September 14-16, 2010
Sep 14 14:36 Lapdog Media's War Against Information Sep 14 03:08 Hidden: Dayton's Secret Pot of Gold Sep 14 17:11 What's the Economic Justification? Sep 15 06:14 Dayton Gets F in Math, Policy Sep 15 17:13 Liberal Version of Fair & Balanced? Sep 15 21:44 Fineman Isn't Writing Off O'Donnell Sep 16 06:28 Horner's High Point Sep 16 17:49 Exposing Tarryl's Gimmicks
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Lapdog Media's War Against Information
If I didn't know better, I'd think that the Lapdog Media is refusing to ask tough questions of candidates like Tarryl Clark and Mark Dayton. That impression is getting clearer with each infomercial/interview that Esme Murphy conducts with DFL candidates like Tarryl Clark and Mark Dayton.
Everybody & their mother knows that Mark Dayton's so-called budget plan falls about $3,000,000,000 short of balancing. They've known that for a month or more. Still, the Lapdog Media refuses to mention anything about that fact. Instead of questioning Dayton's plan, they call Dayton's plan a "detailed budget plan". Meanwhile, they're criticizing Tom Emmer, supposedly for not putting out a sham budget plan.
When Esme Murphy 'interviewed' Tarryl, the questions were so predictable that Tarryl came close to reading the lines from her ad during her interview. This week, when Esme Murphy interviewed Mark Dayton, not a question was asked about the validity of his budget numbers. There certainly weren't questions about whether his alleged budget plan would still leave Minnesota with a $3,000,000,000 deficit.
Dayton wasn't asked why he hadn't taken the Department of Revenue up on their offer to run his numbers. (If I were a suspicious man, I'd almost think that Dayton doesn't want his numbers analyzed for fear of having his sham budget being exposed.)
Here's another set of questions for Dayton that the Lapdog Media haven't asked him:
1. When has raising taxes during a recession created jobs?
2. If Dayton's tax the rich scheme doesn't produce enough revenue to balance the budget, will he raise taxes on the middle class?
3. Are Minnesotans more worried about creating jobs than seeing the rich pay their fair share?
4. Will the Dayton tax increases drive businesses from Minnesota?
5. Would Dayton postpone his tax increases if the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire? If not, why not?
6. What's the economic justification for raising taxes during a recession?
If we had more intellectually curious reporters, I wouldn't have to put lists like this together. Mostly, what I've found are reporters that don't ask thoughtful questions.
Recently, I've started calling reporters who don't ask probing questions "the Lapdog Media." I think a better moniker would be the Press Release Media. I've documented how Esme Murphy has lobbed softball question after softball question to Mark Dayton and Tarryl Clark.
In one instance, I tuned into her online show, which follows immediately after her Sunday morning TV show on WCCO. I sent a question asking why she didn't challenge Tarryl when she said that she'd "worked hard to not raise taxes on 95 percent of Minnesotans."
Esme's response was that she wasn't arguing that Tarryl hadn't increased taxes, just that the tax increases were on high income people. I responded by saying that she certainly had raised taxes on the middle class. I then offered to send her the list of regressive taxes she'd voted for.
It's as if some reporters don't believe anything if it isn't confirmed by a DFL press release. That isn't reporting. That's the opposite of reporting. And it's gotta stop.
Posted Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:36 PM
No comments.
Hidden: Dayton's Secret Pot of Gold
Thanks to Eric Black's post , we can affirmatively say that Dayton's allegedly detailed budget proposal is, to be charitable, less than complete. We know this thanks to this paragraph:
He told Jacobs that he won't raise the whole $4 billion he seeks from the taxes he has specified so far, and during his presentation he told the audience that he is "looking for suggestions" of other revenue-raising ideas that will be consistent with his overall determination to make the state tax system more progressive.Dayton is "looking for suggestions" on how to close the budget gap while making "the state tax system more progressive"? How is that possible without breaking this promise?
Dayton has pledged that he will not propose a new top marginal rate for Minnesota that would be the highest in the nation. Hawaii has the current highest rate, at 11 percent. Dayton has never specified what the rates would be in his plan (which is certainly a mark against his general claim to have the most specific plan) but is currently working with the state Revenue Department to get more specific estimates on how much revenue he could raise with a new top tax rate.If Dayton doesn't break his promise that his highest tax rate won't be more than 11 percent, and if we know that "he won't raise the whole $4 billion he seeks" from the tax increases that he's specified thus far, doesn't that necessarily mean he'll have to raise a healthy portion of the $4 billion by raising regressive taxes?
Why would Dayton go to the Humphrey Institute "looking for suggestions" on raising taxes while making Minnesota's tax system progressive? Or is Dayton soliciting these suggestions from DFL party leaders behind closed doors?
The fact that Sen. Dayton has now admitted that his supposedly "detailed budget plan" has a gaping hole is newsworthy by itself. The fact that he's admitted that he hasn't figured out which additional taxes he'll raise to balance the budget should frighten people.
It should frighten people because it's the same trick that the DFL used in 2006. Back then, they told people that they didn't need to raise taxes :
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, "we can do this without raising taxes."Eight months later, the DFL majorities had passed 6 different tax increases.
This time, Sen. Dayton is admitting that an unspecified group of people will get hit with a major tax increase so he can balance the budget. It'll be interesting to see which group of voters will be Dayton's victims.
He also told the press gaggle in the hallway that he may not release the figures he gets from the Revenue Department on his plan, suggesting that it was getting to be unfair that he is so transparent about his taxing and spending proposals while Emmer continues to be so mysterious.After admitting that he's "looking for suggestions" on how to raise taxes, Dayton thinks that he's being transparent? I'd love hearing the logic behind that.
What about the idea that a high top tax rate will induce wealthy Minnesotans to flee the state, taking their tax money with them and doing more good than harm? Dayton said that as a child of a wealthy Minnesota family, he had been raised to believe that he had an obligation to give back to the community. He simply refused to believe that Minnesotans would flee the state and fire their work force to avoid a hike of 3 percent in the tax rate they paid on their highest portion of income. He called that idea "un-Minnesotan."This paragraph screams that Sen. Dayton isn't in touch with reality. Businesses have left the state because taxes are too high. In fact, the IRS has a list of the states businesses leaving Minnesota have relocated to.
There's a major flaw in Dayton's logic, too. His family hid their wealth in places like South Dakota, the Virgin and Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes on their trusts. Why is it that difficult for Dayton to think that his family isn't the only one willing to do what's necessary to shelter their income from taxes?
This is a huge unforced error on Dayton's behalf. Admitting that his "detailed budget plan" has a gaping hole in it and that he's seeking suggestions on what other taxes he'll raise says that he hasn't been forthcoming about his budget.
That isn't how candidates build trust. It's how people start questioning a candidate's integrity.
It's how candidates lose races.
Posted Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:08 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Sep-10 01:44 PM
Hey, Mr. Dayton! If the whole problem of Minnesota budgets is that the rich are not paying the same percentage of their income as the not-rich, why not just lower taxes on the not-rich? Problem solved, n'cest pas?
What's the Economic Justification?
According to this Pi-Press article , Mark Dayton spent his time at the Humphrey Institute making the moral case for a more progressive tax system. What he didn't do was make an economic case for his plan.
Armed with several charts and graphs, Democrat Mark Dayton on Monday sought to make a brainy, philosophical and "moral" case for his plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans if he is elected governor in November.That's a stunning admission. In saying that "Taxes...are the lubricant for the machinery of our democracy", Dayton is admitting that funding the government is more important to him than building a great economy. That's also apparent from the fact that his argument for his tax the rich scheme is based on a sense of moral obligation to pay taxes.
"I'm going to use the powers of intellectual persuasion," he said at the beginning of his remarks at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. "Taxes, I believe, are the lubricant for the machinery of our democracy."
And so began a roughly 20-minute speech that featured Dayton guiding the audience through several handouts with statistics on tax burdens and harkening back to the philosophy of his family, the owners of the former Dayton's department store chain.
Unless you're a Dayton, in which case it's ok to shelter your wealth in offshore accounts .
Dayton is badly misreading the electorate, in my opinion. With people worried about paying their mortgages, feeding their families and meeting their monthly obligations, people are infinitely more worried about a tax and regulatory system that helps job creators create jobs than with whether the tax system is progressive.
Sen. Dayton still hasn't explained how his plan will create jobs other than in the construction and green energy sectors. People who aren't in those sectors likely are wondering how Dayton's tax the rich scheme will help them with job security.
The reality is that Dayton's plan fails in 2 major ways: it doesn't balance the budget, at least not yet, and it doesn't create jobs. If Sen. Dayton thinks he can win with a plan that doesn't control spending and doesn't create jobs, he's really badly misreading the electorate.
Posted Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:11 PM
No comments.
Dayton Gets F in Math, Policy
At times, it's felt like I've been the only conservative telling people that Sen. Dayton's "detailed budget plan" wouldn't balance the budget. That's purely perception on my part because other bloggers like Mitch Berg, Rex Newman, Andy Aplikowski and others have been pounding that drum, too. Now it's official :
But Tuesday's analysis, while looking at only the plan to add tax brackets, showed that adding a new top tax bracket at a rate of 10.95 percent starting in 2011 would raise roughly $1.9 billion in the 2012-13 biennium. Adding the new bracket would give Minnesota one of the highest tax rates in the country for high-income earners. The 10.95 percent rate is set at $150,000 for married joint filers, $75,000 for married separate filers and $130,000 for single and head of household filers, the department said.It seems to me that $1.9 billion is just a bit short of solving a projected $5.8 billion deficit. If that isn't bad enough news for the Dayton campaign, this won't help:
Katharine Tinucci, a Dayton spokesperson, said the analysis showed "that more work is needed to identify additional sources of revenues ". The analysis, she added, "shows us what we already know: there is no single solution to raising the revenues needed to make Minnesota's taxes fair and to fund essential services."It would be one thing if Dayton's budget just fell a little short of closing the gap. Then a slight adjustment would balance the budget. Dayton's budget, which the Lapdog Media has been faithfully heralding as a "detailed budget plan", didn't fall just a bit short. It barely caused a dent in the deficit.
Tinucci should be given combat pay for having to face the press and defend that report. Seriously, this report confirms that Sen. Dayton needs to essentially start from scratch on putting a budget plan together.
The other thing this confirms is that Dayton didn't put an economic plan together. He put a tax increase proposal together, then sprinkled in a few minor cuts in an effort to disguise his tax increase proposal as a budget plan.
This is an indictment against the Lapdog Media, too, especially after they glowingly wrote about Dayton's "detailed budget plan" and questioning Rep. Emmer when he'd put a plan together, TOO. Had they not accepted Dayton's proposal as Gospel fact, they would've known what I've known from the start: that Dayton's proposal wasn't a detailed budget but a gimmick.
I'm marking this day as the day Sen. Dayton was exposed as a not serious candidate. It's insulting to people to have heard that a major party candidate is he is "'looking for suggestions' of other revenue-raising ideas that will be consistent with his overall determination to make the state tax system more progressive" months after he touted his detailed budget plan that was supposed to balance the budget and create thousands of jobs.
Thanks to the Department of Revenue, we now know that Sen. Dayton's budget plan is a farce from a candidate in trouble.
Posted Wednesday, September 15, 2010 6:14 AM
No comments.
Liberal Version of Fair & Balanced?
The title to Lori Sturdevant's column sounds reasonable enough. It does nothing to suggest that it's actually a hit piece on Tom Emmer. Still, that's what it is. In a 2 page article, here's what Sturdevant wrote about Mark Dayton's plan:
Dayton, who sharply criticized Emmer's spending cuts, admitted to some budgeting woes of his own. The income tax increase he proposes on high-end earners would raise only $1.9 billion over two years, about half as much as he originally aimed to raise from that source. "These projections show that more work is needed," said the Dayton campaign's Katharine Tinucci.No criticism. Little ink used on analysis. In SturdevantWorld, Dayton skates while Emmer's plan is criticized and scrutinized like it was a terrorist. I'm not shocked but I'd be lying if I said that I'm not upset with the slanted coverage Ms. Sturdevant provides.
What happened yesterday is that we found out that Sen. Dayton's budget balancing plan isn't a serious attempt to balance the budget or create jobs. You can disagree with Tom Emmer's plan but there's no arguing that it's a serious plan.
Meanwhile, Dayton's plan isn't a budget document as much as it's a statement that he's a far left liberal who doesn't have a plan to balance a budget or create jobs. In fact, it isn't a stretch to say he'd make things up as he goes. He doesn't have a plan. He never did. The Lapdog Media only told us that he did.
At a defining moment, Mark Dayton didn't take the time to put together a serious proposal. That speaks volumes about his seriousness as a candidate. Why should voters take him seriously? He put ideology far ahead of balancing the budget.
Dayton's job creation agenda is literally from the 1970's and 1980's. This is why we should take Dayton seriously? There's no reason to take him seriously. He's still stuck in 1970's progressivism.
In the end, what the Lapdog Media wrote about Dayton's "detailed budget plan" says as much about their indifference to informing the public as it says about Dayton's unseriousness. From that perspective, neither should be taken seriously.
Posted Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:13 PM
No comments.
Fineman Isn't Writing Off O'Donnell
I've got to wonder what the GOP establishment is thinking in assuming Christine O'Donnell can't win in Delaware, especially when Howard Fineman's report from Delaware runs contrary to the punditocracy's assumptions:
Democrats are busy trying to convince themselves that the GOP is hopelessly divided. I didn't see that in Newark, Dela. Many of the O'Donnell voters were women, interestingly, and cared about party unity. I didn't find a single Castle voter who said he or she would vote for Democrat Chris Coons if O'Donnell won.Pundits cite Rep. Castle's refusal to endorse O'Donnell as proof that she won't win. Voters don't care whether politicians endorse a candidate. Voters care whether a candidate will cut spending, repeal Obamacare and keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
This theme is probably wishful thinking on the part of the Dems. The GOP will be united around a few simple ideas: tax cuts, budget cuts, spending cuts, and rolling back Obama's health-care and environmental agenda. That message seems likely to power the GOP to big gains, maybe even to control of Congress.
People are so angry and frustrated that they will lash out at the only big shots they control: not the banks, not Wall Street, not China, not the Beltway media, but elected officials.
They care whether the candidate will vote for Cap and Tax. They care whether the candidate will vote for more spending-as-usual programs that'll drive up the deficits until we're bankrupted.
More than anything else, people are looking for politicians who'll connect with their priorities. As long as Christine O'Donnell stays true to the people and behaves in a principled way in terms of legislation, she'll gain support.
Anyone that thinks that voters want outrageous energy taxes, higher capital gains and income taxes and Obamacare's burdens is kidding themselves. Croon won't vote to repeal Obamacare but he will vote for Cap and Tax.
The other fiction that's happening is that Chris Coons is such an utterly formidable candidate that Christine O'Donnell can't defeat the Coons juggernaut. HINT: There's a reason why Coons was trailing Castle. He isn't Superman. The minute he starts getting hit on his policy positions, he'll be exposed.
It's worth realizing that O'Donnell's popularity can grow now that she'll have money to defend herself and get her message out. Until now, she's been the target of a barrage of negative ads. Now she'll have the ammunition to fight back.
Finally, it's important that we evaluate candidates on their policy positions, not on whether they're the establishment candidate or the TEA Party candidate. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Shortly after Bob Bennett was defeated in Utah, calls started going out to bounce Orrin Hatch.
Certainly, Hatch has had some periodic bouts of DC-itis. Still, when it's time to vote for strict constructionist judges, job-creating tax cuts and energy independence, he's a reliable vote. As such, he's an establishment candidate who's worth supporting.
It's time for conservative pundits to learn a lesson from Howard Fineman. His reporting from Delaware tell me that Christine O'Donnell can win that election.
Posted Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:44 PM
Comment 1 by James Douglass at 15-Sep-10 11:36 PM
I think if she stays on message and principles she will do fine.
Good Luck to her in November. I will be making a small campaign donation in the very near future.
James Douglass
Garden City, Kansas
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 16-Sep-10 11:21 PM
You assume she hasn't peaked but Horner has? I assume neither and we should campaign accordingly.
But Tarryl, yeah, she's done.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Sep-10 05:18 AM
Rex, My motto for years is that "We should run like we're 2 points down with 3 weeks left." That's what I intend to do. With that said, my operating mentality is different than my analysis of the race. Independents aren't ideological but they demand competence. When independents find out that Horner's budget plan won't balance the budget or create jobs, they'll start jumping ship in accelerating numbers.
Comment 3 by eric z at 17-Sep-10 04:24 PM
Is the thought Horner would be lucky to draw 8 - 10%?
More?
Less?
Or is the crystal ball foggy today?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-10 12:02 AM
Eric, I think Horner didn't have a choice but to submit his budget to the Dept. of Revenue. That's his Doomsday. His sales increase will raise, at best, $1,000,000,000, less if there's another downturn to the economy. The minute his budget is scored as still leaving a $5,000,000,000 deficit, I'll get out the butter because he's toast.
The other dynamic that will happen is that unaffiliated voters will break for Emmer. Dayton's budget doesn't add up. Those who aren't ideological demand competence. They might disagree with some of Emmer's policies but they won't argue that it's a serious proposal.
PS- When we look back after the election, this is the week that we'll call the turning point in the election.
Horner's High Point
Some of Tom Horner's supporters are giddy tonight after the SUSA/KSTP poll reported that he'd doubled his support over the past month. They should enjoy it because it won't last long.
The more important Horner news today came when they announced that they'd submit Horner's budget plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for scoring. When they finish evaluating how much revenue Horner's tax increase will generate, he'll be finished.
The reality is that Horner's sales tax increase will be lucky if it raises an additional $1,000,000,000 in revenues. After that's highlighted, he'll be asked what he'll cut and by how much.
Here's another prediction: within a month, independents will shift their support to Tom Emmer. It isn't that they're thrilled with everything in Tom's plan but they'll appreciate knowing where he stands. They won't be thrilled that Horner's and Dayton's budgets will have been haphazardly put together.
At that point, people won't have faith that either candidate will put together a thoughtful budget that reflects Minnesota's priorities of balancing the budget and creating jobs.
It wouldn't surprise anyone if Dayton and Horner each proposed additional tax increases to balance the budget. Neither candidate will cut spending much more because they both believe in bigger government.
At that point, independents will conclude that neither knows what they're doing and shouldn't be trusted putting a budget together.
Finally, Horner's been getting a free pass thus far. Now that his support has significantly increased, he'll have a target on him, especially from Sen. Dayton's supporters. It's one thing to fly beneath the radar. It's another when you're getting scrutinized.
Posted Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:28 AM
Comment 1 by Ooo Arted at 16-Sep-10 06:40 AM
Let's get serious here. Tom Horner is a real candidate, once everyone realizes that Tom Horner is in the race it's over.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-10 07:05 AM
When did it become fashionable to think that a man who can't come close to balancing Minnesota's budget is a serious candidate?
Comment 2 by eric z at 17-Sep-10 04:21 PM
Do you think Horner's expansion of sales taxes is a good idea?
It's how you pay for stadiums, goosing up the sales tax, and he was Zigy's pitchman.
I recall that proposal being floated in Anoka County a very few years ago, without any referendum, for Zigy who stood Andy Westerberg up regarding a roof or not.
There was a groundswell against any such nonesense without a referendum.
Horner is not saying he'd only do it if a referendum were held and voters approve.
Any thoughts?
Exposing Tarryl's Gimmicks
This campaign, Tarryl has played the part of chameleon, saying that she's the fiscally responsible candidate in the CD-6 race. It's a mistake for Tarryl to think we've forgotten about the things she's voted for. Here's a snippet from the Strib's HotDish Politics post :
Clark is accusing Bachmann of being too loose with taxpayer dollars during tough times. Bachmann, meanwhile, is highlighting Clark's tie-breaking vote in the Legislature this May to raise taxes.As a Tarryl expert, Tarryl's claims are laughable. I remember my friend Leo's post about Tarryl's vote on increasing per diem. Here's the key part:
Clark's new ad came with a challenge. The state senator is asking Bachmann to cut her salary by 5 percent and reduce her office expenses. Clark said she cut her own per diem pay and budget when the economy soured in 2008.
Mr. Gottwalt also related when a DFL legislator (heretofore unnamed--for now) who helped to lead the committee that conveniently voted themselves a pay raise in the initial session. Reportedly, the politician had stated something to the effect of, " Don't worry. There has never been anyone who hadn't been re-elected because they raised their (own) pay. The voters won't remember. "Since that post in 2007, it's been revealed that that politician is Tarryl. It's kinda ironic that she's touting herself as a fiscal conservative after making such a statement. OOPS!!!
Let's also remember that Tarryl voted against cutting senators' stamp allowance from 5,500 annually to 3,500 annually:
One of the things the Senate GOP brought up was the fact that the legislature budgets for each legislator to use 5,500 stamps per year. The Senate GOP proposed cutting that number to 3,500 stamps per hear per legislator. Sen. Senjem said that, as Minority Leader, he uses approximately 3,000 stamps annually. Sen. Amy Koch, who made the motion, said that this amendment would save the Senate $56,000 per year.In 2009, with the state facing a $6.4 billion deficit, Tarryl voted against this modest reduction. At the time, I participated in a blogger conference call with Senate Minority Leader David Senjem. He told us that he personally uses an average of less than 3,000 stamps a year. He noted that his amount is substantially higher than the average senator because he's the minority leader. Most legislators get by with half that amount.
The GOP proposal was defeated by a 36-29 margin.
'Fiscally responsible' Tarryl voted against saving Minnesota taxpayers $112,000 that biennium alone on just that one measure.
I'd love hearing Tarryl's explanation justifying raising senators' per diem from $66/day to $96/day. It isn't like $66/day is insufficient . That's before factoring in that legislators get that per diem 7 days a week while they're in session. It isn't just for the days when they're holding hearings or floor debates. That's $672/week senators collect. After factoring in that they're actually at the capitol an average of 4 days a week, that figures out to being $168/day.
That's before considering their gas allowance and rent allowance.
In her role as vice-chair of Senate Rules Committee, Tarryl tried preventing the entire Senate from voting on the per diem increase. Only Ray Vandeveer's persistence prevented her from succeeding in hiding that increase.
While Tarryl was taking less than the maximum amount of per diem, she didn't think it was important enough to propose cutting per diem rates to their pre-2007 levels. THAT would've said that she's serious about cutting costs.
That's before considering the fact that, in 2007 when minnesota had a $2,163,000,000 surplus, Tarryl voted for 6 different tax increases totalling $5,800,000,000 and omnibus spending bills that would've raised spending by 17 percent. Instead, Gov. Pawlenty vetoed those spending bills and held the spending increase to 9.1 percent, a difference of $3,000,000,000.
Tarryl's argument is that she's fiscally responsible after voting to raise spending by $6,000,000,000 in 2007, after voting to increase per diem by $30/day and after attempting to hide that per diem increase from the public.
If you learn nothing else, please understand that Tarryl is a shrewd politician who's prone to resorting to gimmicks like this. She's a former lobbyist who's argued that government should do many good things.
That doesn't sound like someone who's fiscally responsible.
Posted Thursday, September 16, 2010 5:49 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 17-Sep-10 12:59 AM
Let's also notice that Bachmann's pay (compensation) is Bachmann's money. She earned it. Clark's per diem, office expenses, and tax increases are someone else's money.
