A late Purdue 'burst' helped them finish the half with 11 points.
Another piece of proof that the Gophers' defense was dominant came from the fact that, with 4 minutes left in the game, the Gophers first half total was more than Purdue had for the entire game.
Simply put, there was so much proof of Minnesota's defensive dominance that I'm not even close to citing all the different pieces of proof. In fact, I haven't said nearly enough about Damian Johnson's and Paul Carter's defense. Suffice it to say that their defense all but eliminated Purdue's E`Twaun Moore's drives. Moore finished the game with 1 field goal in 14 attempts.
Right now, the Gophers are playing with an incredible amount of poise offensively and defensively. They're also playing with alot of energy. The great thing about Saturday's game was that the Gophers' starters only played an average of 22 minutes a game, with Iverson and Carter playing another 40 minutes combined. In other words, Tubby was able to give his starters alot of rest Saturday so they'll be fresh for Sunday's Big Ten Championship Game against Ohio State.
It's too much to ask for the Gophers to play as good of defense as they played Saturday but they should cause Ohio State fits. The other intriguing thing about Ohio State is that they play essentially with 4 wings and a low post person whereas the Gophers play a physical type of game.
Expect Carter and Damian Johnson to have the job of stopping Ohio State supersoph Evan Turner. Turner is talented enough to cause Carter and Johnson fits but the Gophers present their own matchup problems, too. Ohio State doesn't have an answer for Devoe Joseph, nor do they have the answer for the Gopher Twin Towers of Iverson and Sampson.
It's just nice to be able to enjoy a dominant Gopher victory over a team that entered the tournament as the 6th ranked team in the nation.
Posted Sunday, March 14, 2010 2:10 AM
No comments.
I Figured That
A couple days ago, I talked with a couple friends of my friends about the Democrats' health care legislation in the context of whether Democratic candidates would distance themselves from the subject. This article in The Hill Magazine not only tells me the answer is yes. It tells me that the answer is an emphatic yes:
Hardly any Democrat running for Congress seems to want to talk about healthcare.TRANSLATION: Democratic candidates are treating the subject like it's radioactive waste. They want nothing to do with it.
Of the 26 leading Democratic House candidates contacted by The Hill, only one would commit to voting for the Senate healthcare bill if and when it comes to the House floor. Out of the more than two dozen Democratic challengers and open-seat House candidates, only 10 commented for this story. Eight outright declined to comment.
Eight more didn't respond to several days' worth of requests via phone and e-mail.
Tarryl Clark, the woman who is attempting to unseat my congresslady, Michele Bachmann, gave her typical public noncommittal statement:
Reed's primary opponent, state Sen. Tarryl Clark, said that the Senate bill is flawed but that the country can't wait any longer. "Clearly, for America's sake, we need to make some changes," she said.TRANSLATION: I'd vote for it in a heartbeat but I won't say that in public.
The truth is that Tarryl Clark would vote for the Democrats' health care legislation in a heartbeat. She'd vote for it because she'd consider it a first step towards the single-payer system that she prefers.
Tarryl hasn't openly said that she prefers a single-payer system. Rather, she's implied that's what she's for. Tarryl did that by hosting a health care forum in January, 2008 and inviting State Sen. John Marty, the most consistent supporter of a single-payer health system in Minnesota, as a featured guest. Tarryl is wise enough to not put her name on this list , too.
The bottom line is this: Democrats, whether they're incumbents or challengers, don't want to talk about health care. This tells me that health care is a losing issue for Democrats.
This morning on At Issue, Cathie Hartnett repeated the Democratic talking point that people won't care whether Speaker Pelosi rams through the Senate bill once the bill is passed, implying that people will like it once it's passed. Hartnett then said that the people don't know what's in the bill. Thankfully, David Strom didn't let her get away with that, saying that it was "delusion" to think that the American people will like it. David then said that, after President Obama has given almost 40 speeches, people know what's in the bill.
I agree with Mr. Strom. I pointed out in multiple posts that it was the American people speaking up at last August's townhall meetings that were schooling Democratic Party elected officials.
The notion that we don't know that there's $500,000,000,000 in tax increases in the bill is insulting. We know that there's a constitutionally suspect individual mandate from the federal government in the Senate bill, too. We know that Democrats put the 'Doc Fix' in a seperate bill so that doesn't balloon the CBO's deficit projections for Obamacare, too. We know that the reconciliation bill will initially include the $60,000,000,000 exemption for the unions.
The American people hate each of those provisions. Tax increases on the middle class and on small businesses aren't popular. People hate special favors for political allies almost as much as tax increases. As for this legislation adding $460,000,000,000 to the deficit, that isn't playing well anywhere.
The American people know that Obamacare is a financial disaster waiting to happen. That's why Democrats running for office are distancing themselves from it instead of embracing Obamacare. That's why I'd modify the old cliche that the proof is in the pudding slightly to say that the proof is in the campaigning.
Posted Sunday, March 14, 2010 5:52 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 15-Mar-10 12:08 PM
John Marty has the conscience to support single payer, as do most of the public. Blowing smoke at Marty will not change that. Clark would be stronger within the DFL if she were more direct about single payer.
It is the bozos in the district she is worried over. Properly so. In the Klobuchar-Kennedy contest only Sherbrune and Wright Counties went against the Klobuchar sweep, within the MN 6 district.
That says something about those two bastions of bad judgment.
I believe there are enough level-headed people in the remainder of the district to overcome the backwardness and provincialism those two counties display.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Mar-10 01:40 PM
I respect John Marty for saying what he believes in. That's a trait Tarryl doesn't share with him.
I support single-payer as long as that payer isn't the government. Government is inefficient at best. If I wanted to be totally blunt, I'd say that it's downright pathetic. I posted proof of that in this post:
The move acknowledges that the public sector has failed to properly police itself. Obama, who reflexively opposes "privatization" on principle, has expanded the privatization of an important government function, auditing the government's own books.Single-payer leads to rationing everywhere it's been tried. Why would we want a health care system that's based on rationing innovation & care?
I wish Tarryl ran on single-payer. She'd lose by 20 points if she did that, meaning her political career would be over.
Axelrod's Target Audience
During his appearance on Meet the Press Sunday morning, David Axelrod said that he's spoiling for a fight on health care . I'm certain that Axelrod doesn't want that fight. It's just that he knows that's what's facing congressional Democrats.
Top White House adviser David Axelrod says that if Congress passes the Democrats' national health care bill, it will be politically impossible for Republicans to undo the changes brought by the massive legislation. "I say, Let's have that fight. Make my day," Axelrod said on "Meet the Press." "I'm ready to have that, and every member of Congress ought to be willing to have that debate was well."First off, Mr. Axelrod is either knowingly lying about what's in the Democrats' legislation or he's a complete idiot. I don't think that he's an idiot. Axelrod knows that Medicare will go broke sooner if the Democrats' legislation passes. He knows that because the Obama administration plans on using the Medicare cuts to pay for another entitlement program, not to strengthen Medicare solvency.
Axelrod made the point as he put forward the now-common argument that House Democrats who have already voted for the health care bill once should do so again because they will be attacked by Republican opponents this fall whatever they do.
"I've said many times that they've got a vote that Republicans and the insurance industry and others can run against them already," Axelrod said. "What they don't have is the accomplishment. If this bill passes, this year, children with pre-existing conditions will now be covered. There will be an end to lifetime caps and annual caps on what the insurance companies will cover, so if you get sick you won't go broke, if you get sick they won't throw you off your insurance. The doughnut hole will be filled in, so senior citizens will save hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs. The life of Medicare will be extended, and on and on and on."
The biggest 'accomplishment' contained in this bill is a huge tax increase. I'm certain that Democrats won't want to run on that this fall. Huge tax increases on families and small businesses when the economy is sputtering isn't the way to create jobs or stabilize an economy.
Just like President Obama, Mr. Axelrod enjoys employing strawman arguments:
"So if the Republican party wants to go out and say to that child, who now has insurance," Axelrod continued, "or say to that small business that will get tax credits this year if [President Obama] signs the bill to help their employees get health care, if [Republicans] want to say to them, 'You know what, we're actually going to take that away from you, we don't think that's such a good idea', I say let's have that fight. Make my day. I'm ready to have that, and every member of Congress ought to be willing to have that debate was well."It's easy to understand why Axelrod is spinning things this way. Pretending that the Republicans don't have a plan is smart strategy. It just isn't reality. The choice isn't between the Democrats' attempted takeover of the health care industry and nothing. It's about picking between the Democrats' attempted takeover of the health care industry and the Patients' Choice Act. When the public reads about the Patients' Choice Act, and they will, the American people will pick the Republicans' plan by wide margins.
In short, I'm betting that there are Republican strategists that can't wait to pick this fight.
What's really happening here is that Axelrod is making these statements with a single audience in mind. He's speaking to House Democrats in an attempt to get them to vote for the bill. He's essentially saying that this administration will fight with House Democrats this fall.
Considering President Obama's history of broken promises, why would any Democrat be willing to trust him?
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 1:27 AM
No comments.
Seifert Changes Mind; What's His Motivation For Changing?
Marty Seifert must be feeling the heat for supporting the Next Generation Energy Act. That's the only explanation for his introducing a bill that would roll back requirements mandated by SF4, which created a Renewable Energy Standard:
A Republican candidate for Minnesota governor is attempting to roll back a requirement that a quarter of the state's power come from renewable sources by 2025.It's good to see Rep. Seifert finally start making his way back to the right side of this issue. I'd be even happier if Rep. Seifert admitted that he's voted for a system that's similar to cap and trade.
Rep. Marty Seifert of Marshall brings his bill to a House committee on Monday. It would erase the requirement approved two years ago, which he and a large legislative majority voted to put in place.
Seifert's bill would replace the gradually increasing energy standard with a "good faith" goal. When they approved the requirement, lawmakers and Gov. Tim Pawlenty said it would reduce reliance on dirtier power sources and drive up demand for homegrown electricity.
Rep. Tom Emmer is Seifert's main rival for the Republican gubernatorial endorsement. Emmer was 1 of 10 House members to vote against the 25 percent by 2025 goal when it was approved.
Rhonda Sivarajah, Rep. Seifert's running mate, says that he hasn't voted for cap and trade legislation :
I'd also like to discuss an issue that I've been asked about on the campaign trail regarding energy costs. I'm disappointed to hear about emails which have been circulating that clearly misrepresent Marty's position. Like me, Marty opposes "cap and trade" legislation. Over the past few years, DFL legislators have introduced "cap and trade" legislation which Marty has consistently opposed.That last sentence is meaningless. Here's why :
You deserve a substantive discussion of the differences between the candidates for governor, however, other campaigns are doing a great disservice when supporters are intentionally spreading false information to mislead activists. Rest assured, Marty Seifert and I strongly oppose "cap and trade" legislation, and as governor, Marty will veto any "cap and trade" legislation .
There was a second important energy bill passed at the end of the 2007 session known as the Next Generation Energy Act (SF 145). This bill enacted "carbon emission goals" and directed the Commerce Commissioner to create a "climate change action plan." The bill specifically mandated that "[t]he state must, to the extent possible, with other states in the Midwest region, develop and implement a regional approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities in the region, including consulting on a regional cap and trade system ."SF145, which was signed into law in 2007, created the mechanism for a regional cap and trade system. The only way to change that is to repeal the Next Generation Energy Act.
I've told friends that voting for the M-RETS legislation and the Next Generation Energy Act would hurt Rep. Seifert with the activists the most of all the votes he's taken. I'd suggest that Rep. Seifert's new legislation proves that the green energy issue is hurting him.
Tom Emmer, the man that I'm supporting , got both votes right. Rep. Seifert didn't. The bills that Rep. Seifert voted for will create higher energy prices. They also create new bureaucracies. For a man that constantly says he wants to right-size, downsize and economize, it sounds more like he voted to increase the size of Minnesota's government.
Tom Emmer took a principled stand because he didn't want Minnesota's energy costs to go up. Time has proven him to be on the right side of this issue.
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 10:52 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Mar-10 06:38 AM
Two things trouble me about your interpretation of this. Make that three. First, that you claim Mr. Seifert has changed his mind /because/ of "heat on the issue." Is it just possible that he changed his mind because it was the right thing to do and that now was a reasonably propitious time to do it? You and the anonymous e-mailers claimed that he voted for And trade when what he voted for was a renewable energy standard which, at the time, seemed sufficiently reasonable that a large majority of legislators voted in favor, and it helped his Southwest Minnesota farming constituency. And lastly, a large majority of all legislators voted in favor, meaning Mr. Emmer was once again out of step with the mainstream but possibly correct in 20-20 hindsight, and taking a principled stand against one small portion of the bill while ignoring what must have been many other positives.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Mar-10 07:57 AM
Is it just possible that he changed his mind because it was the right thing to do and that now was a reasonably propitious time to do it?That's possible, Jerry, but color me suspicious of the timing. If Marty had a true change of heart, then I'm glad. I'm just not a big believer in coincidences like this.
You and the anonymous e-mailers claimed that he voted for And trade when what he voted for was a renewable energy standard which, at the time, seemed sufficiently reasonable that a large majority of legislators voted in favor, and it helped his Southwest Minnesota farming constituency.Actually, when Marty voted for SF145, he voted for legislation that created a mechanism for creating a region-wide Cap & Trade system. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
And lastly, a large majority of all legislators voted in favor, meaning Mr. Emmer was once again out of step with the mainstream but possibly correct in 20-20 hindsightJerry, I'm betting that people think that a politician who's right is in the mainstream. The reality is that alot of people made the trendy, feel-good vote rather than making the right vote.
From an economics standpoint, it isn't difficult to argue that Marty & others voted for more expensive forms of energy production. What's mainstream about that?
and taking a principled stand against one small portion of the bill while ignoring what must have been many other positives.Taking a principled stand against the main portion of this bill is a good thing. Requiring Minnesota to use wind and solar power, which are more expensive than fossil fuels, isn't what Minnesotans want when told that their energy bills will be increasing.
Comment 2 by Brian at 15-Mar-10 06:23 PM
It is nice to see that you are now agreeing with me, it is a Cap and Tax bill Pawlenty signed and Seifert voted for. Go Emmer.
Comment 3 by C.W. Hiatt at 16-Mar-10 08:21 AM
If Marty is being misrepresented on the issue of Cap and Trade and "hasn't voted for Cap and Trade Legislation" then pray tell why he is trying to roll it back?
The fact is Marty DID support a bill that amounted to Cap and Trade and has now seen the error of his ways.
OR, he can proclaim that as he understood the bill at the time, he did not take it to impose such a mandate.
The latter is most certainly a tough sell amongst the conservative constituency as it most certainly doesn't comport with Seifert's praise of the bill on the house floor.
Comment 4 by Al at 21-Mar-10 11:42 PM
I must state Marty's reasoning for repeal seems to be coming from the pressure from Minnesotans for Global Warming and his PREVIOUS support of SF4 or the next generation Energy act. I SPOKE to him personally explaining our coverage of this. He said if elected he'd repeal this, undue the damage I didn't realize at the time. Then I mentioned it would be preferred to do something SOONER then later as its bigger then the governorship. He agreed and drafted a bill, which sadly the committee killed. This showed me he has courage, repentance, listens and like Luke 15: 4 - 7 "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Mar-10 11:47 PM
We'll never know whether Marty's conversion was a sign of political courage or political maneuvering because election year conversions are rightly questioned.
Irregardless, Tom voted right the first time so there wasn't a need for an election year repentance.
Debunking the White House's Myths
This WSJ article does a stellar job of debunking the Obama administration's myths about what the Democrats' health care legislation will do. Here's a great example:
Insurance premiums will fall. Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama's communications director, took to the White House blog to claim that the plan "will make insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care." So subsidies are really tax cuts?The Obama administration is asking the American people to suspend their understanding of Supply and Demand 101. They're asking the American people that greater demand and flat or declining supplies will lower costs.
Insurance subsidies are transfer payments in which government takes money out of the private economy and gives it to someone else. Subsidies thus put an even larger share of health-care spending in government hands. When you subsidize something, you get more of it, which means higher demand for insurance and health-care services. Combine this with new mandates that have raised costs in every state where they have been tried, and you will get higher premiums.
Try running that theory past an economist sometime and see if that economist can keep from laughing in your face. It isn't likely that the economist will keep a straight face.
The WSJ also makes a great point in highlighting the Obama administration's dishonesty in calling subsidies tax cuts. It isn't possible to honestly say that the Obama administration won't need to raise taxes to pay for their subsidies. This tax increase will dig deep into the middle class, too.
About the Cadillac Tax:
Not to worry, says Mr. Orszag, the tax would still create a "gradually increasing incentive to seek higher-quality and lower-cost health plans." In other words, some future Congress will impose the pain Democrats refuse to impose today.Mr. Orszag is referring to the pay-go law that Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi just ignored. What could possibly go wrong? I can't summarize things better than this:
Mr. Orszag also says these future politicians won't block the tax because this "would violate the statutory pay-go law just enacted." He's referring to the same "pay-go" rule that Congress has violated to the tune of $800 billion or so just in the last year.
ObamaCare's real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order. This is what Democrats are voting for.
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 8:22 AM
No comments.
Geraghty the Genius
Once again, Jim Geraghty proves that his posts are must-reading for conservative activists with this post . Yesterday, Obama administration uber-flacks David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs insisted that they'd love running on the health care issue. Geraghty's post highlights the fact that Virginia's Democrats aren't quite as enthusiastic as Mssrs. Axelrod and Gibbs:
That's funny, neither of my senators, Democrats Jim Webb and Mark Warner, have anything about the health care bill on their Senate home pages .They talk about jobs, the military, crime, Haiti earthquake rescue teams - just about everything but the health care bill. And neither of these guys is up for reelection this year.I wrote in this post that Gibbs's and Axelrod's target audiences aren't John Q. Public. Rather, their target is congressional Democrats.
Let's take a look at the congressmen here in Virginia who are likely to face tough races this fall: Gerry Connolly of Fairfax County? Nope, nothing on the home page of his House site . Rick Boucher, of the state's western corner? Nope, nothing on his House site's main page . Glenn Nye of Virginia Beach? Nope, nothing on his front page, either .
Tom Pirriello of Charlottesville? Well, he has a survey , and a short video of him on Morning Joe discussing about a proposal to remove anti-trust exemption for health insurers, making sure to mention that 150 House Republicans backed this legislation. But certainly nothing touting the most recent version that the House is expected to vote on in the near future.
Not even my congressman, Jim Moran (D-Embarrassment), features the health care bill on his congressional home page , and he's been a staunch supporter and he comes from a district where he usually wins at least 60 percent of the vote.
It's long past time that we told congressional Democrats that we hate the huge tax increases in the bill. It's long past time that we told congressional Democrats that unconstitutional individual mandates don't sit well with us, either. It's long past time that we told congressional Democrats that we hate the huge deficits that will happen the minute the Doc Fix is signed into law.
Let's prove to congressional Democrats that (a) there's lots of things in their bill that we hate and (b) we will show up this November to defeat every Democrat that votes for this deficit-exploding, tax-increasing monstrosity.
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 11:01 AM
No comments.
Retaliation or Responsible Governance?
Charlie Shaw's post says that Gov. Pawlenty's veto of major sections of the the bonding bill, aka the DFL's annual stimulus bill, aka the debt bill, is an act of retaliation:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Monday used his line-item veto authority to decimate the bonding bill, in some cases hewing entire sections from the bill.How does trimming an irresponsible bill down to size equate into decimating the DFL's annual stimulus bill? More importantly, I'm curious on how many of the projects that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed would've built things that wouldn't have helped their cities' long-term economic health.
Pawlenty focused his vetoes on projects in districts represented by Democrats or Republicans that voted for the bill. Transit and state parks and trails were were cut in their entirety from the $1 billion bill that passed the state Legislature.
Most importantly, I'm curious how many of the projects Gov. Pawlenty vetoed should be paid for by the sales tax increase Minnesota voted for in 2008. The last I looked, at least $73,000,000 were directed to projects that should've been paid for with Legacy Act revenues, not with Minnesota's credit card.
Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said that Pawlenty cut all $43 million in the bill for transit. He also cut $25 million from the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) conservation program, which would have leveraged $35 million in federal matching funds.Leveraging "$35 million in federal matching funds" is the federal government's way of enticing states to spend money it might not otherwise have spent. Without knowing which projects were line-itemed out, I'm perfectly content in reserving judgment.
"Line item vetoes by Governor Pawlenty to transit and conservation projects totaling just under $100 million represent an enormous lost opportunity for shovel-ready jobs, matching federal dollars and local community economic development," Morse said in a press release.
My question for the Minnesota Environmental Partnership is simple: would the projects line-itemed out have benefited their communities long-term? If they wouldn't have helped their communities long-term, then what's the justification for spending the money? Another question I have for the Minnesota Environmental Partnership is whether Minnesota wouldn't be better off not spending that much money. Spending money on a science lab at a state university or building a nurses training facility are worthwhile because they have a direct and longlasting impact on the communities in which they're built. It's a significantly more difficult task justifiying spending on a civic center.
That's before we talk about how much money is added to the state budget in paying off the interest on the bonding project.
It doesn't take long before you realize that the DFL would spend alot more if they didn't have to deal with a responsible adult like Gov. Pawlenty.
Posted Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:23 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 16-Mar-10 07:36 AM
"How does trimming an irresponsible bill down to size equate into decimating the DFL's annual stimulus bill?"
Sigh....I thought you knew the answer to this by now....
Cutting ANY of the DFL's requested spending - even if it is cutting the INCREASE in the spending is "decimating" the DFL's budget.....
LL
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 16-Mar-10 08:53 AM
What I'm curious about, while not having any of the particulars, is why the Governor didn't trim it down to near nothing, something like 10% of its original size, thereby truly decimating it and, probably, making it truly fiscally responsible.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-10 09:36 AM
Sigh,.I thought you knew the answer to this by now...Cindy, I was directing that statement at SANE people, not the DFL. Sorry for the confusion.
King Makes It Official
This morning, King Banaian announced that he will run for the Minnesota legislature. If King is elected, King would represent me in the legislature as the representative from HD-15B.
House GOP Leader Kurt Zellers and Rep. Steve Gottwalt attended the announcement, with Leader Zellers introducing King. During his introduction, Leader Zellers said that Minnesota's economy isn't performing the way Minnesotans have come to expect. He then said that you take your car to a mechanic when it isn't performing properly, that you didn't take it "to a florist."
It was clear that Leader Zellers was referring to the fact that Rep. Haws, the man currently representing 15B, isn't doing enough to get Minnesota's economy creating jobs again. Leader Zellers said that King Banaian has stayed in touch with St. Cloud's business leaders and with the people of St. Cloud.
Zellers made clear that he was excited at the possibility of having someone with King's credentials and talent as part of the House GOP Caucus. He said that he was confident that King would hit the ground running if elected. Considering King's experience with public policy, that's a reasonable expectation.
During his announcement, King said that he had this message for St. Paul:
"The ATM is closed. You've taken enough."When King was asked about the bonding bill, he said that, while the construction jobs are important, he said we also have to look at the value of something after it's been built. He said that he was sad that Gov. Pawlenty had line-itemed out the science lab funding for the SCSU campus because of the great value it would've created for Minnesota and for SCSU's students.
Steve Gottwalt made it clear that Larry Haws's public image in St. Cloud didn't match his voting record in St. Paul, citing the fact that Rep. Haws has voted for too many major tax increases in his time in St. Paul. Rep. Gottwalt said that too frequently, Rep. Haws had voted with the DFL against common sense GOP amendments.
King announced that, if elected, the first bill he'd submit is for using zero-based budgeting in putting together Minnesota's budget. King said that zero-based budgeting forces the legislature to justify every dollar of spending "instead of quibbling over" "the last dollars spent."
King made clear that setting the right priorities is the way to solve Minnesota's budget problems and for building a flourishing economy that's creating jobs.
Posted Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:08 PM
Comment 1 by Joshua Behling at 16-Mar-10 02:36 PM
Great guy, great experience, great leader and communicator. Way to go King, we're behind you 100%.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-10 02:47 PM
Josh, You were a great candidate, too. You know I watched you dismantle Larry more than a couple times. If it was just about qualifications, King would be supporting your re-election.
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 16-Mar-10 03:47 PM
Yeah Josh, you dismantled him super good. So good he is running for RE-election and you are commenting on the blog dedicated to Republican talking points and Steve Gottwalt.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-10 04:14 PM
I love how Eric ignores the parts he doesn't like talking about. In this instance, Eric chose to ignore the part about who was better qualified, not on who had more name recognition.
At the health care forum where I met Eric, Larry Haws gave a rambling presentation, then summed it up by saying "There. I've characterized the problem. I just don't have the solution." Typical Larry. Long, folksy answers, no solutions.
Comment 3 by Joshua Behling at 16-Mar-10 04:04 PM
Eric-
And your blog was dedicated to the talking points of....oh wait never mind.
I'm glad you haven't lost your ability to jump right into things without a lot of thought.
Thanks Gary, I enjoyed every minute of it...including responding to comments by Eric, yes Eric I really do mean that, although we don't agree I wouldn't have jumped in if I wasn't ready for it. You make me laugh more than you could ever know.
Oh and I'm glad you read a long standing blog like Gary's to get your info. It means you still have a chance. (Even if it is what you called a blog dedicated to talking points and Steve.)
Comment 4 by Eric Austin at 16-Mar-10 04:17 PM
Josh-
I have to read Gary. How else would I know what Steve Gottwalt is thinking? :)
Comment 5 by Brent Metzler at 16-Mar-10 07:12 PM
He said that he was sad that Gov. Pawlenty had line-itemed out the science lab funding for the SCSU campus because of the great value it would've created for Minnesota and for SCSU's students.
Just goes to show, conservatives and liberals are the same when it comes to cutting spending. Cut everyone else's spending, just leave my causes alone.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-10 11:06 PM
Just goes to show, conservatives and liberals are the same when it comes to cutting spending. Cut everyone else's spending, just leave my causes alone.This just proves that Brent didn't understand the underlying principle behind bonding bill spending. It isn't that King supported the building of the science lab on the SCSU campus because his union or the university told him to. He supported it because it would've given alot of students the training they needed to fit into a 21st Century economy. Further, King would've supported the project whether it was on his campus or on another campus.
The underlying principle to this is that King did a cost-benefit analysis and found that the benefit surpassed the cost by a fairly steep margin. Another contributing factor to King's decision is that it's the state's responsibility to ensure that government-run education systems are high quality.
That's the type of common sense leadership I'll enthusiastically support.
Comment 6 by Brent Metzler at 17-Mar-10 07:20 AM
Hey, I don't care if you do a cost-benefit analysis or put your project here or there. I just don't want you to say your pet projects are good, and mine are bad. I just happen to believe that my pet projects are valuable too and should not be cut either.
Can't we all just get along?
Comment 7 by The Lady Logician at 17-Mar-10 09:05 AM
"I just don't want you to say your pet projects are good, and mine are bad. "
Brent you assume much (as usual). No where in this or King's statement is this said or implied.
That said, let's take a look at the merits of the SCSU science center versus other items that were taken out. There was $250K for the Will Steger Foundation - remember Governor Pawlenty was tight with Steger. Then there was $372k for bird breeding maps. Then there is $160k to train teachers how to use a digital camera. Which of the above projects will contribute to the LONG TERM HEALTH of the MN Economy?
LL
