March 3-7, 2009
Mar 03 03:49 Highlighting the DFL's Inaction In Action Mar 05 04:04 Carville, Begala, Try 'Time-Tested Tactics' Mar 03 10:57 Gottwalt Budget Deficit Statement Mar 05 14:56 Boehner Unloads On Democrats Mar 06 09:58 Failed Obamanomics Mar 07 11:11 A Fight Worth Picking Mar 07 19:24 It's Only A Great Opportunity If It's Done Right
Highlighting the DFL's Inaction In Action
Monday afternoon, the GOP leaders in the House and Senate held a press conference to highlight the DFL majority's inaction thus far this session. Here's the official statement issued at the press conference:
(St. Paul) - Republican leadership of the Minnesota House and Senate today raised concerns about the lack of progress and priorities from DFL legislative leadership in solving the growing budget deficit. Precious committee time in the Minnesota Senate has been spent debating legislation that would change the certification process for interior designers (SF 376). Only four bills have been passed this session and signed into law, including one bill related to boiler regulations (SF 212).This problem is getting so bad that the SC Times editorial board got hot under the collar with this editorial :
Today, one day before the February budget forecast, legislation that would provide a regulation system for body art technicians (SF 525) will be debated in Minnesota Senate's Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. In the Minnesota House of Representative's Local Government Division Committee, a bill that would authorize $1,000,000 for the creation of dog parks in the Twin Cities (HF 297) will be heard.
"We're 40 percent done with the legislative session and we've done everything except something to solve the growing budget deficit" said Senate Republican Leader Dave Senjem (R-Rochester). "The message today for the DFL leadership is clear: let's stop focusing on dog parks and body art technicians, let's get some budget targets, let's get a process established, and let's get to work solving the growing budget deficit."
"Finance officials have warned about this deficit cycle for two years, and Democrats chose to ignore the warnings," said House Republican Leader Marty Seifert (R-Marshall). "They squandered the $2.2 billion surplus in 2007, grew state government spending by 10 percent and then crossed their fingers in the hopes that the economy
wouldn't nosedive."
This legislative session convened Jan. 6. After eight weeks, only four bills have made it to Gov. Tim Pawlenty's desk. Granted, the state has known for months that agreeing on a biennial budget plan would be the dominate issue. And even tradition might dictate that only the governor's plan is unveiled ahead of this spring forecast.I couldn't have put it better myself. Let's give the Times Editorial Board its due. They've written an editorial that takes the DFL majority to task (sort of) for doing essentially nothing.
But any tradition that allows the Legislature to convene for two months and make no effective progress not just on the budget, but on other legislative matters needs to be revised.
Again, given we're counting the public's nickels, how many could have been saved by not convening until this week? And, really, what business of the people would not have been done?
This isn't the first time that the DFL started a budget session slowly. They didn't do much the first two months of session then, too. Michael outlined the DFL's inaction perfectly in this post :
NO ACTIVITY BY DFL HOUSE ON EIGHT DAYS IN JANUARYIf that information is upsetting, you ain't seen nothing yet:
THU, JAN 04 - - The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
MON, JAN 08 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
TUE, JAN 16 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
WED, JAN 17 - - The DFL House shows up to hear Governor Tim Pawlenty's "State of the State" Address, then adjourns to criticize the speech.
THU, JAN 18 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
MON, JAN 22 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
THU, JAN 25 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
MON, JAN 29 - - The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
WHEN ALL WAS SAID AND DONE, MORE WAS SAID THAN DONEThink about that. Fifteen committees didn't hear a single bill in January, 2007. Another committee didn't even hold an organizational meeting in January, 2007. Not surprisingly, that committee was the Ethics Committee.
When the Legislature is running out of time in late April and May, you may wonder what the DFL was doing in January.
Over half of the committees did not hear a single bill in January. Was it necessary to increase the number of committees by 33% under the DFL leadership?
Out of 193 time slots reserved for the DFL House's bloated committee structure in January, only 39 bills were heard.
- The Agriculture Finance panel chaired by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar) did not act on a single bill in January .
- The Crime Victims panel chaired by Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St. Paul) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The E-12 Education Policy Panel chaired by Rep. Carlos Mariani did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Early Childhood Education panel chaired by Rep. Nora Slawik (DFL-Maplewood) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Education Finance panel chaired by Rep. Mary Murphy (DFL-Hermantown) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Housing and Public Health Panel chaired by Rep. Karen Clark (DFL-Minneapolis) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Mental Health panel chaired by Rep. Neva Walker (DFL-Minneapolis) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Minnesota Heritage panel chaired by Rep. Mike Jaros (DFL-Duluth) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Property Tax panel chaired by Rep. Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Public Safety Finance panel; chaired by Rep. Michael Paymar (DFL-St. Paul) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Public Safety Policy panel chaired by Rep. Joe Mullery (DFL-Minneapolis) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Telecommunications panel chaired by Rep. Sheldon Johnson (DFL-St. Paul) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Transportation Finance panel chaired by Rep. Bernie Lieder (DFL-Crookston) did not act on a single bill in January.
- The Veterans Affairs panel chaired by Rep. Lyle Koenen (DFL-Clara City) did not hear a single bill in January.
- The Ethics Committee chaired by Rep. Mary Murphy did not even have an organizational meeting.
- The Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Joe Atkins IDFL-Inver Grove Heights) only acted on one bill.
- The Labor panel chaired by Rep. Jim Davnie (DFL-Minneapolis) only acted on one bill.The Bonding (Capital Investment) panel chaired by Rep. Alice Hausman (DFL-St. Paul) only acted on one bill.
- The Energy Finance panel chaired by Rep. Bill Hilty (DFL-Finlayson) only acted on one bill.
- The Environment Finance panel chaired by Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL-Minneapolis) only acted on one bill.
- The Health and Human Services Finance panel chaired by Rep. Thomas Huntley (DFL-Duluth) only acted on one bill.
- The State Government Finance panel chaired by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis) only acted on one bill.
- The Government Operations panel chaired by Rep. Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona) only acted on one bill.
- The Biosciences panel chaired by Rep. Tim Mahoney (DFL-St. Paul) only acted on two bills.
- The Game, Fish, and Forestry panel chaired by Rep. David Dill (DFL-Crane Lake) only acted on two bills.
- The Higher Education and Workforce Development panel chaired by Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) only acted on two bills.
- The Health and Human Services Policy Committee chaired by Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-Minneapolis) only acted on two bills.
- The Tax Committee chaired by Rep. Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington) only acted on two bills.
- The Agriculture Policy panel chaired by Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL-Long Prairie) only acted on three bills.
- The Local Government panel chaired by Rep. Debra Hilstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center) only acted on three bills.
- The Transit Policy panel chaired by Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis) only acted on four bills.
What this means is that the DFL has managed to do almost nothing the first 2 months in each of the last 2 budget sessions. That's the personification of a do-nothing legislature.
What's worse is that each of those do-nothing days cost Minnesota's taxpayers $500,000. That's before we count the out-of-session, tax free per diem legislators got paid. In 2008 alone, that total was more than $180,000 for the House and more than $150,000 for the Senate . These totals are for the DFL and GOP cominded. Nonetheless, the GOP doesn't have the authority to call hearings. (It's also worth noting that GOP senators don't get paid out-of-session per diem unless the DFL calls a committee hearing whereas the DFL can show up at their Capitol office, tell someone that they're doing committee work and get paid out-of-session per diem for it.)
That isn't my idea of getting my money's worth from the DFL majority.
The bottom line to this is that the DFL majority has cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars in out-of-session per diem and millions of dollars in operating costs during budget sessions. Despite all those expenses, the DFL majority has been stunningly unproductive.
If that isn't reason enough to get people fired up about booting these do-nothing DFL legislators from leadership, then it's the end of the world as we know it.
Originally posted Tuesday, March 3, 2009, revised 12-Mar 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 03-Mar-09 11:17 AM
At a Town Hall Gov. Pawlenty bashing session held Sat. at Como Park hosted by Rep. Lesch and Hausmen, and Sen. Ellen Anderson, the three said their job was to react to the governors budget and that they were doing that by holding the "listening sessions". None of these three made any proposals as to how they would fix the current budget deficit. They only sat there and bashed the governor for the proposed cuts and shifts he has proposed.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-09 12:17 PM
Why am I not surprised?
Carville, Begala, Try 'Time-Tested Tactics'
Paul Begala and James Carville attempted to taunt Rush Limbaugh is a time-tested Democrat tactic that they used during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, this time they tried it on the wrong guy. They first villainized Newt. Their next target was Tom DeLay. Now they're attempting to villainize Rush.
That's a major mistake because Rush has a mega-sized megaphone. That plus he's the most articulate well-known conservative in the United States. In the short term, their tactics might work but it's bound to have serious effect on Obama's ability to get Democrats elected in 2010.
It's true that this fiasco will take Wall Street's troubles off the front page for a little while, people will still be reminded of President Obama's incompetence when they get their 401(k)'s.
The short term advantage might be short-lived, too, because Rush has challenged President Obama to a debate on Rush's show :
If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program, without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards, to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.This is a lose-lose situation for President Obama. If he doesn't take the challenge or send one of his surrogates in his place, he'll look intimidated. If accepts, Rush will rip him to shreds on the economy.
Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.
There's no "up and down" here. We have a plunge. The president yesterday suggested "we're getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest." Uh, Mr. President? There is no "profits and earnings" ratio. It's "price and earnings" ratio. He's the president of the United States. He doesn't know anything about the stock market. He's admitted it before. Let's talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it's a tracking poll? I'd love to talk to you about that. Let's talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party, they think that's a great thing, then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!
It's apparent to people that President Obama's economic team isn't ready for prime time. If the economy was going well, they might've disguised that. Things aren't going well, which focuses the spotlight on their ineptitude.
Still, it's time for Rush to ignore Begala's, Carville's and Emanuel's time-tested tactics and return to hammering President Obama for not having a coherent economic strategy.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2009 9:36 AM
No comments.
Gottwalt Budget Deficit Statement
Dear Neighbor:I'm thankful that Rep. Gottwalt asked his question about raising taxes to Dr. Stinson. It's time we started listening to the experts instead of the DFL majority's ideologues.
I just got out of a briefing with Governor Pawlenty's staff and Tom Stinson, the State Finance Director, giving us the latest on Minnesota's budget deficit.
There is good news and bad news. First, the good news: The deficit grew, but not as much as anticipated. If you don't count the one-time federal deficit spending money we received, Minnesota's budget deficit grew by $1 billion -- from $4.85 billion to nearly $6 billion. That's not quite as bad as the $7 billion many expected, but it's still deep and tough, and will require more reductions in the state's projected spending increases.
The one-time federal deficit spending money we've received to help with Medical Assistance is about $1.3 billion, and under state law, that has to be counted in the budget projections. That's why the official reported deficit number is $4.6 billion -- a number a little better than the $4.85 billion reported in November.
Now, the bad news: Even though the official numbers today look encouraging, the reality behind the numbers is that we have a roughly $1 billion deeper deficit problem to solve than we did in January. Furthermore, the federal money is one-time money, and does not help us balance our state budget beyond 2010.
To illustrate: Governor Pawlenty proposed a budget in January that would balance a projected $4.85 billion deficit. Given today's update, the Governor's budget proposal would need to reduce spending by another $800 million to be in balance.
The projections for our economy are not very bright either. Minnesota has fewer jobs today than it did in 2001. We lost 20,000 jobs in January alone. The recession is expected to deepen through 2009. The most optimistic projections suggest we might see some turnaround by the end of this year. But the more realistic projections indicate Minnesota's economy will not begin to rebound until early 2010, and will not get back to where it was in 2008 until 2011 or even 2012. That means things will get worse before they get better, and we need to tighten our belts.
Since some have proposed increasing taxes on corporations and so-called wealthy individuals, I asked State Finance Director, Tom Stinson, if that would be a good approach to solving our budget deficit. His answer was very matter-of-fact. He said, "That would not be helpful." Why? Because wages and capital gains drive the majority of our state tax revenues, and when you raise taxes on corporations and people who invest to create jobs, you curtail job growth -- which is what we need to turn around our economy.
This underscores the need for us to reduce state spending, and live within our means, just like Minnesota families and businesses!
By the way, there was a very important clarification in this morning's budget briefing: What many call state spending "cuts" are not cuts at all. They are reductions in the amount of spending increases. In fact, even under the Governor's budget proposal, state Health and Human Services spending would continue to increase -- not decrease. It would increase less than the 10 percent projected for the two-years ahead, but it would be false to call that a "cut" -- especially with inflation nearly stagnant. Unfortunately, some have been literally scaring vulnerable people into believing the state will "cut" their safety net programs. While reductions in increases will hurt, they are not the devastating "cuts" some describe.
As expected, we still have the challenge of bridging a huge state budget deficit, and we have wasted nearly half of this session doing very little about it. It is my sincere hope that the majority leadership in the Legislature will now, finally put forward their ideas for reducing the deficit and balancing Minnesota's budget.
Finally, I want to comment on a story that caught a lot of attention in the last few days. For the second time in as many sessions, I have introduced a bill on behalf of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association that would require photos on drivers licenses to show full face and head (HF0989). The purpose of the photo on a drivers license is to provide quick, accurate identification. Law enforcement authorities have been concerned because there are a growing number of drivers licenses without photos, or with photos of people wearing everything from baseball and cowboy hats, to hoods, bandanas and scarves. They have been pushing for this common sense legislation for some time, and this bill is co-authored by my DFL colleague, Rep. Larry Hosch of St. Joseph. It is not meant, in any way, to be discriminatory against anyone. It is a matter of public safety, and our law enforcement officials deserve our support on this.
Thank you for keeping informed. It is an honor and privilege to represent you at your State Legislature, and I've enjoyed hearing from so many constituents in the last several weeks. That kind of input and feedback are essential to good legislating. Please keep in touch, and continue to let me know how I can help!
Sincerely in service,
State Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 15A
231 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tel: (651) 296-6316
Toll-Free: 1-800-683-0886
Fax: (651) 296-3918
To sign up for my e-mail updates, go to: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/join.asp?id=15255.
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2009 10:57 AM
No comments.
Boehner Unloads On Democrats
House Minority Leader John Boehner unloaded on congressional Democrats and the White House in this Washington Post op-ed :
In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men, called "the party of no", to rally against.The smart thing that House Republicans have done is that they've offered alternatives. Eventually, those alternatives will gain traction. What's best is that Boehner returned the conversation back to where it's supposed to be:
It's no secret that middle-class families and small businesses across our nation are hurting. Their job security is diminishing, their budgets are tightening, and their 401(k)s and college savings are evaporating. During this recession, they are being forced to make difficult budget decisions; unfortunately, Congress and the administration do not feel the responsibility to do likewise. Instead, the profligate spending we've seen over the past two months is simply breathtaking, and it's exactly why some here in Washington are scrambling to change the subject.That's exactly where Democrats don't want the nation's focus to be. Nonetheless, it's where people's focus will be when the jobs report comes out. It's where people's focus will be when they get their 401(k)'s. It's where people are at. This paragraph hits DC emocrats the hardest on these matters:
Markets are plunging, businesses are cutting jobs and families are growing more anxious every day. Moments like this demand the kind of cooperation and new way of doing business that Obama has promised. Instead, those around him are taking to the airwaves and the pages of our nation's newspapers to carry out a campaign intended to change the subject and divert attention from what matters most: finding a way to work together to get our economy moving again.The Obama administration needs to get its act together because America's families, small businesses and retirees can't afford this administration's tomfoolery. They're the ones who need to get their TARP program straightened out. This adminstration needs to start cutting taxes and spending less. Only then will Wall Street and Main Street prosper.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2009 2:56 PM
No comments.
Failed Obamanomics
This WSJ op-ed explains why Wall Street has lost confidence in President Obama's economic plan in the most specific terms I've seen yet. This paragraph tells the story best:
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).If there's anything that markets disdain, it's when politicians play games with their numbers. President Obama's budget does exactly that. The notion that this will be a shallow recession is insulting enough. The final insult, though, came when Obama's economics team says that that shallow recession will be followed by a sharp, sustained recovery.
Mr. Boskin is right in highlighting, too, the fact that President Obama wants to increase taxes on small businesses to pay for the spending increases in President Obama's budget.
The other part that's certain to upset Wall Street and Main Street alike is President Obama's budgeting $634,000,000,000 for health care reform without first outlining the specifics of this reform.
This doesn't have to do with Obamanomics but it's worth noting:
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays, similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton, which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.The more people see of President Obama's priorities, the more they're convinced that he's another Jimmy Carter. Needless to say, those were awful years for the United States' economy and especially awful in the national security department.
It's time that President Obama got the message that he isn't playing in front of a friendly Chicago media, that he's now in the big leagues where the alternative media will take people to task for this type of sloppiness.
Originally posted Friday, March 6, 2009, revised 07-Mar 10:14 AM
No comments.
A Fight Worth Picking
When I watched Newt's speech to CPAC, I loved it. Now that I'm reading the transcript , I'm gaining a greater appreciation for Newt's speech. Here's the portion where he challenges Eric Holder to a discussion on liberal policies:
If you look at Attorney General Holder's recent speech in which he described us as quote a nation of cowards. Let me say to Attorney General Holder I welcome an opportunity to have a dialogue with you about cowardice anywhere, anytime. (Applause)House Republicans should join with Newt in calling for an honest discussion on these issues, especially in light of the Democrat majority's voting to eliminate vouchers for DC's children . Let's talk about how Democratic policies have decimated Detroit's economy.
Why don't we have the dialogue in Detroit and see if Attorney General Holder has the courage to talk about the failure of the Detroit school system, the failure of the Detroit teachers union, the betrayal of the futures of thousands of young people. Why don't we have the dialogue, I didn't say debate, now dialogue, lets have a dialogue, lets talk together, lets be above partisanship.
Lets discuss the total failure of the Detroit political system which has taken a city of 1.8 m which had the high per capita in the US and has driven it into the ground so that there are now fewer than 900,000 people living there with a per capita income that is 62nd in the United States. That is the function of bad government, bad politicians, bad bureaucracy, bad ideas, and let's talk about that. (Applause)
I would be prepared to go to the poorest neighborhood in Detroit with the most abandoned houses, with the highest crime rate, with the greatest betrayal of the American people and I'd be glad to talk about the idea that the Declaration of Independence applies to every person in Detroit.
Here's the section where Newt levels his sharpest criticism of President Obama on earmarks:
And so I was startled that he was saying to us that he opposed to earmarks and then they were saying but of course these ear marks don't count because he's opposed to later earmarks which aren't here now but they'll be here later, later he'll really oppose them because he's really very courageous but the courage doesn't come until later, because after all you heard Holder's speech. (Applause) And so I thought to myself I wonder how dumb they think we are that we wouldn't notice 8 thousand earmarks.There's no denying the fact that President Obama is a great orator. Though President Obama is gifted in speaking skills, he isn't a policy wonk. Instead, people are realizing that he's a driven ideologue. There's no proof that President Obama cares a single whit about changing Washington or the earmark system.
This is my favorite part of Newt's speech:
But then I looked at the budget yesterday which has a 640 billion dollar revenue item from energy tax. I thought to myself; let me get this straight, we're not going to raise taxes on anyone below 250,000 a year unless you use electricity. And we're not going to raise taxes on anyone under 250,000 a year unless you buy gasoline, and we're not going to raise taxes on anyone under 250,000 unless you buy heating oil, and we're not going to raise taxes on anyone under 250,000 a year unless you use natural gas.President Obama's mantra is that only those people making $250,000 a year will have their taxes increased. Newt brilliantly shows how that's nonsense, that there's tons of taxes in President Obama's budget. Mr. Newt isn't bashful in pointing that out. Others have picked up on that and are challenging President Obama.
I tried to think to myself even in the left wing of the Democratic Party where there are some people who are fairly unusual, (Laughter) how many of them don't use heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, or electricity. I believe there is a small contingent in northern Idaho in a commune who are actually doing that. (Laughter) I actually believe the group that will be least taxed under the new plan are the Amish in central Pennsylvania. (Laughter/Applause)
Highlighting cap-and-trade as a job-killing recessive tax is exactly how Republicans should attack President Obama's tax increasing policies. At a time when people are worried about losing their jobs, characterizing President Obama's policies as job-killers is the best way to get people's attention. That's how Republicans win the issue.
While we can't stop legislation, we can make certain that we're highlighting our appealing alternatives to President Obama's unappealing proposals. FYI- People that are intimidated by President Obama's approval ratings should note that they aren't that special. If he was above the 60 percent rating in 2011, that's reason to be worried. Having a 58 percent rating a month into your administration is the rule, not the exception. Let's also understand that President Obama's policies aren't as popular as he is personally.
Add those things together and a picture emerges, a picture that says President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are vulnerable because they're pushing an agenda that's far more radical than the country is. We aren't there yet but we'll see the seeds of rebellion if President Obama continues down this path.
According to Rasmussen, 65 percent of people polled are worried that the government-heavy proposals might make things worse , not better:
Edward C. Johnson III, chairman of Fidelity Investments, said recently of government efforts to jump-start the economy, "We can only hope that the government's cure doesn't further sicken the patient."Our job as the loyal opposition is to highlight our disagreements with President Obama's policies without appearing to be rooting against America.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of U.S. voters agree with Johnson in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) disagree, and 20% are not sure if he's right or not.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2009 11:11 AM
No comments.
It's Only A Great Opportunity If It's Done Right
During President Obama's weekly radio address, he stated that we're presented with a great opportunity to change govenment. I actually agree with that statement. What I don't agree with is his brand of change. Here's what the AP is reporting :
President Barack Obama on Saturday challenged his country to see its hard times as a chance to "discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis."Minnesota Republicans, led by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, have been proposing reforms with the goal of identifying as many savings as possible in their effort to balance Minnesota's budget.
"That is what we can do and must do today. And I am absolutely confident that is what we will do," Obama said in his weekly radio and video address, taped a day earlier at the White House.
President Obama's call for change is quite different. His vision isn't about saving money. It isn't about building on the things that've made America great. It's about giving government greater control of people's lives without increasing the government's accountability. (Can anyone look at TARP and say that Geithner is accountable to anyone?)
His rundown of the past week: the launch of a more detailed plan to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure; a new credit plan to spur lending for people and businesses; an overhaul of the way the government hands out private contracts to reduce waste; and a summit on how to overhaul health care.I don't care about these things until the banking system is straightened out. Health care is an important issue but it isn't what's causing people to lose 30, 40, 50 percent of their retirement funds. Helping "struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure" sounds nice but is it wise considering the fact that many of the homes that are in foreclosure are owned by people who bought them as an investment instead of them buying stocks? Is it wise to help "struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure" who don't have jobs? If people lost their jobs, isn't it better if President Obama focused more on job creation than on growing government to an unsustainable level?
Businesses aren't creating jobs because there's a major tax increase in the FY2010 budget. Energy businesses also aren't creating jobs because of President Obama's plans on enacting a job-killing cap-and-trade tax increase.
The other thing that people aren't talking about is the need for harvesting fossil fuels. Despite all the happy talk about alternatives, we still need large quantities of fossil fuels. People still worry about fossil fuels because they know their heating bills still keep rising if natural gas production doesn't increase. That won't happen if cap-and-trade is enacted.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:24 PM
No comments.
