March 9, 2007
Mar 09 01:07 Pelosi Touts Global Warming Agenda Mar 09 01:49 Fair is Fair Mar 09 09:02 The 'Finger In the Wind Caucus' Mar 09 10:39 Grab Your Wallets (Ongoing) Mar 09 11:36 "Not With These Kinds of Dollars" Mar 09 17:19 Piling It On Mar 09 22:30 Typical Liberal Legislation
Prior Years: 2006
Pelosi Touts Global Warming Agenda
I've said before that Nancy Pelosi has worse political instincts than Hillary, which she should take as the ultimate insult. Ms. Pelosi is touting global warming again. Global warming is another issue that people don't care much about. Let's face facts: the only people that she'll have supporting her on this are the environmental extremists that litter her party already.
This does nothing but alienate swing voters because, while they agree that the Earth's climate is changing, they haven't reached the conclusion that the Earth's changing climate is changing because of anything man is doing wrong. They certainly don't believe that we're wrecking the planet. Check out this hyperbolic Pelosi statement:
"Global warming may be the greatest challenge of our time, setting at risk our economy, environment and national security," Pelosi, (D-CA), said in a statement, With the new committee, "the House is giving these issues the high visibility they deserve."Global warming might be the "greatest challenge our our time"? What type of drugs is this woman using? Whatever they are, they must be great because that's as delusional a statement I've ever heard from a House Speaker. The scariest thing about this is that she's only two heartbeats away from the Oval Office. It's telling that Ms. Pelosi thinks that global warming, not jihadists, poses the greatest threat to humankind.
The next scariest thing about hearing that statement is that she's so intent on returning to the 'mommy issues' that helped Democrats in the 90's. The bad news for Democrats is that people understand that the world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. They realize that that date changed the course of the world for a generation or longer. Nobody believes that the so-called 'mommie issues' move voters to any measurable extent. Whereas 'soccer moms' were the most treasured swing voters in the 90's, the most coveted swing voters now are 'security moms' and with good reason.
Rep. Joe Barton sizes up the role of the new committee perfectly here:
Rep. Joe Barton, (R-TX), the top Republican on the Energy Committee, disparaged the new panel, saying in a statement that its only purpose was "serving as a platform for some members to grandstand and play to the constituencies that are so insistent that we destroy our economy in the name of political correctness."BINGO. EXACTAMUNDO!!! It's a device used to keep the environmental extremists writing checks for individual candidates and for the DCCC. This committee won't be taken seriously because it's about voodoo 'science'. It isn't based in the slightest on verifiable, repeatable patterns. It's based mostly on scientists making things up so the grant money keeps flowing.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 1:08 AM
No comments.
Fair is Fair
Earlier today, I called my representative in St. Paul, Larry Haws. I urged him to not vote for the Joe Wilson of Minnesota politics, Dean Johnson. I was somewhat startled when Larry answered the phone, not his legislative assistant or a staffer. After I told Larry what I thought of Dean Johnson being considered for a regent appointment, Larry chided me about my op-ed in Monday's St. Cloud Times, saying that he didn't vote in lockstep with the DFL. Fair enough. Upon further review of my op-ed, though, I didn't specifically accuse him of voting in lockstep with the DFL. Here's what I said in the op-ed:
In other words, Sertich led the DFL to defeat amendments that would a) save taxpayers big chunks of money, b) reform the per diem system and c) require each legislator to cast a vote for or against a pay raise.Larry can't refute the fact that a majority of DFLers voted in lockstep with Sertich to defeat the reforms that the GOP introduced that afternoon. There are some reforms that Larry voted against that I don't understand. Here's an example:
Lest anyone think this was all Sertich's fault, let's remember that a majority of DFL legislators voted in lockstep with him in defeating these reforms.
EVERY MEMBER SHOULD VOTE FOR FUTURE HIKES: Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) asked the House to adopt a rule that would require all 134 Representatives to vote for future "per diem" increases, while allowing an election to intervene after that vote before the higher payments could take effect. The DFL killed the A-19 amendment with a procedural motion by a +74-59 vote. Voted Against DFL amendment: Gottwalt, Haws, Hosch By a 90-43 margin, the DFL also killed a request by Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague) to instruct the House Rules Committee to at least consider the Buesgens proposal. Voted for Brod Amendment: Gottwalt; Voted Against: Haws, HoschHere's another amendment that Larry voted against:
ADVANCE NOTICE ON SPENDING BILLS: The DFL majority rejected Rep. Olson's proposal to give Representatives at least 48 hours to read bills and 24 hours' notice before taking up legislation on the Floor. The A-21 amendment lost by an 82-50 margin. Voting for Olson Amendment: Gottwalt; Voting against: Haws, Hosch
It's unacceptable for Mssrs. Haws & Hosch voted against bringing order to the legislative process. It's my opinion that this was another vote designed to tell Republicans that the DFL was running the show & they'd run Republicans over if they got in the way. If Mssrs. Haws & Hosch want to defend their votes on this bill, they'll be defending the indefensible.
Mr. Haws also voted against this 'transparency' amendment:
PER DIEM PAYMENTS: By a 76-57 margin, the DFL majority rejected Rep. Olson's A-37 amendment to require a direct vote by all 134 Representatives to vote on the increased per diem payments. Voting against the Olson amendment: Haws ; Voting for Olson Amendment: Gottwalt, HoschUnder the resolution that was adopted last week, the Permanent Rules of the House are that the only vote on per diem increases is the House Rules Committee. That means that 112 legislators never have to state for the record whether they're for or against per diem increases. That's what I'd call 'the ultimate dodge of responsibility'.
Based on the votes taken by the DFL on the reforms offered by Mark Olson, Laura Brod, Mark Buesgens & others, I'd say that, as a rule, the DFL doesn't concern itself with being accountable or transparent.
Minnesota deserves far better than that.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 1:49 AM
No comments.
The 'Finger In the Wind Caucus'
Minnesota's Democrat House members ran for cover when Strib reporters asked for their reaction to the latest Defeatocrat legislation. Tim Walz' office led the way with this response:
Walz didn't want to comment, said spokesman Gordie Loewen, because "there aren't any full details and the congressman doesn't want to base the safety and security of our troops on speculation. That's what got us into this war in the first place."That's a dodge pure & simple. They know the details because the House Democrats met to discuss the legislation before announcing it. Walz knows that he's history after this term unless he keeps his mouth shut until after the 2008 elections. He knows that if he enthusiastically endorses this bill passing, bloggers like me, Leo, Michael Broadkorb, AAA, King Banaian, Ed Morrissey and Mitch Berg will hang his words around his neck from now until Election Day, 2008.
Lest you think that Walz is the only Democrat running for cover, it's only fair to point out Keith Ellison's 'position':
Ellison likewise said he wanted to see specific language before committing, although he endorsed the Congressional Progressive Caucus' call for a withdrawal by Dec. 31.Ellison's position is best describe as "Why accept victory now? Why support the troops' mission now?" Friends, if you were expecting Democrats to display courage, you set the bar of expectations far too high. Then again, if you expected RINOs like Jim Ramstad to show some leadership tendencies, you set the bar of expectations far too high, too.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 9:02 AM
No comments.
Grab Your Wallets (Ongoing)
I thought about adding a Part X to the title but, let's face it, with Democrats in control of the Minnesota Legislature, taxing & spending increase proposals will be an ongoing situation to be tracked. Here's Tarryl Clark's latest attempt to justify another tax increase:
Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said the plan barely covers inflationary increases in programs. All of the K-12 money is spoken for if senators patch gaps in funding for classes that serve children with disabilities or special needs, she said.Brian Bakst must think we're idiots if he expects us to think that there's a strong similarity between the DFL's plan & Gov. Pawlenty's plan. Gov. Pawlenty's plan is to increase the state reserves by $100 million and the DFL's intention to grow the reserve by HALF A BILLION DOLLARS!!! Please don't insult us that way.
"We're not awash in extra money," she said. "There can be no new initiatives without additional revenue."
The plan is silent on the issue of tax increases. And as of now, the Senate plan doesn't address a top issue from the fall campaign: property tax assistance for homeowners. The Senate Taxes Committee intends to delve deeper into that issue and could consider altering the business tax code to pay for homeowner relief.
Like the governor, Senate Democrats are pressing for a build-up in state reserves. Clark said leaders want to put $629 million more away for emergencies, nearly doubling the reserve account.
Speaking of which, it's insulting for Tarryl to tell us that "We're not awash in extra money." Only a spendaholic would tell us that a $2.16 billion surplus isn't "being awash in extra money." To be fair, Tarryl is simply reinforcing the DFL's image of favoring tax increases regardless of whether we've got a significant surplus or they've spent us into another record deficit. Tarryl's thinking isn't significantly different from Tom Ruckavina's or Tony Sertich's or Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's thinking.
If Bakst's reporting is accurate, which isn't a good assumption if you're talking about the AP, the DFL will have failed on another of their major legislative priorities: providing permanent property tax relief. Thankfully, they've already abandoned their health care initiative, at least in a determined way. Here's the article's final warning:
House Democrats, who lead that chamber for the first time in eight years, haven't released a comparable spending blueprint yet.God help us when they do issue their blueprint. I'm sure it won't be friendly to Minnesota's taxpayers.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 10:39 AM
No comments.
"Not With These Kinds of Dollars"
That's Tarryl Clark's lament according to this MPR article:
"This is it. And unfortunately I think people have been led to believe that we're awash in new money and that we can do many good things. I think it's definitely the wake-up call that we can't do many good things; not with these kinds of dollars," according to Clark.Let me offer this suggestion to the DFL: If you want to do "good things", why not start with cutting our taxes, especially property taxes? Better yet, why not eliminate wasteful spending? Or perhaps adopt a family-friendly budget that tells the lobbyists that they don't get everything on their wish lists? If you did that, they'd have working families on their side.
Instead, they promise their special interest friends the world during the campaign, then break their promises a couple months into session. I find Tarryl's quote rather disingenuous when she says "I think people have been led to believe that we're awash in new money and that we can do many good things." I'd love hearing Tarryl's explanation on who "led to believe that...we can do many good things." Did Republicans promise the moon in terms of significant spending increases during last fall's campaign? Or did the Boogey Man behind the curtain promise the DFL's special interest buddies a pot of gold if they got elected?
Even though there is increased spending, several committee chairs aren't happy. "It's a bare bones, inflation-only target," said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. Pappas chairs the Senate Higher Education Committee.A three hundred million dollar education spending increase is a "bare bones inflation-only target"?!? These DFLers make drunken sailors look like timid models of moderation. Why does Sandy Pappas think that universities might have to raise tuitions again? Every Minnesotan wants a quality education product but I'd bet the ranch that they don't believe universities are starved in terms of financial resources & I'd bet that they don't think that tuition increases are justified, especially a major spending increase is heading their direction.
Three-hundred-million dollars is earmarked under the Senate plan for higher education. But Pappas doesn't think it's enough and is worried tuition will go up even more than anticipated.
"In my mind, I'm able to keep the systems whole, but they're not getting enough resources to hold down tuition," she said. "If I had more money and could give them more, they could hold down tuition or I could put more money into financial aid, but there certainly isn't any new money for new initiatives for moving the state forward in the higher education area."
Fortunately, a voice of sanity is speaking like the average voter:
But Charlie Weaver says he doesn't think that strategy will work. Weaver, who is former chief of staff to Gov. Pawlenty, says he thinks most Minnesotans agree with the governor that a tax increase isn't needed.
"If a bare-bones budget is presented, but raises spending 9 percent, which is what the governor's does, most people aren't going to scream and say 'that's not enough spending,' because frankly that's more spending than most of them have," Weaver said.
Unfortunately, someone's itching to increase Weaver's taxes:
Weaver is the CEO of the Minnesota Business Partnership which represents more than 100 of the state's largest companies. Some of those companies may be expected to pay more if the Senate Taxes Committee chair has his way. Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, says he won't be able to use any of the surplus money for property tax relief. He says that means he'll look for other ways to reduce the property tax burden.
Bakk says two of the options are closing a tax loophole on businesses with operations outside the country and increased tax enforcement.
"If we're going to do any new tax expenditures that offer tax reductions for people, we will have to raise money on the opposite side of the ledger in the tax bill to pay for it so it remains revenue neutral," Bakk said.
Expect this fight to continue into this summer. Expect the DFL to use these things to blame Republicans when the DFL doesn't finish its work in time & they're called into a special session.
It's worth one last look to compare the DFL's budget proposals to Gov. Pawlenty's proposed budget:
Gov. Pawlenty wants to increase the amount in the state's 'rainy day fund' to over three quarters of a billion dollars while still providing property tax relief & keeping the other tax rates stable. The DFL wants to double the size of the state's rainy day fun to over $1.2 billion while either scrapping desperately-needed property tax relief or providing desperately-needed property tax relief while dramatically increasing corporate & small business taxes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the DFL's budget & tax plans are shared by a majority of Minnesota voters.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 11:36 AM
No comments.
Piling It On
I'm working my way around the state's newspapers in hopes of finding quotes revealing the DFL's true nature. This afternoon, I hit the jackpot when I read this WC Trib article. Check out Sen. Sandy Pappas' quote:
Higher Education Chairwoman Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, said college and university funding is far from enough. "We are starving higher education," she said.Pappas' statement is laughable if it weren't so scary. Here's how she thinks we're "starving higher education":
Under the Senate targets, public education would get the most of $1.3 billion in new money: $498 million in the next two years. Following would be higher education ($296 million) and health and human services ($245 million). Other parts of the budget would get relatively insignificant increases considering the total state spending will top $34 billion over the next two years.Higher education getting an additional $148 million per year is starving Higher Education? I wish state legislators would get around to starving me like that. In light of those numbers, Pappas sees a grim future:
Pappas predicted existing plans to increase public college and university tuition about 4 percent each of the next two years may jump to twice that much.How about actually taking a look into the university budgets to see if they need all of their allocated administrators & regents. I'd love seeing the U of M Board of Regents reduced by a sander. (I'd bet that the students wouldn't notice the difference. Anyone want to make that bet with me?) How about looking into whether most of the administration staff overlaps? How about checking to see if any departments made major purchases right before the end of the budget year just so their budgets didn't get shrunk the next year?
Does anyone think that there isn't a significant amount of waste in school spending? If there is, my first question is "When did your spaceship land"? It's obvious that only a liberal would think that we need more. Remember that liberals think that it's illegal for you to ask them to attach a dollar amount to that "more". Here's some more of the article's gloom:
Figures Senate leaders released Thursday show budget numbers, known in the Capitol as "targets", that are just enough to cover inflation and pretty much nothing more. That means no all-day, everyday kindergarten. That means covering all of Minnesota's children with health care insurance might have to wait. That means little more can be done for the pre-schoolers. That means there might be no chance to keep college tuition rates static.They're going to "struggle immensely"? What about parents, young families & singles struggling because of the state's skyrocketing property taxes? Does anyone stand up for them? You won't find a DFLer fighting for property tax caps. Except if it's combined with a higher corporate income tax or higher marginal tax rates that small businesses pay.
"We're going to struggle immensely to address the education needs of the next two years with that target ," said Chairman LeRoy Stumpf of the Senate education finance division.
If there are any state tax increases, they probably will go to lower local property taxes, Sen. Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook said. Skoe, the Senate property tax chairman, said decisions are yet to be made about raising taxes.Isn't raising one tax to lower another tax keeping the state taxation rate the same? In other words, isn't Skoe's plan really like robbing Peter to pay Paul? What about the government doing with less? Why is it that government gets to maintain its gluttonous ways while private citizens, especially those lower in the food chain, get starved?
The middle class squeeze that Democrats ran on last fall exists but it's being caused by Democrats' excessive spending habits.
Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, would not rule out a tax increase, but did say: "We cannot do anything else unless we raise revenue."Tarryl, if your DFL 'friends' keep raising taxes, private citizens won't be able to do anything. Isn't it time that you kept your promise to locate wasteful spending? Isn't it time that the Senate held serious oversight hearings to identify wasteful spending?
It's time for Republicans to tell Minnesota's voters that, if they're restored to the majority party:
- they'll conduct oversight hearings into why college tuition keeps skyrocketing;
- they won't consider spending increases until they've identified & eliminated wasteful spending and;
- that they'll hold oversight hearings into why property taxes continue skyrocketing.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 5:19 PM
No comments.
Typical Liberal Legislation
If Thomas Huntley has his way, every Minnesotan will be required to purchase health insurance by 2011. That Democrats are talking about health care isn't shocking. They've been doing that since before I started voting. Here's the part that caught my attention:
Huntley said the proposal's cost to the state hasn't been estimated.He's writing legislation that would mandate people to purchase health care but the cost to Minnesota's taxpayers hasn't been calculated. Shouldn't Minnesotans have a right to expect that legislators shouldn't write legislation if they don't know the legislation's cost? After all, the goal of most people is to keep the state's budget balanced without tax increases.
This legislation shouldn't be taken as serious legislation even though it's possible that Sen. Huntley will push for its passage this session.
Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague, said cost is a major concern of the proposals.Making health care affordable should be a high priority with the legislature but I agree with Rep. Brod's plan of using market-based solutions to solve this problem. That's still the best method for getting this fixed.
"We want to get all people covered," said Brod, who advocates a plan that would see more privatization of health coverage. "We have the same requirement for auto insurance, and I'm not sure that exactly solves the problem. "This is an issue that is going to make or break banks of the state government and citizens of the state," Brod said.
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 10:30 PM
No comments.
