May 6-10, 2010
May 06 05:56 When The Majority Is Wrong May 06 22:43 KSTP Poll: Emmer Leads All DFL Opponents May 07 05:09 Entenza: Energy Isn't Expensive Enough May 08 07:54 Kelliher's Record Filled With Failure May 09 07:07 Battle Lines Drawn In St. Paul May 10 04:21 The Lessons From Utah May 10 15:45 The Democrats' Worst Nightmare? May 10 17:06 Tarryl, DFL In Trouble May 10 18:55 The DFL's Discombobulation
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
When The Majority Is Wrong
Simply put, the Minnesota Supreme Court got their unallotment decision wrong. One justice, Justice Lori Gildea, got it right . After interpreting the law as it's written, Justice Gildea wrote this in a stinging rebuke:
The judiciary's 'duty' is simply 'to apply the law as written by the legislature.' (Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud, 765 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. 2009) (Magnuson, C.J., for a unanimous court).On Page 10 of the majority opinion, the justices chose to hide behind the notion that the statute wasn't clear, which the justices used as an excuse to determine the legislature's intent. Here's the text of the unallotment statute:
The majority is unable to do so because the language the Legislature used in the unallotment statute leaves the majority with uncertainty and ambiguity. The majority therefore rewrites the statute to insert additional conditions, and then finds that the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget (Commissioner) violated the statute because he did not comply with the conditions the majority has added.
Unlike the majority, I do not find the language the Legislature used uncertain or ambiguous as applied to the unallotment at issue in this case. I would not rewrite the statute; I would apply the language as written. Because I would hold that the executive branch complied with the plain language of the statute, and that respondents have not met their burden to prove that the statute is unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.
(a) If the commissioner [of finance] determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.This isn't ambiguous. It's exceptionally clear. That's the point Justice Gildea made in her opinion. The reality is that 4 justices went searching for a rationalization to right the wrong of what they perceived as bad legislation. After reaching a consensus on how they'd rationalize their ruling, they essentially unilaterally wrote additional provisions into the statute. After writing additional provisions into the statute, the majority justices then said that Gov. Pawlenty hadn't complied with the provisions that they'd just written into the statute.
(b) An additional deficit shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, be made up by reducing unexpended allotments of any prior appropriation or transfer. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the commissioner is empowered to defer or suspend prior statutorily created obligations which would prevent effecting such reductions.
The rationalizing justices in the majority have another problem, according to Justice Gildea, namely that it's their contention that balancing the budget falls only on the legislative branch. Justice Gildea's contention is that it's both a legislative and executive responsibility.
In making this ruling, the majority has, for all intents and pruposes, given the legislative branch the upper hand. That violates the principle that the three branches are co-equal branches.
This is why it's important that justices interpret, not write, the law. If they thought unallotment was unconstitutional, they should've said so in their opinion. Instead of doing that, the reckless justices chose instead to muddy the statute by rewriting it to their liking. If the statute is to be rewritten, that's the legislature's responsibility, not the judiciary's.
Posted Thursday, May 6, 2010 9:08 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 06-May-10 07:04 AM
This is the best post on this I've read to date, right to the point. But I think another point needs clarification, that this is also a matter of cash flow.
Unless we can write IOU's like California, unallotment is necessary even in a short term scenario like we have here, and that is clearly within the scope and intent of the Statute.
Forget the end of the biennium next summer - that's the formal budget balance. That's no good without liquidity. Many a corporation has gone bust with a good long term prospect but without the short term cash to get there.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-10 07:27 AM
That's a great point, Rex. If you write about the liquidity aspect, stop back with the link to your post.
Comment 2 by Michael Latsch at 06-May-10 07:37 AM
I am not qualified to parse the ambiguity that the majority saw, but it seems clear to me that that the statute as written was meant to deal with a power to be exercised by the governor after the start of the biennium in question:
"the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than..."
I can think of no common language sense in which you'd speak of the remainder of a period of time that has not already begun. "The Twins need to outscore their opponents in the remainder the of game they'll play tomorrow" just doesn't work. By this reasoning, the Governor would be well within his rights to make unallotments after the start of a biennium that was headed for a defecit, but not before.
Can anyone explain to the contrary?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-10 07:43 AM
Michael, just for clarification, are you arguing that Pawlenty's unallotments would've been fine had he waited until the first day of the new biennium?
Comment 3 by Michael Latsch at 06-May-10 07:54 AM
Yes, according to my limited understanding of the statute (limited to what I've read here). I guess the heart of the matter would be-was the budget as passed constitutional under the standard that budgets are required to be balanced. I mean, what's the standard-you could claim and budget is balanced if you use sufficiently high projected revenues. Conversely, any governor could claim that a budget is unbalanced if using sufficiently low projected revenues.
Comment 4 by R-Five at 06-May-10 11:10 AM
Again, however, we are facing a severe cash crunch, one very predictable last June. Don't forget, the Gov cannot make these alone. The statute reads that the Finance Director does, with the OK of the Gov and a nebulous "legislative advisory" group.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-10 11:46 AM
Rex, I just got word from a legislator that yesterday's ruling takes unallotment off the table for fixing the deficit. What a bunch of idiots the activists on the Supreme Court are. I'm most disappointed with Magnuson. He should know better than to think it's his job to write new provisions into a statute. Utterly repulsive.
KSTP Poll: Emmer Leads All DFL Opponents
According to the first KSTP/SurveyUSA poll , MNGOP endorsed gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer leads each of his potential general election opponents. First, Tom Emmer, the candidate I've supported from the outset, leads Speaker Kelliher by a significant margin:
According to the poll of 588 registered voters who say they're likely to vote, Emmer leads Kelliher 41 to 33 percent. Horner is at 9 percent. Another 17 percent are undecided.Having an 8-point lead at this point is significant. Still, the Emmer campaign will need to build on that lead by laying out its pro-growth agenda and its reform agenda. If they do that effectively, which I'm confident they'll do, Tom Emmer will be in a strong position after the DFL primary.
According to the poll, in a hypothetical race, Emmer leads Dayton by eight points--42 to 34. Horner is again at 9 percent and 15 percent are undecided.That none of the DFL gubernatorial candidates gets above 33 percent of the vote should be giving DFL Chairman Melendez heartburn. Whichever candidate wins the primary will have essentially out-liberaled the other candidates. That isn't good news for them.
The poll showed, Emmer leads Entenza 42 percent to 31 percent. In this hypothetical race, Horner pulls in 10 percent and 16 percent are undecided.
As I've said before, Sen. Dayton will campaign as the Taxaholic Candidate. Meanwhile, Matt Entenza will campaign as the Spendaholic Candidate. Speaker Kelliher will likely campaign as the centrist candidate that can unite the DFL. Speaker Kelliher's challenge is that she's rumored to be short on CoH. With Mssrs. Dayton and Entenza flush with cash, she'll have to make up alot of ground.
Another thing that's worth noting is that Tom Emmer leads Speaker Kelliher 39 percent to 36 percent with women voters. Anytime that a Democrat doesn't win the women's vote by a substantial margin, the outcome is predictable. It almost automatically means that they'll lose because, in a competitive election, the Republican candidate wins the male vote by a substantial margin.
Let's suppose for the sake of this discussion that Sen. Dayton wins the DFL primary. He's already said that he'll increase taxes on "the rich" by $500,000,000, then spend that money on education. Let's stipulate for the sake of this discussion that Sen. Dayton will keep his promise.
This is important.
If Sen. Dayton is true to his word and if the projected budget deficit for 2011 is fairly close to accurate, that means Sen. Dayton will need to balance the budget by imposing draconian tax increases on middle class families. When Team Emmer highlights this, Dayton's popularity with suburban voters will drop like the stock market dropped Thursday.
Matt Entenza's problem is that he's running as the Spendaholic Candidate in a year when voters are saying they want to shrink the size of government. People are seeing the mess Greece, Spain and other countries are in. Long ago, people noticed the messes in Massachusetts, Michigan and California.
As bad as those situations are, Speaker Kelliher is in the biggest pickle. Fairly or unfairly, she's the face of the DFL team that will be putting a balanced budget proposal together. I've said from the outset that the best situation Speaker Kelliher could hope for is that the Supreme Court ruled in Gov. Pawlenty's favor.
Instead, they ruled in her favor, leaving her with a $3,200,000,000 deficit to fix in the last 10 days of session. It isn't likely that this will turn out well for Speaker Kelliher in time for the primary.
Rep. Emmer, on the other hand, is positioned beautifully. While the DFL candidates are campaigning amongst the DFL activists, Rep. Emmer and running mate Annette Meeks will be talking with families and small businesses about their plan to fix overbloated government, lower high taxes and grow jobs by giving businesses a strong incentive to invest in their businesses.
Team Emmer is undoubtedly smiling tonight after hearing the results of this poll. That's quite the way to start their general election campaign.
Posted Thursday, May 6, 2010 10:43 PM
No comments.
Entenza: Energy Isn't Expensive Enough
According to DFL gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza, Minnesota's electric bills aren't expensive enough :
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza (en-TEN'-zah) says he wants to keep Minnesota's ban on new nuclear power plants.This is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start.
Entenza outlined a plan Thursday to create tens of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy. It doesn't include repealing a moratorium on construction of new nuclear plants, an issue that has been in play at the Legislature in recent years.
The former House minority leader is running in a competitive August primary against former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (KEL'-uh-her). Entenza says he would urge utilities to foster renewable energy without creating new state tax incentives. Instead, he plans to appoint clean energy advocates to the Public Utilities Commission as slots open up and encourage utilities to use federal tax incentives.
First, renewable energy is significantly more expensive than fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Why on God's grean earth a gubernatorial candiate would propose spending more on expensive energy at any time is beyond me. Why he'd propose that when people are struggling is even worse.
It's one thing to be innovative. That's fine if the innovation drives prices down. This doesn't. If there isn't a cost-savings benefit to innovation, then the cost-benefit analysis is easy: it isn't worth it. Time to pitch that proposal on the scrap heap.
Second, extending the moratorium on nuclear power is foolish. Thursday morning, while appearing on MidStream Radio, we spoke about how the French and others in the industrialized world have jumped ahead in nuclear technology and how it's reducing their energy costs and their reliance on foreign energy products. Why wouldn't we want that type of energy future?
Third, Mr. Entenza's plan is another example of how the DFL attempts to pick winners and losers in industry. I've said before what I'll repeat again: government is terrible at picking out the next Microsoft, the next Fedex, the next Walmart. It shouldn't attempt it ever again because it isn't good at it.
What Mr. Entenza is telling us by advocating for a greater reliance on renewable energy is that he's more interested in appeasing his environmental activist allies than he's interested in protecting Minnesotans' wallets. That's a message that won't play well in the general election, though it's a message that will play well with a DFL primary audience.
The bottom line is this: limiting our energy options is stupid, especially if limiting our energy options includes advocating for expensive energy generation.
Posted Friday, May 7, 2010 5:09 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-May-10 12:35 PM
Hey, you want renewable energy? How about breeder reactors, and recycling nuclear waste? The latter increases our store of nuclear fuel from 700 years to 7000 years, and the former increases that. Forget windmills.
Kelliher's Record Filled With Failure
Phil Krinkie knows a thing or two about fiscal responsibility. That's what makes his criticism of Speaker Kelliher's record so damning. Here's the opening of Krinkie's criticisms:
In January 2007 when Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, assumed the post of speaker of the House, the second most powerful job in state government, the state budget outlook was positive-the state budget forecast projected a $2 billion surplus for the next two-year cycle.Let's understand that the DFL always planned on raising taxes; they had political allies to pay off. I recall asking Tarryl Clark about why the first 6 bills submitted in the Senate each included tax increases. She said that the only tax increase approved by Senate DFL leadership, aka her and Leader Pogemiller, was the gas tax increase.
With this rosy economic picture, even the Minneapolis liberal could proclaim: "The Democratic House Caucus is fiscally conservative and does not plan any major tax increases."
By March 1, all six of the tax increase bills submitted in the Senate were being debated in the House tax committees. By the end of the session, Gov. Pawlenty had vetoed all 6 tax increases that Speaker Kellliher's DFL had passed. Thankfully, the House GOP had sustained each of Gov. Pawlenty's vetoes.
Since getting the Speaker's gavel, Minnesota has gone from a $2,200,000,000 surplus to a $6,400,000,000 deficit. Under Speaker Kelliher's and Leader Pogemiller's leadership, the DFL's jobs program has been to pass $1,000,000,000 bonding bills. They haven't done a thing to reform health care. They haven't set intelligent priorities in budgeting. In fact, they've refused to pass budget targets in either budget session.
I recall the DFL's first post-session flyaround spinorama. Speaker Kelliher proudly announced that they'd finished on time. I remember seeing the first speaker, Larry Haws, at the microphone angrily complaining that they didn't get nearly enough done. I remember it vividly because his face was red and he was pounding his fist on the podium. I remember turning to Josh Behling and asking him if Larry was going to pop a blood vessel.
Yesterday, the DFL House defeated a bill that would've ratified Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments.
Speaker Kelliher is now promising that, first thing Monday morning, her DFL House will submit a budget plan that includes tax increases, increases that didn't have DFL support last year .
It's astonishing that the DFL has refused to consider health care reform that would've saved hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This is why, under Speaker Kelliher's 'leadership', they've become known as the obstructionist majority party.
Ask yourself if you're better off now than you were when Speaker Kelliher took the Speaker's gavel. If you aren't, then it's time to ask this simple question: Had enough?
Posted Saturday, May 8, 2010 7:54 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 08-May-10 11:48 AM
We have to have rational solutions for the deficit problems in Minnesota, not extremist rhetoric that promises to do less for Minnesotans. That's why, after voting for Pawlenty twice, I will be voting for Kelliher this year.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-May-10 01:22 PM
Brent, why don't you wait to find out about Tom's blueprint for reforming Minnesota's government to be more taxpayer friendly before making that decision?
I'd think that'd be the wise move, especially when it's hardly a guarantee that Speaker Kelliher will win the DFL primary.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 08-May-10 01:42 PM
There's nothing rational about raising taxes to push the point of unsustainability forward one more year. A growth rate of 20% per biennium is unsustainable, irrational and unnecessary.
What upsets me about the Court decision is that it does absolutely nothing to meet the balanced budget requirement, and the DFL has done nothing to meet the balanced budget requirement, except to offer what they knew was an unacceptable "solution" of raising taxes. If the Governor makes it clear that taxes will be vetoed, repeatedly, and Republicans make clear they will sustain that veto, repeatedly, then taxes are not part of the solution. Insanity is repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome. I don't want crazy in charge.
Comment 4 by Brent Metzler at 08-May-10 06:03 PM
Gary, I suspect that it will not be totally illogical to believe that I will be voting for Kelliher in August. Maybe she will win the primary, maybe she won't. Note I didn't specify that I would vote for her in November. Even if she doesn't there will be at least one candidate on the ballot and possible two, as Horner may turn out to be a viable competitor.
You ask if wait to find out about Tom's blueprint for reforming Minnesota's government to be more taxpayer friendly before making that decision. You make it sound like Emmer's going to dump the rhetoric he used to win the nomination and replace it with a new "mainstream" blueprint now that he has the nomination.
And so I ask you. If he does release a new blueprint, which "Emmer" should I believe is the real Emmer? The pre-nomination Emmer or the post-nomination Emmer?
I hope for the sake of the Emmer supporters that I know who believe that Emmer is authentic that Emmer's post-nomination blueprint for reform is the same as his pre-nomination stance. I know that they would be devastated if another candidate they thought was genuine turned out to be just another act to get the nomination and then "mainstreamed" themselves as soon as they didn't need those supporters anymore.
For me, I'm going to believe that Emmer is who he says he is and support someone else. Right now that will be Kelliher, but if she doesn't win the primary (and I hope she does) then I'll support a different candidate. But I'm pretty sure that candidate won't be Emmer.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-May-10 09:51 PM
Gary, I suspect that it will not be totally illogical to believe that I will be voting for Kelliher in August. Maybe she will win the primary, maybe she won't. Note I didn't specify that I would vote for her in November.Brent, Here's what you said in your first comment:
That's why, after voting for Pawlenty twice, I will be voting for Kelliher this year.Brent, that certainly sounds like you plan on not voting for Tom Emmer. You didn't specify that you were voting for Kelliher in the primary, then switching back & voting for Emmer or Horner in the general election. You should specify such things because it keeps things clear.
You ask if wait to find out about Tom's blueprint for reforming Minnesota's government to be more taxpayer friendly before making that decision. You make it sound like Emmer's going to dump the rhetoric he used to win the nomination and replace it with a new "mainstream" blueprint now that he has the nomination.
And so I ask you. If he does release a new blueprint, which "Emmer" should I believe is the real Emmer? The pre-nomination Emmer or the post-nomination Emmer?Until now, Tom's made a point in talking about general themes. He hasn't talked about specific policies that match his rhetoric. That's what he'll spend this summer doing: putting out policies that match his rhetoric.
Of course you know that because Tom's one of the most consistent legislators we've ever had. You know that what he's said, he's done. He's that consistent. Making it sound like he isn't a man of his word is disgusting & unsubstantiated. You should be ashamed of yourself.
All the times that Tom's been on the minority end of a 120-9 vote or a 127-7 vote was proof that Tom stayed true to his principles instead of casting the popular vote.
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about because you talk about a "new blueprint". Tom's only talked in broad themes to this point. When he starts laying out specifics, it will be his first detailed blueprint. This isn't complicated. It's just something that you didn't grasp. There's a difference.
Next time, take the time to do your due dilligence. It's your obligation as a voter.
Comment 5 by Brent Metzler at 09-May-10 06:56 AM
You might be confused since my comments were so clear and concise and you are not used to that.
To sum up the thread, I voted for Pawlenty twice, I will not be voting for Emmer this year.
Whether it is "broad" ideas, or "specific" details, I don't expect Emmer to contradict himself. I agree with you, he will spend this summer putting out policies that match his rhetoric. I know what his rhetoric is, so I don't need to wait for his policies.
I can't guarantee that Kelliher will be on the ballot this November any more then you can. But, unless her campaign collapes before August I'll get to vote for her. I hope to vote for her in November, but win or lose, I won't vote for Emmer.
Minnesota doesn't need any more of Emmer's rhetoric. His lopsided votes prove that he is not in touch with Minnesotans.
Comment 6 by Brent Metzler at 09-May-10 07:22 AM
Oh, and lest we forget it was you who floated the "disgusting" idea that Emmer would release a new post-nomination "blueprint" that we should wait for as it might be different then his pre-nomination campaign rhetoric.
I concluded my #4 comment by stating that "I'm going to believe that Emmer is who he says he is." And yet you say I should be ashamed of myself. Really classy.....
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 09-May-10 12:36 PM
Mr. Metzler, You're wasting my time. I didn't "float the 'disgusting' idea" that there'd be new blueprint. In fact, I said that the specifics would fit with the broad themes. What part of that don't you understand.
You've doubled back twice now. First you said this:
And so I ask you. If he does release a new blueprint, which "Emmer" should I believe is the real Emmer? The pre-nomination Emmer or the post-nomination Emmer?Now you're saying that you "don't expect Emmer to contradict himself." You can't say both things without contradicting yourself.
Stop past anytime. Just be prepared to get exposed as the doubletalking unprincipled man that you are.
Comment 7 by Brent Metzler at 09-May-10 02:00 PM
Um, you were the one who said I should wait to find out Tom's blueprint is before deciding not to vote for him.
I tried to make the point that whatever he says won't be any different then what he has already campaigned on, and if it was different, that would be troubling to say the least.
Therefore, I don't need to wait to find out about Tom's blueprint for reforming Minnesota's government because it should be in character with what he was campaigning on before the nomination.
I'm not a great writer, so it's hard for me to say exactly what I want concisely. I understand that it is hard to dialog with blog comments, and that you are going to twist everything I write. I'm sorry for that.
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 09-May-10 05:29 PM
Gary:
Why don't you admit that you're a liberal democrat who wants to raise taxes? I'm sick and tired of listening to the radio shows which you pretend to be on where the caller says that they're a conservative and argues with the hosts with talking points of a liberal democrat.
Here's a good example that you're a liberal democrat. You keep attacking Emmer. In post one you said that you were voting for Kelliher. Where's is Kelliher's plan and why do you like Kelliher's plan so much?
You see part of the leadership problem that Kelliher and the Democrats have is that they don't want to reduce spending. They just look for and enact taxes on things we don't need like mass transit instead of roads.
So after you admit that you're a liberal democrat lets hear why Kelliher is so good?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 09-May-10 05:32 PM
Gary:
I appoligize for my post on number ten naming you. I didn't catch I named you instead of Brent.
EVERYBODY POST #10 WAS FOR BRENT NOT GARRY AND I TYPED THE WRONG NAME!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 10 by Brent Metzler at 09-May-10 07:16 PM
Interesting. Since I don't call into talk radio shows there is apparently an imposter calling in and pretending to be me. Maybe that's part of the hostility I see. Be assured that any radio caller is not me.
I've also never said that I was a conservative. There are conservatives that I respect, and certain conservative ideas that I think may have merit, but I have never really considered myself a true conservative. I'd consider myself a Durenberger-style Republican.
I voted for Pawlenty because I had considered myself Republican, and Pawlenty seems like a rational mainstream governor. Pawlenty does have some issues with not raising taxes that I disagree with, but for the most part he has been a good governor. Under Pawlenty we got light rail, a new Twins stadium, renewable energy initiatives, health impact fee, and other important solutions for Minnesota.
I support mass transit, renewable energy, health care reform, publically-funded stadiums, better education. And yes, we are going to have to pay for those things, but that will be good for Minnesota and we will be better off for it.
So, who's more likely to support those, most of which has been supported during Pawlenty's terms. Emmer or Kelliher? Should I wait for Emmer's blueprint to see if he supports mass transit and green energy?
Comment 11 by Mike Bryant at 10-May-10 07:48 PM
Is Krinkie going to ever say anything positive about Kelliher? It's kind of silly to suggest otherwise. I understand he has a position, but it is disingenuous to use a quote from him to even suggest he gave her a fair shake.
What kind of economic shape was the country in when Bush took office? My guess is the same analysis wasn't written or said by you or him back then.
Response 11.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-10 01:33 AM
Mike, Tell me why we should talk positively about Kelliher's reign as Speaker. In that short period of time, she's helped pour cold water on Minnesota's economy & changed a $2,200,000,000 surplus into a $6,400,000,000 deficit. We're supposed to be thankful for that??? I don't think so.
Comment 12 by walter hanson at 10-May-10 07:50 PM
Brent:
You type like the pattern of the callers to radio shows I cite. You say you're conservative. I voted Repulican.
Every issued you name is something that Liberal democrats want and keep in mind has caused anger from conservative repulicans.
So you have proven that you are a liberal democrat and not the conservative Republican that you claim to be.
Besides you have said you voted for MK. Part of the problem we have with the budget today is that we are shoving money down holes that won't work such as mass transit. You are aware for millions less you can make the bus system carry more passengers and at faster speeds than train?
In Spain where they invested in green jobs they lost two private sector job for every green job.
So if you really this open minded person what is MK proposing that hasn't been proposed which is good for the state of Minnesota?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Battle Lines Drawn In St. Paul
According to this Strib article , this session comes down to two things:
This legislative session comes down to two numbers: Nine days, $3 billion.In reality, it's about alot more than that. A Capitol insider friend of mine said that health care lobbyists are upset with the HHS conference committee negotiations. One lobbyist is reportedly upset that mental health was decimated at the expense of programs benefiting less resource needy people.
Another Capitol insider told me that Sen. Berglin ignored Rep. Paul Thissen's questions on more than one occasion. Reportedly, she didn't just dodge the question. She outright didn't answer Rep. Thissen's questions.
Let's remember that, last year, the DFL had difficulty passing their tax increases . Let's remember that Tom Bakk criticized Ann Lenczewski's tax increase legislation because it took away the mortgage tax deduction. Gene Pelowski criticized DFL House and Senate leadership for attempting to pass tax increases, saying this:
Pelowski said lawmakers won't have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a "fiction" that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty's veto. "We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs,'" Pelowski said. "There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit."The DFL should listen to Rep. Pelowski. If they propose raising taxes with their next budget proposal, Minnesotans will reject them this November. While there's no doubt that there's probably an appetite with the MN2020 and Growth and Justice demographics, there isn't alot of appetite for tax increases with any other demographic group.
The DFL's appetite for raising taxes heading into an election is tiny. This morning, on @Issue, TPL's Phil Krinkie talked about a recent poll about how strongly people oppose raising taxes. The poll showed 64 percent of Minnesotans think taxes are too high, 8 percent think they're too low and 27 percent think they're about right. Krinkie then said that 72 percent of the 18-34 demogragraphic thinks that taxes are too high.
Going against that type of overwhelming support for lower taxes is stupid anytime. It's especially stupid going against those types of numbers a few months before an election.
Like most Minnesotans, I think this is a high profile game of chicken between Gov. Pawlenty and the DFL leadership in the legislature. In the end, I'm betting that the DFL passes a temporary package that mirrors Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments. To do otherwise would be to imperil the DFL's majorities in the House and Senate.
That's why I think the battle lines that are being drawn are more between DFL leadership and their rank-and-file and between DFL leadership and their lobbyist allies than it is between the DFL leadership and Gov. Pawlenty.
Posted Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:07 AM
No comments.
The Lessons From Utah
Based on this SLTrib article , there's lots of lessons to be learned from Saturday's Utah GOP State Convention. Most of the lessons are on what not to do. Let's start with this:
Bennett appeared earlier in the day alongside Mitt Romney, a superstar among Utah Republicans, who said Bennett was needed in the Senate. "With the sweep and arrogance of the liberal onslaught today in Washington, we need Bob Bennett's skill and loyalty and power," Romney said.Clearly, Mitt Romney is a loser in all this. He's shunned the TEA Party movement before. By picking Bennett, he's shunned them again. That's plain stupid. He didn't endorse Rubio until it was totally clear that Crist didn't have a chance. That isn't a profile in courage.
Whether Sen. Bennett was once a good conservative is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he worked with a Democrat on a health care bill that contained an individual mandate, not unlike Mitt Romney's plan has, not unlike what Obamacare has. From this day forward, Mitt Romney will be remembered as the man who defended unconstitutional individual mandates.
Here's another man who gets a down arrow:
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine said Bennett's defeat proves that the tea party has a firm grip on the GOP. "That the tea party would consider Bob Bennett, one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, too liberal, just goes to show how extreme that tea party is," Kaine said. "If there was any question before, there should now be no doubt that the Republican leadership has handed the reins to the tea party."In addition to mischaracterizing the TEA Party movement, calling the TEA Party movement an extremist movement is stupid politics. Even if you think they're extremists, calling them that will only fire up the activists more. I don't doubt that that's their strategy. I just think it's a really stupid strategy.
It's a foolish strategy because a recent Gallup poll showed that 49 percent of TEA Party activists are Republicans, 43 percent are independents and 8 percent are conservative Democrats. By saying that TEA Party activists are far right wing extremists, Kaine is alienating the independents his candidates will need to win this November.
That isn't just foolish; that's called committing political suicide.
Meanwhile, the C4G is a big winner, as is the TEA Party movement:
Chris Chocola, president of the conservative Club For Growth, which spent nearly $200,000 trying to defeat Bennett said that Utah Republicans made the right decision "and sent a clear message that change is finally coming to Washington. We see it as a victory for Utah, the United States Senate, and for the cause of economic freedom," Chocola said.Go along to get along types should be replaced whenever there's a viable candidate to replace him with. There's a reason why Republicans got voted out. That reason is because Republicans abandoned their principles 'in the spirit of bipartisanship'. C4G is committed to candidates who will fight hard for their conservative principles rather than sign onto bad policies in the name of bipartisanship.
By winning this fight, the TEA Party movement has proved that they are a force to be reckoned with. The first message that they sent Saturday is that they'll hold people accountable for the decisions that they make. The other message that they sent is that they'll enthusiastically support candidates that embrace constitutional limits on government.
That's a stark contrast between the TEA Party movement and Mitt Romney.
Posted Monday, May 10, 2010 4:26 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 10-May-10 04:02 PM
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling everyone else. This (the Bennett upset) was fait accompli two years ago - the day Jason Chaffetz beat Chris Cannon at convention. From that day forward Bennett's days in DC were numbered.
LL
The Democrats' Worst Nightmare?
Chris Stirewalt's article should give Democrats a scare. If he's right, the Democrats are peddling the wrong message this year. First, let's talk about the visuals problem that Stirewalt sees:
It was a jarring split screen.The Democrats are promising to correct Wall Street's ills with their financial regulations legislation. Their consistent message has been that more government intrusion is the answer to each of our problems. That's a foolish message to peddle at a time when people don't trust government, whether it's in DC, St. Paul or Sacramento.
On one side of the television, members of Congress were bloviating about the need for financial reform to prevent another crisis. On the other side of the screen, Greek rioters were finally dispersing in a cloud of tear gas after their firebombs sent world markets skidding. Down in the lower right corner, the readout on the Dow looked like the altimeter on a nose-diving jet.
How funny that anyone would promise to bring security and predictability to a financial world that can be undone by the protests of some uncivil servants in a little country in the corner of Europe with a gross domestic product about the same size as that of Massachusetts.
Ronald Reagan once said that government isn't the solution to our problems, that rather it's the problem. Based on what poll after poll is telling me, I'm betting that a majority of voters are returning to that opinion. If I'm right, that spells doom for Democrats this November.
The senators on the other side of the split screen from the Greek bomb throwers want you to believe that their plan does something about market volatility.The Senate will hopefully block the Democrats' legislation and insist on genuine reform rather than Reform In Name Only, aka the other RINO. More people are doing their homework. They aren't automatically buying the politicians' words as Gospel fact.
The Washington Post asked Ted Weisberg, a 40-year veteran of the trading pits, what caused the 1,000-point earthquake on the Dow. His answer was that Congress had enacted so many new trading regulations in recent years that when an actual trading crisis arose, there was no way to hit the brakes.
"I don't know what their rules are. The public doesn't understand. This is another perfect example of the government changing the ground rules, and we end up with unintended consequences ," Weisberg said.
Rather than a plan to simplify financial regulations or even strengthen them, President Obama and Congress have settled on the more common political practice of the shakedown.
When the 'reform' legislation didn't do anything to fix the Fannie and Freddie crisis, people got suspicious and rightfully so. If you won't fix the problems with the GSE's that caused the financial meltdown, people will rightly be suspicious of the product and the politicians' motives.
The Democrats' credibility isn't confined to the financial regulations legislation:
As the president said about the passage of his new national health program: "We proved we're still a people capable of doing big things." More accurately, it proved that Washington is still capable of saying big things. The doing part is another matter.Serious people didn't trust the Democrats' numbers from the start. Serious people understood that it wasn't that the CBO was corrupt, that it was Democrat politicians who were corrupt because they manipulated the process. As a result, Democrats were seen as corrupt, not credible.
The RAND Corp. told us that rather than holding off premium increases, the president's health program will drive them up 17 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that 10 million people will be booted from their employer-based policies. Medicare's chief actuary predicted a $311 billion health spending increase and dramatic cuts to services over the next decade.
When Evan Bayh retired, he whined that there wasn't enough bipartisanship from Republicans and that Democrats were spending too much. The problem with Sen. Bayh's comments is that he voted twice for wildly expensive health care legislation and twice for the wildly expensive and failed stimulus package.
When Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak caved for their thirty pieces of silver on health care, when Collin Peterson caves for his thirty pieces of silver on Cap and Trade, when countless Blue Dog Democrats vote like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, why should voters take them seriously?
Pundits keep saying that things like 'it's a political lifetime between now and Election Day.' I'm tired of that punditry because it isn't in touch with reality. There isn't an eternity between today and Election Day because people are fed up with politicians who won't listen and who have broken promise after promise.
I'd submit that, to a large extent, the clock stopped ticking when Democrats stopped listening to We The People and President Obama stopped pretending that he's a centrist. I've said before what I'm saying now: that this election won't be decided on events going forward as it'll be decided on the ideology people prefer.
Clearly, people are frightened by the Democrats' willingness to follow in Europe's pathway. They don't want a high-spending European model. They're seeing the chaos that system is creating, both economically in terms of civic unrest.
The Democrats were already in trouble because of their votes on health care and the stimulus bill. Now they're in deeper trouble because the economic model that they're heading towards is exploding around the world.
That's the Democrats' worst nightmare. AND THEN SOME.
Posted Monday, May 10, 2010 3:50 PM
No comments.
Tarryl, DFL In Trouble
Last year, I wrote about the difficulty the DFL had in passing their tax increases. I titled the post " 35-31, 68-65: A Tale of the DFL's Tax Troubles ". This afternoon, the Senate DFL leadership had similar difficulty in passing this year's tax increases, passing it by a slimmer than slim margin of 34-33.
The Strib is reporting that Tarryl Clark, my senator, cast the deciding vote:
Democrats were leaning on their large majorities in both chambers to pass the tax provision. Even so, a dozen Senate Democrats voted no. The deciding vote was cast by Sen. Tarryl Clark, a candidate for Congress in a right-leaning district represented by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, an outspoken anti-tax Republican.Raising $395,000,000 isn't nothing by any stretch but it's barely a dent in the $3,000,000,000 deficit. First off, this bill won't make it through the conference committee. Whatever tax increase that comes out of the conference committee will be less than one-seventh of the projected deficit.
The proposal would establish a new income tax bracket for 122,000 high-income taxpayers, raising $395 million through the middle of next year.
That means that the DFL legislature will still be left with finding another $2,600,000,000 in spending cuts and spending delays. You'll remember that that's almost the identical amount unallotted by Gov. Pawlenty. After all the fighting, the DFL still hasn't provided a solution to the problem that Gov. Pawlenty fixed last year.
Tarryl can't even defend her vote as being an important part of the final solution to the deficit they're facing. It's just another DFL attack on small businesses . If it's true that good policy makes for great politicking, then Tarryl's vote in the polar opposite of good politicking.
Tarryl's vote just alienated small businesses en masse from Stillwater to Fridley to St. Cloud. Tarryl was fighting an uphill fight prior to this vote. Now she's fighting an uphill fight against the wind on slippery roads. Good luck with that fight.
The GOP leadership in the Senate quickly criticized the DFL's approach:
"Last week, the DFL Majority passed a bill to bailout public employee pensions. Now, they want to raise taxes to bailout the Minnesota State Government," said Senate Minority Leader Dave Senjem (R-Rochester). "This is simply the worst time to be raising taxes in any form."From a public policy standpoint, this is foolish. There's no way to defend this vote. More than a few DFL senators will be defeated for casting this vote, not just for raising taxes but because it isn't the solution to the deficit. More importantly, this tax increase will weaken Minnesota's economy. Geoff Michel put it perfectly by saying this:
Assistant Senate Minority Leader Geoff Michel (R-Edina) added: "The Senate Democrats have been chanting 'tax the rich' for years. If we maintain this attitude towards Minnesota's taxpayers and job providers, unemployment will rise and personal income will spiral downward. Making Minnesota the fifth-highest taxed state is not a solution that will create jobs and encourage economic growth. This bill is a job killer."
"Failing to put the school payment shift permanently into statute sends a terrible message to school districts all over the state," said Senator David Hann (R-Eden Prairie). " School district officials need financial certainty as they try to effectively manage their budgets ."
"The only people celebrating today are real estate agents in Arizona and Florida. There will be a lot of Minnesotans packing to leave as they are taxed out of house and home."If this tax increase was signed into law, there'd be a jobs exodus from Minnesota. Thankfully, it won't become law. Still, it's important to know which senators voted for the jobs exodus bill :
DEMOCRATS VOTING YESIt's noteworthy that all 21 Republicans voted against the DFL's jobs exodus bill.
Anderson (St. Paul); Bakk (Cook); Berglin (Minneapolis); Betzold (Fridley); Chaudhary (Fridley); Clark (St. Cloud); Cohen (St. Paul); Dibble (Minneapolis); Foley (Coon Rapids); Higgins (Minneapolis); Kelash (Minneapolis); Kubly (Granite Falls); Langseth (Glyndon); Latz (St. Louis Park); Lourey (Kerrick); Marty (Roseville); Metzen (South St. Paul); Moua (St. Paul); Murphy (Red Wing); Pappas (St. Paul); Pogemiller (Minneapolis); Prettner Solon (Duluth); Rest (New Hope); Saxhaug (Grand Rapids); Scheid (Brooklyn Park); Sheran (Mankato); Sieben (Newport); Skoe (Clearbrook); Sparks (Austin); Stumpf (Plummer); Tomassoni (Chisholm); Torres Ray (Minneapolis); Vickerman (Tracy); Wiger (Maplewood)
The bottom line is this:
- The Senate DFL's tax increase bill is an attack on small businesses.
- Tarryl's vote for the jobs exodus bill is another nail in her political career, especially running against Michele Bachmann in Republican friendly year.
- Alot of DFL senators will lose their seat because of this vote.
The good news for me is that John Pederson will be taking Tarryl's place in the Senate next year. John's a strong conservative and an unabashed capitalist. In other words, the polar opposite of Tarryl.
Posted Monday, May 10, 2010 5:13 PM
Comment 1 by Dee Ann at 11-May-10 09:55 AM
If you must write a blog, you really should brush up on your grammar and punctuation. It adds credibility.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-10 10:03 AM
If you must criticize me, the least you can do is learn the definitions of words.
Comment 2 by Dee Ann at 11-May-10 09:57 AM
A lot is generally accepted as two words.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-10 10:02 AM
Alot means more than one. A lot is a piece of property.
The DFL's Discombobulation
With little time left in this session, the DFL is reeling. This afternoon, the Senate DFL leadership had to literally find Tarryl so she could cast the deciding vote on their tax increase bill directed at small businesseses, formerly known as the job creation engine for a prospering US economy.
Thanks to Steve Gottwalt's timely e-letter update on what's happening in the session, we now know how discombobulated the DFL is:
Dear Neighbor:Knowing Steve, I know that he's using the term "people in charge of the legislature" purely from the standpoint that they're LISTED as the people in charge of the legislature. Putting it differently, Steve's using the term loosely.
We enter the final week of the 2010 Legislative Session not much closer to a budget solution than when we began back in February. Last week, a slim majority on our State Supreme Court (4-3) ruled against Governor Pawlenty's $2.7 billion in unallotments (spending reductions) from last year, made necessary by the failure of the legislature to balance the state's budget in 2009.
On Friday, the Democrats in the majority brought forward Governor Pawlenty's unallotments as an amendment to an amendment to make a political point. The governor had encouraged the legislature to make his unallotments permanent, but the proposal before us only ratified the cuts for this year. The House turned down the measure.
Since they would not support those cuts, we brought forward the majority's tax increase bill from the very end of last year's session. Nearly every single House member voted against the tax increases, 129 against, only 2 in favor.
If the people in charge of the legislature do not want to cut spending, and they don't want to raise taxes, it leaves Minnesotans wondering where we are headed with just a week remaining. It also increases the likelihood of a special session.
Today's vote in the Senate was a major indicator of how disorganized the DFL is. They literally had to find Tarryl and bring her into the Senate Chambers to get her to cast the deciding vote. (Luke posted the photos on MDE.) I've never heard of such a thing happening on such a close vote on this important of a bill. If anyone has firsthand information of a similar situation under these circumstances, I'd welcome hearing it.
Thanks to Steve's e-letter update, we now know that the House DFL leadership is retreating from last year's final tax increase bill. I'll repeat here what I've said before: Atop the DFL's agenda is the constant attacks on small businesses:
Today, the majority released a proposal that would slow state spending increases, delay payments to schools, and add a new fourth income tax tier, the fifth highest in the nation, with nearly a half billion dollars in permanent new taxes that would fall heaviest on our small businesses.What's worse is that the DFL refuses to consider any reforms that save money:
There are certainly other options we could have embraced many times over the last few years. For example: if those in charge of the legislature had not expanded eligibility in public programs over the last three years, we would not have to consider the kinds of reductions they are now proposing in critical services to those with mental illness, nursing homes and others. If they were willing to take up the MinnesotaCare reform bill (HF 3036) I authored, we could save another $110 million over two years.It's time we put real leadership in charge of Minnesota's legislature. Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The DFL has held the majority in the state Senate since the mid-70's. The House DFL has run Minnesota's budget into the ground since taking over the Speaker's gavel in January, 2007.
Expecting the DFL to set the right priorities and expecting them to say no to their special interest allies isn't accepting reality. It's time for CHANGE THAT DOESN'T FRIGHTEN US!!! It's time that we let some capitalists run the Capitol rather than this bunch of socialists.
Let's face facts: There's nothing worse than socialists setting society's priorities.
Originally posted Monday, May 10, 2010, revised 11-May 7:36 AM
No comments.
