May 20-23, 2009
May 20 16:04 Spotting the DFL's Flawed Thinking May 21 01:28 Tea Party, Part II? May 21 10:27 Let's Get It Started May 21 14:42 The DFL Failed May 22 02:07 Democrats Better Start Worrying May 22 03:53 Pawlenty Well-Positioned for Re-election May 22 10:27 The DFL's Shaved Truth Tour May 22 14:28 Cause, Effect At Work? May 23 00:59 The DFL's Unhinged 'Leadership'
Spotting the DFL's Flawed Thinking
After reading this SC Times article , it was impossible for me to not notice the DFL's flawed thinking. Here's a prime example:
"At the end of the session, he gave us two choices. We could either do it his way or he would do it his way," said Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud "We looked for a third way that balanced the budget while protecting nursing homes, schools, hospitals and property taxpayers."The DFL talked endlessly about taking a balanced approach to balancing the budget. Larry Pogemiller talked about shared sacrifices . Tarryl spoke about some budget cuts and some some 'revenues'. Noticeably missing from their agenda was a reform agenda.
Their actions rarely matched their words. Starting with the opening day of the session, DFL legislators from the House and Senate voted down, on almost straight party line votes, dozens of common sense reforms offered by the House and Senate GOP.
Had the DFL looked for cost savings and spending cuts, these items wouldn't have made it past the laugh test:
- $1.5 million earmark for a "carbon footprint awareness campaign" in Duluth.
- $1 million for "renewable energy outreach" agents to go door-to-door across the state.$3 million earmark for solar panels along the proposed light rail route in St. Paul.
The DFL proved time and again this session that they're the party of status quo. They talk change. They deliver more of the same. They didn't think in terms of reforms. I know that because of the aforementioned reforms that the DFL rejected.
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-May-09 06:55 PM
Biggest flaw in their thinking is that almost all of these "cuts" only eliminate desired INCREASES in spending voted in the last two years. In other words, had we frozen the budget two years ago, we would have no shortfall today. Their problem is that a spending growth rate of 18% per biennium is not sustainable, especially in a down economy. They need to get spending under control, and don't know how.
Tea Party, Part II?
After reviewing Tuesday night's defeat of Gov. Shwarzenegger's initiatives, it's apparent that California's Tea Party attitude hasn't disappeared. This article provides a nice summarization of Tuesday's vote:
Measure 1A, designed to create a "rainy day" fund in the state's budget, failed with 65.9 percent of the state's voters against it. In Lake County, 66.3 percent of the voters opposed the measure.In short, voters rejected the smoke and mirrors offered by California's political class. With it looking likely that President Obama will add the title of de facto governor of California, the only questions left will be answered by voters in 2010 and 2012. In short, it's a matter of whether the people will vote out the politicians that spent money on themselves and their allies or whether the voters will pretend that everything's ok and return the elitists to their positions of power.
Measure 1B would have required the state to make payments to schools and community colleges beginning in the 2011-12 fiscal year. The measure failed with 62.6 voting against it statewide. Lake County's vote was 62.8 percent opposed.
Measure 1C would have allowed the state to borrow $5 billion in future lottery profits to balance the 2009-10 budget. The measure failed with 64.6 percent voting against it statewide. Voters in Lake County rejected it as well, with 65 percent of the voters opposed.
Measure 1D would have allowed the state to borrow more than $1.4 billion from voter-approved funds for the California Children and Families Program. The measure failed with 65.8 percent of the state's voters against it. In Lake County, 67.6 percent of the voters opposed it.
Measure 1E would have allowed the state to redirect approximately $640 million from voter-approved money for expansion of mental health programs. The measure failed with 66.4 percent of the state's voters against it. In Lake County, 68.9 percent of the voters opposed the measure.
If voters don't wipe out the spineless legislators and their political allies, then they'll get what they deserve. What they'll get is more policies that will lead to the total destruction of what little is left of California's economy.
The cure for California is the same as the cure for the United States: fiscal restraint, low marginal tax rates and setting intelligent priorities. The United States and California wouldn't know the definition of fiscal restraint or setting intelligent priorities if their lives depended on it.
I'm basing my opinion on several things, though Phil Ting's op-ed definitely is Exhibit A:
In my role as assessor-recorder of San Francisco, it's my job to assess the fairest property taxes possible for the residents and businesses of San Francisco. Nobody knows better than a tax assessor that a key part of why California continues to fall behind is Proposition 13.Unless I miss my guess, repeal of propositions requires a defeat of that proposition at the ballots. A simple act of the legislature won't suffice. Betting that Californians will vote to repeal Prop 13 isn't a wise bet. They'd be voting for a major tax increase.
I have a proposal to reform Prop. 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that capped the state's property tax rate. My proposal for a split roll system would eliminate corporate tax loopholes and continue to protect California homeowners. California cannot continue to mortgage its future to protect a law that has resulted in near-constant budget shortfalls, deep cuts to vital services and corporate tax loopholes.
Mr. Ting's op-ed is proof that the political and the bureaucratic classes have an agenda totally apart from Californians.
Which brings us back to this question: Was Tuesday's votes a continuation of April's tea parties? The most important question, though, isn't whether it's a continuation of the tea party movement. The most important question is whether Californians are angered into activity in the political process. That means becoming conservative activists.
California's liberal policies, started under Gray Davis and continued by Ahnold, have brought California to its knees. Capital leaving the state's confiscatory tax rates behind has caused California's economic collapse. Nevada has been the biggest beneficiary of that capital flight. Instead of reversing course, the politicians kept spending.
California's politicians won't go down without a fight. They'll have every union in the state working hard to continue with California's failed policies. They'll attempt to maintain control through fearmongering. The last refuge of mental midgets is the tactic of fearmongering. Their attempts should be seen as acts of desperation. They should be rejected and annihilated.
It can't happen soon enough.
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:31 AM
No comments.
Let's Get It Started
There's a movement gathering momentum across the nation, a movement based almost exclusively on fiscal discipline. It first manifested itself during the stimulus bill debate. It continued with the bailouts of the UAW and AIG. Proof that it's continuing was provided Tuesday when Californians sent the political equivalent of a California earthquake.
Nonetheless, parts of the GOP refuse to get on board with the message of fiscal conservatism. Colin Powell recently told us that American citizens wanted to pay more taxes in exchange for increased services. Tuesday night, putting it politiely, Californians said that Gen. Powell doesn't have a clue.
Last night, Rush called into Greta's show to talk about this. Rush said that blueblood Republicans were holding the party back. That said, Chris Dodd is still trailing in Connecticut, Republicans have a better than average shot at retaking the New Jersey governor's seat and an excellent shot of reclaiming the Virginia governor's mansion.
If the GOP makes efficient use of social networking technology, they could rebuild the party faster than the punditocracy thinks.
Something that's undeniable is that there's a great anti-bailout, anti-big spending movement building across the nation. People voted for Obama and the Democrats mostly because they transferred their priorities onto the blank slate known as Barack Obama. That won't work next time because people are appalled at how he's governed.
They see his bailout of Chrysler and they get worried because government isn't geared for running auto manufacturers. They worry some more when they see him getting ready to bail California out of its crisis. In both cases, the American people don't believe that his policies are the solution to our nation's problems.
There's a movement gathering momentum across the nation, a movement based almost exclusively on fiscal discipline. It first manifested itself during the stimulus bill debate. It continued with the bailouts of the UAW and AIG. Proof that it's continuing was provided Tuesday when Californians sent the political equivalent of a California earthquake.
Nonetheless, parts of the GOP refuse to get on board with the message of fiscal conservatism. Colin Powell recently told us that American citizens wanted to pay more taxes in exchange for increased services. Tuesday night, putting it politiely, Californians said that Gen. Powell doesn't have a clue.
Last night, Rush called into Greta's show to talk about this. Rush said that blueblood Republicans were holding the party back. That said, Chris Dodd is still trailing in Connecticut, Republicans have a better than average shot at retaking the New Jersey governor's seat and an excellent shot of reclaiming the Virginia governor's mansion.
If the GOP makes efficient use of social networking technology, they could rebuild the party faster than the punditocracy thinks.
Something that's undeniable is that there's a great anti-bailout, anti-big spending movement building across the nation. People voted for Obama and the Democrats mostly because they transferred their priorities onto the blank slate known as Barack Obama. That won't work next time because people are appalled at how he's governed.
They see his bailout of Chrysler and they get worried because government isn't geared for running auto manufacturers. They worry more when they see him getting ready to bail California out of its crisis. In both cases, the American people don't believe that his policies are the solution to our nation's problems.
The message of the Obama campaign was simple: Hire me. I'm competent. After Iraq and after Katrina, people wanted competence. I'm betting that Obama's bailoutmania isn't playing well where unions aren't the dominant part of the culture. I'm betting that the public notices that the real people getting bailed out are the various unions.
Think about it: The people who'd benefit the most from California's bailout would be public employee unions, specifically the pension funds. The winners of the Chrysler bailout was the UAW.
I didn't lay out the winners and losers just to whine. I did it to offer a solution. The biggest part of the solution is finding and recruiting great candidates, which requires an organization that works hard for their election. That's where We The People come in. We The People need to get active in our local parties. Think of this step as the maturation of the tea parties. Getting involved is harnessing the Tea Party Movement's energy and using that energy to electing fiscal conservatives.
Another part of the maturation process is to decide that the state should only spend money on needs, not wants. That'll be difficult in California and Michigan, where voters haven't stopped electing politicians who haven't said no in decades.
It's time that we got things started. It's time that We The People took control of the process by being the people picking their legislators. It's too important to leave that responsibility to the pundit class.
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:51 AM
No comments.
The DFL Failed
I'm not alone in thinking that the DFL legislature failed. This editorial in the Winona Daily News makes the case for why it thinks that the DFL failed:
House Speaker Margaret Kelliher tried on several occasions to throw revenue increases at a governor who has been saying for six years: no new taxes. She knew she didn't have the override votes but did it anyway. This isn't about failed leadership, it's about insanity, which has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The DFL has accused Gov. Pawlenty of employing my-way-or-the-highway tactics. Sending Gov. Pawlenty one tax increase bill after another, bills that the DFL knew would be vetoed and sustained, isn't leadership. It's a pathetic attempt to play last minute politics. Stupidity isn't too strong a word to describe the DFL's decisionmaking.
The DFL had no plan because it had no leadership. And now today, it has no other message than "Blame Pawlenty." But balancing the budget wasn't Pawlenty's job. It was theirs. It's sad that legislators who are now rushing around the state to candy-coat the horrifying cuts coming our way seem to be spending more time selling their DFL-brand of spin than they ever did reaching across the political aisle or trying to find a compromise.
Starting early in the session, the House GOP highlighted the fact that the DFL was all about criticizing Gov. Pawlenty's budget. I wrote in this post Tom Emmer challenged Speaker Kelliher on the DFL's lack of a plan:
It happened again Thursday. The Minnesota House was meeting in full session, running through some routine business, when Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, rose, cleared his throat and said to DFLers, "We've been here a month; why are we still waiting for your budget proposal?"
There were some head shakes, but no response. The House got back to the business at hand.
Emmer's question has become the mantra of state Republicans. In every public forum, at least one or two Republican legislators raise the question: If DFL legislators don't like Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed budget, why don't they come up with one of their own?
"It's strategic," said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, of the Republican cry. "It's designed to freak people out on our side, and it takes attention off the governor's budget."
I'll say now what I said then:
Actually, Speaker Kelliher, it's designed to highlight the fact that Democrats collected well north of $100,000 in out-of-session, tax free per diem without producing anything of value during those meetings/hearings. I'd hope that Rep. Emmer's statements would embarrass Democrats into do something more than just criticize.
I've said repeatedly that two things were missing from the DFL's vocabulary this year: reform and cost savings. They weren't included because they apparently don't mean anything to the DFL. It's impossible to take the DFL seriously when they kept pushing an agenda they knew wouldn't get signed into law.
Instead, the DFL thought they could get away with being a party of whiners and no solutions. They thought wrong. Lest anyone think that Winona is a conservative hotbed, it's worth considering the fact that Winona is represented by Gene Pelowski, the DFL representative who voted against the Tax Increase Bill and voted to uphold Gov. Pawlenty's veto.
Here's the final paragraph of the editorial:
The only thing more dangerous than drinking the DFL Kool-Aid they're offering to the public is giving this legislative leadership line-up another chance to repeat the debacle the 2009 session became.
Amen to that.
Originally posted Thursday, May 21, 2009, revised 07-Mar 2:47 PM
Comment 1 by marc at 22-May-09 03:06 PM
DFL TO GET CLUE
AP LOS ANGELES - California's voters on Tuesday rejected a complex slate of ballot propositions designed to keep the state from sliding further toward fiscal calamity.
The only measure they approved in a statewide special election was Proposition 1F, which will prohibit raises to lawmakers and other state elected officials during deficit years.
Voters rejected at least four of the five other measures, including Proposition 1A, the centerpiece of efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state leaders to fix California's ongoing fiscal problems. It would have created a state spending cap while prolonging temporary tax increases and also strengthened the state's rainy day fund.
"Tonight we have heard from the voters and I respect the will of the people who are frustrated with the dysfunction in our budget system," Schwarzenegger said in a statement late Tuesday.
"Now we must move forward from this point to begin to address our fiscal crisis with constructive solutions."
The failure of the measures means California's budget deficit will grow by nearly $6 billion above the current $15.4 billion deficit, forcing Schwarzenegger to make further cuts to state programs already facing major rollbacks.
"Obviously, it's disappointing," said Democratic Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, chairwoman of the Assembly Budget Committee. "But I think the voters are sending a message that they believe the budget is the job of the governor and Legislature. We probably need to go back and do our job."
Democrats Better Start Worrying
According to this Reuters article , House and Senate Democrats can officially start worrying about the midterm elections. Here's why Democrats should worry:
The U.S. economy will likely start growing again in the second half of this year but unemployment will likely keep rising through 2010 to peak over 10 percent, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.I wouldn't want to run as a Democrat who voted for Tim Geithner's bailouts, Pelosi's stimulus bill and President Obama's failed economic policies. I'd be particularly worried after watching the bloodbath that California elitists suffered last Tuesday.
"The growth in output later this year and next year is likely to be sufficiently weak that the unemployment rate will probably continue to rise into the second half of next year and peak above 10 percent," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said in prepared testimony to the U.S. House Budget Committee.
It will likely take several years for the unemployment rate to fall back to levels seen before the recession hit, in the neighborhood of 5 percent, he said in the prepared remarks.
Rush was right in describing Tuesday's vote as a political nuclear blast. It isn't a stretch to say that most people are disgusted with the federal government in general and with the Obama administration's policies in specific. They aren't seeing results that are changing their lives.
In 1992, George H.W. Bush insisted that the recession had ended. That was later confirmed. Bill Clinton insisted that it hadn't ended, even saying that President Bush 41 was out of touch. The Clinton gambit payed off because, while the recession had technically ended, people hadn't noticed it in their lives.
This recession may or may not be history when the 2010 midterm elections are held but it's almost certain that people will be feeling pessimistic about the future, especially if the unemployment rate tops 10 percent. Running into that headwind will prove to be quite the challenge.
That's why Democrats can start worrying right now.
Posted Friday, May 22, 2009 2:09 AM
No comments.
Pawlenty Well-Positioned for Re-election
According to the latest SurveyUSA polling , Gov. Pawlenty is positioned nicely for re-election. Polling against the 9 declared or presumptive DFL candidates shows Gov. Pawlenty with comfortable leads on most and leading each of them:
Q1. Minnesota will elect a Governor in November 2010. If the only two candidates on the ballot are Republican Tim Pawlenty and DFL candidate Matt Entenza, who would you vote for? Pawlenty 51%, Entenza 37%Dayton and Rybak are the most competitive at this point but both are so superficial and flaky that neither has serious staying power. Of this list of candidates, I'm betting Gov. Pawlenty is paying the most attention to Entenza.
Q2. What if the only two candidates on the ballot for Governor are Republican Tim Pawlenty and DFL candidate Tom Bakk? Pawlenty 52%, Bakk 34%
Q3. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate John Marty? Pawlenty 51%, Marty 34%
Q4. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate Susan Gaertner? Pawlenty 50%, Gaertner 36%
Q5. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate Mark Dayton? Pawlenty 47%, Dayton 43%
Q6. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate Paul Thissen? Pawlenty 51%, Thissen 32%
Q7. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate R.T. Rybak? Pawlenty 47%, Rybak 42%
Q8. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate Chris Coleman? Pawlenty 48%, Coleman 37%
Q9. What if it's Pawlenty against DFL candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher? Pawlenty 51%, Kelliher 34%
DFL activists think Gov. Pawlenty might be vulnerable if his unallotments hurt people. Zack Stephenson makes the best argument on that in this post :
Assuming Pawlenty plans to seek re-election, I think his decision was an epic mistake. Pawlenty's decision to balance the budget with line item vetoes and unallotment means that he now has sole ownership of Minnesota's budget. The image of Pawlenty acting unilaterally to cut the budget will probably be the lasting impression left by the 2009 session on Minnesota voters. That's good news and bad news for the Gov. On the one hand, he looks like a strong and decisive leader. On the other hand, he owns every single cut made to health care, to education and to local government. There is no compromise here, no group culpability - its all on Pawlenty.Zack makes a respectable argument but it runs contrary to what I'm hearing from my Capitol contacts. In fact, I was told that the health care lobbyists were particularly upset with the DFL for not accepting a compromise on GAMC. I've also heard that people didn't want a special session and give Gov. Pawlenty for acting like a leader and eliminating the need for a special session.
The other flaw in Zack's thinking is that DFL legislators anticipate him taking a meat cleaver out for the unallotments. That isn't likely to happen. I was told that the DFL's St. Cloud press conference said that the St. Cloud Hospital would experience drastic cuts. The administrators will pay extra attention to the situation but they aren't anticipating major setbacks.
Here's a question for my DFL friends: What happens if the DFL keeps whining about the budget cuts but the pain from those cuts doesn't materialize? I'd anticipate the DFL having a Plan B but what good will it do them? Won't Gov. Pawlenty be rewarded by swing voters for being decisive in balancing Minnesota's budget without raising taxes?
Based on all the things I'm seeing, the Tea Party movement isn't dying out. If anything, Tuesday night's defeat of the initiatives in California suggests that the Tea Party movement is gaining momentum.
The DFL is getting disparaged for their performance during this legislative session. The DFL didn't have any ideas. (That's why they spent the first 2 months criticizing Gov. Pawlenty's agenda.) The DFL didn't have a reform agenda. In fact, the DFL didn't have an agenda except for raising taxes and protecting their political allies.
That won't make for an appealing agenda to run on. In fact, I kiddingly said a week ago that the DFL's argument against Gov. Pawlenty's unallotment could be summed up like this: Gov. Pawlenty is evil because he balanced the budget and he wouldn't let us raise taxes.
Good luck running on that message.
Posted Friday, May 22, 2009 3:53 AM
No comments.
The DFL's Shaved Truth Tour
This article tells us just what the DFL is willing to do to avoid political humiliation. Here's what they said that's got me fuming:
Democrats said Tuesday they presented Gov. Tim Pawlenty a balanced state budget but he instead will go it alone, making massive cuts in state spending.Technically, that's the truth. With minutes left in the session, the DFL legislature passed a Tax Bill that would raise taxes by $3,600,000,000. Technically, it went through a conference committee.
"The Legislature was able to send the governor a complete, balanced budget by last (Monday) night," House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said Tuesday in Bemidji. "What the governor does with that complete, balanced budget is now in his hands."
What's equally true is that the DFL knew it didn't even have a chance of getting unanimous DFL support. They knew this because Rep. Poppe and Rep. Pelowski voted to sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto of a Tax Bill that would've raised taxes by $992,000,000.
Now for the truth: The DFL passed spending bills that totalled $34,000,000,000. The previous tax increases that the DFL passed fell far short of closing the deficit. The Tax Bill that the DFL tried to override, the Tax Bill that the DFL failed to override, wouldn't have closed the deficit. It would've fallen short by $2,000,000,000. I said in several posts that the Senate's Tax Bill, which was projected to increase taxes by $2,200,000,000, would've still left Minnesota's budget $800,000,000 short of a balanced budget. The House's Tax Bill, which would've raised taxes by $1,500,000,000, would've left Minnesota's budget deficit at $1,500,000,000.
I'm betting that Minnesotans won't think of throwing a never before considered Tax Increase Bill with minutes left in the session with the knowledge that it would get vetoed isn't sending "the governor a complete, balanced budget." I'm betting that Minnesotans will consider the DFL's passing this Tax Increase Bill as a political stunt. I'm betting that Minnesotans won't take that claim seriously.
The DFL legislature lacked leadership as badly as they lacked ideas. The DFL leadership, an oxymoron if ever I heard one, brought nothing but whining to the table. Their ideas would've set Minnesota on a Michigan-like glidepath to economic disaster.
Here's another whopper from Speaker Kelliher:
We did completely balance this budget, we feel that the job we did do reflected the values of Minnesotans," said Kelliher of Minneapolis, "trying to do our very best in this historic great recession for schools, nursing homes and hospitals."Question for Speaker Kelliher: Which Minnesota values did the DFL's job-killing tax increases reflect? I didn't know that taxing small businesses into oblivion was a Minnesota value. I still don't think that passing a regressive tax increase on alcohol is a Minnesota priority.
What the DFL leadership can't claim with any seriousness is that their budget set sound, sustainable priorities that will put us on a path to prosperity. Ultimately, that's the only guidepost that matters.
UPDATE: After investigating further, the DFL's budget isn't balanced .
Originally posted Friday, May 22, 2009, revised 23-May 12:23 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-May-09 06:03 PM
All the DFL has done this session is play political games, and not all that well. They were required by law, custom, and common sense to produce a balanced budget, and failed to do it. There's not an adult among them, and they need to be sent to their room until they learn to behave like adults.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 23-May-09 10:30 AM
The DFL claims the governor should listen to the people. Your average citizen understands the concept that you can't spend $2,000 if you only have $1,000.
Furthermore the average citizen understands that you can't on a whim get your employer to give you raise of $1,000 so why should the state be able to take a $1,000 raise from you or your employer.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by ShareYourVoice at 27-May-09 03:25 PM
The power to tax is the power to destroy. As retail sales fall, state revenue will also decline and jobs will be lost. In fact, the last time alcohol taxes were raised at the federal level, approximately 98,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in wages were lost in the industry, while states paid out more than $150 million in unemployment benefits. Most of these lost jobs will be in the ailing hospitality industry, which has already been hit hard enough by this recession.
Let your Minnesota representatives know that beverage alcohol tax increases would be bad for our state by visiting www.axetaxesnotjobs.com.
Cause, Effect At Work?
This LA Times article says that the Obama administration isn't thinking about bailing California out...yet. Earlier this morning, Rasmussen reported that 24 percent of American supported a bailout. This begs the question of whether the Obama based its decision on polling.
California needs to solve its financial crisis by itself and should not expect an emergency bailout from the White House, an array of Obama administration officials said Thursday, making clear they had no appetite to step in and provide financial assistance or loan guarantees.Hearing the Obama administration say that "there's a limit to what the government can do" is a little bizarre. Hearing this administration say that is akin to hearing Ronald Reagan say that America is too prosperous and too free.
"Look, we're going to examine what we can do. What we need to do, however, is to treat states fairly and that means uniformly," David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, said in an interview. "Whatever we do for one state, there will be other states who also will want to do that. And there's a limit to what the government can do."
Here's what Raasmussen's polling reported:
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters nationwide favor federal bailout funds for states like California that are encountering "serious financial problems." The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% are opposed to such bailouts.I'm actually surprised that there's that much support for bailing California out. I wouldn't have been surprised if only 10 percent of the people polled supported bailouts.
As for California specifically, again just 24% believe the federal government should guarantee the state's loans. Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide oppose federal guarantees. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the state may request such guarantees.
I'm hard pressed to believe that the Obama administration's decision wasn't linked to their polling. The Obama administration hasn't hesitated to bail others out. I'm thinking that the Obama administration didn't want to upset California's voters after they sent a shot across California's politicians' bow.
Posted Friday, May 22, 2009 2:32 PM
No comments.
The DFL's Unhinged 'Leadership'
When liberals come unhinged, they don't go part way. The proof of that is found in this op-ed written by Larry Pogemiller and Margaret Anderson-Kelliher. Here's the unhinged hyperbole Sen. Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher start with:
As he prepares to lay off thousands of Minnesotans, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has a request. He would finally like to know what you think.The BS found in their op-ed is plentiful. First, their saying that Gov. Pawlenty is solely responsible for laying off "thousands of Minnesotans" simply isn't credible. The Senate DFL's first budget included a 7 percent across the board spending cut. Pogie expects us to think that the Senate DFL's budget won't cut jobs but Gov. Pawlenty's will. Why? If you accept as fact that Gov. Pawlenty's trimming the HHS budget cuts jobs, you have to accept that cutting the HHS budget by 7 percent would've cut alot more jobs. ( HINT: I don't accept Pogemiller's predictions without a healthy dose of skepticism.)
After having spent the past five months refusing to compromise with the Legislature, the governor now wants to seek input from citizens on the unallotment cuts he will be making. If the governor had actually taken the time during the legislative session to listen as House and Senate members did bipartisanly in February, he would have gotten the same answer we did.
Minnesotans want a balanced and fair approach that preserves jobs. The balanced budget the Legislature sent to the governor has far more cuts than tax increases. Spending reductions erase more than a third of the deficit. Federal recovery dollars help close another third of the gap.
Next, sayign that Gov. Pawlenty "spent the past five months refusing to compromise with the Legislature" is a bald-faced lie. The Lady Logician summemd things up nicely in this post :
Yesterday, Governor Pawlenty offered an olive branch to the DFL leadership on the budget. In a letter addressed to the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, the Governor said that he would relent on his opposition to two of the three main sticking points between the the Legislature and the Governor's office and he would cut in half his request for bonding. In essense he was giving in to the DFL on 2 1/2 of the 3 main issues that the DFL had with the Governor's budget. The DFL's response was quick and predictable. Calling it a "false compromise" and a compromise in "word and not in deed" the DFL leadership of the House and the Senated doubled down on their intent to once again drive the state toward a shut-down (as they did in 2005).I'm betting that Minnesotans who haven't come unhinged would agree that Gov. Pawlenty's counterproposal represented a compromise.
What they're really saying is that Gov. Pawlenty wouldn't compromise on increasing taxes. If they'd said that, I would've agreed wholeheartedly. Of course, they won't say that increasing taxes, both progressive and regressive taxes, was their priority. They'll do almost anything to avoid saying that directly in public, though I'm certain that they'd say it amongst their political allies.
When Kelliher and Pogemiller say that "the balanced budget the Legislature sent to the governor has far more cuts than tax increases", there's a major flaw with that statement: the DFL's budget didn't balance. According to this article , the DFL's budget didn't balance:
"The legislative session ended Monday with no agreement on how to balance the state's budget, leaving a $2.7 billion gap between revenues and expenditures."I don't have a Ph.D. in math but I know that if there's a "$2.7 gap between revenues and expenditures", then that's considered a budget deficit.
Here's another statement worth dissecting:
Saving and creating new jobs is the key to economic recovery in our state. The Legislature took advantage of every opportunity to do that.I'd love to hear Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller explain why saving jobs "is the key to economic recovery in" Minnesota. Further, I'd love hearing how their tax increases weren't job-killers. I'd especially love hearing the DFL braintrust explain why DFL legislators like Rep. Poppe and Rep. Pelowski voted against the Tax Bill veto override and why Rep . Pelowski and Sen. Bakk made disparaging comments about the different versions of the Tax Increase Bill.
If Rep. Pelowski and Rep. Poppe thought the tax increases would create jobs, they would've voted for them without hesitation.
Finally, I can't let this statement go without commenting:
Seeking input from citizens now is at best a half-hearted attempt to inform the public of the decisions he has already made, or at worst, is an effort to make Minnesotans complicit in his irresponsible actions.The DFL leadership didn't even meet its constitutional requirement of sending Gov. Pawlenty a balanced budget yet they're accusing Gov. Pawlenty of being irresponsible? Speaker Kelliher's and Sen. Pogemiller's closing paragraph is filled with as much BS as the rest of their op-ed.
Amazingly, I'm not surprised. In fact, it's what I expect from the DFL's failed leadership.
Posted Saturday, May 23, 2009 6:53 AM
No comments.
