May 30-31, 2009
May 30 13:27 The Dangers of Ignoring Reality May 30 16:53 Who's the Rogue, Tarryl? May 31 00:49 Bill O'Reilly, Gutless Bloviator May 31 01:07 Your Turns: Today's Must Reading
The Dangers of Ignoring Reality
The good people at Redstate have been blogging up a storm on the NRSC's endorsing Charlie Crist, Florida's governor with an appetite for raising taxes and supporting President Obama's 'Spend Like A Drunken Sailor' bill, aka ARRA. Friday morning, they offered Sen. Cornyn the opportunity to make the case for why Charlie Crist must be the GOP candidate in Florida. Here's Sen. Cornyn's explanation:
Some believe that we should be a monolithic Party; I disagree. While we all might wish for a Party comprised only of people who agree with us 100 percent of the time, this is a pipedream. Each Party is fundamentally a coalition of individuals rallying around core principles with some variations along the way. My job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to recruit candidates who have the best chance of winning and holding seats ; and to do so in as many states as possible. Earlier this month, two Republicans candidates emerged for the open Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez in the Sunshine State: Marco Rubio, the young and talented Hispanic former Speaker of the state House, and Charlie Crist, the state's popular Governor.First of all, nobody thinks that we'll return to majority party status by being a monolithic party. That's the type of argument that President Obama makes and that we criticize him for making.
There is no doubt both of these candidates have a bright future in the Republican Party. But with his record of leadership and astronomical approval ratings, including strong numbers among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, Charlie Crist represents the best chance for Republicans to hold this seat in Florida. That is why I endorsed Governor Crist for the U.S. Senate. That is also why Governor Crist was endorsed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, outgoing Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator John McCain, and other leaders within the Republican Party.
Secondly, listen to the people who've endorsed Charlie Crist: John McCain, Mel Martinez and Mitch McConnell. Saying that Mitch McConnell is a has been might be giving him too much credit because, outside of his title, what has he ever been? While John McCain was our presidential nominee, he wasn't the leading votegetter on the ticket because he refused to fight for every vote. In fact, he never warmed to movement conservatives during the campaign. Mel Martinez is a great American story but he's a worthless politician. None of these three men will fight for the conservative principles that will bring this nation back from the brink of catastrophe.
Sen. Cornyn lost me when he started talking about Crist's "record of leadership." What leadership would that be, Sen. Cornyn? Crist's leading the fight against tax increases in Florida? That can't be it because Gov. Crist just signed a major tax increase bill to balance Florida's budget. Perhaps it was Gov. Crist's crusade against President Obama's ARRA bill? That can't be it because, in addition to saying that he would've joined Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins in voting for ARRA, he campaigned for passage of ARRA with President Obama in Florida.
What this really comes down to is Sen. Cornyn's eyes glazing over when he thinks about Crist's fundraising abilities and his 100 percent name recognition. Unfortunately, Sen. Cornyn didn't consider what having Crist in the U.S. Senate would mean.
Winning back the majority requires not only that we hold the Democrats accountable, but also that we embrace the vast number of issues upon which Republicans agree. Failing to do so will hand the Democrats yet another victory in 2010, and deny the American people a check on Democrat-controlled government.What check would Charlie Crist be against the Democrats' agenda?
More importantly, there's a compelling case that's being made on Rubio's behalf, not the least of which is how he energizes conservatives. That's before talking about what a charismatic speaker he is. Simply put, if given the chance, he'll energize the GOP faithful like Gov. Palin energized Republicans last year. View this video, then ask yourself whether you want the pale pastels of the current DC Republicrats that inhabit the Senate:
Conservatives like me smile when we hear Rubio say that this election is about clear choices. He's right about that. That's why Crist, even if he's elected, is a poor choice. Electing Marco Rubio would change how the Senate works. That's because Marco Rubio isn't another go-along-to-get-along types that the Senate GOP is infested with.
Ask yourself this: shouldn't we fight for the man who identifies with the Tea Party movement, especially considering his opponent in the GOP primary is the man who would pour cold water on the Tea Party movement? Let's ask another question: Since Sen. Cornyn says that this election is about choices, shouldn't we support the man who would annihilate Kendrick Meeks in a debate by being a principled, charismatic conservative?
This Hill article sums things up perfectly:
Rubio supporter and GOP fundraiser Ana Navarro, a self-appointed leader of the anti-Crist movement, said Republican activists will drive home the stimulus support , with the idea that Crist's support is a mile wide and an inch deep.I don't think it's a stretch to say that this primary could be decided by Tea Party issues. If that's the case, Crist's support of Obama's stimulus bill will haunt him. Unlike national pundits, I don't question whether the Tea Party movement will fizzle. It won't, especially now that the various Tenth Amendment movements are taking off.
"Specter has not changed on social issues for his entire career, and Pennsylvania Republican primary voters were OK with that; but the last straw was the stimulus vote," Navarro said. "I think Charlie has greatly misjudged the incredible damage of his fawning support of the stimulus package."
The other thing working against Crist and for Rubio is the anti-politics-as-usual mood in the nation. Crist is a typical cookie-cutter politician who looks like a typical politician. Then there's this to factor in:
There is certainly no evidence of Bush lending a hand to Rubio at this point, though Rubio has signed top Bush fundraiser Ann Herberger . But Rubio's supporters are confident Bush will at least stay neutral, given his antagonistic past with Crist, and if Rubio gains traction, Bush might be tempted to push him over the finish line.Matching Jeb's top fundraiser with a charismatic conservative candidate sounds like an effective combination. There are plenty of conservatives in Florida. It isn't known whether Crist's support is solid or half-hearted, either. The other thing that could be an X factor in this primary and in the general election is Rubio's ability to attract new voters who haven't been part of Florida's political equation.
Finally, Rubio will be able to hit Crist hard for not being a fiscal conservative while touting his own conservative credentials. The ability to keep your opponent off balance is a great way to force your opponent into running a less than stellar campaign.
The realities that Sen. Cornyn and the NRSC ignored are significant. This cycle, people are looking for conservatives. This isn't the election for triangulation. That's partially because people are becoming disenchanted with congress being a rubberstamp for radical policies. People aren't yet upset with President Obama but they are upset.
Florida voters need to vote against Crist because there's little difference between him and a Kent Conrad or Max Baucus. Meanwhile, giving Florida general election voters a choice between a liberal like Rep. Meeks and a true conservative is an easy choice because Rubio is a Tea Party conservative.
Posted Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:30 PM
No comments.
Who's the Rogue, Tarryl?
This morning, I found out that Sen. Tarryl Clark, the assistant Senate majority leader, called Gov. Pawlenty a "rogue governor." In this Grand Forks Herald article , Tarryl levels a number of charges against Gov. Pawlenty. Here's the first of the egregious statements Tarryl made:
"What the crafters of the unallotment law didn't anticipate was a rogue governor who would choose to act in bad faith, as Pawlenty has done," Clark wrote. "Pawlenty refused meaningful negotiations, made impossible demands for clearly imprudent accounting stunts like borrowing to pay ongoing expenses and vetoed reasonable attempts by the Legislature to make cuts and increase revenue."This morning, I sent Tarryl an email highlighting the fact that the DFL rejected Gov. Pawlenty's proposal :
Pawlenty's new plan, offered Monday morning, would borrow just under $500 million against future state revenues instead of the nearly $1 billion he had originally proposed. It would adopt the Senate's proposal to drain $250 million from the state's reserve account and would fill in the remainder by acceding to the larger accounting shifts proposed by the House.In other words, Gov. Pawlenty made a good faith counterproposal, meeting them more than half ways on two issues that the DFL deemed important. Despite this good faith counterproposal, Tarrl Clark insists that Gov. Pawlenty is a rogue governor who didn't negotiate in good faith.
The proposal by Pawlenty steps around the cluster of tax increases passed by the House and Senate last week.
But DFL leaders were unimpressed. "It's a compromise in word, but not in deed," said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm.
Remember that I said in this post that the proper translation of the DFL's "negotiating in good faith" claims is code for "Gov. Pawlenty wasn't willing to compromise on the DFL's job-killing tax increases."
Here's something else that Tarryl said that's laughable:
Clark said that the unallotment law is for emergency use only: "During a financial crisis occurring between legislative sessions, a governor, acting prudently and in consultation with a key legislative commission, would make needed adjustments to hold the budget together until the legislature and governor could again pass legislation to balance the budget."I'm betting that most Minnesotans will agree that the legislature refusing to pass a balanced budget, which is the legislature's coinstitutionally mandated responsibility, constitutes an emergency.
I fully expect the DFL to say that they passed a budget that balances. That's because they've already started spinning it that way. That's a laughable position. If we wanted to apply truth in advertising principles to the DFL, we'd be forced to say that the DFL is just upset because they got blindsided because they didn't anticipate being blindsided by a principled governor. It's also true that the DFL is upset that they weren't able to force Gov. Pawlenty into signing off on their disastrous job-killing tax increases.
King pointed out in this post that our neighbor to the northwest, North Dakota, "is cutting its income tax rates by about an eighth across the board. Corporate rates too." As I told King on this afternoon's Final Word, this should scare the DFL mightily. It should scare them because Minnesotans will be able to contrast the DFL's tax policy with North Dakota's results.
If things go as I think they will, North Dakota will be able to point at their cutting taxes as helping in strengthening their economy. I further suspect that the results will be known within a 12-18 months.
Here's the most objectionable part of Don Davis' article:
The DFLers say they did their part by passing a budget, but Pawlenty vetoed their package of tax increases and payment delays to cover the gap.I'm not criticizing Davis for writing what he wrote. What Davis wrote is totally accurate. I'm critical of this because the DFL's last gasp attempt at increasing taxes was thrown together in the conference committee on the last night of the session. The conference committee started 'debating' the legislation after 10:00 pm on the last night of the session. The conference committee report reached the House floor for debate at 11:20, 40 minutes before the end of this year's session.
There was less than FIFTEEN MINUTES of debate on this insanely cobbled together legislation. Notice I didn't say fifteen minutes of debate in the House and 15 minutes of debate in the Senate. That fifteen minutes is combined.
If the DFL wants to campaign on their passing a last gasp tax increase bill that was debated for less than fifteen minutes during the last half hour of this year's session as proof that they passed a balanced budget, they're certainly welcome to try.
Of course, I'll point out all the trouble they had in getting prominent legislators in their own party to vote for their tax madness. I'll also highlight that the tax increase that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed and that the legislature couldn't override was a $920,000,000 tax increase.
Had Gov. Pawlenty signed that bill into law, the DFL would still have been almost $2,000,000,000 short of a balanced budget.
Putting these facts together, Minnesota's taxpayers should be asking this question:
Who's the rogue? The governor who stated things clearly and had a coherent plan that didn't destroy small businesses with excessive tax increases? Or is the DFL the rogue entity for (a) not accepting Gov. Pawlenty's counterproposal, (b) insisting on raising taxes that would've done more damage to Minnesota's economy and (c) reaching a balanced budget only by throwing a tax increase package together at the last minute that they knew their members wouldn't even agree with?
I'll confidently cast my vote that the DFL colelctively acted like rogues. The deciding factor for me is that the only time that the DFL put a balanced budget together this session was with an hour left in the session with a bill that was debated all of fifteen minutes.
That isn't a deliberative act. That's an act of imprudence.
Posted Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:53 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 30-May-09 05:08 PM
Readers should note that Pawlenty's offer was made the Monday before adjournment, not a last minute double shuffle like the DFL was trying to pull at the end.
But even with several days to go, the DFL wouldn't even look at it. Why? Because it had no tax increase to hang Pawlenty with later.
Comment 2 by JIm at 30-May-09 06:03 PM
The problem is you assume that that raising income taxes on the wealthy kills jobs. Well, now you have your way, but taxes are going to go up anyways, i.e., property taxes. So, there goes your 'killing jobs' B.S.
As usual, right wing logic is not logical. Right wingers re incompetent. Everything you do ends up a disaster.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 30-May-09 08:14 PM
Just because there is less state money flowing into local coffers, why does that "make" (i.e. force) property taxes up. Taxes don't go up by themselves, somebody has to RAISE them, and those people need to be held accountable for their taxing and spending. Who better to hold accountable than the people responsible, at the local level? The purpose of LGA and property tax credits was to make sure that really tiny towns, and poor towns, could at least provide basic public safety services. It's become a huge slush fund for all kinds of unaccountable spending by local governments. It's good riddance.
The crazy idea that "taxing the wealthy" doesn't remove money from the economy is the BS. In the end, it doesn't really matter whom you tax, the money gets taken out of the economy, meaning layoffs or decreased expansion or moving the business entirely out of state.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 30-May-09 08:32 PM
Let's dissect Jim's comment.
1. I assume that raising taxes while the economy is floundering kills jobs because that's what happens. When Bill Clinton raised taxes, he raised them while the economy was growing.
2. Capital flight happens. That isn't opinion. Here's proof:
Maryland's "millionaires' tax" flopped. It was doomed from the start.
Anyone taking Economics 101 could have predicted that those best able to avoid Maryland's new 6.25 percent marginal tax rate on income over $1 million would. They are the ones best able to choose where to live and to pay accountants and lawyers to lower their tax burden.
The U.S. Census Bureau shows more people are migrating out of Maryland than moving in. The only reason Maryland is gaining population is from women in the state having babies.3. As Jerry says, property tax increases aren't automatic. Here in St. Cloud, Mayor Dave Kleis got together with the city council & the city administrator & put a funding priorities list.
The DFL is notorious for not prioritizing. This year, the first budget proposal that the DFL Senate majority called for a 7% across-the-board cut. That's how little the DFL wanted to prioritize.
That same lack of desire to prioritize causes the DFL to overspend, then raise taxes to pay for their overspending.
Comment 5 by JIm at 31-May-09 08:51 AM
Your ideology has blinded you. You think taxes 'takes money out of the economy'. No, the money is spent. The problem is it is spent on what you do not want it spent on -- which is your own self interest. You think that property taxes go up because someone raised taxes. B.S. Taxes go up because populations increase, inflation goes up, things wear out etc -- all these things conservatives willfully ignore.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 31-May-09 09:48 AM
How rich is this: A blind liberal telling me that my ideology has blinded me.
As for taxes taking money out of the economy, yes, they certainly take money out of the economy, though you correctly point out that they aren't totally taken out of the economy.
The argument that I'd rather make is that you assume that government does a better job spending the money to create important things than does the private sector. Good luck proving that. BTW, don't start with public safety or transportation budgets or the military. I'm not opposed to all government. I'm opposed to when the government spends money on a lobbyist's wish list during a deep recession.
You think that property taxes go up because someone raised taxes.
I'll guarantee that that's the case. Governors can't raise property taxes. They don't raise themselves. Ergo, someone has to raise them by putting them on a ballot & by them winning a majority of the votes on that referendum.
I'd simply point out that, more often than not, local units of government, whether we're talking city councils, county commissions or school boards, have the option of defunding, either in whole or in part, nonessential items in their budget.
Yes, I do understand that some places have trimmed all the fat from their budget & are forced to raise property taxes.
I'd just argue that property tax increases are too often the first tool out of the toolbox when government should be asking if they should be spending money on everything that they're spending money on.
BTW, isn't that a long, detailed & coherent explanation for a blind ideological fool as you accuse me of being?
Comment 7 by JIm at 31-May-09 10:03 AM
You only spout the usual ideological tenets of anti-government -- unless it is strictly for very narrow purposes, which are police, transportation (but only certain types I am guessing), and the military. After all, those are the only services you need. Self serving to you - all others, screw them. I got mine. Government does not just serve the middle class and the wealthy, much if not most of the money government spends is for the poor and the needy. I am sure you ARE opposed to the government spending money for those persons, but because of that you are in effect willing to throw them overboard, because NO AMOUNT of private charity had ever provided for them sufficient to provide for the general welfare.
Oh, and your comment is long and coherent, but self serving and results in a substandard America. What liberals want is a strong America, a good America, the city shining on the hill. Conservatives say they do, but they are incompetent in its execution, blinded by an ideology that has failed time and time again.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 31-May-09 01:28 PM
Government does not just serve the middle class and the wealthy, much if not most of the money government spends is for the poor and the needy.WRONG. If we could take back all the money spent on John Murtha's corporate welfare to CEOs making $1,000,000 a year, we'd save alot of money. If we got back the earmarked money that Alan Mollohan sent to West Virginia charities, only to be the beneficiary of those earmarks, we'd save even more money.
What liberals want is a strong America, a good America, the city shining on the hill.Actually, President Obama wants a city that he controls. He isn't much interested in doing what's right. If he cared about doing what's right, he wouldn't be threatening bondholders & bankers who are making money.
Bill O'Reilly, Gutless Bloviator
The Right Blogosphere's anger was stirred when Bill O'Reilly declared himself the policeman of the internet. That happened when he accused HotAir of peddling hate speech based on a comment left on HA's post about Sonia Sotomayor. The next morning, Michelle Malkin rightly stood up for her bloggers during Jon Scott's program. That night, Bloviating Bill admitted that the offensive comment came from a commenter, not from either blogger.
That wasn't enough for Bloviating Bill, though. During his Reality Check segment, Bloviating Bill said that it wasn't enough for websites to say that they aren't responsible for their comments, adding that they should police their comments like his people police his website .
That's where Patterico's Pontifications entered the fray :
The latest "Bill O'Reilly blog posting":This afternoon, Mitch and Ed interviewed Patterico during their NARN show's final segment. They quickly called Patterico when they read his Tweet saying that Patterico's subscription as a Bill O'Reilly premium member was cancelled :
Above: Bill O'Reilly.com blog posting
Here's the text of the "blog posting":
NO HOMOS NO HOMOS now will the League arrest me for my right wing statement, perhaps i will be taken off the New Yuk slimes CHRISTMAS card list. what you do or dont do in your bed room is none of my business just dont tell me I am wrong if i say NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS. Hay maybe you can have a vote and lose and have the courts overturn your vote. Well that cant happen in AMERICA now can it.
to any one whos name begins with an R REMEMBER NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS. Awaits to knock on the door from the lack of free speech AG. AND janet baby
I wish I could share today's "BillOReilly.com blog posting" . . . but my membership has been terminated:It's a bit much to think that Patterico's membership was coincidental. In fact, it's impossible to think that his premium club membership isn't the direct result of him exposing Bloviating Bill as a phoney.Due to violations of the Terms and Conditions of BillOReilly.com attributed to your account, your Premium Membership is hereby terminated effective as of the date of this notice. The termination is final and any attempt to use the site or to renew membership either directly or indirectly will similarly result in termination and/or blocking use of the site.I'm not sure what terms and conditions I supposedly violated. I never posted any comments (or "blog postings") on O'Reilly's site. All I did was quote (and screencap) two embarrassing comments from the message boards.
This Monday, Bill O'Reilly owes HotAir an apology for his criticizing that great website for following the same guidelines as he does on his website. He owes another apology to Patterico for cancelling his subscription for exposing Bloviating Bill's phoniness.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for Bloviating Bill's apology, though. I can't imagine that it's his style to admit that he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Posted Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Jun-09 07:00 AM
Keith Olberman has been calling him that for months. Does this mean you and KO agree on something?
O'Rilley is abrasive and divisive, and critical without answers. But as long as his ratings please his owners, we have him on TV. Isn't TV great? For the owners if not us.
Your Turns: Today's Must Reading
Last week, I put together a Your Turn editorial for the St. Cloud Times. In my Your Turn, I questioned the DFL's and the media's storyline that Tim Pawlenty and the DFL-dominated Legislature were equally to blame. Follow this link to read the entire thing.
Follow this link to read Rep. Steve Gottwalt's Your Turn editorial. It's a great read, mostly because Steve didn't hold anything back.
I'd like to thank Randy Krebs, the Times' Editorial Page editor, for keeping the editorial content intact. Comparing it to what I submitted, I noticed that there were only minor cosmetic changes to it.
UPDATE: The Times Editorial Board's editorial is worthwhile reading. Here's the attention-getting phrase from their editorial:
You said then you would balance the state's next two-year budget via unallotment if the DFL-led Legislature wouldn't do enough things your way. Sadly, i ts leadership didn't come through with anything more than the political status quo, and they were tardy in offering that. Astute voters know that.Those last 2 sentences should scare the DFL. Indeed, the DFL leadership offered their traditional status quo solution of major tax increases at the last minute. St. Cloud's voters, like I suspect voters across the state, know that the DFL leadership failed them.
UPDATE II: Here's the link to Tarryl's Your Turn editorial criticizing Gov. Pawlenty's unallotment plans.
Posted Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Jun-09 06:53 AM
Gary, GM went into bankruptcy today, via a New York affiliate to put the case in the Southern District.
Chrysler is soon out of reorganization, if that's the right term for Fiat buying stuff, or it is out already.
Any thoughts about the future of industry in the US?
Do you see the backlash over finance and the Fed growing legs, or being as brief and then forgotten as gas over $3 a gallon?
Should the government take over control of money, or leave things with the banks as now?
Obviously this is off point for this post, but the questions are actually larger.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Jun-09 09:02 AM
Any thoughts about the future of industry in the US?It's troubling at best for several reasons:
1. If the National Energy Tax, aka Waxman-Markey, is enacted, energy prices will skyrocket, which will lead to further layoffs.
2. Businesses' distrust of President Obama because of his thuggish behavior, & his regulators' thuggish behavior, will cause many businesses to not invest their money.
Do you see the backlash over finance and the Fed growing legs, or being as brief and then forgotten as gas over $3 a gallon?This thing's gaining momentum, not slowing down. As long as Democrats insist on throwing money away, they'll be the people staring down a gun barrel known as the midterm elections.
The Fed & Treasury are only part of the problem, though. President Obama's intervention on behalf of the UAW in the GM bailouts is seen as his tipping the scales in the UAW's favor. That, in turn, is seen as President Obama's willingness to 'suspend' the bankruptcy court to give his supporters the upper hand.
That raises the issue of fairness. Right now, alot of business people see him as being anything but a neutral arbiter.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 02-Jun-09 12:55 PM
Thanks, Gary.
The Fed and Treasury have to work with each other, each has autonomy, so it's not as if there's a single voice.
I expect you'll post something now that GM has filed -- 60% to US government; 17.5% to UAW; 12.5% to Canadian government; Hummer sold to a Chinese firm so that the troops will buy Chinese vehicles now [unless the military part's separated]; and the unsecured bondholders swap out for 10%.
It is not pretty. It is as ugly as anything I've seen in years.
