May 24-27, 2009
May 24 13:19 Enough With the Pox On All Their Houses Storyline May 24 16:22 The Henning's Family Tradition May 25 16:23 Deciphering Larry Haws's Spin May 26 03:00 Dave Thompson Meet & Greet May 26 02:54 Some Things Change, Some Things Don't May 26 04:15 DoJ Investigating Contractor With Murtha Ties May 26 12:13 Obama, Waxman Declare War On America's Heartland May 27 03:45 Bad & Getting Worse
Dave Thompson Meet & Greet
Saturday, Rep. Dan and Cathy Jo Severson opened their home for a meet and greet with Dave Thompson. A passionate debate on what the Minnesota Republican Party should stand for quickly developed. The topics discussed ranged from party principles to length of the party platform to how we reach young people to communicating a consistently conservative message to the role of state party chairman in messaging and fundraising to revamping our lists and many other topics.
Several things became apparent during the nearly 3 hour conversation. First, it's apparent that Mr. Thompson is a conservative. Another thing that's apparent is that he's a great listener. When Nicole Severson, a former CR, asked Dave how he'd reach college students, Dave turned the question around. Dave wanted to know what the best way was for reaching college students from a young person.
People, that's the definition of engaging the grassroots. It's also extremely smart policymaking.
Several things became apparent during the nearly 3 hour conversation. First, it's apparent that Mr. Thompson is a conservative. Another thing that's apparent is that he's a great listener. When Nicole Severson, a former CR, asked Dave how he'd reach college students, Dave instead asked Nicole her advice, saying that he wouldn't pretend to be the expert. Dave wanted to get advice from the 'experts' rather than tell the experts his plans.
People, that's the definition of engaging the grassroots. It's also extremely smart policymaking.
By asking that question, Nicole was given the opportunity to offer her suggestions. She said that texting young people should be a priority and that the message should be about the mountain of debt that Team Obama is piling on them.
Capturing the youth vote is important for both the short- and long-term health of the GOP.
Another topic that was addressed was the need to keep better lists. Dave immediately mentioned King's co-blogger Janet. He said that, by all accounts, CD-2's lists are exceptionally accurate, thanks in large part to Janet's system and diligence but also because of the foot soldiers' hard work in identifying conservatives.
Further into the discussion, I said that part of the GOP's message should focus on the Obama administration's hyperregulation, especially focusing on TARP regulators. I said that Bill Cooper, TCF's CEO, would be a perfect emissary to the business community. He'd be able to tell the business community that they're oppressive control freaks. Mr. Cooper would be able to tell them that it's time to stop sitting on the fence and start supporting pro business conservatives rather than hedging their bets with out-of-control liberals.
Another topic I brought up deals with the 'E Factor'. Simply put, we should use odd numbered years to educate people why conservative principles are the best. Similarly, even numbered years should be used to elect as many conservatives as possible.
I said that a balanced approach should be taken in this respect: We shouldn't demand that we retake the majority with only conservatives. If that happens, that's great but it isn't likely. I said I'd prefer seeing Marty Seifert with the Speaker's gavel with 55 strong conservatives and 15 less-than-strong conservatives because the person with the gavel dictates what happens or doesn't happen.
Dave interjected his thoughts at that point and said that we shouldn't demand ideological purity that "leaves us with 5 legislators" nor should we pick 'stay in power' candidates who keep us in the majority but don't stand for anything.
The other impressive thing that I noticed about the meeting was that Dave stayed engaged throughout the discussion, kept the conversation from straying too far off on tangents, that he answered questions directly and on point and that the conversation lasted almost 3 hours.
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:13 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-May-09 06:07 AM
Did he give any indication of how he would manage a large staff and budget, or does he intend to be a hands-off manager, leaving such details to the Executive director? If so, does he think our current ED is doing a good job? Would he say that Tony Sutton did a good job as ED, under Bill Cooper?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-May-09 08:11 AM
1) He would delegate responsibilities but then he'd let them do their jobs.
2)As I understand it, & I could be wrong, we don't currently have an ED.
3) Dave definitely thanked Tony for the work he's done.
Enough With the Pox On All Their Houses Storyline
The theme for John Bodette's weekly column is filled with flimsy arguments. Bodette is the SC Times Executive Editor. Here's part of what he wrote that I fiercely object to:
The legislative session ended at midnight Monday without achieving the one thing lawmakers were sent down to accomplish: pass a balanced-budget bill and deal with the state's projected $6.4 billion deficit for the biennium. That means 201 lawmakers and one governor couldn't agree on a plan after more than 4 1/2 months of the session.The implication throughout Bodette's column is that both sides should be blamed. In fact, here's the title for his column:
Shame on lawmakers, governorI rejected that theory because the DFL didn't send Gov. Pawlenty a budget that balanced. In fact, there's a $2,700,000,000 deficit. Had Gov. Pawlenty signed the DFL's tax increase bill into law, that deficit still would've been close to $2,000,000,000.
Considering the fact that governors can't appropriate money or increase or cut taxes on their own, why should Gov. Pawlenty get blamed because the DFL was irresponsible? Why should GOP legislators, who submitted dozens of reforms, get blamed because the DFL refused to set budget priorities? Why should the GOP get blamed because the DFL wouldn't say no to their political allies?
That line of thinking is intellectually bankrupt and indefensible. Here's another portion of Mr. Bodette's column that I object to:
Who is to blame? Everyone. Both parties. The lawmakers and the governor. The "worker bee" lawmakers and their leadership. Isn't it time for both parties to look at new leaders?Why should Republicans "look at new leaders"? Conservatives offered lots of common sense reforms. Conservatives put a balanced budget plan. Conservatives pledged to live within their means, then followed through on that pledge. I thought it was a good thing when politicians said what they meant, then kept their promises.
Voters need to ask some very tough questions before re-electing any of these people.
Politicians put their own interests ahead of the common good. Statesmen and true leaders seek out a compromise and realize that everyone won't get everything they want. Tough choices in tough economic times means pain. But where were the priorities? Where was the reform and innovation?
To be fair, Bodette did whack the DFL pretty good. Here's the best example of that:
Why are we paying for a Legislature to spend more than four months to accomplish a big task and not get it done? Usually, there is a penalty for not meeting a deadline or not completing work. Don't count the last-minute budget plan that was forced on the House and Senate as a cloak to protect the embattled DFL leadership so it could claim the governor had a balanced budget he could have signed.Until the DFL-dominated legislature actually submitted a balanced budget, everything else is moot. Let's remember that maverick DFL legislator Rep. Pelowski refused to vote for the DFL's tax increases . Rep. Pelowski also said this about the DFL's priorities :
"I would hope we would not have resorted to something like this," Pelowski said. "If it's serious, then it should have been done months ago. If it isn't, then it's just gamesmanship."The DFL's Cherrypicked Testimony Tour was their attempt to gin up support for their tax increase proposals. The DFL just didn't want to propose their tax increases early because they knew that most families would've complained about them.
Here's the dirty little truth that the DFL doesn't want people to focus on: The DFL leadership doesn't like making decisions because that requires leadership and the ability to say no to their special interest allies. The DFL leadership is nothing of the sort. They aren't leaders. They're political cowards who won't set priorities or make decisions.
During this session, this set of DFL leadership refused to seriously consider reforms to health care, education and other big budget items. They've pandered to Chris Coleman, who refuses to control St. Paul's spending. Mayor Coleman doesn't hesitate to threaten cutting St. Paul's police and fire departments while overspending on street projects.
I'm told that Wadena's mayor is complaining about LGA cuts while his city sits on a $1,000,000 rainy fund. What's with that? It's a rainy day. Why aren't they using that money for what it's supposed to be used for? Why hasn't Wadena established a priorities list like St. Cloud's? Here's an example of how St. Cloud set priorities :
Current Financial Policies/PracticesWhen I hear Chris Coleman start talking about deep cuts in the fire and police departments, I got upset. Gov. Pawlenty bristled when he heard it, too:
As noted above, a number of actions were taken by the City of St. Cloud in early 2008 to address the projected 2009 budget limitations and potential revenue reductions through the remainder of 2008. These practices resulted in a nearly $1 million savings during the 2008 budget year that assisted the City in meeting the $1.4 million budget unallocation of LGA in December of 2008. These practices will in all likelihood be continued into 2009 to face an equivalent or greater reduction in revenues from the State of Minnesota.
Hiring Freeze
Cutting of supplies and services budget by 5%
Capital Outlay limited
Reserve levels maintained
2009 Budget balanced using same tax rate per financial policies
The governor laid out his recipe for the belt-tightening: Use your rainy day fund, if you have one. Freeze public employee salaries for two years, streamline operations for greater efficiency and prioritize your spending.Minnesota's taxpayers shouldn't have their taxes increased just because Chris Coleman and the St. Paul City Council decided to spend money on their own civil rights department, especially considering the fact that it appears that it wasn't needed. Minnesota's taxpayers shouldn't get hit with a tax increase just because St. Paul won't freeze salaries or reform their government or eliminate spending money on "artistic water fountains."
Wagging a fiscal finger at Minneapolis, Pawlenty asked: " Were those expensive artistic water fountains really necessary? Did they need to have their own civil rights department that overlaps substantially with the Minnesota Human Rights Department? "
Gov. Pawlenty took all these things into account when the DFL leadership brought forth their tax increase legislation. In drawing a bright line in the sand on tax increases and wasteful spending, Gov. Pawlenty told Minnesota's taxpayers that they had a powerful friend on their side.
Gov. Pawlenty refused to let the DFL's status quo policies go unquestioned. Thus far, the DFL leadership has whined about the cuts and talked about the reforms they allegedly implemented. Thus far, though, there's little proof of the DFL's reform agenda.
By eliminating the deficit without tax increases, special sessions or government shutdowns, Gov. Pawlenty did what was right for Minnesota. He showed how irresponsible the DFL was.
That's why it's right to criticize the DFL but it isn't intellectually honest to lump the GOP in with th DFL's children.
Posted Sunday, May 24, 2009 1:27 PM
No comments.
The Henning's Family Tradition
Val's Rapidserv has been a fixture at the corner of St. Germain Street and Lincoln Ave. for St. Cloudites for what seems like eternity. This St. Cloud Times article says that Val's turned 50 yesterday. I wish I had known because I would've stopped in for my usual order of 2 double cheeseburgers with no onions & a regular sized fries. (Actually, the only thing regular about the size of the fries is the name.) Confession time: That's been my standing order there since 1976 when I worked at a little gas station on Lincoln Ave. Incidentally, that gas station doesn't exist anymore.
When my high school friends who now live in Anchorage, AK return for their annual hunting trip, I get together with them for lunch or dinner. When we get together, we always head for Val's. It's simply a given, no discussion needed. About the only question is which of us picks up the tab.
For people who've just moved to St. Cloud or are vsiting St. Cloud, I strongly urge you to pay Dave Henning a visit. Their hamburgers are delicious & their prices very affordable. Still, I have to agree with my archnemesis John Ellenbecker when he said that "it's all about the fries." The other thing I've got to say is that the quantity of fries is overwhelming. It's part of the Henning family tradition.
I loved reading this part of the article:
At Val's, numerous family members have taken their turn working the counter and grill.As I recall, Bill used to work the counter and Dave flipped the burgers and deep-fried the fries.
"It's kind of like growing up on the family farm, where the family all works together," owner David Henning said. "Independent restaurants are going the way of the family farm."
Not Val's.
" We have such a loyal clientele ," said Barb Henning, who's married to Val's son, Bill.
It's those customers who keep Val's thriving, and it's those customers who are appreciated so much by the family, said David Henning.
"It's great to have the family here together," he said as his father cooked himself a single-patty hamburger with onions. " This is the proudest moment of my life to tell you the truth. It's a real special moment ."
It's amazing how loyal people have been to Val's. It isn't surprising, just amazing. The food is good, the service is quick and Dave's as friendly as ever.
That's why Val's RapidServ has earned its legendary status. Congratulations Val, Dave & Bill. The tradition continues in Bave's capable hands but Val started the great tradition and Bill contributed to things, too.
More important to me, though, is that I've gotten to call Dave my friend for a very long time. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.
Posted Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:22 PM
No comments.
Deciphering Larry Haws's Spin
I can't believe that I didn't notice Larry Haws's LTE earlier but now that I have, it's gonna get a thorough fisking. It's apparent to anyone who knows Larry that steam is billowing out of his ears much like another Larry is known for. BTW, if I had a BS-O-Meter, it'd go crazy on this LTE. Here's the first thing I disagree with:
This session Minnesota's legislative leaders passed legislation that, despite a record state budget deficit, would create a stable and ongoing funding source for schools, hospitals and nursing homes. We offered a plan that uses a combination of cutting the budget, leveraging federal money and raising revenue to protect our priorities. Our balanced budget included reduction, revenue and reform .That's insulting to read. Shame on Rep. Haws for attempting to peddle this stuff. The DFL's budget included a $2,700,000,000 deficit. That's why Gov. Pawlenty has to use his unallotment and line item veto authorities.
At an event during Easter Week, Rep. Haws took a cheapshot at me by telling the audience that blogs don't have credibility. That's fine. I wear cheapshots from politicians like Rep. Haws as a badge of honor. Instead of lashing out at him, I waited until Rep. Haws said something that put his credibility at issue.
I'd suggest that it's Rep. Haws and the DFL leadership team that has credibility issues. Since the session's end, Larry Pogemiller, Tarryl Clark, Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and Tony Sertich have told us that the DFL submitted a balanced budget to Gov. Pawlenty. Respected journalists like Tom Hauser have said that there's still a $2,700,000,000 deficit. Given that choice, I'll trust Tom Hauser's characterizations over the DFL's spin every time.
Starting with the last week of the session, Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, has criticized the DFL's tax increases. The DFL insisted that tax increases, both regressive and progressive, had to be used to plug the deficit even though they knew they didn't have the votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's promised veto. They rode that proverbial horse, in my opinion, because they wanted the issue more than they wanted a solution.
They desperately need this issue because they're essentially devoid of ideas and utterly devoid of leadership. Their only hope is to whip up their base which play to their base's ill-informed, and often delusional, misconceptions. Unfortunately for them, there's hints that independents are getting turned off by the DFL's tax increases and their unwillingness to reform government operations.
The governor's response to our sensible pay-as-you-go approach to correct the budget shortfall is a disappointing, short-sighted borrowing plan, which was widely rejected by Republicans and Democrats because it would create $1.6 billion in debt to be paid for by future generations.What's sensible about a budget that didn't even meet its constitutional requirements? The DFL's budget didn't balance. The DFL's budget didn't set intelligent priorities. The DFL's budget didn't focus on cost savings that would've been possible by reforming government.
Rep. Haws closes his op-ed by telling people to "contact Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office" to tell him that they prefer "a balanced budget that works for our state and its people." It hasn't dawned on Rep. Haws that the people have their own message for him and the DFL legislators. Here's the message that the DFL isn't hearing:
Get your grubby mitts off my wallet. You've spent irresponsibly and taxed us too much .The only question left to ask is whether people are content with only attending tea parties or if they're willing to do the voter ID, the party building and the public education that's required to making conservatism the majority party. If we're willing to commit, individually and collectively, to outworking the DFL, there's no reason why we can't be the majority party in both houses of the Minnesota legislature.
Are you willing to stand with me and other activists in wrenching control away from Larry Haws and Larry Pogemiller? In other words, how important is it to you to be part of the team that returns conservatives to majority status in the Minnesota legislature?
Posted Monday, May 25, 2009 4:23 PM
Comment 1 by maddmedic at 25-May-09 06:55 PM
I am dealing with the same type of DFLer in 25b which includes Northfield, Belle Plain and areas of Scott and Rice County. David Bly is offering the same spin as I am reading here and they must be getting fed the same BS by the so called DFL House Leadership. His responses blame everything on Pawlenty claiming the DFL sent a fair and balanced budget, they beleive their own lies it appears. I am all for doing what I can to help put conservatives back on top.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-May-09 08:29 PM
Madd, The best way to disintegrate the DFL's tactic is to tell everyone you come in contact with that the DFL didn't even meet their constitutional responsibility of submitting a balanced budget. If you don't have one already, put a team together that'll put that information into LTE's.
Let them know that the DFL is all spin & no facts & ZERO priorities other than spending money by the fistful & raising taxes. Then ask people why they'd vote for such a group.
It won't take long before the DFL is playing defense.
Comment 2 by GMW at 25-May-09 07:40 PM
I'll stand with you
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-May-09 08:25 PM
Welcome aboard. If you can think of 2,3 more people who'll take up that fight, invite them to join the winning team. If we all do that, a healthy sized army will be built pretty quickly.
I did my part earlier tonight while mowing the lawn. I've got a new neighbor who moved into the empty house next door. We talked a minute about where the property line was & who was responsible for mowing what parts.
After that, I thanked him for being a good neighbor & we started talking current events. A minute later, we both identified ourselves as freeedom-loving conservatives. Next February, I'll invite him to our precinct caucuses where he'll be in my precinct.
Some Things Change, Some Things Don't
If I were given responsibility to give this article a title, here's what it'd be:
Some Things Change, Some Things Don'tRead the article and tell me that that isn't a great title. Here's Exhibit A for my 'opening argument':
The first time was 2003. The state was facing a projected shortfall of $4.2 billion and the rookie governor was pledging to erase the red ink with no increases in state taxes.Fast forward to the session just ended:
Republicans had a 28-seat majority in the House back then and faithfully stood with Pawlenty and his no-new-taxes approach. Standing in the governor's way was the Senate, where Democrats held a tiny three-member majority, and Mankatoan John Hottinger was the majority leader.
Like this year, Democrats wanted to pass more than $1 billion in new taxes to offset some of the painful cuts required to balance the budget. In late May 2003, Hottinger concluded Pawlenty wasn't going to budge on taxes and allowed Republicans to pass their budget.
"The Democrats did not agree with this budget, and we lost," Hottinger said later that year. "There was no way we could (reach) compromise." The reaction from some Senate Democrats was intense. "(Hottinger) has capitulated on everything," said Pogemiller, then the Senate Tax Committee chairman.
The second time was this spring. The state was facing a projected shortfall of $4.6 billion after federal aid shrunk an even larger revenue gap. Once again, Pawlenty was pledging to fix the problem without state tax increases, and legislative Democrats wanted to pass more than $1 billion in tax increases to lessen the severity of the cuts.TRANSLATION: We got our asses handed to us so we'll spin it away from that embarassment.
The big change was the strength of the governor's opposition. Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and both the House and the Senate had sizable majorities by 2009.
What didn't change was the result.
Pogemiller and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher were asked during a press conference in Mankato last week what impact the growth in DFL numbers had on the outcome - if there would be anything in the next two-year budget that's different than if Republicans, rather than Democrats, had been firmly in control of the Legislature.
Kelliher said the 2009 budget negotiations were much more open than in the past. "I do think we improved the process this time," Kelliher said.
Pogemiller listed nothing, focusing instead on accomplishments from 2008 and the fact there has been no emergency sessions of the Legislature needed since he and Kelliher took the top spots in the House and Senate. "We're 3 and 0," Pogemiller said. "No special sessions under our leadership."
Seriously, the DFL's GOTV machine worked their buns off, got huge majorities elected and the results stay the same. Good luck selling that to the activists. Here's essentially what Pogemiller's and Kelliher's pep talk would consist of:
Thanks for all your hard work. You gave us huge majorities, which helped us "improve the process" and get beaten 3 straight times without a special session."Talk about an inspirational speech. That'll leave the faithful totally underwhelmed. AFSCME and EdMinn union workers contributed hundreds of hours for Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller to brag about improving the process and producing the same results as a GOP majority did. They're suppoosed to be satisfied with that? That might happen but I wouldn't bet on it. God forbid but if I were a DFL activist and I knew that the DFL House and Senate leadership had performed this poorly, I'd be thinking about recruiting new leadership.
Understand that I'm happy that Gov. Pawlenty the House and Senate GOP held together and kept the pressure on and got us through this session without tax increases. I'm just saying that I'd be upset with those results if I were on the opposite side.
I imagine it's a little like how I felt about the GOP when they held a 55-45 lead in the US Senate.
Here's some candid talk from 'the sidelines':
Rather than negotiating cuts with the Legislature, Pawlenty said he would unilaterally reduce spending through line-item vetoes and the unallotment authority that will come to him July 1 when the budget is officially in deficit.I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Pogemiller, Clark, Kelliher and Sertich are hearing from the activists that they blew it. I can't imagine that the DFL faithful are just shrugging the DFL leadership's failures off. They shouldn't either. The DFL's activists didn't put their trust in this leadership team just to watch them get their clocks cleaned by Gov. Pawlenty again.
Hottinger, now retired from the Senate, called it a "brilliant" strategic move by Pawlenty. It was possible only because the Legislature had sent to his desk the approved appropriations bills - and the spending authority and line-item veto opportunity that came with them. Typically, lawmakers hold back one or more key bills until they've reached a global agreement on all major issues. "If you want to look for mistakes, Democrats shouldn't have given him those bills," Hottinger said.
To be fair, though, whichever DFL legislators were the speaker and Senate majority leader, they would've gotten their clocks cleaned because Tim Pawlenty is smarter than any DFL leadership team.
Had the DFL held back some bills to force their tax increases on Minnesotans, I would've told Gov. Pawlenty to hold a press conference immediately after the session and tell Minnesota that the DFL didn't fulfill their constitutionally mandated responsibilities because the DFL insisted on job-killing tax increases on small businesses.
I'd love seeing the DFL try campaigning on that over the next 18 months. GOOD LUCK with that one.
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:54 AM
No comments.
DoJ Investigating Contractor With Murtha Ties
This morning, the Washington Post is reporting that the DoJ is investigating a contractor with strong ties to Rep. Murtha:
The Department of Justice is probing a Pennsylvania contractor that has won millions in earmarks and contracts with the help of Rep. John Murtha, according to a new report.Democrats screamed at the top of their lungs about Halliburton getting no-bid contracts. Nevermind the fact that Halliburton was one of only 2 companies in the world equipped to do the things that they were hired to do.
The Washington Post reported Monday that federal investigators are looking into how Mountaintop Technologies got involved in distributing and monitoring local police grants.
The company has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute the money, according to the article, but has received at least $36 million worth of earmarks and military contracts over the past eight years, with the help of Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, and no competition.
According to the article, company executives have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Murtha's campaigns and often distributed the police grant funding on behalf of Murtha before fall elections , and the firm even hired the lobbying company where Murtha's brother worked.
Now we have a another company in Rep. Murtha's network of cronies who is getting no-bid contracts annually being investigated. Instead of launching an ethics investigation into Rep. Murtha, Speaker Pelosi is doing everything possible to prevent a spotlight from shining on Rep. Murtha's reprehensible behavior.
What's particularly troubling to me is that federal grant money was distributed by Mountaintop Technologies right before elections. If I were a cynic, I'd almost think that that sounds alot like taxpayer-funded walking around money. At minimum, the timely disbursement of grants right before an election served as a reminder to these organizations that Rep. Murtha was their sugar daddy in Washington.
Mountaintop Technologies founder David Fyock told the Post that his company won the contracts on merit. "We are pretty darn good at managing contracts," he said.Mr. Fyock's explanation is flimsy at best. Whether they're "pretty darn good at managing contracts" or not, the reality is that they made a fistful of money on no-bid contracts that should've been put up for bid. Why shouldn't other companies have the opportunity to get these contracts? Might it be that Rep. Murtha didn't want other companies who weren't part of Murtha's crony network to get the job of distributing these grants?
But law enforcement sources said the police grants drew attention because the firm was a defense company with little law enforcement experience.
Here's the opening paragraph of the Washington Post article:
In tiny, cash-strapped Monongahela, Pa., the city clerk was stunned when federal investigators arrived this fall with a subpoena seeking information on a crime-fighting grant she'd never heard of. She takes pride in tracking every dollar in the municipal budget.Further down the page, we read this:
Over the past five years, a local defense contractor with close ties to Rep. John P. Murtha, a Democrat who has represented southwestern Pennsylvania for three decades, has selected several small police departments in the region to receive $10 million in Justice Department grants .Imagine that. Mountaintop Technologies would "explain each time that it was arriving through the largess of Murtha" and that that largess often happened "just before fall elections."
The company, Mountaintop Technologies, was selected by the lawmaker in a series of earmarks to hand out and monitor the grants. As it distributed the money to the departments, the firm would explain each time that it was arriving through the largess of Murtha, often just before fall elections.
My cynical said asks whether Murtha's campaign pay Moutaintop Technologies for the PR work they did on his behalf right before elections. It's one thing to hand out these grants. It's another to hand them out with the reminder that a vote for Rep. Murtha will help the grant money flowing.
Let's take this into account, too:
Once she learned from the investigators that Monongahela's police department was getting money outside of normal channels, City Clerk Carole Foglia was disturbed. "I wasn't happy with the situation at all," Foglia said. "I didn't want to be involved in anything that was done improperly, because that's not the way I work in my office. And this was improper. No question about it."This clerk did the right thing in reporting the unusual nature of the grant distribution. Though I can't be certain, I suspect that Ms. Foglia thought that this sounded alot like hading out walking around money right before an election.
Let's ask these questions of Rep. Murtha:
Why are these grants disbursed right before an election? When did Mountaintop Technologies get these checks? Did Mountaintop Technologies hold these grant checks until the fall for maximuim impact on elections?
It's time we got some answers. Hopefully, the DoJ's investigation won't be short-circuited by Eric Holder or other political appointees in DoJ.
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:15 AM
No comments.
Obama, Waxman Declare War On America's Heartland
Rep. Henry Waxman has always been one of the most dim-witted, bitterly partisan men in American politics. That's why sensible people have tried to keep him away from positions of influence. Unfortunately, we lost the last fight in that battle last November. Girded with newfound power and thinking he has a mandate from God, President Obama and Rep. Waxman is in the process of declaring economic war on America's heartland .
Fortunately, Mike Pence is doing the fighting on our side:
After weeks of political horse-trading in Washington between senior House Democrats and their nervous rank-and-file members over climate change legislation, a compromise is making its way through Congress. But all the window dressing that this "compromise" has prompted does not change the fact that it is an economic declaration of war on America's heartland. Citizens nationwide should beware because if Washington's latest energy charade becomes law, it will have a devastating impact on the price at the pump and utility bills.
For weeks, Democrats from states like Indiana and Ohio pleaded with Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to make substantial changes to the proposed cap-and-tax legislation. The cautious moderates represent states that rely heavily on carbon-based energy to heat homes and power businesses. And they understand that this legislation, which dramatically hinders the use of coal, will devastate their state's families, small businesses and family farms.
Barack Obama said it best during the presidential campaign when he declared that under his energy plan, energy "prices would necessarily skyrocket." But you don't have to take just President Obama's word for it. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, recently proclaimed that "nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one."
This isn't just another energy bill. This is a bill that will destroy industries. That isn't just my opinion. Then-Candidate Obama said that he was willing to push coal-fired power plants into bankruptcy :
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Let's briefly summarize. President Obama hasn't objected to coal-fired power plants going bankrupt in the name of fighting global warming. He's also said that energy "prices would necessarily skyrocket." Add those statements with Rep. Dingell's statement that "nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one" and it gets clear that the National Energy Tax will unnecessarily cripple the U.S. economy.
When talking about jobs, President Obama talks in terms of jobs saved or created. It's a nice-sounding term that means nothing because it can't be proved. If, God forbid, the National Energy Tax becomes law, Republicans should add a new category to President Obama's jobs categories: jobs intentionally destroyed. We should make it clear that these jobs were destroyed to appease his environmental extremist allies. We should tell people that President Obama and Rep. Waxman destroyed these jobs because they refused to increase reliable energy production contained within the continental United States and on the OCS.
Some estimates suggest anywhere between 1.7 million and 7 million jobs could be lost under the Democrats' energy tax plan. Manufacturing plants, and the jobs they create, will just relocate to foreign countries with less stringent environmental regulations and transport pollution to other parts of the world. Washington will inflict a lot of pain on American families for a policy that won't achieve its ultimate goal of reducing carbon emissions.
I don't know which estimates Rep. Pence is referencing but they don't seem unrealistic given the things President Obama and Rep. Dingell have said.
SIDENOTE: I'm checking with Rep. Pence's office on what studies he's referencing. I'll update as soon as I get that information.
Let's also dismiss those citing the MIT study on the cost of this legislation. They often say that the cost is much lower than cited by Republicans. Here's Rep. Pence's response :
Chairman Pence said that they're aware that liberal bloggers are trying to debunk that study. He said that they'd debunked the debunking by talking with the MIT scientist that's saying the cost wasn't $3,128. Chairman Pence said he asked this scientist why he thought it would cost considerably less than the GOP's figure.
The MIT scientist said he assumed that much of the revenues would be rebated back to the consumers. This scientist said that he didn't have a problem with the $3,128 figure if they didn't rebate that money back to the people. Chairman Pence then said the Waxman-Markey bill didn't include a rebate provision in it, meaning that the figure is valid.
In other words, the MIT scientist that Democrats have been pointing to for proof that their national energy tax isn't expensive undercuts their own argument. The MIT scientist assumed that "much of the revenues would be rebated back to the consumers." Unfortunately for consumers, there isn't a rebate provision in the bill, meaning that the MIT scientist thinks that the $3,128 figure is fairly accurate.
What family will say, especially during such difficult financial times, that they can afford writing the checks for an additional $3,000 for heating bills this year? During the stimulus debate, President Obama told us time after time that we faced the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Though I disagreed with that dire of a prediction, I didn't disagree that we were facing serious challenges.
With that in mind, what monster would propose heaping thousands of dollars of new expenses on already burdened families, many of whom are already dealing with the mortgage crisis and rising unemployment? That President Obama and Chairmans Waxman would pursue such a strategy indicates that they're driven more by their political allies wish list than by what We The People want.
That's totally unacceptable. Burdening struggling families with that type of financial burden right now borders on being evil and immoral.
Theoretically, Blue Dog Democrats are more fiscally responsible. Let's see whether Blue Dog Democrats support this huge tax increase. If they do, then they should be targeted for defeat in 2010. If the Blue Dogs support this bill, then they should be lumped in with radicals like Rep. Waxman because there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them on killing jobs and raising taxes.
On the Senate side, let's see how the DLC types vote on cloture. If they vote for cloture, that's the same as voting for the bill.
Rep. Pence nails it with this statement:
Senior Democrats doled out just enough crumbs to their shaky colleagues to ensure that this national energy tax makes its way through Congress. Sadly, this compromise is nothing better than political cover for a Democrat-controlled Congress that wants to tax energy, control the market and restrict freedom. Enactment of this legislation will be devastating to our economy, while exporting American jobs overseas.
Seriously, why would manufacturers stay in the United States when they can save hundreds of millions of dollars in energy costs just by moving to Thailand, Mexico or South Korea?
Democrats whined about President Bush's role in outsourcing jobs to India. Democrats now appear willing to chase jobs from the U.S. economy. Vice President Biden even said that coal-fired power plants should be built in China rather than being built here in the United states. He said in the context of Cap and Trade, aka the National Energy Tax.
I've said before what I'll repeat now: The National Energy Tax is a nasty tax increase masquerading as environmental policy. It's destructive to jobs, too. Finally, it's important that I remind you what Bob Weisman , professor of meteorology at St. Cloud State, said about global warming:
Despite disagreeing with him "100 percent, politically," Weisman said he agreed with Horner that the Obama administration's cap-and-trade program likely won't do anything to effect climate change. "Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. " You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."
You can't say it any more authoritatively than that. The National Energy Tax is a job-killing tax increase that has little to do with global warming.
Originally posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, revised 29-Dec 12:17 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-May-09 06:23 PM
Here is where Republicans need to switch tactics. Under the theory that "he who names a thing seals its fate," Republicans must insist, in every venue and every opportunity, that this is the "Skyrocketing Energy Tax Bill," or some such focus-tested term, if necessary. Once that label sticks in the public mind, Democrats will only pass it at their peril.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-May-09 10:30 PM
What do you think they're doing calling it the National Energy Tax?
Bad & Getting Worse
Minnesota's conservatives have long known that Minnesota's spending habit have beenterrible for awhile. I didn't know how bad they were until I read this article on the Olmsted County Republicans' website. Here's the first thing that stood out for me:
Based on inflation and population, if Minnesota did in 2008 what it was doing in 1960, we could expect 2008 state expenditures to have been $5.7 billion. The actual figure was almost $27 billion: 4.7 times more! Because it's taking on more responsibilities, working fatter, and working dumber, our state government is almost 5 times more expensive than it was in 1960. (I don't know if government is working fatter or dumber than it was in 1960 but it's one of the possibilities for explaining the difference.) In 1960, our state government spent $149 per person. Adjusted for inflation, that's equivalent to $1,084. In 2008, Minnesota government spent $5,144 per person: $4,060 more than we would have spent were we performing like 1960.That's a great statistical breakdown of what the DFL has done in terms of spending. I posted something in March, 2007 that illustrates things from a legislative standpoint :
Late in the day, Early Childhood Learning Finance Division met, and heard a bill chief authored by the division's chair, Rep. Nora Slawik. The bill addresses child care needs to such a great extent that the cost to Minnesota taxpayers goes from $140.5 million in the first biennium, to a whopping $723 million in the fourth year. That would more than eat up ALL the surplus revenue!Had that bill passed, the first year's cost would've been $35,000,000 and the second year's cost would've been $105,500,000. That's a fistful of money but it's miniscule compared with the costs in the second biennim. (In this instance, we'd be entering the second biennium this July.) The second biennium tails would've been $300,000,000 in FY2010 and $723,000,000 in FY2011.
The practical application of this is that, had it been signed into law, Gov. Pawlenty would've been forced to either let this program spend $1,000,000,000 this biennium or the DFL would've accused him of cutting the child care program by $1,000,000,000 this biennium.
The other point that's important to make is that the DFL won big majorities in 2006 at the same time that there was a huge surplus. They immediately viewed this as the perfect opportunity to pay their political allies off bigtime. In less than a year, they went from a $2,163,000,000 surplus and a healthy rainy day fund to a $935,000,000 deficit, an empty rainy day fund and a deficit that's still growing.
The point is that the DFL doesn't have the willpower to say no. PERIOD. They don't have the willingness to set priorities, either. Trusting them with either house of the legislature is a proven, verifiable disaster.
What's worse is that there's no indication the DFL's leadership will improve anytime soon.
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-May-09 11:30 AM
There is only one way to improve the DFL's legislative leadership, and that is to reduce them to minority status and, if possible, replace them all with Republicans, letting "better" DFLers lead the minority.
