November 24-26, 2009
Nov 24 00:28 Let's Have THIS FIGHT: Unallotment Battle Looming Nov 24 02:00 The Democrats' Ticking Time Bomb Nov 24 09:35 That Sinking Feeling Nov 25 03:43 ACORN: The Myth That Won't Go Away Nov 25 04:33 Tarryl Said What??? Nov 25 13:18 Tarryl And Job Growth: They Just Don't Fit Together Nov 25 15:54 Is President Obama Committed To Winning? Nov 26 08:58 That's Just Great
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Let's Have THIS FIGHT: Unallotment Battle Looming
According to this amicus brief , the DFL legislature is joining in the unallotment lawsuit. Here's a portion of their brief:
After the legislature adjourned, Governor Pawlenty vetoed H.F. No. 2323 (Chapter 179), a bill that increased taxes and delayed some expenditures by approximately $2.7 billion. Journal of the House 2009 Supplement, p. 7481, available at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/journals/2009-10/Jsupp2009.htm#7481. This action created a shortfall between enacted appropriations and projected state revenues of approximately that amount ($2.7 billion).At this point, the Amicus Brief's point is moot. Had H.F.2323 been signed into law, the projected balance at the end of the biennium was projected to be $3,625.
Fiscal Analysis Department, Minnesota House of Representatives, Chapter 179 (HF 2323/SF 2074) Conference Committee Report May 18, 2009 - - Vetoed (showing a $2.7 billion deficit under the enacted budget bills and a $3,625 balance if H.F. 2323 had been enacted into law , rather than vetoed), available at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/tax09.pdf. All of these events occurred in May and June 2009, before the beginning of the fiscal 2010 ; 2011 biennium. The underlying revenue estimates were based on estimates prepared by the Department of Management and Budget ("MMB") in February 2009.
This says a number of things, most importantly, that the DFL didn't really balance the budget as constitutionally mandated. While they technically met their constitutional responsibility, leaving the state with a $3,625 surplus at the end of the biennium is beyond laughable. Hypothetically speaking, spending $60,000 on 50" flat screen TVs for sex offenders would wipe that 'surplus' out.
Let's also remember that legislators, DFL and GOP alike, were predicting that we'd be facing another monster deficit when the next legislature convened in 2011. With revenues already falling short (by more than $3,625 I might add), the DFL's sham budget is already worthless.
I'd bet that the DFL wants doesn't want to argue that they met their constitutional responsibility by leaving a projected $3,625 surplus at the end of the current biennium. In fact, I'm betting that that's the last thing they want discussed.
According to Rep. Juhnke's statement in the Rules Committee hearing, he suggests that a governor's unallotment authority isn't available if a deficit is expected. That argument is torn to shreds because the legislature asked Gov. Pawlenty to unallot money to balance the 2008-2009 budget.
The DFL legislature increased spending by 9.3 percent for the 2008-09 budget, almost half of which was one-time money. They did this while the economy was softening. Simply put, they either saw the deficit coming or they're incredibly stupid with regards to economics.
It's difficult now to argue that a governor can't use his unallotment authority if the deficit is expected 2 years after asking Gov. Pawlenty to use his unallotment authority to balance the budget after the DFL legislature spent the budget into a predictable deficit.
Eric at Developers are Crabgrass made an interesting point in an email he sent that's worth discussing here:
I have always wondered, since the time of Andrew Jackson it seems that the legislature and courts cannot make a chief executive spend money allocated and in the treasury, but kept there and not spent.I'm not a legal scholar but it seems to me that neither the legislative nor the judicial branch can order the executive branch, whether we're talking at the federal or state level, to spend money. The legislative branch can establish the parameters by which the executive branch can spend money but that's the extent of their authority. Similarly, the judicial branch can't force the executive branch to veto or sign bills.
Even if the DFL wins this case, they'd then have to argue that Gov. Pawlenty is obligated to raising taxes. They'd have to do that in an election year. Their worst nightmare would be arguing that while Gov. Pawlenty would be extremely motivated to expose their not meeting their constitutional responsibility of balancing the budget. ( Does the DFL really want to argue that leaving a $3,625 surplus is meeting their constitutional responsibility? Especially when it's already known that we're running $80,000,000 behind forecast ?)
I couldn't remember the size of the DFL's tax increase so I scoured my archives. Fortunately, I hit paydirt with this post :
Faced with a certain veto of their major tax bills and little agreement among themselves, House and Senate DFL leaders took opponents by surprise on Thursday evening with a brand-new bill that may raise $1 billion from a combination of taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and lofty incomes.Sen. Bakk's bill called for a $2,200,000,000 tax increase. Rep. Lenczewski's initial bill called for a $1,500,000,000 tax increase. Following the last minute conference committee meeting, started at 10:30 the final night of the session, House and Senate conferees agreed to a $1,000,000,000 tax increase, with small businesses, aka the job creation engine of the U.S. economy, getting hit with a disproportionate portion of the tax increase.
No one knows for sure how much the bill would raise or where it would come from, because the bill itself had only blank spaces where the numbers should go. "I've never seen anything like this," marveled House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, moments after the bill passed the Senate. "It has all blanks in it."
If the DFL wants to fight that fight, then I'll be there every day reminding Minnesota's taxpayers that the DFL's definition of a balanced budget was to have a GIGANTIC SURPLUS of $3,625 in the account at the end of the 2010-011 biennium. It's worth noting that the DFL's final budget was the only budget they passed that balanced the budget, which is why the DFL's budget wasn't taken seriously by news organizations like WCCO and KSTP.
King highlights the DFL's other problem in winning this fight by citing Minnesota Supreme Court precedent on a governor's unallotment authority:
The Minnesota Supreme Court also spoke on the unallotment process in Rukavina v Pawlenty (684 N.W. 2nd 525 [2004]), finding it constitutional for the Legislature to have ceded that power.I'm certain that the DFL's attorneys know about this precedent. I'm equally certain that they know that they're facing long odds on winning this lawsuit. I'm totally certain that they aren't worried about the lawsuit ruling, that they're doing this as an opportunity to cast Gov. Pawlenty and the MNGOP in a negative light.
Although appropriation of money is the responsibility of the legislature under Minn. Const. Art. XI § 1, it is an annual possibility that the revenue streams that fund those appropriations may be insufficient to actually realize each appropriation. For that purpose, the legislature, by statute authorized the executive branch to avoid, or reduce, a budget shortfall in any given biennium. Minn. Stat. § 16A.152 does not represent a legislative delegation of the legislature's ultimate authority to appropriate money, but merely enables the executive to deal with an anticipated budget shortfall before it occurs.
Although purely legislative power cannot be delegated, the legislature may authorize others to do things (insofar as the doing involves powers that are not exclusively legislative) that it might properly, but cannot conveniently or advantageously, do itself. (cite omitted). It does not follow that, because a power may be wielded by the legislature directly or because it entails an exercise of discretion and judgment, it is exclusively legislative. (cite omitted). Pure legislative power, which can never be delegated, is the authority to make a complete law--complete as to the time it shall take effect and as to whom it shall apply--and to determine the expediency of its enactment. We conclude that Minn. Stat. § 16A.152, does not reflect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, but only enables the executive to protect the state from financial crisis in a manner designated by the legislature.
Something that I'm certain of is that raising taxes on small businesses when Minnesota's unemployment rate is high is political suicide. If the DFL wants to fight this fight, then Minnesota's conservatives should get ready for this battle because it's a fight that the GOP will win.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 08:57 AM
It will be an interesting range of Constitutional issues presented the Courts that I cannot see them ducking.
Separation of powers means the legislature can do some things and the executive some things, but whenever the issue of overlap and proper distinctions is raised; nobody but the Courts can pretend to be positioned to answer.
Also, since it is a state issue there is no federal question and the Minnesota courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction [although a loser can always try the federal courts, as Coleman did on the recount matter].
I would not say the entire range of argument in the Amicus brief is moot, and your excerpt was "briefer" than the brief - MinnPost has two items, first on the manner the Minn. House decided to file an Amicus brief, second on content, with a link to the full item in Adobe pdf document format:
http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2009/11/16/13472/house_rules_committee_supports_amicus_brief_in_unallotment_case
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/11/20/13684/minn_house_weighs_in_on_unallotment_case
Time frame for hearing the issue at the district court level and resolving appeals is presently a guess. Gary, have you heard anyone estimating how long the question will likely hang fire until the Minnesota Supreme Court issues its possibly divided opinion?
I have not. I have seen no estimate.
Finally, since we've exchanged email, I am not going to put any opinions here on who should win and why. Leave that to the Lawyers.
Another question, Gary, if you know, are any of the lawyers involved for any party [including the Amicus] overlapping with the recount litigators? I read one item earlier [about two weeks ago] that said David Lillihaug felt the unallotment issue should be litigated, as unconstitutional, beyond the private suit; but I cannot find it with a Google.
Also, final question, have you heard whether the GOP leadership, or any other party, intends an Amicus brief in support of the Pawlenty actions?
One guess - this entire thing is kind of backburner now - but given the impact upon spending priorities in the State, near term, it cannot stay there and will go frontburner.
I may not post much on it at Crabgrass, a link to your item, the MinnPost links, the link they give to the brief, and let those closer to the issues do most of the coverage.
If I find a source with all the litigation documents online, or the key ones, I will email it to you; and ask if you find one that you post it or email it to me.
Have a good holiday.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 09:09 AM
Thanks for citing the earlier case.
For those interested, it is online:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0408/opa031709-0803.htm
without any indication it went beyond the Court of Appeals.
Briefing notations for this and a related case are online:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/briefs/a031709ca.html
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/briefs/a060840ca.html
That second case, showing how an appellate court can duck an issue where there is held to be no "redressable issue," is online:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0705/opa060840-0522.htm
I wonder whether another citizen, say Banaian, could be an Amicus, on Pawlenty's side. Not that he would, just whether or not he'd be denied Amicus standing.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 09:31 AM
One last third informational comment.
District Court docket info is available online off of this link:
http://www.mncourts.gov/default.aspx?page=1927
It is a civil case, and the case number is:
62-CV-09-11693
It identifies the original plaintiffs, indicating the case was filed Nov. 3, 2009, and the two initial lawyers are named; with the Amicus brief having a signature space at the end identifying the House's lawyer(s).
Someone familiar with the recount litigation would be needed to say there is or is not overlap. All plaintiffs have one lawyer; all defendants share one also.
That wraps up help on online resources I can offer.
I expect the google
=pawlenty unallotment litigation
would get news articles, now and in the future.
The Democrats' Ticking Time Bomb
Democrats face a ticking time bomb in the form of increased state taxes if Medicaid coverage is expanded. If either the House or Senate bills are signed into law, states will face what I've called the 'mother of all unfunded mandates' :
About 59 million people are on Medicaid today, which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode, by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother, and father and crazy uncle-of unfunded mandates.Dick Morris' article tells a more complete story of what's likely to happen:
The House bill requires states to give Medicaid to those whose incomes are less than 150 percent of the poverty level, while the Senate will settle for only 125 percent. For most states, this is a hefty increase.This, along with the bills' major tax increases, should be highlighted by every blogger and TEA Party activist who cares about fiscal sanity. People, including governors and state legislators, already hate unfunded mandates. The minute people hear that they'll get this expense dumped in their laps, they'll be furious.
In some states, like New York, where Medicaid covers everyone making 150 percent of the poverty level already, there will not be any extra required spending.
But not so in California, which only covers 100 percent of the poverty level. Were the House bill to pass, the already fiscally beleaguered state would have to increase its Medicaid spending on poor people by 50 percent, at least an extra $2 billion a year and perhaps more.
In many Southern states, the Medicaid program only covers a portion of those living below the poverty level. For these states, the requirement to cover all those in poverty and then 50 percent more will cause enormous increases in taxes. In Arkansas and Louisiana, where swing-Senators Pryor, Lincoln and Landrieu come from, the cost could exceed $1 billion for each state each year.
Since Democrats currently control the vast majority of governorships, this process of making their own party members take the rap for raising taxes is politically self-destructive in the extreme. But Obama is so desperate to pass his health care legislation that he doesn't care what havoc in his party he reaps in the process.Since self-preservation is a politician's strongest impulse, my bet is that they won't sit idly by if they're essentially asked to sacrifice their political careers for a bill that's getting paltry approval/disapproval ratings :
The question now is whether the governors of the 50 states, particularly the Democrats, are going to sit idly by and let their budgets be destroyed by the health care bill.
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.Those numbers will drop the minute John Q. Public finds out more about the states' obligations under Obamacare. That's been the trend with health care legislation from the outset. That trend isn't likely to change now, especially with price tags in the hundreds of millions of dollars for small states and billions of dollars in a state like California.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
It's likely, too, that conservatives will highlight the fact that DC Democrats haven't stopped their free-spending ways; they're just passing the buck to states. In this game, Obama, Pelosi and Reid mandate the spending, governors and legislators get stuck playing the villain. I can't imagine governors or state legislators like the sound of that.
The final question left to be answered is whether the Democrats' ticking time bomb goes off before the bill is signed or after. I won't be surprised if it goes before.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:07 AM
No comments.
That Sinking Feeling
It seems like President Obama's Approval Index hits a new low each month. This month is no different:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.After the off-year election victories by Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, I remember swarm after swarm of Democratic strategists and politicians telling us that the elections weren't a referendum on President Obama, that these were local races decided by local issues and local candidates.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.
Subsequent polling consistently proves that spin as being worthless. Whether it's President Obama, Jon Corzine or Creigh Deeds, independents are consistently rejecting Democrats by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin. That margin isn't shrinking, much less disappearing, anytime soon.
The only things that would make this horrific polling reverse are things that President Obama will never consider, namely dumping the health care bill and actually doing something to increase entrepreneurial activity. Doing those things would be a step towards showing a little fiscal restraint and a step towards proving he has a tiny bit of capitalist blood flowing through his veins.
The day that President Obama voluntarily leads the Democratic Party in that direction is the day I'll be outside scanning for pigs flying in V-formation over my house.
The disdain that's building against the Democrats' irresponsible spending will hurt them in the 2010 elections. Anyone thinking that this will just be a typical first midterm of an administration is likely to be surprised.
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:39 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Nov-09 11:29 AM
I'm an optimist, too, and it doesn't take a genius to see that the Democrats have something of a tough row to hoe to keep their majorities intact after 2010. On the other hand, the math is absolutely daunting for Republicans eyeing majority status, and I'm not so optimistic as to think it's going to fall into our lap. We're going to have to field good candidates, coalesce around a message and get it past the media filter, and then work like crazy to make it happen.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 10:21 AM
J. Ewing is correct in so far as all politics is local.
So, who's the next GOP Governor endorsee. I see a lot of wannabes and no GOP pundits making any substantial predictions.
Emmer? Many like his appraoch.
There, do rabid anti-RINO grassroots and leadership in the GOP use the same or different crystal balls?
ACORN: The Myth That Won't Go Away
This Editor and Publisher article perpetuates the myth that ACORN is being wrongfully targeted by evil conservatives. E & P is perpetuating this shattered myth:
Leading up to the 2008 presidential campaign, ACORN was a target of allegations of voter fraud from the Republican Party and conservative news sources. Although the predicted voter fraud never materialized, the stories planted during the election season yielded a bountiful crop of misinformation. Now, in November 2009, a national survey revealed shocking public misperceptions about ACORN: more than half of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of ACORN, and 52% of Republicans, 18% of independents, and 9% of Democrats think ACORN stole the election for Obama.While I don't believe that President Obama would've lost the election if not for ACORN, it isn't a myth that ACORN committed voter registration fraud. In fact, I'm betting that this article is a distraction from yesterday's report. E & P knows that ACORN employees pled guilty to voter registration fraud in Seattle :
Three of seven defendants in the biggest voter-registration fraud scheme in Washington history have pleaded guilty and one has been sentenced, prosecutors said Monday.E & P knows about ACORN, not ACORN employees, being indicted by Nevada's Democratic Attorney General for " operating a fraud-infested voter registration drive in the state during the 2008 presidential campaign":
The defendants were all temporary employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, when they allegedly filled out and submitted more than 1,800 fictitious voter-registration cards during a 2006 registration drive in King and Pierce counties.
ACORN illegally compensated workers to register voters based on a corporate mandated quota system , according to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Because canvassers were illegally required to meet quotas to keep their jobs , thousands of registrations with fake names and addresses were submitted throughout the state.Notice that Nevada's Attorney General accused ACORN the organization of illegally compensating workers "based on a corporate mandated quote system." Nevada's A.G. wouldn't make that accusation without having proof of that, most likely in the form of people coming forward during the investigation or in the form of emails recovered during the execution of a search warrant or interoffice memos.
It isn't a coincidence that E & P's article showed up the day after Andrew Breitbart reported that San Diego ACORN's office dumped a bunch of sensitive documents into a dumpster days after California A.G. Jerry Brown announced that he'd be investigating ACORN's San Diego office.
Among the documents allegedly dumped by ACORN's San Diego office were employees' W-4 forms. Follow this link to view a blank W-4 form. Notice that a person's social security number is one of the things that an employee must fill out. According to this article , W-4 forms are supposed to be kept for four years "after the tax due date or the actual date paid." If any of the W-4's that were dumped were for temps, then ACORN's got alot of trouble with the IRS and others.
E & P then tries softpedalling the child prostitution charges:
The embarrassing videos were soon posted to the Internet, and in short order became a national story. Starting at the conservative Web site biggovernment.com, the videos quickly became the top story at Fox News and conservative talk radio, moved to CNN's Lou Dobbs Show, then proved irresistible for the mainstream news media.That's nice PR but it doesn't mean a thing in light of the document dump prior to the California AG initiating an investigation into ACORN California. It means less when coupled with the ACORN organization using incentives and quotas, which is against Nevada law.
ACORN responded by firing the employees involved and initiating an internal review by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger. Washington responded to the incidents with outrage, with Congress quickly voting to rescind ACORN's federal funding, primarily for homeownership counseling. Although ACORN received no funds from the IRS or the Census Bureau, both agencies also removed ACORN as "partners" in their efforts to help the working poor qualify for tax rebates and to encourage low-income households to fill out census forms.
ACORN's defense has always been that after they find out about the wrongdoing, they cooperate with the investigations. Average people don't care about that. They're just wondering why ACORN doesn't establish policies that would eliminate the need to assist in so many investigations.
Despite everything that E & P wrote, the inescapable truth is that ACORN is corrupt to its core. It's just that simple.
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:45 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 10:17 AM
Per your headline, remember that Michele Bachmann is a myth-maker, in part, but usually she takes her myths from others and bends them to her personal agenda and purposes.
She has done exactly that, with ACORN. The GOP has one real motive for its hateful oppositin to ACORN and to the disenfranchised stepping up, registering, and voting.
They don't vote GOP, and that is the honest basis of the hatefulness.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-09 11:07 AM
The GOP has one real motive for its hateful oppositin to ACORN and to the disenfranchised stepping up, registering, and voting. They don't vote GOP, and that is the honest basis of the hatefulness.Actually, Eric, that's one of the most biased statements I've seen you make. You're COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
Time & again, ACORN has been shown to be a criminal enterprise. Why is it that ACORN doesn't change their pay system? All the ACORN workers caught submitting falsified voter registrations have said that they get paid a specific rate for each signature.
Question: If that's what's driving the problem, why hasn't ACORN changed their pay system to a salaried or hourly wage system? Wouldn't that change their employees' habits? Wouldn't that eliminate the incentive to fill out phoney registrations?
For the record, the reason we despise what ACORN does is because they're breaking the law on a seemingly daily basis. As a rule, conservatives prefer law-abiding citizens.
As for the so-called myths that Michele has been accused of making, most are accurate statements. Consider her statement about Iran having a plan to wage war in Iraq. That was common knowledge in the foreign policy world, with people as conservative as John Bolton & people as liberal as Michael O'Hanlon agreeing on that.
As for the DEATH PANELS that supposedly don't exist, check out the provisions on all the various panels that would be given authority under the Democrats' legislation to say what care will or won't be given BASED ON QALY's (Quality Adjusted Life Years). Then take a look at the global budgeting that will be used for health care. With the budget cuts imposed, that's a perfect setup for rationing.
Tarryl Said What???
I'm certain that Tarryl Clark's fundraising letter will raise alot of money. That said, Tarryl said something that just can't be left unaddressed:
It's time for a Congresswoman who will actually do the job and whose first and only priority is to fight for the people of Minnesota, not the conservative power-players of Palm Beach.Tarryl doesn't put her constituents first. There's a reason why she didn't win her first election until Dave Kleis resigned his seat after getting elected mayor of St. Cloud. Tarryl's occupation prior to being a state senator was as a lobbyist. Lobbyists are used to working for clients but they certainly don't put people's needs ahead of their clients.
Tarryl Clark will always put us first. Just as she has in the State Senate, Tarryl Clark will go to work every day to fight for the people of her district, not promote her own personal agenda or build her national celebrity.
Next, let's look at who's supporting her candidacy. Tarryl's three biggest supporters are, in order, (1) UNIONS, (2) UNIONS and (3) UNIONS. Coincidentally, unions are interested in passing EFCA, which would eliminate the rights of workers to a private ballot on whether to unionize.
It isn't likely that Tarryl would vote with her constituents if she had the opportunity to please her union supporters. Personally, I'd put the odds of Tarryl voting with her constituents on EFCA at considerably south of slim.
Next, Tarryl has been a consistent, though quiet, supporter of single-payer health care. There isn't a snowball's prayer in hell that Tarryl would've voted against the Pelosicare bill had she been elected in 2008. That despite the fact that CD-6 overwhelmingly opposed single-payer health care.
Another thing that Tarryl hates are tax cuts. In fact, Tarryl has supported the biggest tax increases in Minnesota history. I'll guarantee that the small businesses in CD-6 vehemently oppose tax increases, especially the type that small businesses pay the bulk of. Not coincidentally, those are the kinds of tax increases that Tarryl's consistently voted for.
In summation, Tarryl supports union initiatives that her constituents don't agree with. Tarryl supports health care tax inccreases that her constituents overwhelmingly don't agree with. Tarryl has consistently voted for the biggest small business tax increases in state history, another thing that CD-6 voters don't support.
In other words, Tarryl doesn't support anything that her would-be CD-6 constituents supports.
The bottom line is that Tarryl's about to find out her priorities aren't the priorities that most CD-6 voters support. Though it's likely that Tarryl will raise alot of money, it won't surprise anyone if she loses by 5-8 points in November, 2010.
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-09 10:14 AM
You recommend the candidacy to all who support single payer. We are many.
Do not be too dismissive, and be wary as you might not get exactly what you'd wish for, bashing single payer.
Yet, that's my feelings, and I await Clark making hers clear, Gary, rather than you making them clear for her.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Nov-09 08:18 AM
"It's worth noting that companies won't move into, or expand in, states where government spending isn't under control."
Doesn't that mean that precipitating the unallotment situation by deliberately putting a legislated balanced budget out of balance was, to say the least, counterproductive?
Tarryl And Job Growth: They Just Don't Fit Together
There's a quote in this Times article that underscores Tarryl Clark's ineptitude on prosperity-related topics. Here's the quote:
"Clearly, as a state, it is always difficult for us to figure out how we can grow and sustain jobs," Clark said. "It is always interesting to see and ask questions. Are these resources helping them do what they need to do?"It isn't that difficult, Tarryl. Give businesses enough of an incentive to put their capital at risk and they'll start putting their capital at risk. While that doesn't mean that tax cuts are the only thing that's needed, it doesn't mean that permanent tax cuts aren't part of the equation, either.
A re-examination of our fees is also important. When a Minnesota distiller has to pay $3,000 a year for a license to operate and that same license costs $350 a year in Iowa, how difficult a decision is it for distillers to move from Minnesota to Iowa?
I'm told a similar situation exists with aviation and South Dakota. This contact said that new aviation companies are starting up in South Dakota rather than Minnesota. Obviously, the decision wasn't difficult for them.
When VitalMedix asked the Minnesota legislature to change their angel investment tax credit system, the DFL shot the bill down. VitalMedix now is a Wisconsin company because Wisconsin's investment tax credit system makes it easier for companies to raise capital.
The DFL is fond of saying that Minnesota must be doing something right, that there are more Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota per capita than any other state. the information that they bury is that these Fortune 500 companies used to have vibrant manufacturing divisions operating in the state. Now all that's left are the companies' headquarters.
If Minnesota's business climate provided the groundwork for a vibrant, thriving economy, rest assured that those companies wouldn't have migrated away from Minneota.
It's worth noting that companies won't move into, or expand in, states where government spending isn't under control. Tarryl's DFL allies are into out-of-control government spending, which forces them to constantly propose the biggest tax hikes in Minnesota history. What business in their right mind would want to move into that type of business environment?
Until the legislature starts setting sensible spending priorities and until they start saying no to political allies, companies won't consistently move into the state. You might get one here or there but it won't be like what's happening in North Dakota.
Until Tarryl and her DFL allies start putting the entire package together, from tax cuts to fees reform to getting government spending under control to getting out of the way of capital investment companies, companies will (a) move out of Minnesota, (b) expand elsewhere or (c) avoid Minnesota altogether.
Tarryl thinks it's difficult to create jobs. Actually, it's pretty straightforward: give companies the incentives to invest, expand and prosper and they'll invest, expand and prosper.
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009 1:18 PM
No comments.
Is President Obama Committed To Winning?
With even the British complaining about President Obama's inaction , there's a more important question to ask. First, here's what British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth is quoted as saying:
"We have suffered a lot of losses; we have had a period of hiatus while (General] McChrystal's plan and his requested uplift has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect, let us say, and all of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress. And to put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses we are."It's one thing to gather information from your national security team. That's expected before sending troops into harms' way. It's quite another thing to procrastinate like President Obama has done. It's dangerous for any president to take this much time in deciding whether he'll send additional troops into a war he said was the real war on terror.
Taking this much time to make a decision makes allies wonder if President Obama is committed to defeating al-Qa'ida and their Taliban cohorts. It makes allies wonder if the United States is a reliable ally. It certainly doesn't instill confidence in the tribal regions that President Obama will fight until the terrorists are dead and defeated.
During the campaign, Hillary and Obama both talked about bringing the troops home from Iraq "in a responsible way." I especially noted that they NEVER talked about winning in Iraq.
I'm betting that the British noticed that, too. I'm betting that they're privately questioning whether President Obama is committed to winning or whether he's committed to doing just enough to provide himself with political cover.
Mr. President, enough with the dithering. It's time you told people that you're committed to defeating the terrorists at all costs. Enough with talk about various exit strategies. They didn't have an exit strategy for WWII. FDR and Congress certainly didn't establish timetables for withdrawals from the Pacific.
Some right of center pundits have said it's time to win or pull the troops out. I reject that thinking because defeat isn't an option. Winning is the only option . That means aggressively seeking and finding Taliban/al-Qa'ida hideouts, then killing the terrorists and their support infrastructure.
Much ink has been spilled and much bandwidth consumed talking about how President Obama has restored America's standing in the world. That's rubbish . What country wants an unreliable, wavering ally like the United States has been during the Obama administration? What country can look at the Obama administration throwing traditional allies under the proverbial bus and think highly of this administration as an ally? What country can look at the Obama administration's cozying up to Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism and think of this administration as having the right national security priorities?
I'll be the first to say that President Obama's vascillation points to a bigger problem, namely that he thinks it's more important to make national security decisions based on political conditions than on the advice of his military commanders.
God help us all.
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009 4:03 PM
No comments.
That's Just Great
Wednesday, I wrote this post questioning whether President Obama was committed to winning. I didn't have to wait long for the answer :
The President may announce he's sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, but in doing so, he'll emphasize how he'll eventually bring them home.Simply put, President Obama isn't giving us proof that he's in it to win it. More importantly, he's telling the Afghani people that they'll be sticking their necks out for an ally that won't be there when they're needed.
"The president does not see this as an open ended engagement," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. "Our time there will be limited. And I think that is important for people to understand."
I'm betting that this decision won't sit well with British Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth, either. The British are looking for a realiable ally. Having this administration as an ally will make for a difficult sell to the British, especially with skepticism running high in Britain.
It's time President Obama stopped making decisions like his title is Triangulator-In-Chief. He's supposedly the Commander-In-Chief, though there's no proof that he fits that description. Mr. President, it's time you did the right thing for our troops and the right thing for our national security. It's time you took a page from President Bush's surge playbook and went on the offensive militarily.
Under President Bush, the terrorists lived in fear every day. Under President Bush, the military put pressure on the terrorists in the tiny villages in Afghanistan. Under President Obama, not so much.
Mr. President, it's time you divorced your national security decisions from political considerations. The maxim of "good policy makes for good politics" is still valid. Who cares if part of your base has a problem with you preventing another terrorist attack? The American people will appreciate it.
Do the right thing. Forget the timetables. WIN THE DAMN WAR!!! That's the only right way of dealing with this challenge.
Posted Thursday, November 26, 2009 9:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Nov-09 08:10 AM
Glad you think it is "winnable."
What's your definition of "winning."
Forcing Karzi backed national police into control around the nation?
Lessening the poppy crops?
What?
How do you win, unless you know the objective?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Nov-09 03:05 AM
Winning = defeating the Taliban & al-Qa'ida, pressuring the Karzai government into reforms, including the destruction of their poppy crops.
The simplest definition is we win, AQ & the Taliban lose. Is that clear enough an objective for you?
