May 18, 2007
May 18 06:01 The Devil's in the Details May 18 06:50 Budget Deal Impasse May 18 10:49 HHS Budget the Sticking Point May 18 11:52 Fred Thompson vs. Dennis Kucinich May 18 18:42 Squash the "Last Gasp"
Prior Years: 2006
The Devil's in the Details
The goal of yesterday's hoopla and fanfare about a breakthrough on immigration was to make it sound like a signing ceremony was inevitable. I don't believe it is. In fact, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are signaling that they've got concerns about the legislation. That's music in my ears because their concerns aren't that it needs to get tougher but that it gets more permissive. If changes happen during the legislative process, it's possible to stall the legislation like it stalled last time.
"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration," Reid said. "We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process."When Reid says that the legislation puts "undue limitations on family immigration", he's really saying that that section of the legislation isn't lenient enough. If they loosen up restrictions, then this bill has a chance of unraveling.
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, which must also pass the bill, echoed Reid's sentiments. "While the bipartisan Senate agreement starts the process, I have serious concerns about some elements of this proposal, the bill must be improved in the Senate," she said.
Other things that could derail this is if someone like Tom Coburn insists on a longer fence or if the American public hears the cost of this bill in terms of Social Security & Medicare obligations that we'll hit with.
Fred Thompson has weighed in on this legislation:
"With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway."AMEN!!! Fred's pitch perfect as usual. I'm not a Washington insider but I don't think that's important for me to predict this: I predict that yesterday was the high water mark in terms of popularity for this bill. We still don't know if the federal government will take their responsibilities seriously. Until we see that they are, we should demand that this legislation be dropped.
Part of the problem for this legislation are the 'faces' of it. Having Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Arlen Specter as the face of it won't help with Americans living in the Heartland. People see Ted Kennedy as untrustworthy, even criminal. Arlen Specter is a windbag who changes his mind with each opinion poll. John McCain is seen as a self-serving, promise-breaking, unprincipled preener.
At the end of the day, I predict that this bill collapses because each liberal provision will make it unpalatable to Republicans.
Posted Friday, May 18, 2007 6:02 AM
No comments.
Budget Deal Impasse
According to this Pi-Press article, the budget negotiations are slowing down, with it still looking like a special session will be needed:
After a meeting between Republican and DFL leaders, the House and Senate tax committee chairs and the governor, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said lawmakers could reach a budget agreement by Monday, the constitutional deadline for the end of the session, but that talks Thursday night were in neutral.In other words, it sounds like Pogemiller is digging his heals in as much as possible in an attempt to get the best deal he can. I'm not certain that he's realized that he's digging his heals in on a muddy slope yet. He'll find out the hard way that the DFL's legislation isn't drawing much support from outstate legislators.
After the late-night session with Pawlenty, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said he thought "neutral" was a little strong; "reverse" seemed a word more to his liking. He said he was "concerned" that the Republican governor was leaning toward adopting a strategy that would lead the Legislature into special session.
One commenter at SCSUScholars sees a full-fledged DFL collapse, something that I don't see right now:
The governor isn't winning the end of session. He's dominating. When all is said and done this could be a steamroll equal to 2003, without the disastrous fallout.The commenter makes one point that I totally agree with though:
Once the Speaker and moderate DFLers convince her that she doesn't have the votes for her megaspending, the rest falls into place. Then, the hard feelings set in among the hardcore urban liberals and the rest of the Democrats. They may not talk for months.I mentioned something similar to this to a couple of the legislators that I talked with Thursday. How do they return to Education Minnesota after getting their heads handed to them?
Posted Friday, May 18, 2007 6:50 AM
No comments.
HHS Budget the Sticking Point
According to this KSTP.com article, the biggest sticking point in reaching a budget agreement in St. Paul is the HHS budget:
Spending on health and welfare programs appeared to be the biggest sticking point. Seifert, R-Marshall, said Republicans can't accept increased welfare eligibility and changes in work rules, but it's unclear whether Senate Democrats would give up their proposals.Several GOP legislators, including Steve Gottwalt, Laura Brod, Torrey Westrom & Dan Severson, have told me that Gov. Pawlenty will veto HHS bills that undo the welfare reforms of the 1990's. Essentially, Larry Pogemiller is driving this debate. He'll learn that he's hitting his head against the proverbial brick wall by doing that. The sooner that Pogemiller drops his demands to undo the best governmental reforms in a quarter century, the sooner that they can start finalizing the HHS bill.
Here's good news for Republicans:
Republican House Minority Leader Marty Seifert said the two sides weren't far apart on spending for schools, although they disagree on how to distribute the cash. Senate Democrats want to pump more money into special education programs, while Republicans are holding out for a bigger increase in the across-the-board school funding.What it looks like is that our GOP legislators are sticking with Gov. Pawlenty's budget blueprint. They certainly aren't the side that's making the major concessions. We should be very proud of our outnumbered legislators because they held together. They proved that the GOP wins when they combine good policies with steadfastness of purpose.
There's another lesson to be learned from this that should bring a smile to conservatives' faces: No majority is big enough to win the day when you're proposing bad policies. The DFL started with a statistical dominance & bad ideas. They're getting trounced. DFL moderates, especially freshmen, have been peeling off for over a week now. I'd bet several ranches that they've been getting an earful from their constituents when they return home on weekends.
Posted Friday, May 18, 2007 10:49 AM
No comments.
Fred Thompson vs. Dennis Kucinich
In what's shaping up to be smackdown matchup, Fred Thompson has ridiculed Dennis Kucinich in this NRO op-ed. Suffice it to say that people will instantly recognize Mr. Thompson as the heavyweight and Rep. Kucinich as the fly about to be swatted across the political universe.
I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he's denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.Dennis Kucinich is leading the fight for the 'new and improved' Fairness Doctrine. Last year, Tom Harkin led the 'fight' for it. Suffice it to say that it's always been a bad idea but that it's utterly useless now.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area, so equal time rules were put in place.
Notice, though, the way in which Sen. Thompson constructs his arguments. Frankly, it's a thing of beauty. If you haven't noticed, Sen. Thompson is approaching this in a very Reaganesque way. He's laying out his positions on a wide variety of issues; he's mixing in Constitutional concerns from time to time, a not-so-subtle reminder of how important putting strict constructionist judges is. Most importantly, his appeal is logical & measured. Put differently, it's pitch perfect. Check out the logic in this argument:
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of, the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.As flawless as that logic is, here's the best smackdown of the Fairness Doctrine:
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio station "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts, because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can't attract a market or advertisers.POW!!! Now THAT'S a smackdown soundbite: "I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views."
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people's perception that broadcast television doesn't give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Translation: If your ideas are pathetic, like liberals' ideas are, you're forced to practice censorship.
Here's the other stunning line that I love:
The bicoastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.This pretty much speaks volumes of the contempt that big city liberals have towards the heartland. The media elites essentially said "Here's what we're giving you. If you don't like it, tough." Instead, we've turned to conservative talk radio, the blogosphere and all forms of alternative media. Now liberals are panicking to the extent that they're 'reviving' the Fairness Doctrine.
Frankly, it's fun watching Sen. Thompson in action because he's such a clear communicator. I'm looking forward to his jumping into the race.
Posted Friday, May 18, 2007 11:53 AM
No comments.
Squash the "Last Gasp"
Ted Kennedy is calling the artificial immigration reform legislation that he's negotiated with President Bush, John McCain and other spineless RINOs as "our last-gasp stand." Here's what he's blustering about:
Congress should coalesce behind sweeping new compromise immigration legislation despite steep political obstacles because opportunities to confront the problem head-on are rare, Sen. Edward Kennedy said Friday. Kennedy, the lead Democratic negotiator with Republicans and the White House, acknowledged widespread criticism but called it "our last-gasp stand."With a reputation like Kennedy's, it's impossible to take him seriously about his desire to enforce our borders. Instead, I think it's likely that he and McCain learned from last year's debacle. What I think they learned is that they couldn't sell this collection of misguided policies if they didn't repeat the lines about border enforcement. Simply put, I think that that's just something for public consumption. I don't think it's a heartfelt priority. In fact, I'd bet the ranch that they don't care about border enforcement.
The bill, which conservatives immediately attacked as an "amnesty" program, would provide a pathway to citizenship for some 12 million immigrants now in the United States illegally. It also would mandate tougher border security and workplace enforcement and provide for a guest worker program. Critics complained that it would reward the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants with a way of gaining legal status and staying in the U.S. permanently without being punished.
Asked about amnesty on CBS's "The Early Show" Friday morning, Kennedy said, "That's sort of a slogan and a cliche you're going to hear a lot about." He said fixing the nation's "broken borders" is long overdue.
Part of the reason for thinking that is because of the Democrats' fundraising connections with groups like La Raza and other extremist groups. Here's a brief capsule of what La Raza stands for:
La Raza was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it "contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers , that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights"; it has endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act; it endorsed the December 18, 2001 "Statement of Solidarity with Migrants, which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and called upon the U.S. government to "end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11"; and it endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a big supporter of Democrats, both in terms of campaign contributions and also in terms of helping in GOTV drives. Listen to NCLR's agenda, then match it up with recent Democratic legislative initiatives:
- It supports access to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
- It opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver's license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law "opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations."
- It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. La Raza argues this would "result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations."
- It lobbies for racial and ethnic preferences (affirmative action) and set-asides in hiring, promotions, and college admissions.
- It supports bilingual education and bilingual ballots.
- It supports voting rights for illegal aliens.
- It supports stricter hate-crime laws.
- It opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
- It opposed President Bush's signing of the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
That alone is reason enough to vigorously oppose this abomination of legislation.
Posted Friday, May 18, 2007 6:43 PM
No comments.
