May 20-21, 2008
May 20 09:35 Onto the Campaign Trail May 20 11:05 TiZA's Troubling Attack May 20 14:17 Ted Kennedy's Diagnosis May 21 05:02 FDR, JFK & Lieberman or McGovern, Carter & Obama May 21 12:35 Koch: History Will Redeem Bush May 21 23:22 DFL Big Budget Winners? I Wouldn't Bet On It
Onto the Campaign Trail
Now that the legislature has left St. Paul, we can breath easier because this DFL-dominated legislature can't imperil our pocketbooks anymore. It's now time to look back and look forward.
One of the things that jumps out at me is how much it hurt when people stayed home in November, 2006. "Teaching them a lesson" is a phrase that still sticks in my craw. It's imperative that we be proactive in telling our legislators what we want so that we never have to 'teach them a lesson' again. A pet peeve of mine is that we didn't take advantage of the internet to contact our legislators until our backs were against the wall. Staying in touch with legislators will keep them accountable, which is what conservatism is all about.
Another thing that's worth noting is that a new group of leaders have taken the mantle of control in the House GOP. Marty Seifert held the caucus together masterfully, thanks in large part to the work of Tom Emmer, Laura Brod and others in the House leadership. I'd be remiss if I didn't also not that a new group of future leaders were elected in 2006, including my 'adopted state legislator' Steve Gottwalt.
Steve's mantra from Day One was to prioritize spending rather than increasing taxes. Steve wasn't alone in reciting that mantra. Among Steve's biggest achievements were pushing for private solutions to the issue of insuring the uninsured. (Notice that I didn't say health care crisis, which is a myth.) As a result of Steve's work, 5,000 people are now eligible for tax credits that will allow them to buy private insurance.
Once again, the House GOP Caucus has given us ammunition with which to fight. When Laura Brod fought for tax cuts the first week of the 2007 session, it rallied conservatives. When the GOP Caucus stuck together to sustain each of Gov. Pawlenty's 2007 vetoes, GOP activists had something to hang their hats on. Most importantly, taxpayers won with each of those vetoes.
Another thing that can't be ignored is that (a) Gov. Pawlenty is a great negotiatior and (b) holding fast to the right policies gives you a huge advantage in public opinion. When Gov. Pawlenty's budget came out in 2007, people gasped at the 9.3 percent increase, assuming that he'd have to settle for 13-15 percent increase. When the dust settled, state spending grew by 9.8 percent.
On almost every item negotiated this weekend, the DFL came our way far more than vice versa. When I attended a health care forum in early January, all the talk was about single-payer. The session ended with tax credits for 5,000 uninsured to buy private health insurance. In 2007, Ann Lenczewski's and Paul Marquart's property tax relief was a mirage. In 2008, Gov. Pawlenty negotiated real property tax relief. Instead of increasing taxes to balance the budget, spending was cut while also using money in our rainy day funds.
That's a message we should repeat on the campaign trail from now until Election Night.
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-May-08 04:02 AM
We DO have a good "team" at the capitol, doing what they ought to do, but you don't win the hockey game with only 4 players on the ice.
I hope that the voters who "taught [Republicans] a lesson" in 2006 now realize that those Republicans who lost were completely unable to do anything with the lessons learned. And that they do not repeat that mistake.
TiZA's Troubling Attack
About six weeks ago, Kathy Kersten reported on TiZA , which many suspect is a religious school masquerading as a charter school. Now the Minnesota Dept. of Education has weighed in on what's actually happening at the school. Here's what the DoE's report says:
Most of the school's operations follow state charter school law and federal guidelines on prayer in schools, but the department found two areas of concern, said Morgan Brown, an assistant commissioner with the department.Imam Zaman is spinning things when he said that he has "proof that this is not a religious school." The DoE says otherwise when it says that the "school may be violating the law by allowing voluntary Friday prayers." The DoE saying that letting "teachers participate...may give students the impression that the school endorses Islam."
School director Asad Zaman said he takes the state's concerns seriously and will address them as soon as possible. He also took the report as vindication, saying: "I now have proof that this is not a religious school."
But the report said the school may be violating the law by allowing voluntary Friday prayers that most students attend to take place on school grounds. Those 30-minute prayers take up so much time that they may be a burden to non-praying students, and could mean the school isn't teaching students for as many hours a year as the state requires. Letting teachers participate, even though they don't lead prayers, may give students the impression that the school endorses Islam.
That isn't the only thing that troubles me about Imam Zaman. KSTP sent a camera crew to TiZA. Here's what they're reporting :
In an attempt to report about the new findings from the Department of Education Monday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS went to Tarik ibn Zayad Academy in Inver Grove Heights.School officials attacking camera crew? That's disgusting. The state shouldn't spend a penny on TiZA until those officials have been terminated. PERIOD. Hotheaded people like that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.
While on school grounds, our crew was attacked by school officials. Our photographer was injured while wrestling with the two men over the camera. Our photographer was examined by paramedics and suffered minor shoulder and back injuries.
Here's another problem that must be addressed:
The state also said it was concerned about the appearance created by the school's bus schedule. The school does not provide busing for students immediately after classes, instead it waits until the end of after-school activities, which include a religious studies course run by the Muslim American Society that more than half the students take.I wonder if the bus schedule is consistent with other schools' bussing policy regarding after school programs. I'm betting that it isn't.
The school characterized the concerns as "minor," pointing out that the department found no fault with the school's curriculum, library or accommodations for five-minute student prayers held Monday through Thursday.
Catering to the wishes of the children participating in these prayer sessions while ignoring the needs of the children who aren't participating in that program shouldn't be tolerated. Couple that with the fact that school officials attacked a camera crew just because they wanted to report on the school and you get a picture of a hostile learning environment for students who aren't Muslims.
That isn't acceptable and the school's state funding should instantly be vaporized.
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment 1 by Iftikhar at 13-Sep-08 08:46 AM
Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.
The right to education in one's own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents' choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.
Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim culture--the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
Ted Kennedy's Diagnosis
Doctors treating Ted Kennedy have diagnosed the cause of his seizures. This morning, Ted Kennedy was diagnosed as having a malignant brain tumor . Here's what's being reported:
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor, doctors treating him at Massachusetts General Hospital said Tuesday. Kennedy, 76, was hospitalized Saturday morning after suffering a seizure at his family's compound at Hyannisport, Massachusetts.I'm not surprised with this diagnosis because I knew it was a definite possibility. I don't say that with any glee or satisfaction. It's just that I realized that this was a possibility.
"Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe," according to a statement from the doctors treating the senator.
Malignant glioma is the most common primary brain tumor, accounting for more than half of the 18,000 primary malignant brain tumors diagnosed each year in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Now isn't the time for politics. Rather, it's a time for us to keep Sen. Kennedy and his family in our prayers.
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:18 PM
No comments.
FDR, JFK & Lieberman or McGovern, Carter & Obama
Joe Lieberman's op-ed in this morning's WSJ is a study in contrasts. Sen. Lieberman's op-ed starts with him alluding to the muscular foreign policy of FDR, Truman and JFK. Here's what Sen. Lieberman said about those men's foreign policy credentials:
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in ; a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.It's unfortunate that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for those principles anymore. JFK's "we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom" has been replaced by 'The war is lost' , "there is no military solution" and let's talk with Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad '. Sen. Lieberman pinpoints when things started going downhill for the Democratic Party:
This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor ; a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace.Starting in the late Sixties, the Democratic Party was dominated by pacifists like McGovern and Carter, Clinton and Kerry. In essence, they became the party 'every burden is too heavy, every challenge too difficult, every enemy too time-consuming.'
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America's fault.
The saddest thing is that they're on the verge of nominating someone who is both utterly clueless about foreign policy and a pacifist. Sen. Obama has said that he isn't against all wars, that he's just against this war. Why should we believe him? What proof do we have of that? Nothing in his actions says that he's prepared to take the fight to our enemies.
God help us if we elect a pacifist during wartime, especially this pacifist.
It's worth noting that Obama won't give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks:
I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.In other words, he won't give immunity to the telecommunications companies that help gather surveillance. If these telecommunications companies don't get some sort of protection, then they'll refuse to help us.
"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.
"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy ; not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush ; activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.As the saying goes, anyone who isn't willing to stand up to MoveOn.org crazies won't stand up to militant crazies like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right ; regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
It's sad to see Democrats cave into the wishes of the MoveOn crazies. They used to have a spine. They've traded in that spine for a cash cow. True to recent history, Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:03 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 21-May-08 10:20 AM
FDR's muscular foriegn policy? Would that be the constant kow-towing to Stalin? His opinion that Churchill was more of a threat to human freedom than Stalin? The pathetic letter sent to Hitler begging him to respect the sovereignty of smaller nations which was read to hilarious laughter to the Reichstag? His protectionism? His refusal to let in Jewish refugees from Nazism or to issue any public statements about the Holocaust he knew was occuring? His failure to put the armed forces on alert when he was warned the Japanese were about to attack? His embarrassing telegram to Hirohito to try to prevent that attack? Roosevelt was an egotistical incompetent; foreign and domestic. He set the paradigm for future democratic incompetence and foolishness in foreign policy.
Koch: History Will Redeem Bush
In 2004, Ed Koch spoke at the Republican National Convention, saying that he'd vote for George Bush that year while encouraging other national security Democrats join him. Now he's written a column titled History Will Redeem Bush that's sure to upset people like Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Herer's what he says about President Bush and his support of him:
Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a proud American and a proud Jew who, while not religiously observant, fiercely loves and defends his faith. It has become fashionable for Americans in general, Jew and gentile, to hold President George W. Bush up to derision. As I believe many readers and listeners of my commentaries know, I crossed party lines in 2004 to support the President's reelection, saying at the time that I did not agree with him on a single domestic issue , but I did believe he was the only one running who appreciated the threat of Islamic terrorism to American values and Western civilization and was prepared to wage a war to defend those values.Mayor Koch is right in saying that historians will notice all that he's accomplished. Historians should note the mistakes made in the Iraq War just like they should note his policies that liberated 50 million people. President Bush's policy of liberation, along with his working with Tony Blair, have had a powerful impact on the history of the Middle East.
I have no regrets for having made that decision and helping the President to win a second term. Today, according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, "71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as President, an all-time high in polling." His position can be compared with that of Harry Truman who left Washington unpopular and alone in 1953. Today, with the passage of time, most historians and certainly the American people, see Truman in a different light, primarily for his willingness to stand firm against Soviet aggression, whether against Greece or South Korea, and proclaim the Truman Doctrine, effectively defending the free world from Soviet efforts to expand their hegemony. Like Truman, George W. Bush, in my view, will be seen as one of the few world leaders who recognized the danger of Islamic terrorism and was willing with Tony Blair to stand up to it and not capitulate.
History will also look kindly on the fact that President Bush established policies that've prevented another terrorist attack following 9/11. When history is recorded, they will record the unity with which our nation rallied to his leadership in the days immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. History will record the fact that he tore down the Gorelick Wall, which prevented law enforcement from talking with the CIA.
If the Gorelick Wall hadn't existed, we might've connected the dots prior to 9/11. Instead of following Bill Clinton's policies of prosecuting terrorists in an American court, President Bush took the war to the jihadists. That's why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. It isn't fashionable to admit that but it's fact.
Here's the portion of Mayor Koch's column that likely upsets liberals the most:
Recently, President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th birthday as a nation and addressed its parliament, the Knesset. He said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."That last paragraph will stick in the craw of BDS-afflicted liberals everywhere. They can't like having their savior being exposed as having a spineless foreign policy. They can't like it that President Bush is right in talking about appeasement.
Bush's remarks were heavily criticized by leading Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, who said, "Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world."
Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels, President to President without pre-conditions, with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name, appeasement?
Thank you, Mayor Koch, for speaking truth to the lunatics in your party.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:37 PM
No comments.
DFL Big Budget Winners? I Wouldn't Bet On It
MinnPost's Doug Grow thinks that the DFL were the big winners this session. I'd beg to differ. First, let's hear Grow's reasoning for that opinion:
Speaker of the House Margaret Kelliher was the biggest winner of all, coming out of this session winning raves from Republicans and Democrats alike. Without ever seeming to raise her voice, she managed to outmaneuver Gov. Tim Pawlenty throughout the session .She what? Her only big victory was the Transportation Bill. If that's Grow's example of outmaneuvering Gov. Pawlenty, then he's delusional. Let's look at it from another standpoint. Before the session started, the DFL was publicly pushing hard for single-payer health care reform. When the dust settled, they voted for giving tax credits to help uninsured buy private health insurance. It's amazing how Speaker Kelliher started with single-payer and finished with tax credits for private health insurance. That's some job of outmaneuvering Gov. Pawlenty and the GOP.
To make matters even juicier for DFLers, the Republicans appear to be in disarray . Eight of their house members have announced they're quitting, while only four DFLers are retiring. That means a chance of grabbing more open seats as DFLers dream of gaining enough seats to have a veto-proof majority in the House as well as the Senate.It's true that Republicans have to defend a group of open but the DFL has to pray that nobody noticed that their most vulnerable freshmen voted for the biggest, most unpopular tax increases in Minnesota history. They won't get away with that because we're breaking out the biggest megaphones in the state to remind people of those votes.
It's obvious that Grow thinks that increasing taxes when the economy is soft will appeal to suburban and exurban voters. Grow doesn't even deal with the Metro DFL's throwing vulnerable freshmen under the bus when they voted to extend the metro sales tax to rural Minnesota. Those freshmen were told that they had to vote with their metro colleagues. How do you think it'll play with rural voters to pay a sales tax so that Minneapolis and St. Paul can pay for their pet projects? I'm not betting it'll sit well with those voters.
Grow must also be thinking that the DFL's majority was won by big margins. The number of seats gained was significant but the margin of victory was microscopic in a number of races. Paul Gardner defeated Phil Krinkie by 51 votes. Shelley Madore won by 195 votes, Sandy Masin won by 57 votes, Kim Norton by 99 votes, David Bly by 60 votes, Ken Tschumper won by 52 votes. In summary, the 18 closest races won by DFL candidates were won by 7,246 votes, an average of 403 votes. Those weren't all won by challengers either. Julie Bunn, for instance, won by 244 votes in a totally toxic year for Republicans. Sandy Wollschlager won by 496 votes. They're both being targeted for their votes on the Transportation Bill.
Let's dig into the Transportation Bill's impact on these races. While it's true that these candidates will likely be able to justify increasing the gas tax, that's as far as it goes. Don't bet that suburban, exurban and rural voters to buy into raising license and registration fees and the other taxes included in this bill.
And there's more. While DFLers have moved to the middle, broadening their base, Republicans may be facing another purge from the right.When did this supposed move to the middle happen? Was it when they were forced into abandon their property tax relief bill? Or was it after Gov. Pawlenty vetoed their original health care reform bill?
Next Grow whines about Republicans endorsing more conservatives:
Like Tingelstad, Rep. Neil Peterson, a Republican from Bloomington, has felt the wrath of his party for joining the Override Six. He was not endorsed at his district convention, meaning he'll have to run against a more pure, endorsed candidate in a September primary.Here's what Jan Schneider said about Neil Peterson and about her candidacy:
"The leadership in the party has become very conservative," said Peterson. "It's caused quite a rift. Next week, they have a (district party) monthly meeting that we've always been invited to to discuss how the session went. This year, I'm not invited. Neither is Ron Erhardt. They don't even want to hear from us."
Erhardt, from Edina, is another of the Override Six. He's been representing his moderate district for 18 years but now is pondering whether to try to continue his job by running in the Republican primary or as an independent.
"I'm not sure if this is Ron Paul people or what," said Peterson. "I just know I don't pass their test."
My opponent is probably well known to most of you ; Rep. Neil Peterson. And between now and September, you'll likely hear that the opposition to Rep. Peterson is based solely on his transportation vote ; as is my candidacy. But those of us who live in 41B known the fuller picture. For four years, Rep. Peterson has put his voice and his vote to such projects as the Twins Stadium, a clothing sales tax, the Dream Act and, originally, in opposition to eminent domain reform. In 2007 alone, according to the Journal of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Rep. Peterson voted with the DFL 52.1% Surprisingly, I agree with some of Rep. Peterson's defenders ; one vote shouldn't define a record.It isn't automatically a disgrace to vote with Democrats from time to time. When you vote with them over half the time, especially when their bills are for major tax increases and unsustainable spending increases and for more government control, then it's time to eliminate the problem.
But I'm not running simply to "oppose" Rep. Peterson anymore than I'm running because of one vote or issue. For 25 years, I've operated my own small business as an executive business consultant, working with small companies as well those listed among the Fortune 500. I've made my career out of striving for greater efficiency and effectiveness and it has long aggravated as many of our legislators, Democrat and Republican, have chosen the path of least resistance by "striving" for more of the same.
I'd further posit that it's a good thing to elect someone with small business experience rather than electing who won't for conservative principles. Here's how Grow finishes his post:
As November approaches, Republicans are trying to understand who they are. Meantime, DFLers are bouncing around the state more robust, and unifed, than they've been in a quarter century.There isn't any doubt that DFL legislators are unified. Unfortunately for them, that isn't the only thing that matters in elections. Over the past 2 years, they've voted for some of the biggest tax increases in state history. They voted for an irresponsible and unsustainable spending increase of almost 18 percent in 2007, only to have that budget vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty and sustained by the House GOP caucus.
Every poll I've seen, whether it's a national or statewide poll, says that tax increases are extremely unpopular this year. One other thing that the DFL will have to deal with is their voting record vs. what they ran on in 2006. Back then, they ran as "a fiscally moderate caucus." Now they've got to defend their liberal voting records.
Let's see how big a bounce the DFL has in their step once they've been cursed at for raising people's taxes.
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:22 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 22-May-08 07:57 AM
Based on the last three weeks worth of floor debates I would not say that the DFL is "unified". Most of the floor debate was Dem against Dem....
LL
Comment 2 by Angela Berger at 22-May-08 01:07 PM
Considering the source is Doug Grow, would you expect anything different? I agree with you that his assessment is all wrong. But letting the Dems think they are in the driver's seat may not be so bad.
I heard MPR's assessment of the session end and they claimed that Dems could balance the other tax increases with the deal reached on capping property taxes. That cap was only fought for at the level achieved because of Pawlenty.
I, too think, that these freshmen suburban Dems will have a hard fight against conservatively fiscal Republican challengers. They have to show why it is a good idea to raise the gas tax, metro sales tax, and put a state sales tax increase possibility on the November ballot for the environment at a time when people are worried about necessities like groceries, fuel and energy costs.
Also, why is pushing for minimum wage increases which are proven to cause layoffs a good idea at this time.
It is important for conservatives to make these points in campaigns, in the media and in talking to their neighbors.
