April 1-4, 2014
Apr 01 10:48 When Julianne Ortman went rogue Apr 01 14:29 Sen. Ortman's frightening tax policy Apr 01 16:28 Hearing what wasn't said Apr 01 23:50 Iowa incompetence Apr 02 08:06 DFL's desparate spin Apr 02 11:56 Ortman's latest Obamacare spin Apr 03 09:22 Crony capitalism & the IRRRB Apr 04 10:03 President Potter's anti-transparency campaign Apr 04 08:29 Charles Koch fights back with facts
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
When Julianne Ortman went rogue
A loyal reader of LFR sent me the text of an article in the Legal Ledger about what happened after Sen. Julianne Ortman proposed raising taxes in 2011. Here's the key part of the article:
The letter comes after a few days' worth of news reports and speculation about some willingness to raise taxes within the GOP Senate caucus, whether it be by broadening sales taxes, eliminating tax breaks, or other means. Taxes Chair Julianne Ortman was at the center of the speculation after she made comments calling tax expenditures government spending. Ortman has told us in the past that she fully intends to review and eliminate some tax breaks, although she disavowed any express wish to raise total revenues. She also mused favorably about how some states have been able to broaden sales taxes and lower rates.
In turn, it seems GOP communications staff kept Ortman under wraps most all day Thursday. After her Taxes hearing Thursday morning, the head of communications for the caucus, Michael Brodkorb, was seen waiting in the wings with another communications staffer to lead Ortman away. In response to a question directed at Ortman, Brodkorb simply replied: "No comment today."
At the time, the House and Senate GOP caucuses were saying that they were committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes, which they accomplished after Gov. Dayton shut down the state government for 2 weeks.
First, Sen. Ortman's proposal was terrible policy because it didn't do anything to fix out-of-control DFL spending increases. Giving the DFL additional revenue is like putting out a fire with a little extra gas on the fire. Secondly, when Sen. Ortman went rogue, she did so without telling her colleagues. That's the fastest way of stabbing her colleagues in the back.
It was her way of saying that her priorities were more important than her colleagues' priorities, that her priorities mattered and that their policies didn't. When Sen. Ortman went rogue, House and Senate GOP leadership were in the process of negotiating with Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and then-Minority Leader Thissen. Her proposal cut the legs out from under the GOP leadership.
The lesson to be learned from this is that Sen. Ortman a) isn't a team player, b) isn't "a conservative champion" and c) can't be relied on to do the right thing in holding down taxes.
Minnesotans don't need someone who will fit right in with the DC Surrender Caucus right alongside John McCain and Lindsey Graham. We need someone principled who will fight for smart policies that grow the economy, create jobs and make Minnesotans' lives better.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2014 10:48 AM
No comments.
Sen. Ortman's frightening tax policy
Sen. Julianne Ortman's own words are frightening. Here's what I'm talking about:
We can and should raise some revenues to make targeted tax reductions that will help to stimulate the state's economy.
For that reason, I proposed a tax increase this year; we should change our tax code to charge a tax on all lending institutions and other businesses that extend credit to Minnesotans and charge an APR interest rate in excess of 15%. Lenders and others may still charge whatever interest rate they would like. Those that charge less than 15% interest will be unaffected. On those transactions where they charge more than 15% they should pay a tax of 30% on that portion of the interest that exceeds15%. If, as a by-product, lenders reduce rates or reform lending practices, then so much the better.
But let's be honest, 15% should be more than enough interest in an economy when banks can borrow at the federal
funds rate (0.25%), and the prime lending rate hovers at 3%.
My first question to Sen. Ortman is simple: who made Sen. Ortman the arbiter of what's enough and what's too much? My next question is equally simple: does Sen. Ortman realize the effect this proposed surtax would've had had it been signed into law? I suspect she didn't. John Spry is one of the best tax economists in Minnesota. He wrote a study about what this legislation would have. Here's the conclusion to Professor Spry's report :
4. Conclusion
Minnesota's proposed thirty percent surtax on consumer interest in excess of fifteen percent would create a highly regressive tax. Since the surtax is imposed only when consumers carry balances over fifteen percent, only the 11.8% of households with these loans would directly feel the burden of this surtax.
Sen. Ortman's proposed tax is highly regressive because lower income people are more likely to have a high interest rate on their credit cards and because they're most likely to carry a balance on their credit cards.
The effect that this proposed surtax would've had would've hurt low income people who would've been hit with lower minimum monthly payments. These low income people would've also gotten hit with a higher interest rate as a direct result of Sen. Ortman's proposed tax increase, meaning low income people would've paid more to pay off their credit card debts.
Here's another astonishing thing from Sen. Ortman's website:
So let's have the conversation at the capitol: .who should pay for the State's budget deficit?
Apparently, Sen. Ortman didn't realize that imposing this surtax would force the poorest people to pay for Minnesota's deficit. This graphic shows who gets hurt most by Sen. Ortman's proposed tax increase:
This graphic shows that the lowest income people are hurt most by the tax on lenders. This graphic shows what happens to interest rates when this tax is implemented:
The graphic shows that interest rates would increase significantly if Sen. Ortman's tax was implemented. If Minnesota implemented this surtax and the interest before implementation was 22%, the post-implementation interest rate would jump to 25%. As a direct result of that, the size of the minimum payment would jump. That would make it more difficult for low income people to a) make that minimum payment and b) pay off their credit card debt.
It's better to think things through than blindly proposing a populist-sounding policy.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:29 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 01-Apr-14 06:11 PM
Even more frightening, NOBODY should "pay for the State's budget deficit"! There isn't insufficient income, it's a problem of excessive spending!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-14 11:53 PM
What's frightening is thinking that Sarah Palin called Sen. Ortman "a conservative champion." If I had the opportunity, I'd ask Ms. Palin "Based on what"?
Hearing what wasn't said
When it comes to energy issues, Rolf Westgard is worth listening to. Apparently, though, he's developed a habit of hearing what wasn't said:
More than 90 percent of Crimeans vote to rejoin Russia, and Russia gets ready to annex Crimea. The West protests the referendum with threats of sanctions.
We have short memories, having forgotten how Texas, New Mexico, and California were "annexed" from Mexico. Then, we didn't even wait for a vote.
Republican war drums are rolling, accusing Obama of not getting tough. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has blown his trumpet in stating, regarding Ukraine, that we have a "weak and indecisive president" who "invites aggression."
He must know there is nothing militarily that any American president could or would have done to deter Putin in this situation.
That's shameful. "Republican war drums" aren't rolling, as Westgard accuses. The sharpest Republican foreign policy/national security minds have said that arming Ukraine while reaching missile defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic would tell Putin that his expansionist ambitions have consequences without going to war.
That President Obama has refused taking that step, instead opting for sending Ukrainians MREs instead of actual weapons proves President Obama is "a weak and indecisive president." I never thought I'd live to see the say that I'd see a wimpier president than Jimmy Carter. Suffice it to say that I've lived to see that day.
That's only part of how to make Putin rethink his expansionist ambitions. Last week, I heard a pundit say that Putin's the 800-pound gorilla in the room. That's BS. Putin's acting like the 800-pound gorilla, which isn't the same as being the 800-pound gorilla.
Dramatically increasing American oil and natural gas production would dramatically hurt the Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil revenues. Those of us who lived through the 1980s remember that President Reagan used a multi-pronged approach in bringing the then-Soviet Union to its knees. First, Reagan built up the military, which Jimmy Carter had decimated. Next, Reagan made the U.S. economy the envy of the world, ushering in 6 straight quarters of economic growth that exceeded 5% annual growth. Finally, he deregulated the oil industry, which devastated the Soviet economy.
That's how President Reagan acted forcefully while demolishing the Soviet Union without firing a shot. That's what mainstream Republicans are pushing for today. That's the opposite of Dr. Westgard's accusations. The difference is that I can verify my statements. Dr. Westgard can't verify his accusations.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2014 4:28 PM
No comments.
Iowa incompetence
Saying that Bruce Braley has had a tough stretch on the campaign trail is like saying HealthCare.gov didn't have a smooth rollout. First, Braley criticized an Iowa hog farmer while running for the Senate in Iowa:
'If you help me win this race, you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice - someone who's been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years in a visible and public way on the Senate Judiciary' Committee, said Braley. 'Or you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary. Because if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary.'
Crtiticizing a hog farmer while running for political office in Iowa is as foolish as a candidate for office in Oklahoma to talk about how much he loves Texas football. That's as big a mistake as Todd Akin made in 2012, which takes some doing. Correct that. Which takes a Herculean effort.
Unfortunately for Braley, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Then, in his attempt to stop the bleeding from the first disaster, he compounded it :
Then Braley sent out a press release touting his farmer credentials and the Des Moines Register found that it misspelled several basic farming terms like 'detasseling' and 'baling.'
A photo he posted to Facebook is actually a farm in England, NOT Iowa.
Here's the photo:
Here's what Buzzfeed wrote about Braley's brouhaha:
TripAdvisor lists the farm as a fruit farm in England and an employee of the farm named Sonya confirmed to BuzzFeed the photo was of Cammas Fruit Farm.
The first tip Braley should learn from this is that he's got extremely incompetent people working for his campaign. That type of incompetence is downright frightening. They certainly don't know that the first rule of holes is to stop digging.
The next lesson Braley should've learned in this is that it's exceptionally stupid to criticize a major voting block in the state you're running in. That's because it'll just piss off the people you need to win elections. Pissing off a huge voting block isn't the path to victory very often. In Iowa, pissing off hog farmers is foolishness on steroids.
The other lesson Braley should learn is that saying provocative things at fundraisers often return to bite the candidate in the arse.
The biggest question that isn't settled yet is whether this is a fatal mistake. It might be but it's too early to tell. It isn't too early to tell, however, whether it was foolish for Braley to incompetently pander to this huge voting block.
Posted Tuesday, April 1, 2014 11:50 PM
No comments.
DFL's desparate spin
With MNsure being a disaster, the DFL knows that it can't keep the House by telling the truth. That's why they're resorting to spin like this:
MNsure officials were upbeat and continued to highlight that the exchange had far surpassed its overall forecast of 135,000 enrollments through the marketplace for the past six months.
'It is absolutely a success. We met our goal. The numbers we announce today we anticipate will go up,' Leitz said at a Tuesday press conference. 'I am absolutely telling you this is a big step forward.'
Just because MNsure set a goal of 135,000 enrollments doesn't mean that's what Democrats promised when they passed HF5 :
If you look at pg. 7 of HF5?s fiscal note, you'll find that the medium projections 217,000 enrollments while the high end projection is for 270,000 enrollments. The lowest projection called for 164,000 enrollments in qualified health plans.
The fiscal note for HF5 called for 270,000 people purchasing qualified health plans, aka QHPs. Comparing that figure with this figure, it's easy to detect the DFL's lies:
Of the enrollments MNsure reported, 47,000 purchased private plans.
In other words, MNsure fell short by a mere 225,000 QHPs purchased. That's being off by 82.5%. That isn't quite as pathetic of an estimate as Gov. Dayton was off on the e-tab revenues but it's pathetic nonetheless.
MNsure's expectations were set by the fiscal note. They aren't set by MNsure. Letting MNsure set its own goals is like letting a witness determine whether the witness committed perjury. There's a reason why an impartial judge makes that ruling.
Further, Mr. Leitz isn't exactly a trustworthy person :
Scott Leitz, the in'ter'im CEO for MNsure, acknowledged Friday that he is facing a charge of drunk'en driv'ing stemming from an arrest in Minneapolis in August.
Leitz, 47, of St. Paul, was arrested shortly after 2 a.m. on Aug. 17 near S. Sixth Street and Portland Avenue S. on suspicion of speeding and careless driving, according to Lt. Eric Roeske, a State Patrol spokesman. Leitz's breath test indicated a blood alcohol level of 0.18 percent, more than double the legal intoxication limit in Minnesota.
I wish Mr. Leitz the best of luck in dealing with this issue. There's still room for compassion when a person makes a mistake like this. That said, forgiveness and trust aren't the same thing. Having more than twice the blood-alcohol level isn't the type of thing that inspires trust.
Even if the figures are accurate, that doesn't mean MNsure is a success. Before I'd consider it a success, I'd want to know if the people who got kicked off of policies they liked like their new policy better. Most people were content with their policies so there's no reason to think they're happier now. Further, I'd want to know if the people who got kicked off their plans are paying less than they did before. Most aren't. I'd want to know if the people who got kicked off their previous plans got to keep their doctors and whether they can still go to the same hospitals. I'm betting they can't.
Finally, I'd insist on finding out whether their networks had shrunk. If their networks had shrunk, how much farther do these families have to travel to get care?
The DFL knows that MNsure is a failure because most people are paying more while getting less. Their deductibles are higher while their rural networks are smaller. That isn't the definition of success. That's the definition of failure.
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2014 8:06 AM
No comments.
Ortman's latest Obamacare spin
Last night, John Gilmore made a feeble attempt to defend Sen. Ortman's indefensible position of not favoring full repeal of Obamacare. Here's the text of Gilmore's tweet:
Julianne Ortman very strong on full repeal of Obamacare. Gary Gross hardest hit.
If Mr. Gilmore wants to destroy his credility, that's his right. It isn't his right, though, to make things up. When I wrote this post , I included this direct quote from Sen. Ortman:
'I'm not a full repeal person. I think the House of Representatives has voted 40 times to repeal it. The Senate is not going to repeal it. So if plan A is 'Let's do a repeal,' we better start talking about Plan B. Because plan A got nowhere,' she said. Ortman said she would like to see Congress go 'piece-by-piece through that new law and figure out what works and what doesn't.'
If Gilmore insists that that's what being "very strong on full repeal of Obamacare" sounds like, it's his right to make a fool of himself. I'll just continue providing verifiable proof that Sen. Ortman isn't "strong on the full repeal of Obamacare." For instance, I'll include videos like this:
Sen. Ortman can tapdance on this issue from now until the State Convention but it won't change the fact that she's doing a fine impersonation of John Kerry. Remember Kerry's "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" moment? Here's a refresher on that infamous moment:
Apparently, Sen. Ortman is for full repeal of Obamacare now that she paid a political price for opposing full repeal of Obamacare.
Mr. Gilmore can take cheapshots at me if he likes. My skin is thick enough to withstand his petty little shots. If Gilmore wants to argue against that video, that's fine. It's just that he's fighting against verified truth. That isn't the way to increase one's credibility.
At the end of the day, State Convention delegates need to decide whether they're comfortable endorsing someone who shifts positions on the biggest issues of the campaign, who proposed raising taxes and voted for a cap and trade system . If they're looking to endorse a candidate who won't fight for replacing the worst bill in U.S. history, then Sen. Ortman is a perfect fit for them.
If they're looking for a principled conservative with lots of private sector experience, then Mike McFadden is their only choice.
Sen. Ortman is a flawed candidate. There isn't any doubt that Sen. Franken will use Ms. Ortman's statements about Obamacare against her in his ad campaigns and in their debates. Likewise, there's no question that Sen. Franken will use Sen. Ortman's flip-flops against her in his ads and in the debates.
That's just the harsh reality of politics. At the end of the day, Republicans can't support a candidate who's vulnerable to attacks of flip-flopping and who can't raise the money it'll take to defeat a well-funded incumbent.
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2014 2:51 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Apr-14 04:45 PM
Gary:
Here's an idea about how come no Republican shouldn't take her seriously.
Here website which is suppose to make us believe doesn't have anything listing detailed positions. When I wrote them and pointed out I guess I have to support McFadden no one bothered to respond to the contact us message.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 04-Apr-14 08:30 PM
I was originally impressed with Ortmann, McFadden, and Dahlberg. However, lately my disappointment in Julianne Ortmann is profound. She has not been forthright about her positions, and does not strike me as having a fighting spirit to go up against the MN DFL machine and Franken's millions of dollars. Now she has been endorsed by Palin and Dave Bossie. Bossie is committing the number one political sin according to Ronald Reagan -criticizing a fellow Republican. It makes me very angry that this is happening. Why is Bossie spreading the notion that McFadden is a moderate and not conservative enough? This is the type of behavior which allows the DFL to continue to dominate the MN political landscape. It also indicates that McFadden is considered Ortmann's chief rival and they want to tear him down with a misinformation campaign.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Apr-14 09:07 PM
Gretchen, Go to Mike McFadden's campaign website, specifically his issues pages. Read Mike's positions on regulatory reform, his alternative to Obamacare after it's been repealed, his plan to "simplify the tax code", then learn about his private sector experience.
Republicans should support people with private sector experience over career politicians. Republicans should also support people pushing pro-growth economic policies vs. people who've proposed raising taxes & who've voted for Cap & Trade.
Then again, I'm funny that way. I'm principled, unlike Sen. Ortman.
President Potter's anti-transparency campaign
In the aftermath the Great Place to Work Institute's Trust Survey, President Potter announced that he'd be holding listening sessions. He's sent out an email prepping people for those meetings. Here's part of the text of that email:
To the Campus Community:
I know that many of you have taken time to review the data released earlier this month generated by the Great Place to Work survey. While the documents bring to light some difficult and sensitive issues, there are clearly some emerging themes represented in the data sets that warrant our collective attention as we seek to improve our work environment.
There are three primary phases of our work as we move forward: (1) Share; (2) Listen; and (3) Act. We have completed the first phase through the four town hall meetings that were held earlier this semester and through the creation of the "Campus Conversations" SharePoint site ( https://myscsu.stcloudstate.edu/sites/President/Community ), which contains all of the data we have received from the Great Place to Work Institute. Together we will now embark on the next stage of this important work, the listening phase.
Our next steps include a series of Campus Conversations and the President's Listening Tour, beginning early April and continuing into the fall term. We recognize that the hectic schedules in April and May will make it difficult for many of you to engage in this process during this academic year; therefore, we will be scheduling sessions into next fall to facilitate full engagement from all faculty and staff.
It isn't surprising that President Potter hid the GPTWI survey data on a password-protected webpage. President Potter isn't into transparency. He doesn't want people to find out that faculty don't trust him to make sound financial decisions. President Potter doesn't want the community to find out that the vast majority of the faculty don't think that President Potter's words match his actions.
President Potter, if you desire true openness, if you seek true transparency, put that data on a webpage that's open to the public. If you keep this information hidden, we'll know through your actions that you're putting a higher priority on hiding this information than on making it public.
While I understand that significant portions of the survey don't help you look good to the media, the reality is that this information is public information . That's why I submitted a DPAR over the weekend. Our taxes paid for this survey. We have the right to know what's in the survey. We shouldn't have to submit Data Practices Act requests to find out what's in it.
FYI- The information will be published.
President Potter, here's a little unsolicited advice. The secrecy isn't helping build trust with the faculty. Stop trying to hide the bad news. It's time you stopped hiding public information. It's time you started acting with integrity. Men of integrity don't hide bad news because they don't want their image stained.
President Potter, you've tried hiding the transcript scandal. You've done everything possible to hide the financial losses on the Wedum Foundation contract.
The GPTWI Trust Survey isn't surprising to people who've paid attention. It's still quite possible that it surprised the St. Cloud Times, which spent time playing ostrich before switching to being President Potter's off-campus PR firm.
It's beginning to look like transparency and integrity are four-letter words in President Potter's vocabulary.
Posted Friday, April 4, 2014 10:03 AM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 04-Apr-14 12:01 PM
The full information was provided to the St. Cloud Times. They chose to only share the comments.
If all faculty and staff have access to the information, how exactly is President Potter trying to hide this information? Especially from faculty, which is your unsolicited advice.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Apr-14 02:09 PM
Actually, Dave Unze's article says that SCSU didn't release the entire survey.
I don't deny that faculty & staff have access to the GPTWI information. I just said that the public doesn't have access to it, too.
Since taxpayers paid for the survey, shouldn't they have access to it, too?
I'll type this real s-l-o-w so you'll understand. If the information isn't available to the people who paid for the gathering of that information, then it's hidden.
Crony capitalism & the IRRRB
Stories like this prove that the DFL is built on cronyism and taxpayers' money. Here's a little background first:
EVELETH - Meyer Teleservices in Progress Park has closed its doors on the Iron Range, leaving 104 people unemployed.
The St. Cloud-based company also leaves behind a debt of about $250,000 to the Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board, which had issued two loans totaling $650,000 to the business for its Eveleth facility.
'It was a pretty tough day (Monday),' said Gary Owen, company owner and CFO, in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon. 'I went up there and talked with the good people working for us. They are good employees with warm hearts. Some of them even said they were more concerned about me.'
Meyer Teleservices also on Monday shuttered its other Minnesota offices in St. Cloud and Little Falls.
According to Kevin Allenspach's article , Meyer Teleservices was started in 1976 by Larry Meyer. I haven't confirmed that the Larry Meyer mentioned in this article is former St. Cloud Mayor Larry Meyer but I'm betting it is. After all, there can't be many St. Cloud businessmen named Larry Meyer, much less that are capable of this:
Owen bought the company from employee ownership last October and said he subsequently lost all of his retirement savings and took out two property mortgages in an effort to keep the business going. Meyer also infused the business with $380,000 last year, to no avail.
"Larry was very gracious and you can only go to the well so many times," said Owen, who worked for Meyer Teleservices for 25 years. "We just weren't able to turn a profit."
Here's where the cronyism comes in:
The equipment is collateral for the IRRRB loans , but Commissioner Tony Sertich said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening that he is right now more concerned with the workers who lost their jobs.
'We'll sort that out in the coming weeks,' he said about the financial situation and where the agency will line up regarding the money it is owed. 'It's always hard to see job losses. This week it's about empathizing with families who lost their jobs.'
The company was founded in St. Cloud in 1977; opened its Little Falls office in 1999; and then launched on the Range in Eveleth in 2007.
It was a company with direct ties and allegiance to the Democratic Party. After Republican President Richard Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal the business created an '... innovative small donor fundraising program called the Dollars for Democrats program,' according to the Meyer Teleservices website.
The IRRRB gets tons of cash in taxpayer appropriations each biennium. Here's the IRRRB's alleged mission :
Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) is a State of Minnesota development agency located in Eveleth, Minnesota. IRRRB's mission is to promote and invest in business, community and workforce development for the betterment of northeastern Minnesota .
IRRRB provides vital funding, including low or no interest loans, grants and loan guarantees for businesses relocating or expanding in the region. Additionally, a variety of grants are available to local units of government, education institutions, and nonprofits that promote workforce development and sustainable communities.
How does lending money to a DFL phone bank "promote workforce development and sustainable communities"? How does lending money to a DFL fundraising operation provide for "the betterment of northeastern Minnesota"? How many other DfL operations has the IRRRB loaned to other companies? How many pro-DFL operations have received "a variety of grants" available to "education institutions and nonprofits"?
The loan to Meyer Teleservices was approved in 2007, which means that David Dill and Tom Bakk almost certainly voted to approve this 'loan.' Aside from the cronyism, it's worth noting that the IRRRB 'invested' taxpayer money in an outdated system that was designed to benefit the DFL. It's also worth noting that this venture in pro-DFL cronyism lost the taxpayers money before going bankrupt.
Is this the type of Minnesota you want to live in? Are these the type of people we want running state government? I'd passionately argue that Mssrs. Sertich, Bakk and Dill are the last people who should have their hands on the levers of state and local government.
This is a taxpayer rip-off that specifically benefited the DFL. That type of cronyism/corruption must end ASAP.
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:22 AM
Comment 1 by Frank Weber at 04-Apr-14 06:12 AM
What does it take to get an actual audit done on the Range?
Charles Koch fights back with facts
Charles Koch's op-ed in Thursday's WSJ is a fantastic fact-filled defense of himself and his corporation.
Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.
Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."
Harry Reid said Charles Koch was "un-American." If winning awards from the EPA for environmental excellence is un-American, then we need more of that type of un-Americanism. If winning awards for safety from OSHA is Sen. Reid's definition of being un-American, then let's have a new wave of that type of un-Americanism.
Let's be blunt, though. This won't stop Sen. Reid from criticizing the Koch Brothers. This op-ed won't stop Al Franken from using the Koch Brothers as villains in his fundraising emails. That's because they don't care about facts. That's because facts are irrelevant to dishonest people like Sen. Reid and Sen. Franken. This information isn't relevant to Sen. Reid either:
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs - even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
It's indisputable that Koch Industries are good corporate citizens. The top Obama fundraisers got guaranteed loans for green energy initiatives, then went bankrupt. Koch Industries asked for corporate welfare to stop. That comparison proves that Koch Industries' priorities are the American people's priorities.
It's instructive that the Democrats villainize a corporation that's a great corporate citizens. It's instructive that Democrats sat silent when corporations that raised millions of dollars for Presiden Obama gets a guaranteed loan from the taxpayers, then files for bankruptcy.
It's time for this nation to turn the page on this chapter in American history. It's time to chart a new direction. It's time to trust in the American people again. It's time to stop listening to dishonest politicians like Sen. Reid and Sen. Franken. Finally, it's time to start praising good corporate citizens like Koch Industries.
Posted Friday, April 4, 2014 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Apr-14 10:53 AM
Has anybody asked that Senator Reid be tested for his mental faculties?
