April 10-16, 2014
Apr 10 00:09 Is Sivarajah admitting defeat? Apr 10 12:26 Dayton, DFL: MNsure's fine, move along Apr 10 21:28 MnSCU drops student health insurance Apr 11 02:26 Ortman two-timed taxpayers Apr 14 01:42 Nolan and the convicted pervert Apr 15 09:33 McFadden embraces spending, regulatory discipline Apr 16 13:40 North Dakota says yes to cheaper electricity Apr 16 16:36 DNC, DFL doubles down on disaster Apr 16 19:43 Corrupt crony capitalism
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Is Sivarajah admitting defeat?
It's been a topsy turvy day in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, After reading Commissioner Sivarajah's statement announcing her intent to run in the GOP primary, I'm left wondering if she hasn't already admitted she can't win the primary. Here's what she said that makes me question her:
'We are told we need to broaden the base of the Republican Party and a primary will help accomplish that,' she observed. 'I am eager to take my record of achievement to the voters of Sixth Congressional District which will allow all voters--Republicans, Independents and Conservative Democrats, to have a say in who they think will best represent them.'
There aren't many conservative Democrats or independents that'll vote in this August's GOP primary. Politically speaking, Tom Emmer's support is a mile wide and a mile deep. They've passionately supported him since he ran for governor. Their enthusiasm for him hasn't dipped since 2010.
I wrote in this post that "activists will show up en masse for the primary, too, possibly in record numbers to send the message to Sivarajah and Krinkie" that they enthusiastically support Tom Emmer.
'Voters are hungry for an accomplished conservative candidate,' she said. 'My record of cutting taxes and reducing the size of government is unmatched by any other candidate in the race. People want results, not rhetoric.'
That's been Commissioner Sivarajah's battle cry since getting into the race. It didn't sell during the precinct caucuses and it didn't sell during the BPOU conventions. Even Commissioner Sivarajah admitted that Tom Emmer will win a first ballot endorsement victory.
What activists know, however, is that Tom Emmer didn't have a prayer of cutting taxes because the DFL was the majority party in the Senate. Cutting taxes with a conservative majority is considerably easier than cutting taxes with an intransigent, obstructionist DFL majority in the Senate.
'I don't fear the voters,' Sivarajah concluded. 'People are not swayed by inevitability; I want to earn their vote. I am confident I will do so.'
That last paragraph of Commissioner Sivarajah's statement makes me question whether she's serious. She's an experienced candidate so she knows how to count votes. Commissioner Sivarajah knows she lost the CD-6 Straw Poll by 50 points. Even before Wednesday's announcement, Commissioner Sivarajah knew she was heading for a first ballot defeat at the CD-6 Convention.
That's before factoring in her pathetic fundraising totals the last 2 quarters and Emmer's significant name ID advantage. If independents and Democrats don't turn out to vote for Sivarajah in historic numbers, Commissioner Sivarajah will lose the primary by 30-35 points. It won't be that close.
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:09 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Apr-14 04:16 PM
Gary:
What you might want to worry about is what will liberal democrats do since there is no real primary on the DFL side (no governor or senator). They might cross over and vote for a Republican (somebody other than Emmer for the 6th CD)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Mary L. Manfils at 11-Apr-14 07:48 PM
All the candidates in the 6th would beat the Democrat candidate. But liberals might just be so stupid as to think primary mischief could somehow change things.
Dayton, DFL: MNsure's fine, move along
Jeffrey Meitrodt's article shows how anxious Gov. Dayton and the DFL is to put their mismanagement and inattentiveness behind them:
DFL Rep. Joe Atkins, co-chairman of the oversight committee, said he 'prefers to look forward' and not rehash the decisions that brought MNsure to where it is today. He praised the agency for signing up 181,000 customers since Oct. 1, well above its conservative goal of 135,000.
Whether Rep. Atkins prefers looking forward or not, I won't until I highlight the terrible decisionmaking made by Gov. Dayton and April Todd-Malmlov. I won't look forward until it's exposed how disinterested the DFL-dominated MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee was about the systemic mismanagement problems Republicans were highlighting.
I wrote here that Sen. Lourey admitted that the Republicans were asking legitimate questions:
State Sen. Tony Lourey, the DFL co-chair of the oversight panel, said Republicans have 'legitimate questions' that deserve to be answered.
It won't be long before Sen. Lourey gets a call from Gov. Dayton's enforcer. They can't afford for him not to be on the same page with Gov. Dayton and Rep. Atkins.
Republican committee members, however, were frustrated with their inability to question administration officials about MNsure's rollout. Dayton blocked key officials, including Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson, from appearing Wednesday before the panel.
'We can't improve things if we can't work together,' Benson said.
Republican members of the panel said they welcomed tough media coverage of MNsure, citing the Star Tribune's report that revealed Dayton was informed of major problems with MNsure's website 12 days before the exchange launched. Dayton acknowledged this week that he 'misspoke' when he previously said he was unaware of technical problems until November.
Sen. Benson said that she doesn't think Gov. Dayton lied about his being unaware of MNsure's difficulties. I disagree. Gov. Dayton didn't misspeak. He lied about not getting briefed on MNsure's impending disastrous rollout. Meitrodt's article provided proof that Gov. Dayton was briefed by April Todd-Malmlov 12 days before MNsure went live.
The only way Gov. Dayton didn't know about Todd-Malmlov's brieifing is if he's got Alzheimers. Since there isn't any proof of that, it's safe to say Gov. Dayton lied about MNsure for political/re-election campaign purposes.
Tuesday, Gov. Dayton made a major political mistake. He told legislators of both parties that the architects of MNsure couldn't testify at an oversight hearing. Then he said that the Republicans' strategy was a farce. Then Sen. Lourey, one of the co-chairs of the oversight committee, said that Republicans had legitimate questions that should be answered.
Thanks to his foolish tactics, Gov. Dayton's flailing to regain his political footing. He's acted like a monarch ruling from his throne. Until this week, Gov. Dayton had a likeability factor. Thanks to his imperious actions, he isn't as likeable.
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:26 PM
No comments.
MnSCU drops student health insurance
According to this email from Corie Beckerman, the director of Student Health Services at St. Cloud State, MnSCU has decided to drop its "domestic student health insurance plan for the 2014-2015 academic year":
To all SCSU Faculty and Staff:
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) has decided to no longer offer a domestic student health insurance plan for the 2014-2015 academic year. Due to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students by our current provider would have increased substantially. There are several insurance coverage options available to students, which include being covered on their parent's policy until age 26 or purchasing coverage through the Minnesota Health Insurance Exchange (MNsure). A detailed explanation of this MnSCU decision can be found at www.stcloudstate.edu/healthservices.
Resources:
MNsure has numerous resources available on their website for students to help navigate their system as well as address any health insurance questions - www.mnsure.org or toll-free 1-855-366-7873.
For assistance in the in the St. Cloud area, students may contact Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid at projectcare@mylegalaid.org or 1-320-253-0121.
International students will continue to be required to purchase health insurance through the MnSCU sponsored health plan, as in the past, in accordance with MnSCU Board Policy 3.4.1 part 3, subpart B.2.
Thanks
Corie
Corie Beckermann, Director
Student Health Services
St. Cloud State University
720 Fourth Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498
This sentence jumps off the page in importance:
Due to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students by our current provider would have increased substantially.
This is a stunning admission that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, isn't affordable. MnSCU is filled with people who support President Obama and Obamacare. This isn't a decision they made lightly. It's instructive that MnSCU didn't make this decision out of spite.
MnSCU made this decision because the ACA, aka Obamacare, is exceptionally expensive.
Last week, President Obama had his "Mission Accomplished" moment in the Rose Garden. The thing he highlighted most was the enrollment numbers. That moment will be fleeting. Most people have forgotten about the enrollment figures. Since that event, the administration has gotten hit with stories like MnSCU cancelling its health insurance program for domestic students and other horror stories.
Kathleen Sebelius must feel like the weight of the world's been lifted from her shoulders now that she's resigned. She won't have to deal with the ACA mess once her replacement is confirmed.
That's the opposite of Gov. Dayton. This is just another reminder that the ACA is anything but affordable.
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:28 PM
No comments.
Ortman two-timed taxpayers
Back in February of 2007, then-Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller pushed through a $30-a-day increase in per diem payments for senators:
The Senate voted 59-7 to ratify an increase in daily expense allowances from $66 to $96 per senator, a 45 percent boost. The ratification came with a hitch: Those who voted for it automatically get the expense payments, known as per diems. The seven senators who voted against it don't get it. 'You can't vote 'no' and take the dough,' Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said after the vote.
The seven dissenters, all Republicans, can still collect expense checks. But first, they must tell the Senate fiscal staff how much they will take, and that paperwork will be public. Voting 'no' were Sens. Ray Vandeveer, of Forest Lake; Dick Day, of Owatonna; David Hann, of Eden Prairie; Bill Ingebrigtsen, of Alexandria; Amy Koch, of Buffalo; Geoff Michel, of Edina; and Pat Pariseau, of Farmington.
One of the senators that voted for that outrageous increase was Julianne Ortman. According to this article , Sen. Ortman was a busy person that winter:
It's been a busy and prosperous spring for Sen. Julianne Ortman.
For the past six weeks, Ortman has been working full time in her new $91,000-a-year job as chief financial manager for the office of Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, a political ally. At the same time, she has been collecting her $31,149-a-year legislative salary and a $96 daily expense allowance while missing some committee hearings and Senate floor sessions.
The dual roles of the Republican from Chanhassen, an assistant leader of the minority caucus, were evident May 11. Ortman was paid by Hennepin County as working on county business from 8 until 10 a.m., while state records show her answering a roll call for the start of the day's Senate session in St. Paul at 9:20 a.m. A review of county payroll records and Senate documents from April and early May show that Ortman often bounced between her two jobs, at times starting one job just minutes after officially punching out from the other.
According to this search website, the article was first published by the Star Tribune on May 19, 2007. Mark Brunswick and Mike Kaszuba were the reporters. Mssrs. Brunswick and Kaszuba should be praised for their work in piecing this information puzzle together.
It's bad enough that Sen. Ortman voted for that expensive per diem increase. I said at the time that $66 a day is more than enough, especially when the senators that voted for the per diem increase were getting the per diem 7 days a week from the first day of the session until the last night of the session.
It's worse knowing that Sen. Ortman was on the clock for the legislature and for Hennepin County at the same time:
In two instances, she missed Senate committee meetings while working for the county, according to the records. Meanwhile, many of her county payroll records show her working long hours, evenings and weekends on days when the Senate was in session.
Sen. Ortman owes taxpayers an explanation for how she worked long hours for Hennepin County at the same time the Senate was also in session. They'd probably like to know how it's possible to be in two places at the same time.
Obviously, this isn't a policy difference. However, it's the type of thing that raises ethical and potentially legal questions about Sen. Ortman.
Posted Friday, April 11, 2014 2:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 11-Apr-14 09:14 AM
I'm sorry, but while I appreciate your taking notice of these failings, I am through discarding candidates on such a basis. We started the season with 6 candidates for US Senate, and I have already decided that I "just can't vote for" two of them, for just this sort of one-time transgression. I do not want to arrive at the State Convention and find that I have left myself no choices. I also do not want to be one of those who, having previously vowed never to vote for someone who may be the endorsed Republican candidate, follows through and allows the Democrat to win in November.Yes, it's going to make for a difficult decision at some point, but a decision among six flawed choices is better than having no decision at all. There is no perfect candidate.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 11-Apr-14 11:01 AM
J:
Since you say you're going to be at the convention and will vote for the best possible candidate keep in mind Gary is trying to expose Ortman as a weak candidate not able to beat Franken. The Kurt Bills I heard on the radio in 2012 sounded like he cared about the issues but didn't have an organization that took it to Amy K. Kennedy in 2006 was able to raise millions (and was cut off from national funding) yet Bills raised less than a million. Ortman's fund raising is kind of indicating she will be like Bills in that sense.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Mary L. Manfils at 11-Apr-14 07:41 PM
Too funny!
But this goof can win here, huh?
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/254767591.html
Makes you wonder whether the party would stand by a woman as long as it has McFadden after so many stupid moments. The guy's an embarrassment, and is about to make a mockery of Republicans. You heard it here first. Keep up the chauvinism, fellas! Keep driving women further and further from the GOP.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Apr-14 05:56 AM
Playing the gender card is cheap. Ms. Ortman was the only female GOP legislator to propose raising taxes. She was the only female GOP legislator who told businesses what they should & shouldn't earn.
Then, to top it off, she denies doing what she did. Republicans don't have to support a politician who's prone to telling whoppers to win the women's vote. Saying that they do is utter nonsense.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 12-Apr-14 08:23 AM
Well, let's see now.... Clearly the race is between Ortman and McFadden. We can't choose Ortman because she can't raise the money and because she isn't conservative enough. We can't choose McFadden because he's an "establishment" guy that raises too much money and won't (or can't) tell us where he stands. That leaves us with... whom, exactly? Bueller? Anybody?
Comment 5 by Sheila at 12-Apr-14 05:52 PM
Mr. Gross,
Do you directly or indirectly work for Mike McFadden's campaign, and/or have you had any contact with any members of the McFadden campaign within the last two weeks?
Thank you.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 12-Apr-14 08:17 PM
Shame on you, Jerry. The 'case' that you made against McFadden is superficial. The case I've made against Ortman is extremely substantive & damning. If you want to play coy & not choose, that's your option. That just isn't leadership.
Decisions require weighing the evidence, then making the most informed decision based on the information you can gather. You're talking hypothetical possibles in the general election. I'm talking about the decision we need to make at the convention or in the primary.
Sheila, I spoke with McFadden & one of his staffers this morning at the CD-6 convention. That's it.
I'm writing these articles because she's lied. She's telling the world that she's always been for fully repealing Obamacare even though there's video of her telling Tom Hauser that it's the law of the land. She's been praised as being pro-low taxes even though there's proof she proposed raising taxes.
If you're comfortable with someone who's outright lied to us as our candidate against Franken, then I'd get ready for another 6 year (at least) of Sen. Franken. I won't settle for that.
Comment 7 by Lisa Nystrom at 12-Apr-14 08:48 PM
J.Ewing,
You should vote for the person less likely to affect other races on the ballot by presenting Democrats the opportunity to stereotype ALL REPUBLICANS as being empty-suit Neanderthals too cowardly to take a stand on an issue let alone stand up for their convictions. And the sorry fact of the matter is, just like Todd Akin and Mourdouck in '12, Republicans as a whole could be dragged down by fielding a candidate as uncharismatic as he is seemingly unprepared for the spotlight as Mike McFadden has demonstrated that he is.
What astonishes me is that Gary Gross doesn't seem at all embarrassed by his continued support and advocacy for what has amounted to an embarrassing candidate. And everyone can infer by the fact that despite Gary's candidate-of-choice Mike McFadden having conducted the aforementioned press conference -- a press conference which, by the way, McFadden himself called -- a few days ago, Gary has yet to so much as mention it anywhere on his blog. That's the true measure of what a disaster it truly was -- and the DFL has already released a video dubbing it "A Train Wreck" (note, when a DFL tracker doesn't even have to resort to editing a video to make a Republican candidate look bad, you know that things really didn't go as planned). When even McFadden's most vociferous supporters are dumbfounded and silenced by his latest faux pas, something fundamentally flawed is happening in his campaign.
Instead of highlighting Mike McFadden's surreal press conference by attempting to make excuses for him, Gary here obviously thought it would be more productive to assail Ortman once more; that doing so would be a sufficient distraction to get people not to focus on McFadden's debacle. That's become Gary's knee-jerk reaction to every situation where McFadden does something Gary would prefer you not know about: attack Ortman.
In his latest attempt here, Gary has chosen to once again beat the "voted for tax increases" drum -- which at best is specious and at its worst ad hominem. But, for argument's sake, even if one was to conclude that Ortman sits around the capital all day/week/month/year long plotting ways in which she can raise taxes on Minnesotans, you would have to also conclude that it was something that made her less electable in the eyes of the general electorate before seeing Gary's point in the light that he would prefer you see it in. But, sadly, if "raising taxes" was a pivotal issue for the majority of Minnesotans, Mark Dayton would be behind in the polls by 20 points instead of being up by 20 points.
The fact is, Mike McFadden was handpicked as a candidate by former Democrat Norm Coleman -- a man who himself lost an election as an incumbent to the most unqualified senatorial candidate in the history of Minnesota elections. Norm isn't disillusioned in the sense that he believes McFadden could win; Norm knows that McFadden can't win if only because dedicated conservatives and TEA Party activists will not vote for him. But it doesn't matter to Norm since he chose McFadden on the sheer basis that McFadden can afford to pay Norm and his cronies the "consultation fees" they're eager to hit a man with whose worth is approximated in excess of $60 million dollars. That way, win or lose (most likely lose), Norm still comes out of it with a fatter bank account than he had going into it.
And Gary, the female issue is a legitimate one. The rumblings are getting louder if you haven't noticed. How do you think it looks to women when someone as experienced in campaigns/debates/politics as Ortman is stepped around by the GOP for a MALE candidate with no experience in politics whatsoever and he reminds everyone of that fact every time he opens his mouth? Do you honestly think females aren't going to have a problem with that?!?
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-14 10:36 PM
Lisa:
This is take two on my effort to respond to you since the computer ate the last one.
Your rant is the exact reason why Ortman shouldn't be the candidate. Your premise is that McFadden is going to embarrass the rest of the team so we can't win the race for governor, the state house races, and the three(?) congressional races that we can pick up. What will be the major issue our governor candidate is going to run on let alone those state house candidates and those congressional candidates. It is Obamacare is bad and destroying the world's greatest healthcare system. What will be the Democrats defense? Senator Ortman saying that it is the law of the land and shouldn't be repealed.
By the way are you in favor of Obamacare staying in place or being changed by the government spending more money and taking more control? In other posts on Ortman I've pointed out that she didn't look excited when the reporter asked her the question on repeal and even worse didn't try to lay out a vision of how it can be changed for the better. You might not like McFadden, but at least he has put it out there.
And if you want to complain about not winning lets remember one reason why Romney wasn't able to defeat Obama in 2012 was that he wouldn't take Obama on the issue of Obamacare. Why repeat that mistake in 2014 for the US Senate when we are running against the candidate who's presence made it possible to have it passed and become law?
Since you want to attack Atkin for a second keep in mind one reason why Atkin was the poor candidate he was when lots of people told him to drop out (for the reasons you cited and I was one of many people who emailed him asking to drop out) he didn't listen in part because people like you came to his defense and said he was right. That he will be selling out the prolife position if he dropped out. That he could still win.
Based on the clip that Gary played of that interview I already know that Ortman can't win. Are you one of those people who believed that Atkin was going to win despite his mistake because that explains why you think that Ortman is going to win while McFadden won't win.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 9 by J. Ewing at 15-Apr-14 07:16 PM
Walter, let's not mix Aiken and Ortman, here. It's a deeply flawed analogy, and Aiken WAS right-- scientifically speaking he was absolutely correct. The problem was that he said something in front of a hostile press (which is pretty much the only kind there is) and they had him crucified before he even got a chance to qualify his statement, and THEN the stupid Republicans refused to help him out of that fix, grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Our problem here is similarly twofold, however. First we have to find a candidate that says the right things IN THE RIGHT WAY, and then we have to help that candidate get the truth out past the media filter. Right now both front-runners are handicapped on one or the other or both. To me the best candidate is one who can clearly and convincingly articulate common sense solutions. It's tough.
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 16-Apr-14 09:09 AM
J:
Keep in mind it was Lisa who bought up Aiken and tried to link it to MacFadden. I was just trying to respond to her comment on that. So you should've directed it to Lisa not me.
If you want to comment on Republicans who refused to come to Aiken's aide so if Ortmann is the candidate are you saying (assuming that Ortmann is our candidate) we are suppose to smile and say that she was right to say not only was Obamacare the law of the land, that it shouldn't be repealed, and for not even trying to lay out a vision for what bill or bills she will support to try to improve health care.
Keep in mind the media will run with that through November and ignore the cancelled policies and the higher preiums. The only real way to make it an issue will be for our candidate to be giving the repeal and changing of healthcare for the better in every campaign appearance. Ortmann in a recent four page fund raising letter covered Franken being the Senator who provided the key 60th vote on Obamacare on just one small paragraph and went to other things for why I should give her money.
Why should I vote for let alone give money to a candidate who seems clueless on what could be the key issue to winning?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McFadden embraces spending, regulatory discipline
This past Friday, I received an email from the McFadden campaign in which he announced an initiative to reduce spending. Here's the heart of that email:
There's a culture among our nation's professional political class that accepts the fact that our government wastes over $200 billion every year - that's nearly one-third of last year's deficit!
Some senators like Al Franken don't seem to think it's a big deal. I couldn't disagree more.
That's why I announced yesterday that I will release an annual report on wasteful spending as your senator. I'll go through the budget line-by-line and expose the wasteful projects that are eating up your tax dollars and adding to our deficit. Some say this report will make Washington uncomfortable, and that's fine with me because I want to get rid of the culture of waste in our Capitol.
I've written articles about Sen. Tom Coborn's Sequester This video series. Follow this link to the first article. This link will take you to the second article. It sounds like Mr. McFadden would fit into the Coborn wing of the Senate quickly. This video explains why Mr. McFadden wants to get spending under control:
While it's imperative that we eliminate deficits for financial reasons, it's morally imperative to get the economy growing robustly so families don't have to live paycheck to paycheck like they've been doing the last 5+ years. It's time to reject the Obama-Franken economic policies. It's time to embrace pro-growth economic policies that return the U.S. economy to being the envy of the world.
That won't happen if Sen. Franken is re-elected. He's proven that he doesn't know how to get America's economy growing. Mike McFadden knows how to grow the economy because that's what he's done the last 25 years. If you want to grow the economy, hire a businessman. Hiring a comedian to grow the economy is a joke. At least it would be if it wasn't such a serious matter. But I digress.
The McFadden campaign is highlighting the ways in which he'll eliminate wasteful spending and how he'll reduce the scope of the federal government through regulatory relief.
Posted Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:33 AM
Comment 1 by Van H. at 16-Apr-14 06:14 AM
Well, that certainly isn't going to get the job done, is it? Saying that you're "against government waste" is like saying that you're against rainy days and rush hour traffic. EVERYONE is against "government waste"! The problem you leave yourself open to when you say that you're against "government waste" is that people/your opponent/the media insist on knowing what you consider to be wasteful. And there's no good way to answer that question being how what constitutes wasteful spending to one might not to another. Is Medicaid wasteful spending? Planned Parenthood? How about drone operations in the Middle East? Finacial aid to impoverished countries? It's a 'gotcha question waiting to happen. So why open yourself up to it? McFadden's brain trust continue to do him no favors, that's for sure. Talk about amateur hour. Why would you call a press conference to discuss something that isn't even going to contrast you as a candidate from your opponent? Does he expect Al Franken to say that he's FOR government waste? Team McFadden goes through all the effort to round up the media, and what's the Subject of the Day? Obamacare? NSA surveillance? The fact that Obama's approval rating in Minnesota has sunk to 36% and Al Franken HAS VOTED WITH HIM 100% OF THE TIME? Nope, none of the above. The topic was "government waste". God help us.
Gary, the next time you speak to Control Tower McFadden you want to suggest that they keep things simple for him at this point. He's a political neophyte; he's obviously not comfortable in front of the media and talking issues, etc., etc. When that's the case for a candidate, the tenet is to have him/her focus on a single issue to beat over the head of his/her opponent. And man, do the Republican candidates have a big hammer at their disposal in the form of the medical device tax! Republican candidates in some of these other states would love to have a medical device industry the size of Minnesota's to prominently feature in their campaigns. The Republican candidates here have been accorded that hot button like manna from heaven, and yet they don't stay on it. One out of three people in Minnesota either work for or know someone who works for the medical device industry. So why are they talking about anything else? If McFadden pounded away on that issue alone he'd have a better chance of winning than meandering about from one issue to the next, because it draws attention to his opponent's weakness. Keep all the focus on it all the time. When the liberal media tees up the 'gotcha questions, like, "What are your thoughts on personhood legislation?" the appropriate reply is "My thoughts aren't on personhood legislation because I'm focusing all my thoughts on repealing a medical device tax that even Al Franken has described as a 'job killer' despite having voted for it." The way you defeat an incumbent the is by putting him on defense and keeping him/her there for the duration of the campaign. Ron Johnson did this masterfully to Russ Feingold. It can be done here, too, but McFadden is going to have to stop with the "government waste" blather and start revving it up on matters where Franken is actually vulnerable. Quit fishing for crappies on a lake full of muskies, you know what I mean?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-14 01:15 PM
Chill Bill. Mike McFadden did a single video on government waste. That's hardly out of line. More importantly, McFadden won't get to unload on Franken if he isn't the GOP's general election candidate. At the approprriate time, I suspect, McFadden will train his guns on Franken.
As for the wasteful spending stuff, McFadden is identifying what he thinks is wasteful spending. There's nothing controversial about the things on the list.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 16-Apr-14 07:57 AM
I appreciate this piece, but it does feed my concern that McFadden is WAY short on real specifics. How about the FAIR tax"? or the "penny plan"? or even the Ryan budget? Maybe I'm looking for a policy wonk when we need a politician to get past the election.
Nolan and the convicted pervert
This Strib article certainly can't help Rick Nolan:
Republicans on Friday slammed Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan for planning a fundraiser with Peter Yarrow, the singer from the 1960s band Peter, Paul and Mary, who admitted in 1970 to having improper relations with a 14-year-old girl.
Rep. Nolan must be totally stupid for planning a fundraiser with this pervert. "Having improper relations with a 14-year-old" is timid language. Mr. Yarrow should still be in prison for statutory rape.
What's interesting is that Nolan's campaign didn't respond to the Strib reporter:
Nolan's spokeswoman deferred comments to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
'This is a desperate attempt from Stewart Mills to distract from the fact that he is personally offended when millionaires like himself are asked to pay their fair share," said Brandon Lorenz, in an emailed statement.
If Rep. Nolan and the DCCC thinks that playing the class warfare card will deflect attention away from Peter Yarrow's stench, they're fools. If anyone's desperate, it's Nolan's campaign and the DCCC.
Stewart Mills just was endorsed this weekend. According to people attending Saturday's convention, Mills gave a great speech. Most importantly, these activists reported, the party's support for Stewart Mills is enthusiastic. They think they've found a great candidate who's got a fantastic message and who's got a great fundraising machine.
Something else that's interesting is what the Strib's article didn't include. Here's part of Yarrow's Wikipedia file :
In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of, and served three months in prison for, taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl who went with her 17-year-old sister to Yarrow's hotel room seeking an autograph.
Why didn't the Strib include this in their article? Saying that Yarrow admitted that he'd had "improper relations" with a 14-year-old isn't the same as saying the pervert was convicted of a crime that included a prison sentence.
I'd be suprised if Nolan doesn't disinvite Yarrow from the fundraiser. If he doesn't, his political opponents will have a field day with him.
Posted Monday, April 14, 2014 1:42 AM
No comments.
North Dakota says yes to cheaper electricity
The shortest summarization for this article is to say that North Dakota rejects expensive energy alternatives:
'It is no secret that Minnesota rules, laws and policies are highly influenced by various environmental groups and ideas,' Mike Diller, director of economic regulation for the N.D. Public Service Commission said during a hearing in January. 'The environmental concerns of North Dakota are different than those of Minnesota and the cost of compliance with the environmental and energy policies in Minnesota is becoming a burden to North Dakota ratepayers.'
North Dakota sets a voluntary goal of generating 10 percent of its power from renewable sources, ranking third on the American Wind Energy Association list of states in percentage of wind power. Across the border, Minnesota requires 31.5 percent of Xcel Energy's power be generated by wind and other subsidized, often less competitive, renewable energy sources by 2020.
Thanks to the Next Generation Energy Act, Minnesotans are subjected to high electricity prices. They're substantially higher than the prices paid by North Dakotans:
A revolutionary settlement between the state of North Dakota and Xcel Energy's Northern States Power unit will save North Dakota ratepayers nearly $6 million a year by exempting charges for higher-priced renewable energy from Minnesota.
Minnesotans have to decide whether they want to continue paying higher prices for electricity. They'll also have to decide if they want to pay an extra $6,000,000 a year for green energy. In the end, they'll have to decide whether they'd prefer legislators that listen to the people or legislators who listen to the environmental organizations that push that agenda.
The long-standing friction and frustration over the states' opposing energy policies finally broke into the open during the hearings in Bismarck after Xcel Energy's requested rate increase for North Dakota ratepayers. PSC regulators saw it as an opening to assert control over North Dakota's energy independence and destiny. The final agreement includes a precedent-setting provision for Xcel to 're-stack' the mix of electric power allocated in North Dakota and reset rates based on least-cost conventional energy sources that match the state's priorities.
It sounds like North Dakota will only pay Xcel for conventional energy sources, meaning Minnesotans will get hit with higher electricity prices, thanks to the NGEA. Everyone loves green energy as a concept. That support drops dramatically off when people are told that green energy is expensive.
Minnesota politicians talked about winning the future when they passed the NGEA. These days, people are upset with higher electricity prices. North Dakota finally said no to this nonsense. The DFL will never say no to this stupidity, which is why they need to be defeated this November.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Apr-14 02:38 PM
My church has to pay about a $1,000 for electricty. Wow six million lower costs to pay not to mention no future rate hikes will be nice for our church let alone me. I guess the only church that the DFL wants to worship is the Sierra Club.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-14 04:11 PM
That's about right, Walter.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 16-Apr-14 06:34 PM
The big question for these "renewables" nuts is WHY? If it's not cheaper, why do we mandate it?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-14 06:38 PM
These nuts' chanting points says that renewables are the way of the future. If it's expensive, it won't be.
DNC, DFL doubles down on disaster
The Iron Range branch office of the DFL, aka the IRRRB, just announced that it's spending taxpayers' money on a bankrupt business venture :
EVELETH, Minn. - Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) Commissioner Tony Sertich today announced that New Partners Consultants, Inc. will operate a call center for its customers at Progress Park in Eveleth. The company is finalizing plans to lease the space that formerly housed Meyer Associates, Inc. New Partners will utilize some equipment from the Meyer operation, which is currently under IRRRB's ownership. Staffing will begin as soon as all agreements are in place, possibly as early as next week.
'We are pleased to have played a role in facilitating the reopening of the center,' said Sertich. 'This project will result in new job opportunities, particularly for those displaced by the Meyer closing.'
Sertich recognized Gilbert native Jerry Samargia of New Partners, stating, 'I am thankful to Jerry for investing in the center and the people of the Iron Range.'
He also praised Virginia Eveleth Economic Development Authority representatives and Gary Owen, former owner of Meyer, for putting a deal together in such a short time.
New Partners isn't well-known. I think it's time it got some notoriety. Here's what New Partners is in their own words :
New Partners is more than just a new firm with new people and new ideas. We also represent a new way of doing business. Whether the goal is to win an election, affect reputation, organize an advocacy campaign, raise money, or build a movement, our extensive expertise and groundbreaking strategies will get results.
We are all operating in a new environment based on a fundamental shift in how we organize, how we communicate and how we advocate. From the campaign that defeated President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, and implementing Governor Howard Dean's landmark 50 State Strategy, to spearheading an innovative and successful development effort for the One Campaign, and the unprecedented Iowa caucus campaign that led to President Obama's breakthrough victory, the team at New Partners has been at the epicenter of that shift.
What we have learned from our experience is that no two issues, organizations or campaigns are the same. Each requires a unique approach based on new ideas and new strategies that will lead to new results.
That means that the IRRRB is spending taxpayers' money on a company committed to electing Democrats. The list of New Partners' leadership reads like a who's who from the Obama campaign.
If the Democratic Party want to put an organization together, that's their right. It's just that this type of operation shouldn't be paid for by taxpayers. And there's no question it's being funded by taxpayers. That's the IRRRB's way. The IRRRB hasn't met a project benefitting the Democratic Party that they didn't like.
The DNC should finance this operation. Minnesota taxpayers shouldn't finance it. Having taxpayers finance the DNC's operations is the definition of crony capitalism meeting single party government. That's the definition of corruption.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:37 PM
No comments.
Corrupt crony capitalism
Recently, I've written about a corrupt government agency that's titled the IRRRB, aka the Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board. In this post , I wrote about something that the IRRRB funded:
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.
This afternoon, I wrote this post to talk about how the IRRRB resurrected that program with a little twist:
EVELETH, Minn. - Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) Commissioner Tony Sertich today announced that New Partners Consultants, Inc. will operate a call center for its customers at Progress Park in Eveleth. The company is finalizing plans to lease the space that formerly housed Meyer Associates, Inc. New Partners will utilize some equipment from the Meyer operation, which is currently under IRRRB's ownership.
The Minnesota offices of Dollars for Democrats went bankrupt a few weeks ago, leaving Minnesota taxpayers on the hook for $650,000 in unpaid loans from the IRRRB. What's disgusting beyond the stupidity of making $650,000 worth of loans to a company on the verge of bankruptcy is that taxpayers were paying for a political operation.
That shouldn't happen. Ever. Still, it's happened twice in the past couple months. Government, whether it's state or federal government, shouldn't make loans or give grants to political operations. Period. If a political party wants to open a call center or coordination center, they should do it with their own money. Taxpayers shouldn't finance political operations.
Here's the IRRRB's mission statement :
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 can the IRRRB or New Partners say that getting equipment from a bankrupt company is investing businesses, communities or workforce development?
Another thing that's disgusting is New Partners is an operation for national Democrats . Here's part of New Partners' leadership team:
Paul Tewes
In 2007, Paul began the Obama for America campaign as State Director for the Iowa caucuses. For nearly a year, Paul and his team built the largest grassroots organization in caucus history. The year culminated with an Obama win in January 2008, a win that launched his historical campaign. Paul was also instrumental in putting together the blueprint for President Obama's organizational efforts in the General Election.
Tom McMahon
From 2005-2009, McMahon served as Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). There he was one of the principal architects of the ground-breaking "50 state strategy" that transformed and modernized the Democratic Party resulting in historic electoral gains in both 2006 and 2008 at the state, local and federal levels and laying the groundwork for President Obama's historic win in 2008.
Cara Morris Stern
From 2000-2004, Cara served as a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. During her tenure at the DSCC, Cara worked with national political reporters to help frame the nation's most visible and competitive Senate campaigns as well as develop message for donor communications.
The IRRRB, led by former DFL House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, just provided seed money and equipment to a political organization whose goal is to elect Democrats. Minnesota taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for any political operation from any political party. Period.
That's before talking about whether the business model makes sense. (It doesn't.) This is what politically motivated crony capitalism looks like. Inevitably, crony capitalism is corrupt, which this operation certainly is.
Posted Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:43 PM
No comments.
