April 11-13, 2011
Apr 11 00:52 Exposing Bonoff's Allegations Apr 11 10:01 Obama to Play Deficit Hawk This Week Apr 11 14:23 McCotter On Budget Settlement Apr 12 05:53 Sen. Klobuchar's Busybody Energy Solution Won't Work Apr 12 12:46 Addressing Limbaugh, Levin & Hannity Apr 13 00:40 DFL Defends Imaginery Parts of U.S. Constitution Apr 13 04:18 SCSU by the Numbers Apr 13 12:01 Dayton's The Expert Apr 13 16:45 Obama's Grand Gestures, No Adjustments Deficit Speech
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Exposing Bonoff's Allegations
During Sen. Bonoff's interview with WCCO's Esme Murphy, Sen. Bonoff said that the Senate's HHS bill is the DFL's biggest cause for concern. She then said that "the HHS bill is probably of the biggest concern" because "that budget would have somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Minnesotans not on health insurance."
Sen. Bonoff then said that the budget that just passed "literally unraveled Minnesotacare" before alleging that "people making between $5,000 and $7,000 a year would no longer have access to health care coverage."
As dishonest as Sen. Bakk's statements were, Sen. Bonoff's statement was significantly more dishonest. David Hann wrote the Senate HHS bill. Anyone who's met Sen. Hann knows that he's one of the most gifted legislators in St. Paul, especially when the subject is health care. That Sen. Bonoff is accusing him of writing an HHS omnibus bill that excluded the poorest of the poor from MinnesotaCare is disgraceful.
It's important that Sen. Bonoff be forced to point out which amendment to the HHS bill stripped out coverage for those making $5,000-$7,000 a year. Or is she suggesting that Sen. Hann's legislation never included covering people making $5,000-$7,000?
Sen. Bonoff said in the interview that she'd won re-election in a swing district. Some savvy GOP strategist should archive this interview because it's indicative of Sen. Bonoff's lack of character. It says that she's either willing to say things that she knows aren't true or that she really thinks of conservatives as evil.
Either way, this isn't a shining moment for Sen. Bonoff.
FWIW, I think it's more a matter of her being willing to say anything to gain a political advantage. That's what desperate politicians do. You won't see Paul Ryan resorting to such desperate tactics.
I suspect that Sen. Bonoff will pay a steep price for her willingness to say anything and for her desperation.
Posted Monday, April 11, 2011 12:52 AM
Comment 1 by cas at 21-Apr-11 03:51 PM
I had the chance to meet with Hann this week - I cam away feeling like I needed a bath:
A few highlights:
-apparently high net-worth individuals need special treatment, because in aggregate they pay 50% of MN taxes and they might flee Nice- open preferential treatment of one group over all others. make no mistake about it, protecting these rare, HNWIs is the GOP's prime directive.
-lack of any knowledge about 1998 tax cuts that blew the structural hole that we have been reeling from ever since -brilliant!
-When called out on the "job-creators" vs High net-worth individuals, he just sputtered- can't speak off of taking points. If it really is all about jobs, then create very attractive tax credits for creating jobs. Expensive cars, houses, foreign trips and commodity speculation by garden-variety high net-worth individuals does nothing to advance the state's cause
-claim that HHS cuts were all about cost - yet unwilling to consider models such as those in place in other states that dramatically lower costs via exchanges and guaranteed coverage-the rationale doesn't even agree with itself!
Net net - Hann's work is to be admired in the same way we might admire an arsonist's work. A total vulgarity.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-11 04:35 PM
Cas, you blithering idiot. Let's set you straight.
-High net worth individuals getting "very attractive tax credits for creating jobs" is the government telling companies that it's the government's money first. In their benevolence, though, they'll 'give' companies some of their money back if they do the things that the government is telling them to do.
SPECIAL NOTE: What you call HNWI are small businesses. They need capital to sustain & grow their companies. 'Giving part of their money back but still raising the marginal tax rates robs companies of the capital they need to stay healthy.
- The 1998 tax cuts aren't what blew the hole in Minnesota's budget. What's put us behind the proverbial 8-ball is Linda Berglin's refusal to adopt health care reforms that would've saved the state hundreds of millions of $$$'s. What's put us behind the proverbial 8-ball is the DFL refusing to hold serious oversight hearings into their sacred cow items like K-12 & higher education. Had they done these things, they would've discovered the cronyism that's in these budgets, the senseless replication & the programs that simply shouldn't exist.
- Letting militant environmentalists run roughshod has destroyed Minnesota's economy. If PolyMet & Big Stone II were under construction, Minnesota's economy would be stronger than it was during the so-called golden years of the Perpich era. When MCEA sued Kittson County for applying for a permit where rare native grasses would've been damaged, the judge threw the case out because Kittson County didn't make the application. A local ATV club did & they were denied by the DNR because they would've destroyed rare native grasses.
These environmental groups aren't as interested in litigation as they're interested in attrition, followed by killing jobs.
Those are verifiable things that've happened. MCEA admitted, boasted about, using attrition to destroy Big Stone II. But it's the greedy businesses that've ruined this state's economy??? Get flipping serious.
Admiring your comment is akin to admiring politicians like Tom Bakk spinning their destructive agenda.
Obama to Play Deficit Hawk This Week
During yeseterday's FNS, Mara Liasson said that the next budget debate, the Republicans' plan wouldn't be the only plan on the table. She said that President Obama would put a plan together that will be debated and that various progressive groups would put budgets together that would need to be considered, not just Paul Ryan's plan.
I'm sure other legislation will be considered, especially in the Senate, but Chairman Ryan's Path to Prosperity plan is THE plan in DC. It's the plan that will attract the most attention from the American people.
Ms. Liasson is a savvy, albeit biased politicial reporter. I suspect she knows that, while it's true that other plans will be on the table, it's equally true that Chairman Ryan's Path to Prosperity Plan will suck most of the air out of the room.
Most of the other plans are being thrown together without the thoughtfulness and thoroughness that Chairman Ryan put into his plan. It's important that we notice Chairman Ryan's plan has pretty much forced the other people to rewrite their plans.
President Obama's budget certainly wasn't oriented towards cutting overall spending, much less cutting spending in a serious way. I can't imagine the various progressive's budgets will cut spending, much less tackle entitlement reform.
The only other plan capable of attracting serious people's attention is the so-called bipartisan plan based on the commission co-chaired by Sen. Simpson and Erskine Bowles.
Based on this article , I'm not sure President Obama's plan will be taken that seriously:
Contrasting the president's approach with what Republican leaders have put forward , Plouffe said Obama will use a 'scalpel' and not a 'machete' as he seeks to preserve funding for education and other areas he considers crucial to the country's long-term economic success.
Saying that the President will pick a scalpel to cut the budget tells me that his cuts will be miniscule. Using that word indicates that the White House will initially attempt to brand Chairman Ryan's plan as going too far or as not being what the American people want.
If that's their approach, they'll fail miserably.
Chairman Ryan is almost universally respected on budget issues, with left wing demagogue types like Paul Krugman being the exception. The more people watch Chairman Ryan, the higher his positives go. While it was easy to vilify Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, it's almost impossible to vilify Paul Ryan or Speaker Boehner.
The biggest mistake that President Obama's team can make policywise is not going far enough. Let's remember that Rasmussen's polling showed that they supported by a 57-31 margin shutting down government if the outcome was that they got bigger spending cuts.
It'd be a disaster electionwise, however, if President Obama went as far as the American people seem willing to go. His base would view him as a hated DLC 'Republican lite' type of Democrat. (Remember Howard Dean's campaign line in 2004 about his "representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?")
Howard Dean's most avid supporters became President Obama's base in 2008. Does anyone think that that bunch will be forgiving if President Obama starts acting like 'Paul Ryan lite'? That won't happen. If he changed directions, he'd be skewered politically within minutes.
Chairman Ryan's plan forced the rest of the politicians to play catch-up. At this point, there's Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity Plan and there's everyone else's plan. I suspect that ideology will prevent Democrats from proposing the types of spending cuts that the American people are saying they want.
Posted Monday, April 11, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 11-Apr-11 10:32 AM
One thing Ryan has going for him are those two charts, (or 3, if you like), which shows the disaster that awaits us if we pussyfoot around this thing. His plan clearly shows us working our way out of trouble, REGARDLESS of what is in it, and that moves people politically.
My two suggestions are that they should drastically increase the pace of cuts and reform to later "compromise away," and then to send the detailed appropriations bills up to the Senate one at a time, with the least contentious first. That way, when the eventual shutdown battle looms, and it will, the only departments that have to shut down are those wasting the most money. Democrats don't mind closing high-profile things like National Parks to put pressure on Republicans, but having to close HHS for a while, stopping Obamacare and trying to defend-- not defund-- it, will be hard on them.
McCotter On Budget Settlement
This weekend, FNC's Eric Shawn interviewed Thad McCotter about his take on the budget settlement. Here's the video:
Here's the transcript of the interview:
SHAWN: You know, we saw how bitter getting this deal done was, $38,000,000,000, some Democrats accusing Republicans of wanting to kill women, that it's a war on women, that's a war, bombing innocent civilians. I mean, what can we expect when we're dealing with this type of rancor when we're dealing with the debt limit?
MCCOTTER: First, thank you for repeating all that. Second, I think what it shows is the difference between the two parties. I think as we've talked, Eric, I think America knows that in the 21st Century, we can't simply prolong Lyndon Johnson's legacy.
What we're seeing all around us is power devolving into individuals' hands through the commications revolution, people making their own decisions, control their own money. The Democrats are still locked in their 1960s, 1970s big government, fully centralized, making your decisions for you.
The very fact that they can't adjust their minds to the very time we live in is the cause for the histrionic and I'd say irresponsible rhetoric, or what they'd call the new civility.
SHAWN: Well but they would say that many people rely on these programs. Paul Ryan's program, they say, will gut Medicare and Medicaid and that if you're under 55, you're gonna get slammed on Social Security. So how do you go forward when dealing with this very contentious issue?
MCCOTTER: Well, I think when you talk about the Ryan plan, whether you agree on the particulars, one, it shows that Republicans are serious about the entitlement reform problem and two, we have serious ideas to deal with it and three, the Democrats are seriously irresponsible in using vitriol in their remarks about Republicans when they didn't even pass a budget in the first place, showing no interest at all in taking this issue on.
Going forward, I think Republicans are just going to have to get used to, in many ways, it's just going to be a conversation between ourselves and what the soveriegn American people wish to see because in the final analysis, we're trying to offer a distinct vision between the two parties of the Democrats doing nothing and spending everything approach means that we'll have bankruptcy. The Republican approach means that we'll have solvency.
SHAWN: Democrats say that they're doing their part. The President hailed it as an issue of bipartisanship and shows that it can work. What next? You've got the $14 trillion. You've got the deficit vote. How do we trim this and get this under control?
MCCOTTER: Well, I think you hit the nail on the head at the beginning where you said how long it took the budget bill before. Even though I didn't vote for it, I do respect the efforts that were put forward and it certainly wasn't the fault of Speaker Boehner or anyone else that the cuts weren't as large as people wanted.
You have to remember the intransigence of the Democratic Party in the Senate and the White House that led this issue to be prolonged that led to the resolution being less than what people expected in many quarters. As we move forward, the budget battle will be key and what I think we have to focus on is the difference between the two parties.
They want to keep in place the 1960's 1970's model of big government that's no longer sustainable as every indicator shows us from entitlements going bankrupt to the overall fiscal state of the United States. Republicans may not have all the answers but we're certainly looking. We're certainly looking forward and that's what going to lead to alot of rancor. You also have the situation where the House was entrusted to the Republicans by the American people but the Senate remained in Democrats' hands because that's what the people wanted last time. And you're going to continue to see a cross-chamber discussion and you'll continue to see, I fear, the White House sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens.
Going back to this morning's post , I agree with Congressman McCotter in that I can't envision this president and this Democratic Senate actually leading. Democrats, unfortunately, have gotten into the habit of sitting on the sidelines criticizing everything that Republicans offer in legislation.
During the final 2004 presidential debate, John Kerry was asked how his foreign policy would be different than President Bush's. He then spent the next 2 minutes complaining about President Bush's foreign policy. When it was his turn, President Bush calmly stated that "a list of complaints is not an agenda."
In truth, on a litany of issues, the Democrats' Song Remains the Same . The Democrats' gameplan is to sit on the sidelines while criticizing everything that's done in the hopes of Republicans screwing things up so they can look relatively acceptable to the people at some point in the future.
For the foreseeable future, Republicans just need to maintain focus on what they're already doing and keep making people like Thad McCotter, Paul Ryan, Dave Camp and John Boehner the face of the Republican Party, at least until our presidential nominee is picked.
While the cuts weren't as big as I would've liked to see them, one thing that isn't deniable is that the debate has totally shifted to the Republicans' terrain. It's still important that TEA Party activists keep GOP elected officials accountable. Still, to contend that the terms of future debates haven't significantly changed is a difficult proposition to defend.
The Democrats have been exposed as being unserious about cutting spending in any meaningful amount, whether you're talking Chuck Schumer, President Obama or Harry Reid.
What the final results will be is still to be determined but TEA Party activists must be smiling about the change in the terms of the debate.
Posted Monday, April 11, 2011 2:23 PM
No comments.
Sen. Klobuchar's Busybody Energy Solution Won't Work
With gas prices skyrocketing and with $5/gallon gas likely before Memorial Weekend , Sen. Klobuchar's solution is more of the same failed energy policies that the Democrats have followed the past decade. This statement sounds like what she's said since campaigning in 2006. Here's the heart of this week's statement:
U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) have introduced legislation that would enact a federal Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The bill would set the first national threshold for renewable electricity by requiring utilities to generate 25 percent of their electricity from wind, solar geothermal, and other renewable energy sources by 2025. Utilities would be required to provide a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources, with a 6-percent requirement by 2013, followed by gradual increases thereafter to meet the goal of 25 percent by 2025.
'The strength of our nation is tied to the strength of our energy economy,' Klobuchar said. 'A Renewable Electricity Standard is critical to helping our country decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Minnesota is already a leader in homegrown and renewable energy, and this legislation would help continue to strengthen our energy economy and secure our energy future.'
During the 2006 campaign, then-Candidate Klobuchar staged a photo-op at a busy Brainerd gas station on Memorial weekend:
May 23: Brainerd Dispatch Reports Amy Klobuchar Will Hold Photo-Op At Brainerd Gas Station. 'U.S. Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar will talk to Brainerd residents at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday at the West Brainerd Auto gas station about their concerns about rising gas prices.' ('Klobuchar To Listen To Concerns About Gas Prices,' Brainerd Dispatch, May 23, 2006)
It's predictable that Sen. Klobuchar's 5 years in the majority in the U.S. Senate hasn't produced meaningful improvement in energy prices. The Democrats sound great about energy independence. They're essentially worthless at providing proven solutions to our energy crisis.
Sen. Klobuchar's 'solution' is to entend ethanol subsidies, to investigate whether speculators are driving prices higher and co-authoring a bill that forces energy companies to produce more energy using so-called renewable energy.
There isn't even a modicum of interest in increasing domestic fossil fuel energy production. Unfortunately, there's great interest in a) picking energy sector winners and losers and b) central planning energy production.
What's stunning is that Sen. Klobuchar's response to high gas prices is a) extending ethanol subsidies and b) submitting a bill addressing renewable energy production of electricity. If she were serious about finding a bipartisan solution to an all-too-real gas crisis, she'd team with Michele Bachmann, Colin Peterson and Chip Cravaack in pushing for increased oil exploration in the continental United States, in ANWR and the OCS.
In fact, if Sen. Klobuchar was interested in a serious solution to high gas prices and high home heating costs, she'd push for increasing energy exploration and production while co-sponsoring the AEA, the only true all-of-the-above energy legislation.
If Sen. Klobuchar did that, though, she'd lose tons of support from the militant environmentalist community. That'd mean lots of checks not getting written.
In the end, a plausible argument can be made that Sen. Klobuchar, like President Obama, suffers from an incredible disconnect with the suffering people of Mainstreet America. In the end, Sen. Klobuchar has voted for failed policies like O'Care, the stimulus while not providing a solution for high gas prices.
It isn't difficult to construct a substantial argument that Sen. Klobuchar is as disconnected from the American people as President Obama. Sen. Klobuchar's political instincts aren't Clintonesque. They're closer to being Sen. Bakkesque or Rep. Thissenesque.
Sen. Klobuchar is an active legislator. Unfortunately, there are too many times when her activities aren't focused on what's most important. Worse yet, there are too many times when her ideology prevents her from considering the right solution.
When the subject is $5/gallon gasoline, Sen. Klobuchar definitely isn't on the right page to help Minnesotans.
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:53 AM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 07:03 AM
We forget Oil companies would prefer to get a 100 bucks a barrel for oil than 40. They have no interest in Drill baby Drill. Refiners have no interest in building new refineries because of tight margins. If the price of gasoline is our concern we should be asking why Canadian oil which drives our car and industries spiked. The futures market trade Canadian and prices long ago were locked in for delivery. we have built pipelines from Canada across the North to the refiners in Rosemount and St Paul Park. Shoddy journalism.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Apr-11 07:28 AM
EXISTING oil companies might prefer $100/bbl but they wouldn't be setting the price if new exploration was approved. The minute that new exploration started, there'd be an incentive for new people to jump into the oil exploration business. Because they'd be putting NEW CAPITAL at risk, they wouldn't have an incentive to sit on those leases. Rather, they'd have an incentive to DRILL BABY, DRILL.
Nature abhors a vacuum. So do free markets. Give capitalists a reason to put their capital at risk & they'll put it at risk. Simply put, your theory is flawed.
Comment 2 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 07:34 AM
So we should be asking who is gouging the American Taxpayer? Pipeline operator, Refiner, transporter, gas station owner colluding silently together? We should be asking why Oil Companies have stopped paying Royalties to the American Taxpayer for for drilling in our seas and on our land as pertheir contractual obligations? We to often get lost in political rhetoric and dont get answers.
Comment 3 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 07:46 AM
We have a pipeline being built which will bring the tar sands of Canada to a refiner near all of us. Oil companies do help set the price. When oil drops, exploration stops.
Oil companies like filling our tanks at a price which keep our economy running. they also practice lean inventory. The turnaround on a barrel of oil at the refiner is very fast.
Comment 4 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 08:07 AM
Drill, Baby, Drill is nothing more than a catchy phrase ungrounded in reality.
Dependency is a tough issue. Make no doubt we are dependent on oil. Where it comes from makes little difference other than as a political slogan.
We need to demand our great universities help find solutions. Oil companies have no reason to change the status quo. Our tax dollars fund those Universities
The conservative answer is measure twice and then cut. We need some real thinking and there is no easy answer to the issue of dependency.
Comment 5 by C Quilgey at 12-Apr-11 09:49 AM
The US has not built a new refinery since 1974 not because they like "tight margins" but because the environuts have made it too difficult of a permit process so companies are not going to spend millions to get nothing in the end.
M. Hanson must not understand econ 101 because you don't charge for what your current costs are when you know your future costs are going to be higher, and in this case, significantly higher.
The US government is gouging the US taxpayer because they won't allow companies to get at the easily accessible oil and then forcing us to use a highly inefficient fuel (ethanol) they subsidize because no one would buy it on their own.
Of course exploration is going to slow or stop when oil is low priced. The same is true of car companies building big trucks and SUV's. Why would you keep doing or building something where the demand has dropped or when you are not going to recover your costs?
The liberal answer is to stop drilling and to use unproven or inefficient fuels which cost all of us more.
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 12-Apr-11 10:33 AM
what Sen. Klobuchar is most disconnected from is reality. She thinks that gasoline prices can be lowered by having Congress simply repeal the law of supply and demand, and that energy supplies can be increased simply by having Congress repeal the laws of physics.
Comment 7 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 11:21 AM
The bottleneck is not at the refinery. Many refiners have begun blending operations. A new refiner is operating in Reno developing a product called G Diesel. Oil companies want nothing to do with drill, baby, drill. Of course oil companies should be paying royalties for using our land. They are not Mr Quilgey.
With lean manufacturing oil companies have no interest in letting oil sit waiting to be used.
Demand has little to do with this recent spike.
Comment 8 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 11:37 AM
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=11829
Real facts. Mr Quigley I've taken enough Econ classes to develop an independent thought.
Did you see one permit requested in 30 years. Big oil gives us just enough gas to keep the economy breathing.
Comment 9 by IndyJones at 12-Apr-11 04:50 PM
Why are we not building thorium fueled reactors? They are safer than traditional reactors, the spent fuel is much less radioactive, and they can be constructed on smaller scale (less transmission loss) and could be used to power rail locomotives. Why run diesel electrics when you can run electrics. Maybe Buffet could busy himself with electrics on the BNSF rather than "complain" about not being taxed enough.
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-11 05:55 PM
I find it funny that Senator Amy K doesn't understand that my car doesn't operate on electricity. By the way I went and bought a compact years ago so it's not like I'm driving a gas guzzler to begin with.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Addressing Limbaugh, Levin & Hannity
Over the weekend, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin weighed in on the spending cuts Speaker Boehner negotiated with President Obama, saying that Speaker Boehner caved.
Conservatives like Michele Bachmann, Thad McCotter and others voted against the bill but wouldn't criticize Speaker Boehner. As captured in this post , it's apparent that Congressman McCotter has a great deal of respect for Speaker Boehner:
MCCOTTER: Well, I think you hit the nail on the head at the beginning where you said how long it took the budget bill before. Even though I didn't vote for it, I do respect the efforts that were put forward and it certainly wasn't the fault of Speaker Boehner or anyone else that the cuts weren't as large as people wanted.
You have to remember the intransigence of the Democratic Party in the Senate and the White House that led this issue to be prolonged that led to the resolution being less than what people expected in many quarters. As we move forward, the budget battle will be key and what I think we have to focus on is the difference between the two parties.
I'm certain that Rush, Hannity and Levin are sincere in their beliefs. What I'm driving at is the fact that politicians don't have an unlimited amount of political capital. Speaker Boehner must've made the determination that this wasn't the fight to expend all of his political capital on.
Rather than being upset with him, these leaders should be thankful that Speaker Boehner is husbanding his capital in such a way that he'll have alot left when the big fight happens.
People talk about political battlefields that politicians should fight and die on. In this series, that battlefield shouldn't be the 2011 budget. It shouldn't even be the debt limit debate. The 'Armageddon' battlefield is the 2012 budget.
Let's be clear, though, that the debt limit debate is a great opportunity to extract more spending cuts. WH Press Secretary Carney said yesterday that Congress should raise it now rather than dragging it out to the last minute.
There are lots of Republicans who oppose raising the debt limit. Most of them think that we shouldn't just raise the debt limit without gaining reforms that dramatically slow our spending. I agree that we'll eventually have to raise it but there's too many things that the federal government does that should be eliminated.
Finally, it's time GOP legislators put lists together of specific budget line items targeted for elimination. Those lists should include that line item's budget. When (Yes, when, not if) the Democrats complain that items are miniscule, that Republicans' cuts are tiny and unimportant, the reply must be this question: Why should government waste of any size be acceptable?
I'm not giving Speaker Boehner a final grade because we're still working the process. At this point, I'm giving him an incomplete because I want to see the results of the debt ceiling and 2012 budget fights.
My goal is to support GOP leadership as much as possible without relinquishing accountability oversight. Put another way, give them the opportunity to lead without second-guessing their every move while demanding accountability.
That's how the TEA Party gets its accountability without destroying the GOP.
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:46 PM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 12-Apr-11 01:13 PM
I look forward to the tea party streamlining defense and gutting Ag subsidies.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 12-Apr-11 05:57 PM
So why don't you help us get rid of planned parenthood and NPR to save those millions to get to those programs M. I guess you don't care about cutting spending at all.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Walter Hudson at 13-Apr-11 02:13 AM
I'm cognizant of that fact that it's easy to lob philosophical bombs from the low-stakes cover of the blogosphere, and that politicians in the trenches like Boehner have to be more practical. I get that. I don't deny it.
My issue is not so much the outcome of this budget deal, but the manner in which that outcome was achieved. I don't feel as though the Republicans maximized their opportunities to frame the debate properly and set the stage for the fights to come.
It's not like it's a tough case to make. No matter where we start to cut, it's going to be small potatoes compared to the overall budget, and the golden goose to a particular constituency. Instead of conceding to the notion that cuts need to be justified, they should have moved the onus on the Democrats to justify continued funding.
We need philosophical leadership. We need to move the conversation away from how much to fund to whether to fund. What is the proper role of government? That's the line which needs to be drawn.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Apr-11 03:40 AM
Walter Hudson, (there's two Walter H's commenting) we'll continually struggle with framing issues until a higher premium is put on talent & philosophy rather than experience & cronyism. Republicans in DC haven't gotten past that stage yet.
We've never lived in a better time to have philosophical debates on the biggest issues of the day. There's never been a time when large amounts of people are looking for solutions than right now. Starting a month ago, we should've been sharpening the arguments rather than worrying about funding next year's races.
Especially at the state level, if you win the argument, you win the election. In senatorial & congressional races, money is more important. Still, having the best, most thoughtful arguments will matter. It did in 2010.
DFL Defends Imaginery Parts of U.S. Constitution
Thirty-four DFL legislators wrote a friend-of-the-court brief explaining what part of the Constitution justifies the federal government's takeover of the health care industry. It can't be more embarassing than this:
The Framers Wrote The Constitution To Give The Federal Government Legislative Power To Address National Concerns, While Preserving The States' Ability To Act In Matters That Do Not Require A National Response.
Here's the text of the Tenth Amendment :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Here are the powers granted to the federal government:
Congress' powers are enumerated in Section Eight:
' The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; - And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here's the text of the Ninth Amendment :
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment essentially says that the rights not listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are rights reserved to the people and the states. PERIOD.
The DFL's opening sentence in their amicus brief isn't rooted in constitutional reality. The enumerated powers of the Constitution are the only things that the federal government originally had the authority to do.
Over the course of time, precedents were established by various courts but the Constitution's Enumerated Powers and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments haven't changed. They're eloquently stated.
The Framers Included The Commerce Clause In The Constitution To Allow The Federal Government To Legislate Affairs Among The Several States That Require A Federal Response.
Here's a little history on the Interstate Commerce Clause :
As explained in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), "For nearly a century thereafter (that is, after Gibbons), the Court's Commerce Clause decisions dealt but rarely with the extent of Congress' power, and almost entirely with the Commerce Clause as a limit on state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce .[5] Under this line of precedent, the Court held that certain categories of activity such as "production", "manufacturing", and "mining" were within the province of state governments, and thus were beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. When Congress began to engage in economic regulation on a national scale, the Court's dormant Commerce Clause decisions influenced its approach to Congressional regulation.
The courts used the Interstate Commerce Clause to strike down "state legislation that discriminated against interstate commerce." Since federal law says that health insurance can't be sold across state lines, there isn't a "state law discriminating against interstate commerce."
Since these rulings happened in the years closest to the writing of the Constitution, I'm betting that they had a better grasp of what the Founding Fathers intended.
Under The Text And Original Meaning Of The Necessary And Proper Clause, Congress Has Broad Latitude To Employ Legislative Means Naturally Related To The Lawful Objects Or Ends Of The Federal Government. The Affordable Care Act Respects The Federal-State Partnership On Health Care And Preserves Constitutional Federalism.
Let's examine what the Necessary and Proper Clause says:
The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States , or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The only thing that the Necessary and Proper Clause says is that Congress can write laws that pertain to the federal government's affirmative responsibilities.
In other words, if the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing something specific, then the Necessary and Proper Clause isn't relevant.
Simply put, this is the DFL's attempt to spin what the Constitution and its amendments mean. The DFL's brief doesn't have anything to do with constitutional reality. This is nothing more than the DFL's desperate attempt to justify O'Care.
Posted Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:40 AM
No comments.
SCSU by the Numbers
Sorry for beating a dead horse but I just got a pdf from an aviation student that I find stunning. The information is the 15 most expensive departments in terms of salary paid to staff. Here's the information:
Biology: Staff-- 21, Salary-- $1,486,000
Student Health Service: Staff-- 21, Salary-- $1,294,000
Social Responsibility (Masters Degree): Staff-- 17, Salary-- $1,218,000
Nursing: Staff-- 15, Salary-- $1,043,000
Chemistry: Staff-- 16, Salary-- $1,033,000
History: Staff-- 13, Salary-- $843,000
Mechanical Engineering: Staff-- 9, Salary-- $768,000
Earth & Atmospheric Science: Staff-- 8, Salary-- $595,000
Environmental & Technical Systems: Staff-- 5, Salary-- $343,000
Aviation: Staff-- 5, Salary-- $275,000
Women's Center: Staff-- 3, Salary-- $175,000
GLBT: Staff-- 4, Salary--$61,000
I've written before about the Masters degree program for Social Responsibility before so I won't beat that dead horse. Instead, I'd love hearing the justification for staffing the Student Health Service to the tune of $1,300,000. I'd especially love hearing that justification in light of the fact that first responders could get to the SCSU campus in less than 2 minutes.
That's before factoring in the various clinics within 3 miles of campus. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for $1,300,000 when there's at least a half dozen clinics within minutes of campus?
These statistics show that the cost of keeping the Aviation Department open wasn't as prohibitive as President Potter said in a speech given on 12/10/2010. Here's what he said then:
PRESIDENT POTTER: Aviation isn't here anymore. I want to say a little bit about why it's not. It is not just a financial matter. Aviation is...financially, it was not successful and the cost of securing its future was prohibitive.
Given what our funding situation is and what it looks like in the future, but also we went extensively with the wrongs from the program. And the curriculum was not focused and in order as seen by the employers of our graduates and the alums who look at the curriculum.
Accreditors noted that and for two years, no progress was made. Accreditors noted the deficiency of the curriculum and for two years, no progress was made and it was my judgment that, not only financially and programmatically, did we not have a program that didn't align with the core mission of the university successfully but that it was unlikely that it would get there.
This report is the list of programs that were recommended "or continuation of support at current levels or potentially for enhancement:"
Anthropology Major/Minor
Art Minor
Chemical Dependency Major
Chemistry Teaching Major
History Major
Hydrology Major
International Business Major/Minor
Philosophy Major
Physics Teaching Major
Public Safety Executive Leadership
Real Estate Major/Minor
Social Responsibility Master
Special Education: Developmental Disabilities
Special Education: Learning Disabilities
Special Education: Emotional/Behavioral Disorders
I can understand why you'd increase funding for International Business or the Special Education degrees. Why you'd increasing funding for the Social Responsibility Masters Degree program from $1,164,000 to $1,218,000, a jump of $54,000, is worthy of extra scrutiny.
UPDATE: A loyal reader of this blog who teaches at St. Cloud State contacted me this morning. This loyal reader said "Actually, it's a snapshot of 15 programs on campus. They may not be the 15 most expensive but no doubt they cost a ton of money."
Thanks for that information. I stand corrected.
In his speech oof Dec. 10,2010, President Potter said "Accreditors noted the deficiency of the curriculum and for two years, no progress was made."
QUESTION: Will President Potter make public the accreditors' correspondence showing that the curriculum was deficient? When will President Potter produce the communications between SCSU leadership and the Aviation Department reminding them of their need to improve their curriculum? Surely they'd keep correspondence on such a sensitive matter.
Posted Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:05 AM
No comments.
Dayton's The Expert
There aren't many situations where I'll agree that Gov. Dayton is the authority on something. This is one of those times. This article shows that being an expert isn't all it's cracked up to be:
Dayton is criticizing Republicans for what he says is pulling budget savings "out of thin air." Republicans argue that some of their ideas will save more than fiscal analysts are projecting.
For months, Republican lawmakers have called Dayton's budget plan a job killer, out of touch, and lacking the change needed to make Minnesota competitive.
Now, Dayton is striking back. He said the budget plan put forward by House Republicans is $1.2 billion out of balance and the Senate GOP plan is $1.1 billion out of whack. Dayton said his plan is based on solid fiscal analysis and the Republican plans aren't.
"If they're speaking Greek and I'm speaking Latin, we're never going to communicate," Dayton said.
Dayton said the GOP plan relies on hundreds of millions of dollars in savings from a federal health care waiver that isn't guaranteed. He also said the Republican plan counts increased tax collections that state fiscal analysts have not confirmed. The problem, Dayton said, is the state's two-year budget could be significantly out of balance if those savings never materialize.
If anyone knows anything about budgets not balancing, it's Gov. Dayton and the DFL. Their recent history if filled with examples of their budgets not balancing.
During the campaign, I wrote in this post that then-Candidate Dayton's budget still didn't balance:
Democrat Mark Dayton's second stab at a plan to resolve Minnesota's projected budget deficit leaves him about $1 billion shy of a complete fix.
In this post , I wrote that Dayton's initial allegedly detailed budget didn't balance:
But Tuesday's analysis, while looking at only the plan to add tax brackets, showed that adding a new top tax bracket at a rate of 10.95 percent starting in 2011 would raise roughly $1.9 billion in the 2012-13 biennium. Adding the new bracket would give Minnesota one of the highest tax rates in the country for high-income earners. The 10.95 percent rate is set at $150,000 for married joint filers, $75,000 for married separate filers and $130,000 for single and head of household filers, the department said.
It's important to remember that then-Candidate Dayton initially said that his tax-the-rich scheme would bring in $4,000,000,000 of additional revenues for the 2012-2013 biennium. When his policy proposal met with reality, that $4,000,000,000 turned into $1,900,000,000.
If anyone knows about pulling things out of thin air, Gov. Dayton is the expert.
The other thing that's important to note is that MMB doesn't have a model to gauge the savings for these reforms. A perfect example of fiscal notes not being accurate was provided during last week's Photo ID hearing in the House Gov't Finance Committee:
5:38- Rep. Banaian questioning the validity of the fiscal notes, citing the fact that some of the fiscal notes apparently pertain to things that aren't required.
5:39- Chairman Lanning announces that they won't be voting on HF210.
5:40- Rep. Simon apologizes for his previous comments, saying that they came out of frustration. Rep. Simon then says that this committee has the responsibility of questioning the validity of fiscal notes.
During their debate on the State Gov't Finance omnibus bill, DFL legislator after DFL legislator accused Republicans of making numbers up. That meme continued during the Photo ID hearing until Rep. Benson, Rep. Banaian and Chairman Lanning shredded that storyline. When Rep. Banaian said that parts of the fiscal note appeared to pertain to things that aren't required by the legislation, that storyline was essentially finished.
Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and others treat fiscal notes like they were etched in stone on Mount Sinai. Now that that's debunked, it's time for Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen to drop this discredited storyline.
Based on the fact that MMB's work product has been proven less than reliable and the fact that Gov. Dayton's own campaign numbers were off by billions of dollars, I don't see why Gov. Dayton is accorded any credibility on budget forecasting.
The line that Gov. Dayton kept many of Gov. Pawlenty's people on staff at MMB isn't persuasive. Whether the personnel served in Gov. Pawlenty's administration doesn't matter as much as whether the work product withstands close scrutiny.
Thus far, MMB's work product hasn't been as consistent in quality as the work product was during the Pawlenty administration. This isn't accusing MMB of corruption or incompetence. It's simply an observation based on whether MMB's work product has been consistent.
Posted Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:01 PM
No comments.
Obama's Grand Gestures, No Adjustments Deficit Speech
This afternoon, President Obama delivered a speech that was billed as a major economic speech. Simply put, President Obama's speech will hurt him politically. ALOT. Ed's highlighted the most hurtful parts of the speech in this post :
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week, a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.
This speech was billed as a deficit reduction speech. Last week, Mara Liasson insisted that President Obama wouldn't let the Republicans hog the field. Instead, she insisted that President Obama's speech would shift the debate back towards this administration.
That's the hype it received. The hype doesn't resemble reality. Saving $750,000,000,000 over a decade sounds nice but it's tiny compared with Chairman Ryan's $6,400,000,000,000 in spending reductions. President Obama's figure is approximately 12% of what Chairman Ryan's budget will save American taxpayers.
Next is what I'm calling the pixie dust section of the bill:
Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion.
First, Obamacare won't reduce our deficit, much less by $1,000,000,000,000. Next, the only thing slowing down the rate of deficit growth is the $670,000,000,000 in tax increases. That isn't the way to tackle spending.
We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.
Medicaid expansion, if left unchecked, will destroy states' budgets. I haven't seen anything that suggests President Obama will substantively alter a key provision in his signature 'accomplishment'.
We will change the way we pay for health care, not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results.
If it's such a great idea, why wasn't that in the initial draft of the ACA? This is another example of President Obama making grand gestures, filled with empty words. What's worse than the empty words is the fact that they aren't followed by substantive actions that solve problems.
One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.
A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That's what they're proposing. These aren't the kind of cuts you make when you're trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren't the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.
Let's run President Obama's statistics through the telling the whole truth test meter.
He says that Paul Ryan's budget will cut clean energy subsidies, aka corporate welfare for their special interest allies, by 70%. Let's stipulate that figure is accurate for the purpose of this discussion. Will President Obama stipulate that the green jobs movement worldwide is an abject failure? It's failed miserably.
President Obama complains that Ryan's Path to Prosperity plan cuts education by 25%. True enough as far as it goes. Unfortunately, what's omitted is that education funding has skyrocketed. Here's what the Heritage Foundation reported in 2010 :
Included in this 'historic' spending increase is $3 billion for ESEA programs, $173 billion in college loans and grants, and $9.3 billion for a new preschool program created in the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.
The budget increase also includes a $1 billion reserve fund for the Department of Education, contingent upon successful reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). But those of us who've taught in the classroom know that you don't give students extra credit for simply doing their assignments. That's why the administration's proposed $1 billion incentive for Congress to complete a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is puzzling. After all, it's Congress's job to complete legislative assignments such as ESEA, which has been due for reauthorization since 2008. It's also a little strange for the White House to be proposing an extra $1 billion as an incentive, since the Congress holds the power of the purse and could choose to increase funding for ESEA itself.
Perhaps the president feels that this is the increase that will finally solve the problems facing American education. When it's all said and done, the president's Fy2011 budget for the Department of Education tops $77 billion. This includes $50 billion in discretionary spending, $1 billion for successful ESEA reauthorization, and $35 billion for Pell grants, which became mandatory in 2010. The budget increase comes on top of last year's $100 billion infusion of 'stimulus' cash into the Department of Education's coffer. Unfortunately, the sacred cow of education spending has been spared of the spending freeze.
By comparison, President Bush's education budget was for $45.4 billion. A 25% cut in President Obama's education budget still means federal education funding for FY2012 would be 30% higher than education funding was in President Bush's final budget. And nobody on the Republican side of the aisle thought we spent too little on education during President Bush's administration.
President Obama says that cutting Pell Grants isn't "the kind of cut you make when you're trying to get rid of some waste." Considering the fact that Pell Grant spending exploded under President Obama's watch, I'd argue just the opposite. That's precisely the place I'd look for wasteful spending.
When President Obama says that "These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in," what he really means is that they're the cuts explode-the-deficit progressives hate. Sane people think they're cuts that need to be made.
This wasn't an economic speech. It was a political speech. In that respect, it failed worse than miserably for President Obama. This won't shift the budget debate back onto President Obama's turf. It'll tilt it further in Chairman Ryan's direction.
In three long years, President Obama has gone from being an historic orator to being a big, insufferable windbag.
How the mighty have fallen.
Posted Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:45 PM
No comments.
