May 7-9, 2009

May 07 01:59 It's For the Unions, Continued
May 07 08:03 Put the Children First
May 07 10:32 DFL Continues Pushing Tax Increases
May 07 20:28 Tarryl Telling Tall Tales?

May 08 01:18 Caught Redhanded
May 08 10:27 DFL Infighting Over Taxes Intensifies
May 08 16:21 Keep Terrorists Out of America Act Details

May 09 11:02 The DFL's Backwards Thinking
May 09 11:49 Obama Adds Union Steward To List of Duties?

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008

It's For the Unions, Continued

I just viewed a video of Gretchen Carlson's interview of Ingrid Campbell and her daughter Mercedes. To say that it's heartbreaking is understatement. Here's the video of the interview:

Gretchen Carlson refers to President Obama's quote that he'll do "whatever helps kids." After making that promise, though, he signed into law the omnibus bill funding the federal government for the rest of FY2009. Included in the bill was David Obey's gift to the NEA: the dismantling of the DC scholarship program.

I said in this post that Chairman Obey's dismantling of the DC scholarship program was proof of the liberal elitists' soft bigotry. While thinking things through further, I've asked myself this question: What proof do I have that says President Obama doesn't put unions' interests ahead of other considerations? We know that he said that he's for "whatever works for kids." Still, there's no proof that he won't put the NEA's interests ahead of these underprivileged children's interests.

President Obama had numerous options after Chairman Obey loaded up the omnibus spending bill. He could've threatened a veto before final passage in the House or Senate, which would've certainly gotten everyone's attention, most importantly David Obey's and Nancy Pelosi's.In fact, demanding a clean omnibus bill would've produced two benefits: It would've kept the DC Scholarship Program intact. It also would've given him a great opportunity to eliminate most of the 8,570 earmarks.

That would've been a truly major accomplishment, one which would've given him an immense amount of political capital. It would've told the markets that he was serious about keeping spending disciplined. It would've given him the opportunity to tout his protecting the DC Scholarship Program, too.

Another option would've been to tell the House that he'd only sign the bill if he got the guarantee that they'd immediately put legislation together to re-instate the DC Scholarship Program. It would've looked a bit messy but parents like Ingrid Campbell would've appreciated it immensely.

Instead, President Obama handed a union another gift. Instead, President Obama chose to essentially give these underprivileged but talented children the finger. Where I come from, that's about as heartless as heartless gets.

As we see in this video, Mercedes was poor but she was well-spoken. The only thing that held her back were the most awful schools imaginable. The minute she was put in a stable environment, her accomplishments piled up. Mercedes now has a shot at a bright, limitless future, thanks mostly to a loving single mom but also because of this scholarship program.

The question I'll continue asking President Obama and his liberal allies is simple: Why eliminate a program that gives children a great shot at a bright future, especially knowing that future classes of children will have to endure a subhuman school environment?

President Obama's inaction tells me that his saying that he's for "whatever works for kids" is just another nice-sounding line at another political rally. President Obama's passivity tells me that he isn't all that interested in doing what's right for talented children who desperately need these scholarships.

That's the mark of a morally inferior person.

Posted Thursday, May 7, 2009 2:02 AM

No comments.

Put the Children First

The Washington Post is reporting that President Obama is 'willing' to extend the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program long enough so that all the students currently in the program can finish their high school education.

Big whoop.

Just as the rally was breaking up in Freedom Plaza, word came that Mr. Obama would seek to extend the program until all participants in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program graduate from high school, although no new students would be admitted. Considering that some of the students are in pre-kindergarten, that would be an admirable commitment.

This rally dragged President Obama into doing the right thing...sorta. The White House's announcement takes the video of Ingrid and Mercedes Campbell off the Right Blogosphere, which is its intent. What it doesn't do is keep filling the pipeline with new underpriveleged students, which is what's appropriate.

In short, this is a PR move. This isn't about President Obama coming to his senses and doing what's right for DC's children trapped in substandard public schools. What needs to be asked is this: Why isn't President Obama willing to stand up to the NEA and demand that this program, which is giving DC's underprivileged students a world class education, be expanded, not just extended? If President Obama had the cajones, he'd push the NEA like he's pushed secured bondholders.

That won't happen, though, because President Obama knows that these children don't make campaign contributions like the NEA and other unions make. That's right; I'm accusing President Obama of not caring about the children as much as he cares about his union allies.

Gee, Ya Think?

This paragraph in the Washington Post article is stunningly naive:

Mr. Obama had never embraced vouchers, so it bespeaks a pragmatic open-mindedness that he would put aside that philosophical opposition in deference to the interests of these children. As Education Secretary Arne Duncan told us earlier, it doesn't make sense "to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning." Maybe there was also some thought given to the political optics of booting hundreds of poor, black students from private schools back into troubled public schools.

Mr. Obama's halfhearted 'embrace' of vouchers doesn't "bespeak a pragmatic open-mindedness that he would put aside that philosophical opposition in deference to the interests of these children." There's more than a little "thought given to the political optics of booting hundreds of poor, black students from private schools back into troubled public schools."

RedState's Moe Lane gets it right with this statement :

I will note this, though: this " compromise " that the administration is currently offering is nothing but. It's an attempt to get the heat off of both it and the teachers' unions that are trying to gut school choice .

Watching Virginia Walden-Ford's speech was inspirational. Here's what she said that most inspired me:

But it won't be over until every child is in a school which they deserve and that meets their needs. Every child. Put children first.

What's most upsetting to me is that President Obama won't put children first, which is what these parents are demanding. I've focused on President Obama thus far but let's be honest about this: President Obama can't eliminate this program without House and Senate Democrats voting to eliminate the bill. Likewise, President Obama couldn't end this program if Rep. David Obey hadn't written this provision into the omnibus spending bill that funded the government for the rest of FY2009.

In other words, DC's Democrats, starting with President Obama, then continuing down to Chairman Obey, then being ratified by rank-and-file Senate and House Democrats, chose to put the NEA's best interests ahead of the DC children's best interests. After thinking this through, it's impossible to argue that Democrats, whether they're in the Senate, the House or in the White House, won't put the union's campaign contributions and GOTV staff ahead of doing what's right for DC's children.

This isn't about compassion because they've shown where their allegiance lies. I have a simple demandment for President Obama, Chairman Obey and the rest of the DC Democrats:

Put children first...period.

Posted Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:11 AM

No comments.

DFL Continues Pushing Tax Increases

As the constitutionally mandated end of this year's regular session nears, one thing is clear: the DFL insists on increasing taxes. DFL leaders like Tarryl Clark, Speaker Kelliher and others insist that they want to balance the budget while positioning Minnesota to take advantage of the coming recovery.

What they haven't done, though, is explain how driving small businesses to business-friendly states like South Dakota will help position Minnesota's economy for a strong rebound. In fact, what's happened is that gubernatorial candidate Tom Bakk admitted that raising taxes hurts Minnesota :

Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border .

I asked then what I'll ask now: If shoppers are willing to cross into Wisconsin to save a few dollars in alcohol taxes, why does the DFL think that small businesses wouldn't be willing to cross the South Dakota border to save tens of thousands of dollars?

Let's remember this important fact: If the top marginal tax rate were raised 1 point, Minnesota would gain an additional $300,000,000. That's if those top wage earners don't leave for friendlier tax climates. Shrinking the deficit by $300,000,000 through tax increases is counterproductive. It does little to balance the $4,500,000,000 deficit, coming just $4,200,000,000 short of shutting the deficit.

Big whoop.

DFL Rep. Gene Pelowski didn't think much of the DFL's plan , though I suspect that was more for re-election reasons than philosophical objections:

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."

It isn't a stretch to think that the DFL majority leadership is trying to play a game of chicken on the issue with the hope that they can sway enough Republicans to join them in overriding Gov. Pawlenty's promised veto.

This is flawed political thinking. It's flawed thinking because the DFL is anything but united on the issue. I wrote this post to highlight the DFL's disunity. King rightly pointed out that the DFL didn't want to subject its vulnerables to criticism in the initial vote but that they'd lean on them for the override vote. My counter to that is that voters aren't as precise as those of us who follow politics. They won't care whether a person voted against the Tax Increase Bill before it went to conference committee. They'll only care whether these vulnerables eventually voted to raise taxes.

I'm certain of this because taxpayers are, for the most part, only worried about the final outcome, not the process. First and foremost, they care about whether their taxes are going up. If they learn that their taxes are going up, they'll be upset. It's that simple.

I'll say this to the DFL: Keep pushing the Tax Increase Bill. Let's have this debate. Please drag me through that briar patch. Let's find out if there are more people who agree with Growth and Justice or whether there are more people who think that they're taxed too much. One person whose opinion I trust on the issue of taxes is Rep. Laura Brod, the Republican Lead on the House Taxes Committee. Literally minutes ago, I got Rep. Brod's email update. Here's the important part of Rep. Brod's email:

There is virtually no way to escape increased taxes if the Democrat bills became law. If you work, you'd pay higher income taxes, even if you make less than $30,000 a year. If you smoke, you'd pay more for cigarettes. If you consume alcohol, you'd pay more for each drink. If you download music, you'd pay a higher price for each song. If you want to sell your boat or snowmobile or heat your home in the winter, you'd pay additional state sales taxes. In fact, in nonpartisan studies, the House Democrat tax bill has more losers than winners with the changes starting at $16,000 of income.

The DFL is quick to resort to their fairness mantra. As Rep. Brod points out with these facts, that argument isn't credible because the DFL's tax increases would hit every Minnesotan, not just the rich.

Rep. Brod is spot on with this information:

Minnesotans would also lose popular tax credits under the Democrat

initiatives, as they want to repeal tax credits for K-12 education expenses; dependent care expenses; and long-term care insurance premiums which allows Minnesotans to help pay for their future care needs down the road. The bill also eliminates itemized deductions for charitable contributions, organ donation, property taxes and mortgage interest.

I know that information is accurate because DFL Rep. Gene Pelowski criticized DFL House Tax Chair Ann Lenczewski for writing those provisions into the bill. Sane people don't raise the top marginal tax rate AND eliminate a deduction as important as the mortgage interest deduction. In fact, they don't eliminate the interest deduction. PERIOD.

I want the DFL to answer Rep. Brod's questions:

So why would we want to make it even more difficult to borrow money and own a home? Why would House Democrats want to take away the mortgage interest deduction which gives the average family the most significant tax relief?

I'm not expecting the DFL to have rational explanations to any of those questions because I'm certain that there aren't any rational explanations to Rep. Brod's questions.

That's why I expect the DFL leadership in the House and Senate to continue having difficulty dealing with this issue.

Originally posted Thursday, May 7, 2009, revised 29-Jul 7:23 PM

No comments.

Tarryl Telling Tall Tales?

A couple of months ago, Dan Ochsner of KNSI AM had his floor pass to the Minnesota Senate revoked. I wrote about it in this post as part of a bigger discussion involving the House DFL's attempt to censor reporters. I noted in that post that the SPJ was rightin stepping into that fight, which the DFL backed away from almost immediately after their proposed rules change was exposed to the media.

To their credit, people like Esme Murphy, Mary Lahammer and others in the MSM jumped on this as a First Amendment issue.

At the time that Ox's permanent press pass was revoked, Ox said that he immediately talked with his state senator, Tarryl Clark. Later, Tarryl told him on his program that he could get a day pass to report from the Senate floor. This afternoon, I got an email from Dan updating that information. Here's the text of Dan's email, which I'm printing with his permission:

Remember earlier this year when Taryl Clark revoked my Senate Press Credentials and promised me on the air that I could just get a "Day Pass" anytime I wanted to get on the Senate floor anyway? Well, I went to the Sgt @ Arms office at the Capitol yesterday to get my "Day Pass" to cover the floor session. The ladies in the office (and I have a witness) told me there is no such thing as a "Day Pass" to get on the Senate floor. Never has been. Nobody had ever heard of such a thing and wondered why Senator Clark would have told me that.

So, as I sat way up high in the gallery observing a spirited floor debate, I looked down at the press table on the Senate floor. It was empty.

...And the saga continues.....So, as I sat way up high in the gallery observing a spirited floor debate, I looked down at the press table on the Senate floor. It was empty.

Dan Ox Ochsner

Let's review these important things first:

Dan filed to renew his pass with pleny of time to spare.

While appearing on Final Word, Dan told King that renewing credentials is a paperwork-only task because reporters keep the same laminated badge from year to year.

At the time of Ox's interview, King saved a cached copy of the 2006 press booklet . King noted that that booklet "contains KNSI entries for Ox and for former news director Cory Kampschroer." The 2009 booklet contains an entry for KNSI in the directory but their reporters' names aren't listed.

In other words, some intervening act happened to revoke Ox's press credentials for the Senate. It's also worth noting that Dan's House credentials remain intact. I know this because I listened to his first show from the Capitol the first week of this session. In fact, I wrote about it here .

The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board talked about Ox's problems in one of the biggest editorials of the year. I wrote about it here . Here's the hottest part of the Times' editorial:

On the Senate side, local conservative radio personality Dan "The Ox" Ochsner had the DFL-led Senate deny him annual media credentials this session despite having held them several other sessions.

Capitol folks have tried to justify these actions on themes such as "not enough room," "we're updating our rules" and "they don't regularly cover the Capitol."

Sorry, but they are missing the point. Legislators are conducting the public's business, not the media's business. The only rules needed are those that embrace openness, no matter who is asking for it.

Those "Capitol folks" justifications are without merit. They sound more like rationalizations than they sound like well thought through policies. How else can this be explained :

So, as I sat way up high in the gallery observing a spirited floor debate, I looked down at the press table on the Senate floor. It was empty.

That's before talking about Dan's interview of Tarryl shortly after the credentials flap. Ox intended to talk with Tarryl about the budget during the interview but he started by asking her about the credentials issue. Tarryl's response was that she didn't think "that your listeners want to talk about that." Dan's reply was immediate and brief. "I'm sure they want to talk about it." That brief akward moment ended when Ox's co-host Mike Landy changed the subject.

I talked with Ox this afternoon about this additional information. During our discussion, I mentioned a conversation Leo and I had with Tarryl at a January, 2007 townhall meeting. After the meeting, Tarryl approached us and started a conversation. When it was my turn to talk, I asked her if the DFL legislature planned on using zero based budgeting. Tarryl said that that wasn't likely to happen that session so I asked if she'd promise that the legislature would conduct oversight hearings to identify wasteful spending. Tarryl said that that would happen.

At that point, I said that since the DFL legislature was going to identify wasteful spending and since we still had a $2,163,000,000 surplus, that it wasn't "necessary for the first six DFL bills submitted for consideration by the Senate to include tax increases." Tarryl made a specific point of telling us that those bills were submitted by members on their own and that they weren't sanctioned by the DFL leadership. Six weeks later, those bills were getting committee hearings and up or down votes.

I suggested to Dan that it isn't a stretch to think that Tarryl says whatever needs to when she's posed with difficult questions. She certainly didn't tell the truth to Leo and I at the townhall meeting. It appears as though she didn't tell Dan the truth about his ability to get a day pass for covering the Senate from the Senate floor.

What credible explanation can be given for why Tarryl told Dan that he could get a day pass even though day passes don't exist and that they've never existed? I've thought about this tonight but I can't think of a credible explanation for Tarryl making such a statement.

It'd be different if this was the first year of the Senate not offering day passes. Based on what the people working in the sergeant at arms office told Dan, that isn't credible.

Based on the information Dan's been given by the sergeant at arms office and based on Tarryl's explanation on the tax bills, it's it's difficult trusting Tarryl.

To my liberal friends, I'll just say that there's no joy in reporting this and leave it at that.

Posted Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:28 PM

No comments.

Caught Redhanded

I knew that Nancy Pelosi was caught in a very sticky web the minute I watched her press conference where she denied being briefed on waterboarding. Based on Paul Kane's reporting for the Washington Post , I'm certain that Ms. Pelosi will be the news story this entire weekend and well into next week. Here's the key portion of Mr. Kane's article:

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

It didn't take Ms. Pelosi's office to respond to Kane's article:

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Mr. Daly should familiarize himself with the meaning of the phrase "including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah" because he'll hear that phrase alot during the next week. Here's another nail in Ms. Pelosi's coffin (H/T Gateway Pundit ):

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."

This is another instance where the coverup is worse than the original incident. Had Ms. Pelosi said that she knew of the interrogations and objected to the techniques used, this might've been a one day story. Instead, Ms. Pelosi gift-wrapped a present for the NRCC. It isn't that the 2010 elections will focus on foreign policy. It's that they'll use this incident to portray Ms. Pelosi as not being trustworthy. Unless I miss my guess, I'm betting that they're putting a web video showing then Speaker-Elect Pelosi promising to have the most transparent, most ethical Congress in history.

One of the questions the press should ask Speaker Pelosi at her next press conference is why she didn't object like Nancy Harman objected. I'd ask her why she doesn't want to admit that she didn't object to EIT's because she was worried about preventing the next terrorist attack. Do Democrats put a higher priority on being popular with the rest of the world than they put on preventing terrorist attacks? Why are Democrats ashamed of doing whatever it takes to prevent terrorist attacks?

Speaker Pelosi gave the GOP a great gift. The economic tumult has people worried. When people are worried, they start looking for leaders they can trust. Speaker Pelosi suffered a major hit in that category this week.

Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 1:23 AM

No comments.

DFL Infighting Over Taxes Intensifies

This Strib article should be waved in the DFL's face to tell them that additional tax increases will kill jobs and send companies fleeing to states with more business-friendly climates. Here's the paragraph that jumps off the page at me:

VitalMedix Inc., a Minneapolis-based company developing a hemorrhagic shock drug designed to keep alive a victim suffering near-fatal injuries, needs $3.5 million to advance its technology to human clinical trials. So far, VitalMedix has attracted only $600,000 from local investors.

"We're not getting the job done in Minnesota," said CEO and president Jeff Williams. "Angel investment in the Twin Cities has almost dried up. People are just sitting on their money. The past year has been the most difficult that I've ever seen in my career. It's extremely difficult and frustrating."

Williams said there is a 60 percent chance VitalMedix will move to Wisconsin, where investors enjoy tax incentives that encourage them to fund risky, early stage companies based in the Badger State. Angel investors there can claim a 25 percent tax credit over two years up to $500,000 per investment; venture capital funds can earn a 25 percent credit over one year up to $2 million per investment.

It's insane to raise taxes even higher when companies are fleeing the state because taxes are too high already. What part of job flight doesn't the DFL understand? If I earned a dollar for each time I've heard the DFL talk about the need for progressive taxation or the need for businesses to "pay their fair share", I'd be wealthy right now. (Assuming that I'd left Minnesota so the DFL wouldn't try taxing me from wealthy to the middle class.)

What's worse than just the potential job loss is that this would be the loss of lots of high-tech jobs that pay the higher wages that legislators are always talking about. Instead of letting the DFL send the message that businesses aren't welcomed here, Gov. Pawlenty should join his powerful voice with the rest of the GOP to tell Minnesotans that the DFL's tax schemes are ruining Minnesota.

Here's another part of the article that jumped off the page at me:

Experts have long warned that Minnesota start-ups would flee to Wisconsin. Despite an early push from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the DFL-controlled Legislature, a proposal to create angel investment tax credits now remains bogged down in contentious budget negotiations. The Senate tax bill includes the tax credits but the House version does not.

" We need some tools to keep our more-promising businesses in Minnesota ," said state Sen. Kathy Saltzman, DFL-Woodbury, a strong proponent of the tax credits. " Our future economy is going to suffer. Wisconsin is snatching up our companies ."

The fighting pits the House DFL against the Senate DFL. The DFL can't blame this on the GOP or Gov. Pawlenty because it's all about the DFL's disunity and unreasonableness on the tax issue.

I've written about this here , here and here . Here's a summary of those posts: Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona , told Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington , that her 'tax reform' bill is a bunch of crap. Not to be left out of the discussion (fight might be the better term), Tom Bakk, DFL-Virginia , also criticized Rep. Lenczewski's plan. This is how Sen. Bakk ripped Rep. Lenczewski's legislation :

Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.

That's a direct shot at Rep. Lenczewski's legislation. Unfortunately, it looks like people won't cross the Wisconsin border just to save money on alcohol. Based on the Strib's reporting, people might be leaving the state entirely.

It's time that we got rid of the DFL because it's time that we stopped their job-killing tax policies dead in their tracks. It's time we told them that we don't care whether a business "pays its fair share" or whether the tax code is progressive enough.

It's time we told the DFL that the only benchmarks that matter to us is whether the tax code (a) helps companies achieve stability, (b) gives companies the incentive to stay in Minnesota and (c) helps employees achieve prosperity. If it meets those three criteria, then it's the right tax system.

Finally, it's time we told Sen. Bakk and Rep. Lenczewski that their childish fighting is keeping Minnesota from its prosperity. That isn't acceptable. It's time we had a legislature that cared about creating prosperity. It's time we exiled legislators whose first priority is fairness, not prosperity.

Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 10:39 AM

No comments.

Keep Terrorists Out of America Act Details

Here are a few details about the House GOP's Keep Terrorists Out of America Act :

The Keep Terrorists Out of America Act gives Members of Congress an opportunity to stand with the American people by affirming their opposition to releasing the terrorists at Guantanamo prison or bringing them into the United States. It also makes clear that governors and state legislatures must pre-approve the transfer or release of any terrorist detainee into their respective states. And lastly it requires the President to meet strict criteria and certification standards before terrorists housed at the Guantanamo prison could be brought to the United States. Following is a summary of the bill:

Affirming Congress' Opposition to the Release and Transfer of Terrorists. The bill affirms Congress' opposition to transferring or releasing terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. Most Americans do not support releasing these terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison and transferring them into the United States. The bill gives Congress an opportunity to show that it stands with the American people on this critical matter, and opposes the release and transfer of these terrorists.

Governor & State Legislature Pre-Approval. The measure prohibits the Administration from transferring or releasing any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to any state without express approval from the state's governor and legislature, and certifies to Congress that strict requirements have been met. For example, the Administration must certify to the respective governor and state legislature that the detainee does not pose a security risk to the United States. The certifications must be made 60 days before any transfer or release.

Presidential Certification Requirements. The measure prohibits the President from transferring or releasing a terrorist detainee into the United States unless he provides the following notification and certification to Congress regarding:

The name of the detainee and transfer/release location in the United States.
The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued prosecution of the detainee.
The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued detention of the detainee.
The ability of federal judges to release detainees into the United States.

President Obama made certain that his signing the executive order shutting Gitmo got lots of publicity. Now that it's time to put something together, though, the Obama administration is scrambling to put a coherent plan together. Rep. David Obey, usally a liberal ally of this administration, has refused to appropriate the money needed to shut Gitmo because this administration doesn't have a plan for shutting it down :

"I personally favor what the administration's talking about doing, but so far as we can tell there is yet no concrete program for that," Obey said ahead of his panel's markup of the $94.2 billion supplemental Thursday. "And while I don't mind defending a concrete program, I'm not much interested in wasting my energy defending a theoretical program."

To put it mildly, this administration's national security policies are in disarray. It isn't difficult to prove that they're irresponsible or nonexistent, either. The House GOP's legislation would codify the conditions that must be met before Gitmo is emptied out.

We have laws on the books in every state in the union that says government must notify communities if a sex predator is released into a neighborhood. Should there not be something in place that mandates the notification of cities if a terrorist is released?

It's another story whether this bill gets a hearing, though, because debating this legislation would be a major embarassment to Pelosi's Democrats and to the Obama administration.

This wouldn't have happened if President Obama hadn't grandstanded on the issue or if he'd actually thought things through before issuing the executive order.

Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 4:22 PM

No comments.

The DFL's Backwards Thinking

With Minnesota in a recession and with companies either leaving or threatening to leave because of Minnesota's oppressive taxation , Minnesotan's thoughts are turning to how we can create jobs and prevent capital flight. Unfortunately, the DFL doesn't think in terms of preventing capital flight to other states.

Unfortunately, the DFL's thoughts about taxes have little to do with creating jobs that provide sustainable prosperity. Instead, their criteria is whether 'the rich' are paying their fair share and the tax code's progressivity. Follow this link to find the DFL's definition of rich.

In fact, lots of DFL legislators think that seasonal jobs created with bonding bills is the definition of a prosperity. DFL legislators that think that way are out of touch with reality, though. Since 2005, the Minnesota Legislature approved almost $4 billion of projects through bonding bills. In that time, we've lost 51,000 jobs in the construction industry.

I'd say it's time to start a discussion on what's the best way to create jobs and prosperity.

Let's start that discussion with this simple question: If a state isn't creating jobs, and if that state's citizens aren't prospering, isn't progressivity and making 'the rich' pay their fair share a worthless argument to make? Go ask the people left behind in Michigan or California how high a priority they put on the tax code's progressivity and on using taxes to soak 'the rich'.

I'm betting the proverbial ranch that they don't care about the tax code's progressivity or soaking the rich.

In fact, I'm betting that their primary concern is finding a job that pays the mortgage and the heating bills, puts groceries in the cupboards and helps them put money aside for their children's college and their retirements. (You'll notice the absence of soaking the rich and progressity from their list of priorities.)

Setting money aside for college funds and for retirement isn't possible if the businesses are constantly battling a hostile business climate. California's business climate is as hostile as it gets. That's why California has lost alot of capital to Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.

The Minnesota Grocers Association has issued this statement on what raising taxes will mean to their industry:

Taxes

HF2323 (Lenczewski, D-Bloomington, 4218/Bakk, D-Cook, 8881)

While this conference committee is meeting everyday, progress is slow. There is some thought that this bill may take dramatic turns before making its way to the Governors desk. What is critical is that lawmakers realize the budget cannot be balanced on the backs of business. No matter what the method, increasing property taxes, income taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes or giving cities the ability to assess limitless fees is not acceptable.

If the DFL insists on creating a new income tax bracket while surrounding states offer business-friendly climates, the DFL will rightfully get blamed for driving businesses away.

The DFL is forever whining about Gov. Pawlenty's inflexibility on taxes. As usual, they've got it bassackwards. It's the DFL's insistence on irresponsible spending that's created Minnesota's hostile business climate. Their insatiable appetite for spending irresponsibly forces tax increases. The threats of their tax increases alone have driven businesses from the state. Businesses have left Minnesota for Sioux Falls, too. This website should explain why businesses find South Dakota more appealing than Minnesota. Here's the page's top headline:

South Dakota has the "Best State Tax System"

Here's the information from that link:

The Index ranks the 50 states and District of Columbia according to the costs of their tax systems for entrepreneurship and small business pulling together 16 different tax measures into one tax score that allows the 50 states and District of Columbia to be compared. Among the taxes included are income, property, death/inheritance, unemployment, and various consumption-based taxes, including state gas and diesel levies.

The 10 best state tax systems include 1) South Dakota, 2) Nevada, 3) Wyoming, 4) Washington, 5) Texas, 6) Florida, 7) Alaska, 8) Colorado, 9) Alabama, and 10) Ohio. Two of the worst include: 45) Iowa, and 49) Minnesota .

The SFDF didn't accidentally include Minnesota's 49th place ranking in their website. It's obvious that they're doing it to attract Minnesota businesses to Sioux Falls.

It's reasonable to say that the DFL is making the SFDF's job easier. Any time the DFL proposes a tax increase, they're giving the SFDF more ammunition to recruit Minnesota's companies.

Here's another headline that will get noticed:

Top Cities for New Jobs

Here's what the SFDF points out:

Sioux Falls received a net employment outlook of 14%, ranking the city 5th out of the 200+ metro areas surveyed. The strength of the area's financial services and medical community was noted as a reason for the high ranking.

For more information, visit this website .

Despite the SFDF's success in recruiting businesses, the DFL keeps insisting that we raise taxes.

The reality is that the DFL is driving businesses from the state. That won't change directions until a new attitude develops in St. Paul.

Posted Saturday, May 9, 2009 4:15 PM

No comments.

Obama Adds Union Steward To List of Duties?

When President Obama says that he's got alot of things on his plate, I don't disagree with him. According to this LA Times article , he's now apparently adding union steward to his list of responsibilities:

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

Does anyone think that President Obama would've injected himself into this situation if these cuts wouldn't have affected union workers? I'm betting that he wouldn't have thought twice about it if non-union workers.

Cutting $6,800,000,000 from California's stimulus money when the state is on the verge of bankruptcy carries with it a political risk. Republicans could blame President Obama for contributing to California's collapse. Even if he later puts a different package together to bail California out, the damage will have been done.

Unfortunately, union steward seems to be the job that President Obama is best qualified for.

Posted Saturday, May 9, 2009 11:51 AM

No comments.

Search This Blog

LFR 15 YEARS!