September 28-29, 2010
Sep 28 07:38 Cravaack vs. Oberstar: The Makings of an Upset? Sep 28 11:01 Extending Current Tax Policy Sep 28 11:44 McMahon's Momentum Sep 28 16:57 Another Seat to Defend? Sep 29 06:18 Democrats' False Premises Sep 29 11:07 MPR's Junk Poll Sep 29 18:29 That'll Sting
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Cravaack vs. Oberstar: The Makings of an Upset?
Chip Cravaack, the GOP-endorsed candidate for the MN-08 House race, got a big boost Monday when he received the Minnesota Farm Bureau PAC's endorsement :
The Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation PAC, the political and legislative branch of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, has announced that they endorse Chip Cravaack for Minnesota's 8th Congressional District.This race has flown under the radar thus far. It's time people started paying attention to it because this is a competitive race. While it's true that Oberstar has a big CoH advantage, I'm certain that that won't be the determining factor. Money rarely is in wave elections.
Cravaack is the only non-incumbent to receive the endorsement from the bi-partisan group that also endorsed Democrat Collin Peterson in Minnesota's 7th Congressional District.
"I am honored to receive this endorsement from Minnesota's farmers and rachers," Cravaack said. "I recognize the crucial role that these producers play in not only providing food, but in providing jobs as well."
Put differently, no amount of money will save a politician that doesn't have an appealing message. This year, Rep. Oberstar doesn't have an appealing message.
This is part of the reason why Rep. Oberstar has a stiffer fight than normal:
"Cap-and-trade, which Congressman Oberstar voted for, would be a disaster for Minnesota. It will make our products non-competitive in foreign markets and increase the cost of food," Cravaack said. "This is the last thing struggling families need."In southern and western Minnesota, Cap and Tax will hurt the huge cash crop farmers in the form of high gas prices for their farm equipment. In Minnesota's Arrowhead, Cap and Tax will hurt Iron Rangers in the form of outrageous home heating bills. In other words, Oberstar's vote would hurt his constituents.
This issue won't help Rep. Oberstar either:
This bill would greatly expand federal jurisdiction over wetlands of all sorts, whether they're state or federal lands. This isn't surprising in light of the Obama administration's attempt to control everything possible.
Oberstar, DFL-8th District and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, last April authored amendments to the 1972 Clean Water Act. The bill, America's Commitment to Clean Water Act, attempts to correct two U.S. Supreme Court cases over jurisdiction over waters.
The original bill gave federal jurisdiction over all "navigable" waters , while the Oberstar bill removes that word and defines federal jurisdiction "to all waters that are currently used, were used in the past, may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide," says Don Parmeter, who is leading an effort to draft alternative legislation.
"This affects northern Minnesota and Minnesota in general, probably more than any other state in the country," Parmeter said Thursday night to about 35 people who showed up to a forum on the bill at Hungry Bear Conference Center.
"It's a radical bill, we've been fighting it since 2007," said Parmeter of the National Water and Conservation Alliance, of an earlier version of the Oberstar bill.
"What this bill does, simply, is remove the term navigable from the federal water pollution control act of 1972 and replaces it with waters of the United States," Parmeter said. "All interstate and international waters, including interstate and international wetlands, and all other waters, including intrastate which is all waters within the boundaries of the state" are included.
Knowing how important the outdoors is to Iron Rangers, I can guarantee that Oberstar's bill won't sit well with them. In fact, the more Chip emphasizes Oberstar's powergrab, the more Iron Rangers will turn against Rep. Oberstar.
The Arrowhead is littered with gun clubs, sportsmen organizations, fishing tournament organizations and rifle ranges. I'll bet the proverbial ranch that they won't take this issue lightly.
This legislation doesn't stand a chance of becoming law. If it passed the House during a lameduck session, this bill would be killed in the Senate with a filibuster. Once Republicans retake the House, this legislation won't get so much as a hearing because it violates private property rights.
This paragraph sums things up perfectly:
"This is a very expansive federal authority bill," he said. "This is not only a controlled waters bill but also a controlled land bill, everything within a watershed."
Rep. Oberstar is clearly carrying this administration's water on this issue. (Pardon the pun.) It's clear that he isn't listening to his constituents. Rep. Oberstar should be thankful that these outdoorsmen are law-abiding citizens.
Rep. Oberstar should be worried about Cravaack. This Bemidji Pioneer article explains why:
"Small business owners are afraid to invest in their own business to create jobs," he said. "Miners, when you start talking to them about this cap-and-trade bill and how it's going to affect the mines, you've got their attention."Chip Cravaack gets it. He's focusing his campaign on the right demographic groups. He's focusing on issues that get his future constituents' attention. In doing that, he's saying with his actions that he understands what they're going through. He's telling them that he's one of them.
The House last year passed a bill calling for cap-and-trade policies to control carbon emissions in which carbon producers would pay to purchase carbon credits from under-producers. Oberstar voted for the bill, which since then has languished in the Senate.
"I really try to talk to just the people, not the unions, but the members of the unions," says Cravaack, who was a member of a commercial pilots union. "Those are the guys are going to be voting. The union will tell them to vote for jobs, well, I'm all about jobs."
Cap-and-trade policies will devastate the mining industry, he said.
"The cap-and-trade bill is going to increase electrical costs on mines 40 t0 50 percent," he said. The average electrical costs of a small open pit mine is $1.6 million, he said. "You add 50 percent to that, it makes our ore non-competitive and those guys are out of work."
Rep. Oberstar hasn't related to his constituents in years. That matters this year because Washington repeatedly refused to listen to We The People. That's what fueling the TEA Party movement. When politicians like Rep. Oberstar listen more to the administration than to his constituents, it's time to hold Rep. Oberstar's retirement party on the first Tuesday this November.
In any other year, I wouldn't be writing about this race. This isn't an ordinary year. It's a year that's shaping up to be an historic year, one where Rep. Oberstar's seat is in play.
Follow this link to contribute to Chip's campaign. Though it's an uphill fight, there's no reason to think he can't defeat Rep. Oberstar.
This is how to manufacture an upset.
Originally posted Tuesday, September 28, 2010, revised 08-Aug 8:37 PM
Comment 1 by Bruce at 28-Sep-10 12:39 PM
I would venture to say that if either of these two events occur, a. Cap & Tax passes or b. Dipsy Dayton is elected governor, the Iron Range can kiss PolyMet good bye forever.
Oberstar is a fossilized dimocrud party apparatchik that needs to go!
Comment 2 by eric z at 28-Sep-10 01:05 PM
Oberstar's been GOP lite for years. That appears to sell in District 8.
Believe the upset chances only if post-election the numbers are indisptable.
I would prefer a less Republican a Rep. but at least Oberstar votes with the Dems on organizing.
And the anti-choice forces cannot unseat him because he too is anti-choice.
Comment 3 by tom at 28-Sep-10 02:41 PM
how many farmers are in the CD 8th?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-10 03:18 PM
I don't think it's a huge percentage but it's enough to get noticed. Most of the farms in MN-08 are at the southern end of the district.
Comment 4 by Paul Starkovich at 29-Sep-10 11:19 AM
I am one of many steelworkers supporting cravaack. Talk to people on the range! Jim Oberstar is done. He sold us out, liberal tree hugger.
Comment 5 by Marilyn Haglin at 02-Oct-10 11:20 PM
Oberstar is an 18 term career politician. He is out of touch. I want a Congressman that resides in the state, where I live. Oberstar did not even show up in his so called hometown of Chisholm, for the 9-11 parade. He had a paltry Representation of paid union workers to walk for him. Cravaack had 102 Vols.unpaid Walk with him.Oberstar votes with Obama 98% of the time.Yikes! Cap and Trade will kill small business. wake up People.The ACCWA Bill is no more than Govt. control, has nothing to do with clean water. Cravaack will be our next Congressman in the 8th CD.in MN. votechip.org
Extending Current Tax Policy
The Obama administration's characterization of the tax debate is to talk about tax cuts as though extending the U.S. government's current tax policies is cutting taxes. That's insulting to thinking people. If the Pelosi-Reid Congress doesn't extend the U.S. government's current tax policies signed into law in 2001 and 2003, or if President Obama vetoes such a bill, the new policy should be called what it really is: the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Increases.
The Heritage Foundation and the IHS Global Insight Macroeconmic Model have put together a study showing the impact that letting the Bush tax cuts would have on job creation. For instance, their study of Minnesota's Sixth District would lose an average of 1,945 jobs annually and, per household, $6,473 in total disposable personal income between 2011-2020.
If that happens, the middle class will suffer while "the rich" just ride the policy out. Mr. Dayton says that he just wants "the rich" to pay their fair share in justifying his tax-the-rich scheme. Apparently, Mr. Dayton hasn't figured it out that tax fairness doesn't help the middle class.
Whether the taxes being increased are federal or state, the effect is the same. Reducing the profit margins of Minnesota's job creators will cause them to reduce entrepreneurial activity, something that hurts everyone.
From a political standpoint, it's totally foolish to not vote on the Bush tax cuts. Some DC pundits say that it just opens incumbent politicians to questioning whether they'll vote to extend all of the tax cuts or just a portion of the current tax policy.
I'm not convinced of that. With voters questioning Democrats' veracity, I wouldn't be surprised if voters didn't just assume that these incumbents wouldn't vote for only part of the tax cuts. The only people who'd be spared would be the Democrats that signed the letter to President Obama stating that they favor keeping all of the current tax policies in place.
By not voting, Pelosi and Reid are giving voters a reason to vote against incumbent Democrats.
That's without considering the fact that Democrats were so unserious that they didn't debate extending the Bush tax policies or even bother writing legislation that could be debated.
By not even meeting that minimal threshold, they're essentially telling the American people that they're irresponsible and unwilling to even perform the most basic functions of governing.
At a time when unemployment is 9.6 percent and with the biggest tax increase in U.S. history looming, voters will question Democrats when they talk about jobs.
If Bush's tax cuts expire, unemployment will jump, triggering the next recession. If that recession hits, Obama can forget about re-election. If there's another recession, alot of Democrats will lose their Senate seats.
The bottom line is this: if President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid don't extend Bush tax policies, they're essentially throwing their incumbents under the bus.
Posted Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-10 01:09 PM
I think the taxing rates and brackets we had back in the Eisenhower years worked to keep the nation strong, something that has slipped during the Bush-Cheney years, failed wars and all. Look back to what was prosperity, and ask, are times better now for the middle class, or were they better then. I believe most who know anything about prosperity in the 1950's would consider them "golden years" and the taxation levels were the goose laying the golden eggs. Reagan and the Bush families killed that goose.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 29-Sep-10 05:59 AM
Eric:
When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989 we had a strong economy and a top rate of just 28%. Thanks to Bush caving on no new taxes and than Clinton that went up. And if you repeal Bush's cuts along with the special increases that Obam put in it's closer to 40% before you pay state taxes.
We had a much strong economy in 1989 and should go back to those two rates.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McMahon's Momentum
Based on Quinnipiac's latest polling , that sure seat that Democrats were counting on in Connecticut is anything but sure:
Propelled by Connecticut likely voters who say they are "angry" with government, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, is closing in on Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat, and now trails just 49-46 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.The momentum is unmistakeable. Blumenthal is a blah candidate in that he's the type who's checked off all the traditional boxes but who doesn't have a clue about solving this nation's problems. That type of candidate will have a terrible time this year.
This compares to a 51-45 percent Blumenthal lead in a September 14 likely voter survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, conducted by live interviewers.
In today's survey, 4 percent are undecided and 9 percent of voters who name a candidate say they could change their mind by Election Day. Blumenthal leads 89-9 percent among Democrats. McMahon leads 80-16 percent among Republicans. Independent voters shift from 47-46 percent for Blumenthal September 14 to 49-44 percent for McMahon today. In a gender reversal, women back Blumenthal 56-39 percent while men back McMahon 52-44 percent.
That's because the nation is in peril economically. People don't care if candidates have checked of all the right traditional boxes on the resume. They care whether the candidate has solutions that will change the course of our economy.
In this economy, people are more apt to vote for a woman who's been the CEO of a growing company because she's dealt with all the things that go into creating a great economy.
I won't make a prediction yet but if the next poll shows this trend continuing, then I'll move this race into the leans Republican category.
Posted Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:44 AM
No comments.
Another Seat to Defend?
Just when Democrats thought it couldn't get worse, it did. This time, they've got to worry that they're losing Robert Byrd's Senate seat :
Republican John Raese has edged ahead of West Virginia's popular Democratic Governor Joe Manchin for the first time in the state's special U.S. Senate race.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely West Virginia Voters finds Raese earning 48% support to Manchin's 46% when leaners are included. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
RCP's Sean Trende just tweeted that Manchin's problem is that West Virginians like him as governor but they don't like President Obama's agenda.
By electing Raese, West Virginians get the best of both worlds: Manchin stays governor and Raese votes against President Obama's agenda, especially Cap and Tax.
The question now becomes which races the DSCC can't pour resources into. They've got a ton of races where their longtime incumbents are in trouble or where the incumbent's successor is in trouble. (Think Connecticut.) Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer aren't in great shape either.
The other thing that's gotta scare Democrats is that, with big turnouts for the House races, those turnouts might tip an extra Senate race or two.
UPDATE: When I started this post, I thought that things were bad for the Democrats. After reading Ed's post , I'll now admit that it could be worse:
House and Senate Democrats are increasingly competing against one another over a small universe of deep-pocketed donors who could make a financial difference in the final stretch before the midterm elections.
In some cases, donors report that they are being urged to fund Senate campaigns at the expense of the House, where Democrats are in danger of losing their majority.
One House Democratic fundraiser said that some Senate operatives are telling big donors and union officials, "The House is lost; you have to save the Senate."
I'd love hearing Ruy Texeira's take on the Emerging Democrat Majority now.
Posted Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:57 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 29-Sep-10 05:56 AM
I wondered if the donors are thinking about all the extra dollars in taxes they will be paying next year because Obama and the Democrats want to raise their tax rates?
I think they might be saying no to everyone and maybe be giving to the Republicans instead.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Democrats' False Premises
During tonight's Hannity show, Caroline Heldman trotted out the Democrats' line that "it took eight years to screw this country up. It won't be fixed overnight." It bothers me that Republicans don't challenge the Democrats on that premise.
After the 9/11 recession, the economy grew by 8 percent when Bush's policies were implemented. Rapid, sustained growth happened once Reaganomics took hold, growth that helped create 20,000,000 jobs in 8 years.
The reality is that the economy can recover quickly if the right policies are put in place.
The economy will struggle if the Obama and Dayton tax increases go into effect. There isn't a sane economist who'd argue with that. The reality is that heaping huge additional tax burdens onto America's and Minnesota's job creators isn't the way to get the economy humming again.
Based on Mayor Rick Wolff's op-ed , it isn't just the taxes that are holding Minnesota back. It's the spending, too:
Emmer has stated that when it comes to LGA, government should restrain itself and only provide for what he deems "core" needs, including public safety and drivable roads. Those are undeniable core city services, but as the mayor of a small town, I know my residents would say that list falls short. Minnesotans want to live in an educated community where the public library attracts both young and old. They want recreation centers where youth can find positive and safe ways to occupy their time. They want senior centers so our elderly can socialize instead of feeling abandoned. For decades, Minnesotans have viewed government as a partner, not an enemy, in achieving a quality of life that other states envy, and this has only been possible through LGA.With all due respect to Mayor Wolf, LGA shouldn't be paying for libraries and rec centers. If a city wants those things, then a local levy should be voted on to see if the citizens want their property taxes raised to pay for these things.
If the city decides to raise property taxes on themselves to pay for those things, then the city has made a decision to raise their own taxes. Tom Emmer and Tim Pawlenty shouldn't be blamed for their vote to spend money on quality of life items. That's that city's fault and their's alone.
This is a trend that Emmer's $1.1 billion cut to property tax relief programs would continue, and while he is politically astute enough to say that his plan would not eliminate LGA, because he knows the program is the lifeblood for the communities in which most voters live, his rationalization for deep LGA cuts is more self-serving to his small government ideology than to the families and small business who see their property tax bills climb and city services disappear. In the case of LGA, government has improved the quality of life for Minnesotans across the state, and that's a hard reality to digest if your vision for the future relies on casting government as the villain.
Mayor Wolff should re-examine his city's spending priorities before criticizing Rep. Emmer. LGA shouldn't be used for quality of life expenditures like parks, recreation departments and libraries.
QUESTION: Has Mayor Wolff considered the fact that it's just a matter of time before libraries are extinct because entire collegiate libraries are being digitized and put on the internet?
Has Mayor Wolff tried leading on the issue of spending money on needs first before spending taxpayers' money on quality of life projects? If he hasn't, why hasn't he?
Just because that's been the cities' habit seemingly forever doesn't mean that the cities didn't pick up some bad budgeting habits. Taxpayers are sending the unmistakingly clear message that they're tired of spendaholic, business-as-usual governance. They want responsive government, not governments that tell the people what's demanded.
Mayor Wolff needs to understand that he doesn't have the right to demand tons of money from me just because he's gotten addicted to spending LGA money on niceties.
The bottom line is this: If mayors didn't spend money they don't have on niceties, we wouldn't need the Obama and Dayton tax increases. If employers knew that their tax burden and their regulatory burden weren't increasing, the American economy would start growing at a much livelier pace.
Simply put, we can't afford spendaholic politicians like President Obama, Sen. Dayton and Mayor Wolff. If we want a real economy, we need to cut spending, reduce regulations and make permanent the Bush tax cuts.
If we did those three things, the economy would've rebounded quickly.
Originally posted Wednesday, September 29, 2010, revised 02-Oct 7:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 29-Sep-10 06:44 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget earlier during Hannity we had a Florida focus group and Obama's supporters were blaming Bush and Obama had to clean up Bush's mess.
Really what bought the economy down was the housing finance crisis. What caused that? Lack of reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because the Democrats blocked it!
Have we had real reform on that yet. No!
Oh that recession he inherrited ended June 2009 so everything since June 2009 is Obama's fault and not Bush's.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Aaron Brown at 29-Sep-10 03:27 PM
In keeping with my devil's advocacy theme today, consider this. If LGA is to be cut, and I acknowledge the argument behind this idea, how do we rectify the massive property value differences between Mayor' Wolff's city of Hibbing and the TC suburbs? The sustaining of a basic library becomes very difficult when you literally can't levy much more than bare bones out of your population. Do we allow the culture and amenities of Range and rural towns to diminish, shifting all prosperity toward high property value cities? That's what will happen. Is that good for the state? I don't think so. It's a pretty cold argument to say so.
If there is a better way than LGA I'd like to know. A little investment from the state in places like Hibbing, Willmar and International Falls and those towns will produce educated professionals who work hard and pay back into the system, often directly into the suburbs.
MPR's Junk Poll
The latest MPR-Humphrey Institute poll isn't worth the bandwidth it's printed on. Here's the poll's least credible finding:
Party Allegiances Strained, Emmer Coalition Crumbling
The usual party coalitions that unify nearly all Democrats and Republicans behind their Party's standard bearer have broken down in the 2010 gubernatorial contest. In an extraordinary breach, 4 out of 10 Republican voters have not yet declared for Emmer. Dayton is also struggling but not as extensively as his Republican opponent; a third of Democrats are not supporting him at this time.
In a dramatic breakthrough, Horner is now drawing 22% of Republicans, starting to fulfill his plan to raid the GOP base. He is drawing far less Democrats (10%) while also taking a fifth of independents.
According to the graphics, Tom Emmer is only drawing 59% of GOP votes. That isn't credible after seeing poll after poll showing Rep. Emmer and Sen. Dayton getting 70+ percent of their parties' support.
Not surprisingly, the MPR-Humphrey Institute overpolled Democrats, with 48 percent identifying themselves as Democrats, 38 percent identifying themselves as Republicans and 12 percent not identifying with either party.
This summer, a report said that Republicans and Democrats were almost at parity.
This information flies in the face of the horserace numbers:
Among the 18% of likely voters who are undecided, they are predominantly Democrats (51%) rather than being Republican (25%) or independent (24%).
Compare that statement with this statement:
Minnesota voters have awoken from their summer slumber. More than 8 out of 10 Minnesotans are interested in the November elections, a substantial increase that is being propelled by the energizing of formerly turned-off Democrats.
According to the first statement, of those people who remain undecided, half of them identify themselves as Democrats. In the second statement, Minnesota Democrats are energized. It's impossible to reconcile those statements. How can someone say that Democrats are both energized and undecided?
It seems to me that people don't get energized if they don't have something to be energized about. If that seems incoherent, check this out:
The sharp shift from the deadlocked race in August to Dayton's lead a month later stems in part from Democrats being more likely to vote. In the August survey, 46% of likely voters were Republican compared to 41% who indicated they were Democrats and the 13% who said they were independent. By late September, there were more Democrats (48%) than Republicans (38%) who were likely voters; independents remained largely unchanged at 12%.
This indicates a bad sample. There's no way Republican intensity dropped 8 points in a month. Talking with contacts around the state, intensity with Republicans is increasing.
Another reason why this poll doesn't have any credibility is because independents aren't punishing Horner or Dayton for their unserious budget plans. Independents aren't partisan by nature, meaning they demand competence.
Sen. Dayton's "work in progress" budget hasn't balanced in two tries. In addition, he initially committed to increasing education funding and that it'd happen "without exception and without excuses." When his budget fell short the second time, Sen. Dayton admitted that he'd have to postpone repaying the education shifts until 2014.
Breaking promises isn't the way to prove you're competent. Bungling your budget twice isn't the way to prove you're competent, either.
Rasmussen's latest polling refutes the MPR poll in terms of Republican support for Rep. Emmer:
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Minnesota Republicans support Emmer, a state legislator who has been endorsed by Sarah Palin. Dayton, a former U.S. senator, has the backing of 82% of the state's Democrats. Horner, a public affairs consultant and former Republican, is favored by three percent (3%) of GOP voters and 10% of Democrats.
It's one thing to have support be off by 10 points between polls. It's another when there's a 29 point gap. Since Rasmussen is one of the most reliable pollsters out there, I'll trust his numbers before I'll trust the MPR-Humphrey Institute's numbers.
The KSTP-SUSA poll says that Horner is taking as much support from Dayton as from Emmer. Their horserace number is 38 percent Dayton, 36 percent Emmer. Rasmussen's horserace number is 42 Emmer, 41 Dayton.
Now I'm supposed to believe that Emmer's horserace support has dropped 12 points while Dayton's horserace support has stayed the same? I don't think so.
This race is tipping in Tom Emmer's direction, though it's still far from a done deal. This poll, along with the Minnesota Poll, aren't worth the bandwidth they're printed on.
Posted Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:07 AM
Comment 1 by Aaron Brown at 29-Sep-10 03:07 PM
So what's the bandwidth used on this post worth then?
Just joshin', just joshin'
Humphrey polls have been suspect in the past, but I still see a slight advantage for Dayton. Probably another Mid-40s to Mid-40s election with the IP at 12-15 ... unless something dramatic happens one way or the other.
That'll Sting
To those of us who've kept track of Tarryl's tall tales, it isn't surprising that Michele Bachmann is hitting her hard with her latest ad. It was just a matter of time. Here's Michele's ad:
Tarryl's tried portraying herself as the only fiscal conservative in the race. She's even used the pay raise bit as a gimmick. I've said before that it's just a gimmick considering her voting for raising her per diem from $66/day to $96/day and for voting against cutting senators' stamp allowance from 5,500 per senator per year to 3,500 per senator per year. That minimal reduction in the stamp allowance would've save Minnesota's taxpayers $112,000 this biennium.
Tarryl isn't fiscally responsible. She said that Obamacare is good but that it didn't go far enough. Obamacare doesn't bend the cost curve down. It just lets costs to keep jumping. The plan that Tarryl would likely prefer would be more costly than Obamacare.
Tarryl had the temerity to tell another legislator that she wasn't worried about her vote to increase her per diem, saying that "nobody gets defeated because they raised their own pay", saying additionally that "voters will forget" before she's up for re-election again.
Tarryl is a con artist and not a very good one at that. She's casting herself as a fiscal conservative 4 short years after voting to increase spending by 17 percent from one biennium to another. Had the budget she voted for become law in 2007, the 2009 deficit would've been $9,000,000,000 instead of the $6,400,000,000 that it wound up being.
When I met with her in January, 2007, I asked if the legislature would do vigorous oversight into identifying wasteful spending. She said they would. They never did.
Tarryl is good at saying whatever she thinks the person she's talking to wants to hear, then doing what she'd planned all along anyway. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back.
Thanks, Michele, for highlighting Tarryl's hypocrisy.
Posted Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:29 PM
No comments.
